[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6426-6463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3087]



[[Page 6425]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 445



Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 6426]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 445

RIN 2040-AC23
[FRL--5931-5]


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This proposal represents the Agency's first effort to develop 
Clean Water Act (CWA) national effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from stand-alone 
landfills unassociated with other industrial or commercial activities.
    The proposed regulation would establish technology-based effluent 
limitations for wastewater discharges to navigable waters associated 
with the operation of new and existing hazardous and non-hazardous 
landfill facilities regulated under Subtitle C or Subtitle D of the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The proposal would also 
establish pretreatment standards for the introduction of pollutants 
into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) associated with the 
operation of new and existing hazardous landfills regulated under 
Subtitle C of RCRA. Sources of landfill wastewater at these facilities 
include, but are not limited to, landfill leachate and gas collection 
condensate.
    The proposal would not establish pretreatment standards for the 
introduction of pollutants into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) 
associated with the operation of new and existing non-hazardous 
landfills regulated under Subtitle D of RCRA.
    The proposal would not apply to wastewater discharges from captive 
landfills located at industrial facilities that commingle landfill 
process wastewater with non-landfill process wastewater for treatment, 
provided that the landfill receives only waste generated on-site or 
waste generated from a similar activity at another facility under the 
same corporate structure. Further, the proposed regulation would also 
not apply to wastewater discharges associated with treatment of 
contaminated groundwater from hazardous and non-hazardous landfills.
    Compliance with this proposed regulation is estimated to reduce the 
discharge of pollutants by at least 800,000 pounds per year and to cost 
an estimated $ 7.71 million annualized (1996 dollars, post-tax for non-
government facilities).

DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by May 7, 1998.
    In addition, EPA will conduct a workshop and public hearing on the 
pretreatment standards of the rule. The meeting will be held on 
February 24, 1998, from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and supporting data on this proposal 
to: Michael Ebner, US EPA, (4303), 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20460. Please submit an original and two copies of your comments and 
enclosures (including references).
    To ensure that EPA can read, understand and therefore properly 
respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that commenters cite, 
where possible the paragraph(s) or sections in the notice or supporting 
documents to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a 
separate paragraph for each issue discussed.
    Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles 
(faxes) will be accepted. Comments and data will also be accepted on 
disks in WordPerfect format or ASCII file format.
    Comments may also be filed electronically to 
``Ebner.M[email protected]''. Electronic comments must be 
submitted as an ASCII or Wordperfect file avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments must be 
identified by the docket number W-97-17 and may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business information 
(CBI) should be sent via e-mail.
    The public record is available for review in the EPA Water Docket, 
401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. 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 record is 
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. For access to docket materials, please call 
(202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment.
    The workshop and public hearing covering the rulemaking will be 
held at the EPA headquarters auditorium, Waterfront Mall, 401 M St. SW, 
Washington, DC. Persons wishing to present formal comments at the 
public hearing should have a written copy for submittal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information 
contact Mr. Michael Ebner at (202) 260-5397. For additional economic 
information contact Mr. William Anderson at (202) 260-5131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Regulated Entities: Entities potentially 
regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated   
                 Category                             entities          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  Landfills regulated under   
                                             Subtitle C or Subtitle D of
                                             RCRA that collect and      
                                             discharge landfill         
                                             generated wastewaters and  
                                             are not located at 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 wastewaters and  
                                             are not located at other   
                                             industrial or commercial   
                                             facilities.                
Federal Government........................  Landfills regulated under   
                                             Subtitle C or Subtitle D of
                                             RCRA that collect and      
                                             discharge landfill         
                                             generated wastewaters and  
                                             are not located at other   
                                             industrial or commercial   
                                             facilities.                
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 445.02 of the proposed rule. 
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Supporting Documentation

    The regulations proposed today are supported by several major 
documents:
    1. ``Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations

[[Page 6427]]

Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category'' (EPA 821-R-97-
022). Hereafter referred to as the Technical Development Document, 
presents EPA's technical conclusions concerning the proposal. EPA 
describes, among other things, the data collection activities in 
support of the proposal, the wastewater treatment technology options, 
wastewater characterization, and the estimation of costs to the 
industry.
    2. ``Economic and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category'' (EPA 
821-B-97-005).
    3. ``Statistical Support Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category'' (EPA 821-B-97-
006).
    4. ``Environmental Assessment for Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category'' (EPA 821-B-97-
007).

How To Obtain Supporting Documents

    The Technical and Economic Development Documents can be obtained 
through EPA's Home Page on the Internet, located at www.EPA.gov/OST/
rules. The 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
III. Scope of the Proposed Regulation
IV. Regulatory History of the Landfills Category
    A. RCRA Subtitle C
    1. Land Disposal Restrictions
    2. Minimum Technology Requirements
    B. RCRA Subtitle D
V. Industry Profile
VI. Summary of EPA Activities & Data Gathering Efforts
    A. Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment 
Industry
    B. Survey Questionnaires
    C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
    D. Additional Data Sources
VII. Development of Subcategorization Approach
    A. Selection of Subcategorization Approach
    B. Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
VIII. Wastewater Characterization
    A. Sources of Landfill Generated Wastewater
    B. Wastewater Characterization
    C. Wastewater Flows and Discharge
IX. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    A. Description of Available Technologies
    B. Technology Options Considered for Basis of Regulation
    C. Development of Effluent Limitations
    D. Treatment Systems Selected for Basis of Regulation
X. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives
    A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions 
Achieved by Treatment Technologies.
    B. Costs of Compliance
    C. Pollutant Reductions
XI. Economic Analysis
    A. Introduction and Overview
    B. Baseline Conditions
    C. Methodology
    D. Summary of Economic Impacts
    1. Economic Impacts of Proposed BPT
    2. Economic Impacts of Proposed BAT Option
    3. Economic Impact of Proposed PSES
    4. Economic Achievability of Proposed NSPS and PSNS
    5. Firm Level Impacts
    6. Community Impacts
    7. Foreign Trade Impacts
    E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
XII. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
    A. Introduction
    B. Water Quality Impacts and Benefits
XIII. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
    A. Air Pollution
    B. Solid Waste Generation
    C. Energy Requirements
XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency 
Initiatives
    A. Paperwork Reduction Act
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Executive Order 12866 (OMB Review)
    E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
XV. Regulatory Implementation
    A. Applicability
    B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    C. Variances and Modifications
    1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
    2. Permit Modifications
    3. Removal Credits
    D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits & 
Monitoring Requirements
    E. Implementation for Facilities With Landfills in Multiple 
Subcategories
    F. Implementation for Contaminated Groundwater Flows
XVI. Solicitation of Data and Comments
    A. Introduction and General Solicitation
    B. Specific Data Requests and Comment Solicitations
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This 
Notice

I. Legal Authority

    These regulations are proposed under the authority of Sections 301, 
304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 
1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 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 treatment 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 guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines BPT 
effluent limits for conventional, priority,1 and

[[Page 6428]]

non-conventional 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, however, existing performance is 
uniformly inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than 
currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines 
that the technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts 
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the 
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). However, 
nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT 
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water 
Act of 1977 with its requirement for points sources to achieve best 
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic 
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority 
pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines continue to 
include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Sec. 304(b)(4) 
of the CWA
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent 
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT 
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. In 
addition to other factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA 
requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of a 
two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology 
for the development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
    Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total 
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional 
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The 
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional 
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Sec. 
304(b)(2) of the CWA
    In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best 
economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial 
subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT 
include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of 
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential 
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including 
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in 
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. Unlike BPT 
limitations, 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 are technology-based and 
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found 
at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of 
pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all 
non-domestic dischargers. 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 Centralized 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 a consent decree dated January 31, 1992, which 
settled the litigation, EPA agreed, among other things, to propose 
effluent guidelines for the ``Landfills and Industrial Waste 
Combusters'' category 2 by December 1995 and take final 
action on these effluent guidelines by December 1997. On February 4, 
1997, the court approved modifications to the Decree which revise the 
deadlines to November 1997 for proposal and November 1999 for final 
action. EPA provided notice of these modifications on February 26, 
1997, at 62 FR 8726. Although the Consent Decree lists ``Landfills and 
Industrial Waste Combusters'' as a single entry, EPA is publishing 
separate rulemaking

[[Page 6429]]

proposals for Industrial Waste Combusters and for Landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the 1990 304(m) plan and the 1992 Decree, the category 
name was ``Hazardous Waste Treatment, Phase II'', subsequently 
renamed as ``Landfills and Industrial Waste Combusters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Scope of the Proposed Regulation

    EPA is today proposing effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges associated only with 
the operation and maintenance of landfills regulated under Subtitles C 
and D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).3 
EPA's proposal would 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.4 Additionally, this guideline would 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, wastewaters such as those generated in off-site 
washing of vehicles used in landfill operations are not within the 
scope of this guideline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's Subtitle C and Subtitle D regulations define 
``landfill''. See 40 CFR 257.2, 258.2 (``municipal solid waste 
landfill'') and 260.10. Permitted subtitle C landfills are 
authorized to accept hazardous wastes as defined in 40 CFR Part 261. 
Subtitle D landfills are authorized to receive municipal, commercial 
or industrial waste that is not hazardous (or is hazardous waste 
excluded from regulation under Subtitle C). Details of the RCRA 
regulatory requirements are provided below at Section [IV] .
    \4\ These terms are defined at 40 CFR 257.2 and 260.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The wastewater flows which are covered by the rule include 
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. Groundwater, however, which 
has been contaminated by a landfill and is collected, treated, and 
discharged is excluded from this guideline. A discussion of the 
exclusion for contaminated groundwater flows is included in Section 
[VIII] of this notice. A description of sources of wastewater in the 
landfills category is also provided in Section [VIII].
    EPA initially considered development of effluent guidelines to 
address any landfill discharging directly to the surface waters of the 
United States or introducing pollutants into a POTW. Consequently, 
EPA's technical evaluation for the proposal included an assessment of 
all landfill facilities which collect wastewater as a result of 
landfilling operations. However, EPA has decided not to include within 
the scope of this proposal landfill facilities operated in conjunction 
with other industrial or commercial operations which only receive waste 
from off-site facilities under the same corporate structure (intra-
company facility) and/or receive waste generated on-site (captive 
facility) so long as the wastewater is commingled for treatment with 
other non-landfill process wastewaters. A landfill which accepts off-
site waste from a company not under the same ownership as the landfill 
would not be considered a captive or intracompany facility and would be 
subject to the Landfills category effluent guideline when promulgated.
    EPA has decided not to include these facilities within the scope of 
this proposed regulation for the following reasons.
    First, EPA has preliminarily concluded that the wastewater 
generated by landfill operations at most of the captive and 
intracompany facilities are already subject to categorical effluent 
limitations (or pretreatment standards). The evidence EPA has reviewed 
to date supports the conclusion that these wastewater flows were either 
assessed and evaluated for the effluent limitations guideline 
applicable to the facility, or are the subject of Best Professional 
Judgment (BPJ) or Combined Wastestream Formula limits established by 
the permit writer or Control Authority.
    The second reason EPA believes that it should exclude such 
landfills from this guideline is because landfill wastewaters at 
captive and intracompany landfills represent a very small portion of 
the wastewater flows treated at their wastewater treatment facilities 
(often less than one percent and typically less than three percent). In 
these circumstances, so long as the facilities combine the relatively 
small quantities of landfill wastewater with their other industrial 
process wastewater for treatment, there is little likelihood that the 
pollutants of concern in the landfill leachate will escape treatment. 
An additional factor lends intuitive support to this conclusion. It is 
likely that leachate from on-site landfills at industrial operations 
will reflect a pollutant profile similar to the facility's industrial 
process wastewater. EPA believes that landfill wastewaters generated at 
such facilities have a similar pollutant profile to the wastewater 
generated in the industrial operation. For example, the leachate from a 
landfill at a facility subject to the Petroleum Refining guideline will 
tend to be characterized by high organic loads, while the leachate from 
a facility regulated under the Nonferrous Metals guideline will be 
characterized by metal loadings. Consequently, based on the information 
EPA has reviewed to date, the Agency believes that the wastewater 
treatment currently in place at such industrial facilities is likely to 
treat the majority of the pollutants found in leachate at that 
facility. However, the Agency has only limited information on leachate 
quality at landfills associated with industrial operations. 
Accordingly, EPA requests additional data and solicits comments and 
data regarding its conclusion that landfill leachate at such facilities 
is likely to be treated effectively in the industrial wastewater 
treatment system and that additional effluent guidelines and 
categorical pretreatment standards are not necessary.
    A third reason supporting exclusion of such facilities from this 
guideline is EPA's conclusion that the pollutants in on-site landfill 
wastewaters are receiving adequate treatment that is at least 
equivalent to that proposed here. EPA has compared the wastewater 
treatment technologies employed at these facilities to the treatment 
technologies being proposed for BPT/BAT and PSES for independently, 
commercially or municipally operated Subtitle C and D landfills. This 
assessment suggests that, in most cases, treatment for regulated 
pollutants being achieved at such facilities is comparable to those 
being proposed here.
    Finally, EPA has also reviewed individual NPDES permits for captive 
and intracompany facilities to verify its preliminary conclusion that 
it may exclude such facilities from the scope of this regulation 
without jeopardizing receiving waters. The Agency has identified no 
captive or intracompany landfills that are not commingling the landfill 
wastewater for treatment with other wastewater at the facility. This 
review indicates that, for the most part, these landfill wastestreams 
are mixed with categorical wastes for treatment and subject to 
limitations comparable to those being considered here. Given these 
facts, EPA has concluded preliminarily that it should not include such 
captive or intracompany facilities within the scope of today's proposed 
action. However, EPA is requesting comment on its approach.5 
The Agency is particularly eager for data concerning

[[Page 6430]]

treatment of such wastestreams at categorical and other facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA acknowledges that its conclusions are tentative and not 
without uncertainty. A number of the facility operators identified 
themselves as subject to multiple categories. EPA applied its best 
judgment in many circumstances to determining the probable handling 
of the landfill waste streams. EPA is specifically soliciting data 
and other information on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its survey for this guideline, EPA identified over 200 
captive and intracompany facilities with on-site landfills. A majority 
of these landfills are found at industrial facilities that are or will 
be subject to three effluent guidelines: Pulp and Paper (40 CFR Part 
430), Centralized Waste Treatment (proposed 40 CFR Part 437, 60 FR 
5464, January 27, 1995), or Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic 
Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR Part 414). In addition, EPA identified 
approximately 30 landfills subject to one or more of the following 
categories: Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421), 
Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419), Timber Products Processing (40 
CFR Part 429), Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420), 
Transportation Equipment Cleaning (new category to be proposed in 
1998), and Pesticide Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 455). EPA did not, 
however, specifically consider the flows associated with this landfill 
leachate in the development of these guidelines.
    Industry supplied data estimates that there are over 118 Pulp and 
Paper facilities with on-site landfills and that over 90 percent 
commingle landfill leachate with process wastewater for treatment on-
site. Treatment at these facilities generally involves secondary 
biological treatment. The wastewater flow originating from landfills 
typically represents less than one percent of the total flow through 
the facilities' wastewater treatment plant and in no case exceeds three 
percent of the treated flow. Additionally, approximately six percent of 
the pulp and paper mills send landfill generated wastewater to a POTW 
along with process wastewater.
    Based on this information, EPA has preliminarily concluded that 
landfill-generated wastewater at pulp and paper mill facilities will 
typically receive biological treatment equivalent to that proposed 
today for stand-alone landfills and consequently should be excluded 
from the scope of this regulation. This conclusion is based on several 
factors. Because landfill leachate is a regulated flow under the 
current permitting guidelines, permit writers must develop limits for 
landfill wastewater exercising their Best Professional Judgment (BPJ). 
Given the small volumes of landfill generated wastewaters and the fact 
that the treatment in place for industrial wastewaters will adequately 
treat the constituents typically found in landfill leachate, EPA 
believes that BPJ limits are likely to adequately control these 
discharges.
    Based on responses to the 1992 Waste Treatment Industry: Landfills 
Questionnaire, EPA estimates that there are more than 30 facilities 
subject to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 
guideline with on-site landfills.6 At OCPSF facilities with 
on-site landfills, landfill leachate typically represents less than one 
percent of the industrial flow at the facility, in no case exceeds six 
percent of the flow and is typically commingled with process wastewater 
for treatment. EPA specifically considered landfill leachate in the 
development of the OCPSF guideline, although it is not specifically 
identified as a regulated flow in the applicability section of the 
rule. The development document for the guidelines discusses landfill 
leachate as one of the ancillary flows often treated at OCPSF 
facilities. Further, EPA has preliminarily concluded that the character 
of the landfill wastewater is similar to that being treated at the 
industrial operation and that landfill-generated wastewater will 
typically receive treatment equivalent to that proposed today for 
stand-alone landfills. Therefore, EPA concludes that so long as the 
landfill-associated discharge is subject to the same limits as the 
industrial operation that an appropriate level of control is being 
achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Responses to the Questionnaire show that many OCPSF 
facilities also collect landfill leachate as well as contaminated 
groundwater. In the case of contaminated groundwater, these flows 
are addressed through corrective actions programs at the site and 
have not been considered for regulation under this guideline. The 
exclusion for contaminated groundwater is further discussed later in 
this section. Typically, contaminated groundwater is treated 
separately from other industrial wastewaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously explained, on-site generated landfill wastewater that 
is commingled with other industrial wastewater at an industrial site is 
not included within the scope of the proposal. Thus, under the proposed 
approach, wastewater discharges from landfills located at Centralized 
Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities would be excluded from this regulation 
so long as the wastewater is commingled for treatment. In the Agency's 
current thinking, the categorical limitations and standards to be 
established for the Centralized Waste Treatment Category and codified 
at 40 CFR Part 429, would specifically cover landfill generated 
wastewater at CWT facilities (60 FR 5464, note: EPA currently intends 
to publish a reproposed CWT rule in 1998 and promulgate the final rule 
in 1999). Given the pollutant characteristics of the landfill leachate, 
landfill leachate flows would likely be subject to the CWT effluent 
limitations established under the Organics Subcategory.
    Further, under this proposal, a landfill facility that accepts 
wastewater from off-site for treatment may, in some circumstances, 
itself be subject to either landfill limitations or CWT limitations. 
This will depend on whether the wastewater treated in its treatment 
system is exclusively landfill-generated wastewater or not. For 
example, if a landfill facility accepts any wastewater from a non-
landfill source for treatment in its wastewater treatment system, then 
that treatment system is to be considered a CWT and would be subject to 
the guidelines and standards to be codified at 40 CFR Part 429. 
However, a landfill facility may accept wastewater for treatment that 
is generated off-site from off-site landfills. If a landfill facility 
accepts wastewater from landfill generated sources, and only from 
landfill generated sources, then that facility is subject to the 
effluent guidelines and standards proposed to be established for the 
landfills category. The final guideline for CWT will modify the 
definition of a CWT to clarify this applicability issue.

IV. Regulatory History of the Landfills Category

    Depending on the type of wastes disposed at a landfill, the 
landfill may be subject to regulation and permitting under either 
Subtitle C or Subtitle D of RCRA. Subtitle C facilities receive wastes 
that are identified or listed as hazardous wastes under EPA 
regulations. Subtitle D landfills can accept wastes which are not 
required to be sent to Subtitle C facilities. The following sections 
outline some of the key regulations that have been developed to control 
the environmental impacts of Subtitle C and Subtitle D landfills.

