[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3008-3051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1037]



[[Page 3007]]


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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 136 and 445



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

  FederalRegister / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 3008]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 136 and 445

[FRL-6503-5]
RIN 2040-AC23


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

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This final rule represents the culmination of the Agency's 
effort to develop Clean Water Act (CWA) national effluent limitations 
guidelines and pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from 
certain landfills. The final regulation establishes technology-based 
effluent limitations for wastewater discharges associated with the 
operation and maintenance of new and existing hazardous and non-
hazardous landfill facilities regulated, respectively, under Subtitle C 
and Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 
Sources of landfill wastewater include, but are not limited to, 
landfill leachate and gas collection condensate. Today's final rule 
does not establish pretreatment standards for the introduction of 
pollutants into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) from the 
operation of new and existing landfills regulated under Subtitle C or 
Subtitle D of RCRA.
    The rule does not apply to wastewater discharges from ``captive'' 
landfills--those landfills associated with other industrial or 
commercial activities, in most circumstances. For example, it does not 
apply to captive landfills that only receive wastes generated by the 
industrial operation directly associated with the landfill. In 
addition, the rule does not apply to captive landfills that receive 
both wastes generated by the industrial operation directly associated 
with the landfill as well as other wastes, so long as the other wastes 
are similar in nature to the wastes generated by the industrial 
operation directly associated with the landfill. Further, the 
regulation does not apply to wastewater discharges associated with 
treatment of contaminated ground water from hazardous and non-hazardous 
landfills.
    The final effluent limitations guidelines will benefit the 
environment by removing 900,000 pounds of pollutants per year at an 
estimated annualized cost of $7.6 million.

DATES:  This regulation shall become effective February 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  For additional technical information write to Mr. Michael 
C. Ebner, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 or send E-mail to: 
[email protected] or call at (202)260-5397. For additional economic 
information contact Mr. William Anderson at the address above or send 
E-mail to: [email protected] or call (202) 260-5131.
    The complete record (excluding confidential business information) 
for this Clean Water Act rulemaking is available for review at EPA's 
Water Docket, Room EB57; 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. For 
access to Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 
p.m. for an appointment. The record for this rulemaking has been 
established under docket number W-97-17, and includes supporting 
documentation, but does not include any information claimed as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI). The EPA public information 
regulation (40 CFR Part 2) provides that a reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Judicial Review

    In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, this rule will be considered 
promulgated for purposes of judicial review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time 
on February 2, 2000. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Act, judicial 
review of this regulation can be obtained only by filing a petition for 
review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120 days after the 
regulation is considered final for purposes of judicial review. Under 
section 509(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements in this regulation may 
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA 
to enforce these requirements.
    Regulated Entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................  Landfills regulated under Subtitle C
                                     or Subtitle D of RCRA that collect
                                     and discharge landfill generated
                                     wastewater to surface waters of the
                                     U.S., unless the landfills are
                                     directly associated with other
                                     industrial or commercial
                                     facilities.
State, municipal or tribal          Landfills regulated under Subtitle C
 Government.                         or Subtitle D of RCRA that collect
                                     and discharge landfill generated
                                     wastewater to surface waters of the
                                     U.S., unless the landfills are
                                     directly associated with other
                                     industrial or commercial
                                     facilities.
Federal Government................  Landfills regulated under Subtitle C
                                     or Subtitle D of RCRA that collect
                                     and discharge landfill generated
                                     wastewater to surface waters of the
                                     U.S., unless the landfills are
                                     directly associated with other
                                     industrial or commercial
                                     facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 445.1 of the final rule. If 
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult one of the persons listed in the preceding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Compliance Dates

    The compliance date for NSPS is the date the new source commences 
discharging. Compliance deadline for BPT, BCT, and BAT for a facility 
is immediately upon issuance or reissuance of the National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Supporting Documentation

    Several major documents further describe the technical and economic 
basis for the regulations promulgated today. These include:
    1. ``Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for the Landfills Point Source

[[Page 3009]]

Category'' (EPA 821-R-99-019). Hereafter referred to as the Technical 
Development Document, it presents EPA's technical conclusions 
concerning the rule. EPA describes, among other things, the data 
collection activities in support of the rule, the wastewater treatment 
technology options, wastewater characterization, and the estimation of 
costs to the industry.
    2. ``Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category'' (EPA 821-B-99-
005).
    3. ``Statistical Support Document for Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category'' (EPA 
821-B-99-007).
    4. ``Environmental Assessment for Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category'' (EPA 
821-B-99-006).
    EPA made drafts of these documents available for comment at 
proposal and revised the materials where warranted in response to the 
comments. EPA did not submit the documents for peer review because the 
Agency concluded that additional review was not required because the 
scientific and technical methodologies being used are not significantly 
different from those used in the development of past effluent 
guidelines.
    How to Obtain Supporting Documents:
    The Technical and Economic Development Documents can be obtained 
through EPA's website on the Internet, located at www.epa.gov/OST/guide/2lndfls. All of the supporting documents are also available from 
the Office of Water Resource Center, RC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street 
SW, Washington, D.C., 20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for the voice 
mail publication request.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority
II. Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. Section 304(m) Requirements
    C. Brief History of Landfill Industry and Proposed Guidelines
III. The Final Landfills Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards
    A. Overview of Final Rule
    B. Applicability and Scope of the Final Rule
    C. Subcategorization
    D. Profile of the Landfills Industry
    E. Technology Basis for Final Rule
    F. Development of Effluent Limitations
    G. Treatment Systems Selected for Basis of Regulation
IV. Assessment of Costs and Impacts
    A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions 
Achieved by Treatment Technologies
    B. Costs of Compliance
    C. Pollutant Reductions
V. Economic Analysis
    A. Introduction and Overview
    B. Summary of Economic Impacts
VI. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
    A. Introduction
    B. Methodology Used for Estimating Water Quality Impacts and 
Benefits
    C. Estimated National Water Quality Impacts and Results
VII. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
    A. Air Pollution
    B. Solid Waste Generation
    C. Energy Requirements
VIII. Regulatory Implementation
    A. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
    B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    C. Variances and Modifications
    D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and 
Monitoring Requirements
    E. Implementation for Facilities With Landfills in Multiple 
Subcategories
    F. Implementation for Contaminated Ground Water Flows and 
Wastewater from Recovering Pumping Wells
    G. Implementation for Subtitle D Landfills Which Received Newly 
Listed Hazardous Wastes in the Past
    H. Implementation for Superfund Response Actions at Landfills
    I. Implementation for TSCA landfills
    J. Implementation for Landfills Located at Centralized Waste 
Treatment Facilities
    K. Determination of Similar Wastes for Captive Landfill 
Facilities
    L. Analytical Methods
IX. Regulatory Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
    C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health
X. Summary of Proposal Comments and Responses
    Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

I. Legal Authority

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating these 
regulations under the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 
402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 
1318, 1342, and 1361.

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

    Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters'' (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this 
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable 
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act 
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different 
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions 
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various 
industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
    Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that 
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be 
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires 
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which 
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater 
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works 
(POTWs) (Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National 
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in 
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or 
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are 
designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial 
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition, 
POTWs are required to implement local pretreatment limits applicable to 
their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements 
(40 CFR 403.5).
    Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits; 
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These 
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories 
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that 
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--Sec. 
304(b)(1) of the CWA
    In the regulations for an industry category, EPA defines BPT 
effluent limits for conventional, priority,\1\ and

[[Page 3010]]

nonconventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of 
factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions 
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also 
considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes 
employed and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the 
control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts 
(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Agency 
deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes 
BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances 
of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or 
other common characteristic. Where existing performance is uniformly 
inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in 
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the 
technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Sec. 304(b)(4) 
of the CWA
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent 
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT for 
discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to other 
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA 
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the 
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
    Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total 
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional 
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The 
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional 
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Sec. 
304(b)(2) of the CWA
    In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best 
economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial 
subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT 
include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of 
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential 
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including 
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in 
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. BAT limitations may 
be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a 
facility's processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing 
performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may require a higher level of 
performance than is currently being achieved based on technology 
transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based 
upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies 
are not common industry practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
    NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the 
best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the 
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes 
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should 
represent the most stringent controls attainable through the 
application of the best available control technology for all pollutants 
(i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In 
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost 
of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality 
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b) of 
the CWA
    PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass 
through, interfere-with, or are otherwise incompatible with the 
operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). The CWA authorizes 
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass 
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal 
methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards for existing sources are 
technology-based and analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found 
at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of 
pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all 
non-domestic discharges. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(b) of the 
CWA
    Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of 
pollutants that pass through, interfere-with, or are otherwise 
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the 
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to 
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated 
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating 
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. Section 304(m) Requirements

    Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987, 
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising 
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (``effluent 
guidelines'') and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January 
2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that 
established schedules for developing new and revised effluent 
guidelines for several industry categories. One of the industries for 
which the Agency established a schedule was the Hazardous Waste 
Treatment Industry.
    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen, 
Inc. filed suit against the Agency, alleging violation of Section 
304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring promulgation of 
effluent guidelines (NRDC et al. v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980 (D.D.C.)). 
Under the terms of the consent decree in that case, as amended, EPA 
agreed, among other things, to propose effluent guidelines for the 
``Landfills and Industrial Waste Combusters'' category by November 1997 
and final action by November 1999. Although the Consent Decree lists 
``Landfills and Industrial Waste Combusters'' as a single entry, EPA is 
publishing separate regulations for Industrial Waste Combusters and for 
Landfills.

C. Brief History of Landfills Industry and Proposed Guidelines

    The growth of the landfills industry is a direct result of the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and subsequent EPA and 
State regulations that establish the conditions under which solid waste 
may be disposed. The implementation of the increased control measures 
required by RCRA has had a number of ancillary effects on the landfill 
industry. On the one hand, it has forced many landfills to close 
because they lacked adequate on-site controls to protect against 
migration of hazardous constituents

[[Page 3011]]

from the landfill, and it was not economical to upgrade the landfill 
facility. As a result, a large number of landfills, especially 
facilities serving small populations, have closed rather than incur the 
significant expense of upgrading.
    Conversely, large landfill operations have taken advantage of 
economies of scale by serving wide geographic areas and accepting an 
increasing portion of the nation's solid waste. For example, responses 
to EPA's Waste Treatment Industry Survey indicated that 75 percent of 
the nation's municipal solid waste is deposited in large landfills 
representing only 25 percent of the landfill population.
    EPA has identified several trends in the waste disposal industry 
that may increase the quantity of leachate produced by landfills. More 
stringent RCRA regulation and the restrictions on the management of 
wastes have increased the amount of waste disposed at landfills as well 
as the number of facilities choosing to send wastes off-site to 
commercial facilities in lieu of pursuing on-site management options. 
This will increase treated leachate discharges from the nation's 
landfills, thus potentially putting at risk the integrity of the 
nation's waters. Further, as a result of the increased number of 
leachate collection systems, the volume of leachate requiring treatment 
and disposal has greatly increased.
    On February 6, 1998, EPA proposed Clean Water Act (CWA) national 
effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for 
wastewater discharges from landfill facilities regulated under Subtitle 
C or Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 
63 FR 6425.
    The proposed regulation divided the landfills industry into two 
subcategories: (1) RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill 
Subcategory, and (2) RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfill 
Subcategory. For the RCRA Subtitle C subcategory, EPA proposed BPT, 
BAT, BCT, and NSPS concentration-based limitations for 15 pollutants: 
BOD5, TSS, ammonia, arsenic (total), chromium (total), zinc 
(total), alpha-terpineol, aniline, benzene, benzoic acid, naphthalene, 
p-cresol, phenol, pyridine, and toluene; EPA also proposed limitations 
for pH. For PSES and PSNS for the hazardous waste landfill subcategory, 
EPA proposed pretreatment standards for six pollutants: ammonia, alpha-
terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid, p-cresol, and toluene.
    For the RCRA Subtitle D subcategory, EPA proposed BPT, BAT, BCT, 
and NSPS concentration-based limitations for nine parameters. These 
were BOD5, TSS, ammonia, zinc (total), alpha-terpineol, 
benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, toluene; EPA also proposed limitations 
for pH. EPA did not propose PSES or PSNS for the RCRA Subtitle D 
subcategory.
    As proposed, the guidelines would not apply to wastewater 
discharges from captive landfills located at industrial facilities 
under certain conditions. The guidelines did not apply if the 
industrial facility commingled landfill process wastewater with non-
landfill process wastewater for treatment, provided that the landfill 
received only waste generated on-site or waste generated from a similar 
activity at another facility under the same corporate structure. 
Further, the proposed regulation did not apply to wastewater discharges 
associated with treatment of contaminated ground water from hazardous 
and non-hazardous landfills.
    EPA solicited public comment on the proposed rule; the comment 
period was open from February 6 to May 7, 1998. Section [X] describes 
the major comments on the proposed rule and EPA's responses. The public 
record includes a comment summary and response document for this 
rulemaking.

