3008 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 136 and 445

[FRL–6503–5]

RIN 2040–AC23

Effluent Limitations Guidelines,

Pretreatment Standards, and New

Source Performance Standards for the

Landfills Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule represents the

culmination of the Agency’s effort to

develop Clean Water Act (CWA)

national effluent limitations guidelines

and pretreatment standards for

wastewater discharges from certain

landfills. The final regulation

establishes technology-based effluent

limitations for wastewater discharges

associated with the operation and

maintenance of new and existing

hazardous and non-hazardous landfill

facilities regulated, respectively, under

Subtitle C and Subtitle D of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). Sources of landfill

wastewater include, but are not limited

to, landfill leachate and gas collection

condensate. Today’s final rule does not

establish pretreatment standards for the

introduction of pollutants into Publicly

Owned Treatment Works (POTW) from

the operation of new and existing

landfills regulated under Subtitle C or

Subtitle D of RCRA.

The rule does not apply to wastewater

discharges from ‘‘captive’’ landfills—

those landfills associated with other

industrial or commercial activities, in

most circumstances. For example, it

does not apply to captive landfills that

only receive wastes generated by the

industrial operation directly associated

with the landfill. In addition, the rule

does not apply to captive landfills that

receive both wastes generated by the

industrial operation directly associated

with the landfill as well as other wastes,

so long as the other wastes are similar

in nature to the wastes generated by the

industrial operation directly associated

with the landfill. Further, the regulation

does not apply to wastewater discharges

associated with treatment of

contaminated ground water from

hazardous and non-hazardous landfills.

The final effluent limitations

guidelines will benefit the environment

by removing 900,000 pounds of

pollutants per year at an estimated

annualized cost of $7.6 million.

DATES: This regulation shall become

effective February 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: For additional technical

information write to Mr. Michael C.

Ebner, Engineering and Analysis

Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 or send Email to: ebner.michael@epa.gov or call

at (202)260–5397. For additional

economic information contact Mr.

William Anderson at the address above

or send E-mail to:

anderson.william@epa.gov or call (202)

260–5131.

The complete record (excluding

confidential business information) for

this Clean Water Act rulemaking is

available for review at EPA’s Water

Docket, Room EB57; 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. For access to

Docket materials, call (202) 260–3027

between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. for an

appointment. The record for this

rulemaking has been established under

docket number W–97–17, and includes

supporting documentation, but does not

include any information claimed as

Confidential Business Information (CBI).

The EPA public information regulation

(40 CFR Part 2) provides that a

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional technical information call

Mr. Michael Ebner at (202) 260–5397.

For additional information on the

economic impact analyses contact Mr.

William Anderson at (202) 260–5131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Judicial Review

In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, this

rule will be considered promulgated for

purposes of judicial review at 1:00 p.m.

Eastern time on February 2, 2000. Under

section 509(b)(1) of the Act, judicial

review of this regulation can be

obtained only by filing a petition for

review in the United States Court of

Appeals within 120 days after the

regulation is considered final for

purposes of judicial review. Under

section 509(b)(2) of the Act, the

requirements in this regulation may not

be challenged later in civil or criminal

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce

these requirements.

Regulated Entities: Entities potentially

regulated by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ........................................... Landfills regulated under Subtitle C or Subtitle D of RCRA that collect and discharge landfill generated

wastewater to surface waters of the U.S., unless the landfills are directly associated with other industrial

or commercial facilities.

State, municipal or tribal Government.Landfills regulated under Subtitle C or Subtitle D of RCRA that collect and discharge landfill generated

wastewater to surface waters of the U.S., unless the landfills are directly associated with other industrial

or commercial facilities.

Federal Government ....................... Landfills regulated under Subtitle C or Subtitle D of RCRA that collect and discharge landfill generated

wastewater to surface waters of the U.S., unless the landfills are directly associated with other industrial

or commercial facilities.

The preceding table is not intended to

be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities

likely to be regulated by this action.

This table lists the types of entities that

EPA is now aware could potentially be

regulated by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also

be regulated. To determine whether

your facility is regulated by this action,

you should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 445.1 of the

final rule. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult one of the

persons listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Compliance Dates

The compliance date for NSPS is the

date the new source commences

discharging. Compliance deadline for

BPT, BCT, and BAT for a facility is

immediately upon issuance or

reissuance of the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit.

Supporting Documentation

Several major documents further

describe the technical and economic

basis for the regulations promulgated

today. These include:

1. ‘‘Development Document for Final

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Landfills Point Source

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3009

1 In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA

efforts emphasized the achievement of BPT

limitations for control of the ‘‘classical’’ pollutants

(e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). However, nothing on the face

of the statute explicitly restricted BPT limitations

to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean

Water Act of 1977 with its requirement for point

sources to achieve best available technology

limitations to control discharges of toxic pollutants,

EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority

pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT

Continued

Category’’ (EPA 821–R–99–019).

Hereafter referred to as the Technical

Development Document, it presents

EPA’s technical conclusions concerning

the rule. EPA describes, among other

things, the data collection activities in

support of the rule, the wastewater

treatment technology options,

wastewater characterization, and the

estimation of costs to the industry.

2. ‘‘Economic Analysis for Final

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Landfills Point Source

Category’’ (EPA 821–B–99–005).

3. ‘‘Statistical Support Document for

Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards for the Landfills Point

Source Category’’ (EPA 821–B–99–007).

4. ‘‘Environmental Assessment for

Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards for the Landfills Point

Source Category’’ (EPA 821–B–99–006).

EPA made drafts of these documents

available for comment at proposal and

revised the materials where warranted

in response to the comments. EPA did

not submit the documents for peer

review because the Agency concluded

that additional review was not required

because the scientific and technical

methodologies being used are not

significantly different from those used

in the development of past effluent

guidelines.

How to Obtain Supporting

Documents:

The Technical and Economic

Development Documents can be

obtained through EPA’s website on the

Internet, located at www.epa.gov/OST/

guide/2lndfls. All of the supporting

documents are also available from the

Office of Water Resource Center, RC–

4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW,

Washington, D.C., 20460; telephone

(202) 260–7786 for the voice mail

publication request.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

B. Section 304(m) Requirements

C. Brief History of Landfill Industry and

Proposed Guidelines

III. The Final Landfills Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards

A. Overview of Final Rule

B. Applicability and Scope of the Final

Rule

C. Subcategorization

D. Profile of the Landfills Industry

E. Technology Basis for Final Rule

F. Development of Effluent Limitations

G. Treatment Systems Selected for Basis of

Regulation

IV. Assessment of Costs and Impacts

A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and

Pollutant Reductions Achieved by

Treatment Technologies

B. Costs of Compliance

C. Pollutant Reductions

V. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction and Overview

B. Summary of Economic Impacts

VI. Water Quality Analysis and

Environmental Benefits

A. Introduction

B. Methodology Used for Estimating Water

Quality Impacts and Benefits

C. Estimated National Water Quality

Impacts and Results

VII. Non-water Quality Environmental

Impacts

A. Air Pollution

B. Solid Waste Generation

C. Energy Requirements

VIII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of Limitations and

Standards

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

C. Variances and Modifications

D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to

NPDES Permits and Monitoring

Requirements

E. Implementation for Facilities With

Landfills in Multiple Subcategories

F. Implementation for Contaminated

Ground Water Flows and Wastewater

from Recovering Pumping Wells

G. Implementation for Subtitle D Landfills

Which Received Newly Listed

Hazardous Wastes in the Past

H. Implementation for Superfund Response

Actions at Landfills

I. Implementation for TSCA landfills

J. Implementation for Landfills Located at

Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities

K. Determination of Similar Wastes for

Captive Landfill Facilities

L. Analytical Methods

IX. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)

C. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting

Children’s Health

X. Summary of Proposal Comments and

Responses

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and

Abbreviations

I. Legal Authority

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency is promulgating these

regulations under the authority of

Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402,

and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33

U.S.C.1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318,

1342, and 1361.

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

Congress adopted the Clean Water Act

(CWA) to ‘‘restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of the Nation’s waters’’

(Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To

achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the

discharge of pollutants into navigable

waters except in compliance with the

statute. The Clean Water Act confronts

the problem of water pollution on a

number of different fronts. Its primary

reliance, however, is on establishing

restrictions on the types and amounts of

pollutants discharged from various

industrial, commercial, and public

sources of wastewater.

Congress recognized that regulating

only those sources that discharge

effluent directly into the nation’s waters

would not be sufficient to achieve the

CWA’s goals. Consequently, the CWA

requires EPA to promulgate nationally

applicable pretreatment standards

which restrict pollutant discharges for

those who discharge wastewater

indirectly through sewers flowing to

publicly-owned treatment works

(POTWs) (Section 307(b) and (c), 33

U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National

pretreatment standards are established

for those pollutants in wastewater from

indirect dischargers which may pass

through or interfere with POTW

operations. Generally, pretreatment

standards are designed to ensure that

wastewater from direct and indirect

industrial dischargers are subject to

similar levels of treatment. In addition,

POTWs are required to implement local

pretreatment limits applicable to their

industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy

any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).

Direct dischargers must comply with

effluent limitations in National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(‘‘NPDES’’) permits; indirect dischargers

must comply with pretreatment

standards. These limitations and

standards are established by regulation

for categories of industrial dischargers

and are based on the degree of control

that can be achieved using various

levels of pollution control technology.

1. Best Practicable Control Technology

Currently Available (BPT)—Sec.

304(b)(1) of the CWA

In the regulations for an industry

category, EPA defines BPT effluent

limits for conventional, priority,1 and

3010 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

guidelines continue to include limitations to

address all pollutants.

nonconventional pollutants. In

specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number

of factors. EPA first considers the cost

of achieving effluent reductions in

relation to the effluent reduction

benefits. The Agency also considers the

age of the equipment and facilities, the

processes employed and any required

process changes, engineering aspects of

the control technologies, non-water

quality environmental impacts

(including energy requirements), and

such other factors as the Agency deems

appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)).

Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT

effluent limitations based on the average

of the best performances of facilities

within the industry of various ages,

sizes, processes or other common

characteristic. Where existing

performance is uniformly inadequate,

EPA may require higher levels of control

than currently in place in an industrial

category if the Agency determines that

the technology can be practically

applied.

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT)—Sec. 304(b)(4) of the

CWA

The 1977 amendments to the CWA

required EPA to identify effluent

reduction levels for conventional

pollutants associated with BCT for

discharges from existing industrial point

sources. In addition to other factors

specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the

CWA requires that EPA establish BCT

limitations after consideration of a two

part ‘‘cost-reasonableness’’ test. EPA

explained its methodology for the

development of BCT limitations in July

1986 (51 FR 24974).

Section 304(a)(4) designates the

following as conventional pollutants:

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),

total suspended solids (TSS), fecal

coliform, pH, and any additional

pollutants defined by the Administrator

as conventional. The Administrator

designated oil and grease as an

additional conventional pollutant on

July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

3. Best Available Technology

Economically Achievable (BAT)—Sec.

304(b)(2) of the CWA

In general, BAT effluent limitations

guidelines represent the best

economically achievable performance of

plants in the industrial subcategory or

category. The factors considered in

assessing BAT include the cost of

achieving BAT effluent reductions, the

age of equipment and facilities

involved, the process employed,

potential process changes, and nonwater quality environmental impacts,

including energy requirements. The

Agency retains considerable discretion

in assigning the weight to be accorded

these factors. BAT limitations may be

based on effluent reductions attainable

through changes in a facility’s processes

and operations. As with BPT, where

existing performance is uniformly

inadequate, BAT may require a higher

level of performance than is currently

being achieved based on technology

transferred from a different subcategory

or category. BAT may be based upon

process changes or internal controls,

even when these technologies are not

common industry practice.

4. New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)—Sec. 306 of the CWA

NSPS reflect effluent reductions that

are achievable based on the best

available demonstrated control

technology. New facilities have the

opportunity to install the best and most

efficient production processes and

wastewater treatment technologies. As a

result, NSPS should represent the most

stringent controls attainable through the

application of the best available control

technology for all pollutants (i.e.,

conventional, nonconventional, and

priority pollutants). In establishing

NSPS, EPA is directed to take into

consideration the cost of achieving the

effluent reduction and any non-water

quality environmental impacts and

energy requirements.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES)—Sec. 307(b) of the CWA

PSES are designed to prevent the

discharge of pollutants that pass

through, interfere-with, or are otherwise

incompatible with the operation of

publicly-owned treatment works

(POTW). The CWA authorizes EPA to

establish pretreatment standards for

pollutants that pass through POTWs or

interfere with treatment processes or

sludge disposal methods at POTWs.

Pretreatment standards for existing

sources are technology-based and

analogous to BAT effluent limitations

guidelines.

The General Pretreatment

Regulations, which set forth the

framework for the implementation of

categorical pretreatment standards, are

found at 40 CFR Part 403. Those

regulations contain a definition of passthrough that addresses localized rather

than national instances of pass-through

and establish pretreatment standards

that apply to all non-domestic

discharges. See 52 FR 1586, January 14,

1987.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS)—Sec. 307(b) of the

CWA

Like PSES, PSNS are designed to

prevent the discharges of pollutants that

pass through, interfere-with, or are

otherwise incompatible with the

operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be

issued at the same time as NSPS. New

indirect dischargers have the

opportunity to incorporate into their

plants the best available demonstrated

technologies. The Agency considers the

same factors in promulgating PSNS as it

considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. Section 304(m) Requirements

Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by

the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires

EPA to establish schedules for (1)

reviewing and revising existing effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

(‘‘effluent guidelines’’) and (2)

promulgating new effluent guidelines.

On January 2, 1990, EPA published an

Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that

established schedules for developing

new and revised effluent guidelines for

several industry categories. One of the

industries for which the Agency

established a schedule was the

Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry.

The Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen, Inc.

filed suit against the Agency, alleging

violation of Section 304(m) and other

statutory authorities requiring

promulgation of effluent guidelines

(NRDC et al. v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89–2980

(D.D.C.)). Under the terms of the consent

decree in that case, as amended, EPA

agreed, among other things, to propose

effluent guidelines for the ‘‘Landfills

and Industrial Waste Combusters’’

category by November 1997 and final

action by November 1999. Although the

Consent Decree lists ‘‘Landfills and

Industrial Waste Combusters’’ as a

single entry, EPA is publishing separate

regulations for Industrial Waste

Combusters and for Landfills.

C. Brief History of Landfills Industry

and Proposed Guidelines

The growth of the landfills industry is

a direct result of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

and subsequent EPA and State

regulations that establish the conditions

under which solid waste may be

disposed. The implementation of the

increased control measures required by

RCRA has had a number of ancillary

effects on the landfill industry. On the

one hand, it has forced many landfills

to close because they lacked adequate

on-site controls to protect against

migration of hazardous constituents

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3011

2EPA’s Subtitle C and Subtitle D regulations

define ‘‘landfill’’. See 40 CFR 257.2, 258.2

(‘‘municipal solid waste landfill’’) and 260.10.

Permitted Subtitle C landfills are authorized to

accept hazardous wastes as defined in 40 CFR Part

261. Subtitle D landfills are authorized to receive

municipal, commercial or industrial waste that is

not hazardous (as well as hazardous waste excluded

from regulation under Subtitle C).

3These terms are defined at 40 CFR 257.2 and

260.10.

from the landfill, and it was not

economical to upgrade the landfill

facility. As a result, a large number of

landfills, especially facilities serving

small populations, have closed rather

than incur the significant expense of

upgrading.

Conversely, large landfill operations

have taken advantage of economies of

scale by serving wide geographic areas

and accepting an increasing portion of

the nation’s solid waste. For example,

responses to EPA’s Waste Treatment

Industry Survey indicated that 75

percent of the nation’s municipal solid

waste is deposited in large landfills

representing only 25 percent of the

landfill population.

EPA has identified several trends in

the waste disposal industry that may

increase the quantity of leachate

produced by landfills. More stringent

RCRA regulation and the restrictions on

the management of wastes have

increased the amount of waste disposed

at landfills as well as the number of

facilities choosing to send wastes offsite to commercial facilities in lieu of

pursuing on-site management options.

This will increase treated leachate

discharges from the nation’s landfills,

thus potentially putting at risk the

integrity of the nation’s waters. Further,

as a result of the increased number of

leachate collection systems, the volume

of leachate requiring treatment and

disposal has greatly increased.

On February 6, 1998, EPA proposed

Clean Water Act (CWA) national

effluent limitations guidelines and

pretreatment standards for wastewater

discharges from landfill facilities

regulated under Subtitle C or Subtitle D

of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA). 63 FR 6425.

The proposed regulation divided the

landfills industry into two

subcategories: (1) RCRA Subtitle C

Hazardous Waste Landfill Subcategory,

and (2) RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous

Waste Landfill Subcategory. For the

RCRA Subtitle C subcategory, EPA

proposed BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS

concentration-based limitations for 15

pollutants: BOD5, TSS, ammonia,

arsenic (total), chromium (total), zinc

(total), alpha-terpineol, aniline,

benzene, benzoic acid, naphthalene, pcresol, phenol, pyridine, and toluene;

EPA also proposed limitations for pH.

For PSES and PSNS for the hazardous

waste landfill subcategory, EPA

proposed pretreatment standards for six

pollutants: ammonia, alpha-terpineol,

aniline, benzoic acid, p-cresol, and

toluene.

For the RCRA Subtitle D subcategory,

EPA proposed BPT, BAT, BCT, and

NSPS concentration-based limitations

for nine parameters. These were BOD5,

TSS, ammonia, zinc (total), alphaterpineol, benzoic acid, p-cresol,

phenol, toluene; EPA also proposed

limitations for pH. EPA did not propose

PSES or PSNS for the RCRA Subtitle D

subcategory.

As proposed, the guidelines would

not apply to wastewater discharges from

captive landfills located at industrial

facilities under certain conditions. The

guidelines did not apply if the

industrial facility commingled landfill

process wastewater with non-landfill

process wastewater for treatment,

provided that the landfill received only

waste generated on-site or waste

generated from a similar activity at

another facility under the same

corporate structure. Further, the

proposed regulation did not apply to

wastewater discharges associated with

treatment of contaminated ground water

from hazardous and non-hazardous

landfills.

EPA solicited public comment on the

proposed rule; the comment period was

open from February 6 to May 7, 1998.

Section [X] describes the major

comments on the proposed rule and

EPA’s responses. The public record

includes a comment summary and

response document for this rulemaking.

III. The Final Landfills Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

This section discusses the

applicability of the final rule, the

landfill wastewater flows subject to the

rule, regulatory options considered, and

the rationale for the selected technology

options.

A. Overview of Final Rule

Today EPA is promulgating

technology-based effluent limitations for

wastewater discharges to navigable

waters associated with the operation of

new and existing hazardous and nonhazardous landfill facilities regulated

under Subtitle C or Subtitle D of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). EPA decided to promulgate

effluent limitation guidelines using the

same subcategorization approach

outlined in the proposal. For the RCRA

Subtitle C subcategory, EPA is

promulgating BPT, BAT, BCT, and

NSPS (BPT/BCT/BAT/NSPS) limitations

for fourteen parameters. These are

BOD5, TSS, ammonia, arsenic (total),

chromium (total), zinc (total), alphaterpineol, aniline, benzoic acid,

naphthalene, p-cresol, phenol, pyridine,

and pH. For the RCRA Subtitle D

subcategory, EPA is promulgating BPT/

BCT/BAT/NSPS limitations for nine

parameters. These are BOD5, TSS,

ammonia, zinc (total), alpha-terpineol,

benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, and pH.

Chapter 7 of the Technical Development

Document describes in detail EPA’s

selection of pollutants to regulate. The

final rule does not establish PSES or

PSNS for either subcategory.

B. Applicability and Scope of the Final

Rule

Today’s final effluent limitations

guidelines and standards cover

pollutants in wastewater discharges

associated only with the operation and

maintenance of those landfills regulated

under Subtitles C and D of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA).2 The rule applies to wastewater

generated at active landfills subject to

Subtitle C of RCRA and Subtitle C

landfills that closed after November 19,

1980, the effective date of 40 CFR Part

265. The guidelines do not apply to

discharges of landfill wastewater

associated with hazardous landfills that

went into a permanently inactive status

(i.e., they were not receiving any more

waste) before the effective date of 40

CFR Part 265. Similarly, the rule applies

to wastewater generated at active

landfills subject to Subtitle D of RCRA

and Subtitle D landfills that closed after

October 15, 1979, the effective date of

40 CFR Part 257. The guidelines do not

apply to discharges of landfill

wastewater associated with nonhazardous landfills that went into a

permanently inactive status (i.e., they

were not receiving any more waste)

before the effective date of 40 CFR Part

257.

Furthermore, this rule does not apply

to wastewater discharges associated

with the operation and maintenance of

land application or treatment units,

surface impoundments, underground

injection wells, waste piles, salt dome or

bed formations, underground mines,

caves or corrective action units.3

Additionally, this guideline does not

apply to waste transfer stations, or any

wastewater not directly attributed to the

operation and maintenance of Subtitle C

or Subtitle D landfill units.

Consequently, wastewater such as that

generated in off-site washing of vehicles

used in landfill operations is not within

the scope of this guideline.

3012 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1. Captive Landfills

In developing the proposed

guidelines, an important question EPA

addressed was how to treat landfill

leachate generated at a landfill that is

associated with an industrial or

commercial operation—so-called

‘‘captive’’ landfills. Currently, in the

case of wastewater sources that are not

subject to effluent limitations guidelines

and standards, NPDES permit writers

must impose limitations on discharges

of these wastewater sources that are

developed on a case-by-case, best

professional judgment (BPJ) basis.

Similarly, an indirect discharger may

not introduce any pollutants to a POTW

from these sources that will pass

through or interfere with the POTW’s

operations. Generally, each POTW is

required to develop a pretreatment

program and enforce the prohibition on

pass through and interference through

specific local limits.

EPA initially considered development

of effluent guidelines to address any

landfill discharging directly to surface

waters of the United States or

introducing pollutants into a POTW.

Consequently, EPA’s technical

evaluation for the proposal included an

assessment of virtually all landfill

facilities which collect wastewater as a

result of landfilling operations. EPA

proposed to exclude wastewater

discharges from captive landfills located

at industrial facilities in specific

circumstances. In the proposal, a

captive landfill would not have been

subject to the guidelines (1) if it

commingled landfill process wastewater

with non-landfill process wastewater for

treatment, and (2) the landfill received

only waste generated on-site or waste

generated from a similar activity at

another facility under the same

corporate structure.

EPA now determined that these

requirements are too restrictive and

therefore the Agency has decided not to

include captive landfills within the

scope of this guideline except in a

limited number of circumstances. The

Agency wants to stress, however, that

the effect of today’s decisions is not to

allow these wastewater sources to

escape treatment. Landfill wastewater at

captive facilities is and will remain

subject to treatment and controls on its

discharge. The CWA requires

wastewater discharges to meet

technology-based effluent limitations on

the discharge whether the mechanism

for imposing these limitations is EPAestablished national effluent limitations

guidelines or a permit writer’s

imposition on a case-by-case basis of

BPJ limitations. In like manner, in order

to prevent pass through or interference,

indirect dischargers must limit their

introduction of pollutants to a POTW

whether EPA has established national

categorical pretreatment standards for

the discharge or a POTW has

established local limits.

The following describes the

applicability of the final rule to captive

landfills. The final rule does not apply

to discharges of landfill wastewater

from captive landfills so long as one or

more of the following conditions are

met:

—The captive landfill is operated in

conjunction with other industrial or

commercial operations, and it only

receives wastes generated by the

industrial or commercial operation

directly associated with the landfill.

—The landfill is operated in

conjunction with other industrial or

commercial operations and it receives

both wastes generated by the industrial

or commercial operation directly

associated with the landfill as well as

other wastes and the other wastes

received for landfill disposal are

generated by a facility that is subject to

the same provisions in 40 CFR

Subchapter N as the receiving facility

directly associated with the landfill.

—The landfill is operated in

conjunction with other industrial or

commercial operations and it receives

wastes generated by the industrial or

commercial operation directly

associated with the landfill as well as

other wastes and the other wastes are

similar in nature to the wastes generated

by the industrial or commercial

operation directly associated with the

landfill.

—The landfill is operated in

conjunction with a Centralized Waste

Treatment (CWT) facility subject to 40

CFR Part 437 so long as the CWT facility

commingles the landfill wastewater

with other non-landfill wastewater for

treatment. If a CWT facility discharges

landfill wastewater separately from

other CWT wastewater or commingles

the wastewater from its landfill only

with wastewater from other landfills,

then the landfill discharge is subject to

this part.

—The landfill is operated in

conjunction with other industrial or

commercial operations, and it receives

wastes from public service activities (as

defined in Appendix A) and the landfill

does not receive a fee or other

remuneration for the disposal service.

For the final rule, EPA has modified

the proposal to remove the requirement

that a facility must commingle its

wastewater from a captive landfill with

the facility’s non-landfill process

wastewater for treatment in order not to

be subject to the landfills effluent

guideline, in most circumstances. For

the reasons described in detail below,

EPA did not remove the commingling

requirement for CWTs. In addition, EPA

also changed the conditions under

which captive landfills may accept offsite wastes and not be subject to this

guideline.

In the proposal, EPA stated that the

commingling requirement ensures that

wastewater from captive landfills will

undergo adequate treatment (treatment

that is comparable to the level of

treatment that would be required by the

landfills effluent guideline) prior to

discharge. EPA determined that the

commingling of landfill wastewater

with industrial wastewater for treatment

was an unnecessary requirement to

impose in nationally applicable

regulations for the reasons discussed

below. Permit writers are establishing

appropriate limits on these discharges

by either applying the effluent

limitations guidelines applicable to the

associated industrial activity to the

discharge or developing other BPJ

limitations. EPA recommends that

permit writers use this guideline when

developing these BPJ limitations.

From the information developed by

the Agency for this rulemaking and

confirmed by comments on the

proposal, EPA has concluded that

landfill wastewater generated by captive

landfills operated in conjunction with

and receiving the bulk of their waste

from an industrial or commercial

operation will have a similar pollutant

profile to the wastewater generated in

the industrial or commercial operation.

EPA has further concluded that the

wastewater generated by landfill

operations at most of the captive

facilities are already subject to effluent

guidelines. In the circumstances in

which the wastewater is not expressly

subject to effluent guidelines, EPA has

determined that permit writers generally

impose BPJ limitations on the discharge

of landfill wastewater that are similar to

the limitations applicable to the

discharge of industrial process

wastewater whether commingled or not.

EPA has compared the wastewater

treatment technologies employed at

many of the industrial facilities

operating landfills in conjunction with

the industrial or commercial operations

to the treatment technologies that EPA

used as the basis for the BPT/BAT limits

in this effluent guideline. The Agency’s

review of such situations shows that the

landfill wastewater receives treatment

that is comparable or better than the

level of treatment that would be

required by the landfills effluent

guideline.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3013

Consequently, EPA has decided to

eliminate the requirement of

commingling as a condition for a

captive landfill not to be subject to

landfill limitations and standards

(except in the case of CWTs). EPA has

concluded that landfill wastewater at

captive landfills is now and will

continue to receive adequate treatment

because the landfill wastewater

generally must meet the same effluent

limitations that would have been

required had the waste streams been

commingled. In cases where the permit

writer is establishing BPJ limitations for

the discharge of captive landfill

wastewater that is not commingled for

treatment, the permit writer should look

at the effluent guidelines applicable to

the associated industrial operation and

the effluent guidelines being

promulgated today for potential

guidance in setting those limitations.

Because of the nature of most CWTs,

EPA determined that the reasons that

generally supported exclusion of other

captive landfills would not apply in the

case of CWTs. As explained above, EPA

concluded that a captive landfill which

only received wastes generated in an

industrial or commercial operation

directly associated with the landfill or

similar wastes would generate a

leachate with a similar pollutant profile

to the other wastewater streams

produced at the industrial operation. In

such circumstances, the data reviewed

by EPA showed that the landfill

wastewater and other industrial

wastewater are generally commingled

for treatment and subject to the same

discharge limitations. In these

circumstances, it was appropriate not to

subject the landfill wastestream to this

guideline.

Because a CWT, by its very nature,

may generate a wide array of different

solid wastes for landfill disposal, it may

generate a leachate that varies

significantly from other streams being

treated at the CWT at the time the

leachate is collected. Therefore, EPA

concluded that the basis for the

exclusion—the similarity in

wastewater—would not necessarily

apply in the case of CWTs. EPA decided

that, in order to ensure that the CWT

landfill wastewater is treated

adequately, that the landfill wastewater

from a CWT landfill should be

commingled with other CWT

wastewater for treatment.

Based on comments received, the

Agency also determined that the

requirement in the proposal that solid

wastes deposited in the captive landfill

must either be generated on-site or from

an off-site facility under the same

corporate structure was too restrictive

and could often prohibit a company

from safely and properly disposing of

solid wastes accepted from tolling,

remediation, product stewardship, and

public service activities.

In the proposal, EPA narrowly limited

the universe of captive landfills that fall

outside the scope of this rule to captive

landfills that only accepted wastes from

on-site or from off-site facilities under

the same corporate structure. The reason

for this was essentially to ensure that

the captive landfills were only accepting

wastes that would be similar to those

wastes generated on-site. This in turn

would provide some degree of assurance

that the leachate generated from these

wastes would be compatible with the

on-site industrial wastewater treatment.

