Faxback and Close
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
March 13, 1996
SUBJECT: Use of the Area of Contamination (AOC) Concept During RCRA Cleanups
FROM: Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Stephen D. Luftig, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Jerry Clifford, Director
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
TO: RCRA Branch Chiefs
CERCLA Regional Managers
This memorandum confirms that under current regulations, certain broad areas of contamination (AOCs) may be considered RCRA landfills. Under certain conditions, hazardous wastes may be moved within such areas without triggering RCRA land disposal restrictions or minimum technology requirements. This memorandum also describes the distinctions between the final Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) regulations and the Area of Contamination (AOC) approach, and encourages appropriate use of both options to expedite remedial actions.
Area of Contamination Approach
The area of contamination concept was discussed in detail in the preamble to the National Contingency Plan (55
8758-8760, March 8, 1990). In this discussion, EPA clarified that certain discrete areas of generally dispersed contamination (called “areas of contamination” or “AOCs”) could be equated to a RCRA landfill and that movement of hazardous wastes within those areas would not be considered land disposal and would not trigger the RCRA land disposal restrictions. The NCP also discusses using the concept of “placement” to determine which requirements might apply within an AOC. The concept of “placement” is important because placement of hazardous waste into a landfill or other land based unit is considered land disposal, which triggers the land disposal restrictions, and may trigger other RCRA requirements including permitting (at a non-CERCLA site), closure and post-closure. In the NCP, EPA stated, “placement does not occur when waste is consolidated within an AOC, when it is treated in situ, or when it is left in place.” Placement does occur, and additional RCRA requirements may be triggered, when wastes are moved from one AOC to another (e.g., for consolidation) or when waste is actively managed (e.g., treated
within or outside the AOC and returned to the
land. Additional information on when placement does and does not occur is provided in the attached guidance document,
Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) Are Applicable to CERCLA Response Actions,
OSWER Directive 9347.3-O5FS, July 1989.
Although the AOC concept was initially discussed in the context of the CERCLA program, it applies equally to RCRA corrective action sites, cleanups under state law, and voluntary cleanups
Although advance approval at the Federal level is not required for private parties to take advantage of the AOC concept, we encourage them to consult with the appropriate agency to ensure they implement the AOC concept appropriately. It should be noted that the agency responsible for determining that the AOC
concept is being properly applied might not be
same as the agency overseeing cleanup at a site. Additionally, states may have more stringent standards which require consultation and/or prior approval of an AOC.
. For additional information on the AOC concept, see, for example, the October 9, 1990 memorandum from Sylvia Lowrance to David Ullrich, “Replacement of Contaminated Soil and Debris Treated under a Treatability Variance,” the January 7, 1991 letter from Don Clay to Richard Stoll, and the June 11, 1992 letter from Sylvia Lowrance to Douglas Green (attached).
The interpretations of landfill, placement and the area of contamination concept discussed in the NCP preamble were reiterated by EPA in the 1990 subpart S proposal (55
30798, July 27, 1990). In the 1990 proposal, EPA termed AOCs at RCRA facilities “Corrective Action Management Units” or “CAMUs.” Although the name was changed, from AOC to CAMU, the CAMU concept discussed in the 1990 proposal was equivalent to the AOC concept (although, as discussed below, the CAMU concept was broadened when the final CAMU rule was issued). In response to great interest in the CAMU/AOC concept as discussed in the 1990 proposal, EPA issued a fact sheet titled
Use of the Corrective Action Management Unit Concept
in August 1992 (attached). In the August, 1992 fact sheet, EPA further reiterated the AOC concept by explaining that broad areas of contamination, including specific subunits
Note, if the subunit were a RCRA regulated unit, inclusion of the unit within an AOC could necessitate a RCRA permit modification or a change under RCRA interim status
, could be considered landfills under the RCRA regulations and discussed activities which would or would not trigger additional RCRA requirements when conducted in such areas.
The discussions of the AOC approach in the NCP preamble, 1990 subpart S proposal, and the August, 1992 fact sheet continue to reflect EPA’s interpretation of current statutory and regulatory provisions. They remain useful guidance documents when the AOC approach is under consideration at RCRA corrective action sites, Superfund sites and during other cleanup actions involving the movement or consolidation of hazardous waste, or media and debris contaminated with hazardous waste.
Relationship of the AOC Concept to the Final CAMU Rules
On February 16, 1993, EPA published final Corrective Action Management Unit regulations (58
8658, February 16, 1993). The final CAMU rule differs from the AOC approach in important respects. First, the CAMU regulations create a new type of RCRA unit - a “Corrective Action Management Unit” or “CAMU.” CAMUs are distinct from the type of units listed in RCRA Section 3004(k)
RCRA Section 3004(k) defines the term land disposal, when used with respect to a specified hazardous waste9 to include placement of such hazardous. waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave.