III. The Final Landfills Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards

    This section discusses the applicability of the final rule, the 
landfill wastewater flows subject to the rule, regulatory options 
considered, and the rationale for the selected technology options.

A. Overview of Final Rule

    Today EPA is promulgating technology-based effluent limitations for 
wastewater discharges to navigable waters associated with the operation 
of new and existing hazardous and non-hazardous landfill facilities 
regulated under Subtitle C or Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA decided to promulgate effluent limitation 
guidelines using the same subcategorization approach outlined in the 
proposal. For the RCRA Subtitle C subcategory, EPA is promulgating BPT, 
BAT, BCT, and NSPS (BPT/BCT/BAT/NSPS) limitations for fourteen 
parameters. These are BOD5, TSS, ammonia, arsenic (total), 
chromium (total), zinc (total), alpha-terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid, 
naphthalene, p-cresol, phenol, pyridine, and pH. For the RCRA Subtitle 
D subcategory, EPA is promulgating BPT/BCT/BAT/NSPS limitations for 
nine parameters. These are BOD5, TSS, ammonia, zinc (total), 
alpha-terpineol, benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, and pH. Chapter 7 of 
the Technical Development Document describes in detail EPA's selection 
of pollutants to regulate. The final rule does not establish PSES or 
PSNS for either subcategory.

B. Applicability and Scope of the Final Rule

    Today's final effluent limitations guidelines and standards cover 
pollutants in wastewater discharges associated only with the operation 
and maintenance of those landfills regulated under Subtitles C and D of 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).\2\ The rule applies 
to wastewater generated at active landfills subject to Subtitle C of 
RCRA and Subtitle C landfills that closed after November 19, 1980, the 
effective date of 40 CFR Part 265. The guidelines do not apply to 
discharges of landfill wastewater associated with hazardous landfills 
that went into a permanently inactive status (i.e., they were not 
receiving any more waste) before the effective date of 40 CFR Part 265. 
Similarly, the rule applies to wastewater generated at active landfills 
subject to Subtitle D of RCRA and Subtitle D landfills that closed 
after October 15, 1979, the effective date of 40 CFR Part 257. The 
guidelines do not apply to discharges of landfill wastewater associated 
with non-hazardous landfills that went into a permanently inactive 
status (i.e., they were not receiving any more waste) before the 
effective date of 40 CFR Part 257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's Subtitle C and Subtitle D regulations define 
``landfill''. See 40 CFR 257.2, 258.2 (``municipal solid waste 
landfill'') and 260.10. Permitted Subtitle C landfills are 
authorized to accept hazardous wastes as defined in 40 CFR Part 261. 
Subtitle D landfills are authorized to receive municipal, commercial 
or industrial waste that is not hazardous (as well as hazardous 
waste excluded from regulation under Subtitle C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, this rule does not apply to wastewater discharges 
associated with the operation and maintenance of land application or 
treatment units, surface impoundments, underground injection wells, 
waste piles, salt dome or bed formations, underground mines, caves or 
corrective action units.\3\ Additionally, this guideline does not apply 
to waste transfer stations, or any wastewater not directly attributed 
to the operation and maintenance of Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill 
units. Consequently, wastewater such as that generated in off-site 
washing of vehicles used in landfill operations is not within the scope 
of this guideline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These terms are defined at 40 CFR 257.2 and 260.10.

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

[[Page 3012]]

1. Captive Landfills
    In developing the proposed guidelines, an important question EPA 
addressed was how to treat landfill leachate generated at a landfill 
that is associated with an industrial or commercial operation--so-
called ``captive'' landfills. Currently, in the case of wastewater 
sources that are not subject to effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards, NPDES permit writers must impose limitations on discharges 
of these wastewater sources that are developed on a case-by-case, best 
professional judgment (BPJ) basis. Similarly, an indirect discharger 
may not introduce any pollutants to a POTW from these sources that will 
pass through or interfere with the POTW's operations. Generally, each 
POTW is required to develop a pretreatment program and enforce the 
prohibition on pass through and interference through specific local 
limits.
    EPA initially considered development of effluent guidelines to 
address any landfill discharging directly to surface waters of the 
United States or introducing pollutants into a POTW. Consequently, 
EPA's technical evaluation for the proposal included an assessment of 
virtually all landfill facilities which collect wastewater as a result 
of landfilling operations. EPA proposed to exclude wastewater 
discharges from captive landfills located at industrial facilities in 
specific circumstances. In the proposal, a captive landfill would not 
have been subject to the guidelines (1) if it commingled landfill 
process wastewater with non-landfill process wastewater for treatment, 
and (2) the landfill received only waste generated on-site or waste 
generated from a similar activity at another facility under the same 
corporate structure.
    EPA now determined that these requirements are too restrictive and 
therefore the Agency has decided not to include captive landfills 
within the scope of this guideline except in a limited number of 
circumstances. The Agency wants to stress, however, that the effect of 
today's decisions is not to allow these wastewater sources to escape 
treatment. Landfill wastewater at captive facilities is and will remain 
subject to treatment and controls on its discharge. The CWA requires 
wastewater discharges to meet technology-based effluent limitations on 
the discharge whether the mechanism for imposing these limitations is 
EPA-established national effluent limitations guidelines or a permit 
writer's imposition on a case-by-case basis of BPJ limitations. In like 
manner, in order to prevent pass through or interference, indirect 
dischargers must limit their introduction of pollutants to a POTW 
whether EPA has established national categorical pretreatment standards 
for the discharge or a POTW has established local limits.
    The following describes the applicability of the final rule to 
captive landfills. The final rule does not apply to discharges of 
landfill wastewater from captive landfills so long as one or more of 
the following conditions are met:
    --The captive landfill is operated in conjunction with other 
industrial or commercial operations, and it only receives wastes 
generated by the industrial or commercial operation directly associated 
with the landfill.
    --The landfill is operated in conjunction with other industrial or 
commercial operations and it receives both wastes generated by the 
industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the 
landfill as well as other wastes and the other wastes received for 
landfill disposal are generated by a facility that is subject to the 
same provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N as the receiving facility 
directly associated with the landfill.
    --The landfill is operated in conjunction with other industrial or 
commercial operations and it receives wastes generated by the 
industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the 
landfill as well as other wastes and the other wastes are similar in 
nature to the wastes generated by the industrial or commercial 
operation directly associated with the landfill.
    --The landfill is operated in conjunction with a Centralized Waste 
Treatment (CWT) facility subject to 40 CFR Part 437 so long as the CWT 
facility commingles the landfill wastewater with other non-landfill 
wastewater for treatment. If a CWT facility discharges landfill 
wastewater separately from other CWT wastewater or commingles the 
wastewater from its landfill only with wastewater from other landfills, 
then the landfill discharge is subject to this part.
    --The landfill is operated in conjunction with other industrial or 
commercial operations, and it receives wastes from public service 
activities (as defined in Appendix A) and the landfill does not receive 
a fee or other remuneration for the disposal service.
    For the final rule, EPA has modified the proposal to remove the 
requirement that a facility must commingle its wastewater from a 
captive landfill with the facility's non-landfill process wastewater 
for treatment in order not to be subject to the landfills effluent 
guideline, in most circumstances. For the reasons described in detail 
below, EPA did not remove the commingling requirement for CWTs. In 
addition, EPA also changed the conditions under which captive landfills 
may accept off-site wastes and not be subject to this guideline.
    In the proposal, EPA stated that the commingling requirement 
ensures that wastewater from captive landfills will undergo adequate 
treatment (treatment that is comparable to the level of treatment that 
would be required by the landfills effluent guideline) prior to 
discharge. EPA determined that the commingling of landfill wastewater 
with industrial wastewater for treatment was an unnecessary requirement 
to impose in nationally applicable regulations for the reasons 
discussed below. Permit writers are establishing appropriate limits on 
these discharges by either applying the effluent limitations guidelines 
applicable to the associated industrial activity to the discharge or 
developing other BPJ limitations. EPA recommends that permit writers 
use this guideline when developing these BPJ limitations.
    From the information developed by the Agency for this rulemaking 
and confirmed by comments on the proposal, EPA has concluded that 
landfill wastewater generated by captive landfills operated in 
conjunction with and receiving the bulk of their waste from an 
industrial or commercial operation will have a similar pollutant 
profile to the wastewater generated in the industrial or commercial 
operation. EPA has further concluded that the wastewater generated by 
landfill operations at most of the captive facilities are already 
subject to effluent guidelines. In the circumstances in which the 
wastewater is not expressly subject to effluent guidelines, EPA has 
determined that permit writers generally impose BPJ limitations on the 
discharge of landfill wastewater that are similar to the limitations 
applicable to the discharge of industrial process wastewater whether 
commingled or not. EPA has compared the wastewater treatment 
technologies employed at many of the industrial facilities operating 
landfills in conjunction with the industrial or commercial operations 
to the treatment technologies that EPA used as the basis for the BPT/
BAT limits in this effluent guideline. The Agency's review of such 
situations shows that the landfill wastewater receives treatment that 
is comparable or better than the level of treatment that would be 
required by the landfills effluent guideline.