A. RCRA Subtitle C

    Subtitle C of RCRA directs EPA to promulgate regulations to protect 
human health and the environment from the improper management of 
hazardous wastes from ``cradle-to-grave''. Among EPA's key duties under 
RCRA Subtitle C is the requirement to promulgate regulations 
identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste and listing 
particular hazardous wastes. (Section 3001). EPA must also promulgate 
standards that apply to generators and transporters of hazardous waste 
as well as standards for the owners and operators of hazardous waste 
treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facilities (Sections 3002-3004). 
In addition, RCRA Section 3005 required

[[Page 6431]]

EPA to establish a permitting system for each owner or operator of a 
TSD facility.
    These regulations establish a system for tracking the disposal of 
hazardous wastes and performance design requirements for landfills 
accepting hazardous waste. RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations 
apply to landfills that presently accept hazardous wastes or have 
accepted hazardous waste at any time after November 19, 1980.
1. Land Disposal Restrictions
    The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984, 
largely prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. Once 
a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute 
provides only two options for legal land disposal: (1) Meet EPA-
established treatment standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or 
(2) dispose of the waste in a land disposal unit that has been found to 
satisfy the statutory no migration test. A no migration unit is one 
from which there will be no migration of hazardous constituents for as 
long as the waste remains hazardous (RCRA Sections 3004 
(d),(e),(g)(5)).
    Under Section 3004, the treatment standards that EPA develops may 
be expressed as either constituent concentration levels or as specific 
methods of treatment. The criteria for these standards is that they 
must substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially 
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the 
waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the 
environment are minimized (RCRA Section 3004(m)(1)). For purposes of 
the restrictions, the RCRA program defines land disposal to include, 
among other things, any placement of hazardous waste in a landfill. 
Land disposal restrictions are published in 40 CFR Part 268.
    EPA has used hazardous waste treatability data as the basis for 
land disposal restrictions standards. First, EPA has identified Best 
Demonstrated Available Treatment Technology (BDAT) for each listed 
hazardous waste. BDAT is that treatment technology that EPA finds to be 
the most effective treatment for a waste which is also readily 
available to generators and treaters. In some cases EPA has designated 
as BDAT for a particular waste stream a treatment technology shown to 
have successfully treated a similar but more difficult to treat waste 
stream. This ensured that the land disposal restrictions standards for 
a listed waste stream were achievable since they always reflected the 
actual treatability of the waste itself or of a more refractory waste.
    As part of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), Universal 
Treatment Standards (UTS) were promulgated as part of the RCRA phase 
two final rule (July 27,1994). The UTS are a series of concentrations 
for wastewaters and non-wastewaters that provide a single treatment 
standard for each constituent. Previously, the LDR regulated 
constituents according to the identity of the original waste; thus, 
several numerical treatment standards might exist for each constituent. 
The UTS simplified the standards by having only one treatment standard 
for each constituent in any waste residue.
    The LDR treatment standards established under RCRA may differ from 
the Clean Water Act effluent guidelines proposed here today both in 
their format and in the numerical values set for each constituent. The 
differences result from the use of different legal criteria for 
developing the limits and resulting differences in the technical and 
economic criteria and data sets used for establishing the respective 
limits.
    There may be differences in how standards are expressed for the LDR 
and effluent guidelines. For example, LDR may establish a single 
concentration limit for particular waste hazardous constituents whereas 
the effluent guidelines establish monthly and daily average limits. 
Additionally, the effluent guidelines provide for several types of 
discharge, including new versus existing sources and indirect versus 
direct discharge.
    The differences in numerical limits established under the Clean 
Water Act may differ not only from LDR and UTS but also from point-
source category to point-source category (e.g., Electroplating, 40 CFR 
Part 413; and Metal Finishing, 40 CFR Part 433). The effluent 
guidelines limitations and standards are industry-specific, 
subcategory-specific, and technology-based. The numerical limits are 
typically based on different data sets that reflect the performance of 
specific wastewater management and treatment practices. Differences in 
the limits reflect differences in the statutory factors that the 
Administrator is required to consider in developing technically and 
economically achievable limitations and standards--manufacturing 
products and processes (which, for landfills involves types of waste 
disposed), raw materials, wastewater characteristics, treatability, 
facility size, geographic location, age of facility and equipment, non-
water quality environmental impacts, and energy requirements. A 
consequence of these differing approaches is that similar or identical 
waste streams are regulated at different levels dependent on the 
receiving body of the wastewater, e.g. a POTW, a surface water, or a 
land disposal facility.
2. Minimum Technology Requirements
    In order to further protect human health and the environment from 
the adverse affects of hazardous waste disposed in landfills, the 1984 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA established minimum 
technology requirements for landfills receiving hazardous waste. These 
provisions required the installation of double liners and leachate 
collection systems at new landfills, replacements of existing units, 
and lateral expansions of existing units. HSWA also required all 
hazardous waste landfills to install groundwater monitoring wells by 
November 8, 1987. Performance regulations governing the operation of 
hazardous waste landfills are included in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265.

B. RCRA Subtitle D

    Landfills managing non-hazardous wastes are regulated under the 
RCRA Subtitle D program. A brief summary of these RCRA Subtitle D 
regulations is provided below.
 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart A Criteria
    EPA promulgated these criteria on September 13, 1979 (44 FR 53460) 
under the authority of RCRA Sections 1008(a) and 4004(a) and Sections 
405(d) and (e) of the Clean Water Act. These criteria apply to all 
solid waste disposal facilities and practices. However, certain 
facilities and practices are not covered by the criteria, such as 
agricultural wastes returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil 
conditioners; overburden resulting from mining operations; land 
application of domestic sewage or treated domestic sewage; hazardous 
waste disposal facilities which are subject to regulations under RCRA 
Subtitle C (discussed below); municipal solid waste landfills that are 
subject to the revised criteria in 40 CFR Part 258 (discussed below); 
and use or disposal of sewage sludge on the land when the sewage sludge 
is used or disposed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 503 (See 40 CFR Part 
257.1(c)(1)-(11)).
    The criteria include general environmental performance standards 
addressing eight major areas: flood plains, protection of endangered 
species, protection of surface water,

[[Page 6432]]

protection of groundwater, limitations on the land application of solid 
waste, periodic application of cover to prevent disease vectors, air 
quality standards (prohibition against open burning), and safety 
practices ensuring protection from explosive gases, fires, and bird 
hazards to airports. Facilities which fail to comply with any of these 
criteria are considered open dumps, which are prohibited by RCRA 
Section 4005. Those facilities which meet the criteria are considered 
sanitary landfills under RCRA Section 4004(a).
 40 CFR Part 258 Revised Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills (MSWLFs)
    On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated revised criteria for MSWLFs in 
accordance with the authority provided in RCRA Sections 1008(a)(3), 
4004(a), 4010 and CWA Sections 405(d) and (e) (see 
56 FR 50978). Under the terms of these revised criteria, MSWLFs are 
defined to mean a discrete area of land or an excavation that receives 
household waste, and is not a land application unit, surface 
impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined 
in 40 CFR 257.2 and 258.2. A MSWLF unit also may receive other types of 
RCRA Subtitle D wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous 
sludge, and industrial solid waste. Such a landfill may be publicly or 
privately owned. A MSWLF unit may be a new unit, existing MSWLF unit or 
a lateral expansion.
    The MSWLF revised criteria include location standards (Subpart B), 
operating criteria (Subpart C), design criteria (Subpart D), 
groundwater monitoring and corrective action (Subpart E), closure and 
post-closure care criteria (Subpart F), and financial assurance 
requirements (Subpart G). The design criteria provide that new MSWLF 
units and lateral expansions of existing units (as defined in Section 
258.2) must be constructed in accordance with either (1) a design 
approved by a Director of a State whose MSWLF permit program has been 
approved by EPA and which satisfies a performance standard to ensure 
that unacceptable levels of certain chemicals do not migrate beyond a 
specified distance from the landfill (Sections 258.40(a)(1), (c), (d), 
Table 1) or (2) a composite liner and a leachate collection system 
(Sections 258.40(a)(2), (b)). The groundwater monitoring criteria 
generally require owners or operators of MSWLFs to monitor groundwater 
for contaminants and generally implement a corrective action remedy 
when monitoring indicates that a groundwater protection standard has 
been exceeded. However, certain small MSWLFs located in arid or remote 
locations are exempt from both design and groundwater monitoring 
requirements. The closure standards require that a final cover be 
installed to minimize infiltration and erosion. The post-closure 
provisions generally require, among other things, that groundwater 
monitoring continue and that the leachate collection system be 
maintained and operated for 30 years after the MSWLF is closed. The 
Director of an approved State may increase or decrease the length of 
the post-closure period.
    Again, as is the case with solid waste disposal facilities which 
fail to meet the open dumping criteria in 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart A, 
MSWLFs which fail to satisfy the revised criteria in Part 258 
constitute open dumps (40 CFR 258.1(h)). All solid waste disposal 
facilities, i.e., MSWLFs, that are subject to the requirements in the 
Part 258 revised criteria and which collect and discharge landfill-
generated waste waters are included in this category.
 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart B CESQG Revised Criteria
    A Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) is 
generally defined as one who generates no more than 100 kilograms of 
hazardous waste per month in a calendar year (40 CFR 261.5(a)). Such 
CESQGs (with certain exceptions) are not subject to RCRA Subtitle C 
requirements. However, on July 1, 1996, EPA (1) amended Part 257 to 
establish criteria that must be met by non-municipal, non-hazardous 
solid waste disposal units that receive CESQG waste and (2) established 
separate management and disposal standards (in 40 CFR 261.5(f)(3) and 
(g)(3)) for those who generate CESQG waste (see 61 FR 342169). The 
CESQG revised criteria for such disposal units include location 
standards, groundwater monitoring, and corrective action requirements.

V. Industry Profile

    The growth of the landfills industry is a direct result of RCRA and 
subsequent EPA and State regulation that establish the conditions under 
which solid waste may be disposed. The adoption of increased control 
measures required by RCRA has had a number of ancillary effects.
    The RCRA requirements have affected the landfill industry in 
different ways. 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 in 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 was deposited in large landfills 
representing only 25 percent of the landfill population.
    EPA has identified several trends in the waste disposal industry 
that may increase the quantity of leachate produced by landfills. More 
stringent RCRA regulation and the restrictions on the management of 
wastes have increased the amount of waste disposed at landfills as well 
as the number of facilities choosing to send wastes off-site to 
commercial facilities in lieu of pursuing on-site management options. 
This will increase treated leachate discharges from the nation's 
landfills, thus potentially putting at risk the integrity of the 
nation's waters. Further, as a result of the increased number of 
leachate collection systems, the volumes of leachate requiring 
treatment and disposal has greatly increased.
    EPA identified approximately 11,000 landfill facilities located 
throughout the country in 1992. Out of the 11,000 facilities, EPA has 
determined that the vast majority of these facilities either are closed 
or do not generate wastewaters that EPA is proposing for regulation. 
Based on survey responses, EPA believes that 164 facilities would be 
affected by this proposed regulation.
    In the case of landfills subject to regulation under Subtitle D, 
EPA projects that there are 158 facilities which discharge in-scope 
wastewater directly to receiving streams and which may be affected by 
this proposal. EPA estimates that there are 762 facilities which 
collect in-scope wastewaters but discharge indirectly to a POTW and 
would not be affected by this proposal because EPA is not proposing to 
regulate indirect discharges from non-hazardous, Subtitle D landfills. 
There are an additional 343 facilities which collect in-scope 
wastewaters but do not discharge to surface waters or to POTWs, and are 
also not affected by this proposal. The means for disposing of their 
wastewaters include hauling off-site to a centralized waste treatment 
facility, evaporation, recirculation back to the landfill, and land 
application.

[[Page 6433]]

    With respect to landfills subject to regulation under Subtitle C, 
EPA estimates that there are six hazardous landfill facilities which 
discharge indirectly to POTWs that may be affected by this proposal. 
EPA estimated that there are no hazardous landfills discharging 
directly to surface waters. EPA estimates that there are 141 hazardous 
landfills which collect in-scope wastewaters but do not discharge 
wastewater to surface waters or to a POTW. Methods of wastewater 
disposal include hauling wastewater off-site to a centralized waste 
treatment facility, underground injection, and solidification. 
Additionally, EPA estimates that there are more than 250 industrial 
facilities which contain landfills but would be excluded from this 
regulation as a result of the factors discussed in Section [III].

VI . Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts

    This section describes the sources of data used by EPA in support 
of this proposal.

A. Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry

    EPA's initial effort to develop effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for the waste treatment industry began in 1986. 
The Agency looked at a range of facilities, including landfills, that 
received waste from off-site for treatment, recovery or disposal. The 
purpose of this study was to develop information to characterize the 
hazardous waste treatment industry, its operations, and pollutant 
discharges to the nation's waters. EPA published the results of its 
examination of the industry in the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the 
Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry'' in 1989 (EPA 440/1-89-100). This 
report focused on three types of hazardous waste treatment industries: 
landfills, incinerators with wet scrubbers, and aqueous hazardous waste 
treaters.
    After a thorough analysis of the landfill data presented in the 
Preliminary Data Summary, EPA decided it should develop an effluent 
guidelines regulation for the landfills category. EPA's decision to 
develop effluent limitations guidelines was based on the Preliminary 
Data Summary's assessment of the current and future trends in the 
landfill industry, its analysis of the concentrations of pollutants in 
the raw leachate, and the study's discussion on the treatment and 
control technologies available for effective pollution reduction in 
landfill leachate.
    The Preliminary Data Summary outlined several trends in the waste 
disposal industry that are likely to affect the amount of leachate 
produced by landfills and leachate characteristics. The summary 
projected an increase in the amount of waste disposed at landfills as a 
result of more stringent regulations and restrictions on certain waste 
management practices. The increase in the number of facilities choosing 
to send wastes off-site to commercial facilities in lieu of pursuing 
on-site management options ultimately increases the amount of leachate 
discharged each year from the nation's landfills, thus potentially 
putting at risk the integrity of the nation's waters.
    Another trend identified in the Preliminary Data Summary is the 
installation of leachate collection systems. Many of these systems are 
a result of current RCRA regulations which require leachate collection 
systems in hazardous landfills or federal regulations requiring them in 
municipal landfills. As a result of the increased number of leachate 
collection systems, the volumes of leachate requiring treatment and 
disposal has greatly increased. This increased volume of leachate was 
another reason EPA felt it necessary to propose an effluent guideline 
for landfills.

B. Survey Questionnaires

    A major source of information and data used in developing effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards was industry responses to detailed 
technical and economic questionnaires, and the subsequent Detailed 
Monitoring Questionnaires (DMQs) distributed by EPA under the authority 
of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. For the Landfills industry, the 
data collection process was done in several steps. First, EPA 
identified a population of 595 Subtitle C landfills and 10,330 Subtitle 
D landfills in the country.
    Second, a screener survey was developed to collect initial 
information on all possible landfill sites in the U.S. and to update 
information on ownership and facility contacts. Screener surveys were 
mailed to all 595 Subtitle C landfills and to 4401 Subtitle D landfills 
(approximately 43 percent). Information collected by the screener 
surveys included:
     mailing address;
     landfill type, including types and amount of solid waste 
disposed;
     landfill capacity;
     wastewater generation rates as a result of landfill 
operations, including leachate, gas condensate, and contaminated 
groundwater;
     regulatory classification;
     ownership status;
     discharge status;
     monitoring practices; and
     treatment technology.
    Of the 4,996 screener questionnaires mailed, there were 3,628 
respondents. Of these, 3,581 were of sufficient quality to be used for 
data analysis. Of these, EPA identified 1,024 landfills that generate 
and collect one or more types of in-scope wastewaters.
    Once the information from the screener surveys was tabulated and 
analyzed, EPA then developed a technical Detailed Questionnaire to 
obtain more information from the in-scope facilities identified in the 
screener surveys.
    In determining which in-scope facilities should receive the 
technical Detailed Questionnaire, EPA weighted the list toward those 
landfills with wastewater treatment facilities in place. All in-scope 
facilities selected fell into the following four categories:
    1. Questionnaires were sent to all commercial, municipal, or 
government facilities identified from the screener that had wastewater 
treatment (for their landfill generated wastewaters) and were direct or 
indirect dischargers.
    2. A 25 percent sample of landfills were selected from the list of 
commercial, municipal, or government facilities identified from the 
screener that had wastewater treatment, but were zero or alternative 
dischargers (i.e., do not discharge to a POTW or to a surface water).
    3. A 40 percent sample of landfills were selected from the list of 
non-commercial private (captive or intra-company) facilities identified 
from the screener that had wastewater treatment.
    4. A 10 percent sample of landfills were selected from the list of 
facilities identified from the screener that collected and discharged 
in-scope wastewater, but did not have wastewater treatment.
    This selection criteria resulted in a mailing of the Detailed 
Questionnaires to 252 in-scope facilities. The Detailed Questionnaires 
solicited technical and economic information on landfill operations, 
employment, revenue, wastewater generation, wastewater treatment, and 
wastewater monitoring data.
    Of the 252 recipients, 220 responded with sufficient technical data 
to be included in the final EPA Detailed Questionnaire database.
    In addition to the Detailed Questionnaire, EPA also requested 
detailed wastewater monitoring information from 27 in-scope facilities 
from the questionnaire mailing list. These facilities were selected 
based

[[Page 6434]]

upon their responses to the Detailed Questionnaire. EPA reviewed each 
facility's monitoring summary provided in the questionnaire, discharge 
permit requirements, and their on-site treatment technologies. From 
these responses, EPA determined that 27 facilities could provide useful 
information on technology performance and pollutant removals.
    The selected facilities were requested to send analytical data 
(1992, 1993, and 1994 annual data) on daily equalized influent to their 
wastewater treatment system, as well as effluent data from the 
treatment system. The three years of analytical data were used to help 
EPA calculate the variability factors (Section IX of today's notice) 
used in determining the industry effluent limits. Analytical data for 
intermediate waste treatment sampling points were also requested for 
some facilities. In this manner, EPA was able to obtain performance 
information across individual treatment units in addition to the entire 
treatment process.
    EPA also conducted a thorough review of each DMQ response to ensure 
that the data provided was representative of the facility's treatment 
system. EPA collected data from 24 semi-continuous and continuous 
treatment systems and two batch treatment systems.

C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits

    EPA conducted wastewater characterization site visits at 15 
landfill facilities. The purpose of these visits was to collect 
information on the facility's landfilling operations and collect 
influent raw wastewater samples to help characterize the Landfill 
industry. The selection of facilities was based on the responses to the 
Detailed Questionnaire on type of landfill (e.g., construction and 
demolition, ash, sludge, industrial, and hazardous). EPA visited 
facilities from as broad a cross section of the industry as possible.
    EPA spent one day at each landfill. During the site visits, EPA 
collected information on the types of waste accepted, acceptance 
criteria, and landfill operating practices. EPA emphasized obtaining 
wastewater characterization information, such as the type, source, and 
quantity of raw wastewaters generated, and wastewater collection 
methods employed. Grab samples of the untreated wastewater were 
collected from each landfill and the data that resulted from these 
samples were used in the characterization of the Landfills industry.
    EPA conducted engineering site visits at 19 facilities. The purpose 
of these visits was to evaluate each facility as a potential week-long 
sampling candidate. The selection of these facilities was based on the 
responses to the Detailed Questionnaire on types of wastewater 
treatment on site. Facilities selected for engineering site visits 
employed various types of treatment, including: equalization, chemical 
precipitation, biological, filtration, and reverse osmosis. During the 
engineering site visit, EPA obtained information on:
     the facility and its operations;
     the wastes accepted for treatment and the facility's 
acceptance criteria;
     the raw wastewater generated and its sources;
     the wastewater treatment on site;
     the location of potential sampling points; and
     the site-specific sampling needs, issues of access, and 
required sampling safety equipment.
    EPA conducted week-long sampling efforts at six landfills. 
Selection of these facilities was based on the analysis of the 
information collected during the engineering site visits.
    EPA then prepared a detailed sampling plan for each sampling 
episode. Wastewater samples were collected at influent, intermediate, 
and effluent sample points throughout the entire on-site wastewater 
treatment system. Sampling at 5 of the facilities consisted of 24-hour 
composite samples for 5 consecutive days. For the sixth facility, 
composites were taken of 4 completed batches over 5 days. Grab samples 
were collected for oil and grease, and the volatile organic grab 
samples were composited in the laboratory prior to analysis. Samples 
were then analyzed using EPA's Office of Water approved analytical 
methods. EPA sampling assesses the following technologies:
     Equalization
     Chemical precipitation
     Aerobic biological
     Anaerobic biological
     Carbon adsorption
     Multimedia filtration
     Reverse osmosis
     Air stripping
     Steam stripping
     Sludge dewatering
    Data resulting from the influent samples were used to develop the 
list of pollutants of interest (POIs) and raw wastewater 
characteristics. The data collected from the influent, intermediate, 
and effluent points were used to analyze the effective treatment at the 
facilities, develop current discharge concentrations, pollutant 
loadings, and the Best Available Treatment (BAT) options for the 
Landfills industry. Data collected from the effluent points were used 
to calculate long term averages (LTAs) for each of the proposed 
regulatory options.