. Second, only EPA and authorized states may choose to designate CAMUs for management of remediation waste during RCRA corrective action and other cleanups. Third, the CAMU regulations expanded the flexibility available for management of remediation wastes beyond that offered by the AOC approach. Under the CAMU regulations, certain activities which would normally be considered placement are allowed when carried out in an agency-approved CAMU, including: remediation waste
Remediation waste is defined as, "all solid and hazardous wastes, and all media (including groundwater, surface water, soils, and sediments) and debris, which contain listed hazardous wastes or which themselves exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic, that are managed for the purpose of implementing corrective action requirements under 40. CFR § 264.101 and RCRA section 3008 (h). For a given facility, remediation wastes may originate only from within the facility boundary, but may include waste managed in implementing RCRA sections 3004(v) or 3008(h) for releases beyond the facility boundary.
may be removed from a CAMU and replaced before or after treatment) in the same or a different CAMU; remediation waste may be consolidated into a CAMU before or after treatment; and, remediation waste may be moved (again, before or after treatment) between two or more CAMUs at the same facility.
While the CAMU concept contained in the final CAMU rule was historically an outgrowth of the AOC concept, it has a separate statutory and regulatory basis; therefore, it supplements rather than supersedes the AOC concept. The AOC concept was not altered when the final CAMU rules were promulgated and it does not depend on the existence of the CAMU rule.
As you may be aware, several parties challenged the CAMU rule. The lawsuit has been stayed pending promulgation of the final Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for contaminated media (“HWIR-Media”). At the time the stay was issued EPA stated that the HWIR-Media rule was expected to replace a substantial portion of the CAMU rule; however, as long as the CAMU rule remains in effect, CAMUs may be used to facilitate protective remedies under RCRA, CERCLA, and state cleanup authorities. If a CAMU is under consideration, we recommend you take the following steps, in addition to the CAMU approval steps required at 40 CFR § 264.552:
1) explain the potential risks associated with CAMUs to facility owner/operators by informing them that the CAMU rule has been challenged and that EPA may issue a proposal to withdraw it; 2) where possible, mitigate potential risks associated with CAMUs by, for example, implementing a CAMU remedy within the shortest possible time frame; and 3) document all CAMU decisions completely, emphasizing how the CAMU provides support for the best site-specific remedy.
Continued Use of the AOC Concept
Both AOCs and CAMUs can be used to expedite effective and protective remedial actions; however, EPA encourages the use of the AOC concept in cases where the additional flexibility provided in the final CAMU regulations is not needed. For example, the AOC concept is particularly useful for consolidation of contiguous units or areas of contaminated soil. Using the AOC concept, a RCRA facility owner/operator with a large contiguous area of soil contamination could consolidate such soils into a single area or engineered unit within an AOC without triggering the RCRA land disposal restrictions or minimum technology requirements. Use of the AOC concept would not be affected by the pending litigation over CAMU or any changes in the CAMU rule. In addition, please note, the AOC and CAMU concepts only address management of materials which would otherwise be subject to RCRA (i.e., hazardous wastes, or media and debris contaminated with hazardous waste). RCRA regulated materials are a subset of the materials managed during site cleanups.
We know you will continue to use the AOC and CAMU concepts to support appropriate remedies and to expedite cleanup processes. If you have any questions regarding the AOC or CAMU concepts, please contact Elizabeth McManus, Hugh Davis or Robin Anderson at (703) 308-8657, (703) 308-8633, and (703) 603-8747, respectively.
Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) Are
to CERCLA Response Actions
CERCLA Section 121(d)(2) specifies that
Superfund remedial actions shall attain "other Federal standards, requirements, criteria, limitations, or more stringent State requirements that are determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARAR) to the specified circumstances at the site." In addition, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires that
removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable.
removal and remedial actions must comply with legally applicable requirements. This guide
outlines the process used to determine whether the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
land disposal restrictions LDRs) established under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are "applicable"
to a CERCLA response action
More detailed guidance on Superfund compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
For the LDRs to be applicable to a CERCLA response, the action must constitute
restricted RCRA hazardous waste
. Therefore, site managers (OSCs, RPMs) must answer three separate questions to determine if the LDRs are applicable:
(1) Does the response action constitute placement?
(2) Is the CERCLA substance being placed also a RCRA hazardous waste? and if so
(3) Is the RCRA waste restricted under the LDRs?
Site managers also must determine if the CERCLA substances are California list wastes, which arc a distinct category of RCRA hazardous wastes restricted under the LDRs (see Superfund LDR Guide #2).