However, from the comments submitted

on this issue, EPA determined this

waste acceptance criterion for the

captive exclusion was too restrictive.

Those commenting on this issue

identified several waste acceptance

practices that are commonly used by

captive landfills that would not meet

the proposed exclusion criteria but are

consistent with EPA’s objective that

landfill leachate receive treatment

compatible with its expected

constituents. Many of these current

waste disposal practices are activities

that EPA encourages, and therefore EPA

has revised the exclusion criteria

pertaining to waste acceptance for

captive/intracompany landfills in order

to accommodate these disposal

practices.

Specifically, several commenters

requested that EPA broaden the criteria

for determining those captive landfills

that fall outside the scope of this rule to

include waste acceptance from tolling

and contract manufacturers, product

stewardship, company partnerships,

and remediation activities. EPA

concluded that waste disposal at captive

landfills from these types of activities

will, in most cases, result in leachate

that will be adequately controlled

through the implementation of

categorical or BPJ limitations at the

facility. However, EPA remains

concerned that there are circumstances

in which inter-company waste products

deposited in the landfill may result in

contaminants in the leachate that may

not be compatible with the existing

industrial wastewater treatment system

or may not be covered adequately by the

existing industrial effluent guideline.

Therefore, one of the alternative

conditions for the revised applicability

provisions of the guideline described

above for captive landfills provides that

waste accepted at the captive landfill

must be of a similar nature to the wastes

generated at the operation with the

associated landfill. Thus, the permitting

authority must determine that wastes

accepted for disposal at a captive

landfill are of a similar nature to the

waste generated at the facility directly

associated with the captive landfill.

Factors that the permit writer should

consider in determining whether a

waste is similar are described at Section

[VIII].

In addition, commenters also

requested that EPA include the

acceptance of wastes for disposal as a

public service as a category of landfill

practices that qualify for the captive

exclusion. EPA agrees and has included

such a provision. EPA applauds the

efforts of manufacturing facilities who

provide members of their communities

with a cost effective and

environmentally safe means for

disposing of their solid waste.

Therefore, in the final rule, EPA

determined that this rule shall not apply

to those landfills operated in

conjunction with other industrial or

commercial operations which receive

other wastes from public service

activities so long as the company

owning the landfill does not receive a

fee or other remuneration for the

disposal service. EPA’s decision not to

subject captive landfills that accept offsite wastes for disposal as a public

service is not inconsistent with its

decision generally to condition nonapplicability on the similarity of wastes

accepted for disposal. Based on its

review of data collected for this

guideline and comments received, EPA

concluded that the quantity of wastes

accepted for disposal as a public service

would not in any measurable way affect

the pollutant profile of the leachate

generated by the landfill even if

dissimilar. Of course, these wastewater

flows still remain subject to treatment to

achieve BPJ permit limits reflecting the

landfill contribution to the facility

discharge.

The Agency has determined that

whether captive landfills accepting

wastes from off-site or from a company

not within the same corporate structure

on a non-commercial basis should be

subject to the landfills effluent guideline

should hinge on the ability of the

captive landfill to handle the waste in

an appropriate manner. Therefore, the

Agency concluded that waste

acceptance criterion for determining

those captive landfills that fall outside

the scope of this rule should be based

on the similarity of the waste accepted

for disposal from another facility to the

waste generated by the industrial or

commercial operation directly

associated with the landfill. In the case

of captive landfills treating similar

3014 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

wastes, the permit writer should base

permit limits on limitations for the

guideline to which the industrial or

commercial operation is subject or

establish BPJ limitations. Again, the

permit writer, if developing BPJ

limitations, should consider today’s

guidelines as guidance in this effort.

2. Landfill Wastewater—The

wastewater covered by the rule includes

leachate, gas collection condensate,

drained free liquids, laboratory-derived

wastewater, contaminated storm water

and contact washwater from truck

exteriors and surface areas which have

come in direct contact with solid waste

at the landfill facility. However, ground

water and wastewater from recovery

pumping well operations which have

been contaminated by a landfill and are

collected and discharged are excluded

from this guideline and covered by BPJ

limitations. This section later discusses

the exclusion from the rule for

contaminated ground water flows and

Section [VIII] of today’s final rule

addresses implementation issues

associated with contaminated ground

water. The wastewater associated with

the landfills industry is described

below.

a. Leachate, as defined in 40 CFR

258.2, is liquid that has passed through

or emerged from solid waste and

contains soluble, suspended, or miscible

materials removed from such waste.

Over time the potential for certain

pollutants to move into the wider

environment increases. As water passes

through the landfill, it may ‘‘leach’’

pollutants from the disposed waste

moving them deeper into the soil. This

presents a potential hazard to public

health and the environment through

ground water contamination and other

means. One measure used to prevent the

movement of toxic and hazardous waste

constituents from a landfill is a landfill

liner operated in conjunction with a

leachate collection system. Leachate is

typically collected from a liner system

placed at the bottom of the landfill.

Leachate also may be collected through

the use of slurry walls, trenches or other

containment systems. The leachate

generated varies from site to site based

on a number of factors including: the

types of waste accepted; operating

practices (including shedding, daily

cover and capping); the depth of fill;

compaction of wastes; annual

precipitation; and landfill age. Landfill

leachate accounts for over 95 percent of

the wastewater covered by this rule.

b. Gas Collection Condensate is liquid

which has condensed in a gas collection

system during the extraction of gas from

the landfill. Gases such as methane and

carbon dioxide are generated due to

microbial activity within the landfill

and must be removed to avoid

hazardous, explosive conditions. In gas

collection systems, gases containing

high concentrations of water vapor

condense in traps staged throughout the

gas collection network. The gas

condensate may contain volatile, semivolatile, and metal compounds and

usually accounts for a relatively small

percentage of flow from a landfill.

c. Drained Free Liquids are aqueous

wastes drained from waste containers

(e.g. drums, trucks) or wastewater

resulting from waste stabilization prior

to landfilling. Landfills which accept

containerized waste may generate this

type of wastewater. Wastewater

generated from these waste processing

activities is collected and usually

combined with other landfill generated

wastewater for treatment at the

wastewater treatment plant.

d. Truck/Equipment Washwater is

generated during either truck or

equipment washes at landfills. During

routine maintenance or repair

operations, trucks and/or equipment

used within the landfill (e.g., loaders,

compactors, or dump trucks) are washed

and the resultant wastewater is

collected for treatment. In addition, it is

common practice for many facilities to

wash the wheels, body, and

undercarriage of trucks used to deliver

the waste to the open landfill face upon

leaving the landfill. On-site wastewater

treatment equipment and storage tanks

are also periodically cleaned.

e. Laboratory-Derived Wastewater is

generated from on-site laboratories

which characterize incoming waste

streams and monitor on-site treatment

performance.

f. Contaminated storm water is storm

water which comes in direct contact

with landfill wastes, the waste handling

and treatment areas, or wastewater that

is subject to the limitations and

standards. Some specific areas of a

landfill that may produce contaminated

storm water include (but are not limited

to) the open face of an active landfill

with exposed waste (no cover added),

the areas around wastewater treatment

operations, trucks, equipment or

machinery that has been in direct

contact with the waste, and waste

dumping areas.

g. Non-contaminated storm water

includes storm water which does not

come in direct contact with landfill

wastes, the waste handling and

treatment areas, or wastewater that are

subject to the limitations and standards.

Non-contaminated storm water includes

storm water which flows off the cap,

cover, intermediate cover, daily cover,

and/or final cover of the landfill.

EPA received extensive comments on

its proposal to include contaminated

storm water as a regulated waste stream

under the landfills effluent guidelines.

Several commenters stated that

contaminated storm water (storm water

that comes into contact with solid waste

at the landfill site) should not be subject

to the landfills effluent limitations

guidelines because this is already

covered by the Final National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System Storm

Water Multi-sector General Permit

(MSGP) for Industrial Activities (60 FR

50803).

The Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan (SWPPP) required by the storm

water MSGP or an authorized State’s

equivalent general permit requires

landfill facilities to identify all of the

sources of storm water contamination at

the landfill and then implement

measures and controls (such as good

housekeeping for materials storage,

sediment and erosion controls—

particularly from intermediate and final

covers) in an effort to prevent storm

water contamination. EPA believes that

the storm water MSGP (or an authorized

State’s equivalent general permit)

adequately controls pollutants from

storm water runoff from covered areas of

the landfill.

Covered areas of the landfill include

the following: capped, final cover,

intermediate cover, and daily cover

areas. The Agency believes that the

SWPPP and the monitoring

requirements in the storm water MSGP

provide adequate controls for reducing

the level of pollutants in storm water

from these areas of landfills.

EPA recognizes that there may be

some incidental contact with wastes

when storm water flows over a daily or

intermediate cover. However, EPA

concluded that such contact will not

lead to any meaningful ‘‘contamination’’

of the storm water so long as the landfill

complies with the requirements of the

storm water MSGP or an authorized

State’s equivalent general permit. For

example, the Best Management Practices

(BMPs) outlined in Table L–1 and L–2

of the storm water MSGP (60 FR 50940)

and the monitoring requirements in

Table L–5 and L–6 for TSS and total

recoverable iron (60 FR 50943) provide

adequate controls for the pollutants that

would most likely be associated with

runoff from covered areas of nonhazardous landfills.

Similarly, for hazardous landfills,

BMPs and monitoring requirements

outlined in Table K–2 (60 FR 50935)

and Table K–3 (60 FR 50936),

respectively, also require controls for

pollutants associated with runoff from

covered areas of a landfill. In EPA’s

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3015

view, BMPs provide a fair degree of

control of these pollutants and the

monitoring requirements of the MSGP

provide a tool for evaluating the

effectiveness of the pollution prevention

plan.

As part of the Agency’s continuing

effort to improve its environmental and

pollution control programs, EPA has

concluded that, although the MSGP

provides some control for contaminated

storm water runoff, the landfills effluent

limitations guidelines provide a more

comprehensive level of control for storm

water runoff that has come in direct

contact with solid waste, waste

handling and treatment areas, or

wastewater flows that are controlled

under this rule. Although the storm

water MSGP considered circumstances

in which untreated leachate may be

incidently commingled with storm

water, the Agency explicitly

acknowledged in the MSGP that

insufficient data were available to

establish numeric limits for storm water

that might be contaminated based on

best available technology for municipal

solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) (60 FR

50942), non-hazardous industrial

landfills (60 FR 50943), and hazardous

landfills (60 FR 50935).

However, EPA has now concluded

that the data collected in support of the

landfills effluent limitations guidelines

provide the basis for establishing

appropriate numeric limitations for

contaminated storm water. EPA

specifically noted in the preamble for

the storm water MSGP that it was

developing these guidelines and that

where the guidelines applied to

discharges, facilities must comply with

them. (60 FR 50942). In addition, EPA

intends to propose a reissuance of the

storm water MSGP which would

include the promulgated landfills

effluent limitations for contaminated

storm water (as defined by these

guidelines).

EPA fully explains its rationale for

including contaminated storm water as

a regulated wastewater for the landfills

effluent guideline in the Comment

Response document found in the

Landfills Public Record.

h. Contaminated ground water is

water below the land surface in the zone

of saturation which has been

contaminated by landfill leachate. For

the final rule, EPA has not included

within the scope of regulated flows

ground water which has been

contaminated by a landfill and is

collected and discharged. The reasons

for this decision are as follows.

During development of the rule, EPA

considered whether it should also

include contaminated ground water

flows within the scope of this guideline.

Historically, many landfill operations

have caused the contamination of local

ground water, mostly as a result of

leakage from unlined landfill units in

operation prior to the minimum

technology standards for landfills

established by RCRA Subtitle C and D

regulations. Subsequently, State and

Federal action under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA) has required facilities to

clean up contaminated ground water. In

many cases this has resulted in the

collection, treatment and discharge of

treated ground water to surface waters.

In addition, in the case of RCRA Subtitle

C hazardous waste landfills and

municipal solid waste landfills

(MSWLFs), applicable regulatory

standards require ground water

monitoring and post-closure care and, in

the event of ground water

contamination, corrective action

measures. These requirements may also

result in treatment of contaminated

ground water by such landfill facilities.

EPA evaluated flows, pollutant

concentrations, treatment in place, and

current treatment standards for

discharges of contaminated ground

water from landfills. From this

evaluation, EPA concluded that

pollutants in contaminated ground

water flows are often very dilute or are

treated to very low levels prior to

discharge. EPA concluded that, whether

as a result of corrective action measures

taken pursuant to RCRA authority or

State action to clean up contaminated

landfill sites, landfill discharges of

treated contaminated ground water are

being adequately controlled.

Consequently, further regulation under

this rule would be redundant and

unnecessary.

EPA is aware that there are landfill

facilities that collect and treat both

landfill leachate and contaminated

ground water flows. In the case of such

facilities, EPA has concluded that

decisions regarding the appropriate

discharge limits should be left to the

judgment of the permit writer. As

indicated above, contaminated ground

water may be very dilute or may have

characteristics similar in nature to

leachate. In cases where the ground

water is very dilute the Agency is

concerned that contaminated ground

water may be used as a dilution flow. In

these cases, the permit writer should

develop BPJ permit limits based on

separate treatment and/or discharge of

the ground water flows or develop BPT/

BAT limits based on a flow-weighted

building block approach in order to

prevent dilution of the regulated

leachate flows. However, in cases where

the ground water may exhibit

characteristics similar to leachate,

commingled treatment is appropriate

because it is more cost effective and

environmentally beneficial than

separate treatment. EPA recommends

that the permit writer consider the

characteristics of the contaminated

ground water before making a

determination if commingling ground

water and leachate for treatment is

appropriate. See Section [VIII].

i. Recovering Pumping Wells

wastewater is generated as a result of

the various ancillary operations

associated with ground water pumping

operations. These operations include

construction and development, well

maintenance, and well sampling (i.e.,

purge water). The wastewater will have

very similar characteristics to

contaminated ground water. Therefore,

for the same reasons that EPA did not

include contaminated ground water as a

regulated wastewater, these regulations

do not apply to wastewater from

recovering pumping well operations.

C. Subcategorization

EPA proposed to divide the landfills

point source category into two

subcategories and to develop different

limitations and standards for RCRA

Subtitle C landfills and RCRA Subtitle

D landfills. After reviewing comments

on the subcategorization approach, EPA

decided to promulgate effluent

limitations guidelines using the same

subcategorization approach outlined in

the proposed rule.

For today’s final rule, EPA decided

that a single set of effluent limitations

were not appropriate for the landfills

industry and thus EPA developed

different limitations for subcategories

within the industry. In reaching its

decision that subcategorization is

required, EPA considered various

factors. In developing effluent limitation

guidelines, the Clean Water Act (CWA)

requires EPA to assess a number of

factors, including manufacturing

processes, products, the size and age of

a site, water use, and wastewater

characteristics. The landfills industry is

not typical of many other industries

regulated under the CWA. Therefore,

EPA looked at additional factors

specifically tailored to the

characteristics of landfill operations in

deciding what limitations were

appropriate for landfills. The factors

considered for subcategorization

included RCRA classification, types of

wastes received, wastewater

characteristics, facility size, age,

ownership status, location, economic

impacts, treatment technology

3016 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

employed, energy requirements, and

non-water quality environmental

impacts. Based on an evaluation of these

factors, EPA determined that there was

a notable distinction between

wastewater associated with Subtitle C

landfills and that from Subtitle D

landfills. A wider range of toxic organic

pollutants and higher concentration of

metals were found at the Subtitle C

landfills. Thus, the most significant

differences observed in wastewater

characteristics at landfills are directly

related to the wastes received at the

landfill, which, in turn, is most

obviously linked to the landfill’s RCRA

status. Therefore, EPA concluded that

the most appropriate basis for

subcategorization is by landfill

classification under RCRA.

Additionally, the Agency believes that

this subcategorization approach has the

virtue of being easiest to implement

because it follows the same

classification previously established

under RCRA and currently in use (and

widely understood) by permit writers

and regulated entities. The Agency

believes that any subcategorization at

odds with existing RCRA classification

approaches would potentially create

unnecessary confusion to the regulated

community.

Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 445, ‘‘RCRA

Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill

Subcategory,’’ applies to wastewater

discharges from a solid waste disposal

facility subject to the criteria in 40 CFR

Part 264 Subpart N—Standards for

Owners and Operators of Hazardous

Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Facilities and 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart

N—Interim Standards for Owners and

Operators of Hazardous Waste

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Facilities. Hazardous waste landfills are

subject to requirements outlined in 40

CFR Parts 264 and 265 that include the

requirement to maintain a leachate

collection and removal systems during

the active life and post-closure period of

the landfill. For a discussion of these

criteria, see the preamble to the

proposed landfill guideline at 63 FR

6426, 6430–31. (February 6, 1998).

Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 445, ‘‘RCRA

Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste

Landfill Subcategory,’’ applies to

wastewater discharges from all landfills

classified as RCRA Subtitle D nonhazardous landfills subject to either of

the criteria established in 40 CFR Parts

257 (Criteria for Classification of Solid

Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices)

or 258 (Criteria for Municipal Solid

Waste Landfills). For a discussion of

these criteria, see the preamble to the

proposed landfill guideline at 63 FR

6426, 6431–32. (February 6, 1998).

EPA received a number of comments

requesting that EPA further subdivide

Subtitle D landfill facilities according to

the specific type of waste received.

These commenters claimed that the

differences in wastewater characteristics

between municipal solid waste landfills

and monofills warranted further

subcategorization. In addition, a group

representing utility ash monofills

suggested EPA develop separate

limitations for such landfills. The group

asserted that the organic content in ash

monofill wastewater was so low that it

would not sustain biological treatment,

which EPA used as the basis for BPT,

BCT, BAT and NSPS limitations. EPA

did consider subcategorizing the NonHazardous subcategory further but

chose not to based on several factors

explained in detail in Section [X]. EPA

decided to include monofills in the

Non-Hazardous subcategory and

concluded that, based on the available

raw wastewater data, such facilities can

meet the BPT/BAT limitations using

technologies that are available at costs

no greater than those technologies EPA

evaluated (and determined to be

economically achievable) for the

universe of Subtitle D facilities.

D. Profile of the Landfills Industry

At proposal, EPA stated that there

were approximately 11,000 landfill

facilities located throughout the country

in 1992. EPA has determined that the

vast majority of these facilities either

closed prior to the enactment of Subtitle

C or Subtitle D regulations or do not

generate wastewater covered by this

regulation. Based on survey responses,

EPA believes that the final guidelines

will affect 143 facilities.

In the case of landfills subject to

regulation under Subtitle D, EPA

projects that there are 143 stand-alone

landfill facilities that discharge in-scope

wastewater directly to receiving

streams. EPA estimates that there are

756 stand-alone Subtitle D landfill

facilities that collect in-scope

wastewater but discharge indirectly to a

POTW. These facilities will not be

affected by this final rule because EPA

is not establishing pretreatment

standards for non-hazardous, Subtitle D

landfills. EPA determined that these

discharges did not generally pass

through or interfere with POTW

operations so as to require national

pretreatment standards. There are an

additional 338 Subtitle D facilities that

collect in-scope wastewater but do not

discharge to surface waters or to POTWs

and are also not affected by today’s rule.

These facilities dispose of their

wastewater by hauling off-site to a

centralized waste treatment facility,

evaporation, recirculation back to the

landfill, or land application.

With respect to landfills subject to

regulation under Subtitle C, EPA

estimates that there are no hazardous

stand-alone landfill facilities

discharging directly to surface waters. It

is possible, however, that EPA’s data

collection efforts did not identify an

existing, stand-alone direct discharging

hazardous landfill facility or that an

indirect (or zero discharging), standalone hazardous landfill facility may

become a direct discharger.

Consequently, EPA is establishing

effluent limitations for direct

discharging hazardous landfills. EPA

estimates that there are six stand-alone

hazardous landfill facilities that

discharge indirectly to POTWs. In

response to comments on the proposal,

EPA decided not to establish

pretreatment standards for hazardous

Subtitle C landfills again because it

decided national standards were not

required. EPA estimates that there are

139 hazardous landfills which collect

in-scope wastewater but do not

discharge wastewater to surface waters

or to a POTW. Methods of wastewater

disposal include hauling wastewater offsite to a centralized waste treatment

facility, underground injection, and

solidification. Additionally, EPA

estimates that there are more than 150

industrial facilities which contain

landfills but would be excluded from

this regulation as a result of the factors

discussed at Section [III.B].

E. Technology Basis for Final Rule

This section explains how EPA

selected the technologies that form the

basis for effluent limitations and

standards being promulgated today for

the Hazardous Landfill and NonHazardous Landfill subcategories. For

both the proposed and final rule, EPA

developed information to evaluate the

performance of various systems for

treating landfill wastewater. EPA’s

database consisted of daily effluent data

collected from the Detailed Monitoring

Questionnaire and EPA’s Wastewater

Sampling Program. (EPA’s data

gathering efforts are explained in detail

in the preamble to the proposal at 63 FR

6433–35.)

EPA has revised the database since

the proposal for a number of reasons.

First, the regulatory status for some

landfills in the database has changed.

EPA excluded from the analysis

landfills that were no longer considered

in the scope of the rule (for example,

some captive landfills). Second, some

landfills in the database have changed

discharge status. EPA had inadvertently

included two landfill facilities as direct

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3017

dischargers in the analyses for the

proposal when the facilities were

actually indirect dischargers. Third, in

the loadings reduction analysis for the

proposed rule, EPA included removals

of volatile organic compounds

associated with biological treatment.

However, for the final rule, EPA

determined that removals of volatile

organic compounds should not be

included because the biological and

chemical treatment options being

considered did not provide treatment

for the volatile compounds. Fourth, for

the final rule, EPA also revised the longterm averages for several pollutants to

reflect more accurately the pollutant

removals achieved by the technology

options. The Agency based these

revisions on re-analysis of the dataset

used for proposal.

The effluent limitations EPA is

establishing today are based on welldesigned, well-operated systems. EPA

based the final limitations on treatment

achieved by landfill facilities employing

the selected technologies. A landfill

operator may, however, use any

wastewater treatment technology and/or

waste management practices to meet the

numerical wastewater discharge

limitations.

1. Best Practicable Control Technology

Currently Available (BPT)

In today’s rulemaking, EPA is

establishing BPT effluent limitations for

the two discharge subcategories for the

Landfills Point Source Category. The

BPT effluent limitations promulgated

today will control identified

conventional, priority, and

nonconventional pollutants when

discharged from landfill facilities. For

further discussion of the basis for the

limitations, technologies selected, and

the factors EPA considered in its

decision, see the Technical

Development Document and the

preamble to the proposed rule at 63 FR

6441.

a. BPT Options Considered and

Selected for the RCRA Subtitle D

Landfills Subcategory. The BPT options

analyzed for today’s final rule are

identical to those evaluated for the

proposal. In the Agency’s engineering

assessment, EPA first considered three

technologies commonly in use by

landfills and other industries as options

for BPT. These technology options were

chemical precipitation, biological

treatment, and multimedia filtration.

For its evaluation of chemical

precipitation, EPA collected raw

wastewater and treated effluent data

from several non-hazardous landfills

employing this treatment. Based on this

data, EPA removed chemical

precipitation from further consideration

as a BPT treatment option. While

chemical precipitation is an effective

treatment technology for the removal of

metals, non-hazardous landfills

typically have low concentrations of

metals in treatment system influent

wastewater. Observed metals

concentrations were typically not found

at levels that would inhibit biological

treatment or that would be effectively

removed by a chemical precipitation

unit. Therefore, EPA considered only

the following two options for BPT.

• Option I—Biological Treatment.

EPA first assessed the pollutant removal

performance of biological treatment.

EPA selected this as Option I due to its

effectiveness in removing the large

organic loads commonly associated with

leachate. BPT Option I consists of

aerated equalization followed by

biological treatment. EPA included

various types of biological treatment

such as activated sludge, aerated

lagoons, and anaerobic and aerobic

biological towers or fixed film reactors

in calculating limits for this option. The

Agency based the costs for Option I on

the cost of aerated equalization followed

by an extended aeration activated

sludge system and clarification,

including sludge dewatering.

Approximately 30 percent of the direct

discharging municipal solid waste

landfills employed some form of

biological treatment, and 13 percent had

a combination of equalization and

biological treatment.

• Option II—Biological Treatment

and Multimedia Filtration. The second

technology option considered for BPT

treatment of non-hazardous landfill

wastewater was aerated equalization

and biological treatment as described in

Option I, followed by multimedia

filtration. Approximately 10 percent of

the direct discharging municipal solid

waste facilities used the technology

described in Option II.

EPA is promulgating BPT effluent

limitations for the Non-Hazardous

Landfills subcategory based on Option II

because of the demonstrated ability of

biological treatment systems in

controlling organic pollutants and the

effectiveness of multimedia filtration in

removing TSS. EPA is maintaining its

decision at proposal to base BPT on

Option II level of control. EPA’s

decision to base BPT limitations on

Option II treatment reflects primarily

two factors: (1) The degree of effluent

reductions attainable and (2) the total

cost of the treatment technologies in

relation to the effluent reductions

achieved.

No basis could be found for

developing different BPT limitations

based on age, size, process or other

engineering factors. EPA responds to

comments regarding the development of

separate BPT limitations for monofills

and BPT limitations based on the age of

the landfill at Section [X].

EPA has selected Option II based on

the comparison of the two options in

terms of total costs of achieving the

effluent reductions, pounds of pollutant

removals, economic impacts, and

general environmental effects of the

reduced pollutant discharges. BPT

Option II removed 142,000 more pounds

of conventional pollutants than Option

I. EPA estimated that Option I would

have cost approximately $7.30 million

per year (1998$, after-tax) while EPA

estimated that Option II will cost only

slightly more—$7.64 million per year

(1998$, after-tax).

Finally, EPA also looked at the costs

of all options to determine the economic

impact that today’s rule would have on

the landfill industry. EPA’s assessment

showed that under either option there

were significant economic impacts on

only two facilities. Further discussion

on the economic impact analysis can be

found in Section [V] of today’s notice.

EPA is today promulgating effluent

limitations for the following pollutants

under BPT for direct discharging nonhazardous landfills: BOD5, TSS, pH,

ammonia, alpha terpineol, benzoic acid,

p-cresol, phenol, and zinc (total).

b. BPT Technology Options

Considered and Selected for the RCRA

Subtitle C Landfill Subcategory. EPA’s

survey of the hazardous landfills

industry identified no in-scope landfill

facilities that discharge directly to

surface water. All of the hazardous

landfills within the scope of today’s rule

are either indirect or zero/alternative

dischargers. EPA consequently could

not evaluate any treatment systems in

place at direct discharging hazardous

landfills for establishing BPT effluent

limitations. Therefore, EPA relied on

information and data from widely

available treatment technologies in use

at hazardous landfill facilities

discharging indirectly and at nonhazardous landfills discharging

directly—so-called ‘‘technology

transfer.’’ EPA concluded that the

technology in place at some indirect

hazardous landfills is appropriate to use

as the basis for regulation of direct

dischargers because the pollutant profile

of the leachate generated at hazardous

waste landfills discharging directly

would be similar in character to that

from indirect discharge hazardous waste

landfills.

For the final rule, EPA considered the

following three potential technology

options for establishing BPT effluent

3018 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

limitations for the Hazardous Landfill

subcategory:

• Option I—Aerated equalization

followed by chemical precipitation with

primary clarification and multimedia

filtration.

• Option II—Aerated equalization

followed by chemical precipitation with

primary clarification, biological

treatment with secondary clarification

and multimedia filtration.

• Option III—Zero or alternative

discharge.

EPA evaluated the same treatment

options for establishing limitations that

it had evaluated at proposal. As

previously noted, in developing the

proposed limitations, EPA relied, in

part, on data from non-hazardous direct

dischargers employing well-operated

treatment systems. In the case of the

proposed TSS limitations, EPA relied on

data from two facilities that followed

chemical precipitation and biological

treatment with multimedia filtration.

While the proposal did not specifically

discuss filtration as a final treatment

step, the Development Document for the

proposal fully explained the treatment

system, including multimedia filtration,

in place at the two facilities used to

develop the proposed TSS limitation.

EPA evaluated chemical precipitation

as a treatment technology because of

metals concentrations typically found in

hazardous landfill leachate and the

efficient metals removals achieved

through chemical precipitation. EPA

also evaluated biological treatment as an

appropriate technology because of its

ability to remove organic loads present

in the leachate. The Agency also

considered multimedia filtration to be

an appropriate technology for

consideration. In the first two options

listed above, multimedia filters are

effective in removing TSS that might

remain after primary or secondary

clarification. Finally, EPA considered a

zero or alternative discharge option as a

potential BPT requirement because a

significant segment of the industry is

currently not discharging wastewater to

surface waters or to POTWs. The zero or

alternative disposal option would

require facilities to dispose of their

wastewater in a manner that would not

result in wastewater discharge to a

surface water or a POTW.