D. Additional Data Sources

    In developing the Landfills effluent guidelines, EPA evaluated the 
following data sources:
     CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual;
     Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment 
Works (50 POTW Study) database;
     EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) 
treatability database; and
     Industry Supplied Data.

These data sources and their uses for the development of the Landfills 
effluent guidelines are discussed below.
    Data from the ``CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs Treatability 
Manual'' (EPA 540/G-90/005, August 1990) were used to supplement the 
groundwater data collected during characterization and week-long 
sampling events. The purpose of the study was to:
     Identify the variety of compounds and concentration ranges 
present in groundwater at CERCLA sites;
     Collect data on the treatability of compounds achieved by 
various on-site pretreatment systems; and
     Evaluate the impact of CERCLA discharges to a receiving 
POTW.

    A total of eighteen CERCLA facilities were sampled in this study; 
however, only facilities which received contaminated groundwater as a 
result of landfilling activities were selected to be used in 
conjunction with EPA groundwater sampling data. The data from seven 
CERCLA facilities were combined with EPA sampling data to help 
characterize the Hazardous Landfill Subcategory and to develop both the 
current discharge concentrations and pollutant loadings for facilities 
in the Hazardous Landfill Subcategory. In addition, data from three 
CERCLA facilities which employed carbon adsorption were combined with 
EPA sampling data to conduct the pass-through analysis and to evaluate 
the performance of carbon adsorption treatment technology.
    EPA used the data included in the report entitled ``Fate of 
Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-82/
303, September 1982), commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study'', in 
determining those pollutants that would pass through a POTW. This study 
presents data on the performance of 50 representative POTWs which were 
operating at or near the efficiency required to meet

[[Page 6435]]

secondary treatment (30 mg/l BOD\5\ and 30 mg/l TSS). The 50-POTW study 
data was edited prior to its use in the landfills regulation. The data 
editing hierarchal rules were devised to minimize the possibility that 
low POTW removals might simply reflect low influent concentrations 
instead of being a true measure of treatment effectiveness. The 
hierarchial data editing rules for the 50-POTW study were as follows: 
(1) Detected pollutants must have at least three pairs (influent/
effluent) of data points to be included, (2) average pollutant influent 
levels less than 10 times the pollutant analytical Minimum Level (ML) 
were eliminated, and (3) if none of the average pollutant influent 
concentrations exceeded 10 times the ML, then the average influent 
values less than 20 g/l were eliminated. The remaining 
averaged pollutant influent values and the corresponding averaged 
effluent values were then used to calculate the average percent removal 
for each pollutant when conducting the POTW pass-through analysis for 
this industry, which is discussed in detail in the Technical 
Development Document.
    EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) 
developed a treatability data base (formerly called the Risk Reduction 
Engineering Laboratory (RREL) data base). This computerized data base 
provides information, by pollutant, on removals obtained by various 
treatment technologies. The data base provides the user with the 
specific data source, and the industry from which the wastewater was 
generated. The NRMRL data base was used when conducting the POTW pass-
through analysis by supplementing the treatment information provided in 
the 50-POTW study when there was insufficient information on specific 
pollutants. For each of the pollutants of interest (POIs) not found in 
the 50-POTW data base, data from portions of the NRMRL data base were 
obtained. These files were edited so that only treatment technologies 
representative of typical POTW secondary treatment operations 
(activated sludge, activated sludge with filtration, aerobic lagoons) 
were used. The files were further edited to include information 
pertaining to domestic or industrial wastewater, unless only other 
wastewater data were available. Pilot-scale and full-scale data were 
used; bench-scale data were eliminated. Data from papers in peer-
reviewed journals or government reports were used; lesser quality 
references were edited out. From the remaining pollutant removal data, 
the average percent removal for each pollutant was calculated.
    Finally, EPA solicited any data on landfill wastewaters that may be 
relevant from the landfills industry. Several facilities supplied EPA 
with leachate and groundwater characterization and treatability 
studies. The data included in these studies were analyzed and compared 
to EPA sampling data collected at the facilities. Analysis of the 
industry provided data confirmed the results of several of EPA sampling 
episodes.

VII. Development of Subcategorization Approach

    For today's proposal, EPA considered whether a single set of 
effluent limitations and standards should be established for this 
industry, or whether different limitations and standards were 
appropriate for subcategories within the industry. In reaching its 
preliminary decision that subcategorization is required, EPA considered 
various factors. The CWA requires EPA, in developing effluent 
limitations, to assess several factors including manufacturing 
processes, products, the size and age of site, wastewater use, and 
wastewater characteristics. The landfills industry, however, is not 
typical of many of the other industries regulated under the CWA because 
it does not produce a product. Therefore, EPA developed additional 
factors that specifically address the characteristics of landfill 
operations. Similarly, several factors typically considered for 
subcategorization of manufacturing facilities were not considered 
applicable to the landfills industry. The factors considered for 
subcategorization are listed below:
     Regulatory classification;
     Types of wastes received;
     Wastewater characteristics;
     Facility size;
     Ownership;
     Facility location;
     Economic impacts;
     Treatment technologies and costs;
     Facility age;
     Energy requirements; and
     Non-water quality impacts.

A. Selection of Subcategorization Approach

    Based on its assessment of the above factors, EPA has preliminarily 
determined that it should segment the landfill industry and develop 
different effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for 
subcategories of the industry. EPA concluded that the most appropriate 
basis for subcategorization is by landfill classification under RCRA 
for the reasons explained in greater detail below. Subcategorization on 
this basis incorporates many of the most relevant differences within 
the landfills industry. EPA found the types of waste received at the 
landfill and the resulting characteristics of the wastewater most 
clearly correlated with the RCRA classification of a landfill. 
Additionally, the Agency believes that this subcategorization approach 
has the virtue of being the 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. The proposed subcategories are 
described below.
Subcategory I: Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Landfills
    Subcategory I would apply to wastewater discharges from all 
landfills classified as RCRA Subtitle D non-hazardous landfills subject 
to either of the criteria established in 40 CFR Parts 257 (Criteria for 
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices) or 258 
(Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) as explained above at 
Section [IV].
Subcategory II: Subtitle C Hazardous Landfills
    Subcategory II would apply to wastewater discharges from a solid 
waste disposal facility subject to the criteria in 40 CFR 264 Subpart 
N--Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, 
Storage, and Disposal Facilities and 40 CFR 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 as 
explained previously at Section [IV].

B. Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization

1. Types of Waste Landfilled
    The type of solid waste which is deposited in a landfill often has 
a direct correlation with the characteristics of the leachate produced 
by that landfill. EPA believes that the most practical method of 
distinguishing the type of waste deposited in a landfill is achieved by 
utilizing the RCRA classification of

[[Page 6436]]

landfills that distinguishes between hazardous or non-hazardous waste 
landfills.
    There are also a number of unique landfill cells and monofills 
dedicated to accept only one type of non-hazardous solid waste which 
may include construction and demolition debris, ash, or sludge. The 
Agency is not proposing to further subcategorize Subtitle D landfill 
facilities according to the specific type of waste received. This 
decision is based on two considerations.
    The first consideration is based on EPA's evaluation of leachate 
characteristics. EPA evaluated leachate characteristics from many 
Subtitle D landfills and concluded that raw leachate was not 
significantly different among monofills to merit subcategorization. 
This is not unexpected, as the waste deposited in municipal landfills 
and dedicated monofills is not mutually exclusive. Although dedicated 
cells may prohibit disposal of municipal refuse, a municipal waste 
landfill may also accept ash, sludge, and construction and demolition 
wastes. EPA concluded that there were no pollutants of concern 
identified in dedicated monofills which were not already present in 
municipal landfills. EPA concluded that the pollutants proposed to be 
regulated for the Subtitle D Subcategory will effectively address the 
discharges from all types of Subtitle D landfills, including those 
accepting only one type of waste.
    The second consideration was based on ease of implementation. As 
discussed above, there is overlapping waste acceptance criteria, and 
distinct effective dates which define the type of landfill. 
Additionally, there are many facilities which operate both dedicated 
monofills and municipal landfills and which commingle wastewater prior 
to treatment. The Agency believes that establishing one subcategory for 
all non-hazardous landfills will ease implementation issues and 
adequately control discharges from the landfills industry. EPA solicits 
comment on the decision not to subcategorize Subtitle D monofills.
2. Wastewater Characteristics
    EPA concluded that leachate characteristics from non-hazardous and 
hazardous landfills differed significantly in the types of pollutants 
detected and the concentrations of those pollutants. As expected, EPA 
found that the leachate from hazardous landfills contained a greater 
number of contaminants at higher concentrations compared to leachate 
from non-hazardous landfills. This supported subcategorization based on 
RCRA classification of hazardous and non-hazardous landfills.
3. Facility Size
    EPA considered subcategorization of the landfills industry on the 
basis of site size. Three parameters were identified as relative 
measures of facility size: number of employees, amount of waste 
disposed, and wastewater flow. EPA found that landfills of varying 
sizes generate similar wastewaters and use similar treatment 
technologies. Furthermore, wastewaters from landfills can be treated to 
the same level regardless of facility size. EPA determined that the 
industry should not be subcategorized based on facility size. EPA does 
not propose a de-minimis flow exclusion for this guideline.
4. Ownership
    EPA considered subcategorizing the industry by ownership. A 
significant number of landfills are owned by state, local, or federal 
governments, while many others are commercially or privately owned. 
Although there are distinct economic considerations to account for, 
there is no distinction in the wastewater characteristics and 
wastewater treatment employed at commercial or municipally owned 
landfills. EPA determined that the industry should not be 
subcategorized based on ownership.
5. Geographic Location
    EPA considered subcategorizing the industry by geographic location. 
Landfill sites are not limited to any one region of the United States. 
Landfills from all sections of the country were represented in EPA's 
survey of the industry. Although wastewater generation rates appear to 
vary with annual precipitation, which is indirectly related to 
geographic location, a direct correlation in leachate characteristics 
to geographic location could not be established. Additionally, the data 
collected by EPA did not indicate any significant variations in 
wastewater treatment technologies employed by facilities in colder 
climates versus warmer climates, nor in the discharge water quality. 
EPA determined that geographic location is not an appropriate method 
for subcategorization.
    EPA noted that geographic location may have a differential impact 
on the cost of operating a landfill. For example, the cost of 
additional land required for the installation of a treatment system or 
the tipping fees charged for waste disposal may vary from region to 
region. These issues were addressed in the estimated costs and impacts 
of the proposal.
6. Economic Characteristics
    EPA also considered subcategorizing the industry based on the 
economic characteristics of the landfill facilities. If a group of 
facilities with common economic characteristics, such as revenue size, 
was in a much better or worse financial condition than others, then it 
might be appropriate to subcategorize based on economics. However, 
analysis of the financial conditions of facilities showed no 
significant pattern of variation across possible subcategories.
7. Treatment Technologies and Costs
    The Agency did not consider treatment technologies or costs to be a 
basis for subcategorization.
8. Age
    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. 
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 wastewaters. EPA concluded that the proposed BPT/BAT/PSES/
NSPS/PSNS treatment technologies are successfully able to treat the 
variations in landfill wastewaters likely to occur due to age-related 
changes.
    Finally, EPA has taken into account the ability of treatment 
systems to accommodate age-related changes in leachate (influent) 
concentrations, as well as short-term fluctuations by proposing 
effluent limitations which reflect the variability observed in 
monitoring data spanning up to three years. Additionally, age-related 
effects on treatment technologies, costs and pollutant loads were 
addressed by utilizing data collected from a variety of

[[Page 6437]]

landfills in various stages of age and operation (e.g. closed, 
inactive, active).
    EPA solicits comment and data on its conclusions regarding the 
relationship of wastewater characteristics to the age of the landfill.
9. Energy Requirements
    The Agency did not subcategorize by energy requirements because 
this is not a significant factor in this industry and is not related to 
wastewater characteristics. Energy costs resulting from this regulation 
were accounted for in the economic impact assessment for this 
regulation.
10. Non-Water Quality Impacts
    The Agency evaluated the impacts of this regulation on the 
potential for increased generation of solid waste and air pollution. 
The non-water quality impacts did not constitute a basis for 
subcategorization. The non-water quality impacts and costs of solid 
waste disposal is included in the economic analysis and regulatory 
impact analysis for this regulation.

VIII. Wastewater Characterization

    This section describes the sources of wastewater flows proposed to 
be regulated at landfills. This section also characterizes and 
describes these wastewater discharge flows.

A. Sources of Landfill Generated Wastewater

    Approximately 7.1 billion gallons of in-scope wastewater were 
generated at landfill facilities in 1992. EPA has proposed to regulate 
the following landfill sources of wastewater: leachate, gas collection 
condensate, truck/equipment washwater, drained free liquids, laboratory 
wastewaters, and contaminated stormwater. Additional sources of 
wastewaters generated by landfills but not proposed to be regulated 
under this guideline include contaminated groundwater, non-contaminated 
stormwater, and sanitary wastewaters. These wastewaters are described 
below.
    1. 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 movement into the wider environment increase. 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 
groundwater 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 in-scope wastewaters.
    2. 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 
conditions. The gases tend to contain high concentrations of water 
vapor which is condensed in traps staged throughout the gas collection 
network. The gas condensate contains volatile compounds and accounts 
for a relatively small percentage of flow from a landfill.
    3. 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. Wastewaters 
generated from these waste processing activities are collected and 
usually combined with other landfill generated wastewaters for 
treatment at the wastewater treatment plant. Due to the limited amount 
of data submitted to EPA on the characteristics of drained free 
liquids, and due to the potentially unique nature of these flows, the 
Agency solicits comments and data on including drained free liquids 
within the scope of this guideline.
    4. 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 
wastewaters are 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.
    5. Laboratory-Derived Wastewater is generated from on-site 
laboratories which characterize incoming waste streams and monitor on-
site treatment performance.
    6. Contaminated Stormwater is runoff that comes in direct contact 
with the waste or waste handling and treatment areas. Stormwater which 
does not come into contact with the wastes .
    7. Non-contaminated Stormwater includes stormwater which flows off 
the cap or cover of the landfill and does not come in direct contact 
with solid waste. The Agency is not proposing to regulate non-contact 
stormwater because non-contact stormwater flows are not considered 
process wastewaters and are already subject to existing stormwater 
regulations. Non-contaminated storm water discharged through municipal 
storm water systems or that discharge directly to waters of the United 
States are subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) storm water permit requirements under 40 CFR 122.26 (b)(14)(v).
    8. Contaminated Groundwater is water below the land surface in the 
zone of saturation which has been contaminated by landfill leachate. 
EPA is also not proposing to include within the scope of regulated 
flows groundwater which has been contaminated by a landfill and is 
collected and discharged. The reasons for this decision are as follows.
    During development of this proposal, EPA considered whether it 
should also include contaminated groundwater flows within the scope of 
this guideline. Historically, many landfill operations have caused the 
contamination of local groundwater, 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 groundwater. 
In many cases this has resulted in the collection, treatment and 
discharge of treated groundwater to surface waters. In addition, in the 
case of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfills and Municipal solid 
Waste Landfills (MSWLF), applicable regulatory standards require 
groundwater monitoring and post-closure care and, in the event of 
groundwater contamination, corrective action measures. These 
requirements may also result in treatment of contaminated groundwater 
by such landfill facilities.

[[Page 6438]]

    EPA, however, has not included contaminated groundwater flows 
within its assessment for this guideline. Several reasons support EPA's 
decision not to include contaminated groundwater within the flows 
evaluated for this proposal.
    EPA evaluated flows, pollutant concentrations, treatment in place, 
and current treatment standards for discharges of contaminated 
groundwater from landfills. From this evaluation, EPA concluded that 
pollutants in contaminated groundwater 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 groundwater are being 
adequately controlled. Consequently, further regulation under this 
proposed rule would be redundant and unnecessary.
    EPA is aware that there may be some landfill facilities that 
collect and treat both landfill leachate and contaminated groundwater 
flows. In the case of such facilities, EPA believes that decisions 
regarding the appropriate discharge limits again should be left to the 
judgment of the permit writer. As indicated above, contaminated 
groundwater may be very dilute or may have characteristics similar in 
nature to leachate. In cases where the groundwater is very dilute the 
Agency is concerned that contaminated groundwater 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 BPT 
limits based on the combined wastestream formula in order to prevent 
dilution of the regulated leachate flows. However, in cases where the 
groundwater may exhibit characteristics similar to leachate, commingled 
treatment is appropriate because it is obviously more cost effective 
and environmentally beneficial than separate treatment. EPA recommends 
that the permit writer consider the characteristics of the contaminated 
groundwater before making a determination if commingling groundwater 
and leachate for treatment is appropriate.

B. Wastewater Characterization

    The Agency's sampling program for this industry detected over 80 
pollutants (conventional, priority and non-conventional) in waste 
streams at treatable levels. EPA has characterized landfill generated 
wastewater using data obtained in EPA sampling episodes and industry 
supplied data obtained through the EPA 308 Questionnaires. As 
previously explained, EPA sampled at five hazardous landfills and 13 
non-hazardous landfills. EPA analyzed untreated and treated wastewaters 
for over 470 pollutants at each landfill, including 233 priority and 
nonconventional organic compounds, 69 priority and nonconventional 
metals, four conventional pollutants, and 123 toxic and nonconventional 
pollutants including pesticides, herbicides, dioxins and furans. EPA 
developed a list of pollutants of interest (POIs) for the landfills 
industry by eliminating pollutants not considered to be at treatable 
levels in raw wastewaters. The list of POIs was carried forward in the 
analysis.
    EPA asked all facilities receiving EPA Detailed Questionnaires to 
provide summary characterization data for their landfill generated 
wastewaters. The Agency requested selected facilities to submit 
detailed analytical data and Detailed Monitoring Reports (DMRs) on 
their wastewaters as part of the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire. 
Additionally, EPA reviewed several other wastewater characterization 
data sources for comparison purposes.
1. Raw Wastewater at Subtitle D, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills
    Wastewater generated at MSW landfills contained a range of 
conventional, toxic and nonconventional pollutants. Wastewaters 
contained significant concentrations of common nonconventional metals 
such as iron, magnesium, manganese and boron. Generally, concentrations 
of toxic heavy metals were found at relatively low concentrations. EPA 
did not find toxic metals such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead at 
treatable levels in any of EPA's sampling episodes at MSW landfills.
    Typical organic pollutants found in MSW landfill leachate included 
2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) and 2-propanone (acetone) which are 
common solvents used in household products (such as paints and nail 
polish) and common industrial solvents such as 4-methyl-2-pentanone and 
1,4-dioxane. Trace concentrations of a few pesticides were detected in 
wastewaters from municipal landfills. Additionally, the wastewater was 
characterized by high loads of organic acids such as benzoic acid and 
hexanoic acid resulting from anaerobic decomposition of solid waste.
    EPA identified 34 pollutants of interest for MSW landfills 
including: eight conventional/nonconventional pollutants, eight metals, 
16 organics/pesticides/herbicides, and two dioxins/furans. Three 
hundred sixteen pollutants were never detected in EPA sampling episodes 
and approximately 120 pollutants were detected but were not considered 
to be at treatable levels. A list of the pollutants and sampling 
results may be found in the Technical Development Document.
2. Raw Wastewater at Subtitle D, Non-Municipal Landfills
    Certain Subtitle D landfills do not accept municipal household 
refuse and do not accept hazardous waste. These unique facilities, 
termed ``monofills'' because they accept only one type of waste, 
typically accept one of the following types of solid waste: municipal 
incinerator ash, wastewater treatment sludge, and construction and 
demolition (C&D) wastes.
    Because of the unique nature of these monofills, EPA performed an 
analysis to determine if significant differences existed in raw 
wastewater characteristics from Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 
landfills and these monofill facilities. However, characterization and 
treatment data collected as part of EPA's sampling episodes focused 
primarily on the more prevalent MSW landfills. To complete this 
analysis, additional data on raw wastewaters from monofill facilities 
were collected from several sources including prior EPA studies and 
industry-supplied data. These data were evaluated to identify any 
pollutants found at significant concentrations in monofills which were 
not found in MSW landfills.
    Based on a review of these data sources, EPA observed that the 
pollutants present in raw wastewaters from monofills were not 
significantly different from those found in MSW landfills, and, in 
fact, only a subset of MSW landfill POIs were found in raw wastewaters 
from these monofill facilities. In addition, concentrations of 
virtually all pollutants found in ash, sludge, and C&D waste monofills 
were significantly lower than those found in raw wastewaters from MSW 
landfills. As described in Section [VII] of today's notice, EPA 
proposes to establish equivalent effluent limitations for all Subtitle 
D non-hazardous landfills.
    EPA also examined wastewater at non-hazardous landfill facilities 
for the presence of dioxins and furans to determine whether these 
analytes should be proposed for regulation. Scientific study has 
identified that there are 210 isomers of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins 
(CDD) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDF). Dioxins and furans are 
formed as by-products in