(1) DOES THE RESPONSE CONSTITUTE
The LDRs place specific restrictions (e.g., treatment of waste to concentration levels) on RCRA hazardous wastes prior to their placement in land disposal units.- Therefore, a key determination is whether the response action will constitute placement of wastes into a land disposal unit. As defined by RCRA, land disposal units include landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, injection wells, land treatment facilities, salt dome formations, underground mines or caves, and concrete bunkers or vaults. If a CERCIA response includes disposal of wastes in any of these types of
land disposal units, placement will occur. However, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites often have widespread and dispersed contamination, making the concept of a RCRA unit less
for actions involving on-site disposal of wastes. Therefore, to assist in defining when "placement" does and does not occur for CERCLA actions involving on-site disposal of wastes, EPA uses the concept of -areas of contamination" (AOCs), which may be viewed as equivalent to RCRA units, for the purposes of LDR applicability determination
An AOC is
delineated by the areal extent (or boundary) of contiguous contamination. Such contamination must be continuous, but may contain varying types and concentrations of hazardous substances. Depending on site characteristics, one or more AOCs
may be delineated. Highlight 1 provides some examples of AOCs.
Highlight1: EXAMPLES OF AREAS OF CONTAMINATION (AOCs)
A waste source (e.g., waste pit, landfill, waste pile) and the surrounding contaminated soil
A waste source, and the
sediments in a stream contaminated by the source, where the contamination is continuous from the source to the sediments.*
Several lagoons separated only by dikes, where the dikes are contaminated and the lagoons share a
The AOC does not include any contaminated surface or groundwater that may be associated with the landbased waste source
For on-site disposal, placement occurs when wastes are moved from one AOC (or unit) into another AOC (or unit). Placement does not occur when wastes are left in place, or moved within a single AOC. Highlight 2 provides scenarios of when placement does and does not occur, as defined in the proposed NCP. The Agency is current reevaluating the definition of placement prior to the promulgation of the final NCP, and therefore, these scenarios are subject to change.
Highlight 2: Placement
occur when wastes are:
Consolidated from different AOCs into a single AOC;
Moved outside of an AOC (for treatment or storage, for example) and returned to the same or a different AOC; or
Excavated from an AOC, placed in a separate unit, such as an incinerator or tank that is within the AOC, and redeposited into the same AOC.
occur when wastes are:
Treated in situ;
Capped in place;
Consolidated within the AOC; or
Processed within the AOC (but not in a separate unit, such as a tank) to improve its structural stability (e.g., for capping or to support heavy machinery).
In summary, if placement on-site or off-site does not occur, the LDRs are not applicable to the Superfund action.
IS THE CERCLA SUBSTANCE A RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE?
Because a CERCLA response must constitute placement of a restricted RCRA hazardous waste for the LDRs to be applicable, site managers must evaluate whether the contaminants at the CERCLA site are RCRA hazardous wastes. Highlight 3 briefly describes the two types of RCRA hazardous wastes – listed and characteristic wastes.
Highlight 3: RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
A RCRA solid waste* is hazardous if it is
or exhibits a hazardous
Listed RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Any waste listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261, including:
F waste codes (Part 261.31)
K waste codes (Part 261.32)
P waste codes (Part 261.33(e))
U waste codes (Part 261.33(f))
Characteristic RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Any waste exhibiting one of the following characteristics, as defined in 40 CFR 261:
Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity
A solid waste is any material that is discarded or disposed or (i.e., abandoned, recycled in certain ways, or considered inherently waste-like). The waste may be solid, semi-solid, liquid, or a contained gaseous material. Exclusions from the definition (e.g., domestic sewage sludge) appear in 40 CFR 261.4(a). Exemptions (e.g., household wastes) are found in 40 CFR 261.4(b).
Site managers are not required to presume that a CERCLA hazardous substance is a RCRA hazardous waste unless there is affirmative evidence to support such a finding. Site managers, therefore, should use “reasonable efforts” to determine whether a substance is a RCRA listed or characteristic waste. (Current data collection efforts during CERCLA removal and remedial site investigations should be sufficient for this purpose). For
hazardous wastes, if ii manifests or labels are not available, this evaluation likely will require fairly specific information about the waste (e.g., source, prior use, process type) that is “reasonably ascertainable” within the scope of a Superfund investigation. Such information may be obtained from facility business records or from an examination of the processes used at the facility. For
wastes, site managers may rely on the results of the tests described in 40 CFR 26121 - 26124 for each characteristic or on knowledge of the properties of the substance. Site managers should work with Regional RCRA staff, Regional Counsel, State RCRA staff, and Superfund enforcement personnel, as appropriate, in making
In addition to understanding the two categories of RCRA hazardous wastes, site managers will also need to understand the derived-from rule, the mixture rule, and the contained-in interpretation to identify correctly whether a CERCLA substance is a RCRA hazardous waste. These three principles, as well as an introduction to the RCRA delisting process, are described below.
Derived-from Rule (40 CFR 2613(c)(2)) .