EPA eliminated Option I from

consideration because it did not control

organic pollutants effectively. As was

the case in the proposal, EPA also

decided to eliminate Option III because,

for the industry as a whole, zero or

alternative discharge options are either

not viable or the cost is wholly

disproportionate to the pollutant

reduction benefits and thus it is not

‘‘practicable.’’ Methods of achieving

zero or alternative discharge currently

in use by hazardous landfills are deep

well injection, solidification, and

contract hauling of wastewater to a

Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

facility or to a landfill wastewater

treatment facility. Thirty seven facilities

are estimated to inject landfill

wastewater underground on-site; 103

facilities send their wastewater to a

CWT or landfill treatment system; and

one facility solidifies wastewater.

The commenters’ submissions

support EPA’s decision to reject zero or

alternative discharge as the technology

basis for BPT (or BAT) limitations for

hazardous landfills. While EPA

supports the use of zero or alternative

discharges particularly where it does

not result in media transfer of

pollutants, many of the available zero

discharge options have identifiable

shortcomings such as transfer of waste

residuals to another media or the

availability of an alternative disposal

option only in certain geographic

locations.

For example, one demonstrated

alternative disposal option for large

wastewater flows is underground

injection. However, this is not

considered a practically available option

on a nationwide basis because it is not

allowed in many geographic regions of

the country where landfills may be

located. These restrictions may preclude

underground injection at a given

landfill. In such circumstances, landfills

would need to resort to contract hauling

to a Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

facility. Unless the CWT itself were a

zero discharge facility, the ultimate

result would be treatment and discharge

to surface waters or a POTW following

waste treatment that may be no more

effective than that which could have

been provided on-site. This might result

in substantial transportation costs for

the landfill and associated non-water

quality, environmental impacts (e.g.,

truck emissions) resulting in no net

reduction in the discharge of pollutants.

EPA’s survey demonstrated that only

landfills with relatively low flows

(under 500 gallons per day) currently

contract haul their wastewater to a

CWT. The costs of contract hauling are

directly proportional to the volume of

wastewater and distance over which it

must be transported, generally making it

excessively costly to send large

wastewater flows to a CWT, particularly

if it is not located nearby.

EPA evaluated the cost of requiring all

hazardous landfills to achieve zero or

alternative discharge status. For the

purposes of costing, EPA assumed that

a facility would have to contract haul

wastewater off-site because it may be

impossible to pursue other zero or

alternative discharge options. EPA

concluded that the cost of contract

hauling off-site for high flow facilities

was unreasonably high and

disproportionate to the removals

potentially achieved. In addition, EPA

concluded that the wastewater shipped

to a CWT will typically receive

treatment equivalent to that

promulgated today, and that zero/

alternative discharge requirements

would result in additional costs to

discharge without greater removals for

hazardous landfill wastewater.

Based on the characteristics of

hazardous landfill leachate and on an

evaluation of appropriate technology

options, the Agency selected Option II

(aerated equalization followed by

chemical precipitation and biological

treatment with secondary clarification

followed by multimedia filtration) as

BPT technology for the Hazardous

subcategory. EPA’s decision to base BPT

limitations on Option II treatment

reflects primarily two factors: (1) the

degree of effluent reductions attainable

and (2) the total cost of the treatment

technologies in relation to the effluent

reductions achieved.

Although EPA did not identify any

existing hazardous landfill facilities that

discharged directly to surface waters,

EPA estimated the cost of treatment and

pollutant removal for a medium-sized

facility. EPA estimates that for a facility

with a wastewater flow of 25,000

gallons per day, the selected technology

option would result in the removal of

over 200,000 pounds of pollutants at an

annualized cost of $192,400. EPA has

determined that the selected technology

option costs are reasonable in light of

the projected pollutant removals.

Because EPA did not identify any

existing hazardous landfill facilities that

discharged directly to surface waters,

EPA’s compliance costs for BPT for this

subcategory are zero.

As previously noted, EPA relied on

data from both hazardous and nonhazardous facilities to develop the

limitations for this subcategory. Because

there are currently no hazardous

landfills discharging directly, EPA used

data from indirectly discharging

facilities to develop the limitations.

EPA identified three Subtitle C

landfills that discharge to POTWs. The

wastewater flow from one of the three

facilities was very small (less than 1,000

g.p.d.) and consisted of only gas

collection condensate and required only

minimal treatment (neutralization using

ammonia) prior to discharge to the

POTW. Consequently, EPA did not

consider this facility as appropriate for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3019

establishing BPT limitations. The two

remaining facilities both had treatment

systems in place that achieved very

good pollutant reductions. The

treatment at one facility consisted of

equalization and chemical precipitation

followed by activated sludge biological

treatment with secondary clarification.

The second facility utilized equalization

followed by three ‘‘sequencing batch

reactor’’ biological treatment units

operated in parallel. The treatment

systems in place at these indirect

hazardous facilities achieved low

effluent concentrations with average

removals of 88 to 98 percent of organic

toxic pollutants, and 55 to 80 percent of

metal pollutants. Thus, EPA concluded

that it should use both facilities in the

development of the Hazardous

subcategory BPT limitations for

nonconventional and toxic pollutants.

However, for the ammonia, BOD5, and

TSS limitations, EPA concluded that

establishing BPT limits based solely on

two indirect discharging treatment

systems was not appropriate because

indirect dischargers often do not operate

their treatment systems to achieve

optimal control of these pollutants. In

the case of BOD5 and TSS, POTWs do

not often establish local standards

because the POTWs install treatment

designed specifically to treat these

pollutants. In the case of ammonia,

some POTWs do not establish standards

because they have installed advanced

treatment for ammonia control. Other

POTWs may establish ammonia

standards based on local water quality

concerns. EPA supplemented the

Hazardous subcategory data for these

three pollutants with data from nonhazardous landfill facilities. For BOD5,

EPA used data from both of the

Hazardous subcategory BPT facilities

and the Non-Hazardous subcategory

BPT facilities to calculate the

limitations. Because neither of the

Hazardous subcategory BPT facilities

used a multimedia filter (which is part

of the selected BPT Option), EPA based

the TSS limitation on the two NonHazardous subcategory BPT facilities

that employed multimedia filtration.

In the case of ammonia, EPA

concluded that it was not appropriate to

establish limits using the performance

of only indirect discharging facilities

because only one of these facilities in

the Hazardous subcategory

demonstrated good ammonia control.

Many POTWs with advanced or tertiary

treatment units for nutrient control may

not establish stringent local limits for

ammonia. Therefore, basing ammonia

limits only on indirect discharging

landfills may not appropriately reflect

the effluent discharge concentration of

ammonia achieved by well-operated

direct discharging landfills. Since EPA

considered only one indirectly

discharging hazardous facility to be a

good performer for the treatment of

ammonia, EPA chose to supplement the

hazardous data for this facility with data

from two non-hazardous BPT facilities,

one of which was a direct discharger.

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT)

In today’s rule, EPA is establishing

BCT effluent limitations guidelines

equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the

conventional pollutants for both

subcategories. (For an explanation of

how EPA determines BCT, see the

preamble to the proposed rule at 63 FR

6442.) In developing BCT limits, EPA

considered whether there are

technologies that achieve greater

removals of conventional pollutants

than selected for BPT, and whether

those technologies are cost-reasonable

according to EPA’s test. In each

subcategory, EPA identified no

technologies that can achieve greater

removals of conventional pollutants

than selected for BPT that are also costreasonable, and accordingly EPA is

promulgating BCT effluent limitations

equal to the BPT effluent limitations

guidelines.

3. Best Available Technology

Economically Achievable (BAT)

EPA today is establishing BAT

effluent limitations for both

subcategories in the Landfills Category

based on the same technologies selected

for BPT. The BAT effluent limitations

promulgated today would control

identified priority and nonconventional

pollutants discharged from facilities.

EPA finds that the selected technology

options are economically achievable.

EPA has not identified any more

stringent treatment technology option

which it considered to represent BAT

level of control applicable to facilities in

this industry.

a. Rationale for Setting BAT

Equivalent to BPT for the NonHazardous Landfill Subcategory. EPA

evaluated reverse osmosis technology as

a potential option for establishing BAT

effluent limits more stringent than BPT

for the control of toxic pollutants. The

Agency selected reverse osmosis for

evaluation because of its effective

control of a wide variety of toxic

pollutants in addition to controlling

conventional and nonconventional

parameters.

EPA evaluated BAT treatment options

as an increment to the baseline

treatment technology used to develop

BPT limits. Therefore, the BAT Option

III consisted of BPT Option II (biological

treatment followed by multimedia

filtration) followed by a single stage

reverse osmosis unit.

After an assessment of costs and

pollutant reductions associated with

reverse osmosis, EPA has concluded

that it should not establish BAT limits

based on more stringent treatment

technology than the BPT technology.

EPA concluded that a biological system

followed by multimedia filtration would

remove the majority of toxic pollutants,

leaving the single-stage reverse osmosis

to treat the very low levels of pollutants

that remained. In the Agency’s analysis,

BPT removed 170,000 pounds of toxic

pollutants per year whereas BAT Option

III (BPT followed by single-stage reverse

osmosis) removed 172,000 pounds of

toxic pollutants per year. As stated in

the proposal, EPA’s economic

assessment showed that BAT Option III

had significantly higher annual

compliance costs than the other options

evaluated and resulted in six additional

facilities experiencing moderate

economic impacts. (63 FR 6451).

In addition, establishment of BAT

Option III would not result in effluent

limitations significantly more stringent

than those established under BPT,

which is currently achieving very low

long-term average (LTA) effluent

concentrations. Therefore, the Agency

questioned whether the small additional

removal of pounds of toxic pollutants

achieved by BAT Option III justified the

large incremental cost for the reverse

osmosis treatment system. It should be

noted that reverse osmosis was much

more effective at removing the often

high quantities of dissolved metals such

as iron, manganese and aluminum.

These pollutants, however, are added to

the wastewater in treatment chemicals

to promote more effective precipitation

and are not regulated. For this reason,

EPA does not include them in the

calculation of pounds of toxic pollutants

and does not take credit for their

subsequent removal .

Several commenters on the proposal

supported EPA’s decision to reject

reverse osmosis as the selected

technology option. While EPA rejected

reverse osmosis as the basis for BAT

limitations because it was very

expensive and achieved very little

additional removal of pollutant, other

technical factors also supported this

decision. EPA agrees with the

commenters that there may be

additional site-specific costs associated

with the operation of reverse osmosis

systems at landfills that it could not

directly factor into its cost analysis. EPA

found that it was difficult to evaluate

potential operating and concentrate

3020 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

disposal problems and the associated

potential increase in the cost of

operating a reverse osmosis system at a

landfill. The fact that reverse osmosis is

a technology that concentrates rather

than destroys pollutants is an important

consideration. These concentrates still

need to be treated and disposed, and, as

noted by one commenter, some states

may not allow them to be recycled back

into the landfill. Further, recirculation

may inhibit rather than stimulate

anaerobic decomposition of the

landfilled wastes. While the sludges

generated by chemical precipitation and

biological treatment require minimal

treatment prior to disposal, reverse

osmosis concentrates may require

additional costly treatment steps prior

to final disposal.

b. Rationale for Setting BAT

Equivalent to BPT for the Hazardous

Landfill Subcategory. As stated in the

BPT analysis, EPA’s survey of the

hazardous landfills industry identified

no in-scope respondents which were

classified as direct dischargers. All of

the hazardous landfills in the EPA

survey were indirect or zero or

alternative dischargers. Therefore, the

Agency based BPT limitations on

technology transfer and treatment

systems in place for indirect dischargers

in the Hazardous subcategory and on

treatment systems in place for BPT

facilities in the Non-Hazardous

subcategory. In EPA’s engineering

assessment of possible BAT

technologies for direct discharging

hazardous facilities, EPA evaluated the

same three potential technology options

it had evaluated when it was developing

BPT limitations for the Hazardous

Landfill subcategory. EPA determined

that it should establish BAT limits

based on the same technology evaluated

for BPT limits. The Agency finds that

the selected technology is economically

achievable. EPA has identified no other

technologies that would represent BAT

level of control for this industry.

As explained in the BPT analysis,

EPA eliminated Option I (equalization,

chemical precipitation, and multimedia

filtration) from consideration because it

did not control organic pollutants

effectively. In addition, EPA concluded

that zero or alternative discharge is not

an available alternative treatment

technology for this industry. As

explained above, zero or alternative

discharge is not broadly applicable to

landfills or may result in the transfer of

waste residuals to other media.

4. New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)

a. Introduction. As previously noted,

under Section 306 of the Act, new

industrial direct dischargers must

comply with standards which reflect the

greatest degree of effluent reduction

achievable through application of the

best available demonstrated control

technologies. Congress envisioned that

new treatment systems could meet

tighter controls than existing sources

because of the opportunity to

incorporate the most efficient processes

and treatment systems into plant design.

Therefore, Congress directed EPA, in

establishing NSPS, to consider the best

demonstrated process changes, in-plant

controls, operating methods, and end-ofpipe treatment technologies that reduce

pollution to the maximum extent

feasible.

b. Rationale for Setting NSPS

Equivalent to BPT/BCT/BAT for Both

Subcategories. Today, EPA is

establishing New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) that would control

the same conventional, priority, and

nonconventional pollutants regulated by

the BPT/BCT/BAT effluent limitations

guidelines. The conventional treatment

technologies used to control pollutants

at existing facilities are fully applicable

to new facilities. Furthermore, EPA has

not identified any other technologies or

combinations of technologies that are

demonstrated for new sources that are

different from those used to establish

BPT/BCT/BAT for existing sources. In

the proposed rule, EPA solicited

comments and data on other

technologies that may be appropriate for

the treatment of landfill leachate from

new sources. One commenter urged

EPA to consider reverse osmosis as an

appropriate technology for the treatment

of leachate. While EPA acknowledges

that reverse osmosis can treat landfill

leachate to levels equivalent to and even

lower than the BAT limitations

promulgated today, EPA concluded that

the reverse osmosis treatment system

and the BAT treatment system achieved

essentially the same removals because

reverse osmosis did not remove

significantly more pounds of toxic

pollutants than the treatment option

selected as BAT. Moreover, as

previously explained, there may be

potential operating and disposal

problems associated with a reverse

osmosis system. Therefore, EPA

concluded that it should adopt NSPS

limitations that are identical to those in

each subcategory for BPT/BCT/BAT.

5. Pretreatment Standards For Existing

Sources (PSES)

Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA

to promulgate pretreatment standards

for pollutants that are not susceptible to

treatment by POTWs or which would

interfere with the operation of POTWs.

After a thorough analysis of indirect

discharging landfills in the EPA

database, EPA has decided not to

establish PSES for either subcategory in

the Landfills Point Source Category. For

the proposal, EPA proposed not to

establish pretreatment standards for

indirectly discharging landfills in the

Non-Hazardous subcategory. However,

for the Hazardous subcategory, EPA

proposed effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for six

pollutants. In response to its proposal,

EPA received a number of comments

supporting the decision not to propose

pretreatment standards for Subtitle D

landfills. In addition, a number of

commenters suggested that EPA should

also reconsider whether Subtitle C

landfills require national categorical

pretreatment standards. As a result of

these comments, EPA took a second

look at its data and determined that

pretreatment standards were not

necessary for the Landfills Point Source

Category.

For both subcategories, EPA looked at

a number of factors in deciding whether

a pollutant was not susceptible to

treatment at a POTW or would interfere

with POTW operations—the predicate

to establishment of pretreatment

standards. First, EPA assessed the

pollutant removals achieved at POTWs

relative to those achieved by landfills

using BAT treatment systems. Second,

EPA estimated the quantity of pollutants

likely to be discharged to receiving

waters after POTW removals. Third,

EPA studied whether any of the

pollutants introduced to POTWs by

landfills interfered with or were

otherwise incompatible with POTW

operations. EPA, in some cases, also

looked at the costs and other economic

impacts of pretreatment standards and

the effluent reduction benefits in light of

treatment systems currently in-place at

POTWs. The result of EPA’s evaluation

showed that POTWs could adequately

treat discharges of landfill pollutants.

Therefore, EPA is not establishing

pretreatment standards for either

subcategory in this point source

category.

As noted above, among the factors

EPA considers before establishing

pretreatment standards is whether the

pollutants discharged by an industry

pass through a POTW or interfere with

the POTW operation or sludge disposal

practices. One of the tools traditionally

used by EPA in evaluating whether

pollutants pass through a POTW, is a

comparison of the percentage of a

pollutant removed by POTWs with the

percentage of the pollutant removed by

discharging facilities applying BAT. In

most cases, EPA has concluded that a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3021

4For the proposed rule, EPA calculated the

POTW percent removal for ammonia to be 60

percent. However, upon applying the revised data

editing procedures to the 50–POTW Study, EPA has

now determined that ammonia POTW percent

removal is 39 percent.

pollutant passes through the POTW

when the median percentage removed

nationwide by representative POTWs

(those meeting secondary treatment

requirements) is less than the median

percentage removed by facilities

complying with BAT effluent

limitations guidelines for that pollutant.

For a full explanation of how EPA

performs its removal analysis, see

Chapter 7 of the Technical Development

Document.

In developing the final guidelines,

EPA has made a number of

modifications to its calculations of

pollutant removal used to compare

POTW operations with BAT treatment.

These changes are explained in greater

detail in this preamble as well as the

Technical Development Document and

EPA responses to individual comments

received on the proposal. For example,

the primary source of POTW percent

removal data used for removal

comparisons is an EPA document, ‘‘Fate

of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned

Treatment Works’’ (EPA 440/1–82/303)

commonly referred to as the ‘‘50–POTW

Study’’. The 50–POTW Study presents

data on 50 well-operated POTWs with

secondary treatment in removing toxic

pollutants. For its removal comparison

for this guideline, EPA eliminated

influent values that were close to the

detection limit, thereby minimizing the

possibility that low POTW removals

might simply reflect low influent

concentrations instead of being a true

measure of treatment effectiveness.

After revising the database, EPA

calculated POTW-specific percent

removals for each pollutant based on its

average influent and average effluent

values. The POTW percent removal

used for each pollutant for the

comparison is the median value of all

the POTW-specific percent removals for

that pollutant. EPA then compared the

median POTW percent removal to the

median percent removal for the BAT

option treatment technology in order to

determine pass through.

a. Rationale for Not Promulgating

PSES for the Non-Hazardous Landfill

Subcategory. The Agency today is not

establishing pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES) for the Nonhazardous Landfill Subcategory. The

Agency decided not to establish PSES

for this subcategory after an assessment

of the effect of landfill leachate on

receiving POTWs and the cost of

pretreatment standards.

EPA looked at three measures of

effects on POTWs: biological inhibition

levels, contamination of POTW

biosolids and a comparison of BAT and

POTW removals. For the proposed rule,

following procedures outlined above,

the removal comparison suggested that

one pollutant, ammonia, would pass

through in the Non-Hazardous

subcategory. However, EPA concluded

that ammonia was susceptible to

treatment and did not interfere with

POTW operations. Therefore, the

Agency did not propose to establish

national pretreatment standards for

ammonia.

Following the proposal, EPA

reviewed the data available in the

proposed record for both the POTW

percent removal calculations and the

BAT percent removal calculations and

made a number of adjustments. For the

proposal, EPA calculated the BAT

percent removals using data from welloperated biological treatment facilities

in EPA’s database. However, some of

these facilities did not pass the editing

criteria for selection as a BPT/BAT

facility. For the revised removal

comparison, EPA calculated percent

removals using data from only those

seven facilities that passed the BPT/

BAT editing criteria. In addition, in the

proposal, EPA inadvertently neglected

to use selected BAT facilities in the

calculation of percent removals for

several pollutants even though the data

for the facility passed the editing

criteria.

The result of this revised comparison

of removal for the Non-Hazardous

subcategory suggested that BAT removal

would be greater than POTW removal

for four pollutants: ammonia, benzoic

acid, p-cresol, and phenol. However, as

explained below, EPA concluded that

these pollutants do not pass through or

interfere with POTW operations on a

national basis and therefore has not

established national categorical

pretreatment regulations for these

pollutants. Moreover, as discussed later

in this section, EPA notes that adoption

of PSES would result in the removal of

only a small quantity of pollutants,

approximately 14 toxic pound

equivalents per facility per year. Such a

reduction is low relative to that seen in

other categorical pretreatment standards

promulgated by EPA. (See 64 FR 45077).

(i.) Pretreatment Standards for

Ammonia. EPA has decided not to

establish ammonia pretreatment

standards for several reasons. First,

while EPA’s removal comparison

suggests that ammonia in landfill

leachate is not as amenable to POTW

treatment as to pretreatment, in reality,

EPA has concluded that ammonia is

susceptible to POTW treatment on a

national basis. Further, landfill

discharges will not result in POTW

upsets or interfere with POTW

operations. The record indicates that

POTWs are not currently experiencing

any difficulty in adequately treating

ammonia discharges from Subtitle D

landfills. No POTWs commenting on the

proposal cited any persistent POTW

upsets associated with landfill leachate

discharges. Finally, EPA has determined

that pretreatment standards for

ammonia for landfill indirect

dischargers would be extremely costly.

In these circumstances, EPA has

concluded that ammonia is susceptible

to treatment by POTWs and national

pretreatment standards are not required.

Ammonia Removals. In the case of

ammonia, the median BAT percent

removal for the landfills industry is 99

percent compared to the median POTW

percent removal which is 39 percent. 4

This comparison suggests that ammonia

is not susceptible to treatment at a

POTW and passes through. However, as

discussed below, most subtitle D

landfills discharging to POTWs are

discharging small quantities of leachate

with an ammonia concentration

comparable to that observed in raw

sewage.

EPA’s data show that over 75 percent

of indirectly discharging landfills

discharge fewer than 10 pounds of

ammonia per day at a concentration

similar to that observed in raw sewage.

Because many POTWs are designed and

operated to treat ammonia (and other

pollutants) in raw sewage, a POTW will

adequately control landfill discharges of

ammonia so long as the ammonia

loadings to a POTW did not

significantly differ from that typically

observed. In those circumstances,

ammonia will not pass through such

POTWs.

Moreover, some POTWs have

installed additional treatment to control

ammonia. The data on POTW removal

used for EPA’s comparison does not

reflect this fact. POTWs that have

installed additional ammonia treatment

(or modified existing treatment)

typically achieve removals in excess of

95 percent—much higher than the 39

percent removal observed for the

POTWs in the comparison analysis.

Thus, ammonia does not pass through

POTWs with nitrification even in cases

where significant loadings of ammonia

are discharged to a POTW.

In these circumstances, EPA has

concluded ammonia at levels

discharged by Subtitle D landfills is

generally susceptible to POTW

treatment. Therefore, EPA concluded

that ammonia limits are best established

3022 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

by local POTWs based on site specific

conditions in accordance with the

POTW’s design treatment capacity and

existing mass loadings.

Upset and Interference. EPA also

assessed the ammonia concentrations

and loads received by POTWs from

Subtitle D leachate discharges to

evaluate potential upsets or interference

with POTW treatment systems. EPA

concluded that national pretreatment

standards were not required to prevent

interference with POTW operations.

In terms of landfill leachate ammonia

concentrations discharged to POTWs,

only one of the Subtitle D landfill

facilities in EPA’s database is currently

discharging (i.e. after treatment, if

treatment is in place) wastewater to a

POTW which contains more than 105

mg/L of ammonia. The remainder of the

indirect discharging Subtitle D landfills

discharged an average concentration of

37 mg/L of ammonia to POTWs, with

one-half of the facilities discharging less

than 32 mg/L. Typical ammonia

concentrations in raw domestic sewage

range from 12 to 50 mg/L (‘‘Operation of

Municipal Wastewater Treatment

Plants: Manual of Practice, Volume II,’’

Water Pollution Control Federation).

The one facility in EPA’s database

that was discharging more than 105 mg/

L of ammonia to a POTW was

discharging 1,018 mg/L of ammonia to

a 114 MGD POTW which currently has

ammonia control (nitrification) in place.

EPA also received influent ammonia

data from several POTWs that

commented on the proposed rule. The

average ammonia influent concentration

to POTWs ranged from 14 mg/L to 35

mg/L with an average concentration of

17 mg/L. Therefore, with the exception

of the one outlier, the average

concentration of ammonia in leachate

discharged to POTWs (37 mg/L) noted

in EPA’s data closely parallels POTW

experience (35 mg/L). However, it

should be noted that the upper ranges

of leachate concentrations were higher

than the upper ranges observed in

domestic sewage. Nevertheless, in most

instances, observed ammonia discharge

levels to POTWs fall within a POTW’s

treatment capabilities. Thus, EPA

determined that the vast majority of

Subtitle D landfills are discharging

ammonia to POTWs at levels

comparable to that which POTWs in the

ordinary course of operations receive

and treat in raw domestic sewage.

No POTWs commenting on the

proposal cited any specific incidents

where POTW acceptance of landfill

leachate containing high levels of

ammonia caused persistent upsets at the

POTW. The data are consistent with that

supplied by commenters and further

supported EPA’s understanding prior to

the proposal of no documented

persistent problems at POTWs due to

ammonia concentrations in landfill

leachate.

EPA also analyzed the effects that

ammonia concentrations found in

landfill leachate can have on the

biological treatment systems at POTWs.

In this analysis, EPA compared the

concentrations of ammonia found in

leachate with the activated sludge

biological minimum threshold toxicity

value (or inhibition value). With respect

to ammonia, the inhibition value for

activated sludge systems is 480 mg/L

(Guidance Manual on the Development

and Implementation of Local Discharge

Limitations Under the Pretreatment

Program, Volume 1. EPA, November

1987). The average raw wastewater

concentration of ammonia found in

Subtitle D landfills in EPA’s database

was 199 mg/L for direct, indirect and

zero dischargers. In addition, all of the

average and median ammonia

concentration values observed in the

data submitted to EPA in comments

were below the activated sludge

inhibition value. EPA has consequently

determined that ammonia does not

represent a threat to biological treatment

systems that would require

establishment of pretreatment

standards.

Effect on Receiving Streams.

Subsequent to the proposal, EPA

evaluated total wastewater flows and

loads of ammonia to receiving streams

associated with non-hazardous landfill

indirect dischargers (an estimated 756

facilities). EPA estimated that the nonhazardous landfill industry discharges

2.7 million pounds per year of ammonia

to POTWs, which results in 1.6 million

pounds per year being discharged to

receiving streams, assuming that the

POTWs have secondary treatment

achieving 39 percent removal but do not

have additional treatment for ammonia

control. However, as mentioned above,

EPA is aware that many POTWs have

installed additional treatment

specifically for the control of ammonia

and typically achieve removals in

excess of 95 percent. A review of EPA’s

1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and its

Permit Compliance System database

indicates that approximately 20 percent

of the POTWs in the U.S. employ some

sort of ammonia control. Over 75

percent of the Subtitle D landfills in

EPA’s database discharge less than 10

pounds per day to the POTW (3,500

pounds/year), which results in

discharging less than six pounds per

day (2,100 pounds/year) to receiving

streams, again assuming secondary

treatment only and no additional POTW

ammonia controls. In light of existing

ammonia control in place at POTWs,

actual discharges to receiving streams

are likely to be even smaller.

Cost of Pretreatment Standards. EPA

has evaluated the economic costs of

ammonia pretreatment standards. EPA’s

economic assessment of these options

demonstrated very high removal costs

with low associated pollutant removals.

Given the high cost, EPA concluded that

it is not appropriate to establish national

pretreatment standards to address the

limited circumstances in which POTW

removal might not match BAT removal

performance.

EPA evaluated the costs of

pretreatment standards in terms of the

toxic pound equivalents. Poundsequivalent is a term used to describe a

pound of pollutant weighted by its

toxicity relative to copper. These

weights are known as toxic weighting

factors. The Agency calculates poundsequivalents by multiplying the pounds

of a pollutant discharged from a landfill

by the toxic weighting factor for that

pollutant. The use of pounds-equivalent

reflects the fact that some pollutants are

more toxic than others.

The first treatment option that EPA

evaluated for pretreatment of ammonia

from non-hazardous landfills is

biological treatment. EPA evaluated

PSES Option I equivalent to BPT/BAT

Option I, which was equalization plus

biological treatment. (EPA did not

evaluate a multimedia filter for PSES

because the levels of TSS in landfill

leachate will be adequately controlled

by a POTW.) This option had a total

annualized cost of $34.6 million (1998

dollars). Biological treatment removed

10,650 pound-equivalents annually, or

an average of 14 pound equivalents per

facility per year. This represents a cost

of removal of $1,900/lb-equivalents

(1981 dollars) and represents the cost of

removing all of the pound-equivalents

removed, not just ammonia. If EPA took

credit only for the pound-equivalents of

ammonia removed, the annual removal

cost for this option is $7,100/lbequivalents (1981 dollars). Moreover,

these calculations are based on the

assumption that POTWs will only

remove 39 percent of the ammonia

discharged to it. If POTWs remove more

ammonia than that assumed, then the

cost of each pound of pollutant removed

by the industrial user raises. Given the

installation of additional ammonia

controls at many POTWs, actual

ammonia removal by POTWs will be

greater than assumed.