[[Page 3013]]

    Consequently, EPA has decided to eliminate the requirement of 
commingling as a condition for a captive landfill not to be subject to 
landfill limitations and standards (except in the case of CWTs). EPA 
has concluded that landfill wastewater at captive landfills is now and 
will continue to receive adequate treatment because the landfill 
wastewater generally must meet the same effluent limitations that would 
have been required had the waste streams been commingled. In cases 
where the permit writer is establishing BPJ limitations for the 
discharge of captive landfill wastewater that is not commingled for 
treatment, the permit writer should look at the effluent guidelines 
applicable to the associated industrial operation and the effluent 
guidelines being promulgated today for potential guidance in setting 
those limitations.
    Because of the nature of most CWTs, EPA determined that the reasons 
that generally supported exclusion of other captive landfills would not 
apply in the case of CWTs. As explained above, EPA concluded that a 
captive landfill which only received wastes generated in an industrial 
or commercial operation directly associated with the landfill or 
similar wastes would generate a leachate with a similar pollutant 
profile to the other wastewater streams produced at the industrial 
operation. In such circumstances, the data reviewed by EPA showed that 
the landfill wastewater and other industrial wastewater are generally 
commingled for treatment and subject to the same discharge limitations. 
In these circumstances, it was appropriate not to subject the landfill 
wastestream to this guideline.
    Because a CWT, by its very nature, may generate a wide array of 
different solid wastes for landfill disposal, it may generate a 
leachate that varies significantly from other streams being treated at 
the CWT at the time the leachate is collected. Therefore, EPA concluded 
that the basis for the exclusion--the similarity in wastewater--would 
not necessarily apply in the case of CWTs. EPA decided that, in order 
to ensure that the CWT landfill wastewater is treated adequately, that 
the landfill wastewater from a CWT landfill should be commingled with 
other CWT wastewater for treatment.
    Based on comments received, the Agency also determined that the 
requirement in the proposal that solid wastes deposited in the captive 
landfill must either be generated on-site or from an off-site facility 
under the same corporate structure was too restrictive and could often 
prohibit a company from safely and properly disposing of solid wastes 
accepted from tolling, remediation, product stewardship, and public 
service activities.
    In the proposal, EPA narrowly limited the universe of captive 
landfills that fall outside the scope of this rule to captive landfills 
that only accepted wastes from on-site or from off-site facilities 
under the same corporate structure. The reason for this was essentially 
to ensure that the captive landfills were only accepting wastes that 
would be similar to those wastes generated on-site. This in turn would 
provide some degree of assurance that the leachate generated from these 
wastes would be compatible with the on-site industrial wastewater 
treatment. However, from the comments submitted on this issue, EPA 
determined this waste acceptance criterion for the captive exclusion 
was too restrictive. Those commenting on this issue identified several 
waste acceptance practices that are commonly used by captive landfills 
that would not meet the proposed exclusion criteria but are consistent 
with EPA's objective that landfill leachate receive treatment 
compatible with its expected constituents. Many of these current waste 
disposal practices are activities that EPA encourages, and therefore 
EPA has revised the exclusion criteria pertaining to waste acceptance 
for captive/intracompany landfills in order to accommodate these 
disposal practices.
    Specifically, several commenters requested that EPA broaden the 
criteria for determining those captive landfills that fall outside the 
scope of this rule to include waste acceptance from tolling and 
contract manufacturers, product stewardship, company partnerships, and 
remediation activities. EPA concluded that waste disposal at captive 
landfills from these types of activities will, in most cases, result in 
leachate that will be adequately controlled through the implementation 
of categorical or BPJ limitations at the facility. However, EPA remains 
concerned that there are circumstances in which inter-company waste 
products deposited in the landfill may result in contaminants in the 
leachate that may not be compatible with the existing industrial 
wastewater treatment system or may not be covered adequately by the 
existing industrial effluent guideline. Therefore, one of the 
alternative conditions for the revised applicability provisions of the 
guideline described above for captive landfills provides that waste 
accepted at the captive landfill must be of a similar nature to the 
wastes generated at the operation with the associated landfill. Thus, 
the permitting authority must determine that wastes accepted for 
disposal at a captive landfill are of a similar nature to the waste 
generated at the facility directly associated with the captive 
landfill. Factors that the permit writer should consider in determining 
whether a waste is similar are described at Section [VIII].
    In addition, commenters also requested that EPA include the 
acceptance of wastes for disposal as a public service as a category of 
landfill practices that qualify for the captive exclusion. EPA agrees 
and has included such a provision. EPA applauds the efforts of 
manufacturing facilities who provide members of their communities with 
a cost effective and environmentally safe means for disposing of their 
solid waste. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA determined that this 
rule shall not apply to those landfills operated in conjunction with 
other industrial or commercial operations which receive other wastes 
from public service activities so long as the company owning the 
landfill does not receive a fee or other remuneration for the disposal 
service. EPA's decision not to subject captive landfills that accept 
off-site wastes for disposal as a public service is not inconsistent 
with its decision generally to condition non-applicability on the 
similarity of wastes accepted for disposal. Based on its review of data 
collected for this guideline and comments received, EPA concluded that 
the quantity of wastes accepted for disposal as a public service would 
not in any measurable way affect the pollutant profile of the leachate 
generated by the landfill even if dissimilar. Of course, these 
wastewater flows still remain subject to treatment to achieve BPJ 
permit limits reflecting the landfill contribution to the facility 
discharge.
    The Agency has determined that whether captive landfills accepting 
wastes from off-site or from a company not within the same corporate 
structure on a non-commercial basis should be subject to the landfills 
effluent guideline should hinge on the ability of the captive landfill 
to handle the waste in an appropriate manner. Therefore, the Agency 
concluded that waste acceptance criterion for determining those captive 
landfills that fall outside the scope of this rule should be based on 
the similarity of the waste accepted for disposal from another facility 
to the waste generated by the industrial or commercial operation 
directly associated with the landfill. In the case of captive landfills 
treating similar

[[Page 3014]]

wastes, the permit writer should base permit limits on limitations for 
the guideline to which the industrial or commercial operation is 
subject or establish BPJ limitations. Again, the permit writer, if 
developing BPJ limitations, should consider today's guidelines as 
guidance in this effort.
    2. Landfill Wastewater--The wastewater covered by the rule includes 
leachate, gas collection condensate, drained free liquids, laboratory-
derived wastewater, contaminated storm water and contact washwater from 
truck exteriors and surface areas which have come in direct contact 
with solid waste at the landfill facility. However, ground water and 
wastewater from recovery pumping well operations which have been 
contaminated by a landfill and are collected and discharged are 
excluded from this guideline and covered by BPJ limitations. This 
section later discusses the exclusion from the rule for contaminated 
ground water flows and Section [VIII] of today's final rule addresses 
implementation issues associated with contaminated ground water. The 
wastewater associated with the landfills industry is described below.
    a. Leachate, as defined in 40 CFR 258.2, is liquid that has passed 
through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble, suspended, or 
miscible materials removed from such waste. Over time the potential for 
certain pollutants to move into the wider environment increases. As 
water passes through the landfill, it may ``leach'' pollutants from the 
disposed waste moving them deeper into the soil. This presents a 
potential hazard to public health and the environment through ground 
water contamination and other means. One measure used to prevent the 
movement of toxic and hazardous waste constituents from a landfill is a 
landfill liner operated in conjunction with a leachate collection 
system. Leachate is typically collected from a liner system placed at 
the bottom of the landfill. Leachate also may be collected through the 
use of slurry walls, trenches or other containment systems. The 
leachate generated varies from site to site based on a number of 
factors including: the types of waste accepted; operating practices 
(including shedding, daily cover and capping); the depth of fill; 
compaction of wastes; annual precipitation; and landfill age. Landfill 
leachate accounts for over 95 percent of the wastewater covered by this 
rule.
    b. Gas Collection Condensate is liquid which has condensed in a gas 
collection system during the extraction of gas from the landfill. Gases 
such as methane and carbon dioxide are generated due to microbial 
activity within the landfill and must be removed to avoid hazardous, 
explosive conditions. In gas collection systems, gases containing high 
concentrations of water vapor condense in traps staged throughout the 
gas collection network. The gas condensate may contain volatile, semi-
volatile, and metal compounds and usually accounts for a relatively 
small percentage of flow from a landfill.
    c. Drained Free Liquids are aqueous wastes drained from waste 
containers (e.g. drums, trucks) or wastewater resulting from waste 
stabilization prior to landfilling. Landfills which accept 
containerized waste may generate this type of wastewater. Wastewater 
generated from these waste processing activities is collected and 
usually combined with other landfill generated wastewater for treatment 
at the wastewater treatment plant.
    d. Truck/Equipment Washwater is generated during either truck or 
equipment washes at landfills. During routine maintenance or repair 
operations, trucks and/or equipment used within the landfill (e.g., 
loaders, compactors, or dump trucks) are washed and the resultant 
wastewater is collected for treatment. In addition, it is common 
practice for many facilities to wash the wheels, body, and 
undercarriage of trucks used to deliver the waste to the open landfill 
face upon leaving the landfill. On-site wastewater treatment equipment 
and storage tanks are also periodically cleaned.
    e. Laboratory-Derived Wastewater is generated from on-site 
laboratories which characterize incoming waste streams and monitor on-
site treatment performance.
    f. Contaminated storm water is storm water which comes in direct 
contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and treatment areas, 
or wastewater that is subject to the limitations and standards. Some 
specific areas of a landfill that may produce contaminated storm water 
include (but are not limited to) the open face of an active landfill 
with exposed waste (no cover added), the areas around wastewater 
treatment operations, trucks, equipment or machinery that has been in 
direct contact with the waste, and waste dumping areas.
    g. Non-contaminated storm water includes storm water which does not 
come in direct contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and 
treatment areas, or wastewater that are subject to the limitations and 
standards. Non-contaminated storm water includes storm water which 
flows off the cap, cover, intermediate cover, daily cover, and/or final 
cover of the landfill.
    EPA received extensive comments on its proposal to include 
contaminated storm water as a regulated waste stream under the 
landfills effluent guidelines. Several commenters stated that 
contaminated storm water (storm water that comes into contact with 
solid waste at the landfill site) should not be subject to the 
landfills effluent limitations guidelines because this is already 
covered by the Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
Storm Water Multi-sector General Permit (MSGP) for Industrial 
Activities (60 FR 50803).
    The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by the 
storm water MSGP or an authorized State's equivalent general permit 
requires landfill facilities to identify all of the sources of storm 
water contamination at the landfill and then implement measures and 
controls (such as good housekeeping for materials storage, sediment and 
erosion controls--particularly from intermediate and final covers) in 
an effort to prevent storm water contamination. EPA believes that the 
storm water MSGP (or an authorized State's equivalent general permit) 
adequately controls pollutants from storm water runoff from covered 
areas of the landfill.
    Covered areas of the landfill include the following: capped, final 
cover, intermediate cover, and daily cover areas. The Agency believes 
that the SWPPP and the monitoring requirements in the storm water MSGP 
provide adequate controls for reducing the level of pollutants in storm 
water from these areas of landfills.
    EPA recognizes that there may be some incidental contact with 
wastes when storm water flows over a daily or intermediate cover. 
However, EPA concluded that such contact will not lead to any 
meaningful ``contamination'' of the storm water so long as the landfill 
complies with the requirements of the storm water MSGP or an authorized 
State's equivalent general permit. For example, the Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) outlined in Table L-1 and L-2 of the storm water MSGP 
(60 FR 50940) and the monitoring requirements in Table L-5 and L-6 for 
TSS and total recoverable iron (60 FR 50943) provide adequate controls 
for the pollutants that would most likely be associated with runoff 
from covered areas of non-hazardous landfills.
    Similarly, for hazardous landfills, BMPs and monitoring 
requirements outlined in Table K-2 (60 FR 50935) and Table K-3 (60 FR 
50936), respectively, also require controls for pollutants associated 
with runoff from covered areas of a landfill. In EPA's