The derived-from rule states that any
derived from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a
RCRA hazardous waste is itself a listed hazardous waste (regardless of the concentration of hazardous constituents). For example, ash and scrubber water from the incineration of a listed waste are hazardous wastes on the basis of the derived-from rule. Solid wastes derived from a
hazardous waste are hazardous wastes only if they exhibit a characteristic.
Mixture Rule (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2))
Under the mixture rule, when any
hazardous waste are mixed, the entire mixture is a listed hazardous waste. For example, if a generator mixes a drum of listed F006 electroplating waste with a non-hazardous wastewater (wastewaters are solid wastes - see Highlight 3), the entire mixture of the F006 and wastewater is a listed hazardous waste.
hazardous wastes are hazardous only if the mixture exhibits a characteristic.
Contained-in Interpretation (OSW Memorandum dated November 13, 1986)
The contained-in interpretation states that any mixture of a
and a RCRA
hazardous waste must be managed as a hazardous waste as long as the material contains (i.e., is above health-based levels) the listed hazardous waste. For example, if soil or ground water (i.e., both non-solid wastes) contain an F00l spent solvent, that soil or ground water must be managed as a RCRA hazardous waste, as long as it “contains” the F001 spent solvent.
Delisting (40 CFR 260.20 and .22)
To be exempted from the RCRA hazardous waste “system,” a
hazardous waste, a mixture of a listed and solid waste, or a derived-from waste must be delisted (according to 40 CFR 260.20 and 22). Characteristic hazardous wastes never need to be delisted, but can be treated to no longer exhibit the characteristic. A contained-in waste also does not have to be delisted; it only has to “no longer contain” the hazardous waste.
If site managers determine that the hazardous substance(s) at the site is a RCRA hazardous waste(s), they should also determine whether that RCRA waste is a California list waste. California list wastes are a distinct category of RCRA wastes restricted under the LDRs (see Superfund LDR Guide #2).
THE RCRA WASTE RESTRICTED UNDER THE LDRs?
If a site manager determines that a CERCLA waste is a RCRA hazardous waste, this waste also must be restricted for the LDRs to be an applicable requirement. A RCRA hazardous waste becomes a restricted waste on its HSWA
or sooner if the Agency promulgates a standard before the deadline. Because the LDRs are being phased in over a period of time (see Highlight 4), site managers may need
to determine what type-of-restriction
is in effect at the time placement is to occur. For example, if the RCRA hazardous wastes at a site are currently under a national capacity extension when the CERCLA decision document is signed, site managers should evaluate whether the response action will be completed before the extension expires. If these wastes are disposed of in surface impoundments or landfills prior to the expiration of the extension, the receiving unit would have to meet minimum technology requirements, but the wastes would not have to be treated to meet the LDR treatment standards.
Highlight 4: LDR STATUTORY DEADLINES
Spent Solvent and Dioxin-Containing Wastes November 8, 1986
California List Wastes July 8, 1987
First Third Wastes August 8, 1988
Spent Solvent, Dioxin-Containing, and California List November 8, 1988
Soil and Debris From CERCLA/RCRA Corrective Actions
Second Third Wastes June 8, 1989
Third Third Wastes May 8, 1990
Newly Identified Wastes Within 6 months of identification as a hazardous waste
If the site manager determines that the LDRs are applicable to the CERCLA, response based on the previous three questions, the site manager must: (1) comply with the LDR restriction in effect, (2) comply with the LDRs by choosing one of the LDR compliance options (e.g., Treatability Variance, No Migration Petition), or (3) invoke an ARAR waiver (available only for on-site actions). If the LDRs are determined not to be applicable, then, for on-site actions only, the site manager should determine if the LDRs are relevant and appropriate. The process for determining whether the LDRs are applicable to a CERCLA action is summarized in Highlight 5.
Highlight 5- DETERMINING WHEN LDRS ARE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS
Does placement occur No LDRs are not applicable
Is the CERCLA waste a RCRA hazardous or California List waste? No LDRs are not applicable: determine if they are relevant and appropriate (on-site response only)
Is the RCRA hazardous waste restricted under the LDRs? No LDRs are not applicable
LDRs are applicable requirements
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
October 9, 1990
SUBJECT: Replacement of Contaminated Soil and Debris Treated under a Treatability Variance
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David Ullrich, Acting Director
Waste Management Division, Region V
This memorandum is in response to your correspondence of April 25, 1990, in which you requested guidance in relation to six specific questions dealing generally with how the RCRA land disposal restrictions may affect certain remedial situations. We apologize for the delay in responding to your request; however, it was necessary for us to insure consensus at Headquarters in order to address the questions you have posed. We offer the following response to those six questions:
1. Q: Can soil and debris which has been treated in a tank
within the area of contamination (AOC) in accordance
with a treatability variance be replaced within the area
of contamination without meeting any additional 40 CFR
Part 264 requirements?
