54452 Federal Register Vol. No. Wednesday, November 18 ...properties of the liquid to be sorbed. This liquid is referred to as the sorbate. Some sorbents are considerably more effective

54452 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 264, 265, and 271

[FRL-4506-3]

RIN 2050-AA34

Hazardous Waste Management;Uquids In Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Under authority of theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA) as amended by theHazardous and Solid WasteAmendments of 1984 (HSWA), EPA ispromulgating this final rule regarding thelandfill disposal of containerized liquidsmixed with sorbents. This rule satisfiesthe statutory requirement that EPA issuea rule that prohibits the disposals inhazardous waste landfills of liquids thathave been sorbed in materials thatbiodegrade or that release liquids whencompressed as might occur duringroutine landfill operations. This rule willhelp assure the stability of materials inhazardous waste landfills.EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1993.ADDRESSES: The public docket for thisfinal rule is docket reference code F-92-CLIF-FFFFF, and the public dockets forthe four proposals and supplementalnotices are docket reference codes F-86-CLIP-FFFFF, F-87-CLLN-FFFFF, F-91-CLLA-FFFFF, and F-92-CCLA-FFFFF. These dockets are in roomM2427, U.S. EPA, 401 M St. SW,Washington, DC 20460, and are openfrom 9 am to 4 pm, Monday throughFriday, excluding holidays. Call 202-260-9327 for an appointment to reviewdocket materials. Up to 100 pages maybe copied free of charge from any oneregulatory docket. Additional copies are$0.15 per page.'FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 (toll free], or 703-920-9810 inthe Washington, DC area. Forinformation on technical aspects of thisrule, contact Ken Shuster, Office of SolidWaste (OS-340), U.S. EPA, 401 M St.SW, Washington, DC 20460, 202-260-2214.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble OutlineI. AuthorityII. Background

A. Regulatory BackgroundB. Role of Sorbents in Liquid Hazardous

Waste DisposalI1. Summary of Today's RuleIV. Detailed Discussiop of the Final Rule

A. Definition of "Sorbents"B. Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFT) versus

Liquids Release Test (LRT)C. BiodegradabilityD. Spill CleanupsE. Sorbent PillowsF. Lab Pack and Other ExemptionsG. Waste Analysis and RecordkeepingH. Free-Standing LiquidsI. Implementation

V. State AuthorityA. Applicability of Rule in Authorized

StatesB. Effect on State Authorizations

VI. Regulatory RequirementsA. Economic Impact AnalysisB. Regulatory Flexibility ActC. Paperwork Reduction Act

VII. Supporting Documents

I. Authority

These rules are being issued underauthority of section 3004(c) of the SolidWaste Disposal Act, as amended by theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct of 1976 and the Hazardous andSolid Waste Amendments of 1984; 42U.S.C. 6924(c).

I. Background

A. Regulatory Background

Section 3004(c)(2) of HSWA requiresEPA to issue final rules, by February 8,1986, that "minimize the disposal ofcontainerized liquid hazardous waste inlandfills," that "minimize the presenceof free liquids in containerizedhazardous waste to be disposed of inlandfills," and that "prohibit thedisposal in landfills of liquids that havebeen absorbed in materials thatbiodegrade or that release liquids whencompressed as might occur duringroutine landfill operations."

On April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18370) EPAissued a final rule requiring the use ofthe Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFT),Method 9095, to determine the presenceof free liquids in either bulk orcontainerized waste. Wastes that failthe PFT-i.e., that contain free liquids-cannot be disposed of in landfills. Thissatisfied the requirement that EPA issueregulations minimizing the disposal ofcontainerized liquid hazardous waste inlandfills and minimizing the presence offree liquids in containerized hazardouswaste to be disposed of in landfills.'

Section 3004{c)(1) of HSWA prohibits theplacement of bulk or noncontainerized liquidhazardous waste in landfills, and section 3004(c)(3)prohibits the placement of liquids which are nothazardous wastes in Subtitle C landfills unlesscertain demonstrations are made. The PFT isrequired to determine the presence of liquids or freeliquids to comply with these prohibitions. 40 CFR264.314(c) and 40 CFR 265.314(d).

On December 24, 1986 (51 FR 46824)EPA proposed a rule that would prohibitdisposal of containerized liquids treatedwith sorbents that-had more than onepercent total organic carbon or TOC (asa measure of biodegradability). In thepreamble, EPA recommended that themodified Mebius procedure (Page, A.L.,ed., 1982, Methods of Soil Analysis) beused to determine the organic carboncontent. EPA also proposed a LiquidsRelease Test (LRT), a confinedcompression type test, to simulate therelease of liquids from sorbed wasteswhen compressed during landfilloperations. The test relied on a device.known as the Zero-Headspace Extractor(ZHE), which was developed inconjunction with the new ToxicityCharacteristic Leaching Procedure(TCLP). Containerized sorbed wastesthat failed these tests could not bedisposed of in landfills. The proposalwas intended to satisfy the section3004(c)(2) requirement that EPA"prohibit the disposal in landfills ofliquids that have been absorbed inmaterials that biodegrade or that releaseliquids when compressed as might occurduring routine landfill operations."

On June 24, 1987 (52 FR 23695) EPAissued a supplemental proposalregarding the definition ofbiodegradable in response to commentsreceived on the one percent TOCrequirement and on the recommendedmodified Mebius procedure. In thisnotice, EPA recommended twoadditional tests to determinebiodegradability: ASTM Method G21-70(1984a)-Standard Practice forDetermining Resistance of SyntheticPolymer Materials to Fungi, and ASTMMethod G22-76 (1984b)-StandardPractice for Determining Resistance ofPlastics to Bacteria. The Agency alsoproposed to regulate sorbent pillows ina manner similar to lab packs.

On October 29, 1991 (56 FR 55646)EPA issued another supplementalnotice, seeking comments on single andmulti-laboratory test results on a revisedLiquids Release Test device (also aconfined compression type test). Finally,in response to further comments, EPA onMay 1, 1992 (57 FR 18853) issued anotice of supplemental informationseeking comment on use of the PFTversus the LRT for containerizedsorbents.

In today's rule, EPA is taking finalaction on these proposals and notices ofadditional information, and iscompleting EPA's regulatoryresponsibilities under RCRA section3004(c)(2).

1992 / Rules and Regulations

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54452 1992

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

Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 223 I Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 54453

B. Role of Sorbents in Liquid HazardousWaste Disposal

Dozens of sorbents are on the markettoday. These sorbents are used to sorbfree liquids in wastes before landdisposal, thereby reducing the amount ofleachate likely to be generated afterdisposal, or to sorb free liquids from aspill before they migrate. Some sorbentsare by-products of other productionprocesses which are typically discarded,such as fly ash from coal-burning,cement kiln dust from. cementproduction, shredded and ground rubberfrom tires, shredded paper and sawdust,and corn cobs, peanut shells, and ricehulls from crop harvesting. They tend tobe relatively cheap and are often readilyavailable. Other sorbents are derivedfrom mined natural minerals, such asbentonite or montmorillonite clays,diatomaceous earth, volcanic ash, limeand limestone, silicates, and vermiculite.Other common sorbents are syntheticorganic polymers such as polyethylene,,.polypropylene, polyurethane, andpolystyrene. Many commercial sorbentsare mixtures of sorbent materials. Oftenthese materials, especially the naturalminerals, are treated by heat, grinding,sifting, or use of additives to enhancetheir sorptive capacities.