[[Page 3015]]

view, BMPs provide a fair degree of control of these pollutants and the 
monitoring requirements of the MSGP provide a tool for evaluating the 
effectiveness of the pollution prevention plan.
    As part of the Agency's continuing effort to improve its 
environmental and pollution control programs, EPA has concluded that, 
although the MSGP provides some control for contaminated storm water 
runoff, the landfills effluent limitations guidelines provide a more 
comprehensive level of control for storm water runoff that has come in 
direct contact with solid waste, waste handling and treatment areas, or 
wastewater flows that are controlled under this rule. Although the 
storm water MSGP considered circumstances in which untreated leachate 
may be incidently commingled with storm water, the Agency explicitly 
acknowledged in the MSGP that insufficient data were available to 
establish numeric limits for storm water that might be contaminated 
based on best available technology for municipal solid waste landfills 
(MSWLFs) (60 FR 50942), non-hazardous industrial landfills (60 FR 
50943), and hazardous landfills (60 FR 50935).
    However, EPA has now concluded that the data collected in support 
of the landfills effluent limitations guidelines provide the basis for 
establishing appropriate numeric limitations for contaminated storm 
water. EPA specifically noted in the preamble for the storm water MSGP 
that it was developing these guidelines and that where the guidelines 
applied to discharges, facilities must comply with them. (60 FR 50942). 
In addition, EPA intends to propose a reissuance of the storm water 
MSGP which would include the promulgated landfills effluent limitations 
for contaminated storm water (as defined by these guidelines).
    EPA fully explains its rationale for including contaminated storm 
water as a regulated wastewater for the landfills effluent guideline in 
the Comment Response document found in the Landfills Public Record.
    h. Contaminated ground water is water below the land surface in the 
zone of saturation which has been contaminated by landfill leachate. 
For the final rule, EPA has not included within the scope of regulated 
flows ground water which has been contaminated by a landfill and is 
collected and discharged. The reasons for this decision are as follows.
    During development of the rule, EPA considered whether it should 
also include contaminated ground water flows within the scope of this 
guideline. Historically, many landfill operations have caused the 
contamination of local ground water, mostly as a result of leakage from 
unlined landfill units in operation prior to the minimum technology 
standards for landfills established by RCRA Subtitle C and D 
regulations. Subsequently, State and Federal action under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) has required facilities to clean up contaminated ground water. 
In many cases this has resulted in the collection, treatment and 
discharge of treated ground water to surface waters. In addition, in 
the case of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfills and municipal 
solid waste landfills (MSWLFs), applicable regulatory standards require 
ground water monitoring and post-closure care and, in the event of 
ground water contamination, corrective action measures. These 
requirements may also result in treatment of contaminated ground water 
by such landfill facilities.
    EPA evaluated flows, pollutant concentrations, treatment in place, 
and current treatment standards for discharges of contaminated ground 
water from landfills. From this evaluation, EPA concluded that 
pollutants in contaminated ground water flows are often very dilute or 
are treated to very low levels prior to discharge. EPA concluded that, 
whether as a result of corrective action measures taken pursuant to 
RCRA authority or State action to clean up contaminated landfill sites, 
landfill discharges of treated contaminated ground water are being 
adequately controlled. Consequently, further regulation under this rule 
would be redundant and unnecessary.
    EPA is aware that there are landfill facilities that collect and 
treat both landfill leachate and contaminated ground water flows. In 
the case of such facilities, EPA has concluded that decisions regarding 
the appropriate discharge limits should be left to the judgment of the 
permit writer. As indicated above, contaminated ground water may be 
very dilute or may have characteristics similar in nature to leachate. 
In cases where the ground water is very dilute the Agency is concerned 
that contaminated ground water may be used as a dilution flow. In these 
cases, the permit writer should develop BPJ permit limits based on 
separate treatment and/or discharge of the ground water flows or 
develop BPT/BAT limits based on a flow-weighted building block approach 
in order to prevent dilution of the regulated leachate flows. However, 
in cases where the ground water may exhibit characteristics similar to 
leachate, commingled treatment is appropriate because it is more cost 
effective and environmentally beneficial than separate treatment. EPA 
recommends that the permit writer consider the characteristics of the 
contaminated ground water before making a determination if commingling 
ground water and leachate for treatment is appropriate. See Section 
[VIII].
    i. Recovering Pumping Wells wastewater is generated as a result of 
the various ancillary operations associated with ground water pumping 
operations. These operations include construction and development, well 
maintenance, and well sampling (i.e., purge water). The wastewater will 
have very similar characteristics to contaminated ground water. 
Therefore, for the same reasons that EPA did not include contaminated 
ground water as a regulated wastewater, these regulations do not apply 
to wastewater from recovering pumping well operations.

C. Subcategorization

    EPA proposed to divide the landfills point source category into two 
subcategories and to develop different limitations and standards for 
RCRA Subtitle C landfills and RCRA Subtitle D landfills. After 
reviewing comments on the subcategorization approach, EPA decided to 
promulgate effluent limitations guidelines using the same 
subcategorization approach outlined in the proposed rule.
    For today's final rule, EPA decided that a single set of effluent 
limitations were not appropriate for the landfills industry and thus 
EPA developed different limitations for subcategories within the 
industry. In reaching its decision that subcategorization is required, 
EPA considered various factors. In developing effluent limitation 
guidelines, the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to assess a number 
of factors, including manufacturing processes, products, the size and 
age of a site, water use, and wastewater characteristics. The landfills 
industry is not typical of many other industries regulated under the 
CWA. Therefore, EPA looked at additional factors specifically tailored 
to the characteristics of landfill operations in deciding what 
limitations were appropriate for landfills. The factors considered for 
subcategorization included RCRA classification, types of wastes 
received, wastewater characteristics, facility size, age, ownership 
status, location, economic impacts, treatment technology

[[Page 3016]]

employed, energy requirements, and non-water quality environmental 
impacts. Based on an evaluation of these factors, EPA determined that 
there was a notable distinction between wastewater associated with 
Subtitle C landfills and that from Subtitle D landfills. A wider range 
of toxic organic pollutants and higher concentration of metals were 
found at the Subtitle C landfills. Thus, the most significant 
differences observed in wastewater characteristics at landfills are 
directly related to the wastes received at the landfill, which, in 
turn, is most obviously linked to the landfill's RCRA status. 
Therefore, EPA concluded that the most appropriate basis for 
subcategorization is by landfill classification under RCRA.
    Additionally, the Agency believes that this subcategorization 
approach has the virtue of being easiest to implement because it 
follows the same classification previously established under RCRA and 
currently in use (and widely understood) by permit writers and 
regulated entities. The Agency believes that any subcategorization at 
odds with existing RCRA classification approaches would potentially 
create unnecessary confusion to the regulated community.
    Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 445, ``RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste 
Landfill Subcategory,'' applies to wastewater discharges from a solid 
waste disposal facility subject to the criteria in 40 CFR Part 264 
Subpart N--Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste 
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities and 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart 
N--Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste 
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Hazardous waste landfills 
are subject to requirements outlined in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 that 
include the requirement to maintain a leachate collection and removal 
systems during the active life and post-closure period of the landfill. 
For a discussion of these criteria, see the preamble to the proposed 
landfill guideline at 63 FR 6426, 6430-31. (February 6, 1998).
    Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 445, ``RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste 
Landfill Subcategory,'' applies to wastewater discharges from all 
landfills classified as RCRA Subtitle D non-hazardous landfills subject 
to either of the criteria established in 40 CFR Parts 257 (Criteria for 
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices) or 258 
(Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills). For a discussion of 
these criteria, see the preamble to the proposed landfill guideline at 
63 FR 6426, 6431-32. (February 6, 1998).
    EPA received a number of comments requesting that EPA further 
subdivide Subtitle D landfill facilities according to the specific type 
of waste received. These commenters claimed that the differences in 
wastewater characteristics between municipal solid waste landfills and 
monofills warranted further subcategorization. In addition, a group 
representing utility ash monofills suggested EPA develop separate 
limitations for such landfills. The group asserted that the organic 
content in ash monofill wastewater was so low that it would not sustain 
biological treatment, which EPA used as the basis for BPT, BCT, BAT and 
NSPS limitations. EPA did consider subcategorizing the Non-Hazardous 
subcategory further but chose not to based on several factors explained 
in detail in Section [X]. EPA decided to include monofills in the Non-
Hazardous subcategory and concluded that, based on the available raw 
wastewater data, such facilities can meet the BPT/BAT limitations using 
technologies that are available at costs no greater than those 
technologies EPA evaluated (and determined to be economically 
achievable) for the universe of Subtitle D facilities.

D. Profile of the Landfills Industry

    At proposal, EPA stated that there were approximately 11,000 
landfill facilities located throughout the country in 1992. EPA has 
determined that the vast majority of these facilities either closed 
prior to the enactment of Subtitle C or Subtitle D regulations or do 
not generate wastewater covered by this regulation. Based on survey 
responses, EPA believes that the final guidelines will affect 143 
facilities.
    In the case of landfills subject to regulation under Subtitle D, 
EPA projects that there are 143 stand-alone landfill facilities that 
discharge in-scope wastewater directly to receiving streams. EPA 
estimates that there are 756 stand-alone Subtitle D landfill facilities 
that collect in-scope wastewater but discharge indirectly to a POTW. 
These facilities will not be affected by this final rule because EPA is 
not establishing pretreatment standards for non-hazardous, Subtitle D 
landfills. EPA determined that these discharges did not generally pass 
through or interfere with POTW operations so as to require national 
pretreatment standards. There are an additional 338 Subtitle D 
facilities that collect in-scope wastewater but do not discharge to 
surface waters or to POTWs and are also not affected by today's rule. 
These facilities dispose of their wastewater by hauling off-site to a 
centralized waste treatment facility, evaporation, recirculation back 
to the landfill, or land application.
    With respect to landfills subject to regulation under Subtitle C, 
EPA estimates that there are no hazardous stand-alone landfill 
facilities discharging directly to surface waters. It is possible, 
however, that EPA's data collection efforts did not identify an 
existing, stand-alone direct discharging hazardous landfill facility or 
that an indirect (or zero discharging), stand-alone hazardous landfill 
facility may become a direct discharger. Consequently, EPA is 
establishing effluent limitations for direct discharging hazardous 
landfills. EPA estimates that there are six stand-alone hazardous 
landfill facilities that discharge indirectly to POTWs. In response to 
comments on the proposal, EPA decided not to establish pretreatment 
standards for hazardous Subtitle C landfills again because it decided 
national standards were not required. EPA estimates that there are 139 
hazardous landfills which collect in-scope wastewater but do not 
discharge wastewater to surface waters or to a POTW. Methods of 
wastewater disposal include hauling wastewater off-site to a 
centralized waste treatment facility, underground injection, and 
solidification. Additionally, EPA estimates that there are more than 
150 industrial facilities which contain landfills but would be excluded 
from this regulation as a result of the factors discussed at Section 
[III.B].