A: If contaminated soil and debris is treated to meet standards specified in a treatability variance that has been approved by the Agency, the treated soil/debris may then be placed in any treatment, storage or disposal unit that is in compliance with RCRA Subtitle C. This could include an “area of contamination” (i.e., a RCRA landfill) that has been designated by the Regional Administrator for the purpose of remediating the facility or site. Thus, as a regulatory matter, there would be no real distinction between soil/debris that is treated to the standard(s) set in the treatability variance and then placed in another unit, as opposed to “pure” hazardous wastes that are treated to the applicable Part 268 standards, and placed in another unit, except as discussed in the response to Question #5 (concerning contaminated media which no longer contains any waste).
By stating in your question that the treated wastes are to be redeposited into the AOC, we assume there is an implied question as to what design and operating standards would then be applicable to the AOC itself. This is discussed in our response to question #6, below.
2. Q: Has the policy set forth on Page 5.12 of the document
Implementing the Land
October 1989, been revised?
A: This policy has not been revised. The policy states that once an owner/operator receives a treatability variance, completes treatment, and has a treatment residual to be land disposed, the residue can be directed to any permitted or interim status unit.
3. Q: For the purpose of land disposal, is the residue of soil treated under a treatability variance to be distinguished from the residue of waste treated according to treatment standards?
A: No. See response to Question 1, above.
4. Q: For the purpose of land disposal, is the residue of soil treated under a treatability variance in a tank within the area of contamination to be distinguished from the residue of soil treated under a treatability variance in a tank outside of the area of contamination?
A: No. The location of the tank in relation to the "area of contamination" would not create a distinction as to how or where the treatment residuals could be land disposed. This assumes, of course, that the wastes have been treated to the standards specified in the
treatability variance. A tank cannot be considered a part of the AOC (landfill), regardless of where it is physically located; thus, its location would have no bearing on the standards that would apply to management of the contaminated soils (or other hazardous wastes,
for that matter) after they have been treated in the tank.
5. Q: Is a treatability variance for soil and debris to be considered in effect a delisting? Do the principles of the "contained in" policy for the treatment of contaminated ground water have any applicability to the treatment of contaminated soil and debris?
A: A treatability variance for soil/debris does not have the effect of a delisting approved for the waste. The treated residuals typically will still contain hazardous wastes, and thus must be managed as such. In contrast, when wastes are delisted they are generally no longer subject to Subtitle C regulation.
The “contained in” policy applies to ground water and other contaminated media such as soil which are contaminated with listed hazardous wastes. Thus, if ground water or soil are treated such that concentrations of the listed wastes are at or below health based levels, the ground water or soil would no longer "contain" the hazardous wastes, and would therefore be no longer subject to Subtitle C regulation.
6. Q: If an AOC can be considered a RCRA unit for the purpose of closure, would an AOC ever be considered equivalent to a RCRA compliant unit for the purpose of disposal? (See page 6 of OSWER Directive 9234.2-04F5
RCRA ARARs: Focus on C1osure Requirements.
A: As outlined in the cited ARARs manual, the AOC is a concept which can be applied in the context of remediation under CERCLA response actions or RCRA corrective actions. It is in many ways analogous to situations where two or more regulated surface impoundments would be treated as one unit in the context of closure of the impoundments.
When applied in the context of RCRA corrective actions or CERCLA remedial actions, the AOC concept would allow the Regional Administrator to designate a broadly contaminated contiguous area to be a RCRA "unit" (i.e., a landfill) for the purpose of' implementing the remedy. In an existing landfill, the movement or consolidation of hazardous wastes within the designated area would not by itself trigger Subtitle C requirements (including the land disposal restrictions and the RCRA minimum technology requirements) since that movement or consolidation does not constitute "disposal"' for Subtitle C purposes. If, however, wastes are excavated from the designated area, treated in another unit, and subsequently redeposited into the same area or unit, disposal has occurred, and the landfill would have to comply with applicable Part 264 or 265 requirements, including the LDRs, MTRs, closure standards (264.310), and the ground water monitoring requirements of Subpart F, Part 264 or 265.
The proposed Subpart S corrective action rule explains the AOC (described therein as the "'corrective action management unit") concept in more detail. However, if you have more specific questions or issues regarding AOCs, we will be glad to work with you or your staff to resolve them.
If there are any questions on the above responses to your questions, please contact Dave Fagan (FTS 382-4497) or Judy Goldberg (FTS 382-4534).
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
January 7, 1991
Richard G. Stoll
Freedman, Levy, Kroll & Simonds
1050 Connecticut Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5366
Dear Mr. Stoll,
This letter is in response to your inquiry dated August 22, 1990 concerning the applicability of EPA’s “Superfund LDR Guides.” As you asserted, those interpretations of RCRA were found in the 1990 NCP and other CERCLA documents, but you asked whether those interpretations apply at all sites, regardless of whether the cleanup activity is being conducted under federal CERCLA authorities.