[[Page 6439]]

many industrial operations including petroleum refining, pesticide and 
herbicide production, paper bleaching, and production of materials 
involving chlorinated compounds. Dioxins and furans are not water-
soluble and are not expected to leach out of non-hazardous landfills in 
significant quantities. EPA is primarily concerned with the 2,3,7,8-
substituted congeners, of which 2,3,7,8-TCDD is considered to be the 
most toxic and is the only one that is a priority pollutant. Non-
2,3,7,8-substituted congeners are believed to be less toxic in part 
because it appears that they are not absorbed by living organisms.
    As part of EPA sampling episodes at 13 Non-Hazardous landfills, raw 
wastewater samples were collected and analyzed for a total of 17 
congeners of dioxins and furans. Additional raw leachate data were 
analyzed from ash monofills in previous EPA studies. EPA found low 
levels of only three congeners, OCDD, HpCDD, and HxCDD, in raw 
wastewaters at several landfills. All observed concentrations of 
dioxins/furans in raw, untreated wastewater were well below the 
Universal Treatment Standards proposed for FO39 wastes (multi-source 
leachate) in 40 CFR 268.1 which establish minimum concentration-based 
standards based on an acceptable level of risk. At the concentrations 
found in raw landfill wastewaters, dioxins and furans are expected to 
partition to the biological sludge as part of the proposed BPT/BAT 
treatment technologies. Partitioning of dioxins/furans to the sludge 
was included in the evaluation of treatment benefits and water quality 
impacts. The most toxic dioxin congener, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, was never 
detected in raw wastewater at a Subtitle D Landfill.
    Based on this review of all available data, the Agency is not 
proposing to establish effluent limitations for dioxins and furans 
because the concentrations of the congeners that were detected in raw 
untreated leachate were found at very low levels, often approaching 
background levels and already below Universal Treatment Standards. 
Additionally, the most toxic congener, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, was never detected 
in untreated raw leachate. EPA sampling data and calculations conclude 
that the concentrations of dioxins and furans present in the wastewater 
will not prevent the sludge from being redeposited in a nonhazardous 
landfill.
3. Raw Wastewater at Subtitle C Hazardous Landfills
    Raw wastewaters from Subtitle C Hazardous landfills were also 
characterized through EPA sampling episodes and industry-supplied data 
obtained through the EPA 308 Questionnaires. Wastewater generated at 
Subtitle C hazardous landfills contained a wide range of conventional, 
toxic, and nonconventional pollutants at treatable levels. There was a 
significant increase in the number of pollutants found in raw 
wastewaters at hazardous facilities compared to non-hazardous 
landfills. Pollutants which were common to both untreated nonhazardous 
and hazardous wastewaters were generally an order of magnitude higher 
in hazardous landfill wastewater. The list of pollutants of interest 
for the Subtitle C Hazardous Landfill Subcategory, which includes 80 
parameters, reflects the more toxic nature of hazardous landfill 
wastewater and the wide range of industrial waste sources.
    Pollutants typical of raw leachate from hazardous facilities 
included higher levels of arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc 
than found at non-hazardous facilities. However, cadmium, lead and 
mercury were not detected at treatable concentrations in the raw 
wastewater for any of the hazardous landfills sampled during EPA 
sampling episodes.
    EPA identified 65 pollutants of interest for Subtitle C hazardous 
landfills including: 11 conventional/nonconventional pollutants, 13 
metals, 37 organics/pesticides/herbicides, and four dioxins/furans. Two 
hundred fifty pollutants were never detected in EPA sampling episodes 
and approximately 155 pollutants were detected but were not considered 
to be present at treatable levels. A list of the pollutants and 
sampling results may be found in the Technical Development Document.
    EPA also examined wastewater at hazardous landfill facilities for 
the presence of dioxins and furans to determine whether these analytes 
should be proposed for regulation. As part of EPA sampling episodes at 
two in-scope Subtitle C landfills and two in-scope pre-1980 industrial 
landfills, raw leachate samples were collected and analyzed for 17 
congeners of dioxins and furans. Again, EPA did not detect the most 
toxic dioxin congener, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, at an in-scope hazardous/
industrial landfill. EPA did find low levels of several congeners in 
raw wastewaters at several landfills. Low levels of four congeners, 
OCDD, OCDF, HpCDD, and HpCDF, were detected in over half of the 
landfills sampled. However, all concentrations of dioxins/furans in 
raw, untreated wastewater were well below the Universal Treatment 
Standards proposed for FO39 wastes (multi-source leachate) in 40 CFR 
268.1 which establish minimum concentration-based standards based on an 
acceptable level of risk. At the concentrations found in raw landfill 
wastewaters, dioxins and furans are expected to partition to the 
biological sludge as part of the proposed BPT/BAT/PSES treatment 
technologies. Partitioning of dioxins/furans to the sludge was included 
in the evaluation of treatment benefits and water quality impacts.
    Based on a review of all available data, the Agency is not 
proposing to establish effluent limitations for dioxins and furans for 
the same reasons it is not proposing limitations and standards for 
these pollutants in wastewater at non-hazardous landfills.

C. Wastewater Flow and Discharge

1. Wastewater Flow and Discharge at Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Landfills
    Approximately 6.7 billion gallons of in-scope wastewater were 
generated at non-hazardous landfills in 1992. As mentioned previously, 
flows collected from leachate collection systems are the primary source 
of wastewater, accounting for over 95 percent of the in-scope 
wastewaters.
    Landfill facilities have several options for the discharge of their 
wastewaters. EPA estimates that there are 158 Subtitle D Non-hazardous 
facilities discharging wastewater directly into a receiving stream or 
body of water, accounting for 1.2 billion gallons per year. In 
addition, there are 762 facilities discharging wastewater indirectly to 
a POTW, accounting for 4.6 billion gallons per year.
    Also, there are a number of facilities which use treatment and 
disposal practices that result in no discharge of wastewater to surface 
waters. The Agency estimates that there are 343 of these ``zero or 
alternative discharge'' facilities. Disposal options resulting in no 
discharge for landfill generated wastewater include off-site treatment 
at another landfill wastewater treatment system or a Centralized Waste 
Treatment facility, deep well injection, incineration, evaporation, 
land application and recirculation.
    The recirculation of leachate is generally believed to encourage 
the biological activity occurring in the landfill and accelerate the 
stabilization of the waste. The recirculation of landfill leachate is 
not prohibited by federal regulations, although many States have 
prohibited the practice. EPA estimates that 350 million gallons per 
year are recirculated back to Subtitle D non-hazardous landfill units.

[[Page 6440]]

2. Wastewater Flow and Discharge at Subtitle C Hazardous Landfills
    Approximately 367 million gallons of in-scope wastewater were 
generated at hazardous landfills in 1992. In-scope wastewaters do not 
include non-contact stormwater or contaminated groundwater.
    Landfill facilities have several options for the discharge of their 
wastewaters. EPA's survey of the landfills industry did not identify 
any hazardous landfills covered by the proposed guideline which 
discharge in-scope wastewaters directly to surface waters. EPA 
estimates that there are six facilities discharging wastewater 
indirectly to a POTW, accounting for 40 million gallons per year.
    The Agency estimates that 141 hazardous landfill facilities utilize 
zero or alternative-discharge disposal options. EPA estimates that 103 
facilities ship wastewater off-site for treatment, often to a treatment 
plant located at another landfill or to a Centralized Waste Treatment 
facility. Shipping off-site accounts for eleven million gallons per 
year of wastewater. Another 37 facilities utilize underground injection 
for disposal of their wastewaters, accounting for 315 million gallons 
per year; and one facility solidifies less than 0.1 million gallons per 
year of landfill wastewater.

IX. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

A. Description of Available Technologies

    There are a large number of different wastewater treatment systems 
in use at landfills. The treatment technologies described below provide 
some indication of the range of wastewater treatment systems observed 
at landfill wastewater treatment plants. In-operation wastewater 
treatment technologies include physical/chemical pollutant removal 
systems and biological removal systems. Based on information obtained 
from the Detailed Questionnaires and engineering site and sampling 
visits described above, EPA concluded that a number of treatment 
systems currently in place need to be upgraded to improve effectiveness 
and remove additional pollutants.
    Among the physical/chemical treatment technologies in use are:
     Equalization tanks. Equalization dampens variation in 
hydraulic and pollutant loadings, thereby reducing shock loads and 
increasing treatment facility performance;
     Neutralization. Neutralization dampens pH variation prior 
to treatment or discharge;
     Coagulation/Flocculation. Coagulation/flocculation 
provides additional pollutant removal through aggregation of colloidal 
solids;
     Gravity Separation. Gravity-assisted separation allows 
suspended matter, heavier than water, to become quiescent and settle; 
and free oils, lighter than water, to become quiescent and float;
     Emulsion Breaking. The addition of a de-emulsifiers (heat, 
acid, metal coagulants, and clays) break down emulsions to produces a 
mixture of water and free oil and/or an oily floc;
     Chemical Precipitation. The addition of chemicals to 
wastewater to convert soluble metal salts to insoluble metal oxides 
which are then removed by filtration;
     Chemical Oxidation/Reduction. By chemical addition, the 
structure of pollutants are changed so as to disinfect, increase 
biodegradation and adsorption, or convert pollutants to terminal end 
products;
     Air/Steam Stripping. Air/Steam stripping involves the 
removal of pollutants from wastewater by the transfer of volatile 
compounds from the liquid phase to a gas stream;
     Multimedia/Sand Filtration. Multimedia/sand filtration 
involves a fixed (gravity or pressure) or moving bed of porous media 
that traps and removes suspended solids from water passing though the 
media;
     Ultrafiltration. Extremely fine grade filters are used to 
remove organic pollutants from wastewater according to the organic 
molecule size;
     Reverse Osmosis. Reverse osmosis relies on differences in 
dissolved solids concentrations and selective semipermeable membranes 
to allow for the concentration of dissolved inorganic pollutants;
     Fabric Filters. Fabric filters screen suspended matter by 
means of a cloth or paper barrier;
     Carbon Adsorption. In this process, wastewater is passed 
over a medium of activated carbon which adsorbs certain pollutants; and
     Ion Exchange. The use of certain resins in contact with 
wastewater removes contaminants of similar charge.
    Biological treatment technologies in use are:
     Aerobic Systems. Aerobic systems utilize an acclimated 
community of aerobic microorganisms to degrade, coagulate, and remove 
organic and other contaminants;
     Activated Sludge. Activated sludge is a continuous flow, 
aerobic biological treatment process which employs suspended-growth 
aerobic microorganisms to biodegrade organic contaminants;
     Anaerobic Systems. Anaerobic systems involve the 
conversion of organic matter in wastewater into methane and carbon 
dioxide by anaerobic microorganisms (methanogens);
     Facultative Systems. Facultative systems stabilize wastes 
by incorporating a combination of aerobic, anaerobic, and facultative 
(thriving in either aerobic or anaerobic conditions) microorganisms;
     Rotating Biological Contactors. Rotating biological 
contactors (RBCs) employ a fixed-film aerobic biological system 
adhering to a rigid media mounted on a horizontal, rotating shaft;
     Trickling Filters. In this process, wastewater passes over 
a structure packed with an inert medium (e.g. rock, wood, plastic) 
coated with a biological film capable of absorbing and degrading 
organic pollutants;
     Sequential Batch Reactors. A sequence of batch operations 
in a single reactor containing acclimated microorganisms is used to 
degrade organic material. The batch process allows for equalization, 
aeration, and clarification in a single tank;
     Powdered Activated Carbon Biological Treatment. The 
addition of granular activated carbon to biological treatment systems 
enhances the removal of certain organic pollutants;
     Nitrification Systems. These systems involve nitrifying 
bacteria in order to convert ammonia-nitrogen compounds to less toxic, 
nitrate-nitrite compounds;
     Denitrification Systems. These systems convert nitrate-
nitrite to nitrogen gas under anoxic conditions; and
     Wetlands Treatment. These systems employ natural or man-
made wetlands systems which treat wastewater through utilizing natural 
processes of sedimentation, adsorption, and organic degradation.
    The treatment sequence employed at any particular facility may vary 
with the character of the wastewater generated at the landfill. The 
optimal treatment system at a facility depends upon many factors 
including permit requirements, design considerations, landfill 
acceptance criteria, and management practices. Various forms of 
equalization and aerobic biological systems were the most widely-found 
treatment technology in the landfills industry, including aerated 
lagoons, activated sludge systems, and sequential batch reactors. 
Biological systems in the landfill industry generally utilized high 
retention times to enhance performance by reducing variations in raw 
wastewater flow and pollutant loads.

[[Page 6441]]

B. Technology Options Considered for Basis of Regulation

    This section explains how EPA selected the effluent limitations and 
standards proposed today for the Subtitle C Landfill and Subtitle D 
Landfill Subcategories. To determine the technology basis and 
performance level for the proposed regulations, EPA developed a 
database consisting of daily effluent data collected from the Detailed 
Monitoring Questionnaire and EPA's Wastewater Sampling Program. This 
database is used to support the BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS 
effluent limitations and standards.
    The effluent limitations and pretreatment standards EPA is 
proposing to establish today are based on well-designed, well-operated 
systems. Below is a summary of the technology bases for the proposed 
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards in each subcategory. 
When final guidelines are promulgated, a landfill operator is free to 
use any wastewater treatment technology at the facility so long as the 
numerical discharge limits are achieved.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
    a. Introduction. EPA today proposes BPT effluent limitations for 
the two discharge subcategories for the Landfills Point Source 
Category. The BPT effluent limitations proposed today would control 
identified conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants when 
discharged from landfill facilities. For further discussion on the 
basis for the limitations and technologies selected see the Technical 
Development Document.
    As previously discussed, Section 304(b)(1)(A) of the CWA requires 
EPA to identify effluent reductions attainable through the application 
of ``best practicable control technology currently available for 
classes and categories of point sources.'' The Senate Report for the 
1972 amendments to the CWA explained how EPA must establish BPT 
effluent reduction levels. Generally, EPA determines BPT effluent 
levels based upon the average of the best existing performances by 
plants of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within each 
industrial category or subcategory. In industrial categories where 
present practices are uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may determine 
that BPT requires higher levels of control than any currently in place 
if the technology to achieve those levels can be practicably applied. 
See A Legislative History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972, U.S. Senate Committee of Public Works, Serial No. 
93-1, January 1973, p. 1468.
    In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost reasonable 
assessment for BPT limitations. In determining the BPT limits, EPA must 
consider the total cost of treatment technologies in relation to the 
effluent reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does not limit EPA's 
broad discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are achievable with 
available technology unless the required additional reductions are 
``wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal 
level of reduction.'' See Legislative History, op. cit. p. 170. 
Moreover, the inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify benefits 
in monetary terms. See e.g. American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 
526 F. 2d 1027 (3rd Cir., 1975).
    In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA 
considers the volume and nature of expected discharges after 
application of BPT, the general environmental effects of pollutants, 
and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of pollution 
control. In developing guidelines, the Act does not require or permit 
consideration of water quality problems attributable to particular 
point sources, or water quality improvements in particular bodies of 
water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these factors in developing 
the limitations being proposed today. See Weyerhaeuser Company v. 
Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
    b. BPT Technology Options Considered for the Non-Hazardous 
Landfills Subcategory. In the Agency's engineering assessment of the 
best practicable control technology currently available for treatment 
of wastewaters from landfills, 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. EPA removed chemical 
precipitation from further consideration as a BPT treatment option for 
the following reason. While chemical precipitation is an effective 
treatment technology for the removal of metals, non-hazardous landfills 
typically have low concentration of metals in treatment system influent 
wastewater. Observed metals concentrations were typically not found at 
levels which would inhibit biological treatment or that could be 
effectively removed by a chemical precipitation unit.
     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. Various types of 
biological treatment such as activated sludge, aerated lagoons, and 
anaerobic and aerobic biological towers or fixed film reactors were 
included in the calculation of limits for this option. The costing for 
Option I was based on the cost of aerated equalization followed by an 
extended aeration activated sludge system and clarification, including 
sludge dewatering. Approximately half of the direct discharging 
municipal solid waste landfills employed some form of biological 
treatment, but only 15 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 11 percent of the direct discharging municipal facilities 
used the technology described in Option II.
    EPA proposes to adopt BPT effluent limitations for the Non-
Hazardous Landfills Subcategory based on Option II because of the 
proven ability of biological treatment systems in controlling organics, 
and because of the effectiveness of multimedia filtration in removing 
TSS which may remain after biological treatment. 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 proposed treatment technologies in relation to the effluent 
reductions achieved.
    No basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations 
based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the 
age nor the size of the landfill facility will directly affect the 
treatability of the landfill wastewaters. For the non-hazardous 
landfills, the most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations 
are costs of treatment and the level of effluent reductions obtainable.
    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 85,000 pounds more of conventional pollutants than Option

[[Page 6442]]

I with only a moderate, associated cost increase.
    Finally, EPA also looked at the costs of all options to determine 
the economic impact that this proposal 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 XI of today's 
notice.
    EPA identified 34 pollutants of interest for the Non-Hazardous 
Subcategory as explained previously. EPA is proposing to regulate the 
following pollutants under BPT, BAT, and NSPS for direct discharging 
non-hazardous landfills: BOD 5, TSS, pH, ammonia, alpha 
terpineol, benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, toluene, and zinc.
    c. BPT Technology Options Considered for the Hazardous Landfill 
Subcategory. EPA's survey of the hazardous landfills industry 
identified no in-scope respondents who discharge directly to surface 
water. All of the hazardous landfills within the scope of the proposal 
are either indirect or zero/alternative dischargers. EPA consequently 
could not evaluate any treatment systems in place at direct discharging 
hazardous landfills for establishing BPT effluent limitations. 
Therefore, EPA relied on information and data from widely available 
treatment technologies in use at hazardous landfill facilities 
discharging indirectly and at non-hazardous landfills discharging 
directly--so-called ``technology transfer.'' EPA based BPT limits for 
hazardous landfills on chemical precipitation to achieve metals 
removals and secondary biological treatment to achieve organics 
removals.
    In this instance, EPA concluded that the technology in place at 
some indirect hazardous landfills is appropriate to use as the basis 
for regulation of direct dischargers. EPA would expect that the 
wastewater characteristics from direct discharge hazardous waste 
landfills be similar to the wastewater from indirect discharge 
hazardous waste landfills. The technologies in place at indirect 
dischargers selected for the basis of regulation included chemical 
precipitation for metals removal and secondary biological treatment for 
removals of organics. Secondary biological treatment was selected as 
the basis for BPT, BAT, and NSPS regulation for non-hazardous 
landfills, and EPA believes that secondary biological treatment is also 
appropriate for the treatment of hazardous landfill leachate. With the 
exception of conventionals such as BOD 5 and TSS, the 
treatment systems in place at indirect hazardous facilities achieved 
low effluent concentrations as a result of average removals of 88 to 98 
percent of organic toxic pollutants, and 55 to 80 percent of metal 
pollutants. Because of the ability of the POTW to treat conventionals 
such as BOD 5 and TSS, biological treatment systems 
discharging indirectly are not necessarily operated for optimal control 
of these parameters. Therefore, because the performance of biological 
treatment systems for conventionals is well documented, EPA transferred 
the limits for conventionals from well operated biological treatment 
systems in place at non-hazardous landfills.
    EPA considered three potential technology options for establishing 
BPT effluent limitations for the Hazardous Landfill Subcategory. These 
technology options all included aerated equalization, and consisted of 
chemical precipitation, biological treatment, and zero or alternative 
discharge. 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. 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 
wastewaters 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.
    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 Wastes Treatment (CWT) 
facility or to a landfill wastewater treatment facility. Thirty-seven 
facilities are estimated to inject landfill wastewaters underground on-
site, 103 facilities send their wastewater to a CWT or landfill 
treatment system, and one facility solidifies wastewater.
    EPA has tentatively determined that it should not propose zero or 
alternative discharge requirements because, for the industry as a 
whole, zero or alternative discharge options are either not viable or 
the cost is wholly disproportionate to the benefits and thus it is not 
``practicable.''
    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.
    The second widely used disposal option involves contract hauling 
landfill wastewater to a CWT. EPA's survey demonstrated that only 
landfills with relatively low flows (under 500 g.p.d.) currently 
contract haul their wastewater to a CWT. The costs of contract hauling 
are directly proportional to the volume and distance over which the 
wastewater 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 unreasonable 
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 proposed today, and that 
zero/alternative discharge requirements would result in additional 
costs to discharge without greater removals for hazardous landfill 
wastewaters.
    Based on the characteristics of hazardous landfill leachate and on 
an evaluation of appropriate technology options, the Agency selected 
aerated equalization followed by chemical precipitation and biological 
treatment as BPT technology for the Hazardous Landfill Subcategory. EPA 
relied on data from two facilities employing variations of this 
technology to calculate the proposed BPT limits for toxic pollutants. 
One facility employed equalization and a chemical precipitation unit 
followed by an activated sludge system. The second facility used 
equalization tanks followed by a sequential batch reactor which was 
able to achieve metals reductions. Both of these systems were indirect 
dischargers, as stated above. In the case of BPT regulation for 
conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that establishing limits based 
on indirect discharging treatment systems was not appropriate because 
indirect discharging treatment systems are generally not operated for 
optimal control of conventional pollutants which are amenable to 
treatment in a POTW. Therefore, in establishing limits