E. Technology Basis for Final Rule

    This section explains how EPA selected the technologies that form 
the basis for effluent limitations and standards being promulgated 
today for the Hazardous Landfill and Non-Hazardous Landfill 
subcategories. For both the proposed and final rule, EPA developed 
information to evaluate the performance of various systems for treating 
landfill wastewater. EPA's database consisted of daily effluent data 
collected from the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire and EPA's 
Wastewater Sampling Program. (EPA's data gathering efforts are 
explained in detail in the preamble to the proposal at 63 FR 6433-35.)
    EPA has revised the database since the proposal for a number of 
reasons. First, the regulatory status for some landfills in the 
database has changed. EPA excluded from the analysis landfills that 
were no longer considered in the scope of the rule (for example, some 
captive landfills). Second, some landfills in the database have changed 
discharge status. EPA had inadvertently included two landfill 
facilities as direct

[[Page 3017]]

dischargers in the analyses for the proposal when the facilities were 
actually indirect dischargers. Third, in the loadings reduction 
analysis for the proposed rule, EPA included removals of volatile 
organic compounds associated with biological treatment. However, for 
the final rule, EPA determined that removals of volatile organic 
compounds should not be included because the biological and chemical 
treatment options being considered did not provide treatment for the 
volatile compounds. Fourth, for the final rule, EPA also revised the 
long-term averages for several pollutants to reflect more accurately 
the pollutant removals achieved by the technology options. The Agency 
based these revisions on re-analysis of the dataset used for proposal.
    The effluent limitations EPA is establishing today are based on 
well-designed, well-operated systems. EPA based the final limitations 
on treatment achieved by landfill facilities employing the selected 
technologies. A landfill operator may, however, use any wastewater 
treatment technology and/or waste management practices to meet the 
numerical wastewater discharge limitations.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
    In today's rulemaking, EPA is establishing BPT effluent limitations 
for the two discharge subcategories for the Landfills Point Source 
Category. The BPT effluent limitations promulgated today will control 
identified conventional, priority, and nonconventional pollutants when 
discharged from landfill facilities. For further discussion of the 
basis for the limitations, technologies selected, and the factors EPA 
considered in its decision, see the Technical Development Document and 
the preamble to the proposed rule at 63 FR 6441.
    a. BPT Options Considered and Selected for the RCRA Subtitle D 
Landfills Subcategory. The BPT options analyzed for today's final rule 
are identical to those evaluated for the proposal. In the Agency's 
engineering assessment, EPA first considered three technologies 
commonly in use by landfills and other industries as options for BPT. 
These technology options were chemical precipitation, biological 
treatment, and multimedia filtration.
    For its evaluation of chemical precipitation, EPA collected raw 
wastewater and treated effluent data from several non-hazardous 
landfills employing this treatment. Based on this data, EPA removed 
chemical precipitation from further consideration as a BPT treatment 
option. While chemical precipitation is an effective treatment 
technology for the removal of metals, non-hazardous landfills typically 
have low concentrations of metals in treatment system influent 
wastewater. Observed metals concentrations were typically not found at 
levels that would inhibit biological treatment or that would be 
effectively removed by a chemical precipitation unit. Therefore, EPA 
considered only the following two options for BPT.
     Option I--Biological Treatment. EPA first assessed the 
pollutant removal performance of biological treatment. EPA selected 
this as Option I due to its effectiveness in removing the large organic 
loads commonly associated with leachate. BPT Option I consists of 
aerated equalization followed by biological treatment. EPA included 
various types of biological treatment such as activated sludge, aerated 
lagoons, and anaerobic and aerobic biological towers or fixed film 
reactors in calculating limits for this option. The Agency based the 
costs for Option I on the cost of aerated equalization followed by an 
extended aeration activated sludge system and clarification, including 
sludge dewatering. Approximately 30 percent of the direct discharging 
municipal solid waste landfills employed some form of biological 
treatment, and 13 percent had a combination of equalization and 
biological treatment.
     Option II--Biological Treatment and Multimedia Filtration. 
The second technology option considered for BPT treatment of non-
hazardous landfill wastewater was aerated equalization and biological 
treatment as described in Option I, followed by multimedia filtration. 
Approximately 10 percent of the direct discharging municipal solid 
waste facilities used the technology described in Option II.
    EPA is promulgating BPT effluent limitations for the Non-Hazardous 
Landfills subcategory based on Option II because of the demonstrated 
ability of biological treatment systems in controlling organic 
pollutants and the effectiveness of multimedia filtration in removing 
TSS. EPA is maintaining its decision at proposal to base BPT on Option 
II level of control. EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option 
II treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) The degree of effluent 
reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the treatment 
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved.
    No basis could be found for developing different BPT limitations 
based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. EPA responds 
to comments regarding the development of separate BPT limitations for 
monofills and BPT limitations based on the age of the landfill at 
Section [X].
    EPA has selected Option II based on the comparison of the two 
options in terms of total costs of achieving the effluent reductions, 
pounds of pollutant removals, economic impacts, and general 
environmental effects of the reduced pollutant discharges. BPT Option 
II removed 142,000 more pounds of conventional pollutants than Option 
I. EPA estimated that Option I would have cost approximately $7.30 
million per year (1998$, after-tax) while EPA estimated that Option II 
will cost only slightly more--$7.64 million per year (1998$, after-
tax).
    Finally, EPA also looked at the costs of all options to determine 
the economic impact that today's rule would have on the landfill 
industry. EPA's assessment showed that under either option there were 
significant economic impacts on only two facilities. Further discussion 
on the economic impact analysis can be found in Section [V] of today's 
notice.
    EPA is today promulgating effluent limitations for the following 
pollutants under BPT for direct discharging non-hazardous landfills: 
BOD5, TSS, pH, ammonia, alpha terpineol, benzoic acid, p-
cresol, phenol, and zinc (total).
    b. BPT Technology Options Considered and Selected for the RCRA 
Subtitle C Landfill Subcategory. EPA's survey of the hazardous 
landfills industry identified no in-scope landfill facilities that 
discharge directly to surface water. All of the hazardous landfills 
within the scope of today's rule are either indirect or zero/
alternative dischargers. EPA consequently could not evaluate any 
treatment systems in place at direct discharging hazardous landfills 
for establishing BPT effluent limitations. Therefore, EPA relied on 
information and data from widely available treatment technologies in 
use at hazardous landfill facilities discharging indirectly and at non-
hazardous landfills discharging directly--so-called ``technology 
transfer.'' EPA concluded that the technology in place at some indirect 
hazardous landfills is appropriate to use as the basis for regulation 
of direct dischargers because the pollutant profile of the leachate 
generated at hazardous waste landfills discharging directly would be 
similar in character to that from indirect discharge hazardous waste 
landfills.
    For the final rule, EPA considered the following three potential 
technology options for establishing BPT effluent

[[Page 3018]]

limitations for the Hazardous Landfill subcategory:
     Option I--Aerated equalization followed by chemical 
precipitation with primary clarification and multimedia filtration.
     Option II--Aerated equalization followed by chemical 
precipitation with primary clarification, biological treatment with 
secondary clarification and multimedia filtration.
     Option III--Zero or alternative discharge.
    EPA evaluated the same treatment options for establishing 
limitations that it had evaluated at proposal. As previously noted, in 
developing the proposed limitations, EPA relied, in part, on data from 
non-hazardous direct dischargers employing well-operated treatment 
systems. In the case of the proposed TSS limitations, EPA relied on 
data from two facilities that followed chemical precipitation and 
biological treatment with multimedia filtration. While the proposal did 
not specifically discuss filtration as a final treatment step, the 
Development Document for the proposal fully explained the treatment 
system, including multimedia filtration, in place at the two facilities 
used to develop the proposed TSS limitation.
    EPA evaluated chemical precipitation as a treatment technology 
because of metals concentrations typically found in hazardous landfill 
leachate and the efficient metals removals achieved through chemical 
precipitation. EPA also evaluated biological treatment as an 
appropriate technology because of its ability to remove organic loads 
present in the leachate. The Agency also considered multimedia 
filtration to be an appropriate technology for consideration. In the 
first two options listed above, multimedia filters are effective in 
removing TSS that might remain after primary or secondary 
clarification. Finally, EPA considered a zero or alternative discharge 
option as a potential BPT requirement because a significant segment of 
the industry is currently not discharging wastewater to surface waters 
or to POTWs. The zero or alternative disposal option would require 
facilities to dispose of their wastewater in a manner that would not 
result in wastewater discharge to a surface water or a POTW.
    EPA eliminated Option I from consideration because it did not 
control organic pollutants effectively. As was the case in the 
proposal, EPA also decided to eliminate Option III because, for the 
industry as a whole, zero or alternative discharge options are either 
not viable or the cost is wholly disproportionate to the pollutant 
reduction benefits and thus it is not ``practicable.'' Methods of 
achieving zero or alternative discharge currently in use by hazardous 
landfills are deep well injection, solidification, and contract hauling 
of wastewater to a Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facility or to a 
landfill wastewater treatment facility. Thirty seven facilities are 
estimated to inject landfill wastewater underground on-site; 103 
facilities send their wastewater to a CWT or landfill treatment system; 
and one facility solidifies wastewater.
    The commenters' submissions support EPA's decision to reject zero 
or alternative discharge as the technology basis for BPT (or BAT) 
limitations for hazardous landfills. While EPA supports the use of zero 
or alternative discharges particularly where it does not result in 
media transfer of pollutants, many of the available zero discharge 
options have identifiable shortcomings such as transfer of waste 
residuals to another media or the availability of an alternative 
disposal option only in certain geographic locations.
    For example, one demonstrated alternative disposal option for large 
wastewater flows is underground injection. However, this is not 
considered a practically available option on a nationwide basis because 
it is not allowed in many geographic regions of the country where 
landfills may be located. These restrictions may preclude underground 
injection at a given landfill. In such circumstances, landfills would 
need to resort to contract hauling to a Centralized Waste Treatment 
(CWT) facility. Unless the CWT itself were a zero discharge facility, 
the ultimate result would be treatment and discharge to surface waters 
or a POTW following waste treatment that may be no more effective than 
that which could have been provided on-site. This might result in 
substantial transportation costs for the landfill and associated non-
water quality, environmental impacts (e.g., truck emissions) resulting 
in no net reduction in the discharge of pollutants. EPA's survey 
demonstrated that only landfills with relatively low flows (under 500 
gallons per day) currently contract haul their wastewater to a CWT. The 
costs of contract hauling are directly proportional to the volume of 
wastewater and distance over which it must be transported, generally 
making it excessively costly to send large wastewater flows to a CWT, 
particularly if it is not located nearby.
    EPA evaluated the cost of requiring all hazardous landfills to 
achieve zero or alternative discharge status. For the purposes of 
costing, EPA assumed that a facility would have to contract haul 
wastewater off-site because it may be impossible to pursue other zero 
or alternative discharge options. EPA concluded that the cost of 
contract hauling off-site for high flow facilities was unreasonably 
high and disproportionate to the removals potentially achieved. In 
addition, EPA concluded that the wastewater shipped to a CWT will 
typically receive treatment equivalent to that promulgated today, and 
that zero/alternative discharge requirements would result in additional 
costs to discharge without greater removals for hazardous landfill 
wastewater.
    Based on the characteristics of hazardous landfill leachate and on 
an evaluation of appropriate technology options, the Agency selected 
Option II (aerated equalization followed by chemical precipitation and 
biological treatment with secondary clarification followed by 
multimedia filtration) as BPT technology for the Hazardous subcategory. 
EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option II treatment reflects 
primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions attainable 
and (2) the total cost of the treatment technologies in relation to the 
effluent reductions achieved.
    Although EPA did not identify any existing hazardous landfill 
facilities that discharged directly to surface waters, EPA estimated 
the cost of treatment and pollutant removal for a medium-sized 
facility. EPA estimates that for a facility with a wastewater flow of 
25,000 gallons per day, the selected technology option would result in 
the removal of over 200,000 pounds of pollutants at an annualized cost 
of $192,400. EPA has determined that the selected technology option 
costs are reasonable in light of the projected pollutant removals. 
Because EPA did not identify any existing hazardous landfill facilities 
that discharged directly to surface waters, EPA's compliance costs for 
BPT for this subcategory are zero.
    As previously noted, EPA relied on data from both hazardous and 
non-hazardous facilities to develop the limitations for this 
subcategory. Because there are currently no hazardous landfills 
discharging directly, EPA used data from indirectly discharging 
facilities to develop the limitations.
    EPA identified three Subtitle C landfills that discharge to POTWs. 
The wastewater flow from one of the three facilities was very small 
(less than 1,000 g.p.d.) and consisted of only gas collection 
condensate and required only minimal treatment (neutralization using 
ammonia) prior to discharge to the POTW. Consequently, EPA did not 
consider this facility as appropriate for