The second technology option EPA

evaluated for the control of ammonia is

ammonia stripping with appropriate air

pollution controls. However, according

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3023

to EPA’s survey of the landfills industry,

only two percent of survey respondents

use this technology for the treatment of

landfill leachate. In addition, air or

steam stripping is more commonly used

for treatment of wastewater containing

concentrations of ammonia that are

several orders of magnitude greater than

those typically found in landfill

wastewater. Therefore, EPA concluded

that biological treatment systems are

more appropriate for the treatment of

the ammonia concentrations found in

landfill leachate. In addition, air

stripping for ammonia removal

generally requires warm climates, and

therefore this may not be a viable

treatment option for all landfills located

in the United States. In these

circumstances, effluent levels associated

with air stripping may not be attainable

in all cases and thus not broadly

available in the landfill industry. In

addition, the air stripping option for the

treatment of ammonia has an estimated

annualized cost of $15.1 million (1998

dollars, pre-tax costs). The costeffectiveness for this option is also high,

$4,400/lb-equivalents (1981 dollars).

As explained above, EPA concluded

that the vast majority of POTWs

experience no difficulty in treating the

ammonia loads received from landfill

indirect dischargers and that as a result

there is generally no pass through of

ammonia from landfill leachate on a

national basis. Moreover, the cost of

pretreatment is not warranted by the

limited circumstances where

pretreatment would result in reduced

ammonia to surface water. But there are

POTWs without additional controls for

ammonia that may not be equipped to

handle landfill leachate ammonia

discharges. Consequently, in the

proposal, EPA requested comments on

requiring ammonia pretreatment

standards for those landfills discharging

to POTWs that do not have ammonia

controls in place. Several commenters

supported no pretreatment standard

because of their conclusion that

ammonia loads from landfills made up

an insignificant amount of the total

ammonia loads discharged to POTWs.

Others favored pretreatment standards

because of smaller POTWs that do not

employ nutrient removal systems. EPA,

however, is not convinced that national

ammonia pretreatment standards are

warranted even where landfills are

discharging to POTWs without

ammonia controls given the high cost of

pretreatment and current ammonia

concentrations in landfill leachate

discharged to POTWs that are generally

consistent with values observed in raw

sewage. Special ammonia situations are

best addressed by the local POTW based

on site specific conditions in

accordance with the POTW’s design

treatment capacity and existing mass

loadings.

All of these factors discussed above

confirm EPA’s decision not to establish

national ammonia pretreatment

standards. EPA has concluded that

landfills typically discharge wastewater

to POTWs containing ammonia

concentrations that can be adequately

treated by POTWs. Further, in cases

where ammonia loading rates are at

levels which may be of concern or

where ammonia discharges are a water

quality concern, POTWs retain the

ability to establish local limits on

ammonia.

(ii.) Pretreatment Standards for

Benzoic Acid— Benzoic Acid Passthrough Analysis. As stated above, for

the proposal, benzoic acid was not one

of the pollutants EPA determined would

pass through. However, after the

proposal, EPA reviewed the BAT

facilities and the representative POTW

facilities used for the removal

comparison and determined that it had

not used the appropriate editing rules.

As a result of these revisions, the

comparison showed that the median

percent removal for benzoic acid at the

landfills BAT facilities was 99 percent

compared to the median POTW percent

removal which was determined to be 81

percent. Because the 50–POTW database

does not contain information on the

percent removal of benzoic acid, EPA

used the National Risk Management

Research Laboratory database (formerly

known as the Risk Reduction

Engineering Laboratory (RREL)

database) to estimate the percent

removal. (For more information on

EPA’s use of the RREL database, see

Chapter 7 of the Technical Development

Document.)

Despite the difference in the BAT and

POTW percent removals, further

analysis of the data showed that both

systems were achieving the same level

of treatment of benzoic acid. That is,

both the RREL database facilities

representing POTWs and the landfills

BAT facilities were treating benzoic acid

down to non-detect levels (50 μg/L).

Therefore, the smaller percent removal

achieved by facilities in the RREL

database (used to represent the POTW

percent removal) is a function of lower

influent concentrations at those

facilities and is not necessarily

indicative of inferior treatment at

POTWs. EPA concluded that benzoic

acid in these circumstances is

susceptible to treatment at the POTW

and does not pass through.

Benzoic acid loads discharged to

POTWs. In addition, EPA also evaluated

the total flows and loads of benzoic acid

discharged from non-hazardous landfills

to POTWs. EPA compared the current

discharge loads to the loads that would

be anticipated after the implementation

of pretreatment standards. As was

explained above, EPA evaluated Option

I (biological treatment) as the

appropriate treatment technology and

has analyzed the costs and benefits of

pretreatment standards for the NonHazardous subcategory for this option.

According to EPA’s estimates, nonhazardous landfills currently discharge

approximately 4,700 pounds of benzoic

acid to POTWs per year resulting in an

annual discharge of 900 pounds to

receiving streams. PSES Option I

(biological treatment) would reduce this

annual discharge to receiving streams to

400 pounds per year. The average nonhazardous facility discharges only 6.4

pounds of benzoic acid annually (less

than 0.02 pounds per day), and the

median discharge is only 1.9 pounds per

year. Furthermore, benzoic acid has a

toxic weighting factor of only 0.0003.

Therefore, for the entire indirect

discharging non-hazardous landfills

population (approximately 756

facilities), Option I would only remove

an additional 0.16 pound-equivalents

per year.

As a result of the above analysis, EPA

determined that national pretreatment

standards for benzoic acid are not

necessary because benzoic acid is

susceptible to treatment by POTWs.

POTWs and landfill BAT facilities both

treat benzoic acid down to non-detect

levels. In addition, EPA determined that

the pounds of benzoic acid currently

being discharged by landfills are

compatible with POTW treatment and

that pretreatment standards would

result in little further reduction of

benzoic acid.

(iii.) Pretreatment Standards for pcresol—p-Cresol Pass-through Analysis.

Like benzoic acid, p-cresol also did not

pass-through POTWs according to EPA’s

pass-through analysis at proposal.

However, the result of its revised

removal comparison showed some

difference in removal. The landfills

median BAT percent removal for pcresol is 99 percent, while the estimated

median POTW percent removal is 68

percent. (Again, because the 50–POTW

database does not contain percent

removal data for p-cresol, EPA used the

RREL database to determine POTW

removal.)

p-Cresol concentrations and loads

discharged to POTWs. EPA also

analyzed the flows and loads of p-cresol

being discharged from non-hazardous

3024 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

5EPA bases UTS on the Best Demonstrated

Available Treatment Technology (BDAT) for each

listed hazardous waste. BDAT represents the

treatment technology that EPA concludes is the

most effective for treating a particular waste that is

also readily available to generators and treaters.

(iv.) Pretreatment Standards for Phenol.

6 In the comments received on the proposal, some

commenters referred to the Hazardous subcategory

median ammonia raw wastewater concentration

landfills to POTWs. According to EPA’s

estimates, non-hazardous landfills

currently discharge approximately 2,730

pounds of p-cresol to POTWs per year

resulting in an annual discharge of 870

pounds to receiving streams. PSES

Option I (biological treatment) would

reduce this discharge to receiving

streams to 130 pounds/year.

Furthermore, p-cresol has a toxic

weighting factor of only 0.0024.

Therefore, the implementation of

Option I results in an additional

reduction of only 3.0 pound-equivalents

per year across the entire Subtitle D

indirect discharge population. On

average, non-hazardous landfill

facilities discharge only 3.4 pounds of

p-cresol annually (or 0.01 pounds per

day), and the median discharge load is

only 0.7 pounds per year.

Based on the data shown above, EPA

concluded that the implementation of

pretreatment standards for p-cresol

would result in only minimal

reductions in the pounds of p-cresol

discharged to surface waters. In

addition, p-cresol is found in nonhazardous landfill leachate at

concentrations which will not cause

upsets at POTWs nor should POTWs

have difficulty effectively treating such

concentrations. The median raw

wastewater concentration for p-cresol at

municipal landfills is 75 μg/L. This

concentration is well below the

Universal Treatment Standard (UTS) of

770 μg/L established for F039 wastes

(multi-source leachate) in 40 CFR

268.48.5

(iv.) Pretreatment Standards for

Phenol. Although phenol appeared to

pass through, EPA decided not to

establish pretreatment standards for

phenol based on the fact that phenol is

highly biodegradable and is treated by

POTWs to the same degree as the

landfill direct dischargers. Furthermore,

the Agency concluded that the

differences in influent concentrations

caused the apparent difference in

removal performance between landfill

direct dischargers and POTWs. As a

result, the performance across the

landfills direct dischargers showed

higher removals than the performance at

the POTWs.

In EPA’s landfills database, raw

wastewater concentrations of phenol at

the BAT facilities in the Non-Hazardous

subcategory were much higher than the

influent concentrations at the POTWs

used in the determination of the POTW

percent removal. The average influent

concentrations for phenol for the three

non-hazardous BAT facilities used in

the pass-through analysis ranged from

350 μg/L to 5,120 μg/L. All three of the

facilities treated phenol down to the

analytical minimum level (10 μg/L),

corresponding to a median percent

removal of 97.5 percent. For POTW

performance, EPA used a total of eight

POTWs in the analysis for POTW

percent removal of phenol. The average

influent concentration for phenol at

these eight POTWs was 387 μg/L, and

six of the eight effluent values were

below the analytical minimum level and

therefore assigned values of 10 μg/L.

Thus, the average percent removal for

the POTWs was 95.3 percent. In this

case, EPA concluded that the

differences in removals for POTWs (95.3

percent) and BAT facilities (97.5

percent) is an artifact of the differing

influent concentrations and does not

necessarily reflect a real difference in

treatment performance. Therefore, EPA

concluded that phenol is treated to

essentially the same level by direct

dischargers and POTWs and, therefore,

does not pass through.

c. Technology Options Considered for

PSES for Hazardous Landfill

Subcategory. In the proposed rule, EPA

proposed pretreatment standards for six

pollutants that EPA determined to pass

through in the Hazardous subcategory.

However, after reviewing the comments

received and re-evaluating the pollutant

loads in the Hazardous subcategory,

EPA has decided not to establish

national pretreatment standards for

Subtitle C landfills.

As previously explained, EPA

establishes pretreatment standards for

pollutants that are not susceptible to

treatment at a POTW or for pollutants

that may interfere with POTW

operations. As explained at Part 1.b. of

this section, for the Hazardous

subcategory, EPA identified only three

Subtitle C landfills, all of them indirect

dischargers. EPA used data from two of

these hazardous landfills to develop the

BPT/BAT limitations for toxic

pollutants because these landfills were

using the treatment systems for their

leachate that EPA determined was the

BPT/BAT treatment technology.

EPA also performed an analysis for

this subcategory in order to compare

POTW removals with BAT treatment

systems. As was the case for the NonHazardous subcategory, EPA revised the

pass-through analysis data editing

procedures after the proposal and as a

result EPA’s removal results have

changed. The result of the revised

comparison show BAT removals greater

than POTW removals for the following

eight pollutants: ammonia, alphaterpineol, aniline, benzoic acid,

naphthalene, p-cresol, phenol, and

pyridine. For its removal comparison for

ammonia, EPA compared the nationwide median percentage of ammonia

removed by well-operated POTWs to the

percentage of ammonia removed by

BAT treatment systems from both the

Hazardous and Non-Hazardous

subcategories. (For the reasons

explained at Part 1.b of this section, in

the case of ammonia, EPA

supplemented the Hazardous

subcategory data with data from nonhazardous landfill facilities.) For all

other toxic pollutants, in determining

whether a pollutant would pass through

a POTW, the Agency compared the

nation-wide median percentage of a

pollutant removed by well-operated

POTWs with secondary treatment to the

percentage of a pollutant removed by

BAT treatment systems from only the

Hazardous subcategory. For the

proposal, EPA proposed pretreatment

standards that were equivalent to the

BPT/BAT limitations for the pollutants

that passed through. EPA has

reconsidered its decision that it should

promulgate national pretreatment

standards for hazardous landfills. The

reasons for this decision are explained

in more detail below.

Two of the indirect discharging

landfills have treatment technology in

place that EPA considers to be BAT, and

currently discharge very low

concentrations of pollutants to their

local POTWs. The third and only other

indirectly discharging Subtitle C landfill

for which EPA has data discharged less

than 1,000 gal/day of landfill gas

collection condensate to a POTW. In

addition to the low wastewater flow at

this landfill, the facility has relatively

low raw wastewater pollutant

concentrations and employs

neutralization with ammonia followed

by settling prior to discharge to the

POTW.

Several commenters on the proposal

questioned EPA’s rationale for

developing ammonia pretreatment

standards for the Hazardous subcategory

while not establishing ammonia

pretreatment standards for the NonHazardous subcategory. EPA’s database

indicate that the median raw wastewater

ammonia concentration for hazardous

landfills is 268 mg/L as compared to the

raw wastewater ammonia concentration

for Subtitle D landfills which is 199 mg/

L.6 EPA has current information on

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3025

referred to in Table 6–8 on page 6–44 of the

Proposed Landfills Development Document (EPA–

821–R–97–022). This table lists the median

ammonia raw wastewater concentration of 8.6 mg/

L. However, this median concentration included

numerous CERCLA facilities with discharges that

consisted primarily of ground water. After proposal,

EPA recalculated the median ammonia raw

wastewater concentration for the Hazardous

subcategory using only data from Subtitle C

landfills in EPA’s database. This results in a median

raw wastewater ammonia concentration of 268 mg/

L.

ammonia concentration in wastewater

discharges for two of the three Subtitle

C landfills in EPA’s database. One of the

landfills employs biological treatment

and discharges an average of 4.9 mg/L

of ammonia to the POTW. The other

landfill employs chemical precipitation

prior to biological treatment and

discharges ammonia at an average

concentration of 156 mg/L. This

discharge level presents no apparent

problem to the receiving POTW.

According to discussions with this

facility and the POTW, the POTW has

not set local pretreatment standards for

ammonia for this landfill, and the

POTW does not perform nitrification

nor is there an ammonia limit in the

POTW’s NPDES permit. Since 1995, the

POTW has seen the ammonia

concentration at its headworks increase

from 13 mg/L to 20 mg/L and has

experienced some upsets at the POTW.

However, the POTW explained that it

was unsure whether the upsets are a

result of the increased ammonia

concentrations or due to some other

constituent in the wastewater. In

addition, the POTW is not sure if the

landfill leachate discharge is

contributing at all to the upsets. As was

the case in the Non-hazardous

subcategory, EPA concluded that

national pretreatment standards for

ammonia are not warranted by the small

quantity of ammonia being discharged

to POTWs from landfills in this

subcategory and due to the site specific

water quality and POTW nitrification

issues associated with ammonia.

Although the removal comparison

suggests that phenol may pass through,

EPA decided not to establish

pretreatment standards for it because it

is highly biodegradable and is, in fact,

treated by POTWs to the same degree as

the landfill direct dischargers. The

Agency concluded that any apparent

difference in removals in the removal

comparison is an artifact of differing

influent concentrations rather than any

difference in performance between

landfill direct dischargers and POTWs.

In EPA’s landfills database, raw

wastewater concentrations of phenol at

the two BAT facilities in the Hazardous

subcategory were much higher than the

influent concentrations at the POTWs

used in the determination of the POTW

percent removal. The average influent

concentrations for phenol for the two

hazardous BAT facilities used in the

pass-through analysis ranged from 5,120

μg/L to 98,500 μg/L, and the average

effluent concentrations ranged from 10

μg/L to 814 μg/L corresponding to an

average percent removal of 99.8 percent.

For POTW performance, EPA used a

total of eight POTWs in the analysis for

POTW percent removal of phenol. The

average influent concentration for

phenol at these eight POTWs was 387

μg/L, and six of the eight effluent values

were below the analytical minimum

level and therefore assigned values of 10

μg/L. Thus, the average percent removal

for the POTWs was 95.3 percent, and

therefore EPA determined that the

pollutant passed through. In this case,

EPA concluded that the pass-through

determination is an artifact of the

differing influent concentrations and

does not necessarily reflect a real

difference in removals. Therefore, EPA

concluded that phenol is treated to

essentially the same level by direct

dischargers and POTWs and, therefore,

does not pass through.

Further review of the comparison for

alpha-terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid,

naphthalene, and pyridine under the

revised analysis showed that all of these

pollutants were treated down to nondetect levels in both the landfill’s BAT

treatment option and in the RREL

facilities representing POTWs. That is,

both BAT facilities and POTWs achieve

the same level of treatment for these

pollutants, and the differences in

removal once again were simply a

function of smaller influent

concentrations at facilities representing

POTWs. (Alpha-terpineol and benzoic

acid are compounds for which a high

removal efficiency would be expected at

a POTW due to their relatively high

biodegradability.) Therefore, the Agency

determined that, not only are the

current pollutant loads not a problem

for POTWs, but also all of these

pollutants are present in concentrations

that are treated down to non-detect

levels in a well-operated POTW. Thus,

given the small loadings and low

concentrations of these pollutants, EPA

concluded that these five pollutants are

susceptible to treatment at the POTW

and do not pass through.

Furthermore, EPA has concluded that

while the removal comparison suggests

that two pollutants, naphthalene and

aniline, may not be susceptible to

POTW treatment, in fact, they will

receive equivalent treatment. First, the

median untreated wastewater

concentration observed in EPA’s data

collection effort for these pollutants is

less than the Universal Treatment

Standards (UTS) EPA has developed for

these pollutants in F039 wastes (multisource leachate) in 40 CFR 268.48. The

UTS for naphthalene is 0.059 mg/L

which is slightly greater than the

median concentration found in

hazardous landfills (0.049 mg/L). The

UTS standard for aniline is 0.81 mg/L

while the median concentration in

hazardous landfills is 0.237 mg/L.

Second, aniline and naphthalene (as

well as p-cresol and pyridine) will be

removed from wastewater through

attachment to the biosolids in the

POTW’s biological treatment system and

then undergo subsequent

biodegradation while entrained in the

biosolids.

In addition, as noted above, the

revised comparison shows a lower

POTW removal for p-cresol than that

achieved by BAT treatment. However,

as was the case in the Non-Hazardous

subcategory, EPA has concluded that

the concentrations of p-cresol and the

associated loadings discharged to

POTWs from landfills in the Hazardous

subcategory would be insignificant

compared to the total loads received at

the POTW. The median Subtitle C raw

wastewater concentration for p-cresol is

144 μg/L (this includes only Subtitle C

landfills and not the CERCLA data

included in the median on page 6–44 of

the Proposed Landfills Development

Document) which is less than the UTS

developed for p-cresol in F039 wastes

which is 770 μg/L (40 CFR 268.48).

Therefore, based on the small quantity

of pollutants involved and low pollutant

concentrations discharged from landfills

in the Hazardous subcategory, EPA

concluded that national pretreatment

standards for landfills in the Hazardous

subcategory are unnecessary. In

addition, EPA concluded that local

limits are adequately controlling

wastewater discharges from Subtitle C

landfills.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS)

a. Introduction. Section 307 of the Act

requires EPA to promulgate both

pretreatment standards for new sources

(PSNS) and new source performance

standards (NSPS). New indirect

discharging facilities, like new direct

discharging facilities, have the

opportunity to incorporate the best

available demonstrated technologies

including: process changes, in-facility

controls, and end-of-pipe treatment

technologies.

b. Rationale for Setting PSNS

Equivalent to PSES for Both

Subcategories. In today’s rule, EPA has

3026 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

decided not to establish pretreatment

standards for new sources for both

subcategories for many of the same

reasons that EPA did not establish PSES

limits. As stated in the PSES

discussions above, EPA concluded that

the typical concentrations of pollutants

in landfill leachate are not at levels that

will cause problems for POTWs. In

addition, EPA determined that the

relatively small wastewater flows from

landfills coupled with the

concentrations of pollutants typically

found results in a small pollutant

loading rate discharged to POTWs from

landfills. Finally, in site-specific cases

where a particular pollutant may be

found at concentrations that are of

concern to the POTW, EPA concluded

that local pretreatment standards are the

most appropriate means for controlling

such discharges.

F. Development of Effluent Limitations

EPA based the final effluent

limitations in today’s notice on widelyrecognized statistical procedures for

calculating long-term averages and

variability factors. The following

presents a summary of the statistical

methodology used in the calculation of

effluent limitations.

EPA bases effluent limitations for

each subcategory on a combination of

long-term average effluent values and

variability factors that account for

variation in day-to-day treatment

performance within a treatment plant.

The long-term averages are average

effluent concentrations that have been

achieved by well-operated treatment

systems using the processes described

in the following section (Treatment

Systems Selected for Basis of

Regulation). The variability factors are

the results of a calculation of the ratio

of a high effluent value that would be

expected to occur only rarely relative to

long-term average effluent values. The

purpose of the variability factor is to

allow for normal variation in effluent

concentrations. A facility that designs

and operates its treatment system to

achieve a long-term average on a

consistent basis should be able to

comply with the daily and monthly

limitations in the course of normal

operations.

EPA developed the variability factors

and long-term averages from a data base

composed of individual measurements

on treated effluent. The Agency uses a

combination of EPA sampling data and

industry supplied data. While EPA

sampling data reflect the performance of

a system over a five day period, industry

supplied data (collected through the

Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire)

reflect up to three years worth of

monitoring data. EPA used a

combination of EPA and industry

supplied data whenever possible in

order to better account for the variability

of leachate over time. For further

information on the calculation of

effluent limitations, see Chapter 11 of

the Technical Development Document.

G. Treatment Systems Selected for Basis

of Regulation

1. Non-Hazardous Subcategory BPT

Facility Selection

There were 46 in-scope landfill

facilities in the EPA database that

employed various forms of biological

treatment considered for BPT/BAT for

the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA

evaluated these facilities selected as

potential BPT/BAT candidates to

determine the performance across the

various types of biological treatment

systems. In order to determine the best

performers for biological treatment EPA

established a number of criteria. The

first criterion used in the selection of

the best facilities was effective treatment

of BOD5. Under this criterion, there

were several reasons why a facility

might be eliminated from the selection

of BPT/BAT facilities. First, EPA

required that both influent and effluent

BOD5 data be available so that the

Agency could evaluate the effectiveness

of the biological treatment system at the

facility. In addition, EPA eliminated

those facilities whose BOD5 influent

data were less than 100 mg/L because

EPA did not consider the wastewater at

these facilities to be representative of

the landfills population as a whole.

Because EPA based BPT/BAT

limitations on the effectiveness of

biological treatment, the Agency

eliminated facilities that used additional

forms of treatment (other than biological

treatment) for BOD5 removal. The final

requirement for BPT/BAT selection in

the Non-Hazardous landfill subcategory

was that the biological treatment system

at the facility had to achieve a BOD5

effluent concentration less than 50 mg/

L. EPA determined that facilities not

able to maintain an effluent

concentration below 50 mg/L were not

operating their biological systems

effectively.

After applying the criteria above, EPA

identified seven facilities that met all of

the BPT/BAT criteria. These seven

facilities employed various types of

biological treatment systems including

activated sludge, a sequencing batch

reactor, aerobic and anaerobic biological

towers or fixed film, and aerated ponds

or lagoons. Most of the facilities

employed equalization tanks in addition

to the biological treatment while several

facilities also employed chemical

precipitation and neutralization in their

treatment systems. Clarification or

sedimentation stages followed the

biological treatment systems. EPA used

data from all seven facilities employing

well-operated biological treatment

systems to calculate the effluent

limitations for BOD5. (For those BPT

facilities that employed both chemical

precipitation as well as biological

treatment, EPA determined that the

biological treatment systems, and not

the chemical precipitation systems,

were removing the BOD5 from the

landfill wastewater. Therefore, EPA

used these facilities for the calculation

of BOD5 limitations.) The average

influent BOD5 concentrations to these

seven treatment systems ranged from

150 mg/L to 7,600 mg/L, and as

mentioned above, all of the average

effluent concentrations for these seven

facilities were below 50 mg/L.

EPA used the data from the seven

facilities identified as having good

biological treatment systems to calculate

the limits for additional pollutant

parameters, including alpha terpineol,

ammonia, benzoic acid, p-cresol,

phenol, and zinc. Because one facility

employed air stripping, EPA did not use

its data for determining the limit for

ammonia. In addition, EPA did not use

facilities that operated chemical

precipitation systems in addition to

biological treatment for the calculation

of the zinc limitation. Many of the

facilities selected as BPT/BAT did not

provide data for all the pollutants

identified for regulation by EPA. In

these cases, EPA based the effluent

limitations on the BPT/BAT facilities for

which data were available.

While the BOD5 edits discussed above

ensure good biological treatment and a

basic level of TSS removal, treatment

facilities meeting this level may not

necessarily be operated for optimal

control of TSS. To ensure that the

effluent limitation developed for TSS

reflects proper control, EPA established

additional editing criteria for TSS. The

primary factor in addition to achieving

the BOD5 criteria cited above was that

the facility had to employ technology

sufficient to ensure adequate control of

TSS, that is, a sand or multimedia

filtration system. The Agency

eliminated facilities that used additional

forms of treatment (other than a sand or

multimedia filter) for TSS removal. The

second factor EPA considered was

whether the treatment system achieved

an effluent TSS concentration less than

or equal to 100 mg/L. EPA selected

treatment facilities meeting these

criteria as the average best existing

performers for TSS. Two of the seven

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3027

BPT/BAT facilities employed a sand or

multimedia filtration system and

achieved an effluent TSS concentration

far less than 100 mg/L. EPA used the

TSS effluent data from these two

facilities to calculate the TSS limitation

for the Non-Hazardous subcategory.

2. Hazardous Subcategory BPT/BAT

Facility Selection

As previously noted, EPA’s statistical

analysis of the facility identification and

survey data suggests that there are no

Subtitle C landfill facilities that

discharge directly to navigable water

and six that discharge to POTWs.

However, EPA has specifically

identified only three Subtitle C landfills

that discharge to POTWs. EPA is

transferring data from these facilities to

establish BPT/BAT limitations. The

wastewater flow from one of the three

facilities was very small (less than 1,000

gallons per day) and consisted of only

gas collection condensate and required

only minimal treatment (neutralization

using ammonia) prior to discharge to the

POTW. Consequently, EPA did not

consider this facility as appropriate for

establishing BPT/BAT limitations. The

two remaining facilities both had

treatment systems in place that achieved

very good pollutant reductions. The

treatment at one facility consisted of

equalization and chemical precipitation

followed by activated sludge biological

treatment. The second facility utilized

equalization followed by three

sequencing batch reactor biological

treatment units operated in parallel. The

treatment systems in place at these

indirect hazardous facilities achieved

low effluent concentrations with

average removals of 88 to 98 percent of

organic toxic pollutants, and 55 to 80

percent of metal pollutants. Thus, EPA

concluded that it should use both

facilities in the development of the

Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT

limitations for nonconventional and

toxic pollutants.

However, for the ammonia, BOD5, and

TSS limitations, EPA concluded that

establishing BPT/BAT limits based

solely on two indirect discharging

treatment systems was not appropriate

because indirect dischargers often do

not operate their treatment systems to

achieve optimal control of these

pollutants. In the case of BOD5 and TSS,

POTWs do not establish local standards

because the POTWs install treatment

designed specifically to treat these

pollutants. In the case of ammonia,

some POTWs do not establish standards

because they have installed advanced

treatment for ammonia control. Other

POTWs may establish ammonia

standards based on local water quality

concerns. EPA supplemented the

Hazardous subcategory data for these

three pollutants with data from nonhazardous landfill facilities. For BOD5,

EPA used data from both of the

Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT

facilities and the Non-Hazardous

subcategory BPT/BAT facilities to

calculate the limitations. Because

neither of the Hazardous subcategory

BPT/BAT facilities used a multimedia

filter, EPA based the TSS limitation on

the two Non-Hazardous subcategory

BPT/BAT facilities that employed

multimedia filtration.

In the case of ammonia, EPA

concluded that it was not appropriate to

establish limits using the performance

of only indirect discharging facilities

because only one of these facilities in

the Hazardous subcategory

demonstrated good ammonia control.

Many POTWs with advanced or tertiary

treatment units for nutrient control may

not establish stringent local limits for

ammonia. Therefore, basing ammonia

limits only on indirect discharging

landfills may not appropriately reflect

the effluent discharge concentration of

ammonia achieved by well-operated

direct discharging landfills. Since only

one indirect discharging hazardous

BPT/BAT facility achieved BPT/BAT

ammonia removals, EPA chose to

supplement the hazardous data with

data from two non-hazardous BPT/BAT

facilities, one of which was a direct

discharger.

IV. Assessment of Costs and Impacts

A. Methodology for Estimating Costs

and Pollutant Reductions Achieved by

Treatment Technologies

The methodology EPA used for the

final rule for estimating costs and

pollutant reductions achieved by the

various treatment technologies is the

same as the methodology used by EPA

for the proposal. However, there are

differences in the estimated costs and

pollutant reductions from the proposed

rule. These differences are a result of

several revisions EPA made when

reviewing the costs and loads

reductions after proposal. These

changes are explained in detail in the

Technical Development Document at

Chapter 9.

The Agency calculated pollutant

reductions for each of the questionnaire

recipients that would potentially be

subject to this rule and then modeled

the national population by using

statistically calculated survey weights.

EPA estimated pollutant reductions by

taking the difference in the current

performance of the landfill industry and

the expected performance after

installation of the treatment technology.