[[Page 6443]]

for conventional pollutants, EPA is proposing to establish BPT 
limitations equal to those established for non-hazardous landfills. For 
a discussion of the costs and economic impact of the treatment options 
considered by the Agency, see Section XI.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    a. Introduction. In July 1986, EPA promulgated a methodology for 
establishing BCT effluent limitations. EPA evaluates the reasonableness 
of BCT candidate technologies--those that are technologically 
feasible--by applying a two-part cost test: (1) A POTW test; and (2) an 
industry cost-effectiveness test.
    EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant 
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT 
candidate technology and then compares this cost to the cost per pound 
of conventional pollutants removed in upgrading POTWs from secondary 
treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the POTW 
benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).
    In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the 
incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry 
must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29 
percent).
    b. Rationale for Setting BCT Equivalent to BPT. In today's 
proposal, EPA is proposing to establish BCT effluent limitations 
guidelines equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the conventional 
pollutants for both subcategories. In developing BCT limits, EPA 
considered whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals 
of conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT, and whether those 
technologies are cost-reasonable according to the BCT Cost Test. In 
each subcategory, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve 
greater removals of conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT that 
are also cost-reasonable under the BCT Cost Test, and accordingly EPA 
proposes BCT effluent limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent 
limitations guidelines.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    a. Introduction. EPA today is proposing BAT effluent limitations 
for both subcategories in the Landfills Category based on the same 
technologies selected for BPT. The BAT effluent limitations proposed 
today would control identified priority and non-conventional pollutants 
discharged from facilities.
    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.
    b. Rationale for Setting BAT Equivalent to BPT for the Non-
Hazardous Landfill Subcategory. EPA evaluated reverse osmosis 
technology as a potential option for establishing BAT effluent limits 
more stringent than BPT for the control of toxic pollutants. Reverse 
osmosis was selected for evaluation because of its effective control of 
a wide variety of toxic pollutants in addition to controlling 
conventional and non-conventional 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 propose 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 Option II 
removed 6,800 toxic pounds whereas BAT Option III removed 8,000 toxic 
pounds. 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 (refer to Section XI). In addition, 
establishment of BAT Option III would not result in effluent 
limitations significantly more stringent that those established under 
BAT Option II, which is currently achieving very low Long-Term Average 
(LTA) effluent concentrations. Therefore, the Agency questioned whether 
the small additional removal of toxic pounds achieved by BAT Option III 
were justified by 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. However, these parameters were 
not included in the calculation of toxic pounds due to their use as 
treatment chemicals. EPA is requesting comment on whether it should 
base BAT limits on reverse osmosis because of the additional removals 
obtained. For further discussion of the economic impacts and costs of 
this option, see the discussion in Section [XI].
    c. 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 
EPA's engineering assessment of the possible BAT technology for direct 
discharging hazardous facilities, EPA evaluated the same three 
potential technology options as those evaluated for BPT for the 
Hazardous Landfill Subcategory. These technology options were chemical 
precipitation, biological treatment, and zero or alternative discharge 
as explained above. EPA has identified no other technologies that would 
represent BAT level of control for this industry.
    EPA determined that it should establish BAT limits based on the 
same technology evaluated for BPT limits. As explained above, zero or 
alternative discharge is not an available alternative.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    a. Introduction. As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, 
new industrial direct dischargers must comply with standards which 
reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through 
application of the best available demonstrated control technologies. 
Congress envisioned that new treatment systems could meet tighter 
controls than existing sources because of the opportunity to 
incorporate the most efficient processes and treatment systems into 
plant design. Therefore, Congress directed EPA, in establishing NSPS, 
to consider the best demonstrated process changes, in-plant controls, 
operating methods and end-of-pipe treatment technologies that reduce 
pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
     b. Rationale for Setting NSPS Equivalent to BPT/BCT/BAT. EPA 
proposes New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) that would control the 
same conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants proposed 
for control by the BPT/BCT/BAT effluent limitations guidelines. The 
conventional treatment technologies used to control pollutants at 
existing

[[Page 6444]]

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. Therefore, EPA 
proposes NSPS limitations that are identical to those proposed in each 
subcategory for BPT/BCT/BAT. Again, the Agency is requesting comments 
to provide information and data on other treatment systems that may be 
pertinent to the development of standards for this industry.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    a. Introduction. Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to 
promulgate pretreatment standards to prevent pass-through of pollutants 
from POTWs to waters of the U.S. or to prevent pollutants from 
interfering with the operation of POTWs. After a thorough analysis of 
indirect discharging landfills in the EPA database, EPA has decided not 
to propose PSES for the Non-Hazardous Landfill Subcategory for the 
reasons explained in more detail below. However, EPA does propose to 
establish PSES for the Hazardous Landfill Subcategory based on aerated 
equalization, chemical precipitation and biological treatment 
technology.
    b. Pass-Through Analysis. Before proposing pretreatment standards, 
the Agency examines whether the pollutants discharged by an industry 
pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or sludge 
disposal practices. In determining whether pollutants pass through a 
POTW, the Agency compares the percentage of a pollutant removed by 
POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removed by discharging 
facilities applying BAT. A pollutant is deemed to pass through the POTW 
when the average percentage removed nationwide by representative POTWs 
(those meeting secondary treatment requirements) is less than the 
percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent 
limitations guidelines for that pollutant.
    This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two 
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) that wastewater treatment 
performance for indirect dischargers be equivalent to that for direct 
dischargers and (2) that the treatment capability and performance of 
the POTW be recognized and taken into account in regulating the 
discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers. Rather than compare 
the mass or concentration of pollutants discharged by the POTW with the 
mass or concentration of pollutants discharged by a BAT facility, EPA 
compares the percentage of the pollutants removed by the proposed 
treatment system with the POTW removal. EPA takes this approach because 
a comparison of mass or concentration of pollutants in a POTW effluent 
with pollutants in a BAT facility's effluent would not take into 
account the mass of pollutants discharged to the POTW from non-
industrial sources nor the dilution of the pollutants in the POTW 
effluent to lower concentrations from the addition of large amounts of 
non-industrial wastewater.
    For past effluent guidelines, a study of 50 representative POTWs 
was used for the pass-through analysis. Because the data collected for 
evaluating POTW removals included influent levels of pollutants that 
were close to the detection limit, the POTW data were edited to 
eliminate low influent concentration levels. For analytes that included 
a combination of high and low influent concentrations, the data was 
edited to eliminate all influent values, and corresponding effluent 
values, less than 10 times the minimum level. For analytes where no 
influent concentrations were greater than 10 times the minimum level, 
all influent values less than five times the minimum level and the 
corresponding effluent values were eliminated. For analytes where no 
influent concentration was greater than five times the minimum level, 
the data was edited to eliminate all influent concentrations, and 
corresponding effluent values, less than 20 g/l. These editing 
rules were used to allow for the possibility that low POTW removal 
simply reflected the low influent levels.
    EPA then averaged the remaining influent data and the remaining 
effluent data from the 50 POTW database. The percent removals achieved 
for each pollutant was determined from these averaged influent and 
effluent levels. This percent removal was then compared to the percent 
removal for the BAT option treatment technology. Due to the large 
number of pollutants applicable for this industry, additional data from 
the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database was used to 
augment the POTW database for the pollutants for which the 50 POTW 
Study did not cover. For a more detailed description of the pass-
through analysis, see the Technical Development Document.
    c. Rationale for Not Proposing PSES for the Non-Hazardous Landfill 
Subcategory. The Agency today is not proposing to establish 
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) for the Non-
Hazardous Landfill Subcategory. The Agency decided not to propose PSES 
for this subcategory after an assessment of the effect of landfill 
leachate on receiving POTWs. EPA looked at three measures of effects on 
POTWs: biological inhibition levels; contamination of POTW biosolids; 
and pass-through. Only one of these, the pass-through analysis, would 
support establishing pretreatment standards, and then only in the case 
of a single pollutant, ammonia.
    With respect to biological inhibition, EPA found that typical 
concentrations of raw leachate were below published biological 
inhibition levels. Inhibition levels are concentration ranges of 
certain pollutants which may upset or interfere with the operation of a 
biological treatment system. In the evaluation of landfill wastewater 
data, EPA determined that the majority of pollutants typically found in 
raw leachate were at levels comparable to wastewater typically found at 
the headworks of a POTW.
    Further, EPA also projected that there would not be contamination 
problems of POTW biosolids as a result of treating landfill leachate so 
as to prevent use or disposal of its sewage sludge. Furthermore, in 
EPA's study of the indirect dischargers, EPA found no documented 
persistent problems with POTW upsets as a result of wastewater from 
non-hazardous facilities. EPA is soliciting information on POTW upsets 
or POTW sludge contamination problems from accepting landfill leachate.
    Finally, EPA conducted a pass-through analysis on the pollutants 
proposed to be regulated under BPT/BAT for non-hazardous landfills to 
determine if the Agency should establish pretreatment standards for any 
pollutant. (The pass-through analysis is not applicable to conventional 
parameters such as BOD5 and TSS.) The results showed that 
only one regulated pollutant, ammonia, appeared to ``pass-through'' a 
POTW. However, upon further evaluation, the Agency concluded that it 
should not propose pretreatment standards for ammonia as explained 
below. The Agency is soliciting comments and information on its 
decision not to propose pretreatment standards for non-hazardous 
landfills. Specifically, EPA would like information on the levels of 
ammonia present in landfill wastewaters, and on any problems 
experienced by POTWs due to the acceptance of landfill leachate with 
high ammonia concentrations.

[[Page 6445]]

    The Agency evaluated a number of considerations in addition to the 
pass-through analysis to determine the need for ammonia pretreatment 
standards. In part, this reflects the unique properties of ammonia and 
its effects on receiving streams and of the treatment achieved in a 
POTW. As previously explained, the pass-through analysis is based on a 
comparison of the performance of representative POTWs achieving 
secondary treatment and the performance of direct dischargers meeting 
limits achieved by BAT technology. In the case of ammonia, POTWs 
generally achieve 60 percent ammonia removal through secondary 
treatment. However, many POTWs have installed additional treatment 
specifically for the control of ammonia and typically achieve removals 
in excess of 95 percent--much higher than the 60 percent removal used 
in the pass-through analysis. The treatment systems selected as the 
basis for the proposed BPT/BAT limits for direct dischargers achieved 
average ammonia removals of 81 percent. Thus, while ammonia would pass 
through POTWs as tested by the removals (60 percent) achieved in EPA's 
50-POTW study, it does not pass through those POTWs with additional 
installed ammonia control technology (95 percent removal).
    Consequently, EPA did consider establishing pretreatment standards 
for ammonia for indirect dischargers whose POTWs do not have 
nitrification or other advanced control of ammonia. However, EPA 
tentatively rejected this option as not needed because, as described 
below, ammonia is either adequately controlled by local limits or the 
ammonia concentrations in leachate typically discharged to POTWs are 
within the range of concentrations typically found at the headworks to 
a POTW. Nevertheless, EPA will further consider this issue and request 
comment on whether to establish ammonia pretreatment standards 
equivalent to those proposed for direct dischargers. EPA is requesting 
additional data pertinent to this issue from POTWs and indirect 
discharging landfills. If it is determined that, based on comments 
received by the Agency, EPA should establish pretreatment standards for 
ammonia, EPA would propose to establish pretreatment standards for 
ammonia equivalent to those proposed today for direct discharging 
facilities.
    In order to determine the need for ammonia pretreatment standards 
for the landfills industry, EPA considered the following factors: 
``typical'' ammonia concentrations of raw leachate, ``typical'' ammonia 
concentrations at the headworks of a POTW, the ammonia concentrations 
currently being discharged to POTWs by landfills, national estimates of 
ammonia loads discharged to POTWs and to receiving streams, as well as 
the economic costs, of establishing pretreatment standards for ammonia.
    As discussed previously, EPA found no documented persistent 
problems with POTW upsets as a result of accepting landfill generated 
wastewater. EPA is soliciting comment specifically with regard to 
problems associated with any ammonia discharges in landfill leachate.
    In order to evaluate ammonia wastewater concentrations, EPA focused 
primarily on the means, medians, and 99th percentile of the data 
collected. For raw wastewater (including all direct and indirect 
discharging facilities), EPA found that the median concentration of 
ammonia in raw landfill leachate was 82 mg/l, and that the average 
concentration was 240 mg/l. Additionally, there were several notable 
outliers which contained high levels of ammonia in raw leachate due to 
site specific characteristics of the landfill.
    In terms of current treatment performance for landfills discharging 
to POTWs, 99 percent of the landfill facilities are currently 
discharging wastewater which contains less than 90 mg/l of ammonia. Of 
the indirect landfills which provided data, one facility was 
discharging 1,018 mg/l of ammonia to a 114 MGD POTW which currently has 
ammonia control (nitrification) in place. In general, POTWs with 
nitrification achieve over 95 percent removal of ammonia. The remainder 
of the 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. In comparison, typical ammonia concentrations in raw domestic 
sewage range from one to 67 mg/l. Therefore, with the exception of the 
outlier noted above, the average concentration of ammonia in leachate 
discharged to POTWs was within the range of wastewater typically 
accepted at the headworks to a POTW, although it should be noted that 
the upper ranges of leachate concentrations were higher than the upper 
ranges observed in domestic sewage. This evidence supports the 
conclusion that, in all but a handfull of cases, ammonia is not passing 
through POTWs. In most instances, observed ammonia discharge levels to 
POTWs fall within a POTWs treatment capabilities. Therefore, EPA does 
not believe that national pretreatment standards are necessary.
    Additionally, EPA evaluated total wastewater flows and loads of 
ammonia to receiving streams associated with non-hazardous landfill 
indirect dischargers. EPA estimated that the non-hazardous landfill 
industry discharges 3.2 million pounds per year of ammonia to POTWs, 
which results in 1.3 million pounds per year being discharged to 
receiving streams, assuming that the POTWs have secondary treatment but 
do not have additional treatment for ammonia control. (As noted above, 
EPA is aware that many POTWs do have additional ammonia control.) Over 
65 percent of the landfills discharge less than 10 pounds per day to 
the POTW (3,500 pounds/year), which results in discharging less than 
four pounds per day (1,400 pounds/year) to receiving streams, again 
assuming secondary treatment only. In light of existing ammonia 
control, actual discharges to receiving streams are likely to be even 
smaller.
    EPA did, however, evaluate the economic costs of options for PSES 
for ammonia. EPA's economic assessment of these showed that ammonia 
removal options generally achieved removals at very high cost given the 
small reduction in quantity discharged. For the control of ammonia 
there are two technology options available in the landfill industry.
    The first available option is biological treatment. EPA evaluated 
PSES Option I equivalent to BPT/BAT Option I, which was equalization 
plus biological treatment. This option had a total annualized cost of 
$28.2 million (1992 dollars) and had an average cost-effectiveness of 
$1,072/lbs-equivalent (1981 dollars). The second technology option 
available for the control of ammonia is ammonia stripping with 
appropriate air pollution controls. However, this technology is not 
demonstrated within the landfills industry, the costs are significantly 
higher than biological treatment evaluated as PSES Option I, and there 
are no pollutant removals achieved incremental to PSES Option I.
    In summary, EPA concludes that landfills typically discharge 
wastewater to POTWs containing ammonia concentrations comparable to 
that of raw domestic sewage and that the POTWs can adequately treat 
this wastewater. Further, POTWs retain the ability to establish local 
limits on ammonia where necessary because ammonia discharges are often 
a water quality issue. Where such discharges are harmful is dependent 
upon localized conditions such as the pH and temperature of the 
receiving stream. As a result, in these cases where it is

[[Page 6446]]

necessary to protect water quality, many POTWs have established local 
limits to control ammonia.
    EPA has analyzed the impact of ammonia discharges from landfills on 
receiving streams, and potential environmental benefits achieved 
through establishing pretreatment standards for ammonia. Based on its 
assessment, EPA concluded that ammonia removals achieved by national 
pretreatment standards would provide little, if any improvement in 
water quality. Consequently, for all the reasons explained above, EPA 
concluded that there are minimal benefits to be achieved through 
establishing national pretreatment standards for ammonia.
    d. Technology Options Considered for PSES for Hazardous Landfill 
Subcategory. EPA proposes to establish pretreatment standards for 
existing sources for the Hazardous Landfill Subcategory based on the 
same technologies as proposed for BPT, BAT, and NSPS for this 
subcategory. These standards would apply to existing facilities in the 
Hazardous Subcategory that discharge wastewater to publicly-owned 
treatment works (POTWs) and would prevent pass-through of pollutants 
and help control sludge contamination. Based on EPA's pass-through 
analysis, four of the pollutants of concern that may be discharged by 
hazardous landfills would pass through POTWs and are proposed for 
regulation. These are ammonia, alpha terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid, 
p-cresol, and toluene. Nine of the pollutants proposed to be regulated 
under BPT, BAT, and NSPS would not pass through a typical POTW. For a 
more detailed analysis of the pass-through, refer to the Technical 
Development Document. According to EPA's database, all existing 
indirect dischargers already meet this baseline standard; and 
therefore, no incremental costs, benefits, or economic impacts would be 
realized. As discussed above, the Agency is soliciting comment on the 
preliminary decision not to adopt zero or alternative discharge 
standards for hazardous 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 All 
Subcategories. In today's rule, EPA proposes to establish pretreatment 
standards for new sources equivalent to the PSES standards for all 
subcategories. In developing PSNS limits, EPA considered whether there 
are technologies that achieve greater removals than proposed for PSES 
which would be appropriate for PSNS. In the Hazardous Subcategory, EPA 
identified no technology that can achieve greater removals than PSES. 
In the Non-Hazardous Subcategory, EPA will not establish PSNS 
limitations for the same rationale for not establishing PSES limits. As 
discussed above, the Agency is soliciting comment on the preliminary 
decision not to adopt zero or alternative discharge standards for new 
sources of hazardous landfills.