[[Page 3019]]

establishing BPT limitations. The two remaining facilities both had 
treatment systems in place that achieved very good pollutant 
reductions. The treatment at one facility consisted of equalization and 
chemical precipitation followed by activated sludge biological 
treatment with secondary clarification. The second facility utilized 
equalization followed by three ``sequencing batch reactor'' biological 
treatment units operated in parallel. The treatment systems in place at 
these indirect hazardous facilities achieved low effluent 
concentrations with average removals of 88 to 98 percent of organic 
toxic pollutants, and 55 to 80 percent of metal pollutants. Thus, EPA 
concluded that it should use both facilities in the development of the 
Hazardous subcategory BPT limitations for nonconventional and toxic 
pollutants.
    However, for the ammonia, BOD5, and TSS limitations, EPA 
concluded that establishing BPT limits based solely on two indirect 
discharging treatment systems was not appropriate because indirect 
dischargers often do not operate their treatment systems to achieve 
optimal control of these pollutants. In the case of BOD5 and 
TSS, POTWs do not often establish local standards because the POTWs 
install treatment designed specifically to treat these pollutants. In 
the case of ammonia, some POTWs do not establish standards because they 
have installed advanced treatment for ammonia control. Other POTWs may 
establish ammonia standards based on local water quality concerns. EPA 
supplemented the Hazardous subcategory data for these three pollutants 
with data from non-hazardous landfill facilities. For BOD5, 
EPA used data from both of the Hazardous subcategory BPT facilities and 
the Non-Hazardous subcategory BPT facilities to calculate the 
limitations. Because neither of the Hazardous subcategory BPT 
facilities used a multimedia filter (which is part of the selected BPT 
Option), EPA based the TSS limitation on the two Non-Hazardous 
subcategory BPT facilities that employed multimedia filtration.
    In the case of ammonia, EPA concluded that it was not appropriate 
to establish limits using the performance of only indirect discharging 
facilities because only one of these facilities in the Hazardous 
subcategory demonstrated good ammonia control. Many POTWs with advanced 
or tertiary treatment units for nutrient control may not establish 
stringent local limits for ammonia. Therefore, basing ammonia limits 
only on indirect discharging landfills may not appropriately reflect 
the effluent discharge concentration of ammonia achieved by well-
operated direct discharging landfills. Since EPA considered only one 
indirectly discharging hazardous facility to be a good performer for 
the treatment of ammonia, EPA chose to supplement the hazardous data 
for this facility with data from two non-hazardous BPT facilities, one 
of which was a direct discharger.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    In today's rule, EPA is establishing BCT effluent limitations 
guidelines equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the conventional 
pollutants for both subcategories. (For an explanation of how EPA 
determines BCT, see the preamble to the proposed rule at 63 FR 6442.) 
In developing BCT limits, EPA considered whether there are technologies 
that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than selected 
for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost-reasonable according 
to EPA's test. In each subcategory, EPA identified no technologies that 
can achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than selected 
for BPT that are also cost-reasonable, and accordingly EPA is 
promulgating BCT effluent limitations equal to the BPT effluent 
limitations guidelines.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    EPA today is establishing BAT effluent limitations for both 
subcategories in the Landfills Category based on the same technologies 
selected for BPT. The BAT effluent limitations promulgated today would 
control identified priority and nonconventional pollutants discharged 
from facilities. EPA finds that the selected technology options are 
economically achievable. EPA has not identified any more stringent 
treatment technology option which it considered to represent BAT level 
of control applicable to facilities in this industry.
    a. Rationale for Setting BAT Equivalent to BPT for the Non-
Hazardous Landfill Subcategory. EPA evaluated reverse osmosis 
technology as a potential option for establishing BAT effluent limits 
more stringent than BPT for the control of toxic pollutants. The Agency 
selected reverse osmosis for evaluation because of its effective 
control of a wide variety of toxic pollutants in addition to 
controlling conventional and nonconventional parameters.
    EPA evaluated BAT treatment options as an increment to the baseline 
treatment technology used to develop BPT limits. Therefore, the BAT 
Option III consisted of BPT Option II (biological treatment followed by 
multimedia filtration) followed by a single stage reverse osmosis unit.
    After an assessment of costs and pollutant reductions associated 
with reverse osmosis, EPA has concluded that it should not establish 
BAT limits based on more stringent treatment technology than the BPT 
technology. EPA concluded that a biological system followed by 
multimedia filtration would remove the majority of toxic pollutants, 
leaving the single-stage reverse osmosis to treat the very low levels 
of pollutants that remained. In the Agency's analysis, BPT removed 
170,000 pounds of toxic pollutants per year whereas BAT Option III (BPT 
followed by single-stage reverse osmosis) removed 172,000 pounds of 
toxic pollutants per year. As stated in the proposal, EPA's economic 
assessment showed that BAT Option III had significantly higher annual 
compliance costs than the other options evaluated and resulted in six 
additional facilities experiencing moderate economic impacts. (63 FR 
6451).
    In addition, establishment of BAT Option III would not result in 
effluent limitations significantly more stringent than those 
established under BPT, which is currently achieving very low long-term 
average (LTA) effluent concentrations. Therefore, the Agency questioned 
whether the small additional removal of pounds of toxic pollutants 
achieved by BAT Option III justified the large incremental cost for the 
reverse osmosis treatment system. It should be noted that reverse 
osmosis was much more effective at removing the often high quantities 
of dissolved metals such as iron, manganese and aluminum. These 
pollutants, however, are added to the wastewater in treatment chemicals 
to promote more effective precipitation and are not regulated. For this 
reason, EPA does not include them in the calculation of pounds of toxic 
pollutants and does not take credit for their subsequent removal .
    Several commenters on the proposal supported EPA's decision to 
reject reverse osmosis as the selected technology option. While EPA 
rejected reverse osmosis as the basis for BAT limitations because it 
was very expensive and achieved very little additional removal of 
pollutant, other technical factors also supported this decision. EPA 
agrees with the commenters that there may be additional site-specific 
costs associated with the operation of reverse osmosis systems at 
landfills that it could not directly factor into its cost analysis. EPA 
found that it was difficult to evaluate potential operating and 
concentrate

[[Page 3020]]

disposal problems and the associated potential increase in the cost of 
operating a reverse osmosis system at a landfill. The fact that reverse 
osmosis is a technology that concentrates rather than destroys 
pollutants is an important consideration. These concentrates still need 
to be treated and disposed, and, as noted by one commenter, some states 
may not allow them to be recycled back into the landfill. Further, 
recirculation may inhibit rather than stimulate anaerobic decomposition 
of the landfilled wastes. While the sludges generated by chemical 
precipitation and biological treatment require minimal treatment prior 
to disposal, reverse osmosis concentrates may require additional costly 
treatment steps prior to final disposal.
    b. Rationale for Setting BAT Equivalent to BPT for the Hazardous 
Landfill Subcategory. As stated in the BPT analysis, EPA's survey of 
the hazardous landfills industry identified no in-scope respondents 
which were classified as direct dischargers. All of the hazardous 
landfills in the EPA survey were indirect or zero or alternative 
dischargers. Therefore, the Agency based BPT limitations on technology 
transfer and treatment systems in place for indirect dischargers in the 
Hazardous subcategory and on treatment systems in place for BPT 
facilities in the Non-Hazardous subcategory. In EPA's engineering 
assessment of possible BAT technologies for direct discharging 
hazardous facilities, EPA evaluated the same three potential technology 
options it had evaluated when it was developing BPT limitations for the 
Hazardous Landfill subcategory. EPA determined that it should establish 
BAT limits based on the same technology evaluated for BPT limits. The 
Agency finds that the selected technology is economically achievable. 
EPA has identified no other technologies that would represent BAT level 
of control for this industry.
    As explained in the BPT analysis, EPA eliminated Option I 
(equalization, chemical precipitation, and multimedia filtration) from 
consideration because it did not control organic pollutants 
effectively. In addition, EPA concluded that zero or alternative 
discharge is not an available alternative treatment technology for this 
industry. As explained above, zero or alternative discharge is not 
broadly applicable to landfills or may result in the transfer of waste 
residuals to other media.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    a. Introduction. As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, 
new industrial direct dischargers must comply with standards which 
reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through 
application of the best available demonstrated control technologies. 
Congress envisioned that new treatment systems could meet tighter 
controls than existing sources because of the opportunity to 
incorporate the most efficient processes and treatment systems into 
plant design. Therefore, Congress directed EPA, in establishing NSPS, 
to consider the best demonstrated process changes, in-plant controls, 
operating methods, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies that reduce 
pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
    b. Rationale for Setting NSPS Equivalent to BPT/BCT/BAT for Both 
Subcategories. Today, EPA is establishing New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) that would control the same conventional, priority, 
and nonconventional pollutants regulated by the BPT/BCT/BAT effluent 
limitations guidelines. The conventional treatment technologies used to 
control pollutants at existing facilities are fully applicable to new 
facilities. Furthermore, EPA has not identified any other technologies 
or combinations of technologies that are demonstrated for new sources 
that are different from those used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT for 
existing sources. In the proposed rule, EPA solicited comments and data 
on other technologies that may be appropriate for the treatment of 
landfill leachate from new sources. One commenter urged EPA to consider 
reverse osmosis as an appropriate technology for the treatment of 
leachate. While EPA acknowledges that reverse osmosis can treat 
landfill leachate to levels equivalent to and even lower than the BAT 
limitations promulgated today, EPA concluded that the reverse osmosis 
treatment system and the BAT treatment system achieved essentially the 
same removals because reverse osmosis did not remove significantly more 
pounds of toxic pollutants than the treatment option selected as BAT. 
Moreover, as previously explained, there may be potential operating and 
disposal problems associated with a reverse osmosis system. Therefore, 
EPA concluded that it should adopt NSPS limitations that are identical 
to those in each subcategory for BPT/BCT/BAT.
5. Pretreatment Standards For Existing Sources (PSES)
    Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for pollutants that are not susceptible to treatment by POTWs 
or which would interfere with the operation of POTWs. After a thorough 
analysis of indirect discharging landfills in the EPA database, EPA has 
decided not to establish PSES for either subcategory in the Landfills 
Point Source Category. For the proposal, EPA proposed not to establish 
pretreatment standards for indirectly discharging landfills in the Non-
Hazardous subcategory. However, for the Hazardous subcategory, EPA 
proposed effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for six 
pollutants. In response to its proposal, EPA received a number of 
comments supporting the decision not to propose pretreatment standards 
for Subtitle D landfills. In addition, a number of commenters suggested 
that EPA should also reconsider whether Subtitle C landfills require 
national categorical pretreatment standards. As a result of these 
comments, EPA took a second look at its data and determined that 
pretreatment standards were not necessary for the Landfills Point 
Source Category.
    For both subcategories, EPA looked at a number of factors in 
deciding whether a pollutant was not susceptible to treatment at a POTW 
or would interfere with POTW operations--the predicate to establishment 
of pretreatment standards. First, EPA assessed the pollutant removals 
achieved at POTWs relative to those achieved by landfills using BAT 
treatment systems. Second, EPA estimated the quantity of pollutants 
likely to be discharged to receiving waters after POTW removals. Third, 
EPA studied whether any of the pollutants introduced to POTWs by 
landfills interfered with or were otherwise incompatible with POTW 
operations. EPA, in some cases, also looked at the costs and other 
economic impacts of pretreatment standards and the effluent reduction 
benefits in light of treatment systems currently in-place at POTWs. The 
result of EPA's evaluation showed that POTWs could adequately treat 
discharges of landfill pollutants. Therefore, EPA is not establishing 
pretreatment standards for either subcategory in this point source 
category.
    As noted above, among the factors EPA considers before establishing 
pretreatment standards is whether the pollutants discharged by an 
industry pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or 
sludge disposal practices. One of the tools traditionally used by EPA 
in evaluating whether pollutants pass through a POTW, is a comparison 
of the percentage of a pollutant removed by POTWs with the percentage 
of the pollutant removed by discharging facilities applying BAT. In 
most cases, EPA has concluded that a