The Agency estimated pollutant

reductions for each pollutant of interest

at each questionnaire facility. EPA

determined the current performance

discharge concentrations from data

supplied by the facility, or in cases

where the facility did not supply

current wastewater discharge data for a

particular pollutant, the Agency based

the current discharge concentration on

data supplied from similar treatment

systems at similar landfills. EPA

determined the discharge

concentrations expected to be achieved

for a particular technology option from

EPA sampling data or from industry

supplied data at facilities selected as the

best performers.

B. Costs of Compliance

The Agency has estimated the cost for

landfill facilities to achieve the effluent

limitations promulgated today. Table

IV.B–1 summarizes the estimated costs

and the Technical Development

Document discusses them in more

detail. All of the cost estimates in this

section are expressed in terms of 1998

dollars.

The only costs associated with this

final rule are for direct discharging

landfills in the Non-Hazardous

subcategory. EPA did not identify any

commercial hazardous landfills in the

United States that discharged directly to

surface waters, and thus, the Agency did

not estimate any costs of compliance for

direct dischargers from hazardous

landfills. In addition, there are no costs

associated with PSES for either

subcategory because the Agency is not

establishing PSES for the Landfills Point

Source Category.

3028 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE IV. B–1.—CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF BPT

[In millions of 1998 dollars]

Subcategory Number of

facilities

Capital

costs

Annual

O&M costs

Non-Hazardous Direct Dischargers (BPT) .............................................................................................. 143 18.87 6.50

Hazardous Direct Dischargers (BPT) ...................................................................................................... 0 0 0

C. Pollutant Reductions

The Agency estimated pollutant

reductions for landfill facilities

achieving each of the effluent

limitations promulgated today. Table

IV.C–1 summarizes the estimated

reductions and the document

‘‘Environmental Assessment of Final

Effluent Limitations and Standards for

the Landfills Category’’ discusses them

in more detail.

All of the pollutant reductions

realized by this regulation are a result of

the effluent limitations promulgated for

direct dischargers in the Non-Hazardous

subcategory. EPA did not identify any

commercial hazardous landfills in the

United States that discharged directly to

surface waters, and thus, the Agency did

not evaluate pollutant reductions for

direct dischargers from hazardous

landfills.

Furthermore, there are no pollutant

reductions associated with PSES for

either subcategory because the Agency

is not establishing PSES limitations for

the Landfills Point Source Category.

TABLE IV.C–1.—POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED BY IMPLEMENTING BPT

Subbcategory Number of

facilities

Conventional

pollutant

removals

(pounds)

Toxic pollutant

removals

(pounds)

Non-Hazardous Direct Dischargers (BPT) .................................................................................. 143 600,000 323,150

Hazardous Direct Dischargers (BPT) .......................................................................................... 0 0 0

V. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction and Overview

This section summarizes EPA’s

analysis of the economic impacts of the

final regulation. EPA describes the

economic impact assessment in detail in

the ‘‘Economic Analysis for the Final

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Landfills Category’’

(hereafter ‘‘EA’’). The EA estimates the

economic effect on the industry of

compliance with the regulation in terms

of facility closures (severe impacts) and

financial impacts short of closure

(moderate impacts) for privately-owned

landfill facilities. For publicly-owned

landfill facilities, the report estimates

financial impacts short of closure. The

report also includes an analysis of the

effects of the regulation on new landfill

facilities and an assessment of the

impacts on small businesses and other

small entities.

EPA estimated the economic impacts

of final regulatory options in each

subcategory for BPT and NSPS. The

technical evaluation and description of

each option and the rationale for

selecting the final option is discussed in

Section [III] of today’s notice. EPA has

based its BPT/BCT/BAT limitations for

the Non-Hazardous subcategory on

technology Option II, which EPA

estimates will have a total annualized

cost of $ 7.64 million (1998$). (For

privately-owned facilities, EPA

evaluated costs in terms of after-tax

costs.) Table V. A–1 summarizes the

costs associated with the Option II.

TABLE V. A–1.—TOTAL COSTS OF SELECTED REGULATORY OPTION

[In millions of 1998 dollars]

Selected option for the non-hazardous landfill subcategory Total

capital costs

Total

O & M costs

Post-tax

total

annualized

costs

Option II ................................................................................................................................................... 18.87 6.50 7.64

B. Summary of Economic Impacts

1. Cost Reasonableness and Economic

Impacts of BPT

As discussed above in Section [II.A],

in establishing BPT limitations, EPA

considers the cost of the limitations in

relation to the effluent reduction

benefits achieved. EPA compares these

costs and benefits by first calculating

pre-tax total annualized costs and total

removals of TSS and BOD5 in pounds.

EPA then compares the ratio of the costs

to the removals for an option to the

range of ratios in previous regulations to

gauge the option’s relative cost. Table

V.B–1 presents the results of the cost

and removal comparison. In the NonHazardous subcategory, Option II has a

ratio of $ 14 per pound. Option II is

within the historical bounds of BPT cost

comparisons.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3029

TABLE V. B–1.—BPT COST REASONABLENESS ANALYSIS

Selected option for the non-hazardous landfill subcategory

Pre-tax total

annualized costs

(million 1998$)

Removals

(lbs)

Average cost

reasonableness

(1998 $/lb)

II ....................................................................................................................................... 8.57 598,579 14

EPA is promulgating BPT limitations

based on Option II for both privatelyand publicly-owned facilities. The

impact analysis for Option II projects

two facility closures as a result of

compliance. The EA projects no

additional economic impacts beyond

these two severe impacts. The direct job

losses associated with the projected

closures are 20 Full Time Equivalent

(FTE) positions. Table V.B–2

summarizes the economic impacts for

BPT.

TABLE V. B–2.—ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BPT

Selected option for the non-hazardous landfill subcategory

Post-tax total

annualized

costs

(mil 1998$)

Severe

impacts

Moderate

impacts

Direct employment losses

(FTEs)

Option II ........................................................................................................... 7.64 2 0 20

2. Economic Analysis of Final NSPS

limitations

EPA is establishing NSPS limitations

equivalent to the limitations that are

established for BPT/BCT/BAT for the

Non-Hazardous and Hazardous

subcategories. In general, EPA believes

that new sources will be able to comply

at costs that are similar to or less than

the costs for existing sources, because

new sources can apply control

technologies more efficiently than

sources that need to retrofit for those

technologies. EPA has determined that

BPT/BCT/BAT limitations are

economically achievable and, therefore,

NSPS limitations will not present a

barrier to entry for new facilities.

3. Firm Level Impacts

Firms differ from facilities in that

firms are business entities or companies,

which may operate at several physical

locations. Facilities are individual

establishments defined by their physical

location, whether or not they constitute

an independent business entity on their

own. Some of the surveyed facilities are

single-facility firms. In these cases, the

firm-level impact depends only on the

facility-level impact. In other cases,

though, facilities are owned by multifacility firms, so that the impact on the

parent firm depends not only on that

facility, but also on the impacts on and

characteristics of other facilities owned

by the same firm.

In this analysis, the test for significant

adverse impacts on firms is whether

firm-level compliance costs exceed five

percent of firm revenues. Using this

criterion, EPA finds no significant

adverse impacts on affected firms and

therefore determines that the effluent

guideline will not impose unreasonable

economic burdens on firms that own inscope landfills.

4. Community Impacts

EPA assesses community impacts by

estimating the expected change in

employment in communities with

landfills that are affected by the final

regulation. Possible community

employment effects include the

employment losses in the facilities that

are expected to close because of the

regulation and the related employment

losses in other businesses in the affected

community. In addition to these

estimated employment losses,

employment may increase as a result of

facilities’ operation of treatment systems

for regulatory compliance. It should be

noted that job gains will mitigate

community employment losses only if

they occur in the same communities in

which facility closures occur.

EPA projects that the final regulation

will result in two post-compliance

closures, with the direct loss of 20 FullTime Equivalent (FTE) positions. EPA

estimates secondary employment

impacts based on multipliers that relate

the change in employment in a directly

affected industry to aggregate

employment effects in linked industries

and consumer businesses whose

employment is affected by changes in

the earnings and expenditures of the

employees in the directly and indirectly

affected industries.

The EA projects an estimated

community impact of between 49 and

89 FTE losses as the result of the final

rule. The direct and secondary job

losses are not expected to be significant

in terms of employment impacts to

affected counties. EPA estimates that the

regulation will result in employment

gains of an additional 79 FTEs as a

result of the operation of control

equipment associated with treatment

systems at landfill facilities.

5. Foreign Trade Impacts

EPA does not project any foreign trade

impacts as a result of the effluent

limitations guidelines. International

trade in landfill services for the disposal

of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes

is virtually nonexistent.

VI. Water Quality Analysis and

Environmental Benefits

A. Introduction

EPA evaluated the environmental

benefits of controlling priority and

nonconventional pollutant discharges to

surface waters and publicly-owned

treatment works (POTWs). Pollutant

discharges into freshwater and estuarine

ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats,

adversely affect aquatic biota, and may

adversely impact human health through

the consumption of contaminated fish

and water. Furthermore, pollutant

discharges to a POTW may interfere

with POTW operations by inhibiting

biological treatment or by contaminating

POTW biosolids.

Many pollutants commonly found in

landfill wastewater have one or more

toxic effects (e.g., the pollutant may be

a human health carcinogen or toxic to

either some human system or to aquatic

life). In addition, several of these

pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic

organisms and persist in the

environment.

The Agency’s analysis focused on the

effects of toxic pollutants but did not

evaluate the effects of two conventional

3030 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

pollutants and five nonconventional

pollutants. The pollutants not assessed

included total suspended solids (TSS),

five-day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5), chemical oxygen demand

(COD), total dissolved solids (TDS), total

organic carbon (TOC), hexane

extractable material, and total phenolic

compounds. Although the Agency is not

able to monetize the benefits associated

with reductions of non-toxic

parameters, discharges of these

parameters may have adverse effects on

human health and the environment. For

example, suspended particulate matter

may degrade habitat by reducing light

penetration and thus primary

productivity and can alter benthic

spawning grounds and feeding habitats

by accumulation in streambeds. High

COD and BOD5 discharges may deplete

oxygen levels, which can result in

mortality or other adverse effects on

fish.

B. Methodology Used for Estimating

Water Quality Impacts and Benefits

A report prepared for this rule,

‘‘Environmental Assessment of the Final

Effluent Guidelines for the Landfill

Category,’’ presents the Agency’s

analyses of these environmental and

human health risk concerns and of the

water quality-related benefits resulting

from the final effluent guidelines. This

assessment both qualitatively and

quantitatively evaluates the potential:

(1) Ecological benefits; (2) human health

benefits; and (3) economic productivity

benefits of controlling discharges from

direct discharging non-hazardous

landfills based on site-specific analyses

of current conditions and the conditions

that would be achieved by compliance

with the limitations being established

today. EPA estimates in-stream

pollutant concentrations from direct

discharges using stream dilution

modeling, and from these models, EPA

estimates the potential impacts and

benefits of the final rule.

EPA projects ecological benefits by

comparing the steady-state in-stream

pollutant concentrations, predicted after

complete immediate mixing with no

loss from the system, to EPA published

water quality criteria guidance. Or, for

those chemicals for which EPA has not

published water quality criteria, EPA

compares the steady-state in-stream

pollutant concentrations to documented

toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported

or estimated toxic concentration). In

performing these analyses, EPA used

guidance documents published by EPA

that recommend numeric human health

and aquatic life water quality criteria for

numerous pollutants. States often

consult these guidance documents when

adopting water quality criteria as part of

their water quality standards. However,

because those State-adopted criteria

may vary, EPA used the nationwide

criteria guidance as the most

representative value. EPA used the

findings from the analysis of reduced

occurrence of pollutant concentrations

in excess of both aquatic life and human

health criteria or toxic effect levels to

assess improvements in recreational

fishing habitats and, in turn, to estimate,

if applicable, a monetary value for

enhanced recreational fishing

opportunities. EPA expects such

benefits to manifest as increases in the

value of the fishing experience per day

fished or the number of days anglers

subsequently choose to fish the cleaner

waterways. These benefits, however, do

not include all of the benefits that are

associated with improvements in

aquatic life, such as increased

assimilation capacity of the receiving

stream, improvements in taste and odor,

or improvements to other recreational

activities such as swimming and

wildlife observation.

EPA projects human health benefits

by: (1) comparing estimated in-stream

concentrations to health-based water

quality toxic effect levels or EPA

published water quality criteria; and (2)

estimating the potential reduction of

carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic

hazard from consuming contaminated

fish or drinking water. EPA estimates

upper-bound individual cancer risks,

population risks, and non-cancer

hazards (systemic) using modeled instream pollutant concentrations and

standard EPA assumptions regarding

ingestion of fish and drinking water.

The Agency then used the modeled

pollutant concentrations in fish and

drinking water to estimate cancer risk

and non-cancer hazards (systemic)

among the general population, sport

anglers and their families, and

subsistence anglers and their families.

Due to the hydrophobic nature of one

chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD)

congener and one chlorinated

dibenzofuran (CDF) congener being

evaluated, EPA projected human health

benefits for these pollutants by using the

Office of Research and Development’s

Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation (DRE)

model to estimate the potential

reduction of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard from consuming

contaminated fish. The DRE model

estimates fish tissue concentrations of

the CDD/CDF congeners by calculating

the equilibrium between the pollutants

in fish tissue and those adsorbed to the

organic fraction of sediments suspended

in the water column. EPA did not

establish effluent limitations for the

dioxins and furans that it detected at

hazardous and non-hazardous landfills.

EPA discusses the reasons for not

establishing limitations for these

congeners in the preamble to the

proposed rule (63 FR 6438–6439) and in

Chapter 6 of the Final Technical

Development Document.

Of these health benefit measures, the

Agency is able to monetize only the

reduction in carcinogenic risk using

estimated willingness-to-pay values for

avoiding premature mortality. The

values used in this analysis are based on

a range of values from a review of

studies quantifying individuals’

willingness to pay to avoid increased

risks to life. In 1998 dollars, these

values range from $2.5 to $13.1 million

per statistical life saved.

EPA evaluated the potential aquatic

life and human health impacts of direct

wastewater discharges on receiving

stream water quality at current levels of

treatment and at final BAT treatment

levels. EPA performed this analysis for

a representative sample set of 37 direct

non-hazardous landfills discharging 26

pollutants to 35 receiving streams. EPA

extrapolated the results to 143 nonhazardous landfills discharging 26

pollutants to 139 receiving streams. EPA

based this extrapolation on the same

statistical methodology used for

estimated costs, loads, and economic

impacts.

C. Estimated National Water Quality

Impacts and Results

The Agency estimates that the final

regulation will reduce loadings of

priority and nonconventional pollutants

into receiving streams by 39 percent.

The model also indicates that

excursions of acute aquatic life criteria

or toxic effect levels due to one

pollutant in two receiving streams will

be eliminated at BAT discharge levels.

EPA estimates that the final regulation

will reduce excursions of chronic

aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels

due to the discharge of ammonia in two

receiving streams. EPA projects that a

total of 36 excursions in 34 receiving

streams at current conditions would be

reduced to 34 excursions in 34 streams.

Since the final rule would not reduce

the estimated number of stream reaches

with excursions, EPA estimates there

would be no increase in value of

recreational fishing to anglers based on

the baseline value of the fishery and the

estimated incremental benefit values

associated with freeing the fishery from

contaminants.

EPA modeled cancer cases and

systemic health effects resulting from

the ingestion of fish and drinking water

contaminated by non-hazardous landfill

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3031

7There are certain exceptions to these treatment

requirements for hazardous wastewater which is

disposed in surface impoundments. RCRA section

3005 (j) (11). However, if this wastewater contains

VOCs above a designated concentration level, then

the impoundments are subject to rules requiring

control of the resulting air emissions. 40 CFR

264.1085 and 263.1086.

wastewater. EPA estimates that current

wastewater discharges from landfills

result in far less than one (0.003) annual

cancer case per year for all populations

evaluated. Final treatment options

would reduce this value to 0.002 annual

cancer cases per year, which would

result in negligible monetized benefits

($2,100 to $11,000 per year). EPA

projects systemic health effects from one

pollutant (disulfoton) in two receiving

streams at both current and final BAT

discharge levels affecting a total

population of 643 subsistence anglers

and their families.

EPA’s survey of hazardous landfills in

the United States indicated that there

were no in-scope respondents which

were classified as direct dischargers.

Therefore, the Agency did not evaluate

potential aquatic life and human health

impacts of direct wastewater discharges

from hazardous landfills.

VII. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts

The elimination or reduction of one

form of pollution may create or

aggravate other environmental

problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b)

and 306 of the Act require EPA to

consider non-water quality

environmental impacts of effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

Accordingly, EPA has considered the

effect of these regulations on air

pollution, solid waste generation, and

energy consumption. While it is

difficult to balance environmental

impacts across all media and energy

use, the Agency has determined that the

impacts identified below are justified by

the benefits associated with compliance

with the limitations and standards.

A. Air Pollution

The primary source of air pollution

from landfills is due to the microbial

breakdown of organic wastes from

within the landfill. Landfills are known

to be major sources of greenhouse gas

emissions such as methane and carbon

dioxide. These emissions are now

regulated under the Clean Air Act as a

result of the ‘‘Standards of Performance

for New Stationary Sources and

Guidelines for Control of Existing

Sources: Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills,’’ promulgated by EPA on

March 12, 1996. (61 FR 9905). Many

municipal solid waste landfills are

required to collect and combust the

gases generated in the landfill.

Wastewater collected from within the

landfill contains organic compounds

which include volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and hazardous air

pollutants (HAP). This wastewater must

be collected, treated and stored in units

which are often open to the atmosphere

and may result in the volatilization of

certain compounds. The regulations

promulgated today are based on the

performance of an aerated biological

system. Wastewater aeration may

increase the volatilization of certain

organic compounds, a potential

environmental concern. However,

indications are that the potential

increase in air emissions due to this

regulation will be minimal. VOCs in

hazardous waste landfill leachate are

being steadily minimized due to the

RCRA land disposal restriction rules,

which typically require aggressive

destructive treatment of organics in

hazardous wastes before the waste can

be landfilled (see 40 CFR 268.40 and

268.48).7 VOC levels in historic landfill

leachate (from both hazardous and nonhazardous waste landfills dating from

the 1930s to the mid-1990s) are also at

levels which are low enough as not to

call into question EPA’s determination

to base these rules on the performance

of aerated biological systems. Tables 6–

9, 6–10, and 6–13 in Technical

Development Document show the

concentrations of VOCs found in

landfill wastewater.

Furthermore, EPA’s Office of Air and

Radiation is currently evaluating the air

emissions from wastewater generated at

municipal solid waste landfills, and

intends to take today’s rule into account

in determining whether further controls

under section 112 of the Clean Air Act

(which requires technology-based

standards for hazardous air pollutants

emitted by major sources of emissions of

those pollutants) are justified.

(Preliminary indications are that

hazardous air pollutant emissions from

aeration would be a minor fraction of

those from other landfill emission

sources such as landfill gas emissions.)

In addition, EPA is addressing

emissions of VOCs from industrial

wastewater through a Control

Techniques Guideline (CTG) under

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. In

September, 1992, EPA published a draft

document entitled ‘‘Control of Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions from

Industrial Wastewater’’ (EPA–453/0–93–

056). This document addresses various

industries, including the hazardous

waste treatment, storage, and disposal

industry, and outlines emissions

expected from their wastewater

treatment systems and methods for

controlling them.

B. Solid Waste Generation

Solid waste will be generated due to

a number of the treatment technologies

selected as BPT/BAT for this regulation.

These wastes include sludge from

biological treatment systems and

chemical precipitation systems. Solids

from treatment processes are typically

dewatered and disposed in the on-site

landfill. Therefore, the increased

amount of sludge created due to this

regulation will be negligible in

comparison with the daily volumes of

waste processed and disposed of in a

typical landfill.

C. Energy Requirements

EPA estimates that the attainment of

these standards will increase energy

consumption by a very small increment

over present industry use. The selected

treatment technologies are not energyintensive, and the projected increase in

energy consumption is primarily due to

the incorporation of components such

as power pumps, mixers, blowers,

power lighting and controls. The costs

associated with these energy costs are

included in EPA’s estimated operating

costs for compliance with the final rule.

VIII. Regulatory Implementation

The purpose of this section is to

provide assistance and direction to

permit writers to aid in their

implementation of this regulation. This

section also discusses the relationship

of upset and bypass provisions,

variances and modifications, and

analytical methods to the final

limitations.

A. Implementation of Limitations and

Standards

Upon the promulgation of these

regulations, all new and reissued

Federal and State NPDES permits issued

to direct dischargers in the landfills

industry must include the effluent

limitations for the appropriate

subcategory. Permit writers should be

aware that EPA has proposed revisions

to 40 CFR Part 122 and is currently

addressing public comments on its

proposal. One of several aspects of the

proposal which could be particularly

relevant to the development of NPDES

permits for the Landfills Point Source

Category is the proposed revisions of

Section 122.44(a). In EPA’s current

thinking, the revisions would require

that permits have limitations for all

applicable guideline-listed pollutants

but allows for the waiver of sampling

requirements for guideline-listed

pollutants on a case-by-case basis if the

3032 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

discharger can certify that the pollutant

is not present in the discharge or

present in only background levels from

intake water with no increase due to the

activities of the discharger. EPA

anticipates that new sources and new

dischargers will not be eligible for this

waiver on their first permit term, and

monitoring can be re-established

through a minor modification if the

discharger expands or changes its

process. Further, the permittee will not

need to reapply for the waiver each

permit term, but only needs to notify the

permit writer of any modifications that

have taken place over the course of the

permit term and, if necessary,

monitoring can be reestablished through

a minor modification.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion

of waste streams from any portion of a

treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an

exceptional incident in which there is

unintentional and temporary

noncompliance with technology-based

permit effluent limitations because of

factors beyond the reasonable control of

the permittee. EPA’s regulations

concerning bypasses and upsets are set

forth at 40 CFR 122.41 (m) and (n).

C. Variances and Modifications

The CWA requires application of the

effluent limitations established pursuant

to Section 301 or the pretreatment

standards of Section 307 to all direct

and indirect dischargers. However, the

statute provides for the modification of

these national requirements in a limited

number of circumstances. Moreover, the

Agency has established administrative

mechanisms to provide an opportunity

for relief from the application of

national effluent limitations guidelines

and pretreatment standards for

categories of existing sources for

priority, conventional and

nonconventional pollutants.

1. Fundamentally Different Factors

Variances

EPA will develop effluent limitations

or standards different from the

otherwise applicable requirements if an

individual existing discharging facility

is fundamentally different with respect

to factors considered in establishing the

limitation or standards applicable to the

individual facility. Such a modification

is known as a ‘‘fundamentally different

factors’’ (FDF) variance.

Early on, EPA, by regulation,

provided for FDF modifications from

BPT effluent limitations, BAT

limitations for priority and

nonconventional pollutants and BCT

limitation for conventional pollutants

for direct dischargers. For indirect

dischargers, EPA provided for FDF

modifications from pretreatment

standards for existing facilities. FDF

variances for priority pollutants were

challenged judicially and ultimately

sustained by the Supreme Court.

(Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v.

NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).

Subsequently, in the Water Quality

Act of 1987, Congress added new

Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to

authorize modification of the otherwise

applicable BAT effluent limitations or

categorical pretreatment standards for

existing sources if a facility is

fundamentally different with respect to

the factors specified in Section 304

(other than costs) from those considered

by EPA in establishing the effluent

limitations or pretreatment standard.

Section 301(n) also defined the

conditions under which EPA may

establish alternative requirements.

Under Section 301(n), an application for

approval of an FDF variance must be

based solely on (1) information

submitted during the rulemaking raising

the factors that are fundamentally

different or (2) information the

applicant did not have an opportunity

to submit. The alternate limitation or

standard must be no less stringent than

justified by the difference and not result

in markedly more adverse non-water

quality environmental impacts than the

national limitation or standard.

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 125

Subpart D, authorizing the Regional

Administrators to establish alternative

limitations and standards, further detail

the substantive criteria used to evaluate

FDF variance requests for existing direct

dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d)

identifies six factors (e.g., volume of

process wastewater, age and size of a

discharger’s facility) that may be

considered in determining if a facility is

fundamentally different. The Agency

must determine whether, on the basis of

one or more of these factors, the facility

in question is fundamentally different

from the facilities and factors

considered by EPA in developing the

nationally applicable effluent

guidelines. The regulation also lists four

other factors (e.g., infeasibility of

installation within the time allowed or

a discharger’s ability to pay) that may

not provide a basis for an FDF variance.

In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3),

a request for limitations less stringent

than the national limitation may be

approved only if compliance with the

national limitations would result in

either (a) a removal cost wholly out of

proportion to the removal cost

considered during development of the

national limitations, or (b) a non-water

quality environmental impact

(including energy requirements)

fundamentally more adverse than the

impact considered during development

of the national limits. EPA regulations

provide for an FDF variance for existing

indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13.

The conditions for approval of a request

to modify applicable pretreatment

standards and factors considered are the

same as those for direct dischargers.

The legislative history of Section

301(n) underscores the necessity for the

FDF variance applicant to establish

eligibility for the variance. EPA’s

regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are

explicit in imposing this burden upon

the applicant. The applicant must show

that the factors relating to the discharge

controlled by the applicant’s permit

which are claimed to be fundamentally

different are, in fact, fundamentally

different from those factors considered

by EPA in establishing the applicable

guidelines. The pretreatment regulation

incorporates a similar requirement at 40

CFR 403.13(h)(9).

An FDF variance is not available to a

new source subject to NSPS or PSNS.

2. Permit Modifications

Even after EPA (or an authorized

State) has issued a final permit to a

direct discharger, the permit may still be

modified under certain conditions.

(When a permit modification is under

consideration, however, all other permit

conditions remain in effect.) A permit

modification may be triggered in several

circumstances. These could include a

regulatory inspection or information

submitted by the permittee that reveals

the need for modification. Any

interested person may request

modification of a permit be made. There

are two classifications of modifications:

major and minor. From a procedural

standpoint, they differ primarily with

respect to the public notice

requirements. Major modifications

require public notice while minor

modifications do not. Virtually any

modification that results in less

stringent conditions is treated as a major

modification, with provisions for public

notice and comment. Conditions that

would necessitate a major modification

of a permit are described in 40 CFR

122.62. Minor modifications are

generally non-substantive changes. The

conditions for minor modifications are

described in 40 CFR 122.63.

D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations

to NPDES Permits and Monitoring

Requirements

Effluent limitations act as a primary

mechanism to control the discharges of

pollutants to waters of the United

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3033

States. These limitations are applied to

individual facilities through NPDES

permits issued by EPA or authorized

States under Section 402 of the Act.

The Agency has developed the

limitations for this regulation to cover

the discharge of pollutants for this

industrial category. In specific cases, the

NPDES permitting authority may elect

to establish technology-based permit

limits for pollutants not covered by this

regulation. In addition, if State water

quality standards or other provisions of

State or Federal Law require limits on

pollutants not covered by this regulation

(or require more stringent limits on

covered pollutants) the permitting

authority must apply those limitations.

Working in conjunction with the

effluent limitations are the monitoring

conditions set out in a NPDES permit.

An integral part of the monitoring

conditions is the point at which a

facility must monitor to demonstrate

compliance. The point at which a

sample is collected can have a dramatic

effect on the monitoring results for that

facility. Therefore, it may be necessary

to require internal monitoring points in

order to ensure compliance. Authority

to address internal waste streams is

provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and

122.45(h). Permit writers may establish

additional internal monitoring points to

the extent consistent with EPA’s

regulations.

E. Implementation for Facilities With

Landfills in Multiple Subcategories

According to the ‘‘1992 Waste

Treatment Industry: Landfills

Questionnaire,’’ there are several

facilities which operate both Subtitle C

hazardous landfills and Subtitle D nonhazardous landfills on-site. Generally,

for determination of effluent limits

where there are multiple categories and

subcategories, the effluent guidelines

are applied using a flow-weighted

combination of the appropriate

guideline for each category or

subcategory. Thus, the normal practice

would be to develop flow-weighted

limitations for the combined Subtitle C

and Subtitle D wastestreams, a flowweighted combination of the BAT limits

for the Landfills Category. However,

EPA’s RCRA regulations require

management of mixtures of hazardous

and non-hazardous waste under RCRA

hazardous waste regulations.

Consequently, a commingled flow of

hazardous and nonhazardous waste is a

hazardous waste. Therefore, if a facility

commingles wastewater from a Subtitle

C hazardous landfill and a Subtitle D

non-hazardous landfill for treatment,

then the effluent from that facility is

subject to the limitations promulgated

today for the Hazardous subcategory.

F. Implementation for Contaminated

Ground Water Flows and Wastewater

From Recovering Pumping Wells

As discussed in Section [III], ground

water flows and wastewater flows from

recovering pumping wells (which have

very similar characteristics to

contaminated ground water) are not

subject to the effluent limits established

in today’s rule. These terms are defined

in Section [III] of this preamble.