C. Development of Effluent Limitations

    EPA based the proposed effluent limitations and standards in 
today's notice on widely-recognized statistical procedures for 
calculating long-term averages and variability factors. The following 
presents a summary of the statistical methodology used in the 
calculation of effluent limitations.
    Effluent limitations for each subcategory are based 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 values that represent the ratio of a large value that would 
be expected to occur only rarely to the long-term average. 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.
    The variability factors and long-term averages were developed from 
a data base composed of individual measurements on treated effluent. A 
combination of EPA sampling data and industry supplied data was used. 
While EPA sampling data reflects the performance of a system over a 
five-day period, industry supplied data (collected through the Detailed 
Monitoring Questionnaire) reflects 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.
    Daily maximum limits were calculated as follows. A modified delta-
lognormal distribution was fitted to daily concentration data from each 
facility that had enough detected concentration values for parameter 
estimation. This is the same distributional model used by EPA in the 
final rulemakings for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic 
Fibers (OCPSF) and Pesticides Manufacturing categories and the proposed 
rulemaking for the Pulp and Paper category. This model provided 
estimates of the long-term average (mean) and daily variability 
(variance) at a facility. Variability factors, corresponding to the 
99th percentile, were then computed for each facility. Data were 
combined from the selected facilities in each subcategory by finding 
the median of facility long-term averages and the average of facility 
variability factors. Finally, the daily maximum limitation for a 
subcategory was calculated by multiplying the median long-term mean by 
the average variability factor. The monthly maximum limitation was 
calculated similarly except that the variability factor corresponding 
to the 95th percentile of the distribution of monthly averages was used 
instead of the 99th percentile of daily concentration measurements.
    The daily variability factor is defined as the ratio of the 
estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of daily values divided 
by the expected value, or mean, of the distribution. Similarly, the 
monthly variability factor is defined as the estimated 95th percentile 
of the distribution of 4-day or 20-day averages (depending on the 
pollutant parameter) divided by the expected value of the monthly 
averages.
    The modified delta-lognormal distribution models the data as a 
mixture of non-detect observations and measured values. This 
distribution was selected because the data for most analytes consisted 
of a mixture of measured values and non-detects. The modified delta-
lognormal distribution assumes that all non-detects have a value equal 
to the reported detection limit and that the detected values follow a 
lognormal distribution.
    There were several instances where variability factors could not be 
calculated from the landfills data base because all effluent values 
were measured at or below the minimum detection level. In these cases,

[[Page 6447]]

variability factors were transferred from biological systems used in 
the final rulemaking of the OCPSF guideline.

D. Treatment Systems Selected for Basis of Regulation

1. BPT for Non-Hazardous Landfills
    There were 46 in-scope landfill facilities in the EPA data base 
that employed various forms of biological treatment considered for BPT. 
EPA determined an average of the best of these facilities by applying 
the criteria outlined below.
    The first criterion used in the selection of the average of the 
best facilities was effective treatment of BOD5. EPA 
evaluated 25 facilities which provided BOD5 effluent data to 
determine treatment performance. Because BPT is based on the 
effectiveness of biological treatment, facilities which used additional 
forms of treatment for BOD5 (other than biological 
treatment) were eliminated. EPA, therefore, removed two sites using 
carbon treatment in addition to biological treatment from the list of 
candidate BPT facilities. EPA eliminated another facility from 
consideration due to the fact that it used two separate treatment 
trains in treating its wastewater, one with biological treatment and 
the other with chemical precipitation, before commingling the streams 
at the effluent sample point. After the elimination of these three 
facilities, 22 facilities remained in the EPA non-hazardous landfill 
data base.
    To ensure that the facilities were operating effective biological 
treatment systems, EPA first evaluated influent concentrations of 
BOD5 entering the treatment system. Three facilities had 
average influent BOD5 concentrations below 55 mg/l, and were 
not considered for BPT because the influent concentration was 
considered to be too low to evaluate removals across the treatment 
system. Seven other facilities did not supply BOD5 influent 
data and were eliminated from the BPT list. Two other facilities were 
dropped because raw wastewater streams consisted primarily of 
stormwater or groundwater which were considered dilution flows.
    The next requirement for BPT 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. Facilities not able to maintain an effluent concentration 
below 50 mg/l were not considered to be operating their biological 
system effectively. Three of the remaining 10 facilities did not 
achieve a BOD5 effluent concentration of less than 50 mg/l, 
thus leaving seven facilities in the data base.
    The seven facilities which met all of the BPT criteria employed 
various types of biological treatment systems including activated 
sludge, sequential batch reactors, 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 included chemical precipitation 
and neutralization in their treatment systems. The biological systems 
were followed by a clarification or sedimentation stage. All seven 
facilities employing well-operated biological treatment systems were 
used to calculate the effluent limitations for BOD5. The 
treatment system average BOD5 influent concentrations ranged 
from 150 mg/l to 7,600 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, toluene and zinc. Because one facility 
employed air stripping, EPA did not use its data for determining the 
proposed limit for ammonia or toluene. Many of the facilities selected 
as BPT did not provide data for all the pollutants identified for 
regulation by EPA. In these cases, EPA based the limits on the BPT 
facilities for which data was 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. In order to ensure that the TSS data base for 
setting limitations reflects proper control, additional editing 
criteria for TSS were established.
    Two criteria were used for including TSS performance data. 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, namely a sand or multimedia filter. 
Three of the seven well-operated biological systems used a sand or 
multimedia filter as a polishing step for additional control of 
suspended solids prior to discharge.
    The second factor EPA considered was whether the treatment system 
achieved an effluent TSS concentration less than or equal to 100 mg/l. 
Treatment facilities meeting these criteria were included among the 
average best existing performers for TSS. One of the three facilities 
had additional treatment for TSS prior to the filter and was therefore 
eliminated from consideration in the determination of the TSS limits. 
The remaining two facilities had TSS effluent concentrations well below 
100 mg/l and thus EPA concluded that they should be included among the 
average, best existing performers for TSS. All of the estimated costs 
were based on a facility installing aerated equalization tanks followed 
by an activated sludge biological system and a multimedia filter and 
included a sludge dewatering system. The cost models are described in 
detail in the Technical Development Document.
2. Hazardous Landfills
    EPA identified only three in-scope respondents in the Hazardous 
Landfill Subcategory, all of which discharged indirectly to POTWs. The 
leachate from one of the three facilities was very dilute and required 
only minimum treatment prior to discharge. This facility was not 
determined to be one of the best performers in the industry. The two 
remaining facilities both had extensive treatment systems in place and 
were selected as the best performers for the subcategory. The treatment 
at one facility consisted of equalization, a chemical precipitation 
unit followed by an activated sludge system. The second facility 
utilized equalization and three sequential batch reactors operated in 
parallel.
    EPA identified 72 pollutants of interest in hazardous landfill 
wastewater. EPA is proposing to regulate the following pollutants under 
BPT, BAT, and NSPS for direct discharging hazardous landfills: 
BOD5, TSS, pH, ammonia, arsenic, chromium (total), zinc, 
alpha terpineol, aniline, benzene, benzoic acid, naphthalene, p-cresol, 
phenol, pyridine, and toluene.

X. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives

A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved 
by Treatment Technologies

    EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant loadings 
associated with the effluent limitations and standards proposed today 
using data collected through survey responses, site visits, and 
sampling episodes. Costs were calculated based on a computerized design 
and cost model developed for each of the technology options considered. 
EPA used vendor supplied cost estimates for several technologies which 
were not available from the computerized model. Current pollutant loads 
and projected pollutant load reductions were estimated using

[[Page 6448]]

treatment data collected through industry provided survey responses and 
EPA sampling data.
    EPA developed industry-wide costs and loads based the obtained from 
the 252 facilities which received the Detailed Questionnaire. The 
Detailed Questionnaire recipients were selected from 3,628 screener 
survey responses, which itself was a subset of the entire landfill 
population of 10,925. The statistical methodology for this selection is 
further explained in the Statistical Support Document. EPA calculated 
costs and loads for each of the 252 questionnaire recipients and then 
modeled the national population by using statistically calculated 
survey weights.
    EPA evaluated each of the 252 Detailed Questionnaire recipients to 
determine if the facility would be subject to the proposed limitations 
and standards and would therefore incur costs as a result of the 
proposed regulation. One hundred twenty-one of the 252 facilities were 
not expected to incur costs because:
     47 facilities indicated that they were zero or alternative 
dischargers (i.e., did not discharge their landfill generated 
wastewaters either directly or indirectly to a surface water).
     43 landfills were located at industrial sites subject to 
other Clean Water Act categorical standards would not be subject to the 
limitations and standards under the proposed approach for this 
guideline.
     The remaining 31 respondents either did not generate in-
scope wastewaters or not operate an in-scope landfill.
    Each of the 131 facilities selected for cost analysis was assessed 
to determine the landfill operations, wastewater characteristics, and 
wastewater treatment technologies currently in place at the site. 
Landfill industry costs were projected for several technology options 
based on costs developed for 128 Subtitle D and three Subtitle C 
facilities.
    In order to develop costs, the current performance of existing 
wastewater treatment in place was taken into account. In the Detailed 
Questionnaire, EPA solicited effluent monitoring data in order to 
evaluate current performance. In cases where no effluent data was 
provided, EPA modeled the current discharge concentrations of each 
pollutant of interest in the wastewater at each facility. The current 
discharge concentrations were modeled from facilities providing data 
with similar wastewater treatment operations and similar wastewater 
characteristics. Data utilized for modeling was obtained from the 
Detailed Questionnaire, the Detailed Monitoring Report (DMR) 
Questionnaire, and EPA sampling.
    Facilities whose current discharges were not meeting the 
concentrations proposed in today's notice were projected to incur costs 
as a result of compliance with this guideline. A facility which did not 
have the BPT treatment technology in-place was costed for installing 
the BPT technology. A facility already having BPT treatment technology 
in-place, but not currently meeting the proposed limits, was costed for 
system upgrades where applicable. Typical upgrades to treatment systems 
included increasing aeration capacity or residence time, installing new 
equipment, or increasing chemical usage.
    Next, a computer cost model or vender quotes were used to estimate 
compliance costs for the landfills technology options after taking into 
account treatment in place, current discharge concentrations of 
pollutants, and wastewater flow rates for each facility. The computer 
cost model was programmed with technology-specific modules which 
calculated the costs for various combinations of technologies as 
required by the technology options and the facilities' wastewater 
characteristics. The model calculated the following costs for each 
facility:
     Capital costs for installed wastewater treatment 
technologies.
     Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for installed 
wastewater treatment technologies; including labor, electrical, and 
chemical usage costs.
     Solids handling costs; including capital, O&M, and 
disposal.
     Monitoring costs
    Additional cost factors were developed and applied to the capital 
and O&M costs in order to account for site work, interface piping, 
general contracting, engineering, instrumentation and controls, 
buildings, site improvements, legal/administrative fees, interest, 
contingency, and taxes and insurance.
    Other direct costs associated with compliance included retrofit 
costs associated with integrating the existing on-site treatment with 
new equipment, RCRA Part B permit modification costs for hazardous 
facilities, and monitoring costs.
    The capital costs (equipment, retrofit and permit modification) 
were amortized assuming 15 years and seven percent interest and added 
to the O&M costs (equipment and monitoring) to calculate the total 
annual costs incurred by each facility as a result of complying with 
this guideline. The costs associated with each of the 131 facilities in 
the cost analysis were then modeled to represent the national 
population by using statistically calculated survey weights.
    For many low-flow facilities, EPA concluded that contract hauling 
wastewater for off-site treatment was the most cost effective option. 
Where applicable, EPA calculated costs for hauling wastewater to a 
Centralized Waste Treatment facility for treatment in lieu of 
installing additional treatment on-site.
    EPA estimated pollutant reductions by taking the difference in the 
current performance of the landfill industry and the expected 
performance after installation of the BPT/BAT/PSES treatment 
technology. Pollutant reductions were estimated for each pollutant of 
interest at each facility. Current performance discharge concentrations 
were taken from data supplied by the facility, or were modeled based on 
data supplied from similar treatment systems at similar landfills. The 
discharge concentrations expected to be achieved were taken from EPA 
sampling data or from industry supplied data at facilities selected as 
the best performers. The loads associated with each of the 131 
facilities determined in the cost analysis were then modeled to 
represent the national population by using statistically calculated 
survey weights.

B. Costs of Compliance

    The Agency estimated the cost for landfill facilities to achieve 
each of the effluent limitations and standards proposed today. These 
estimated costs are summarized in this section and discussed in more 
detail in the Technical Development Document. All cost estimates in 
this section are expressed in terms of 1992 dollars.
    The Agency did not evaluate the costs of compliance for direct 
dischargers from hazardous landfills. EPA's survey of hazardous 
landfills in the United States indicated that there were no in-scope 
respondents which were classified as direct dischargers.
    All of the indirect discharging hazardous landfills in EPA's survey 
of the industry are expected to be in compliance with the baseline 
treatment standards established for indirect dischargers. The Agency 
has therefore projected that there will be no costs associated with 
compliance with the proposed regulation.
    There are no costs associated with PSES for the Non-Hazardous 
Landfill Subcategory because the Agency is not establishing PSES limits 
for non-hazardous landfills. However, as explained previously, the 
Agency is considering whether to establish

[[Page 6449]]

pretreatment standards for ammonia for those facilities who discharge 
to POTWs without advanced ammonia control. EPA estimated that it would 
cost $28.2 million (1992 dollars) annualized for all indirect 
discharging landfill facilities were it to install ammonia 
pretreatment, regardless of whether or not the POTW had advanced 
ammonia control.

         Table I.B-1.--Cost of Implementing Proposed Regulations        
                      [In millions of 1992 dollars]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of     Capital     Annual O&M
           Subcategory              facilities     costs        costs   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-hazardous Direct Dischargers                                        
 (BPT)...........................          158        $5.70        $6.85
Hazardous Direct Dischargers                                            
 (BPT)...........................            0            0            0
Hazardous Indirect Dischargers                                          
 (PSES)..........................            6            0            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Pollutant Reductions

    The Agency estimated pollutant reductions for landfill facilities 
achieving each of the effluent limitations and standards proposed 
today. These estimated reductions are summarized in this section and 
discussed in more detail in the document ``Environmental Assessment of 
Proposed Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Landfills 
Category.''
    The Agency did not evaluate pollutant reductions for direct 
dischargers from hazardous landfills. Because there were no in-scope 
respondents which were classified as direct dischargers.
    All of the indirect discharging hazardous landfills in EPA's survey 
of the industry are expected to be in compliance with the baseline 
treatment standards established for indirect dischargers. The Agency 
has therefore projected that there will be no pollutant reduction 
benefits associated with compliance of the proposed regulation.
    There are no pollutant reductions associated with PSES for the Non-
Hazardous Subcategory because the Agency is not proposing to establish 
PSES limits for non-hazardous landfills.

                Table II.C-1.--Pollutant Reductions Achieved by Implementing Proposed Regulations               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Conventional        Toxic    
                                                                     Number of       pollutant       pollutant  
                           Subcategory                              facilities       removals        removals   
                                                                                     (pounds)        (pounds)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-hazardous Direct Dischargers (BPT)..........................             158         640,000         270,000
Hazardous Direct Dischargers (BPT)..............................               0               0               0
Hazardous Indirect Dischargers (PSES)...........................               6               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction and Overview

    This section of the notice reviews EPA's analysis of the economic 
impacts of the proposed regulation. The economic impacts of several 
regulatory options were evaluated in each subcategory for BPT, BAT, 
PSES, NSPS, and PSNS. The technical evaluation and description of each 
option and the rationale for selecting the proposed option is given in 
Section [IX] of today's notice. EPA's detailed economic impact 
assessment can be found in the report titled ``Economic Analysis and 
Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category'' (hereafter 
``EA''). The report 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 analysis of the effects of the regulation on 
new landfill facilities and an assessment of the impacts on small 
businesses and other small entities. The report includes a separate 
section called ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis'', which presents an 
analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation.
    The proposed regulatory option for BPT/BCT/BAT for the Non-
Hazardous Subcategory is Option II, which is estimated to have a total 
annualized cost (for privately owned facilities post-tax costs were 
evaluated) of $6.85 million (1992$). The proposed regulatory option for 
BPT/BCT/BAT for the Hazardous Subcategory is Option I, which is 
estimated to have no costs associated with compliance. The proposed 
regulatory option for PSES for the Hazardous Subcategory is Option I, 
which is also estimated to have no costs associated with compliance.

                           Table III.A-1.--Total Costs of Proposed Regulatory Options                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Post-tax total
                                                                   Total capital     Total O&M      annualized  
                        Proposed options                            costs  (Mil     costs  (Mil     costs  (Mil 
                                                                      1992$)          1992$)          1992$)    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            NON-HAZARDOUS SUBCATEGORY                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BCT/BAT=Option II...........................................          $18.54           $5.70           $6.85
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

[[Page 6450]]

                                                                                                                
                                              HAZARDOUS SUBCATEGORY                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BCT/BAT=Option I............................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
PSES=Option I...................................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Baseline Conditions

    The first step in the development of an economic analysis is the 
definition of the baseline state from which any changes are to be 
measured. The baseline should be the best assessment of the way the 
world would look absent the proposed regulation. In this case, the 
baseline has been set by assuming the status quo will continue absent 
the enactment of the regulation.
    An after-tax cash flow test was conducted on the privately owned 
facilities where information was available. The test consisted of 
calculating the after-tax cash flows for each facility for both 1991 
and 1992. If a facility experienced negative after-tax cash flows 
averaged across the two years, the facility was deemed to be a baseline 
closure. Seven facilities failed the test, and thus were deemed to be 
baseline closures.
    In recent years, the landfill industry has been affected by a 
number of opposing forces. Growth in composting and recycling as well 
as increased source reduction has resulted in a continuing decline in 
the share of waste received at landfills. The number of landfills has 
declined rapidly since 1988, although estimated total landfill capacity 
has not significantly declined. Modern landfills have taken advantage 
of economies of scale and have offset landfill capacity lost due to 
closure of very small landfills. The privately owned landfill segment 
of the industry has also experienced industry consolidation as the 
result of recent mergers and acquisitions.
    The Agency recognizes that its data base, which represents 
conditions in 1992, may not precisely reflect current conditions in the 
industry today. EPA recognizes that the questionnaire data were 
obtained several years ago and thus may not precisely mirror present 
conditions at every facility. Nevertheless, EPA concluded that the data 
provide a sound and reasonable basis for assessing the overall ability 
of the industry to achieve compliance with the regulations. The Agency 
solicits information and data on the current size of the industry and 
trends related to the growth or decline in the need for the services 
provided by these facilities.

C. Methodology

    The landfills industry is characterized by facilities owned by 
public or private entities. Consequently, EPA used two different 
criteria to evaluate economic impacts on privately owned or publicly 
owned facilities. From the Detailed Questionnaire database, EPA 
estimates that there are 60 privately owned and 98 publicly owned 
landfill facilities affected by this regulation.
    For privately owned landfill facilities, EPA applied two financial 
tests to determine facility level economic impacts. The first is the 
after-tax cash flow test. This test examines whether a facility loses 
money on a cash basis. The second test is the ratio of the facility's 
estimated compliance costs to the facility's revenue.
    The economic impact analysis for privately owned facilities 
measures three types of primary impacts.
     Severe impacts, defined as facility closures, were 
projected if the proposed regulation would be expected to cause a 
facility to incur, on average, negative after-tax cash flow over the 
two-year period of analysis.
     Moderate impacts were defined as a financial impact short 
of entire facility closure. All facilities were assessed for the 
projected incurrence of total annualized compliance costs exceeding 
five percent of facility revenue.
     Possible employment losses were assessed for facilities 
estimated to close or discontinue waste treatment operations as a 
result of regulation.
    For publicly owned landfill facilities, EPA applied two financial 
tests to determine facility level economic impacts. The first test is 
the compliance cost share of household income. This test examines 
whether a facility's estimated annualized compliance costs will equal 
or exceed one percent of the median household income in the 
jurisdiction governed by the municipality that owns the facility. The 
second test is the total landfill disposal cost share of household 
income. This test examines whether a facility's total landfill costs, 
including compliance costs, equal or exceed one percent of the median 
household income in the jurisdiction governed by the municipality that 
owns the facility.
    The economic impact analysis for publicly owned facilities measures 
two types of primary impacts: severe impacts and moderate impacts. Each 
impact analysis measure is reviewed briefly below.
     Severe impacts were evaluated by application of the 
compliance cost share of household income test. A facility is deemed to 
be severely impacted if the compliance cost share of median household 
income was equal to or greater than one percent.
     Moderate impacts were evaluated by application of the 
total landfill disposal cost share of household income. A facility is 
deemed to be moderately impacted if the total landfill disposal cost 
share of median household income was equal to or greater than one 
percent.
    The economic impact analysis for the proposed landfill regulation 
assumes that landfill facilities would not be able to pass the costs of 
compliance on to their customers through price increases. While a zero 
cost pass-through assumption is typically characterized as a 
conservative assumption, in this case, it is presumably an accurate 
assumption since the affected facilities represent a portion of the 
broader landfills services industry.