Sorption can be viewed in two ways:First, as the soaking up of liquid or fluidmaterial so that the material no longerflows, and second, as the rendering ofhazardous constituents immobile or lessmobile, via attenuation, chemicalreactions or fixation, ion exchange,precipitation, neutralization,'orencapsulation (also referred to aschemisorption). Some sorbents act inboth ways to one degree or another. Thefocus of today's rule is on the first viewof sorbents. Even so, the ultimateselection cf a sorbent is usually basedon both aspects, as well as on a numberof other factors discussed below.

Two very important, interrelatedconsiderations in the selection of asorbent are: (1) Stability (in terms ofboth maintaining liquids in an immobilematrix and immobilizing hazardousconstituents), and (2) ultimate use ordisposal of the sorbed material. If thesorbed material is to be disposed of in alandfill, the first consideration, long-term stability, is of paramountimportance. Thus, nonbiodegradablesorbents able to hold up under pressureare desirable. If the sorbed material is togo to an incinerator, then such factors asenergy content (Btu's), heavy metalcontent, and products of combustion areimportant; long-term stability is not.Thus, for incineration, organic sorbents,whether biodegradable or not, aregenerally desirable, depending on

potential by-products of combustion(e.g., polyvinyl chloride which producesHC1 upon incineration or materials withheavy metals may be less desirabledespite their Btu content, but peanutshells, shredded paper, or corn cobsmay be desirable). Or, if the sorbedmaterial is to go to a recycling facility(where it will be squeezed out and theoil, gasoline, solvent, or other materialrecovered), then squeezeability/releasability, without the sorbentbreaking down, is desirable.

Some sorbents are more effective, i.e.,have greater capacity and retentionefficiencies and are faster, than othersin soaking up liquids (some soak upconsiderably larger amounts of liquidsper volume orweight of sorbent; someare structurally more stable and retainmore liquids under pressure; and someactually react chemically with, liquids,sometimes irreversibly, to form anonliquid mass that further ensuresstabilization). The effectiveness of agiven sorbent often depends on theproperties of the liquid to be sorbed.This liquid is referred to as the sorbate.Some sorbents are considerably moreeffective with some sorbates than withothers. For example, sorbents that areboth hydrophobic and less dense thanwater can be very effective in sorbingoils on water (oil spills) where they canbe readily skimmed off the surface,whereas other sorbents would soak upmore water and less oil, and would sinkwhere they are not readily recoverable.Some sorbents substantially raise theflash points of solvents, decreasingflammability concerns. Some sorbentsare ineffective because they are brokendown or dissolved by certain sorbates(e.g., hydrofluoric acid breaks downsilicates or glass). That is, chemicaldegradation of the sorbent can occur aswell as biodegradation. Sorbent/sorbateproperties that affect sorbency include:pH, porosity, surface area, potentialcapillarity and surface tension oraffinity for a sorbate, polarity, andviscosity, Thus, there are technicalfactors affecting sorbent selection aswell as economic and other practicalfactors, such as availability (especiallytimeliness in the case of a spill oremergency), cost, sorbent capacity(sorbate to sorbent ratio or percent, byvolume and by weight, which affectstotal volume and weight and thereforecost to transport and use or dispose),and distance to site of use or disposal.

EPA considered these factors indeveloping today's rule, which isdesigned to facilitate technologicaladvances and to allow flexibility for thetreaters of liquids to select the mosteffective and practical solutions. The

rule sets minimum standards regardingbiodegradation and release of liquidsthat containerized wastes mixed withsorbents must meet before they can belandfilled. EPA did not attempt toevaluate the effectiveness of varioussorbents beyond these minimums, nordid EPA attempt to identify efficientsorbate/sorbent combinations. Instead,today's rule allows the selection of themost effective sorbent for a specificsituation, as long as it meets the rule'sminimum standards.

III. Summary of Today's RuleToday's rule adopts the Paint Filter

Liquids Test, Method 9095, for thetesting of containerized liquids to whichsorbents have been added before landdisposal; lists classes ofnonbiodegradable sorbents, and givesexamples in each class; and identifiestwo tests, either of which may be usedto determine the nonbiodegradability ofsorbents not within a class on the list. Italso requires the use ofnonbiodegradable sorbents in lab packs.

IV. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule

A. Definition of 'Sorbents"In RCRA section 3004(c)(2), Congress

requires EPA to establish specialstandards for "liquids that have beenabsorbed in materials that biodegrade orthat release liquids * * " (emphasisadded). Several commenters on EPA'sproposals stated that Congress misusedthe term absorbed, and should haveused the term adsorbed, or perhaps bothterms. "Adsorbeate" are materials thatretain liquids on the surface of theirparticles by capillary action and surfacetension. "Absorbents" retain liquidswithin the void spaces betweenparticles and within the inner structureof the sorbing material. Discussion ofthe issue in the legislative history of 'HSWA clearly indicates that Congressmeant adsorbents, as defined above, aswell as absorbents. To reflect this clearCongressional intent, EPA uses theterms "sorbent" and "sorb" in today'srule, instead of the terms "absorbent"and "absorb." These terms are definedin § 260.10. "Sorbent" means a materialthat is used to soak up free liquids byeither adsorption, or both. "Sorb" meansto either adsorb or absorb, or both.

B. Paint Filter Liquids Test (PET) VersusLiquids Release Test (LRT)

In its December 24, 1986, October 29,1991, and May 1, 1992 Federal Registernotices, EPA proposed and solicitedcomment on a Liquids Release Test(LRT) specifically designed to simulatethe behavior or sorbed materials undercompression that might occur during

1992 / Rules and Regulations 54453Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18,



54454 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

routine landfill operations. In December1986, EPA proposed use of the ZeroHead-Space Extractor (ZHE) device,which EPA was developing inconjunction with the new ToxicityCharacteristic Leaching Procedure(TCLP). Because of technical concernsraised by commenters on the ZHE, EPAsubsequently developed and tested adifferent compression type device. In theOctober 1991 proposal, EPA publishedthe results of single and multi-laboratorytests using the new LRT device at 50 psito simulate worst-case landfillpressures. The 50 psi was based on a100 ft landfill depth and an overlyingmaterial bulk density of 70 lbs/cu ft. Asurvey conducted by EPA before theDecember 1986 proposal showed thatmost landfill depths were less than 60 ft,and the maximum depth was 100 ft.

Commenters continued to raiseconcerns about the practicality of therevised LRT noticed in October 1991,about perceived technical flaws with thetest, and about the test's performancerelative to the Painter Filter Liquids Test(PFT). In response, EPA published asupplemental notice in May 1992soliciting comment on whether the PFTshould be used in lieu of the LRT tosatisfy the statutory requirements ofsection 3004(c)(2).

The overwhelming majority ofcommenters on EPA's May 1, 1992 noticeas well as on earlier notices supporteduse of the PFT over the LRT for alllandfilled hazardous wastes, includingcontainerized sorbed liquid wastes. Themajor reasons commenters gave forpreferring the PF'T were:

(1) Although the PFT does not involvecompression of the sorbed waste, itnonetheless reasonably simulateswhether liquids will be released underpressure. In fact, EPA's test data showthat in, the case of sorbed water-basedwastes the PFT gave results that weremore conservative than the LRT"pressure" test (i.e., samples failed thePFT at lower moisture contents than insamples that failed the LRT at 50 psi).