According to the ‘‘1992 Waste

Treatment Industry: Landfills

Questionnaire,’’ there are a number of

facilities which collect contaminated

ground water in addition to flows

regulated under this rule, and many

facilities commingle these flows for

treatment. In the Agency’s analysis of

contaminated ground water at landfills,

EPA found that contaminated ground

water may be very dilute or may have

characteristics similar in nature to

leachate. Due to this site-to-site

variability, the Agency is not able to

determine how the guidelines should be

implemented for commingled flows of

ground water and regulated wastewater.

In the case of such facilities, EPA

believes that decisions regarding the

appropriate discharge limits should be

left to the judgment of the permit writer.

As indicated by data collected through

the questionnaires and EPA sampling,

ground water characteristics are often

site-specific and may contain very few

contaminants or may, conversely,

exhibit characteristics similar in nature

to leachate.

In cases where the ground water is

very dilute the Agency is concerned that

contaminated ground water may be used

as a dilution flow. In these cases, the

permit writer should develop BPJ

permit limits based on separate

treatment of the flows, or develop BPJ

limits based on a flow-weighted

building block approach, in order to

prevent dilution of the regulated

leachate flows. However, in cases where

the ground water may exhibit

characteristics similar to leachate,

commingled treatment may be

appropriate, cost effective and

environmentally beneficial. EPA

recommends that the permit writer

consider the characteristics of the

contaminated ground water before

making a determination if commingling

ground water and leachate for treatment

is appropriate. EPA recommends that

the permit writer refer to the leachate

characteristics data in Chapter 6 of the

Technical Development Document in

order to determine whether

contaminated ground water at a landfill

has characteristics similar to leachate.

G. Implementation for Subtitle D

Landfills Which Received Newly Listed

Hazardous Wastes in the Past

There are situations where a Subtitle

D landfill received wastes that, at the

time, were not classified as hazardous,

but since disposal of the waste, EPA

now classifies that type of waste as

hazardous. In these situations, leachate

that is derived from the treatment,

storage, or disposal of listed hazardous

wastes is classified as a hazardous waste

by virtue of the ‘‘derived-from’’ rule in

40 CFR 261.3(c)(2). The Agency has

been very clear in the past on the

applicability of hazardous waste listings

to wastes disposed of prior to the

effective date of a listing, even if the

landfill ceases disposal of the waste

when the waste becomes hazardous. 53

FR 31147 (August 17, 1988). EPA also

has a well-established interpretation

that listings likewise apply to leachate

derived from the disposal of listed

hazardous wastes, including leachate

derived from wastes (which meet the

listing description) disposed before a

listing effective date. Id. EPA’s

interpretations were upheld by the

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit in Chemical Waste

Management, Inc. v. EPA, 869 F.2d

1526, 1536–37 (D.C. Cir. 1989). (These

points are restated here to provide

context. EPA is not reconsidering or in

any other way reopening these

principles for comment or review.)

This does not mean that landfills

holding wastes which are now listed as

hazardous become subject to Subtitle C

regulation. However, previously

disposed wastes now meeting the listing

description, including residues such as

leachate and gas collection condensate

which are derived from such wastes and

are actively managed (i.e., collected for

discharge), do become subject to

Subtitle C regulation. 53 FR 31149.

Thus, in these types of situations, a nonhazardous Subtitle D landfill will

produce a leachate that is subject to

Subtitle C regulation. In many cases,

however, as discussed at 64 FR 6807, no

significant regulatory consequences

under RCRA result from leachate

management.

As discussed at Section [III] above,

EPA established two different sets of

effluent limitations for the landfills

point source category based on the

RCRA classification of the landfill, and

not the RCRA classification of the

leachate. Therefore, according to the

subcategorization scheme adopted by

EPA in today’s rule, a hazardous,

Subtitle C leachate generated from a

3034 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

non-hazardous, Subtitle D landfill is

subject to the effluent limitations for the

Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA

concluded that such an approach was

appropriate because EPA’s NonHazardous subcategory landfill database

reflects those facilities that may, as a

result of future RCRA hazardous waste

listings, generate a hazardous leachate

in the future. However, due to both

pollutant-specific and site-specific

factors in these types of situations, EPA

determined that the local permit writer

may need to require monitoring of

pollutants in addition to those required

by this rule for the Non-Hazardous

subcategory in order to ensure

appropriate treatment of the hazardous,

Subtitle C leachate.

EPA does not believe that these types

of situations are very common, and

therefore EPA concluded that the

determination of effluent limitations for

additional pollutant parameters will

have only a minimal impact on the

permit writer. Since the majority of

Subtitle D landfills discharge indirectly

to POTWs, and since EPA did not

establish pretreatment standards for

either non-hazardous or hazardous

landfills, the local control authority will

not need to make the determination in

these cases.

EPA recommends that the permit

writer refer to the leachate

characteristics data in Chapter 6 of the

Technical Development Document in

order to determine whether the leachate

resembles Subtitle C or Subtitle D

leachate and whether monitoring

requirements in addition to those for the

Non-Hazardous subcategory are

necessary.

H. Implementation for Superfund

Response Actions at Landfills

This section addresses compliance

with the landfills effluent limitations

promulgated today when CERCLA

response action is taken at a landfill. In

cases where a Subtitle C or Subtitle D

landfill is also subject to response action

under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) of 1980, also known as

Superfund, it is possible that the

landfills effluent guideline may be an

applicable or relevant and appropriate

requirement (ARAR) for the Superfund

site.

CERCLA directed EPA to identify

abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous

waste sites and to clean up the worst of

these sites. The Agency carries out these

responsibilities through the Superfund

response process, according to

procedures outlined in the National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP). Section

121(d)(1) of CERCLA as amended by the

1986 Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA) requires

that on-site remedial actions must attain

(or waive), at completion of the action,

federal or more stringent state

applicable or relevant and appropriate

(ARARs) environmental law. The 1990

National Contingency Plan (NCP)

requires compliance with ARARs during

remedial actions as well as at

completion and compels attainment of

ARARs during removal actions

whenever practicable. See 40 CFR

300.415(j) and 300.435(b)(2). Therefore,

CWA limitations, such as those

promulgated today, may be applicable

or relevant and appropriate to

hazardous substances discharged on-site

into surface water from a Superfund

site.

CWA requirements are intimately

connected to CERCLA as all 126 CWA

priority toxic pollutants are CERCLA

hazardous substances (CERCLA Section

101(14)). EPA thus has the authority

under Superfund to respond to releases

of priority toxic pollutants. EPA also

must adhere to or waive ‘‘applicable’’ or

‘‘relevant and appropriate’’ CWA

standards during on-site response

actions.

‘‘Applicable’’ requirements are those

cleanup standards, standards of control,

and other substantive environmental

protection requirements, criteria, or

limitations promulgated under federal

or timely identified state law that

specifically address a hazardous

substance, pollutant, or contaminant,

remedial action, location, or other

circumstance at a Superfund site (40

CFR 300.5). Basically, to be applicable,

a requirement must directly and fully

address a CERCLA activity. For

example, the Hazardous subcategory

landfill effluent limitations could be

considered applicable for a CERCLA

landfill that collects and discharges

landfill leachate (or other wastewater

regulated by the landfills guideline) onsite to a surface water. Because the

landfill effluent guidelines did not

establish pretreatment standards,

today’s rule would not be ‘‘applicable’’

for a CERCLA landfill discharging

indirectly to a POTW. Determining

which standards will be applicable to a

Superfund response is similar to

determining the applicability of any law

or regulation to any chemical, action, or

location. The lead or support agency

must examine federal and state statutes

and regulations to identify those which

directly govern response activities.

CERCLA, in addition to incorporating

‘‘applicable’’ environmental laws and

regulations into the response process,

requires compliance with (or waiver of)

other ‘‘relevant and appropriate’’

standards. A requirement which is not

applicable may be relevant and

appropriate if it addresses problems or

pertains to circumstances similar to

those encountered at a Superfund site.

‘‘Relevant and Appropriate’’

requirements are those cleanup

standards, standards of control, or other

substantive environmental provisions

that while not applicable address

sufficiently similar situations or

problems to those encountered at a

Superfund site such that their use is

well-suited to the particular site. 40 CFR

300.5 and 300.400(g)(2). A requirement

may be ‘‘relevant’’ in that it covers

situations similar to that at the site, but

may not be ‘‘appropriate’’ to apply for

various reasons and, therefore, not wellsuited to the site.

The types of legal requirements

applying to Superfund responses will

differ to some extent depending upon

whether the activity in question takes

place on site or off site. In the case of

CERCLA actions, a direct discharge of

Superfund wastewater would be

considered on site if the receiving water

body is in the area of contamination or

is in very close proximity to the site and

necessary for implementation of the

response action (even if the water body

flows off site). ‘‘CERCLA Compliance

with Other Laws Manual’’ Chapter 3,

‘‘Guidance for Compliance with Clean

Water Act Requirements,’’ (EPA, August

8, 1988).

For response actions that are on-site,

the site must comply with or waive both

‘‘applicable’’ as well as ‘‘relevant and

appropriate requirements.’’ However,

EPA does not need to comply with

procedural environmental requirements

on site. In addition, CERCLA Section

121(e)(2) states that no Federal, State or

local permit (e.g., a permit for a direct

discharge to surface waters) is required

for the portion of any removal or

remedial action conducted entirely onsite. Therefore, Superfund sites are not

required to obtain permits for on-site

actions. For off site actions, a CERCLA

response generally must comply only

with all applicable law.

Therefore, administrative NPDES

standards, such as the permit and

certification requirements required by

today’s rule, are applicable to CERCLA

discharges to off-site surface water.

Because only surface water that is

within or in very close proximity to an

area of contamination is considered on

site, most CERCLA response actions will

trigger administrative NPDES standards.

Also see ‘‘CERCLA Compliance with

Other Laws Manual’’ at p. 1–65 (EPA,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3035

August 8, 1988); Final NCP, 59 FR

47416 (Sept. 15, 1994).

I. Implementation for TSCA Landfills

Concern over the toxicity and

persistence in the environment of

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) led

Congress in 1976 to enact § 6(e) of the

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

that included among other things,

prohibitions on the manufacture,

processing, and distribution in

commerce of PCBs. Thus, TSCA

legislated true ‘‘cradle to grave’’ (i.e.,

from manufacture to disposal)

management of PCBs in the United

States. Today’s guidelines do not apply

to landfills that are only permitted

under TSCA as Chemical Waste

Landfills. Rather, it applies only to

those landfills subject to the

requirements under Subtitle C or

Subtitle D of RCRA. However, landfills

that are subject to Subtitle C or D of

RCRA and are also permitted under

TSCA will be subject to the landfills

effluent limitations guidelines

promulgated today. In fact, at least one

of the landfills sampled by EPA (and

selected as BAT) for the Hazardous

subcategory, is a Chemical Waste

Landfill permitted under TSCA and is

also a Subtitle C landfill under RCRA.

J. Implementation for Landfills Located

at Centralized Waste Treatment

Facilities

EPA is in the process of developing

guidelines for Centralized Waste

Treatment (CWT) facilities which will

be promulgated next year. As previously

explained at Section [III], this part does

not apply to landfills operated in

conjunction with CWT facilities that

will be subject to 40 CFR Part 437 (when

issued) so long as the CWT facility

commingles the landfill wastewater

with other non-landfill wastewater for

discharge. A landfill directly associated

with a CWT facility is subject to this

part if the CWT facility discharges

landfill wastewater separately from

other CWT wastewater or commingles

the wastewater from its landfill only

with wastewater from other landfills.

For example, under current thinking,

following promulgation of the CWT

guidelines, a landfill treatment system

that accepts wastewater from a nonlandfill source for treatment would be a

CWT and subject to the CWT guidelines

and standards to be codified at 40 CFR

Part 437. However, a landfill treatment

system that only accepted wastewater

for treatment generated off-site from offsite landfills would be subject to the

landfill guidelines.

K. Determination of Similar Wastes for

Captive Landfill Facilities

As discussed at Section [III] above,

the Agency concluded that discharges

from captive landfills should not be

subject to the guidelines if the captive

landfills only accepted waste for

disposal from another facility that was

similar to the waste generated by the

industrial or commercial operation

directly associated with the landfill.

This section offers guidance to permit

writers for determining whether a solid

waste received for disposal in a captive

landfill is similar to those wastes

generated by the facility directly

associated with the landfill.

According to EPA’s database, many of

the industrial or commercial facilities

that operate captive landfills are subject

to effluent limitations guidelines in 40

CFR Subchapter N. For the most part,

facilities subject to a particular

industrial category effluent guideline

produce similar types of wastes.

Therefore, EPA decided that this rule

does not apply to landfills operated in

conjunction with other industrial or

commercial operations when the

landfill receives wastes generated by the

industrial or commercial operation

directly associated with the landfill and

also receives other wastes generated by

a facility that is subject to the same

provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N as

the waste-receiving facility.

However, there are cases where a

captive landfill is directly associated

with an industrial or commercial

operation that is not subject to an

effluent guideline. Or, a facility, subject

to an effluent guideline, may operate a

landfill in conjunction with industrial

or commercial operations, but may also

accept other wastes from facilities that

are not subject to the same effluent

guideline or not subject to an effluent

guideline at all. In these cases, the

permit writer must determine whether

the other wastes received for disposal

are of similar nature to the wastes

generated by the industrial or

commercial operation directly

associated with the landfill. In cases

where the permit writer determines that

the other waste accepted by the captive

landfill is not similar to the waste

generated by the industrial or

commercial activity directly associated

with the landfill, then the landfill

wastewater will be subject to the

landfills effluent limitations. However,

if the permit writer determines that the

wastes are similar, then the wastewater

from the captive landfill should be

subject to the same categorical effluent

guideline (or BPJ limitations) as the

industrial or commercial facility.

A permit writer should consider the

following factors in deciding whether

other wastes received by a captive

landfill are similar to those wastes

generated by the industrial or

commercial operation directly

associated with the landfill:

1. Are the other wastes received from

facilities that are subject to the same

provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N as

the facility directly associated with the

captive landfill?

If so, then the landfills effluent guidelines

do not apply to this captive landfill. If not,

then the permit writer should consider the

other factors listed below.

2. Are the other wastes received from

facilities that are part of the same

effluent guidelines ‘‘grouping’’ as

described in Chapter 2 of the Landfills

Technical Development Document?

If so, it is likely that the wastes are similar

and the landfills effluent guidelines do not

apply. In the Landfills Technical

Development Document, EPA grouped the

industrial categories under Subchapter N into

six groups: Organics, Metals, Inorganics and

Non-metals, Pesticides, Explosives, and

Asbestos. It is likely that industries within

the same industrial effluent guideline

‘‘grouping’’ will generate similar types of

constituents in the solid wastes, and the

leachate resulting from the disposal of these

wastes will be controlled adequately by the

effluent limitation for the industrial or

commercial facility directly associated with

the captive landfill. However, this may not

always be the case, and therefore EPA left to

the local control authority the determination

of whether the landfills effluent guideline

should apply to a captive landfill that accepts

wastes from other facilities that are not

subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR

Subchapter N. The local permitting authority

will determine whether a captive landfill

which accepts wastes from other industrial

activities apart from those directly associated

with the landfill is subject to today’s

guidelines based on the similarity of the

other wastes and the likelihood that these

wastes will result in leachate that is

compatible with the wastewater treatment

technology used to treat the landfill leachate.

3. In the case of hazardous captive

landfills, do the other wastes being

received have the same hazardous waste

codes as those generated at the facility

directly associated with the landfill?

If so, it is possible that the wastes are

similar. However, this may not always be the

case, and therefore EPA left to the local

control authority the determination of

whether the landfills effluent guideline

should apply to a captive landfill that accepts

wastes from other facilities that are not

subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR

Subchapter N.

4. Is a significant portion of the waste

deposited in the landfill from the

industrial or commercial operation that

3036 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

is directly associated with the captive

landfill?

The control authority should analyze the

number of customers and the amount of the

off-site or inter-company waste deposited

relative to the quantity of on-site or

intracompany waste placed in the captive

landfill. Again, the main reason for the

exclusion for captive landfills is that their

leachate should resemble the industrial

wastewater of the operation directly

associated with the landfill, and therefore,

the landfill leachate will be adequately

controlled by the applicable industrial

effluent guidelines. However, this logic is

only applicable when the bulk of the waste

placed in the landfill is of similar content to

that being produced by the industrial facility

directly associated with the landfill.

Therefore, when applying the captive

exclusion, the control authority should

analyze the volume and characteristics of

waste received from inter-company waste

transfers in determining whether the leachate

generated by the captive landfill will have

similar characteristics to the industrial

wastewater generated by the company

owning the landfill.

5. Is the facility that is directly

associated with the captive landfill

deriving revenues from waste disposal

at the landfill?

In developing the exclusion for captive

landfills, EPA’s intent was to exclude those

non-commercial landfills that are directly

associated with an industrial or commercial

operation and whose leachate is currently

being adequately addressed by the facility’s

categorical or BPJ limitations. EPA believes

that where revenues are being derived from

the collection of fees for solid waste disposal

at a captive landfill, the facility is accepting

wastes on a commercial basis—wastes that

may well be dissimilar to that being disposed

of at the landfill. The captive exception is

premised on the fact that in most cases

leachate from a landfill associated with an

industrial operation will resemble the

industrial process wastewater generated by

the industrial operation, and therefore, the

landfill leachate will be adequately

controlled by the applicable industrial

effluent guidelines or BPJ limitations.

However, this is a reasonable assumption

only in circumstances where the waste

placed in the landfill is of similar content to

that being produced by the industrial

operation directly associated with the

landfill. It is likely that a commercial landfill

may accept significant volumes of waste that

are not similar to the wastes generated by the

industrial operation directly associated with

the landfill.

6. Is the industrial or commercial

facility directly associated with the

captive landfill accepting wastes for

disposal as part of public service

activities?

If so, and the facility does not receive a fee

or other remuneration for the disposal

service, the captive landfill is not subject to

this rule. EPA defines public service

activities in Appendix A of this preamble.

L. Analytical Methods

Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act

directs EPA to promulgate guidelines

establishing test methods for the

analysis of pollutants. These methods

are used to determine the presence and

concentration of pollutants in

wastewater, and are used for

compliance monitoring and for filing

applications for the NPDES program

under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44

and 123.25, and for the implementation

of the pretreatment standards under 40

CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA

has promulgated methods for

conventional pollutants, toxic

pollutants, and for some

nonconventional pollutants. The five

conventional pollutants are defined at

40 CFR 401.16. Table I–B at 40 CFR 136

lists the analytical methods approved

for these pollutants. The 65 toxic metals

and organic pollutants and classes of

pollutants are defined at 40 CFR 401.15.

From the list of 65 classes of toxic

pollutants EPA identified a list of 126

‘‘Priority Pollutants.’’ This list of

Priority Pollutants is shown, for

example, at 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix

A. The list includes non-pesticide

organic pollutants, metal pollutants,

cyanide, asbestos, and pesticide

pollutants. Currently approved methods

for metals and cyanide are included in

the table of approved inorganic test

procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I–B.

Table I–C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved

methods for measurement of nonpesticide organic pollutants, and Table

I–D lists approved methods for the toxic

pesticide pollutants and for other

pesticide pollutants. Dischargers must

use the test methods promulgated at 40

CFR 136.3 or incorporated by reference

in the tables, when available, to monitor

pollutant discharges from Landfills,

unless specified otherwise by the

permitting authority.

The final rule establishes limitations

for BOD5, TSS, pH, ammonia, arsenic

(total), chromium (total), zinc (total),

alpha terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid, pcresol, phenol, naphthalene, and

pyridine. Except for aniline, benzoic

acid, p-cresol, and pyridine, there are

methods specified for these pollutants at

40 CFR 136.3. Although these four

pollutants are not directly covered in

the list of approved methods, EPA has

successfully used Methods 625 and

1625 to measure these semivolatile

pollutants. EPA has collected analytical

data for these four pollutants and for

other pollutants of interest in the

wastewater program using Methods 625

and 1625. One of the pollutants, alpha

terpineol, is currently an analyte in

Method 1625 but not in Method 625.

EPA has also collected data for alpha

terpineol using Method 625 to provide

greater flexibility in the selection of an

analytical method for monitoring

discharges. As part of today’s final rule,

EPA is amending 40 CFR Part 136.3,

Appendix A, to add attachments to EPA

Methods 625 and 1625 with method

performance criteria for additional

pollutants, including the pollutants of

concern for Landfills. The modified

versions of Methods 625 and 1625 will

allow the analysis of all semivolatile

organic pollutants in today’s final rule.

EPA proposed to amend Methods 625

and 1625 to include additional

pollutants as part of the Centralized

Waste Treatment proposal last year (64

FR 2345). Since then, EPA has gathered

data on additional analytes. The

attachments to Methods 625 and 1625

consist of text, performance data, and

quality control (QC) acceptance criteria

for the additional analytes. This

information will allow a laboratory to

practice the methods with the

additional analytes as an integral part.

The QC acceptance criteria for the

additional analytes were determined in

single-laboratory studies. The collected

data are summarized in a report in the

docket for today’s rulemaking.

IX. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule

is a not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3037

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s rule on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) a small business

that has annual revenues less than $6

million (i.e., the definition for SIC 4953,

Refuse Systems); (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s final rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

EPA prepared a detailed assessment of

the impacts of today’s rule on small

entities. This assessment is included in

the ‘‘Economic Analysis of Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

for the Landfill Category,’’ which is

summarized in Section [V], above, and

is part of the Record for today’s rule.

Today’s rule establishes requirements

applicable to landfill facilities owned by

both small businesses and small

governmental jurisdictions. We

determined that, of the 138 facilities

expected to incur costs, only 39

facilities are small entities. Of these two

are privately owned and 37 are

government owned. The projected costs

for these entities are low—in all cases

less than one percent of revenues.

Further, EPA projects that only two

facilities owned by small entities will

incur economic impacts such as facility

closure. Further, EPA’s assessment

project no economic impacts, such as

plant closure, for these small entities,

Although this final rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the

impact of this rule on small entities. The

Agency considered various technology

options in establishing a basis for

today’s effluent limitations. The

Agency’s analysis specifically included

economic impacts to the regulated

community. While complying with the

statute, EPA also reduced regulatory

impacts by selecting economically

achievable and cost-reasonable options.

C. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule

will be effective February 18, 2000.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection requirements. Therefore, this

rule is not subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. EPA

has estimated total annualized costs of

the rule as $ 7.64 million (1998$, posttax). Thus, today’s rule is not subject to

the requirements of Sections 202 and

205 of the UMRA.

EPA has determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. EPA determined

that no small governments are

significantly affected by this rule as

discussed in Part B. of this section.

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of Section 203 of the

UMRA.

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian Tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

3038 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s Rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments because EPA

determined that no communities of

Indian tribal governments are affected

by this rule. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA

may not issue a regulation that has

federalism implications, that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs, and

that is not required by statute, unless

the Federal government provides the

funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. The rule will

not impose substantial costs on States

and localities. The rule establishes

effluent limitations imposing

requirements that apply to landfills

when they discharge wastewater. The

rule does not apply directly to States

and applies to localities only when they

operate a municipal landfill that

discharges wastewater. The rule will

only affect States when they are

administering CWA permitting

programs. The final rule, at most,

imposes minimal administrative costs

on States if the States have an

authorized NPDES programs. (These

States must incorporate the new

limitations in new and reissued NPDES

permits). Similarly, local governments

operating directly discharging landfills

will not experience substantial cost. The

cost of complying with this guideline

will not be significantly greater than

current costs of meeting existing NPDES

permit limits. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, under

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub L. No. 104–

113 Sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices, etc.) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), explanations when the Agency

decided not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

Today’s final rule requires dischargers

to monitor for 3 metals, 7 organic

pollutants, BOD5, TSS, ammonia and

pH. EPA performed a search of the

technical literature to identify any

applicable analytical test methods from

industry, academia, voluntary

consensus standard bodies and other

parties that could be used to measure

the analytes in today’s final guideline.

EPA’s search revealed that there are

consensus standards for many of the

analytes already specified in 40 CFR

Part 136.3. Pollutants in today’s rule

with consensus methods already

specified in 40 CFR Part 136.3 include

the metals, BOD5, TSS, ammonia, pH,

phenol, and naphthalene. Pollutants

without consensus methods include

alpha terpineol, aniline, pyridine, pcresol, and benzoic acid. EPA did not

identify applicable consensus methods

for these five pollutants. EPA may

promulgate consensus methods for these

pollutants in a future rulemaking if such

methods become available.

I. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting

Children’s Health

The Executive Order ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that

is determined to be (1) ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children; and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is

not ‘‘economically significant’’ as

defined under Executive Order 12866.

X. Summary of Proposal Comments and

Responses

The following section describes the

major comments on the proposed rule,

and EPA’s responses. The public record

includes a full comment summary and

response document for this rulemaking.

Forty-eight commenters provided

detailed comments on the February 6,

1998 proposal. In all, the comments

dealt with 32 separate aspects of the

proposal. The following responds to the

most significant of the comments.

Comment: EPA’s selection of

biological treatment as BPT/BAT for all

non-hazardous landfills is inappropriate

because the technology is not effective

at utility ash monofills whose leachate

does not contain sufficient biologically

degradable organic material to sustain a

biological treatment system.

Response: EPA agrees that there are

certain landfill facilities in the NonHazardous subcategory, such as utility

ash monofills, that would have

difficulty operating biological treatment

systems due to the low organic content

of the wastewater. In these

circumstances, such facilities may need

to install different treatment systems to

ensure compliance with the

promulgated limits. However, one of the

several ash monofill facilities sampled

by EPA currently meets these

limitations and therefore will not need

to install any additional treatment

technologies in order to comply with

the landfills rule.

For the final rule, EPA re-evaluated

available technology for reducing

pollutant discharges from landfills with

low organic content wastewater. EPA’s

data on ash monofills showed that two

regulated pollutants (ammonia and

phenol) could be found at

concentrations which do not meet the

BPT/BAT limitations. In addition,

because various metals may be expected

to be present in ash monofill

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3039

8Eckenfelder, Welsey. Industrial Pollution

Control, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.

wastewater, EPA also considered the

treatment of zinc (the only metal for

which EPA promulgated a limitation for

the Non-Hazardous subcategory) in

evaluating the treatment technologies

for monofills with low organic content.

EPA concluded that breakpoint

chlorination would likely be the most

practicable and economic alternative

technology for the removal of ammonia

at non-hazardous facilities that cannot

sustain or chose not to install biological

treatment. For landfill facilities that

require removal of both phenol and

zinc, EPA evaluated granular activated

carbon as a non-biological alternative

treatment technology. EPA also looked

at the cost of these alternate treatment

technologies to meet the final limits. For

the final rule, EPA costed two ash

monofill facilities for treatment of

ammonia, phenol, and zinc using a

combination of breakpoint chlorination

and granular activated carbon. Based on

this assessment, EPA has concluded that

there are viable alternative technologies

available to facilities with low BOD5,

such as ash monofills, to treat ammonia,

phenol, and zinc that are comparable to

those biological treatment systems

found to be economically achievable for

the landfill industry generally. These

treatment systems may be installed at

costs comparable to those for biological

treatment. In these circumstances, EPA

has concluded that it should not

develop separate limitations for utility

ash monofills.

Comment: Several commenters

suggested that EPA further develop its

database to assess adequately the

influence of age-related changes on the

concentrations and quality of pollutants

in Subtitle D landfill leachate.

Response: EPA considered whether

age-related changes in leachate

concentrations of pollutants necessitate

different discharge limits for different

age classes of landfills. Several

considerations lead to the conclusion

that age-related limits are not

appropriate.

First, a facility’s wastewater treatment

system typically receives and

commingles leachate from several

landfills or cells of different ages. The

Agency has not observed any facility

which has found it advantageous or

necessary to treat age-related leachates

separately. The Agency did, however,

sample two landfill facilities that had

only one cell. One of the facilities had

been receiving wastes for nine years in

its landfill cell, while the other facility

had only been receiving waste for one

year. EPA compared the raw wastewater

concentrations of the constituents in

these two cells and found the

concentrations to be very similar. In

addition, most of the constituents in

both cells were close to the median raw

wastewater concentration for the NonHazardous subcategory. Second, based

on responses to the questionnaire,

discussions with landfill operators and

historical data, EPA understands that

leachate pollutant concentrations

appear to change substantially over the

first two to five years of operation but

then change only slowly thereafter.

These two observations imply that

treatment systems must be designed to

accommodate the full range of

concentrations expected in influent

wastewater. EPA concluded that the

BPT/BAT/NSPS treatment technologies

are able to treat the variations in landfill

wastewater likely to occur due to agerelated changes. EPA has taken into

account the ability of treatment systems

to accommodate age-related changes in

leachate concentrations, as well as

short-term fluctuations by promulgating

effluent limitations which reflect the

variability observed in monitoring data

spanning up to three years.

Additionally, EPA addressed agerelated effects on treatment

technologies, costs, and pollutant loads

by utilizing data collected from a variety

of landfills in various stages of age and

operation (e.g., closed, inactive, active).