The preamble to the 1990 NCP represents an official Agency-side position concerning the interpretation of RCRA and other statutes relevant to federally-mandated CERCLA cleanups (see 53
51394, 51443-45 (December 21, 1988) and 55
8666, 8758-62 (March 8, 1990)). The LDR Guides implement these interpretations in more detail. These interpretation of RCRA would apply at Superfund sties and at non-Superfund sites. Therefore, in general, the answer to your question about the applicability of the LDR Guides and NCP interpretations is that they apply wherever the cleanup involves a RCRA waste. However, it is conceivable that some of the interpretations of RCRA developed to apply to federal CERCLA sites may not exactly match non-CERCLA circumstances because of different statutory constraints or authorities. With that caveat, let me address the specific issues and questions raised in your letter.
First, you comments focus on the interpretations of Area of Contamination (AOC), “placement,” and the presumption of entitlement to treatability variances for contaminated soil and debris. Your principal concern focused on whether the interpretations offered of these issues in the NCP and LDR Guides apply at all sites. The answer is yes.
Second, you also questioned whether the NCP interpretations and the LDR Guides noted above apply equally where a “party may want to move or treat contaminated soil and debris as part of a RCRA corrective action, as part of a cleanup carried out under State law, and/or as part of a voluntary cleanup.” The answer is yes.
Third, you asked whether in situ treatment is not “placement” at a CERCLA site is also not placement at a non-CERCLA site (site A in your letter). The answer is yes.
Fourth, you question whether excavation and movement of contaminated soil within a certain area would be “placement” at a non-CERCLA site (site B), since you interpret it not to be placement at a CERCLA site. The limited facts given in that question do not allow us to unambiguously state whether there is “placement” at either site, although as a general rule the AOC concept is operable at RCRA corrective action sites. It should be noted, however, that designation of an AOC is a function performed by the regulating agency.
Fifth, you asked whether the presumption in favor of treatability variances and definition of appropriate alternative treatment would be the same for a non-CERLCA site (site C). The answer is that any presumption in favor of a treatability variance would be the same whether the site is a RCRA site or a federal or private party CERCLA site.
I hope that this response meets your needs. If you need additional information or clarification, please contact Steve Golian at (703) 308-8360
Don R. Clay
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
June 11, 1992
Mr. Douglas H. Green
Piper & Marbury
1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C 20036-2430
Dear Mr. Green:
Thank you for your letter of April 30, 1992, requesting clarification of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) interpretation of the applicability of certain Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements to common excavation-type activities.
The particular situation which you presented in your letter involves excavation of soils, such as trenching operations for pipeline installation, where the soils may be hazardous by characteristic, or may contain listed hazardous wastes. We understand that your questions specifically relate to excavations being conducted on public roadways or at other similar locations that are not necessary associated with or are part of a RCRA-regulated treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
In the example which you sited in your letter, the soils from the excavation or construction activities are temporarily moved within the area of contamination, and subsequently redeposited into the same excavation area. In these situations, we agree that such activity does not constitute treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste under RCRA. The activity placing waste in the ground would not normally meet the regulatory definitions of “treatment” or “storage” (40 CFR 260.10). In addition, as you noted in your letter, movement of wastes within an area of contamination does not constitute “land disposal” and thus does not trigger RCRA hazardous waste disposal requirements (55 FR 8666, March 8, 1990). Thus, RCRA requirements such as land disposal restrictions would not apply.
With respect to generator requirements, as you indicated, a hazardous waste “generator” is one, by site, who produces a hazardous waste or first causes the waste to be regulated as hazardous (40 CFR 260.10). In the circumstances you described, the excavation does not “produce” the hazardous waste, nor does it subject the waste to hazardous waste regulation since, as discussed above, the activity you describe is not “treatment,” “storage,” or “land disposal” of hazardous waste. Therefore, we agree that the activity is not subject to any generator requirements.
Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding this issue.
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
EPA August 1992
Use of the Corrective Action Management Unit Concept
Beginning in 1992, EPA began implementing a new strategy to increase the pace of cleanup and to achieve positive environmental results at RCRA treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) requiring corrective action. While comprehensive facility cleanup is still the long-term goal for the RCRA Corrective Action Program, this new initiative emphasizes the importance of stabilizing sites by controlling releases and preventing the further spread f contaminants.
At most RCRA facilities, stabilization or final remedial actions will involve excavation and on-site management of contaminated soils, sludges and other wastes that are subject to the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. In these situations, a number of issues can arise regarding the applicability of certain RCRA requirements, and how these requirements may affect the remedial activities. Specifically, experience in the RCRA and CERCLA remedial programs has shown that the RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDRs) and minimum technology requirements (MTRs) may limit the types of remedial options available at sites, as well as affect the types of specific technologies that may be used, the volumes of materials that are managed, and other features of remedies under consideration.