(2) The LRT does not work well fortesting samples sorbed with ImbiberBeads ® and similar sorbents. Suchmaterials, which are compressible andelastic, tend to be extruded through thesmall openings in the LRT device,indicating failure. Such extrusions,however, are not releases of liquids andshould not be so interpreted. This "falsepositive" problem does not exist withthe PFT.

(3) The PFT has been required andused since June 1985, whereascommenters raised a number oftechnical questions with the LRT (e.g.,reproducibility, sample size, samplepreparation and placement, pressure

amount, pressure application rate, testduration, temperature, and lack of testdata on a numiber of sorbent/sorbatecombinations).

(4) The PFT is a simpler test, moreeasily conducted, and simpler to cleanup after (the LRT device is especiallydifficult and time consuming to cleanafter testing materials like ImbiberBeads ®, whereas the PFT device is not);it involves a significantly cheapertesting process (equipment and labor);its use eliminates the need for facilitiesto stock .two types of test apparatus forsimilar purposes and to train personnelin the use of the LRT; and its use avoidspotentially significant delays in safedisposal of wastes, since the PFT set-up,test, and clean-up time (10-15 minutes/sample) is significantly less than theLRT (25-75 minutes/sample).

(5) Use of the PFT for containerizedsorbed waste would result in consistentenvironmental performance testing of allmaterials going into a landfill (whethercontainerized or not, whether treatedwith sorbents or not) in terms of thepotential for releasing liquids.

(6) The major source of liquids inlandfills is precipitation; relative to this,the environmental significance of anydifference between the PFT and the LRTis very small (even withoutconsideration of the additionalprotection afforded by the land disposalrestrictions and double liners/leachatecollection requirements for landfills).

Except for the technical questionsraised in point (3) above, EPA agreeswith these comments, concluding thatthe PFT is generally a more appropriatetest than the LRT for the statutorypurpose. By comparing the LRT testresults to thePFT test results, EPA hasbeen able to use the LRT to show thatthe PFT reasonably simulates andserves as a surrogate for a 50 psipressure test for water-based wastes.Therefore, the additional cost, difficulty,and time for the LRT are unjustified.

At the same time, EPA disagrees thatthe LRT reproducibility/technical issuesraised by the commenters (see 3 above)pose major problems, since sufficienttest data exist either to justify thecurrent specification or a modifiedspecification. Further, in developing testmethods, EPA need not test everypossible matrix at every concentration/saturation level to demonstrate that themethod is reproducible and valid. Forthe LRT, developmental and validationtests were performed on a set ofsorbent/sorbatecombinations spanningthe array of materials expected to besubject to the test method. This isconsistent with the approach EPA hastaken in developing and validating otherRCRA hazardous waste test methods.

The only concern with the PFT is itsperformance where oily;based wastesare the sorbates. Test data on oily-basedsorbates show that the LRT is moreconservative than the PFT for thiscategory. EPA, however, notes that thisissue is not particular to sorbed wastes.For all oily wastes-not merely sorbedoily wastes-there are wastes that mayflow as a liquid but that do not filterwithin the 5 minute test and, therefore,are not defined as "liquids" under thePFT. Thus, this issue is beyond thescope of today's rulemaking. EPArecognizes that testing procedures foroily waste that can flow in theenvironment, whether sorbents havebeen added or not, may need to beimproved. EPA is now studying thisissue and is considering possiblerevisions of test procedures, which maybe as simple as extending the durationof the PFT and/or using a pressure platein the PFT for oily wastes. At the sametime, EPA recognizes that suchimprovements may be' unnecessary or oflow priority, given that land disposal ofoily hazardous wastes is or will soon bestrictly controlled by the land disposalrestrictions.

For these reasons, EPA is todayretaining the PFT, or Method 9095, as thetest to be used to determine if liquidswill be released from containerizedsorbed wastes. This will simplify theproposed testing requirements since thePFT is already required for all treatedand nontreated, sorbed and nonsorbed,containerized and bulk wastes. That is,no wastes disposed in hazardous wastelandfills can contain free liquids, asdetermined by the PFT. This approachprovides equal treatment for alllandfilled wastes. Also, by adopting thePFT instead of the LRT, the Agency doesnot have to address the special situationof various sorbent materials that causeproblems in the LRT device (e.g.,Imbiber Beads®). Since-the PFT isalready required, no changes to theexisting regulations are needed for thisrequirement.

Chemical Fixation/Stabilization.Several commenters argued thatchemically stabilized wastes should beexempted from the LRT, primarilybecause the device either is ruined ordoes not work well with these materials.Commenters also argued that chemicallyfixed wastes should not be classified assorbed wastes, even though somesorption might take place. Since EPA isnot adopting the LRT, this issue is moot.

C. Biodegradability

Many commenters discussed EPA'sproposals regarding how to definebiodegradable sorbents, a!1d suggested



Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations. 54455

that EPA provide a combination of (1)lists or categories of acceptable andunacceptable sorbents, (2) tests that canbe used to determine biodegradability,and (3) other criteria (e.g.,environmental stability data).Commenters argued that a combinationof options is needed because no one testor definition would be universallyapplicable (e.g., for inorganic materialswith no carbon, the ASTM tests'are notnecessary), and a list alone would notbe all inclusive. Commenters inparticular discussed what tests and/orcriteria EPA should establish, whichsorbents EPA should list, when and bywhom the'different tests should beperformed, and the number of tests thatwould be necessary.

"Biodegradation' is the process bywhich bacteria and fungi(microorganisms) consume (metabolizeor decompose) an organic material.Generally, materials that do not containcarbon, and inorganic materials thatcontain carbon, such as calciumcarbonate (CaCO3 ), are considered to benonbiodegradable for the purposes ofthis rule. Commenters pointed out thatbiodegradation potential exists where amaterial contains organic carbon, butnot all organic carbon is readilyavailable to microorganisms. In fact,very little biodegradation, if any, occursover periods of many years with somematerials containing organic carbon. Forexample,, commenters presentedinformation demonstrating that high-molechlar weight synthetic organicpolymers such as high densitypolyethylene and polypropylene arenonbiodegradable. In addition, as EPAnoted in its June 24, 1987 proposal,several laboratory tests have been usedsuccessfully to determine whether amaterial is biodegradable.

In response to public comments,today's rule allows two options, in§ § 264.314(e) and 265.314{f), for definingnonbiodegradability. The rule (1)provides descriptions of classes ofsorbent materials, and lists of sorbentmaterials as examples in each class,that are nonbiodegradable and thereforeacceptable without further testing; and(2) provides two tests for sorbents notlisted or not falling within one of theclasses listed. A sorbent that passeseither of these tests is nonbiodegradableand is therefore acceptable for landfilldisposal in containers (providing, ofcourse, that the sorbed waste passes thePFT).

Lists of Nonbiodegradable Material.In the first option. EPA has listed threeclasses of nonbiodegradable sorbentmaterials.

The first class consists of three typesof materials: (1) Naturally occurring

inorganic minerals (e.g., clay,diatomaceous earth), (2) man-madeinorganic materials, which are oftenmodified natural minerals (e.g., calcinedmontmorillonite, cement kiln dust, flyash), and (3) elemental carbon (e.g.,activated charcoal).

The second class comprises highmolecular-weight synthetic organicpolymers (e.g., high densitypolyethylene).

The third class is made up of mixturesof the nonbiodegradable sorbentmaterials within the first or secondclasses.

EPA has concluded that thesematerials are nonbiodegradable because(1) the inorganic minerals and otherinorganic materials do not containcarbon, they contain only inorganic orelemental carbon, or they containinsignificant amounts of organic carbon,and (2) the high-molecular weightsynthetic organic materials (i.e.,polymers) have proved to be highlyresistant to biodegradation.