D. Summary of Economic Impacts

1. Economic Impacts of Proposed BPT
    The statutory requirements for the assessment of BPT options are 
that the total cost of treatment must not be wholly disproportionate to 
the additional effluent benefits obtained. EPA evaluates treatment 
options by first calculating pre-tax total annualized costs and total 
pollutant removals in pounds. EPA then compared the ratio of the costs 
to the removals for each option. The selected option is then compared 
to the range of ratios in previous regulations to gauge its impact. The 
results of the cost and removal comparison are presented in Table IV.D-
1. In the Non-Hazardous

[[Page 6451]]

Subcategory, Option I has a ratio of $8.83 per pound while Option II 
has a ratio of $10.16 per pound. Option II provides significant 
additional pollutant removals at a relatively low cost, thus EPA is 
proposing limits based on this option. Option II is also found to be 
within the historical bounds of BPT cost to removal ratios.

                                 Table IV.D-1.--BPT Cost Reasonableness Analysis                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Pre-tax total                                
                                                                    annualized    Total removals   Average cost 
                             Options                                costs  (Mil        (lbs)      reasonableness
                                                                      1992$)                        (1992 $/lb) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            NON-HAZARDOUS SUBCATEGORY                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...............................................................           $5.97         676,280           $8.83
II..............................................................            7.73         760,782           10.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              HAZARDOUS SUBCATEGORY                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...............................................................            0.00               0  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulatory option for BPT is Option II for both 
privately and publicly owned facilities. The postcompliance analysis 
under Option II projects two facility closures as a result of the 
compliance with the proposed option. The direct job losses associated 
with postcompliance closure are 20 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) 
positions. Table V.D-2 summarizes the economic impacts for the BPT 
options.

                                 Table V.D-2.--Impacts of Evaluated BPT Options                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Post-tax total                                                
                                                     annualized       Severe         Moderate         Direct    
                     Options                        costs  (Mil       impacts         impacts       employment  
                                                      1992$)                                      losses  (FTEs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            NON-HAZARDOUS SUBCATEGORY                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...............................................           $5.43               2               0              20
II..............................................            6.85               2               0              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              HAZARDOUS SUBCATEGORY                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...............................................            0.00               0               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Economic Impacts of Proposed BAT Option
    In the Non-Hazardous Subcategory, an additional technology Option 
BAT III (reverse osmosis) was evaluated for economic achievability. 
Option III has significantly higher annualized compliance costs than 
BPT Options I and II. As a result, the number of facilities 
experiencing moderate economic impacts increased from none under BPT 
Option II to six under BAT Option III, while the number of facilities 
experiencing severe economic impacts remained unchanged. BAT Option III 
is found to be not economically achievable due to the large portion of 
the affected population experiencing at least moderate economic impact.

                                 Table VI.D-3.--Impacts of Evaluated BAT Options                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Post-tax total                                                
                                                     annualized       Severe         Moderate         Direct    
                     Options                        costs  (Mil       impacts         impacts       employment  
                                                      1992$)                                          losses    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            NON-HAZARDOUS SUBCATEGORY                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.............................................          $29.16               2               6         20 FTEs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Economic Impact of Proposed PSES
    The proposed regulatory option for PSES for the Hazardous 
Subcategory is Option I. The postcompliance analysis under the selected 
option projects no incremental costs of compliance and no economic 
impact. As discussed in Section [IX], no PSES options are evaluated for 
the Non-Hazardous Subcategory.
4. Economic Analysis of Proposed NSPS and PSNS
    EPA is establishing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations 
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT for both 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. BPT/BCT/BAT limitations are found to be 
economically achievable; therefore, NSPS limitations

[[Page 6452]]

will not present a barrier to entry for new facilities.
    EPA is setting PSNS equal to PSES limitations for existing sources 
for the Hazardous Subcategory. Given EPA's finding of economic 
achievability for the PSES regulation, EPA also finds that the PSNS 
regulation will be economically achievable and will not constitute a 
barrier to entry for new sources.
5. 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 facilities in the survey sample are single-facility firms. In 
these cases, the firm-level impact depends only on the facility-level 
impact. In other cases, though, sampled facilities are owned by multi-
facility firms, so that the impact on the parent firm depends not only 
on that facility, but also on the impacts on and characteristics of 
other facilities owned by the same firm.
    In this analysis, significant adverse impacts on firms are 
indicated when 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 proposed 
effluent guideline will not impose unreasonable economic burdens on 
firms that own in-scope landfills.
6. Community Impacts
    Community impacts are assessed by estimating the expected change in 
employment in communities with landfills that are affected by the 
proposed 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.
    The proposed regulation is estimated to result in one post-
compliance closure of a sampled facility (which represents two 
facilities in the nationally estimated impacts). The post-compliance 
closure results in the direct loss of 10 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) 
positions (which represents 20 FTE positions in the nationally 
estimated impacts). Secondary employment impacts are estimated 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.
    For the sampled facility projected to close as a result of the 
proposed rule, the application of the state specific multiplier of 
4.935 to the 10 direct FTE losses leads to an estimated community 
impact of 49 total FTE losses as the result of the proposed rule. The 
county in which the closure is projected to occur has a current 
employment of 20,000 FTEs dispersed among 1,200 establishments. The 
direct and secondary job losses represent 0.25 percent of current 
employment in the affected county. The additional 10 direct FTE losses 
represented by the sampled facility in the calculation of national 
estimates cannot be attributed to any particular community. The 
secondary effects can be estimated at the national level by using the 
national average multiplier of 4.049, resulting in an estimate of 40 
total FTE losses associated with the represented facility closure. 
These losses are mitigated by the job gains associated with the 
operation of control equipment which are estimated to be 79 FTEs.
7. Foreign Trade Impacts
    EPA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of the 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. International trade in 
landfill services for the disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes 
is virtually nonexistent.

E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

    EPA also performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (refer to Cost 
Effectiveness section of the ``EA'') of the potential regulatory 
options for the Non-Hazardous Subcategory. The cost-effectiveness 
analysis compares the total annualized cost incurred for a regulatory 
option to the corresponding effectiveness of that option in reducing 
the discharge of pollutants.
    Cost-effectiveness calculations are used during the development of 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards to compare the efficiency 
of one regulatory option in removing pollutants to another regulatory 
option. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the incremental annual cost of 
a pollution control option in an industry subcategory per incremental 
pollutant removal. The increments are considered relative to another 
option or to a benchmark, such as existing treatment. In cost-
effectiveness analysis, pollutant removals are measured in toxicity 
normalized units called ``pounds-equivalent.'' The cost-effectiveness 
value, therefore, represents the unit cost of removing an additional 
pound-equivalent (lb. eq.) of pollutants. In general, the lower the 
cost-effectiveness value, the more cost-efficient the regulation will 
be in removing pollutants, taking into account their toxicity. While 
not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness analysis is a 
useful tool for evaluating regulatory options for the removal of toxic 
pollutants. Cost-effectiveness analysis does not take into account the 
removal of conventional pollutants (e.g., oil and grease, biochemical 
oxygen demand, and total suspended solids).
    For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the estimated pounds-
equivalent of pollutants removed were calculated by multiplying the 
number of pounds of each pollutant removed by the toxic weighting 
factor for each pollutant. The more toxic the pollutant, the higher the 
pollutant's toxic weighting factor will be and, accordingly, the use of 
pounds-equivalent gives correspondingly more weight to pollutants with 
higher toxicity. Thus, for a given expenditure and pounds of pollutants 
removed, the cost per pound-equivalent removed would be lower when more 
highly toxic pollutants are removed than if pollutants of lesser 
toxicity are removed. Annual costs for all cost-effectiveness analyses 
are reported in 1981 dollars so that comparisons of cost-effectiveness 
may be made with regulations for other industries that were issued at 
different times.
    The results of the cost effectiveness analysis for the potential 
BAT Option III for the Non-Hazardous Subcategory are presented in Table 
VIII. E-1. The potential option has an incremental (to BPT Option II) 
cost effectiveness of $13,346 per lb.-equivalent. The result of the 
cost effectiveness analysis reinforces the conclusion that BAT Option 
III is not economically achievable.

[[Page 6453]]



                                Table VIII.E-1.--BAT Cost Effectiveness Analysis                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Pre-tax total                    Incremental 
                                                                    annualized      Incremental        cost-    
                             Option                                 costs  (Mil   removals  (lb.   effectiveness
                                                                      1981$)           eq.)         ($/lb. eq.) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            NON-HAZARDOUS SUBCATEGORY                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.............................................................          $21.97           1,646         $13,346
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. 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 wastewaters have at 
least one toxic effect (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 
and did not evaluate the effects of two conventional pollutants and 
five nonconventional pollutants including total suspended solids (TSS), 
five-day biochemical 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 can have adverse 
effects on human health and the environment. For example, suspended 
particulate matter can 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 can deplete oxygen levels, which can result 
in mortality or other adverse effects on fish.

B. Water Quality Impacts and Benefits

    The Agency's analyses of these environmental and human health risk 
concerns and of the water quality-related benefits resulting from the 
proposed effluent guidelines are contained in the ``Environmental 
Assessment of the Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the Landfill 
Category.'' This assessment both qualitatively and quantitatively 
evaluates the potential: (1) Ecological benefits; (2) the human health 
benefits; and (3) the economic productivity benefits of controlling 
discharges from hazardous and non-hazardous landfills based on site-
specific analyses of current conditions and the conditions that would 
be achieved by proposed process changes. In-stream pollutant 
concentrations from direct and indirect discharges are estimated using 
stream dilution modeling. Potential impacts and benefits are then 
estimated.
    Ecological benefits are projected 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 to documented toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest 
reported or estimated toxic concentration) for those chemicals for 
which EPA has not published water quality criteria. 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. 
For arsenic, the Agency also recognizes that currently there is no 
scientific consensus on the most appropriate approach for extrapolating 
the dose-response relationship to the low-dose associated with drinking 
water exposure. 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. Such benefits are expected 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.
    Human health benefits are projected 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. Upper-bound 
individual cancer risks, population risks, and non-cancer hazards 
(systemic) are estimated using modeled in-stream pollutant 
concentrations and standard EPA assumptions regarding ingestion of fish 
and drinking water. Modeled pollutant concentrations in fish and 
drinking water are used 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 the two chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD) 
congeners and one chlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF) congener being 
evaluated, human health benefits are projected for these pollutants 
only by using the Office of Research and Development's Dioxin 
Reassessment Evaluation (DRE) model to estimate the potential reduction 
of carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard from consuming 
contaminated fish. The DRE model estimates fish tissue concentrations 
of the CDD/CDF congeners by calculating the equilibrium between the 
pollutants in fish tissue and those adsorbed to the organic fraction of 
sediments suspended in the water column. Of these health benefit 
measures, the Agency is able to monetize only the reduction in

[[Page 6454]]

carcinogenic risk using estimated willingness-to-pay values for 
avoiding premature mortality. The values used in this analysis, if 
applicable, are based on a range of values from a review of studies 
quantifying individuals' willingness to pay to avoid increased risks to 
life. In 1992 dollars, these values range from $2.1 to $11.0 million 
per statistical life saved.
    Economic productivity benefits, based on reduced incidences of 
inhibition of POTW operations and reduced sewage sludge contamination 
(defined as a concentration of pollutants in sewage sludge that would 
not permit land application or surface disposal of the sludge in 
compliance with EPA's regulations) are also evaluated for current and 
proposed pretreatment levels. Inhibition of POTW operations is 
estimated by comparing modeled POTW influent concentrations to 
available published information on inhibition levels. Potential 
contamination of sewage sludge is estimated by comparing projected 
pollutant concentrations in sewage sludge to EPA standards on the use 
or disposal of sewage sludge 40 CFR Part 503. Sewage sludge disposal 
benefits are estimated on the basis of the incremental quantity of 
sludge that, as a result of reduced pollutant discharges to POTWs, 
meets criteria for the generally less expensive disposal method, namely 
land application and surface disposal. The POTW inhibition and sludge 
values used in this analysis are not, in general, regulatory values. 
EPA based these values upon engineering and health estimates contained 
in guidance or guidelines published by EPA and other sources. 
Therefore, EPA does not intend to base its regulatory approach for 
proposed pretreatment discharge levels upon the finding that some 
pollutants interfere with POTWs by impairing their treatment 
effectiveness or causing them to violate applicable limits for their 
chosen disposal methods. However, as discussed above, EPA did find that 
some pollutants would pass through POTW treatment systems as a basis 
for its determination to establish pretreatment standards in certain 
cases. Nonetheless, the values used in this analysis help indicate the 
potential benefits for POTW operations and sludge disposal that may 
result from the compliance with proposed pretreatment discharge levels.
    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 proposed BAT treatment levels. EPA 
performed this analysis for a representative sample set of 43 direct 
non-hazardous landfills discharging 32 pollutants to 41 receiving 
streams. Results were extrapolated based on the statistical methodology 
used for estimated costs, loads, and economic impacts.
    The proposed regulation is projected to reduce excursions of 
chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels due to the 
discharge of three pollutants (ammonia, boron and disulfoton) in four 
receiving streams. EPA projects that a total of 97 excursions in 38 
receiving streams at current conditions would be reduced to 44 
excursions in 34 streams. In-stream concentrations of one pollutant 
(arsenic) are projected to exceed human health criteria (developed for 
consumption of water and organisms) in four receiving streams at both 
current and proposed BAT discharge levels. Estimates of the increase in 
value of recreational fishing to anglers range from $126,000 to 
$450,000 annually (in 1992 dollars) 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 wastewater. EPA concluded that current wastewater discharges 
from landfills result in far less than one annual cancer case per year 
for all populations evaluated. Because the baseline cancer rate is 
negligible, EPA projects no reduction in cancer cases to be achieved by 
this regulation. Systemic health effects from one pollutant (disufoton) 
are projected in two receiving streams at both current and proposed 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.
    All of the in-scope hazardous landfills in EPA's survey of the 
industry are expected to be in compliance with the baseline treatment 
standards established for indirect dischargers. The Agency has 
therefore projected that there will be no costs or benefits associated 
with compliance of the proposed regulation.
    EPA did, however, evaluate the effects of landfill wastewater 
discharges of 60 pollutants on receiving stream water quality at 
current and proposed pretreatment levels. The EPA Detailed 
Questionnaire identified three hazardous landfills discharging to three 
POTWs with outfalls located on three receiving streams.
    In-stream concentrations are not projected to exceed chronic 
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels. In-stream concentrations 
of one pollutant (arsenic) are projected to exceed human health 
criteria (developed for consumption of water and organisms) in one 
receiving stream at both current and proposed pretreatment levels. No 
benefits, based on enhanced recreational fishing opportunities are 
therefore projected to be achieved by regulation.
    EPA modeled cancer cases and systemic health effects resulting from 
the ingestion of fish and drinking water contaminated by landfill 
wastewater. EPA concluded that current wastewater discharges from 
landfills result in far less than one annual cancer case per year. 
Because the baseline cancer rate is negligible, EPA projects no 
reduction in cancer cases to be achieved by this regulation. No 
systemic health effects are projected at current or proposed 
pretreatment levels.
    Additionally, EPA concluded that there are no inhibition or sludge 
contamination problems at the three POTWs receiving wastewater.

XIII. 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 landfill New Source 
Performance Standards and Emissions Guidelines, promulgated by EPA on 
March 12, 1996. Many municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are required 
to

[[Page 6455]]

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). These wastewaters must be collected, treated and 
stored in units which are often open to the atmosphere and will result 
in the volatilization of certain compounds. The regulations proposed 
today involve the use of an aerated biological system. Wastewater 
aeration may increase the volatilization of certain organic compounds. 
However, the increase in air emissions due to this proposed regulation 
will be minimal due to the low levels of VOCs present in landfill 
wastewaters and will not significantly increase the air emissions from 
landfills.
    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

    Solid waste will be generated due to a number of the proposed 
treatment technologies. 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 treatment technologies proposed are not energy-intensive, and the 
projected increase in energy consumption is primarily due to the 
incorporation of components such as power pumps, mixers, blowers, power 
lighting and controls. The costs associated with these energy costs are 
included in EPA's estimated operating costs for compliance with the 
proposed guideline.

XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency Initiatives

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed effluent guidelines and standards contain no 
information collection activities and, therefore, no information 
collection request (ICR) has been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
provides that, whenever an agency is required to publish general notice 
of rulemaking for a proposed rule, the agency must prepare (and make 
available for public comment) an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA). The agency must prepare an IRFA for a proposed rule 
unless the Administrator certifies that it will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA is today 
certifying, pursuant to Section 605(b) of the RFA, that the proposed 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Therefore, the Agency did not prepare an 
IRFA.
    While EPA has so certified today's rule, the Agency nonetheless 
prepared a regulatory flexibility assessment equivalent to that 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act as modified by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The assessment 
for this rule is detailed in the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfill 
Category.''
    The proposal, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following 
reasons. The RFA defines ``small entity'' to mean a small business, 
small organization or small governmental jurisdiction. Today's proposal 
would establish requirements applicable to landfill facilites which may 
be owned by small businesses or small governmental jurisdictions. EPA's 
assessment found that, of the 151 facilities 7 that may be 
potentially affected if the proposal is promulgated, only 39 facilities 
are small entities. Of the 39 affected small entities, nine are 
privately owned and 30 are government owned. The costs to the entities 
is not projected to be great--in all cases less than one percent of 
revenues. Based on this assessment, the Administrator certifies that 
the proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This is the total number of affected facilities, net of 
baseline closures among privately owned facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4 establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. EPA has estimated the total annualized costs of 
the proposed rule to State, local, and tribal governments as $5.4 
million (1996$). EPA has estimated total annualized cost of the 
proposed rule to private facilities as $2.3 million (1996$, post-tax). 
Thus, today's rule is not

[[Page 6456]]

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. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of 
Section 203 of the UMRA.

D. 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 proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under Sec. 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, the Agency is required 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. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide 
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation 
of the reasons for not using such standards.
    EPA is not proposing any new analytical test methods as part of 
today's proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA 
performed literature searches to identify any analytical methods from 
industry, academia, voluntary consensus standard bodies and other 
parties that could be used to measure the analytes in today's proposed 
rulemaking. The results of this search confirm EPA's determination to 
continue to rely on its existing analytical test methods for the 
analytes for which effluent limitations and pretreatment standards are 
proposed. Although the Agency initiated data collection for these 
effluent guidelines many years prior to enactment of the NTTAA, 
traditionally, analytical test method development has been analogous to 
the Act's requirements for consideration and use of voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The proposed rule would require dischargers to monitor for 
BOD5, TSS, pH, ammonia, arsenic, chromium (total), zinc, 
alpha terpineol, aniline, benzene, benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, 
naphthalene, pyridine, and toluene.
    Except for alpha terpineol, aniline benzoic acid, p-cresol, and 
pyridine, methods for monitoring these pollutants are specified in 
tables at 40 CFR Part 136. When available, methods published by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies are included in the list of 
approved methods in these tables. Specifically, voluntary consensus 
standards from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
and from the 18th edition of Standard Methods (published jointly by the 
American Public Health Association, the American Water Works 
Association and the Water Environment Federation) are approved for pH, 
ammonia, arsenic, chromium (total), and zinc. Standard Methods are 
available for BOD5, TSS, benzene, phenol, napthalene, and 
toluene. In addition, USGS methods are approved for BOD5, 
TSS, pH, ammonia, arsenic, chromium (total) and zinc.
    For alpha terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid, p-cresol, and pyridine, 
EPA proposes to use EPA Methods 1625 and 625 which are promulgated at 
40 CFR Part 136. These analytical methods were used in data collection 
activities in support of today's proposed limitations. With the 
exception of alpha terpineol, these analytes are not specified as 
analytes in the method.
    EPA requests comments on the discussion of NTTAA, on the 
consideration of various voluntary consensus standards, and on the 
existence of other voluntary consensus standards that EPA may not have 
found.

XV. Regulatory Implementation

A. Applicability

    Today's proposal represents EPA's best judgment at this time as to 
the appropriate technology-based effluent limits for the landfills 
industry. These effluent limitations and standards, however, may change 
based on comments received on this proposal, and subsequent data 
submitted by commenters or developed by the Agency. Therefore, while 
the information provided in the Technical Development Documents may 
provide useful information and guidance to permit writers in 
determining best professional judgment permit limits for landfills, the 
permit writer will still need to justify any permit limits based on the 
conditions at the individual facility.