Recognizing that strict application of these RCRA requirements may limit or constrain desirable remedies, including stabilization programs, EPA is developing an important regulatory concept, known as the Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU), to facilitate effective and protective remedial actions. This concept, first discussed in the proposed Subpart S corrective action regulations (55FR 307898, July 27, 1990), is similar to the Superfund concept of the “area of contamination,” in which broad areas of contamination, often including specific subunits, are considered to be a single land disposal unit for remedial purposes.
CAMUs may be particularly useful for specific remedial activities such as consolidation of units or contaminated surficial soils. For example, a group of unlined inactive lagoons that are continuing sources of releases to groundwater may be best remediated by removing and treating the concentrated wastes in another unit, and excavating the remaining low-concentration contaminated soils from underneath the lagoons. These soils could then be consolidated and placed into a protective and cost-effective single-capped unit, thereby controlling further releases to groundwater. In other situations site remediations will require excavation of large quantities of relatively low-level contaminated surficial soils. In these cases a protective and cost-effective remedy might be to excavate the soils and consolidate them into a single area or engineered unit within the area of contamination. For both of these examples, application of LDRs and possibly MTR requirements would result in a more costly and complex remedy, that may delay remediation and result in little additional environmental protection for the site.
As proposed in the Subpart S rule, there may be certain types of situations in which application of the CAMU concept (55 FR 30842) would be inappropriate. In addition, several factors (55 FR 30883) may be considered by decision-makers in determining how CAMUs would actually be designated at sites. Although owner/operators may propose a specific area as a CAMU, it is the responsibility of EPA or the authorized State to determine whether a CAMU is necessary and appropriate, and, if so, to determine the boundaries of the unit.
The Subpart S regulations have not yet been finalized. However, although the CAMU concept has been presented only in proposed regulations, existing regulatory authority may be used to implement this type of approach in site remediations and stabilization actions. The Agency’s experience with the RCRA and CERCLA remedial programs indicates that the CAMU concept could be applied immediately to great advantage at a significant number of RCRA cleanup sites. This guidance is presented to clarify the use of the CAMU concept prior to final regulations.
USE OF LANDFIL DESIGNATION FOR REMEDIAL PURPOSES
Specifically, certain contaminated areas at sites that require remediation, including groups of units in such areas, may be designated as a “landfill” under the current RCRA landfill definition (40 CFR 260.10). Designating such an area of a facility as a landfill within the existing regulatory framework can achieve remedial benefits similar to those that would be obtained by using CAMUs under the Subpart S proposal. Prior to the promulgation of final CAMU rules, EPA encourages the use of this approach at contaminated sites, where it can promote effective and expeditious remedial solutions. EPA recommends that decisions on designating certain contaminated areas or groups of units as a landfill be made in accordance with applicable regulations and generally in accordance with the CAMU provisions in the Subpart S proposal.
Owner/operators proposing to address certain areas at a facility as a single landfill for remedial purposes should request approval from EPA or the authorized State agency. The Regional Administrator or the authorized State Director will be the ultimate decision-maker as to whether such a landfill unit will help achieve the remedial objectives at the facility. EPA recommends decisions to use existing authorities, waivers, or variances to achieve many of the same objectives as the proposed Subpart S rule CAMU provisions should generally follow the proposed regulatory provisions (55
30883) and the preamble discussion (55
30842) in defining the boundaries of the remedial unit. The Region or authorized State may also look to Superfund guidance in the designation of AOCs (55
Designating an area of contamination as a “landfill” will require that the unit comply with certain RCRA requirements that are applicable to landfills. The specific requirements that apply will differ, depending on whether the landfill is considered to be: (1) an existing non-regulated landfill, or (2) a regulated hazardous waste landfill. This distinction is determined by the regulatory status of the units or areas that are included as part of the landfill. The following discussion explains further the requirements associated with these two types of landfills.
Existing Non-Regulated Landfills
Figure 1 shows an area of contamination at a facility that includes several land-based solid waste management units (SWMUs) that are not regulated as hazardous waste units under RCRA (e.g., because all of the disposal occurred before the RCRA hazardous waste regulations went into effect.) By designating this area as a single landfill, EPA can approve movement and consolidation of hazardous wastes and soils contaminated with hazardous waste within the unit boundary, without triggering the LDRs or MTRs. For example, contaminated soils in and around SWMUs 1 and 2 could be consolidated into SWMU 3 and capped without triggering LDR requirements.