EPA received numerous commentsthat synthetic polymeric materials, orspecific polymers, should be excludedfrom the definition of biodegradable.While sorbents derived from naturalpolymeric materials such as celluloseand starch are generally readilybiodegradable, by comparison, highmolecular weight synthetic organicpolymers generally resistbiodegradation. Biodegradability ofsynthetic polymers decreases asmolecular weight increases. This ispartly because the long chains of highmolecular weight synthetic polymerstend to provide relatively few places fordegradation to occur sincemicroorganisms are generally only ableto effectively attack at the ends of thechains. That is, the microbial enzymesare unable to break the backbocelinkage of the long polymer chains intosmaller molecules, attacking, instead,only the terminal ends and anyamorphous parts of the polymer chains.Other characteristics of syntheticpolymers thougfit to contribute to theirresistance to biodegradation include:Many are hydrophobic or waterrepellant (microorganisms need water);they resist enzymatic attack because oftheir density, orientation, degree ofcrystallization, and bondingcharacteristics; and some containantioxidants or biocidal additives.Whatever the mechanisms, test dataand environmental experience showthese synthetic polymers to be resistantto biodegradation. Even where there isevidence that plasticizers and otheradditives to polymer products aredegraded, the synthetic polymericmaterials themselves generally are not

degraded. EPA is aware of researchefforts to develop biodegradablepolymers and to enhancebiodegradation of synthetic polymers. Inmost cases, this effort has been basedon biopolymers, or materials ofbiological origin, e.g., cellophane. Thesematerials are explicitly excluded fromthe definition of nonbiodegfadable intoday's rule. Also included in the finalrule is a restriction that the syntheticpolymers not be specifically designed tobiodegrade, since plastics can bedesigned to be relatively biodegradableby adding prooxidants, biodegradableadditives (e.g., starch), and otheradditives that help initiate chemicaldegradation which make the polymersmore susceptible to biological attack.

EPA has also included in today's rulethe stipulation that only "high molecularweight" polymers be classifiedautomatically as noubiodegradable. Lowmolecular weight polymers-e.g., withaverage molecular weights of less than afew thousand-may in certaincircumstances be biodegradable. Whilesuch materials are generally not suitableas sorbents because of their physicalproperties, EPA nonetheless believesthat they should be excluded from theclassification in today's rule. At thesame time, EPA does not believe it isnecessary or appropriate to draw aspecific line defining "high" molecularweight. Effective polymeric sorbentscurrently in use today generally havemolecular weights in the 10's or 100's ofthousands, or even in the millions.These are clearly high molecularweights. Below these levels, as polymersapproach the low 1000's in molecularweight, professional judgment mustcome into play in assessing asubstance's degradability.

For each category of acceptablesorbents, EPA has listed specificexamples in the rule. The materialslisted as examples in the rule are notintended to be all-inclusive, but merelyto exemplify and help clarify the classesof acceptable sorbents. EPA recognizesthat some of the examples are generic(e.g., clays, smectites) that include anumber of materials, some of which arealso listed separately; that some of theterms are to a certain extent redundantor overlapping; and that some are veryspecific chemicals. The materials citedare types of nonbiodegradable materialsmost commonly used as sorbents andmost frequently referred to in the publiccomments and literature. This use oflists, the examples listed, and theclasses described, are consistent withthe legislative history. which states:"Examples of absorbents that are likelyto be found to be acceptable (for both



No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

nonbiodegradation and pressurestability reasons) are the chemicalreagents discussed above (cement- orlime-based materials, pozzolanicmaterials,'and thermoplastic or organicbinders) and fine-grained earthenmaterials (e.g., bentonite,montmorillionite (sic), kaolinite, andFuller's earth)" (July 25, 1984,Congressional Record-Senate, S9177).

EPA has not attempted to define orlist biodegradable, or unacceptable,sorbent materials in the rule. Since theAgency has defined nonbiodegradablematerial, it believes that definingbiodegradable materials would beredundant. However, EPA notes thatcertain materials are well known to bebiodegradable and wouldnot beacceptable under today's rule. Forexample, cellulosic or biosynthesizedmaterials are clearly biodegradable (e.g.,sawdust, wood fiber or pulp, shreddedpaper, straw, ground corncobs, groundpeanut hulls, municipal waste). Thesematerials do not fall into any of theacceptable categories of sorbents, andthey would clearly fail any test ofnonbiodegradability..Consequently, theymay not be used to sorb liquids inWastes which are subsequently disposedof in a landfill (except as noted below).This is consistent with the legislativehistory of section 3004(c), which listedsawdust, municipal waste, and shreddedpaper as examples of biodegradablesorbents, and therefore unacceptable(ibid). These biodegradable sorbentsmay, however, be used to sorb liquids inwastes which are then treated inaccordance with RCRA treatmentstandards. In this case, the residual maybe landfilled, provided it meets allapplicable requirements, e.g., it is nolonger a liquid. For example, wastesmixed with biodegradable sorbents maybe incinerated and then the residual orash, which is no longer liquid, no longersorbed waste, and no longer.biodegradable, may be landfilled.

EPA recognizes that some inorganicmaterials or elemental carbon couldcontain some level of organic carbon.EPA does not intend that thesematerials necessarily be classified asbiodegradable or necessarily berequired to be tested forbiodegradability. At the same time, EPAwants to make it clear that inorganicmaterials are considered to bebiodegradable if they have been mixedwith significant amounts ofbiodegradable materials (e.g., withsawdust or ground corncobs), or if theyare significantly "contaminated" withorganic soils or materials.

In today's rule, EPA has not attemptedspecifically to define the degree of

"contamination" or mixing that wouldrender an inorganic, carbon, or syntheticorganic polymeric material ineligible.Commenters, however, provided asignificant amount of information ontotal organic carbon content of materialsgenerally recognized asnonbiodegradable. For example, ricehull ash generally contains 2-6% totalorgahic carbon; fly ash suitable as asorbent or stabilizer may contain 2-8%.EPA, therefore, concludes that sorbentsotherwise meeting the criteria of today'srule should not be excluded or requiretesting because of organic carboncontent within these ranges. Formixtures above these ranges (i.e., above8%), the mixture sorbent would have tobe tested or'demonstrated that it isnonbiodegradable.

Tests of Biodegradable Material. Inthe second option, if a sorbent is not in aclass listed.in the regulations, then a testmust be conducted or a demonstrationmade. The tests/demonstrations are: (1)The sorbent material is shown to benonbiodegradable using ASTM MethodG21-70 (1984a)-Standard Practice forDetermining Resistance of SyntheticPolymer Materials to Fungi; or (2) thesorbent material is shown to benonbiodegradable using ASTM MethodG22-76 (1984b)-Standard Practice forDetermining Resistance of Plastics toBacteria.

The ASTM tests, identified in EPA'sJune 24, 1987 proposal, are alreadyrequired by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission for radioactive wastes toprove their resistance to biodegradation.The ASTM tests are 21-day tests, usingspecific bacteria and fungi cultures.After the 21-day incubation period, thetest'material is inspected for growth,which is evidence of biological activityand an indication of biodegradation.Although commenters supported use of.these tests, at least one commenterwarned of the possibility of falsepositives (i.e., a nonbiodegradablematerial might show up in the test asbiodegradation). EPA agrees that this ispossible. In these cases, the additionalASTM chemical, electrical, and physicaltests regarding structural changes listedin the bacterial and fungal test methodscan be used to determine whether thereis indeed biodegradation or not; or thetests can be rerun.