[[Page 3021]]

 pollutant passes through the POTW when the median percentage removed 
nationwide by representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment 
requirements) is less than the median percentage removed by facilities 
complying with BAT effluent limitations guidelines for that pollutant. 
For a full explanation of how EPA performs its removal analysis, see 
Chapter 7 of the Technical Development Document.
    In developing the final guidelines, EPA has made a number of 
modifications to its calculations of pollutant removal used to compare 
POTW operations with BAT treatment. These changes are explained in 
greater detail in this preamble as well as the Technical Development 
Document and EPA responses to individual comments received on the 
proposal. For example, the primary source of POTW percent removal data 
used for removal comparisons is an EPA document, ``Fate of Priority 
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-82/303) 
commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study''. The 50-POTW Study 
presents data on 50 well-operated POTWs with secondary treatment in 
removing toxic pollutants. For its removal comparison for this 
guideline, EPA eliminated influent values that were close to the 
detection limit, thereby minimizing the possibility that low POTW 
removals might simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of 
being a true measure of treatment effectiveness.
    After revising the database, EPA calculated POTW-specific percent 
removals for each pollutant based on its average influent and average 
effluent values. The POTW percent removal used for each pollutant for 
the comparison is the median value of all the POTW-specific percent 
removals for that pollutant. EPA then compared the median POTW percent 
removal to the median percent removal for the BAT option treatment 
technology in order to determine pass through.
    a. Rationale for Not Promulgating PSES for the Non-Hazardous 
Landfill Subcategory. The Agency today is not establishing pretreatment 
standards for existing sources (PSES) for the Non-hazardous Landfill 
Subcategory. The Agency decided not to establish PSES for this 
subcategory after an assessment of the effect of landfill leachate on 
receiving POTWs and the cost of pretreatment standards.
    EPA looked at three measures of effects on POTWs: biological 
inhibition levels, contamination of POTW biosolids and a comparison of 
BAT and POTW removals. For the proposed rule, following procedures 
outlined above, the removal comparison suggested that one pollutant, 
ammonia, would pass through in the Non-Hazardous subcategory. However, 
EPA concluded that ammonia was susceptible to treatment and did not 
interfere with POTW operations. Therefore, the Agency did not propose 
to establish national pretreatment standards for ammonia.
    Following the proposal, EPA reviewed the data available in the 
proposed record for both the POTW percent removal calculations and the 
BAT percent removal calculations and made a number of adjustments. For 
the proposal, EPA calculated the BAT percent removals using data from 
well-operated biological treatment facilities in EPA's database. 
However, some of these facilities did not pass the editing criteria for 
selection as a BPT/BAT facility. For the revised removal comparison, 
EPA calculated percent removals using data from only those seven 
facilities that passed the BPT/BAT editing criteria. In addition, in 
the proposal, EPA inadvertently neglected to use selected BAT 
facilities in the calculation of percent removals for several 
pollutants even though the data for the facility passed the editing 
criteria.
    The result of this revised comparison of removal for the Non-
Hazardous subcategory suggested that BAT removal would be greater than 
POTW removal for four pollutants: ammonia, benzoic acid, p-cresol, and 
phenol. However, as explained below, EPA concluded that these 
pollutants do not pass through or interfere with POTW operations on a 
national basis and therefore has not established national categorical 
pretreatment regulations for these pollutants. Moreover, as discussed 
later in this section, EPA notes that adoption of PSES would result in 
the removal of only a small quantity of pollutants, approximately 14 
toxic pound equivalents per facility per year. Such a reduction is low 
relative to that seen in other categorical pretreatment standards 
promulgated by EPA. (See 64 FR 45077).
    (i.) Pretreatment Standards for Ammonia. EPA has decided not to 
establish ammonia pretreatment standards for several reasons. First, 
while EPA's removal comparison suggests that ammonia in landfill 
leachate is not as amenable to POTW treatment as to pretreatment, in 
reality, EPA has concluded that ammonia is susceptible to POTW 
treatment on a national basis. Further, landfill discharges will not 
result in POTW upsets or interfere with POTW operations. The record 
indicates that POTWs are not currently experiencing any difficulty in 
adequately treating ammonia discharges from Subtitle D landfills. No 
POTWs commenting on the proposal cited any persistent POTW upsets 
associated with landfill leachate discharges. Finally, EPA has 
determined that pretreatment standards for ammonia for landfill 
indirect dischargers would be extremely costly. In these circumstances, 
EPA has concluded that ammonia is susceptible to treatment by POTWs and 
national pretreatment standards are not required.
    Ammonia Removals. In the case of ammonia, the median BAT percent 
removal for the landfills industry is 99 percent compared to the median 
POTW percent removal which is 39 percent. \4\ This comparison suggests 
that ammonia is not susceptible to treatment at a POTW and passes 
through. However, as discussed below, most subtitle D landfills 
discharging to POTWs are discharging small quantities of leachate with 
an ammonia concentration comparable to that observed in raw sewage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the proposed rule, EPA calculated the POTW percent 
removal for ammonia to be 60 percent. However, upon applying the 
revised data editing procedures to the 50-POTW Study, EPA has now 
determined that ammonia POTW percent removal is 39 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's data show that over 75 percent of indirectly discharging 
landfills discharge fewer than 10 pounds of ammonia per day at a 
concentration similar to that observed in raw sewage. Because many 
POTWs are designed and operated to treat ammonia (and other pollutants) 
in raw sewage, a POTW will adequately control landfill discharges of 
ammonia so long as the ammonia loadings to a POTW did not significantly 
differ from that typically observed. In those circumstances, ammonia 
will not pass through such POTWs.
    Moreover, some POTWs have installed additional treatment to control 
ammonia. The data on POTW removal used for EPA's comparison does not 
reflect this fact. POTWs that have installed additional ammonia 
treatment (or modified existing treatment) typically achieve removals 
in excess of 95 percent--much higher than the 39 percent removal 
observed for the POTWs in the comparison analysis. Thus, ammonia does 
not pass through POTWs with nitrification even in cases where 
significant loadings of ammonia are discharged to a POTW.
    In these circumstances, EPA has concluded ammonia at levels 
discharged by Subtitle D landfills is generally susceptible to POTW 
treatment. Therefore, EPA concluded that ammonia limits are best 
established

[[Page 3022]]

by local POTWs based on site specific conditions in accordance with the 
POTW's design treatment capacity and existing mass loadings.
    Upset and Interference. EPA also assessed the ammonia 
concentrations and loads received by POTWs from Subtitle D leachate 
discharges to evaluate potential upsets or interference with POTW 
treatment systems. EPA concluded that national pretreatment standards 
were not required to prevent interference with POTW operations.
    In terms of landfill leachate ammonia concentrations discharged to 
POTWs, only one of the Subtitle D landfill facilities in EPA's database 
is currently discharging (i.e. after treatment, if treatment is in 
place) wastewater to a POTW which contains more than 105 mg/L of 
ammonia. The remainder of the indirect discharging Subtitle D landfills 
discharged an average concentration of 37 mg/L of ammonia to POTWs, 
with one-half of the facilities discharging less than 32 mg/L. Typical 
ammonia concentrations in raw domestic sewage range from 12 to 50 mg/L 
(``Operation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: Manual of 
Practice, Volume II,'' Water Pollution Control Federation).
    The one facility in EPA's database that was discharging more than 
105 mg/L of ammonia to a POTW was discharging 1,018 mg/L of ammonia to 
a 114 MGD POTW which currently has ammonia control (nitrification) in 
place. EPA also received influent ammonia data from several POTWs that 
commented on the proposed rule. The average ammonia influent 
concentration to POTWs ranged from 14 mg/L to 35 mg/L with an average 
concentration of 17 mg/L. Therefore, with the exception of the one 
outlier, the average concentration of ammonia in leachate discharged to 
POTWs (37 mg/L) noted in EPA's data closely parallels POTW experience 
(35 mg/L). However, it should be noted that the upper ranges of 
leachate concentrations were higher than the upper ranges observed in 
domestic sewage. Nevertheless, in most instances, observed ammonia 
discharge levels to POTWs fall within a POTW's treatment capabilities. 
Thus, EPA determined that the vast majority of Subtitle D landfills are 
discharging ammonia to POTWs at levels comparable to that which POTWs 
in the ordinary course of operations receive and treat in raw domestic 
sewage.
    No POTWs commenting on the proposal cited any specific incidents 
where POTW acceptance of landfill leachate containing high levels of 
ammonia caused persistent upsets at the POTW. The data are consistent 
with that supplied by commenters and further supported EPA's 
understanding prior to the proposal of no documented persistent 
problems at POTWs due to ammonia concentrations in landfill leachate.
    EPA also analyzed the effects that ammonia concentrations found in 
landfill leachate can have on the biological treatment systems at 
POTWs. In this analysis, EPA compared the concentrations of ammonia 
found in leachate with the activated sludge biological minimum 
threshold toxicity value (or inhibition value). With respect to 
ammonia, the inhibition value for activated sludge systems is 480 mg/L 
(Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local 
Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program, Volume 1. EPA, 
November 1987). The average raw wastewater concentration of ammonia 
found in Subtitle D landfills in EPA's database was 199 mg/L for 
direct, indirect and zero dischargers. In addition, all of the average 
and median ammonia concentration values observed in the data submitted 
to EPA in comments were below the activated sludge inhibition value. 
EPA has consequently determined that ammonia does not represent a 
threat to biological treatment systems that would require establishment 
of pretreatment standards.
    Effect on Receiving Streams. Subsequent to the proposal, EPA 
evaluated total wastewater flows and loads of ammonia to receiving 
streams associated with non-hazardous landfill indirect dischargers (an 
estimated 756 facilities). EPA estimated that the non-hazardous 
landfill industry discharges 2.7 million pounds per year of ammonia to 
POTWs, which results in 1.6 million pounds per year being discharged to 
receiving streams, assuming that the POTWs have secondary treatment 
achieving 39 percent removal but do not have additional treatment for 
ammonia control. However, as mentioned above, EPA is aware that many 
POTWs have installed additional treatment specifically for the control 
of ammonia and typically achieve removals in excess of 95 percent. A 
review of EPA's 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and its Permit Compliance 
System database indicates that approximately 20 percent of the POTWs in 
the U.S. employ some sort of ammonia control. Over 75 percent of the 
Subtitle D landfills in EPA's database discharge less than 10 pounds 
per day to the POTW (3,500 pounds/year), which results in discharging 
less than six pounds per day (2,100 pounds/year) to receiving streams, 
again assuming secondary treatment only and no additional POTW ammonia 
controls. In light of existing ammonia control in place at POTWs, 
actual discharges to receiving streams are likely to be even smaller.
    Cost of Pretreatment Standards. EPA has evaluated the economic 
costs of ammonia pretreatment standards. EPA's economic assessment of 
these options demonstrated very high removal costs with low associated 
pollutant removals. Given the high cost, EPA concluded that it is not 
appropriate to establish national pretreatment standards to address the 
limited circumstances in which POTW removal might not match BAT removal 
performance.
    EPA evaluated the costs of pretreatment standards in terms of the 
toxic pound equivalents. Pounds-equivalent is a term used to describe a 
pound of pollutant weighted by its toxicity relative to copper. These 
weights are known as toxic weighting factors. The Agency calculates 
pounds-equivalents by multiplying the pounds of a pollutant discharged 
from a landfill by the toxic weighting factor for that pollutant. The 
use of pounds-equivalent reflects the fact that some pollutants are 
more toxic than others.
    The first treatment option that EPA evaluated for pretreatment of 
ammonia from non-hazardous landfills is biological treatment. EPA 
evaluated PSES Option I equivalent to BPT/BAT Option I, which was 
equalization plus biological treatment. (EPA did not evaluate a 
multimedia filter for PSES because the levels of TSS in landfill 
leachate will be adequately controlled by a POTW.) This option had a 
total annualized cost of $34.6 million (1998 dollars). Biological 
treatment removed 10,650 pound-equivalents annually, or an average of 
14 pound equivalents per facility per year. This represents a cost of 
removal of $1,900/lb-equivalents (1981 dollars) and represents the cost 
of removing all of the pound-equivalents removed, not just ammonia. If 
EPA took credit only for the pound-equivalents of ammonia removed, the 
annual removal cost for this option is $7,100/lb-equivalents (1981 
dollars). Moreover, these calculations are based on the assumption that 
POTWs will only remove 39 percent of the ammonia discharged to it. If 
POTWs remove more ammonia than that assumed, then the cost of each 
pound of pollutant removed by the industrial user raises. Given the 
installation of additional ammonia controls at many POTWs, actual 
ammonia removal by POTWs will be greater than assumed.
    The second technology option EPA evaluated for the control of 
ammonia is ammonia stripping with appropriate air pollution controls. 
However, according