EPA sampled landfills of various ages

and stages of operation (active, inactive,

closed), lined and unlined, and

concluded that the landfill database

used to develop the effluent limitations

represents leachate typically found at

Subtitle D landfills. In addition, EPA

received comments from several

commenters stating that the leachate

characterization data presented in the

proposal was consistent with their own

monitoring data.

In response to comments, EPA

evaluated the data from non-hazardous

landfill facilities of different ages to

compare general raw leachate

characteristics. When EPA compared

landfills of various ages from EPA’s

landfill effluent guidelines database, it

was difficult to pinpoint any particular

trends (i.e. organic pollutant

concentrations decrease significantly

with age). The absence of any particular

trend associated with pollutant

concentrations across landfill facilities

of various ages may be due to the fact

that most of the older landfill facilities

in EPA’s database have newer landfill

cells whose leachate is commingled for

treatment with the leachate from the

older landfill cells. For example, a

landfill facility that may have opened

prior to 1980 may have landfill cells

that opened since 1991 which

contribute a large portion of the leachate

flow. EPA acknowledges that age-related

changes in landfill leachate

characteristics would be expected from

individual landfill cells. Most of the

older landfill cells have lower

concentrations of BOD5, COD, and most

organic pollutants indicating a smaller

amount of degradable compounds from

the aged waste. 8 In addition, aged

leachates contain high levels of

chemically reduced compounds, such as

ammonia, and high chlorides because of

the anaerobic environment of the

landfill. These trends tend to be true for

individual landfill cells. However, when

looking at a landfill facility as a whole

(where a facility commingles leachates

from several cells of various ages for

treatment), the landfills effluent

guidelines database does not fully

support such a trend. In EPA’s data

collection efforts, EPA did not identify

any landfill facilities that treated

leachate from different aged cells

separately. Based on the fact that

landfill facilities commingle leachate

from cells of various ages for treatment,

EPA concluded that its leachate effluent

database appropriately represents the

landfills industry covered by this

guideline, and that the pollutant

concentrations found at landfill

facilities of various ages did not vary

significantly as to warrant different

treatment technologies for landfills of

different ages. As mentioned above, the

Agency sampled raw wastewater at two

landfill cells of different ages and found

the concentrations of constituents to be

very similar. EPA concluded that

neither the age nor the size of the

landfill facility will directly affect the

treatability of the landfill wastewater.

For the non-hazardous landfills, the

most pertinent factors for establishing

the limitations are costs of treatment

and the level of effluent reductions

obtainable.

Comment: EPA’s sampling data may

not be a true reflection of Subtitle D

leachates as a result of the time at which

EPA collected its sampling data.

Between the years of 1992 and 1995,

when most of EPA’s data collection

activities were underway, most of the

lined Subtitle D landfills had only

recently begun accepting waste. As a

result, EPA’s data reflect relatively new

landfills that tend to have less

concentrated leachate since it usually

takes 9–15 months after opening a new

cell before the leachate begins to

strengthen. In addition, EPA’s sampling

included leachate being collected from

unlined landfills that could be diluted

by the influence of ground water and,

therefore, was not representative of

3040 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

more concentrated leachates found in

lined Subtitle D landfills.

Response: EPA disagrees with the

commenters’ conclusions. EPA sampled

landfills of various ages and stages of

operation (active, inactive, closed),

lined and unlined, and is confident that

the landfill database represents leachate

typically found at Subtitle D landfills. A

number of commenters also share this

view. These commenters stated that the

leachate characterization data presented

in the proposal was consistent with the

results of their own monitoring.

EPA characterized wastewater from

non-hazardous landfills based on data

from several different sources including

industry responses to EPA’s detailed

questionnaires, monitoring reports,

industry supplied data, and data from

landfills sampled by EPA. Several nonhazardous landfill facilities responding

to the ‘‘Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire Phase II: Landfills, Part I,

Technical Information, 1994’’ (Detailed

Questionnaire) began accepting waste

prior to 1931. The majority of the

landfill facilities responding to the

questionnaire, however, began receiving

wastes after 1971. Only sixteen of the

204 non-hazardous landfills in EPA’s

Detailed Questionnaire database began

accepting waste as recently as 1992.

Therefore, EPA has concluded that

landfill facilities of all ages were well

represented in EPA’s Detailed

Questionnaire database.

In addition, EPA sampling episodes

comprised a large portion of the

wastewater characterization data for

Subtitle D landfills. EPA sampled

twelve different non-hazardous landfill

facilities during a two year period from

1993 to 1995. The period of years in

which the landfills sampled by EPA

began accepting wastes ranged from

1962 to 1994.

Grouping the sampled facilities

according to the year the facility began

accepting waste and by regulatory

history, there are four pre-1980 landfill

facilities (before 1980 Section 3001 of

RCRA); one landfill facility that falls in

the 1980 to 1983 range (before the 1984

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment

to RCRA); five landfill facilities that fall

in the 1984 to 1988 range (before Land

Disposal Restrictions (LDR)); and three

landfill facilities that are post-1988

(after LDR). EPA sampled only one

‘‘new’’ landfill facility. It opened in

1994 and EPA sampled the following

year. All other landfill facilities sampled

by EPA were between four years and 32

years of age at the time of sampling.

EPA agrees with the commenter that

relatively new landfill facilities tend to

have less concentrated leachates.

However, EPA combined the data from

the one new facility sampled with

characterization data from 12 other

landfill facilities that have an average

age of 13 years. In addition, for the most

part, these other landfill facilities

commingled leachates from cells of

differing ages and stages of operation.

The Agency did not identify any landfill

facilities which found it advantageous

or necessary to treat leachates from

landfill cells of different ages separately.

Most landfill leachates sampled by EPA

were composite samples of several cells.

Therefore, EPA concluded that the

landfills sampled and the resulting data

in the EPA database adequately

represent Subtitle D leachates.

The commenters also claim that

during the years EPA collected data,

most lined landfill cells were just being

constructed or had just begun operating.

Although this may be true, all of the

landfills (and cells) chosen by EPA for

sampling were lined, with the exception

of one facility and one landfill at

another facility. EPA specifically

selected lined landfills with leachate

collection systems for sampling visits

because these facilities would be more

likely to employ advanced leachate

treatment, and facilities with advanced

treatment were under consideration as

BAT. Even though federal regulations

for Subtitle D landfills are fairly recent,

several states were already

implementing requirements similar to

the current Subtitle D regulations prior

to the enactment of the federal

regulations. Therefore landfills in many

states (e.g., CA, NY, NJ, and PA)

incorporated lining and leachate

collection systems in advance of federal

requirements.

Another commenter also stated that

leachate from unlined landfills may be

diluted by ground water, and therefore,

would not be representative of more

concentrated leachates found in lined

Subtitle D landfills. EPA collected

leachate data from only two unlined

landfills out of the 13 sampled. EPA has

determined that the leachate from one of

the unlined landfills sampled by EPA

was unlikely to be diluted by ground

water because the leachate is collected

by two gravity flow sumps located well

above the water table. The other unlined

landfill sampled by EPA is also unlikely

to be diluted by ground water since the

collection system is located 12 feet

above the water table. In addition, this

facility commingled the leachate

collected from the unlined landfill with

the leachate from the lined landfill at

the facility. In these circumstances, EPA

determined that these data adequately

represent the concentrations of leachate

found at Subtitle D landfills.

Comment: EPA should further

subcategorize the Subtitle D landfills

because it is not appropriate to have the

same effluent limitations for both

municipal solid waste landfills and nonmunicipal solid waste landfills (or

monofills).

Response: EPA decided to include

non-municipal solid waste landfills

(including monofills) in the same NonHazardous subcategory as municipal

solid waste landfills and concluded

that, based on the available raw

wastewater data, such facilities can

meet the BPT/BAT limitations using

available technologies. EPA did

consider subcategorizing the NonHazardous subcategory further but

chose not to be based on several factors.

EPA did not choose to further

subcategorize Subtitle D landfill

facilities because the leachate

characteristics from monofills, ashfills,

construction and demolition landfills,

sludge landfills, and non-municipal

solid waste co-disposal sites were

comparable to the leachate

characteristics from municipal solid

waste landfills. EPA found that the

pollutants present in dedicated

monofills were a subset of those

pollutants found at municipal solid

waste landfills, at comparable

concentrations, with many parameters

found at lower concentrations than

typically found at municipal solid waste

landfills, as shown in Table 5–3 in the

Technical Development Document.

EPA evaluated data from monofills in

the EPA database and from commenters

submitting monofill data, as presented

in Chapter 5 in the Development

Document, and determined that there

are differences in wastewater

characteristics between different types

of monofills. Most of these differences

result from the fact that not all monofills

accept the same types of waste. The

greatest difference observed was

between monofills that accept organic

wastes and those that do not. EPA

concluded that monofills that accepted

wastes containing organic material

could meet the promulgated limitations

using biological treatment and,

therefore, were similar enough to other

landfills in the subcategory to warrant

inclusion. For those monofills that do

not accept organic wastes, EPA found

that many of the facilities could meet

the subcategory limitations without

treatment, and for those that could not,

alternative technologies were available

at cost no greater than those

technologies EPA evaluated (and

determined) to be economically

achievable for the subcategory as a

whole. EPA included the costs

associated with these alternate

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3041

technologies in the final cost impact

analysis.

As a result of its study of the various

types of monofills, EPA determined that

a single subcategory for all monofills

would still not address the situation

where a certain class of constituents is

regulated even though not all types of

monofills contain those constituents

(e.g., a utility ash monofill with low raw

wastewater BOD5 concentrations would

still be in the same subcategory as a

sludge monofill which may contain

moderate levels of BOD5 ). Therefore,

EPA would need to establish a separate

subcategory for each type of monofill to

address the differences among

monofills. Rather than develop multiple

monofill subcategories, EPA decided

that because the types of pollutants and

concentrations of pollutants found at

monofills were, for the most part,

equivalent to or less than those found at

municipal solid waste landfills, a single

subcategory would be appropriate for

Subtitle D landfills.

Comment: One commenter, a

wastewater treatment technology

vendor, submitted two sets of comments

concerning EPA’s evaluation of BAT

Option III (reverse osmosis following

biological treatment). The commenter

disagreed with the BAT Option III

stating that the Pall Rochem Disc

TubeTM technology does not require

biological pretreatment.

Response: EPA agrees that the Pall

Rochem Disc TubeTM technology may

effectively treat landfill leachate

without prior biological treatment. EPA

sampled the Rochem unit at a landfill

that did not employ biological treatment

and the Rochem unit was very effective

at treating the landfill leachate. The data

from EPA sampling is contained in the

regulatory record for this rule.

However, EPA disagrees with the

commenter that the methodology used

to evaluate BAT was incorrect. As

discussed in the preamble to the

proposed rule (63 FR 6443), EPA

evaluated BAT treatment options as an

increment to the baseline treatment

technology used to develop BPT limits.

Therefore, the BAT Option III consisted

of BPT Option II (biological treatment

followed by multimedia filtration)

followed by a single stage reverse

osmosis unit. For the analysis, EPA

concluded that a biological system

followed by multimedia filtration would

already remove the majority of toxic

pollutants, leaving the single-stage

reverse osmosis to treat the very low

levels of pollutants that remained.

Additionally, EPA concluded that the

limits under BAT would not be

significantly more stringent than BPT

because the BPT technology was already

treating most pollutants to very low

levels.

Additionally, the selection of the BAT

treatment options took into

consideration the fact that many of the

existing direct discharging landfills

already employed some sort of

biological treatment system. While EPA

acknowledges that the referenced Disc

TubeTM reverse osmosis technology

does not require pretreatment using

biological treatment, EPA concluded

that it was more cost effective to

upgrade existing biological treatment

systems than to add on a reverse

osmosis system (or to replace the

existing biological system with a reverse

osmosis system). EPA determined it has

reasonably evaluated and rejected

reverse osmosis treatment as a BAT

option. However, the regulation, of

course, does not require the installation

of a particular technology, only that the

discharger comply with the limitations.

Therefore, if a discharger determines

that reverse osmosis will achieve the

effluent limitations established in this

rule, then the discharger is free to install

a reverse osmosis treatment system to

treat its landfill wastewater.

Comment: One commenter questioned

how a facility will achieve such low

zinc limits using biological treatment

without employing a metals removal

technology. The commenter also stated

that zinc levels in landfills typically

tend to be in the range of 2 to 7 mg/L.

Response: EPA disagrees with the

commenter’s claim. The record supports

EPA’s determination that the

promulgated zinc limitations levels can

be achieved through well-operated

biological treatment systems without

metals removal technology. In

establishing zinc limits for the NonHazardous subcategory, EPA used zinc

data from three of the seven BPT/BAT

facilities for the Non-Hazardous

subcategory. EPA did not use the data

from the other four BPT/BAT facilities

because all four employed chemical

precipitation in addition to biological

treatment, and chemical precipitation

was not part of the selected BPT/BAT

option. All three of the facilities used to

calculate the zinc limitations operated a

biological treatment system. Because

one of these three facilities supplied two

separate sets of data, EPA used four data

sources from the three BPT/BAT

facilities to calculate the limitations for

zinc. The average raw wastewater zinc

concentrations for these four data sets

ranged from 0.31 mg/L to 0.995 mg/L

with average effluent concentrations

ranging from 0.05 mg/L to 0.21 mg/L.

The percent removals of zinc for these

BPT/BAT facilities ranged from 58

percent to 94 percent.

Since the proposed rule, EPA has

recalculated the final zinc effluent

limitations for the Non-Hazardous

subcategory using the effluent data

discussed above from the four data

sources along with variability factors

developed for zinc discharges from

these landfills. EPA calculated a zinc

monthly average limit of 0.11 mg/L and

a daily maximum limit of 0.20 mg/L.

(EPA explains the statistical methods

used to develop these limitations more

thoroughly in the Statistical Support

Document for Final Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards for the

Landfills Point Source Category and in

Chapter 11 of the final Technical

Development Document.)

The commenter expressed concern

about the ability of biological treatment

systems to achieve the zinc removals

EPA had proposed for landfills without

metals removal technology. The

commenter stated that landfill

concentrations of zinc are normally in

the 2 mg/L to 7 mg/L range. However,

the raw wastewater data submitted by

the commenter did not support that

claim. The commenter submitted zinc

raw wastewater data from three Subtitle

D landfills with concentrations of 0.065

mg/L and 0.569 mg/L for one landfill,

and 0.165 mg/L and 0.59 mg/L for the

other two landfills. These

concentrations are consistent with the

raw wastewater zinc concentrations at

the BPT/BAT facilities that EPA used

for the calculation of the effluent

limitations for zinc. EPA has concluded

that concentrations such as those

submitted by the commenter are

representative of concentrations

typically found in Subtitle D landfill

leachate. According to EPA’s database,

EPA determined that the mean raw

wastewater concentration of zinc in

Non-Hazardous subcategory was 1.2 mg/

L and 75 percent of Subtitle D facilities

in the database had zinc concentrations

below 0.27 mg/L. Therefore, the EPA

Landfills database does not reflect the

commenter’s claim that zinc levels at

non-hazardous landfills typically range

from 2 mg/L to 7 mg/L.

In addition, all of the influent zinc

concentrations at the BPT/BAT facilities

used to develop the non-hazardous BAT

limitations for zinc were above the 75th

percentile concentration of 0.27 mg/L,

and one influent zinc concentration is

above the 90th percentile concentration

of 0.93 mg/L. Therefore, since the BPT/

BAT facilities used in the calculation of

the zinc limitations had zinc raw

wastewater concentrations above 75

percent of other landfills in the NonHazardous subcategory, EPA concluded

that the BPT/BAT technology will

adequately treat zinc concentrations

3042 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

found in raw waste loads at Subtitle D

landfills. Additional information

supporting EPA’s determination is

provided in the Comment Response

Document and in Chapter 11 of the

Technical Development Document.

While EPA acknowledges that if an

individual non-hazardous landfill has

higher zinc raw leachate concentrations

than observed for virtually all of the

landfills EPA sampled that the facility

may not achieve the BPT/BAT discharge

limitations for zinc using biological

treatment and multi-media filtration

alone. EPA’s data show, however, that

virtually all of non-hazardous landfills

have raw leachate zinc concentrations

that would be amenable to these two

technologies. In fact, the one facility in

EPA’s database that had an average raw

wastewater zinc concentration of 32 mg/

L already has chemical precipitation in

place. EPA determined that all other

facilities in the database had raw

wastewater zinc concentrations that

could be treated adequately by a

biological treatment system. While they

are not designed to remove zinc, EPA

has found that biological treatment

systems achieve incidental removals of

zinc through sorption into the biomass.

It should be noted, that although EPA

developed the non-hazardous landfills

effluent limitations based on the

performance of biological treatment

followed by filtration, EPA does not

require the use of the BPT/BAT

technology to treat landfill wastewater.

Landfill facilities have the freedom to

choose any technology available to meet

the promulgated effluent limitations.

Comment: One commenter, a

manufacturer of insulation and

fiberglass products, stated that monofills

do not have the same leachate

characteristics as municipal solid waste

landfills. The commenter points out that

parameters such as alpha terpineol,

benzoic acid, p-cresol, and toluene

would not normally be anticipated in

the leachate from their monofill wastes

and, therefore, should be excluded from

the monitoring protocol.

Response: EPA agrees with the

commenter that there will be cases

where a monofill (i.e., lime,

construction and demolition, fly ash,

etc.) will not have the same leachate

characteristics as municipal solid waste

landfills. EPA concluded there was

sufficient similarity across these

landfills so that subcategorization (and

development of separate limitations)

was not warranted as explained earlier

in this section. EPA’s permitting

regulations require permit applications

to supply the permit writer with

information on a wide variety of

pollutants which the permit writer must

evaluate for possible limits in addition

to guideline limitations. However, all

federally regulated pollutants are

required to be monitored, and the

permitting authority may not alter the

list of pollutants regulated as

established under federal guidelines,

except to require the monitoring of

additional pollutants in specified

circumstances. At a minimum, the final

list of pollutants to be monitored must

include all pollutants listed in the

effluent limitations guidelines. The

permit authority, however, can vary the

monitoring frequency of the regulated

pollutants, but must require no fewer

than once per year for direct discharging

facilities.

In addition, as explained in Section

[III], EPA has decided not to set

limitations for toluene. See Section

[VIII] for information regarding

proposed changes to the monitoring

requirements under NPDES permits.

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms,

and Abbreviations

Agency: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

BAT: The best available technology

economically achievable, applicable to

effluent limitations to be achieved by July 1,

1984, for industrial discharges to surface

waters, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(2)(B) of the

CWA.

BCT: The best conventional pollutant

control technology, applicable to discharges

of conventional pollutants from existing

industrial point sources, as defined by Sec.

304(b)(4) of the CWA.

BPT: The best practicable control

technology currently available, applicable to

effluent limitations to be achieved by July 1,

1977, for industrial discharges to surface

waters, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(1) of the

CWA.

Clean Water Act (CWA): The Federal Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

(33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended

by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95–

217), and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub.

L. 100–4).

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308

Questionnaire: A questionnaire sent to

facilities under the authority of Section 308

of the CWA, which requests information to

be used in the development of national

effluent guidelines and standards.

Closed: A facility or portion thereof that is

currently not receiving or accepting wastes

and has undergone final closure.

Commercial Facility: A facility that treats,

disposes, or recycles/recovers the wastes of

other facilities not under the same ownership

as this facility. Commercial operations are

usually made available for a fee or other

remuneration. Commercial waste treatment,

disposal, or recycling/recovery does not have

to be the primary activity at a facility for an

operation or unit to be considered

‘‘commercial’’.

Contaminated Ground Water: Water below

the land surface in the zone of saturation

which has been contaminated by landfill

leachate. Contaminated ground water occurs

at landfills without liners or at facilities that

have released contaminants from a liner

system. Ground water may also become

contaminated if the water table rises to a

point where it infiltrates the landfill or the

leachate collection system.

Contaminated Storm Water: Storm water

which comes in direct contact with landfill

wastes, the waste handling and treatment

areas, or wastewater that is subject to the

limitations and standards. Some specific

areas of a landfill that may produce

contaminated storm water include (but are

not limited to): the open face of an active

landfill with exposed waste (no cover added);

the areas around wastewater treatment

operations; trucks, equipment or machinery

that has been in direct contact with the

waste; and waste dumping areas.

Conventional Pollutants: Constituents of

wastewater as determined by Sec. 304(a)(4) of

the CWA, including pollutants classified as

biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended

solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.

Deep Well Injection: Disposal of

wastewater into a deep well such that a

porous, permeable formation of a larger area

and thickness is available at sufficient depth

to ensure continued, permanent storage.

Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ):

Questionnaires sent to collect monitoring

data from 27 selected landfill facilities based

on responses to the Section 308

Questionnaire.

Direct Discharger: A facility that discharges

or may discharge treated or untreated

wastewater into waters of the United States.

Drained Free Liquids: Aqueous wastes

drained from waste containers (e.g., drums,

etc.) prior to landfilling. Landfills which

accept containerized waste may generate this

type of wastewater.

Effluent Limitation: Any restriction,

including schedules of compliance,

established by a State or the Administrator

on quantities, rates, and concentrations of

chemical, physical, biological, and other

constituents which are discharged from point

sources into navigable waters, the waters of

the contiguous zone, or the ocean. (CWA

Sections 301(b) and 304(b).)

Existing Source: Any facility from which

there is or may be a discharge of pollutants,

the construction of which is commenced

before the publication of the proposed

regulations prescribing a standard of

performance under Sec. 306 of the CWA.

Facility: All contiguous property owned,

operated, leased or under the control of the

same person or entity.

Gas Condensate: A liquid which has

condensed in the landfill gas collection

system during the extraction of gas from

within the landfill. Gases such as methane

and carbon dioxide are generated due to

microbial activity within the landfill, and

must be removed to avoid hazardous

conditions.

Ground Water: The body of water that is

retained in the saturated zone which tends to

move by hydraulic gradient to lower levels.

Hazardous Waste: Any waste, including

wastewater, defined as hazardous under

RCRA (40 CFR 261.3).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3043

Inactive: A facility or portion thereof that

is currently not treating, disposing, or

recycling/recovering wastes.

Indirect Discharger: A facility that

discharges or may discharge wastewater into

a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW).

Landfill: An area of land or an excavation

in which wastes are placed for permanent

disposal, that is not a land application or

land treatment unit, surface impoundment,

underground injection well, waste pile, salt

dome formation, a salt bed formation, an

underground mine or a cave.

Landfill Generated Wastewater:

Wastewater generated by landfill activities

and collected for treatment, discharge or

reuse, include: leachate, contaminated

ground water, storm water runoff, landfill gas

condensate, truck/equipment washwater,

drained free liquids, floor washings, and

wastewater from recovering pumping wells.

Leachate: Leachate is a liquid that has

passed through or emerged from solid waste

and contains soluble, suspended, or miscible

materials removed from such waste. Leachate

is typically collected from a liner system

above which waste is placed for disposal.

Leachate may also be collected through the

use of slurry walls, trenches or other

containment systems.

Leachate Collection System: The purpose

of a leachate collection system is to collect

leachate for treatment or alternative disposal

and to reduce the depths of leachate buildup

or level of saturation over the low

permeability liner.

Liner: The liner is a low permeability

material or combination of materials placed

at the base of a landfill to reduce the

discharge to the underlying or surrounding

hydrogeologic environment. The liner is

designed as a barrier to intercept leachate

and to direct it to a leachate collection.

Long-Term Average (LTA): For purposes of

the effluent guidelines, average pollutant

levels achieved over a period of time by a

facility, subcategory, or technology option.

LTAs are used in developing the limitations

and standards in the landfill regulation.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) Permit: A permit to

discharge wastewater into waters of the

United States issued under the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination system,

authorized by Section 402 of the CWA.

New Source: As defined in 40 CFR 122.2,

122.29, and 403.3(k), a new source is any

building, structure, facility, or installation

from which there is or may be a discharge of

pollutants, the construction of which

commenced (1) for purposes of compliance

with New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS) established under CWA section 306,

after the promulgation of today’s standards;

or (2) for the purposes of compliance with

Pretreatment Standards for New Sources

(PSNS), after the publication of proposed

standards under CWA section 307(c), if such

standards are thereafter promulgated in

accordance with that section.

Nonconventional Pollutants: Pollutants

that are neither conventional pollutants

listed at 40 CFR Part 401.16 nor priority

pollutants listed in Appendix A of 40 CFR

Part 423.

Non-Contaminated Storm Water: Storm

water which does not come in direct contact

with landfill wastes, the waste handling and

treatment areas, or wastewater that is subject

to the limitations and standards. Noncontaminated storm water includes storm

water which flows off the cap, cover,

intermediate cover, daily cover, and/or final

cover of the landfill.

Non-Hazardous Subcategory: For the

purposes of this report, Non-Hazardous

Subcategory refers to all landfills regulated

under Subtitle D of RCRA.

Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact:

Deleterious aspects of control and treatment

technologies applicable to point source

category wastes, including, but not limited to

air pollution, noise, radiation, sludge and

solid waste generation, and energy usage.

NSPS: New Sources Performance

Standards, applicable to new sources of

direct dischargers whose construction is

begun after the promulgation of effluent

standards under CWA section 306.

OCPSF: Organic chemicals, plastics, and

synthetic fibers manufacturing point source

category. (40 CFR Part 414).

Off-Site: Outside the boundaries of a

facility.

On-Site: The same or geographically

contiguous property, which may be divided

by a public or private right-of-way, provided

the entrance and exit between the properties

is at a crossroads intersection, and access is

by crossing as opposed to going along the

right-of-way. Non-contiguous properties

owned by the same company or locality but

connected by a right-of-way, which it

controls, and to which the public does not

have access, is also considered on-site

property.

Pass Through: A pollutant is determined to

‘‘pass through’’ POTWs when the nationwide

median percentage removed by well-operated

POTWs achieving secondary treatment is less

than the percentage removed by the

industry’s direct dischargers that are using

the BAT technology.

Point Source: Any discernable, confined,

and discrete conveyance from which

pollutants are or may be discharged.

Pollutants of Interest (POIs): Pollutants

commonly found in landfill generated

wastewater. For the purposes of this

rulemaking, a POI is a pollutant that is

detected three or more times above a

treatable level at a landfill, and must be

present at more than one facility.

Priority Pollutant: One hundred twenty-six

compounds that are a subset of the 65 toxic

pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined

in Section 307 of the CWA and listed in

Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 423. The priority

pollutants are specified in the NRDC

settlement agreement (Natural Resources

Defense Council et al. v. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120

[D.D.C. 1976], modified 12 E.R.C. 1833

[D.D.C. 1979]).

PSES: Pretreatment standards for existing

sources of indirect discharges, under Sec.

307(b) of the CWA.

PSNS: Pretreatment standards for new

sources of indirect discharges, applicable to

new sources whose construction has begun

after the publication of proposed standards

under CWA section 307(c), if such standards

are thereafter promulgated in accordance

with that section.

Public Service: The provision of landfill

waste disposal services to individual

members of the general public, publiclyowned organizations (schools, universities,

government agencies, municipalities) and

not-for-profit organizations for which the

landfill does not receive a fee or other

remuneration.

Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW):

Any device or system, owned by a state or

municipality, used in the treatment

(including recycling and reclamation) of

municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a

liquid nature that is owned by a state or

municipality. This includes sewers, pipes, or

other conveyances only if they convey

wastewater to a POTW providing treatment

(40 CFR 122.2).

RCRA: The Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C.

Section 6901 et seq.), which regulates the

generation, treatment, storage, disposal, or

recycling of solid and hazardous wastes.

Subtitle C Landfill: A landfill permitted to

accept hazardous wastes under Sections 3001

and 3019 of RCRA and the regulations

promulgated pursuant to these sections,

including 40 CFR Parts 260 through 272.

Subtitle D Landfill: A landfill permitted to

accept only non-hazardous wastes under

Sections 4001 through 4010 of RCRA and the

regulations promulgated pursuant to these

sections, including 40 CFR Parts 257 and

258.

Surface Impoundment: A natural

topographic depression, man-made

excavation, or diked area formed primarily of

earthen materials (although it may be lined

with man-made materials), used to

temporarily or permanently treat, store, or

dispose of waste, usually in the liquid form.

Surface impoundments do not include areas

constructed to hold containers of wastes.

Other common names for surface

impoundments include ponds, pits, lagoons,

finishing ponds, settling ponds, surge ponds,

seepage ponds, and clarification ponds.

Toxic Pollutants: Pollutants declared

‘‘toxic’’ under Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean

Water Act.

Truck/Equipment Washwater: Wastewater

generated during either truck or equipment

washes at the landfill. During routine

maintenance or repair operations, trucks and/

or equipment used within the landfill (e.g.,

loaders, compactors, or dump trucks) are

washed and the resultant washwaters are

collected for treatment.

Variability Factor: The daily variability

factor is the ratio of the estimated 99th

percentile of the distribution of daily values

divided by the expected value, median or

mean, of the distribution of the daily data.

The monthly variability factor is the

estimated 95th percentile of the distribution

of the monthly averages of the data divided

by the expected value of the monthly

averages.

Zero Discharge: No discharge of pollutants

to waters of the United States or to a POTW.

Also included in this definition are

alternative discharge or disposal of pollutants

by way of evaporation, deep-well injection,

off-site transfer, and land application.