In the December 24, 1986 notice, EPAproposed to define biodegradability onthe basis of total organic carbon

.content, and the Agency suggested thatuse of the modified Mebius procedure todetermine that content (Page, A.L., ed.,1982, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2,Chemical and Microbial Properties,Second Edition, No. 9. Part 2, American

Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison).Commenters were generally opposed tothis approach, in part because EPA'sproposed TOC level (1%) wouldeliminate many high-performingsorbents (e.g., pozzolanic materials andsynthetic polymers), and in part becauseof technical issues related to theappropriateness of the test (e.g., it doesnot distinguish between elementalcarbon and organic carbon). Therefore,EPA has not included in today's rule aTOC criterion. Nevertheless, EPA notesthat the modified Mebius test might beused to demonstrate that a material fitson the list as an inorganic with less than8% TOC i.e., that it is acceptable as asorbent under § § 264.314(e)(1)(i) and265.314(f)(1)(i).

Alternative Demonstrations/Tests ofBiodegradability. A number ofcommenters encouraged EPA to acceptalternative tests, or engineeringjudgment in addition to the identifiedtests. EPA agrees that other tests exist,but has decided to limit the final rule tothose tests EPA proposed since specificalternatives were not discussed. Also,some flexibility for engineeringjudgment has been provided in the listsand descriptions in § § 264.314(e)(1) and265.314(f)(1). Therefore, EPA has notgathered and reviewed data on othertests and proposed them for inclusion intoday's rule. Instead, EPA decided torequire that such demonstrations be,made under the already established Part260 petition process.

D. Spill Cleanups

Numerous commenters recommendedthat EPA exempt (from thebiodegradability and liquids releaserequirements in the proposed rule)sorbents used in emergency spillcleanups. One commenter, however,suggested exempting only sorbents usedfor true emergency spills, as contrastedto routine spills at locations wheresorbents are (or should be) routinelystockpiled. The basis of thiscommenter's suggestions was thatsorbents that meet the proposed LRTand nonbiodegration criteria are readilyavailable on this market and thereforeshould be used where a spill can beexpected. The commenter, however,also suggested exempting from the LRTthe hydrophobic sorbents that are usedto clean up oil spills on water, becausesorbents currently available for oil spillson water do not meet the proposedcriteria.

In today's rule EPA has not providedan exemption for either routine spills oremergencies. Most of the commenterssupporting an exemption foremergencies argued that the LRT

.54456 Federal Register / Vol. 57,



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

duration could cause delays and disruptproper cleanups. Also, commenters wereconcerned that many sorbentscommonly used in cleanups (e.g.,Imbiber Beads* and sorbent pillows)cannot be effectively tested in the LRT.and might not meet EPA's definition ofnonbiodegradability (as originallyproposed). Today's rule, however,requires the simpler and faster PFT,which is already required and shouldnot cause such delays. Furthermore,Imbiber Beads* and similar materialswould generally qualify asnonbiodegradable under today's rule, asthey are made of high-molecular-weightsynthetic polymers. EPA, therefore,agrees with the commenter that anexemption should not be provided forroutine spill situations, where sorbentsare stockpiled, since response teams canstockpile and use nonbiodegradablesorbents. Furthermore, EPA believesthat a special exemption for'emergency" spill cleanups isinappropriate. In the first place, EPAnotes that a wide range of sorbentsacceptable under today's rules-including most now commonly in use-are available for emergency spillcleanups. In the second place, it is notclear that the statute provides EPA theauthority to exempt certain sorbentsfrom the requirements of § 3004(c)(2),and in any case an exemption forcertain (but not all) cleanup situationswould be difficult to implement andenforce.

EPA, however, emphasizes thattoday's rule does not prohibit the use ofbiodegradable sorbents (e.g., sawdust,corn cobs, etc.) in spill cleanups. In fact,many commenters pointed out that suchmaterials have an important role incleanups, particularly where sorbedwastes will be recycled or incinerated.The rule, instead, merely prohibitslandfilling of such wastes after thecleanup; incineration, recycling, or othertreatment, would remain as options. Infact, direct landfilling of these wasteswould already be prohibited, in mostcases, by the land disposal restrictions.Therefore, today's rule is unlikely tohave significant effect on cleanups.I One commenter asked EPA to clarifythat contaminated soils cleaned upduring a spill response would not besubject to today's rule affectingsorbents. EPA agrees that contaminatedsoils are not subject to today's rule. Therule covers sorbents added to liquidhazardous wastes for the purpose ofsolidifying or stabilizing the wastes. Forcontaminated soils, the situation isdifferent. The soils are not added towastes to eliminate liquids; rather, thecontaminated soil is, in effect, the waste

as it was generated. Thus, the soil is nota sorbent, and the question of itsbiodegradability does not arise.Landfilling of the soil, however, wouldof course remain subject to the landdisposal restrictions.

E. Sorbent Pillows

Commenters on the December 24, 1986proposal argued that EPA shouldexempt sorbent pillows used to controlspills and leaks, primarily so that LRTtesting would not impede such effortsbecause of the difficulties in gettingrepresentative samples and time delaysto do the testing. In the June 24, 1987supplemental notice, EPA proposed toexempt sorbent pillows used to controlspills or leaks, including socks, wipes.and rags, in a manner similar to labpacks. Under this proposal, the sorbentpillows would have to benonbiodegradable, be surrounded byenough additional unused ,nonbiodegradable sorbent material tosorb any releases, and be placed incertain specified containers of 110 galloncapacity or less. Further, the sorbentpillows would still need to pass the PFTand only sorbent pillows could beplaced in the same container.

Since the PFT rather than the LRT isrequired in today's rule, the exemptionfor sorbent pillows from the LRT is nolonger needed. In fact, the proposedexemption, imposing the lab packrequirements in lieu of the LRT, wouldnot be more restrictive than theapproach in today's rule. Imposing thelab pack requirements would now treatsorbent pillows more stringently thanother sorbed wastes, would complicateremediations, would add to the wastevolume to be disposed, would be vague(how much additional sorbent isenough). and difficult to enforce, andwould be generally unnecessary, giventhe land disposal restrictionsrequirements. Therefore, the Agency isnot providing an exemption for sorbentpillows in today's rule.

Commenters also raised questionsabout the status of rags and wipes. Afterreviewing the descriptions andexamples given in the legislative history,EPA has concluded that rags and wipesare not the types of materials Congresshad in mind and sliould not beconsidered to be sorbents in the contextof today's rule. In discussing sorbentmaterials Congress did not include ragsand wipes nor materials that rags orwipes are made from in the lists ofsorbent materials Congress anticipatesEPA will find to be acceptable andunacceptable. The legislative historylists sawdust, municipal waste,shredded paper, and certainvermiculites as unacceptable sorbents,

and chemical reagents (cement- or lime-based materials, pozzolanic materials,and thermoplastic or organic binders)and fine-grained materials (e.g.,bentonite, montmorillonite, kaolinite,and Fuller's Earth). All of thesematerials are used to treat largequantities of liquids or to soak uprelatively large quantities of spills. Ragsand wipes on the other hand are used toclean off soiled or wet surfaces. Thus,today's rule does not change theregulatory treatment under Subtitle C ofrags and wipes used in the traditionalmanner; however, if rags and wipes areused like sorbents, e.g., by putting themin a drum to soak up free-standingliquids, then they need to comply withthe nonbiodegradability requirements.