This landfill would not be subject to the RCRA Part 264 or Part 265 design and operating requirements for hazardous waste landfills. This is because the landfill would not have received hazardous waste after November 19, 1980. (See 40 CFR 270.1 (c )). In the absence of specific Part 264 or 265 requirements for such units, appropriate ground water monitoring and closure requirements for the landfill can be determined by EPA or the State as part of the corrective action remedial decision-making process. These requirements would be based on an assessment of site specific factors, such as waste characteristics, site hydrogeology, exposure potential, and other factors. This allows the regulator further flexibility in designing remedial solutions which are effective and protective based on actual site conditions.
These non-regulated landfills would remain exempt from regulation under Parts 264 and 265, under the following circumstances:
The landfill cannot receive hazardous waste from other units, either on-site or off-site. The landfill could, however, receive non-hazardous wastes as part of the cleanup actions. If it were to receive hazardous waste, the landfill would become a regulated unit (40 CFR 270.1(c)) subject to the requirements of Subparts F (40 CFR 264.90) and G (40 CFR 264.110). The facility permit would have to be modified accordingly (for interim status facilities, a change would have to be approved under 40 CFR 270.72), and the wastes would have to be treated to comply with applicable LDR standards prior to placement in the landfill.
If hazardous waste treatment (including in-situ treatment) takes place within the landfill, the owner/operator must comply with all Part 264 and 265 requirements applicable to the treatment unit, and must modify the permit or Part A to include the new treatment unit.
Similarly, residuals from treatment of hazardous wastes that have been removed from the landfill and treated in a non-land-based unit cannot be redeposited into the landfill unless the residuals meet the LDRs. If the residuals were still hazardous by characteristic or still contained hazardous wastes, disposal of the residuals into the landfill would require the landfill to be designated a “regulated unit,” as the unit would have received hazardous waste after July 26, 1982.
Hazardous wastes transferred from the non-regulated landfill to another land-based unit would also have to meet LDR standards.
Figure 2 shows an area of contamination that could be designated as a landfill, which contains two regulated units (as defined in 40 CFR 264,90). As with the previous example in Figure 1, designating this area as a landfill would allow wastes to be moved and consolidated within the area without triggering the LDRs. However, because this landfill contains regulated units, the entire area must be considered a regulated unit. Accordingly, the following requirements would apply:
The unit boundaries of the original regulated units that were specified on the Part A or Part B application would have to be redesignated to encompass the entire new landfill unit, according to the applicable procedures in 40 CFR 270.72, 270.41, or 270.42.
The landfill would have to comply with applicable Part 264 or 265 requirements for landfills, including the Subpart F ground water monitoring requirements and Subpart G closure and post-closure requirements. Subpart F requirements would generally involve installation of additional ground water monitoring wells. Compliance with Subpart G would likely also require modifications to the closure and post-closure plans for the unit.
MTRs would not necessarily apply to these newly designated regulated landfills. If the original regulated unit located within the landfill was not subject to the MTRs (i.e., the landfill was not new or expanding after 1984), the landfill could be considered by the Agency or authorized State to be a redesignation of that existing unit, rather than a lateral expansion. As such, the landfill would not be subject to the MTRs. However, if the regulated unit encompassed by the landfill was originally subject to MTRs, the entire area of the landfill would be subject to MTRs.
Existing regulatory standards (e.g., replacement of treatment residuals into the CAMU triggers the LDRs) cannot be waived to implement the CAMU concept prior to a final CAMU rulemaking, EPA is considering removing some of these limitations in the final rule. Nonetheless despite these current limitations, there may be a number of situations where the use of landfills can yield substantial benefits in remediating sites. EPA recommends that the guidance provided in this fact sheet be used in evaluating the use of landfills to implement timely and protective corrective actions at RCRA facilities.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Inquiries concerning the guidance contained in this fact sheet should be directed to Dave Fagan (202) 260-4497, or Anne Price (202) 260-6725.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
August 31, 1992
SUBJECT: Use of the Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) Concept
To: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
RCRA Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
FROM: Sylvia Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Bruce Diamond, Director
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
At the February 1992 Stabilization Conference in Colorado Springs we discussed the possibility of implementing the corrective action management unit (CAMU) concept before the final promulgation of the Subpart S regulations. At that time OSWER made a commitment to provide further guidance to the Regions on how to use existing RCRA regulations to achieve some of the remedial benefits of the CAMU. The attached document, “Use of the Corrective Action Management Unit Concept,” provides that guidance.
The CAMU portion of Subpart S is on a current schedule to be finalized by December 1992. The attached guidance, which was developed jointly by OSWER and OGC, clarifies the Agency’s legal authority for utilizing a CAMU-like approach before the CAMU rule is finalized, and provides guidance on when and how to use the concept. The concept can be applied during final remedies, and in the implementation of stabilization actions to reduce imminent threats and contain releases. We encourage the use of this concept whenever the success of the remedial option at a particular facility will be enhanced.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this guidance, please call Dave Fagan at (202) 260-4497.