3044 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1EPA Method 625: Base/Neutrals and Acids, 40

CFR Part 136, Appendix A.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 136

Environmental protection, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Water

pollution control.

40 CFR Part 445

Environmental protection, Waste

treatment and disposal, Water pollution

control.

November 30, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 136—TEST PROCEDURES FOR

THE ANALYSIS OF POLLUTANTS

1. The authority citation for Part 136

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 301, 304(h), 307, and

501(a) Pub. L. 95–217, 91 Stat. 1566, et seq.

(33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) (The Federal Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977).

Appendix A [Amended]

2. Appendix A to Part 136 is amended

to add text at the end of Method 625 as

an attachment and to add text at the end

of Method 1625 as an attachment,

reading as follows:

Appendix A To Part 136—Methods For

Organic Chemical Analysis of

Municipal and Industrial Wastewater

* * * * *

Method 625—Base/Neutrals and Acids

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Method 625

Introduction

To support measurement of several semivolatile pollutants, EPA has developed this

attachment to EPA Method 625 1. EPA

Method 625 (the Method) involves sample

extraction with methylene chloride followed

by analysis of the extract using either packed

or capillary column gas chromatography/

mass spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment

addresses the addition of the semivolatile

pollutants listed in Tables 1 and 2, to all

applicable standard, stock, and spiking

solutions utilized for the determination of

semivolatile organic compounds by EPA

Method 625.

1.0 EPA METHOD 625 MODIFICATION

SUMMARY

The additional semivolatile organic

compounds listed in Tables 1 and 2 are

added to all applicable calibration, spiking,

and other solutions utilized in the

determination of base/neutral and acid

compounds by EPA Method 625. The

instrument is to be calibrated with these

compounds, using a capillary column, and

all procedures and quality control tests stated

in the Method must be performed.

2.0 SECTION MODIFICATIONS

Note: All section and figure numbers in

this Attachment reference section and figure

numbers in EPA Method 625 unless noted

otherwise. Sections not listed here remain

unchanged.

Section 6.7 The stock standard solutions

described in this section are modified

such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2

of this attachment are required in

addition to those specified in the

Method.

Section 7.2 The calibration standards

described in this section are modified to

include the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of

this attachment.

Section 8.2 The precision and accuracy

requirements are modified to include the

analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this

attachment. Additional performance

criteria are supplied in Table 5 of this

attachment.

Section 8.3 The matrix spike is modified to

include the analytes listed in Tables 1

and 2 of this attachment.

Section 8.4 The QC check standard is

modified to include the analytes listed in

Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.

Additional performance criteria are

supplied in Table 5 of this attachment.

Section 16.0 Additional method

performance information is supplied with

this attachment.

TABLE 1.—BASE/NEUTRAL

EXTRACTABLES

Parameter CAS No.

Acetophenone ............................. 98–86–2

Alpha-terpineol ............................ 98–55–5

Aniline ......................................... 62–53–3

Carbazole ................................... 86–74–8

2,3-Dichloroaniline ...................... 608–27–5

o-Cresol ...................................... 95–48–7

n-Decane .................................... 124–18–5

n-Docosane ................................ 629–97–0

n-Dodecane ................................ 112–40–3

n-Eicosane .................................. 112–95–8

n-Hexadecane ............................ 544–76–3

n-Octadecane ............................. 593–45–36

n-Tetradecane ............................ 629–59–4

Pyridine ....................................... 110–86–1

1-Methylphenanthrene ................ 832–69–9

CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry

TABLE 2.—ACID EXTRACTABLES

Parameter CAS No.

benzoic acid ................................ 65–85–0

p-cresol ....................................... 106–44–5

CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry

TABLE 3.—CHROMATOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS,1 METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (MDLS), AND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S FOR

BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES

Analyte

Retention

time

(min) 2

MDL

(μ g/L)

Characteristic m/z’s

electron impact

Primary Secondary Secondary

Pyridine ............................................................................................................ 4.93 4.6 79 52 51

N-Nitrosodimethylamine ................................................................................... 4.95 ............ 42 74 44

Aniline .............................................................................................................. 10.82 3.3 93 66 65

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether ..................................................................................... 10.94 ............ 93 63 95

n-Decane ......................................................................................................... 11.11 5.0 57 .................... ....................

1,3-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................................................ 11.47 ............ 146 148 113

1,4-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................................................ 11.62 ............ 146 148 113

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................................................ 12.17 ............ 146 148 113

o-Cresol ........................................................................................................... 12.48 4.7 108 107 79

Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether .............................................................................. 12.51 ............ 45 77 79

Acetophenone .................................................................................................. 12.88 3.4 105 77 51

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine ............................................................................... 12.97 ............ 130 42 101

Hexachloroethane ............................................................................................ 13.08 ............ 117 201 199

Nitrobenzene .................................................................................................... 13.40 ............ 77 123 65

Isophorone ....................................................................................................... 14.11 ............ 82 95 138

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3045

TABLE 3.—CHROMATOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS,1 METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (MDLS), AND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S FOR

BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES—Continued

Analyte

Retention

time

(min) 2

MDL

(μ g/L)

Characteristic m/z’s

electron impact

Primary Secondary Secondary

Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane ............................................................................ 14.82 ............ 93 95 123

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene .................................................................................... 15.37 ............ 180 182 145

n-Dodecane ..................................................................................................... 15.45 3.0 57 .................... ....................

Alpha-terpineol ................................................................................................. 15.55 5.0 59 .................... ....................

Naphthalene ..................................................................................................... 15.56 ............ 128 129 127

Hexachlorobutadiene ....................................................................................... 16.12 ............ 225 223 227

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ............................................................................. 18.47 ............ 237 235 272

2,3-dichloroaniline ............................................................................................ 18.82 2.5 161 163 90

n-tetradecane ................................................................................................... 19.21 1.7 57 .................... ....................

2-Chloronaphthalene ....................................................................................... 19.35 ............ 162 164 127

Dimethyl phthalate ........................................................................................... 20.48 ............ 163 194 164

Acenaphthylene ............................................................................................... 20.69 ............ 152 151 153

2,6-Dinitrotoluene ............................................................................................. 20.73 ............ 165 89 121

Acenaphthene .................................................................................................. 21.30 ............ 154 153 152

2,4-Dinitrotoluene ............................................................................................. 22.00 ............ 165 63 182

n-hexadecane .................................................................................................. 22.49 3.0 55 .................... ....................

Diethylphthalate ............................................................................................... 22.74 ............ 149 177 150

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ............................................................................ 22.90 ............ 204 206 141

Fluorene ........................................................................................................... 22.92 ............ 166 165 167

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ................................................................................... 23.35 ............ 169 168 167

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ............................................................................ 24.44 ............ 248 250 141

Hexachlorobenzene ......................................................................................... 24.93 ............ 284 142 249

n-octadecane ................................................................................................... 25.39 2.0 57 .................... ....................

Phenanthrene .................................................................................................. 25.98 ............ 178 179 176

Anthracene ....................................................................................................... 26.12 ............ 178 179 176

Carbazole ......................................................................................................... 26.66 4.0 167 .................... ....................

Dibutyl phthalate .............................................................................................. 27.84 ............ 149 150 104

1-methylphenanthrene ..................................................................................... 27.94 2.7 192 191 165

n-eicosane ....................................................................................................... 27.99 3.0 55 .................... ....................

Fluoranthene .................................................................................................... 29.82 ............ 202 101 100

Benzidine ......................................................................................................... 30.26 ............ 184 92 185

n-docosane ...................................................................................................... 30.43 2.0 57 .................... ....................

Pyrene .............................................................................................................. 30.56 ............ 202 101 100

Butyl benzyl phthalate ...................................................................................... 32.63 ............ 149 91 206

3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ..................................................................................... 34.28 ............ 252 254 126

Benzo(a)anthracene ........................................................................................ 34.33 ............ 228 229 226

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ................................................................................ 34.36 ............ 149 167 279

Chrysene .......................................................................................................... 34.44 ............ 228 226 229

Di-n-octyl-phthalate .......................................................................................... 36.17 ............ 149 .................... ....................

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ...................................................................................... 37.90 ............ 252 253 125

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ....................................................................................... 37.97 ............ 252 253 125

Benzo(a)pyrene ................................................................................................ 39.17 ............ 252 253 125

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ................................................................................... 44.91 ............ 278 139 279

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene ................................................................................... 45.01 ............ 276 138 277

Benzo(ghi)perylene .......................................................................................... 46.56 ............ 276 138 277

1The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:

Column—30+/¥5 meters×0.25+/¥.02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl, bonded phase fused silica capillary column (DB–5).

Temperature program—Five minutes at 30 °C; 30–280 °C at 8 °C per minute; isothermal at 280 °C until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.

Gas velocity—30+/¥5 cm/sec at 30 °C. 2 Retention times are from Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be consistent for all analytes in Tables 4

and 5 of this attachment.

TABLE 4.—CHROMATOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS, 1 METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (MDLS), AND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S FOR

ACID EXTRACTABLES

Analyte

Retention

time 2

(min)

MDL

(μg/L)

Characteristic m/z’s

electron impact

Primary Secondary Secondary

Phenol .............................................................................................................. 10.76 ............ 94 65 66

2-Chlorophenol ................................................................................................ 11.08 ............ 128 64 130

p-Cresol ........................................................................................................... 12.92 7.8 108 107 77

2-Nitrophenol .................................................................................................... 14.38 ............ 139 65 109

2,4-Dimethylphenol .......................................................................................... 14.54 ............ 122 107 121

Benzoic acid ..................................................................................................... 14.85 3.0 105 122 77

2,4-Dichlorophenol ........................................................................................... 15.12 ............ 162 164 98

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol .................................................................................. 16.83 ............ 142 107 144

3046 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1EPA Method 1625 Revision B, Semivolatile

Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GC/MS, 40

CFR Part 136, Appendix A.

TABLE 4.—CHROMATOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS, 1 METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (MDLS), AND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S FOR

ACID EXTRACTABLES—Continued

Analyte

Retention

time 2

(min)

MDL

(μg/L)

Characteristic m/z’s

electron impact

Primary Secondary Secondary

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ....................................................................................... 18.80 ............ 196 198 200

2,4-Dinitrophenol .............................................................................................. 21.51 ............ 184 63 154

4-Nitrophenol .................................................................................................... 21.77 ............ 65 139 109

2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol ............................................................................... 22.83 ............ 198 182 77

Pentachlorophenol ........................................................................................... 25.52 ............ 266 264 268

1The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:

Column—30 +/¥5 meters × 0.25 +/¥.02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl silicone bonded phase fused silica capillary column (DB–

5).

Temperature program—Five minutes at 30 °C; 30–280 °C at 8 °C per minute; isothermal at 280 °C until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.

Gas velocity—30+/¥5 cm/sec at 30 °C. 2 Retention times are from EPA Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be consistent for all analytes in Tables

3 and 4 of this attachment.

TABLE 5.—QC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Analyte

Test conclusion

(μg/L)

Limits for

s

(μg/L)

Range for

X

(μg/L)

Range for

P,

Ps (%)

Acetophenone .................................................................................................................. 100 51 23–254 61–144

Alpha-terpineol ................................................................................................................. 100 47 46–163 58–156

Aniline .............................................................................................................................. 100 71 15–278 46–134

Carbazole ......................................................................................................................... 100 17 79–111 73–131

2,3-Dichloroaniline ........................................................................................................... 100 13 40–160 68–134

o-Cresol ........................................................................................................................... 100 23 30–146 55–126

Benzoic acid .................................................................................................................... 100 24 ns-ns ns-ns

p-Cresol ........................................................................................................................... 100 22 11–617 76–107

n-Decane ......................................................................................................................... 100 70 D–651 D-ns

n-Docosane ...................................................................................................................... 100 10 52–155 49–163

n-Dodecane ..................................................................................................................... 100 36 13–103 10–359

n-Eicosane ....................................................................................................................... 100 28 57–133 72–117

n-Hexadecane .................................................................................................................. 100 37 44–135 69–105

n-Octadecane .................................................................................................................. 100 10 52–147 65–123

n-Tetradecane .................................................................................................................. 100 8 75–100 47–113

Pyridine ............................................................................................................................ 100 ns 7–392 33–158

1-Methylphenanthrene ..................................................................................................... 100 16 39–240 60–161

s=Standard deviation for four recovery measurements, in μg/L (Section 8.2)

X=Average recovery for four recovery measurements in μg/L (Section 8.2)

P,Ps=Percent recovery measured (Section 8.3, Section 8.4)

D=Detected; result must be greater than zero.

ns=no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.

* * * * *

Method 1625—Revision B—Semivolatile

Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GC/

MS

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Method 1625

Introduction

To support measurement of several

semivolatile pollutants, EPA has developed

this attachment to EPA Method 1625B.1 EPA

Method 1625B (the Method) employs sample

extraction with methylene chloride followed

by analysis of the extract using capillary

column gas chromatography-mass

spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment

addresses the addition of the semivolatile

pollutants listed in Tables 1 and 2 to all

applicable standard, stock, and spiking

solutions utilized for the determination of

semivolatile organic compounds by EPA

Method 1625B.

1.0 EPA METHOD 1625 REVISION B

MODIFICATION SUMMARY

The additional semivolatile organic

compounds listed in Tables 1 and 2 are

added to all applicable calibration, spiking,

and other solutions utilized in the

determination of semivolatile compounds by

EPA Method 1625. The instrument is to be

calibrated with these compounds, and all

procedures and quality control tests

described in the Method must be performed.

2.0 SECTION MODIFICATIONS

Note: All section and figure numbers in

this Attachment reference section and figure

numbers in EPA Method 1625 Revision B

unless noted otherwise. Sections not listed

here remain unchanged.

Section 6.7 The stock standard solutions

described in this section are modified

such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2

of this attachment are required in

addition to those specified in the

Method.

Section 6.8 The labeled compound spiking

solution in this section is modified to

include the labeled compounds listed in

Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.

Section 6.9 The secondary standard is

modified to include the additional

analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this

attachment.

Section 6.12 The solutions for obtaining

authentic mass spectra are to include all

additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and

2 of this attachment.

Section 6.13 The calibration solutions are

modified to include the analytes listed in

Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled

compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of

this attachment.

Section 6.14 The precision and recovery

standard is modified to include the

analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3047

labeled compounds listed in Tables 5

and 6 of this attachment.

Section 6.15 The solutions containing the

additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and

2 of this attachment are to be analyzed

for stability.

Section 7.2.1 This section is modified to

include the analytes listed in Tables 1

and 2 and the labeled compounds listed

in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.

Section 7.4.5 This section is modified to

include the analytes listed in Tables 1

and 2 and the labeled compounds listed

in Tables 5 and 6 in the calibration.

Section 8.2 The initial precision and

recovery (IPR) requirements are modified

to include the analytes listed in Tables

1 and 2 and the labeled compounds

listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this

attachment. Additional IPR performance

criteria are supplied in Table 7 of this

attachment.

Section 8.3 The labeled compounds listed

in Tables 3 and 4 of this attachment are

to be included in the method

performance tests. Additional method

performance criteria are supplied in

Table 7 of this attachment.

Section 8.5.2 The acceptance criteria for

blanks includes the analytes listed in

Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.

Section 10.1.2 The labeled compound

solution must include the labeled

compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of

this attachment.

Section 10.1.3 The precision and recovery

standard must include the analytes listed

in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled

compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of

this attachment.

Section 12.5 Additional QC requirements

for calibration verification are supplied

in Table 7 of this attachment.

Section 12.7 Additional QC requirements

for ongoing precision and recovery are

supplied in Table 7 of this attachment.

TABLE 1.—BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS

Compound

Pollutant

CAS

registry EPA–EGD

Acetophenone .................................................................................................................................................................. 98–86–2 758

Aniline .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62–53–3 757

2,3-Dichloroaniline ........................................................................................................................................................... 608–27–5 578

o-Cresol ........................................................................................................................................................................... 95–48–7 771

Pyridine ............................................................................................................................................................................ 110–86–1 1330

1-Methylphenanthrene ..................................................................................................................................................... 832–69–9 905

CAS=Chemical Abstracts Registry

EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division

TABLE 2.—ACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS

Compound

Pollutant

CAS

registry EPA–EGD

Benzoic acid .................................................................................................................................................................... 65–85–0 700

p-Cresol ........................................................................................................................................................................... 106–44–5 1744

CAS=Chemical Abstracts Registry

EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division

TABLE 3.—GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY 1 OF BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS

EGD

No. Compound

Retention time 2

Minimum

Level 3

(μg/L) Mean

(sec)

EGD

Ref Relative

758 .............. Acetophenone ........................................................................ 818 658 1.003–1.005 10

757 .............. Aniline .................................................................................... 694 657 0.994–1.023 10

578 .............. 2,3-Dichloroaniline ................................................................. 1160 164 1.003–1.007 10

771 .............. o-Cresol .................................................................................. 814 671 1.005–1.009 10

1330 ............ Pyridine .................................................................................. 930 1230 1.005–1.011 10

905 .............. 1-Methylphenanthrene ........................................................... 1697 164 1.449–1.537 10

EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division

1The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B. 2 Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes in EPA Method 1625B. 3See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B.

TABLE 4.—GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY 1 OF ACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS

EGD

No. Compound

Retention time 2

Minimum

level

(μg/L) Mean 3

(sec)

EGD

Ref Relative

1744 ............ p-Cresol .................................................................................. 834 1644 1.004–1.008 20

700 .............. Benzoic acid ........................................................................... 971 600 0.992–1.008 10

EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division

1The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B. 2 Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes in EPA Method 1625B.

3048 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

3See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B.

TABLE 5.—BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S

Compound Labeled

analog

Primary

m/z 1

Acetophenone .......................................................................................................................................................... d5 105/110

Aniline ...................................................................................................................................................................... d7 93/100

2,3-Dichloroaniline ................................................................................................................................................... n/a 161

Pyridine .................................................................................................................................................................... d5 79/84

o-Cresol ................................................................................................................................................................... d7 108/116

1-Methylphenanthrene ............................................................................................................................................. n/a 192

m/z=mass to charge ratio

1 native/labeled

TABLE 6.—ACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S

Compound Labeled

analog

Primary

m/z 1

p-Cresol ................................................................................................................................................................... d7 108/116

Benzoic acid ............................................................................................................................................................ d5 105/110

m/z=mass to charge ratio

1 native/labeled

TABLE 7.—ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS

EGD

No. Compound

Acceptance criteria

Initial precision and accuracy

section 8.2

(μg/L)

Labeled compound recovery sec. 8.3

and 14.2 P

(percent)

Calibration

verification

sec. 12.5

(μg/mL)

On-going

accuracy

sec. 12.7

s R (μg/L)

(μg/L) X

758 .............. Acetophenone ............................................ 34 44–167 ........................ 85–115 45–162

658 .............. Acetophenone-d5 ........................................ 51 23–254 45–162 85–115 22–264

757 .............. Aniline ......................................................... 32 30–171 ........................ 85–115 33–154

657 .............. Aniline-d7 .................................................... 71 15–278 33–154 85–115 12–344

700 .............. Benzoic acid ............................................... ns ns-ns ........................ ns-322 ns-ns

600 .............. Benzoic acid-d5 .......................................... 24 ns-ns ns-ns 66–134 ns-648

578 .............. 2,3-dichloroaniline ...................................... 13 40–160 ........................ 85–115 44–144

771 .............. o-Cresol ...................................................... 40 31–226 ........................ 85–115 35–196

671 .............. o-Cresol-d7 ................................................. 23 30–146 35–196 85–115 31–142

1744 ............ p-Cresol ...................................................... 59 54–140 ........................ 85–115 37–203

1644 ............ p-Cresol-d7 ................................................. 22 11–618 37–203 85–115 16–415

1330 ............ Pyridine ...................................................... 28 10–421 ........................ 83–117 18–238

1230 ............ Pyridine-d5 .................................................. ns 7–392 19–238 85–115 4–621

905 .............. 1-Methylphenanthrene ............................... 16 39–240 ........................ 78–122 46–204

s=Standard deviation of four recovery measurements.

X=Average recovery for four recovery measurements.

EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division.

ns=no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.

Part 445 is added to read as follows:

PART 445—LANDFILLS POINT

SOURCE CATEGORY

Sec.

445.1 General applicability.

445.2 General definitions.

445.3 General pretreatment standards.

Subpart A—RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous

Waste Landfill

445.10 Applicability.

445.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

445.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

445.13 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

445.14 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

Subpart B—RCRA Subtitle D NonHazardous Waste Landfill

Sec.

445.20 Applicability.

445.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT).

445.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the

best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

445.23 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

445.24 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308,

402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, as

amended (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,

1318, 1342 and 1361)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3049

§ 445.1 General applicability.

(a) As defined more specifically in

each subpart and except as provided in

paragraphs (b) through (h) of this

section, this part applies to discharges

of wastewater from landfill units.

(b) The provisions of this part do not

apply to wastewater discharges from

land application or land treatment units,

surface impoundments, underground

injection wells, waste piles, salt dome

formations, salt bed formations,

underground mines or caves as these

terms are defined in 40 CFR 257.2 and

260.10.

(c) The provisions of this part do not

apply to wastewater generated off-site of

a landfill facility, including wastewater

generated off-site from washing vehicles

or from waste transfer stations.

(d) The provisions of this part do not

apply to discharges of contaminated

ground water or wastewater from

recovery pumping wells.

(e) This part does not apply to

discharges of landfill wastewater from

landfills operated in conjunction with

other industrial or commercial

operations when the landfill only

receives wastes generated by the

industrial or commercial operation

directly associated with the landfill.

(f) This part does not apply to

discharges of landfill wastewater from

landfills operated in conjunction with

other industrial or commercial

operations when the landfill receives

wastes generated by the industrial or

commercial operation directly

associated with the landfill and also

receives other wastes provided the other

wastes received for disposal are

generated by a facility that is subject to

the same provisions in 40 CFR

subchapter N as the industrial or

commercial operation or the other

wastes received are of similar nature to

the wastes generated by the industrial or

commercial operation.

(g) This part does not apply to

landfills operated in conjunction with

Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 437 so

long as the CWT facility commingles the

landfill wastewater with other nonlandfill wastewater for discharge. A

landfill directly associated with a CWT

facility is subject to this part if the CWT

facility discharges landfill wastewater

separately from other CWT wastewater

or commingles the wastewater from its

landfill only with wastewater from other

landfills.

(h) This part does not apply to

landfills operated in conjunction with

other industrial or commercial

operations when the landfill receives

wastes from public service activities so

long as the company owning the landfill

does not receive a fee or other

remuneration for the disposal service.

§ 445.2 General definitions.

In addition to the definitions set forth

in 40 CFR 122.2, 257.2, 258.2, 264.10,

265.10, 401.11, and 403.3 the following

definitions apply to this part:

(a) Contaminated ground water means

water below the land surface in the zone

of saturation which has been

contaminated by activities associated

with waste disposal.

(b) Contaminated storm water means

storm water which comes in direct

contact with landfill wastes, the waste

handling and treatment areas, or landfill

wastewater as defined in paragraph (f)

of this section. Some specific areas of a

landfill that may produce contaminated

storm water include (but are not limited

to): the open face of an active landfill

with exposed waste (no cover added);

the areas around wastewater treatment

operations; trucks, equipment or

machinery that has been in direct

contact with the waste; and waste

dumping areas.

(c) Landfill directly associated with an

industrial or commercial operation

means:

(1) A landfill located on the same site

as industrial or commercial operations;

and

(2) A landfill not located on the same

site as the industrial or commercial

operations (off-site), but ‘‘whollyowned’’ by the industrial or commercial

facility and primarily dedicated to

receiving waste from the related

industrial or commercial facility.

(d) Facility means all contiguous

property owned, operated, leased or

under the control of the same person or

entity.

(e) Landfill unit means an area of land

or an excavation in which wastes are

placed for permanent disposal, that is

not a land application or land treatment

unit, surface impoundment,

underground injection well, waste pile,

salt dome formation, a salt bed

formation, an underground mine or a

cave as these terms are defined in 40

CFR 257.2, 258.2 and 264.10.

(f) Landfill wastewater means all

wastewater associated with, or

produced by, landfilling activities

except for sanitary wastewater, noncontaminated storm water,

contaminated ground water, and

wastewater from recovery pumping

wells. Landfill wastewater includes, but

is not limited to, leachate, gas collection

condensate, drained free liquids,

laboratory derived wastewater,

contaminated storm water and contact

washwater from washing truck,

equipment, and railcar exteriors and

surface areas which have come in direct

contact with solid waste at the landfill

facility.

(g) Non-contaminated storm water

means storm water which does not

come in direct contact with landfill

wastes, the waste handling and

treatment areas, or landfill wastewater

that is defined in paragraph (f) of this

section. Non-contaminated storm water

includes storm water which flows off

the cap, cover, intermediate cover, daily

cover, and/or final cover of the landfill.

(h) Off-site means outside the

boundaries of a facility.

(i) On-site means within the

boundaries of a facility.

(j) Public service means the provision

of landfill waste disposal services to

individual members of the general

public, publicly-owned organizations

(schools, universities, government

agencies, municipalities) and not-forprofit organizations for which the

landfill does not receive a fee or other

remuneration.

(k) The regulated parameters for this

part, numbered (P) and listed with

approved methods of analysis in Table

1B at 40 CFR 136.3, are defined as

follows:

(1) Ammonia (as N) means ammonia

reported as nitrogen. P4.

(2) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical

oxygen demand. P9.

(3) Arsenic means total arsenic. P6.

(4) Chromium means total chromium.

P19.

(5) Zinc means total zinc. P75.

(l) The regulated parameters for this

part, numbered (P) and listed with

approved methods of analysis in Table

1C at 40 CFR 136.3, are as follows:

(1) Naphthalene. P68.

(2) Phenol. P85.

(m) The regulated parameters for this

part listed with approved methods of

analysis in the attachments to Methods

625 and 1625B in Appendix A at 40

CFR Part 136 are as follows:

(1) Aniline.

(2) Benzoic acid.

(3) p-Cresol.

(4) Pyridine.

(5) a-Terpineol.

§ 445.3 General pretreatment standards.

Any source subject to this part that

introduces wastewater pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works

(POTW) must comply with 40 CFR part

403.

Subpart A—RCRA Subtitle C

Hazardous Waste Landfill

§ 445.10 Applicability.

Except as provided in § 445.1, this

subpart applies to discharges of

3050 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

wastewater from landfills subject to the

provisions of 40 CFR Part 264,

Standards for Owners and Operators of

Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,

and Disposal Facilities, Subpart N–

(Landfills); and 40 CFR Part 265, Interim

Status Standards for Owners and

Operators of Hazardous Waste

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Facilities, Subpart N–(Landfills).

§ 445.11 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations which represent the

application of BPT:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

Maximum daily 1 Regulated

parameter

Maximum

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 220 56

TSS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 88 27

Ammonia (as N) ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.9

α-Terpineol .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.042 0.019

Aniline .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.024 0.015

Benzoic acid ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.119 0.073

Naphthalene ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.059 0.022

p-Cresol ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.024 0.015

Phenol .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.048 0.029

Pyridine ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.072 0.025

Arsenic ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.1 0.54

Chromium .................................................................................................................................................................... 1.1 0.46

Zinc .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.535 0.296

pH ................................................................................................................................................................................ (2) (2)

1 Milligrams per liter (mg/L, ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

§ 445.12 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations which represent the

application of BCT: Limitations for

BOD5, TSS and pH are the same as the

corresponding limitations specified in

§ 445.11.

§ 445.13 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations which represent the

application of BAT: Limitations for

ammonia (as N), a-terpineol, aniline,

benzoic acid, naphthalene, p-cresol,

phenol, pyridine, arsenic, chromium

and zinc are the same as the

corresponding limitations specified in

§ 445.11.

§ 445.14 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

performance standards: Standards are

the same as those specified in § 445.11.

Subpart B—RCRA Subtitle D NonHazardous Waste Landfill

§ 445.20 Applicability.

Except as provided in § 445.1, this

subpart applies to discharges of

wastewater from landfills subject to the

provisions of 40 CFR part 258, Criteria

for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; and

40 CFR part 257, Criteria for

Classification of Solid Waste Disposal

Facilities and Practices.

§ 445.21 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations which represent the

application of BPT:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg. 1

BOD ............................................................................................................................................................................. 140 37

TSS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 88 27

Ammonia (as N) ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.9

a-Terpineol ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.033 0.016

Benzoic acid ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.12 0.071

p-Cresol ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.025 0.014

Phenol .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.026 0.015

Zinc .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.20 0.11

pH ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2) (2)

1 Milligrams per liter (mg/L, ppm)

2Within the range 6 to 9.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3051

§ 445.22 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations which represent the

application of BCT: Limitations for

BOD5, TSS and pH are the same as the

corresponding limitations specified in

§ 445.21.

§ 445.23 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30—125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations which represent the

application of BAT: Limitations for

ammonia (as N), a-terpineol, benzoic

acid, p-cresol, phenol and zinc are the

same as the corresponding limitations

specified in § 445.21.

§ 445.24 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

performance standards: Standards are

the same as those specified in § 445.21.

[FR Doc. 00–1037 Filed 01–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P