F. Lab Packs and Other Exemptions

The current rules exempt lab packs,very small containers such as ampules,and products that contain liquids foruses other than storage (e.g., batteries)from the liquids in landfills prohibition.These exemptions are consistent withthe "minimize liquids in containers"language in the statute, and they aresupported by the legislative history. Labpacks are small containers of liquids(typically of one gallon or less), mostcommonly used for laboratory wastes,that are placed in a drum andsurrounded by sufficient sorbentmaterial to sorb the liquids should thecontainers fail. EPA agrees with thecommenters who said the rules shouldcontinue to allow the lab pack, ampule,and product container exemptions, withthe exception that the rules should berevised to require that lab pack-sorbentsbe nonbiodegradable, for the samereasons that liquids in containers shouldbe sorbed With nonbiodegradablesbrbents. Nonbiodegradable sorbentswill not degrade, and therefore will nothelp to produce subsidence and releaseof liquids when the drums fail. Labpacks are planned managementactivities in which it is practical to usenonbiodegradable sorbents, and a widevariety of such sorbents are readilyavailable.

G. Waste Analysis and Recordkeeping

In its December 24, 1986 notice, EPAproposed to amend the waste analysissection (§§ 264.13(b)(6) and 265.13(b)(6))and the riecordkeeping sections(§ § 264.73(b)(3) and 265.73(b)(3)) to addreferences to the specific paragraphswithin §§ 264.314 or 265.314 that containthe PFT and the proposed LRT and TOCtest requirements. EPA also proposedthat a landfill facility's waste analysisplan include procedures that the owner/operator of an offsite landfill will use to




determine whether a generator added, abiodegradable sorbent to containerizedhazardous waste (§§ 264.13(c)(3) and265.13(c)(3)).

EPA received numerous comments onthese requirements, many addressingthe broader issue of who is responsiblefor waste analysis. In particular,commenters expressed concern thatEPA was requiring duplicative testing onthe part of landfill owner/operators, andthat the responsibility for testing shouldfall on the generator, the treater, or thesorbent manufacturer rather than thelandfill owner/operator. A number ofcommenters, for example, recommendedthat EPA require sorbent manufacturersto-certify that a sorbent isnonbiodegradable, and that the manifestshould be amended to require that thecertification be attached.

EPA understands the concerns of thecommenters, but it believes that the ruleas proposed is sufficiently flexible toaccommodate them. Therefore, intoday's rule EPA has made only limitedchanges to the proposal.

First, EPA has eliminated theproposed language added to§§ 264.13(b)(6), 265.13(b)(6), 264.73(b)(3),and 265.73(b)(3) because these alreadyrefer to § § 264.314 or 265.314. It is notnecessary to identify the specificparagraphs in these sections that referto the PFT and the biodegradationstandards.

Second, EPA has retained'theproposed requirements of § § 264.13(c)(3)and 265.13(c)(3) for off-site landfills,with slight rewording to clarify that off-site treaters as well as generators maybe adding sorbents. These sectionsensure that commercial off-site landfillowner/operators specify in their WasteAnalysis Plans the procedures they planto use to assure compliance.

In response to the commentersdescribed above, EPA emphasizes theflexibility of its approach towardbiodegradability in today's rule. The ruledoes not prescribe how a landfillowner/operator must verify thatsorbents are nonbiodegradable-.onlythat the Waste Analysis Plan describethe procedures the landfill owner/operator will use to determinecompliance. For on-site disposal, thisrequirement will be easy to meet. Foroff-site disposal, EPA expects that thelandfill operator will generally rely oninformation provided by the generatoror treater. For example, a landfilloperator might require generatornotification where sorbents have beenused, and certifications that the specificsorbent used meets the criteria of§ § 264.314(e) or 265.314(fl, along withconfirmatory data. EPA generallybelieves such an approach would be

appropriate and sufficient. Consistentwith today's rule, however, EPAbelieves that the specific procedures arebest addressed on a site-by-site basis.Today's rule provides the flexibility forsuch an approach.

H. Free-Standing Liquids

Section 264.314(d) states: "Containersholding free liquids must not be placedin a landfill unless: (1) All free-standingliquid: (i) Has been removed bydecanting, or other methods; (ii) hasbeen mixed with absorbent or solidifiedso that free-standing liquid is no longerobserved; or (iii) has been otherwiseeliminated" (emphasis added). The samerequirement appears in § 265.314(c).Sections 264.314(c) and 265.314(d) statethat "To demonstrate the absence orpresence of free liquids in either acontainerized or a bulk waste, thefollowing test must be used: Method9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test)"(emphasis added).

In the December 24, 1986, proposal,EPA stated that it saw an inconsistencybetween these two requirements-onthe one hand, containerized wastescontaining free liquids could be placedin a landfill, if the liquids were removed(e.g., decanted, § 264.314(d)), and on theother hand, containerized wastescontaining free liquids (as defined bythe Paint Filter Test) were prohibitedfrom placement in a landfill(§ 264.314(c)). Consequently, EPAproposed to delete § § 264.314(d)(1) and265.314(c)(1), making it clear that wastesplaced in landfills cannot contain freeliquids, as defined by the PFT.

No comments were received on thisproposal. However, after reexaminingthe regulations, EPA has reached theconclusion that they are notinconsistent. Instead, the regulationsspell out two different requirements: (1)That landfilled wastes meet the PFT,and (2) that free-standing liquids incontainerized wastes be decanted orotherwise eliminated before landdisposal. Containerized wastes mustmeet both requirements. EPA sees noreason to modify or eliminate theindependent prohibition on free-standing liquids, on the grounds that it isinconsistent or redundant. In fact, EPAhas found the requirement a usefulenforcement tool, and has no evidencethat the regulated community has beenconfused by it. Therefore, EPA hasdecided not to finalize the proposedchange.

I. Implementation

As discussed in Section V.A. of thispreamble, today's rule is promulgated

* under the authority of the Hazardousand Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA).

Therefore, it will become effective inRCRA-authorized 'nd nonauthorizedStates six months from the publicationof this notice.

Interim status facilities will be subjectto today's rule on its effective'date.Therefore, these facilities should modifytheir waste analysis plans andprocedures appropriately by that date.On the other hand, under EPA'sregulations, RCRA permits generallyprovide a shield against new regulatoryrequirements (§ 270.4). Therefore,permitted facilities may continue tooperate under their existing permits(and their waste analysis plans) untilEPA modifies the permit in accordancewith § 270.41 or as part of a 5-year landdisposal permit review, or until thepermit terminates and a new permit isissued.

V. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rule in AuthorizedStates

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPAmay authorize qualified States toadminister and enforce the RCRAprogram within the State. Followingauthorization, EPA retains enforcementauthority under sections 3008, 3013, and7003 of RCRA, although authorizedStates have primary enforcementresponsibility. The standards andrequirements for authorization are foundin 40 CFR part 271.

Prior to the Hazardous and SolidWaste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), aState with final authorizationadministered its hazardous wasteprogram in lieu of EPA's administeringthe Federal program in that State. EPAcould not issue permits for any facilitiesthat the State was authorized to permit.When new, more stringent Federalrequirements were promulgated, theState was obliged to enact equivalentauthority within specified time frames.New Federal requirements did not takeeffect in an authorized State until theState adopted the requirements as Statelaw and was authorized for therequirements.