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 non-conventional 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

[[Page 6457]]

limitations for priority and non-conventional 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 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 
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
    An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or 
PSES.
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 modification 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 modifications 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 modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
3. Removal Credits
    The CWA establishes a discretionary program for POTWs to grant 
``removal credits'' to their indirect discharges. This credit in the 
form of a less stringent pretreatment standard, allows an increased 
concentration of a pollutant in the flow from the indirect discharger's 
facility to the POTW (See 40 CFR 403.7). EPA has promulgated removal 
credit regulations as part of its pretreatment regulations. Under EPA's 
pretreatment regulations, the availability of a removal credit for a 
particular pollutant is linked to the POTW method of using or disposing 
of its sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits are 
only available for certain pollutants regulated in EPA's 40 CFR Part 
503 sewage sludge regulations (58 FR 9386). The pretreatment 
regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 provide that removal credits may be made 
potentially available for the following pollutants:
    (1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial 
uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites or incinerates it, 
removal credits may be available, depending on which use or disposal 
method is selected (so long as the POTW complies with the requirements 
in Part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits 
may be available for ten metals. When sewage sludge is disposed of on a 
surface disposal site, removal credits may be available for three 
metals. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may be 
available for seven metals and for 57 organic pollutants (40 CFR 
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).
    (2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed of 
on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may also be 
available for additional pollutants so long as the concentration of the 
pollutant in sludge does not exceed a concentration level established 
in Part 403. When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits may 
be available for two additional metals and 14 organic pollutants. When 
the sewage sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal 
credits may be available for seven additional metals and 13 organic 
pollutants. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may 
be available for three other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
    (3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid 
waste landfill (MSWLF) that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part 258, 
removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage 
sludge (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)). Thus, given compliance with the 
requirements of

[[Page 6458]]

EPA's removal credit regulations,\8\ following promulgation of the 
pretreatment standards being proposed today, removal credits may be 
authorized for any pollutant subject to pretreatment standards if the 
applying POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a MSWLF that meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR Part 258. If the POTW uses or disposes of its 
sewage sludge by land application, surface disposal or incineration, 
removal credits may be available for the following metal pollutants 
(depending on the method of use or disposal): arsenic, cadmium, 
chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium and 
zinc. Given compliance with Section 403.7, removal credits may be 
available for the following organic pollutants (depending on the method 
of use or disposal) if the POTW uses or disposes of its sewage sludge: 
benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, ethylbenzene, methylene 
chloride, toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
trichloroethane and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under Section 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give removal 
credits only under certain conditions. These include applying for, 
and obtaining, approval from the Regional Administrator (or Director 
of a State NPDES program with an approved pretreatment program), a 
showing of consistent pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment 
program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(I), (ii), and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some facilities may be interested in obtaining removal credit 
authorization for other pollutants being considered for regulation in 
this rulemaking for which removal credit authorization would not 
otherwise be available under Part 403. Under Sections 307(b) and 405 of 
the CWA, EPA may authorize removal credits only when EPA determines 
that, if removal credits are authorized, that the increased discharges 
of a pollutant to POTWs resulting from removal credits will not affect 
POTW sewage sludge use or disposal adversely. As discussed in the 
preamble to amendments to Part 403 regulations (58 FR 9382-83), EPA has 
interpreted these sections to authorize removal credits for a pollutant 
only in one of two circumstances. Removal credits may be authorized for 
any categorical pollutant (1) for which EPA have established a 
numerical pollutant limit in Part 503; or (2) which EPA has determined 
will not threaten human health and the environment when used or 
disposed in sewage sludge. The pollutants described in paragraphs (1)-
(3) above include all those pollutants that EPA either specifically 
regulated in Part 503 or evaluated for regulation and determined would 
not adversely affect sludge use and disposal.
    Consequently, in the case of a pollutant for which EPA did not 
perform a risk assessment in developing its Round One sewage sludge 
regulations, removal credit for pollutants will only be available when 
the Agency determines either a safe level for the pollutant in sewage 
sludge or that regulation of the pollutant is unnecessary to protect 
public health and the environment from the reasonably anticipated 
adverse effects of such a pollutant.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the Round One sewage sludge regulation, EPA concluded, on 
the basis of risk assessments, that certain pollutants (see Appendix 
G to Part 403) did not pose an unreasonable risk to human health and 
the environment and did not require the establishment of sewage 
sludge pollutant limits. As discussed above, so long as the 
concentration of these pollutant in sewage sludge are lower than a 
prescribed level, removal credits are authorized for such 
pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has concluded that a POTW discharge of a particular pollutant 
will not prevent sewage sludge use (or disposal) so long as the POTW is 
complying with EPA's Part 503 regulations and so long as the POTW 
demonstrates that use or disposal of sewage sludge containing that 
pollutant will not adversely affect public health and the environment. 
Thus, if the POTW meets these two conditions, a POTW may obtain removal 
credit authority for pollutants other than those specifically regulated 
in Part 503 regulations. What is necessary for a POTW to demonstrate 
that a pollutant will not adversely affect public health and the 
environment will depend on the particular pollutant, the use or 
disposal means employed by the POTW and the concentration of the 
pollutant in the sewage sludge. Thus, depending on the circumstances, 
this effort could vary from a complete 14-pathway risk assessment 
modeling exercise to a simple demonstration that available scientific 
data show that, at the levels observed in the sewage sludge, the 
pollutant at issue is not harmful. As part of its initiative to 
simplify and improve its regulations, at the present time, EPA is 
considering whether to propose changes to its pretreatment regulations 
so as to provide for case-by-case removal credit determinations by the 
POTWs' permitting authority.
    EPA has already begun the process of evaluating several pollutants 
for adverse potential to human health and the environment when present 
in sewage sludge. In November 1995, pursuant to the terms of the 
consent decree in the Gearhart case, the Agency notified the United 
States District Court for the District of Oregon that, based on the 
information then available at that time, it intended to propose only 
two pollutants for regulation in the Round Two sewage sludge 
regulations dioxins/dibenzofurans (all monochloro to octochloro 
congeners) and polychlorinated biphenyls.
    The Round Two sludge regulations are not scheduled for proposal 
until December 1999 and promulgation in December 2001. However, given 
the necessary factual showing, as detailed above, EPA could conclude 
before the contemplated proposal and promulgation dates that regulation 
of some of these pollutants is not necessary. In those circumstances, 
EPA could propose that removal credits should be authorized for such 
pollutants before promulgation of the Round Two sewage sludge 
regulations. However, given the Agency's commitment to promulgation of 
effluent limitations and guidelines under court-supervised deadlines, 
it may not be possible to complete review of removal credit 
authorization requests by the time EPA must promulgate these guidelines 
and standards.

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 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 and standards for this 
proposed rule 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 proposed 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 an 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

[[Page 6459]]

the extend consistent with EPA's regulations.

E. Implementation for Facilities With Landfills in Multiple 
Subcategories

    According to the 1992 Waste Treatment Industry: Landfills 
Questionnaire, there are several facilities which operate both Subtitle 
C hazardous landfills and Subtitle D non-hazardous landfills on-site. 
Generally, for determination of effluent limits where there are 
multiple categories and subcategories, the effluent guidelines are 
applied using a flow-weighted combination of the appropriate guideline 
for each category or subcategory. Thus, the normal practice would be to 
develop flow-weighted limitations for the combined Subtitle C and 
Subtitle D wastestreams, a flow-weighted combination of the BPT, BAT, 
or PSES limits for the Landfills Category. However, under EPA's RCRA 
regulations, mixtures of hazardous and non-hazardous waste must be 
managed under RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Consequently, a 
commingled flow of hazardous and non-hazardous waste is to be treated 
as a hazardous waste. Therefore, if wastewater from a Subtitle C 
hazardous landfill and a Subtitle D non-hazardous landfill are 
commingled for treatment, then the effluent from that facility is 
subject to the limitations and standards proposed for the Hazardous 
Subcategory.

F. Implementation for Contaminated Groundwater Flows

    As discussed in Section [VIII] groundwater flows are not subject to 
the effluent limits established in today's rule. According to the 1992 
Waste Treatment Industry: Landfills Questionnaire, there are a number 
of facilities which collect contaminated groundwater in addition to 
flows regulated under this proposal, and many facilities commingle 
these flows for treatment. Due to this site-to-site variability, the 
Agency is not able to determine how the proposed guidelines should be 
implemented for commingled flows of groundwater and regulated 
wastewaters.
    In the case of such facilities, EPA believes that decisions 
regarding the appropriate discharge limits again should be left to the 
judgment of the permit writer. As indicated by data collected through 
the questionnaires, groundwater 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 groundwater is very dilute the Agency is 
concerned that contaminated groundwater 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 the Combined Waste Stream formula, in order to prevent dilution of 
the regulated leachate flows. However, in cases where the groundwater 
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 groundwater before making a determination if commingling 
groundwater and leachate for treatment is appropriate.

XVI. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Introduction and General Solicitation

    EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking. 
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the 
record of this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be 
supported by data.
    The Agency invites all parties to coordinate their data collection 
activities with EPA to facilitate mutually beneficial and cost-
effective data submissions. EPA is interested in participating in study 
plans, data collection and documentation. Please refer to the ``For 
Further Information'' section at the beginning of this preamble for 
technical contacts at EPA.
    To ensure that EPA can read, understand and therefore properly 
respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that commenters cite, 
where possible the paragraph(s) or sections in the notice or supporting 
documents to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a 
separate paragraph for each issue discussed.

B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

    EPA has solicited comments and data on many individual topics 
throughout this preamble. The Agency incorporates each and every such 
solicitation here, and reiterates its interest in receiving data and 
comments on the issues addressed by those solicitations. In addition, 
EPA particularly requests comments and data on the following issues:
    1. Exclusion from the scope of this rule of landfill facilities 
operated in conjunction with other industrial or commercial operations 
which only receive waste from off-site facilities under the same 
corporate structure (intra-company facility) and/or receive waste 
generated on-site (captive facility) so long as the wastewater is 
commingled for treatment with other non-landfill process wastewaters. ( 
Refer to Section [III])
    2. The Agency's decision not to further subcategorize the Landfills 
Category on the basis of Subtitle D monofills. (Refer to Section [VII])
    3. The Agency's decision not to subcategorize the Landfills 
Category on the basis of the age of a landfill. EPA considered whether 
age-related changes in leachate concentrations of pollutants 
necessitate different discharge limits for different age classes of 
landfills. EPA solicits comment and data on its conclusions regarding 
the relationship of wastewater characteristics to the age of the 
landfill. ( Refer to Section [VII])
    4. The Agency's decision to include drained free liquids within the 
scope of the wastewaters to be covered under this proposal. Due to the 
limited amount of data submitted to EPA on the characteristics of 
drained free liquids, and due to the potentially unique nature of these 
flows, the Agency solicits comments and data on including drained free 
liquids within the scope of this guideline. ( Refer to Section [VIII])
    5. EPA's decision not to base BAT limits on Reverse Osmosis 
treatment technology. ( Refer to Section [IX])
    6. The Agency is requesting comments to provide information and 
data on other treatment systems that may be pertinent to the 
development of standards for this industry. ( Refer to Section [IX])
    7. EPA is soliciting information on POTW upsets or POTW sludge 
contamination problems as a result of accepting landfill leachate. 
(Refer to Section [IX])
    8. The Agency is soliciting comments and information on its 
decision not to propose pretreatment standards for non-hazardous 
landfills. ( Refer to Section [IX])
    9. EPA did consider establishing pretreatment standards for ammonia 
for indirect dischargers whose POTWs do not have nitrification or other 
advanced, control of ammonia. EPA is soliciting comment on the 
feasibility of this option. ( Refer to Section [IX])
    10. EPA is soliciting comment with regard to problems at POTWs 
associated with ammonia discharges from landfills. (Refer to Section 
[IX])
    11. The Agency is soliciting comment on the preliminary decision 
not to adopt zero or alternative discharge standards

[[Page 6460]]

for hazardous landfills. ( Refer to Section [IX])
    12. The Agency is soliciting comment on the preliminary decision 
not to adopt zero or alternative discharge standards for new sources of 
hazardous landfills. (Refer to Section [IX])
    13. The Agency solicits information and data on the current size of 
the industry and trends related to the growth or decline in the need 
for the services provided by these facilities. (Refer to Section [XI])

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 Groundwater: Water below the land surface in the zone 
of saturation which has been contaminated by landfill leachate. 
Contaminated groundwater occurs at landfills without liners or at 
facilities that have released contaminants from a liner system. 
Groundwater 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 the waste or waste handling and treatment areas. Storm water which 
does not come into contact with the wastes is not subject to the 
proposed limitations and standards.
    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 wastewaters 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.
    Groundwater: 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, TSCA, or any State law.
    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 
wastewaters 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 Wastewaters: Wastewater generated by landfill 
activities and collected for treatment, discharge or reuse, include: 
leachate, contaminated groundwater, storm water runoff, landfill gas 
condensate, truck/equipment washwater, drained free liquids, floor 
washings, and 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 were used in developing the 
limitations and standards in the proposed landfill regulation.
    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: A 
permit to discharge wastewater into waters of the United States issued 
under

[[Page 6461]]

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), after the promulgation of such standards 
being proposed today under CWA section 306; 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.
    Non-Conventional Pollutants: Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR Part 
401.
    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'' a POTW 
when the average percentage removed by an efficiently operated POTW 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 wastewaters. For the purposes of this report, 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. 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.
    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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 445

    Environmental protection, Groundwater, Landfills, Leachate, Waste 
treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

    Dated: November 26, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    Accordingly, 40 CFR Part 445 is proposed to be added as follows:

PART 445--LANDFILLS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

General Provisions

Sec.
445.1  Specialized definitions.
445.2  Applicability.

Subpart A--RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill Subcategory

Sec.
445.10  Applicability; description of the Hazardous Waste Landfill 
Subcategory.
445.11  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).
445.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control 
technology (BCT).

[[Page 6462]]

445.13  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
445.14  New source performance standards (NSPS).
445.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
445.16  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart B--RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfill Subcategory

Sec.
445.20  Applicability; description of the Non-Hazardous Waste 
Landfill Subcategory.
445.21  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).
445.22  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control 
technology (BCT).
445.23  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
445.24  New source performance standards (NSPS).
445.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
445.26  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Tables to Part 445

Table 1 to Part 445--Hazardous landfill concentration limitations 
for discharges to surface waters.
Table 2 to Part 445--Hazardous landfill pretreatment concentration 
limitations for discharges to surface waters.
Table 3 to Part 445--Non-hazardous landfill concentration 
limitations for discharges to surface waters.

    Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501, Pub. L. 95-217, 
91 Stat. 156, and Pub. L. 100-4 (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 
and 1361).

General Provisions


Sec. 445.1  Specialized definitions.

    In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR 122.2, 257.2, 
258.2, 264.10, 401.11, and 403.3 the following definitions apply to 
this part:
    (a) Contaminated Groundwater means water below the land surface in 
the zone of saturation which has been contaminated by activities 
associated with waste disposal.
    (b) Facility is all contiguous property owned, operated, leased or 
under the control of the same person or entity.
    (c) 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.
    (d) Landfill Process Wastewater means all wastewaters associated 
with, or produced by, landfilling activities except for sanitary 
wastewater, non-contaminated storm water, and contaminated groundwater. 
Landfill process wastewaters include, but are not limited to, leachate, 
gas collection condensate, drained free liquids, laboratory derived 
wastewater, contaminated storm water and contact washwater from washing 
truck and railcar exteriors and surface areas which have come in direct 
contact with solid waste at the landfill facility.
    (e) Non-contaminated Storm water means storm water which does not 
come into contact with the solid waste, and includes wastewater which 
flows off the cap or cover of the landfill.
    (f) Off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
    (g) On-site means within the boundaries of a facility.


Sec. 445.2  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this 
section, the provisions of this part apply to wastewater discharges of 
landfill process 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 wastewaters 
generated off-site of a landfill facility; including wastewaters 
generated off-site from washing vehicles or from waste transfer 
stations.
    (d) The provisions of this part do not apply to discharges of 
contaminated groundwater.
    (e) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater 
discharges of landfill process wastewater that is commingled for 
treatment with other non-landfill process wastewater under the 
following conditions: The landfill must be operated in conjunction with 
other, on-site industrial and commercial activities; and the landfill 
generating the process wastewater must only receive wastes generated 
on-site or wastes received from off-site facilities under the same 
corporate structure.

Subpart A--RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill Subcategory


Sec. 445.10  Applicability; description of the Hazardous Landfills 
Subcategory.

    The provisions of this subpart apply to discharges of landfill 
process wastewater from landfills subject to the provisions established 
in 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), except as provided in Sec. 445.2.


Sec. 445.11  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction 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 part must achieve the effluent limitations 
listed in Table 1 of this part.


Sec. 445.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction 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 subcategory must achieve the effluent 
limitations for BOD5, TSS, and pH listed in Table 1 of this 
part.


Sec. 445.13  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 1 of this part.


Sec. 445.14  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 1 of this part.


Sec. 445.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this part that introduces pollutants into a publicly-owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve the 
pretreatment standards listed in Table 2 of this part.


Sec. 445.16  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this 
subpart

[[Page 6463]]

that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must 
comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the pretreatment standards 
listed in Table 2 of this part.

Subpart B--Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Landfill Subcategory


Sec. 445.20  Applicability; description of the Non-Hazardous Landfill 
Subcategory.

    The provisions of this part apply to discharges of landfill process 
wastewater from landfills subject to the provisions established in 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), except as provided in Sec. 445.2.


Sec. 445.21  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction 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 effluent 
limitations listed in Table 3 of this part.


Sec. 445.22  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction 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 must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD5, 
TSS, and pH listed in Table 3 of this part.


Sec. 445.23  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 effluent 
limitations listed in Table 3 of this part.


Sec. 445.24  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 3 of this part.


Sec. 445.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40 
CFR Part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements 
established for non-hazardous landfills.


Sec. 445.26  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants 
into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR Part 403. 
There are no additional pretreatment requirements established for 
wastewater discharges from non-hazardous landfills.

 Table 1 to Part 445.--Hazardous Landfill Concentration Limitations for 
                      Discharges to Surface Waters                      
                      [Milligrams per liter (mg/l)]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Monthly  
                                               Maximum for     average  
      Pollutant or pollutant  property            1 day       shall not 
                                                               exceed   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................       160            40    
TSS.........................................        89            27    
Ammonia.....................................         5.9           2.5  
Arsenic.....................................         1.0           0.52 
Chromium (Total)............................         0.86          0.40 
Zinc........................................         0.37          0.21 
Alpha Terpineol.............................         0.042         0.019
Aniline.....................................         0.024         0.015
Benzene.....................................         0.14          0.036
Benzoic Acid................................         0.12          0.073
Naphthalene.................................         0.059         0.022
P-Cresol....................................         0.024         0.015
Phenol......................................         0.048         0.029
Pyridine....................................         0.072         0.025
Toluene.....................................         0.080         0.026
pH..........................................                            
(1) Shall be in the range 6.0-9.0 pH units.                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 2 to Part 445.--Hazardous Landfill Pretreatment Concentration  
                   Limitations for Discharges to POTWs                  
                      [Milligrams per liter (mg/l)]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Monthly  
                                               Maximum for     average  
       Pollutant or pollutant property            1 day       shall not 
                                                               exceed   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia.....................................         5.9           2.5  
Alpha Terpineol.............................         0.042         0.019
Aniline.....................................         0.024         0.015
Benzoic Acid................................         0.23          0.13 
P-Cresol....................................         0.024         0.015
Toluene.....................................         0.080         0.026
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 3 to Part 445.--Non-Hazardous Landfill Concentration Limitations 
                    for Discharges to Surface Waters                    
                      [Milligrams per liter (mg/l)]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Monthly  
                                               Maximum for     average  
       Pollutant or pollutant property            1 day       shall not 
                                                               exceed   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................       160            40    
TSS.........................................        89            27    
Ammonia.....................................         5.9           2.5  
Zinc........................................         0.20          0.11 
Alpha Terpineol.............................         0.059         0.029
Benzoic Acid................................         0.23          0.13 
P-Cresol....................................         0.046         0.026
Phenol......................................         0.045         0.026
Toluene.....................................         0.080         0.026
pH..........................................                            
(1) Shall be in the range 6.0-9.0 pH units.                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-3087 Filed 2-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P