In contrast, under RCRA section3006(g), new requirements imposed byHSWA take effect in authorized Statesat the same time that they take effect innon-authorized States. EPA is directedto carry out these requirements inauthorized States, including the issuanceof permits, until the State is grantedauthorization to do so. While Statesmust still adopt HSWA-basedprovisions as State law to retainauthorization, the HSWA-basedrequirements apply in authorized Statesin the interim.



Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 54459

Today's final rule for containerizedliquids in landfills Is issued under RCRAsection 3004(c), which was added byHSWA. These HSWA-basedrequirements are being added to Table Iin 40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies theFederal program requirements that arepromulgated pursuant to HSWA andtake effect in all States, regardless oftheir authorization status. As notedabove, EPA will implement theseHSWA-based sections in today's rule inauthorized States until the Stateprograms are modified to adopt theserules and the modification is approvedby EPA. Because these requirements arefinalized pursuant to HSWA, a Statesubmitting a program modification mayapply to receive either interim or finalauthorization under RCRA section3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on thebasis of State requirements that areequivalent or substantially equivalent toEPA's. The procedures and schedule forState program modifications for eitherinterim or final authorization aredescribed in 40 CFR 271.21. Thedeadline by which the States mustmodify their programs to adopt today'srule is (July 1, 1994).B. Effect on State Authorizations

Section 40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requiresStates that have final authorization tomodify their programs to reflect Federalprogram changes and to submit themodification to EPA for approval. Thedeadline by which the State mustmodify its program to adopt thisregulation is determined by thepromulgation date in accordance with 40CFR 271.21(e). These deadlines can beextended in certain cases (40 CFR271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves themodification, the State requirementsbecome Subtitle C RCRA requirements.

Authorized States are only required tomodify their programs when EPApromulgates Federal regulations that aremore stringent or broader in scope thanthe existing Federal regulations. For

•Federal program changes that are lessstringent or reduce the scope of theFederal program, States are not requiredto modify their programs. This is a resultof RCRA section 3009, which allowsStates to impose regulations in additionto those in the Federal program. EPAhas determined that today'scontainerized liquids in landfills rule ismore stringent than the current Federalregulations; Therefore, authorized Statesare required to modify their programs ifneeded to adopt regulations that areequivalent or substantially equivalent totoday rule.

States with authorized RCRAprograms may already haverequirements similar, to those in today's

rule. These State regulations have notbeen assessed against the Federal

* regulations being finalized today todetermine whether they meet the testsfor authorization. Thus, a State is notauthorized to implement theserequirements in lieu of EPA until theState program modification is approved.Of course, States with existingstandards may continue to administerand enforce their standards as a matterof State law. In implementing theFederal program, EPA will work withStates under agreements to minimizeduplication of efforts. In many cases,EPA will be able to defer to the States intheir efforts to implement their programsrather than take separate actions underFederal authority.

States that submit official applicationsfor final authorization less than 12months after the effective date of theseregulations are not required to includestandards equivalent to theseregulations in their application. Statesthat submit official applications for finalauthorization 12 months or more afterthe effective date of these regulationsmust include standards equivalent tothese regulations in their application.The requirements a State must meetwhen submitting its final authorizationapplication are set forth in 40 CFR 271.3.

VI. Regulatory Requirements

A. Economic Impact AnalysisExecutive Order 12291 (Section 3(b))

requires regulatory agencies to prepareRegulatory Impact Analyses for all"major" rules. Today's rule Is not amajor rule because it will not result in:an annual effect on the economy of $100million or more; a major increase incosts or prices for consumers, individualindustries, Federal, State, and localgovernment agencies, or geographicregions; or significant adverse effects oncompetition, employment, investment,productivity, innovation, orinternational trade. Therefore, theAgency has not prepared a RegulatoryImpact Analysis for today's rule.

EPA did, however, review costsassociated with this rule in "EconomicImpact Analysis of Liquids in LandfillsRule Regarding ContainerizedSorbents." The total additionalannualized costs of implementing thisrule are estimated to be under $1million. The implementation costs areminimal because hazardous wastelandfills must already use the PaintFilter Test (for all wastes, not justsorbed wastes), and most sorbentscurrently in use need not be tested forbiodegradability because they areclearly identified as acceptable on thenonbiodegradables lists in the rule or as

unacceptable on the biodegradables listprovided as guidance in the preamble.The rest need be tested only once persorbent type for nonbiodegradability (itis the sorbents that are tested forbiodegradation, not the wastes). Forthose sorbents that are currently usedthat are unacceptable, there are readilyavailable sorbents of comparable costsand efficiencies so that the economicimpact of such substitutions areminimal.

This rule has been reviewed by theOffice of Management and Budget inaccordance with Executive Order 12291.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federalregulatory agencies to prepare aRegulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)for all regulations that have "asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities."Today's rule, as EPA's economicanalysis indicates, will involve only atrivial increase in costs for regulatedindustry. Therefore, EPA certifies thattoday's regulation will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities. Asa result, no Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis is needed.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collectionrequirements in this rule have beenapproved by the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) under the PaperworkReduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. andhave been assigned control number2050-0125.

The public reporting burden for this'collection of information is estimated toaverage 3.6 hours per response for thefirst year and 0.8 hours per response insubsequent years. This burden includestime for reviewing the regulations,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the requireddata, and completing and reviewing thecollection of information.

Send comments regarding the burdenestimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, includingsuggestions for reducing this burden, toChief, Information PolicyBranch, PM-223Y, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington.DC 20460 and to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs.Office of Management and Budget,Washington, DC 20503, marked"Attention: Jonathan Gledhill",




VII. Supporting Documents

The following document has beenprepared in support of this rulemakingand placed in docket F-92-CLLF-FFFFF.

"Economic Impact Analysis of Liquidsin Landfills Rule RegardingContainerized Sorbents," EPA, October23, 1992.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

Administrative practice andprocedure, Confidential businessinformation, Hazardous waste.

40 CFR Part 264

Air pollution control, Hazardouswaste, Insurance, Packaging andcontainers, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Security measures, Suretybonds.

40 CFR Part 265

Air pollution control, Hazardouswaste, Insurance, Packaging andcontainers, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Security measures, Suretybonds, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 271

Administrative practice andprocedure, Confidential businessinformation, Hazardous materialstransportation, Hazardous waste, Indianlands, Intergovernmental relations,Penalties, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Water pollution control,Water supply.

Dated: October 30, 1992.William K. Reilly,Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in thepreamble, 40 CFR parts 260, 264, 265,and 271 are amended as follows.

PART 260-HAZARDOUS WASTEMANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

1. The authority citation for part 260continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930. 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, and6974. -

2. Section 260.10 is amended byadding the definition of "sorbent" inalphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 260.10 Definitions• * . * *

Sorbent means a material that is usedto soak up free liquids by eitheradsorption or absorption, or both. Sorbmeans to either adsorb or absorb, orboth.* * * • •

PART 264-STANDARDS FOROWNERS AND OPERATORS OFHAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,STORAGE, AND DISPOSALFACILITIES

1. The authority citation for part 264continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and6925.

2. Section 264.13 is amended byadding paragraph (c)(3) to read asfollows:

§ 264.13 General waste analysis.* . * * •

(c) • * *

(3) The procedures that the owner oroperator of an off-site landfill receivingcontainerized hazardous waste will useto determine whether a hazardous wastegenerator or treater has added abiodegradable sorbent to the waste inthe container.

3. Section 264.314 is amended byredesignating paragraph (e) as (f),revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and(d)(1)(ii), and adding new paragraph (e)to read as follows:

§ 264.314 Special requirements for bulkand containerized Hqulds.

(a) • * *

(2) Before disposal, the liquid waste orwaste containing free liquids is treatedor stabilized, chemically or physically(e.g., by mixing with a sorbent solid), sothat free liquids are no longer present.

(b) Effective May 8, 1985, theplacement of bulk or non-containerizedliquid hazardous waste or hazardouswaste containing free liquids (whetheror not sorbents have been added) in anylandfill is prohibited.

{d • * *

(d) * * *

(ii) has been mixed with sorbent orsolidified so that free-standing liquid isno longer observed; or

(e) Sorbents used to treat free liquidsto be disposed of in landfills must benonbiodegradable. Nonbiodegradablesorbents are: materials listed ordescribed in paragraph (e)(1) of thissection; materials that pass one of thetests in paragraph (e)(2) of this section;or materials that are determined by EPAto be nonbiodegradable through the part260 petition process.

(1) Nonbiodegradable sorbents. (i)Inorganic minerals, other inorganicmaterials, and elemental carbon (e.g.,aluminosilicates, clays, smectites,Fuller's earth, bentonite, calciumbentonite, montmorillonite; calcined

montmorillonite, kaolinite, micas (illite),vermiculites, zeolites; calcium carbonate(organic free limestone); oxides/hydroxides, alumina, lime, silica (sand),diatomaceous earth; perlite (volcanicglass); expanded volcanic rock; volcanicash; cement kiln dust; fly ash; rice hullash; activated charcoal/activatedcarbon); or

(ii) High molecular weight syntheticpolymers (e.g., polyethylene, highdensity polyethylene (HDPE),polypropylene, polystyrene,polyurethane, polyacrylate,polynorborene, polyisobutylene, groundsynthetic rubber. cross-linkedallylstyrene and tertiary butylcopolymers). This does not includepolymers derived from biologicalmaterial or polymers specificallydesigned to be degradable; or

(iii) Mixtures of thesenonbiodegradable materials.

(2) Tests for nonbiodegradablesorbents. (i) The sorbent material isdeternined to be nonbiodegradableunder ASTM Method G21-70 (1984a)--.Standard Practice for DeterminingResistance of Synthetic PolymerMaterials to Fungi; or

(ii) The sorbent material is determinedto be nonbiodegradable under ASTMMethod G22-76 (1984b)-StandardPractice for Determining Resistance ofPlastics to Bacteria.

4. Section 264.316 is amended byrevising paragraphs (b) and (c) to readas follows:

§ 264.316 Disposal of small containers ofhazardous waste In overpacked drums (labpacks).

(b) The inside containers must beoverpacked in an open head DOT-specification metal shipping container(49 CFR parts 178 and 179) of no morethan 416-liter (110 gallon) capacity andsurrounded by, at a minimum, asufficient quantity of sorbent material,determined to be nonbiodegradable inaccordance with § 264.314(e), tocompletely sorb all of the liquid contentsof the inside containers. The metal outercontainer must be full after it has beenpacked with inside containers andsorbent material.

(c) The sorbent material used must notbe capable of reacting dangerously with,being decomposed by, or being ignitedby the contents of the inside containers,in accordance with § 264.17(b).



Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 54461

PART 265-INTERIM STATUSSTANDARDS FOR OWNERS ANDOPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTETREATMENT, STORAGE, ANDDISPOSAL FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 265continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924.6925, 8935, and 6936.

2. Section 265.13 is amended byadding paragraph (c)(3) to read asfollows:

§ 265.13 General waste analysis.* * * * *

(c) * * *

-(3) The procedures that the owner oroperator-of an off-site landfill receivingcontainerized hazardous waste will useto determine whether a hazardous wastegenerator or treater has added abiodegradable sorbent to'the waste inthe container.

3. Section 265.314 is amended byredesignating paragraph (f0 as (g),revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and(c)(1)(ii), and adding new paragraph {fto read as follows:§ 26&314 Special requirements for bulkand containerized liquids.

(a) * * *

(2) Before disposal, the liquid waste orwaste containing free liquids is treatedor stabilized, chemically or physically(e.g., by mixing with a sorbent solid), sothat free liquids are no longer present.

(b) Effective May 8,1985, theplacement of bulk or non-containerizedliquid hazardous waste or hazardouswaste containing free liquids (whetheror not sorbents have been added) in anylandfill is prohibited.

(c) * * *

1} * *

(ii) has been mixed with sorbent orsolidified so that free-standing liquid isno longer observed; or* * * - * *

(fl Sorbents used to treat free liquidsto be disposed of in landfills must benonbiodegradable. Nonbiodegradablesorbents are: materials listed ordescribed in paragraph (f)(1) of thissection; materials that pass one of thetests in paragraph (f)(2) of this section;or materials that are determined by EPAto be nonbiodegradable through the Part260 petition process.

(1) Nonbiodegradable sorbents. (i)Inorganic minerals, other inorganicmaterials, and elemental carbon (e.g.,aluminosilicates, clays, 6mectites,Fuller's earth, bentonite, calciumbentonite, montmorillonite, calcinedmontmorillonite, kaolinite, micas (illite],vermiculites, zeolites; calcium carbonate(organic free limestone); oxides/hydroxides, alumina, lime, silica (sand),diatomaceous earth; perlite (volcanicglass; expanded volcanic rock; volcanicash; cement kiln dust; fly ash; rice hullash; activated charcoal/ activatedcarbon); or

(ii) High molecular weight syntheticpolymers (e.g., polyethylene, highdensity polyethylene (HDPE),polypropylene, polystyrene,polyurethane, polyacrylate,polynorborene, polysobutylene, groundsynthetic rubber, cross-linkedallylstyrene and tertiary butylcopolymers). This does not includepolymers derived from'biologicalmaterial or polymers specificallydesigned to be degradable; or

(iii) Mixtures of thesenonbiodegradable materials.

(2) Tests for nonbiodegradablesorbents. (i) The sorbent material isdetermined to be nonbiodegradableunder ASTM Method G21-70 (1984a)-Standard Practice for DeterminingResistance of Synthetic PolymerMaterials to Fungi; or

(ii) The sorbent material is determinedto be nonbiodegradable under ASTMMethod G22-76 (1984b)-StandardPractice for Determining Resistance ofPlastics to Bacteria.* * * * *

4. Section 265.316 is amended byrevising paragraphs (b) and (c) to readas follows:

§ 265.316 Disposal of small Containers ofhazardous waste In overpacked drums (labpacks).* * * * *

(b) The inside containers must beoverpacked in an open head DOT-specification metal shipping container(49 CFR parts 178 and 179) of no morethan 416-liter (110 gallon) capacity andsurrounded by, at a minimum, asufficient quantity of sorbent material,determined to be nonbiodegradable inaccordance with § 265.314(f), tocompletely sorb all of the liquid contentsof the inside containers. The metal outercontainer must be full after it has beenpacked with inside containers andsorbent material.

(c) The sorbent material used must notbe capable of reacting dangerously with,being decomposed by, or being ignitedby the contents of the inside container'sin accordance with § 265.17(b).* * * * *

PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FORAUTHORIZATION OF STATEHAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS

1. The authority citation for Part 271continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a) and 6926.

2. Section 271.1(j) is amended byadding the following entry to Table 1 inchronological order by date ofpublication:

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.* * * * *

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

Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date

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

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