[[Page 3023]]

to EPA's survey of the landfills industry, only two percent of survey 
respondents use this technology for the treatment of landfill leachate. 
In addition, air or steam stripping is more commonly used for treatment 
of wastewater containing concentrations of ammonia that are several 
orders of magnitude greater than those typically found in landfill 
wastewater. Therefore, EPA concluded that biological treatment systems 
are more appropriate for the treatment of the ammonia concentrations 
found in landfill leachate. In addition, air stripping for ammonia 
removal generally requires warm climates, and therefore this may not be 
a viable treatment option for all landfills located in the United 
States. In these circumstances, effluent levels associated with air 
stripping may not be attainable in all cases and thus not broadly 
available in the landfill industry. In addition, the air stripping 
option for the treatment of ammonia has an estimated annualized cost of 
$15.1 million (1998 dollars, pre-tax costs). The cost-effectiveness for 
this option is also high, $4,400/lb-equivalents (1981 dollars).
    As explained above, EPA concluded that the vast majority of POTWs 
experience no difficulty in treating the ammonia loads received from 
landfill indirect dischargers and that as a result there is generally 
no pass through of ammonia from landfill leachate on a national basis. 
Moreover, the cost of pretreatment is not warranted by the limited 
circumstances where pretreatment would result in reduced ammonia to 
surface water. But there are POTWs without additional controls for 
ammonia that may not be equipped to handle landfill leachate ammonia 
discharges. Consequently, in the proposal, EPA requested comments on 
requiring ammonia pretreatment standards for those landfills 
discharging to POTWs that do not have ammonia controls in place. 
Several commenters supported no pretreatment standard because of their 
conclusion that ammonia loads from landfills made up an insignificant 
amount of the total ammonia loads discharged to POTWs. Others favored 
pretreatment standards because of smaller POTWs that do not employ 
nutrient removal systems. EPA, however, is not convinced that national 
ammonia pretreatment standards are warranted even where landfills are 
discharging to POTWs without ammonia controls given the high cost of 
pretreatment and current ammonia concentrations in landfill leachate 
discharged to POTWs that are generally consistent with values observed 
in raw sewage. Special ammonia situations are best addressed by the 
local POTW based on site specific conditions in accordance with the 
POTW's design treatment capacity and existing mass loadings.
    All of these factors discussed above confirm EPA's decision not to 
establish national ammonia pretreatment standards. EPA has concluded 
that landfills typically discharge wastewater to POTWs containing 
ammonia concentrations that can be adequately treated by POTWs. 
Further, in cases where ammonia loading rates are at levels which may 
be of concern or where ammonia discharges are a water quality concern, 
POTWs retain the ability to establish local limits on ammonia.
    (ii.) Pretreatment Standards for Benzoic Acid-- Benzoic Acid Pass-
through Analysis. As stated above, for the proposal, benzoic acid was 
not one of the pollutants EPA determined would pass through. However, 
after the proposal, EPA reviewed the BAT facilities and the 
representative POTW facilities used for the removal comparison and 
determined that it had not used the appropriate editing rules. As a 
result of these revisions, the comparison showed that the median 
percent removal for benzoic acid at the landfills BAT facilities was 99 
percent compared to the median POTW percent removal which was 
determined to be 81 percent. Because the 50-POTW database does not 
contain information on the percent removal of benzoic acid, EPA used 
the National Risk Management Research Laboratory database (formerly 
known as the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to 
estimate the percent removal. (For more information on EPA's use of the 
RREL database, see Chapter 7 of the Technical Development Document.)
    Despite the difference in the BAT and POTW percent removals, 
further analysis of the data showed that both systems were achieving 
the same level of treatment of benzoic acid. That is, both the RREL 
database facilities representing POTWs and the landfills BAT facilities 
were treating benzoic acid down to non-detect levels (50 g/L). 
Therefore, the smaller percent removal achieved by facilities in the 
RREL database (used to represent the POTW percent removal) is a 
function of lower influent concentrations at those facilities and is 
not necessarily indicative of inferior treatment at POTWs. EPA 
concluded that benzoic acid in these circumstances is susceptible to 
treatment at the POTW and does not pass through.
    Benzoic acid loads discharged to POTWs. In addition, EPA also 
evaluated the total flows and loads of benzoic acid discharged from 
non-hazardous landfills to POTWs. EPA compared the current discharge 
loads to the loads that would be anticipated after the implementation 
of pretreatment standards. As was explained above, EPA evaluated Option 
I (biological treatment) as the appropriate treatment technology and 
has analyzed the costs and benefits of pretreatment standards for the 
Non-Hazardous subcategory for this option. According to EPA's 
estimates, non-hazardous landfills currently discharge approximately 
4,700 pounds of benzoic acid to POTWs per year resulting in an annual 
discharge of 900 pounds to receiving streams. PSES Option I (biological 
treatment) would reduce this annual discharge to receiving streams to 
400 pounds per year. The average non-hazardous facility discharges only 
6.4 pounds of benzoic acid annually (less than 0.02 pounds per day), 
and the median discharge is only 1.9 pounds per year. Furthermore, 
benzoic acid has a toxic weighting factor of only 0.0003. Therefore, 
for the entire indirect discharging non-hazardous landfills population 
(approximately 756 facilities), Option I would only remove an 
additional 0.16 pound-equivalents per year.
    As a result of the above analysis, EPA determined that national 
pretreatment standards for benzoic acid are not necessary because 
benzoic acid is susceptible to treatment by POTWs. POTWs and landfill 
BAT facilities both treat benzoic acid down to non-detect levels. In 
addition, EPA determined that the pounds of benzoic acid currently 
being discharged by landfills are compatible with POTW treatment and 
that pretreatment standards would result in little further reduction of 
benzoic acid.
    (iii.) Pretreatment Standards for p-cresol--p-Cresol Pass-through 
Analysis. Like benzoic acid, p-cresol also did not pass-through POTWs 
according to EPA's pass-through analysis at proposal. However, the 
result of its revised removal comparison showed some difference in 
removal. The landfills median BAT percent removal for p-cresol is 99 
percent, while the estimated median POTW percent removal is 68 percent. 
(Again, because the 50-POTW database does not contain percent removal 
data for p-cresol, EPA used the RREL database to determine POTW 
removal.)
    p-Cresol concentrations and loads discharged to POTWs. EPA also 
analyzed the flows and loads of p-cresol being discharged from non-
hazardous

[[Page 3024]]

landfills to POTWs. According to EPA's estimates, non-hazardous 
landfills currently discharge approximately 2,730 pounds of p-cresol to 
POTWs per year resulting in an annual discharge of 870 pounds to 
receiving streams. PSES Option I (biological treatment) would reduce 
this discharge to receiving streams to 130 pounds/year. Furthermore, p-
cresol has a toxic weighting factor of only 0.0024. Therefore, the 
implementation of Option I results in an additional reduction of only 
3.0 pound-equivalents per year across the entire Subtitle D indirect 
discharge population. On average, non-hazardous landfill facilities 
discharge only 3.4 pounds of p-cresol annually (or 0.01 pounds per 
day), and the median discharge load is only 0.7 pounds per year.
    Based on the data shown above, EPA concluded that the 
implementation of pretreatment standards for p-cresol would result in 
only minimal reductions in the pounds of p-cresol discharged to surface 
waters. In addition, p-cresol is found in non-hazardous landfill 
leachate at concentrations which will not cause upsets at POTWs nor 
should POTWs have difficulty effectively treating such concentrations. 
The median raw wastewater concentration for p-cresol at municipal 
landfills is 75 g/L. This concentration is well below the 
Universal Treatment Standard (UTS) of 770 g/L established for 
F039 wastes (multi-source leachate) in 40 CFR 268.48.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA bases UTS on the Best Demonstrated Available Treatment 
Technology (BDAT) for each listed hazardous waste. BDAT represents 
the treatment technology that EPA concludes is the most effective 
for treating a particular waste that is also readily available to 
generators and treaters.
    (iv.) Pretreatment Standards for Phenol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iv.) Pretreatment Standards for Phenol. Although phenol appeared 
to pass through, EPA decided not to establish pretreatment standards 
for phenol based on the fact that phenol is highly biodegradable and is 
treated by POTWs to the same degree as the landfill direct dischargers. 
Furthermore, the Agency concluded that the differences in influent 
concentrations caused the apparent difference in removal performance 
between landfill direct dischargers and POTWs. As a result, the 
performance across the landfills direct dischargers showed higher 
removals than the performance at the POTWs.
    In EPA's landfills database, raw wastewater concentrations of 
phenol at the BAT facilities in the Non-Hazardous subcategory were much 
higher than the influent concentrations at the POTWs used in the 
determination of the POTW percent removal. The average influent 
concentrations for phenol for the three non-hazardous BAT facilities 
used in the pass-through analysis ranged from 350 g/L to 5,120 
g/L. All three of the facilities treated phenol down to the 
analytical minimum level (10 g/L), corresponding to a median 
percent removal of 97.5 percent. For POTW performance, EPA used a total 
of eight POTWs in the analysis for POTW percent removal of phenol. The 
average influent concentration for phenol at these eight POTWs was 387 
g/L, and six of the eight effluent values were below the 
analytical minimum level and therefore assigned values of 10 
g/L. Thus, the average percent removal for the POTWs was 95.3 
percent. In this case, EPA concluded that the differences in removals 
for POTWs (95.3 percent) and BAT facilities (97.5 percent) is an 
artifact of the differing influent concentrations and does not 
necessarily reflect a real difference in treatment performance. 
Therefore, EPA concluded that phenol is treated to essentially the same 
level by direct dischargers and POTWs and, therefore, does not pass 
through.
    c. Technology Options Considered for PSES for Hazardous Landfill 
Subcategory. In the proposed rule, EPA proposed pretreatment standards 
for six pollutants that EPA determined to pass through in the Hazardous 
subcategory. However, after reviewing the comments received and re-
evaluating the pollutant loads in the Hazardous subcategory, EPA has 
decided not to establish national pretreatment standards for Subtitle C 
landfills.
    As previously explained, EPA establishes pretreatment standards for 
pollutants that are not susceptible to treatment at a POTW or for 
pollutants that may interfere with POTW operations. As explained at 
Part 1.b. of this section, for the Hazardous subcategory, EPA 
identified only three Subtitle C landfills, all of them indirect 
dischargers. EPA used data from two of these hazardous landfills to 
develop the BPT/BAT limitations for toxic pollutants because these 
landfills were using the treatment systems for their leachate that EPA 
determined was the BPT/BAT treatment technology.
    EPA also performed an analysis for this subcategory in order to 
compare POTW removals with BAT treatment systems. As was the case for 
the Non-Hazardous subcategory, EPA revised the pass-through analysis 
data editing procedures after the proposal and as a result EPA's 
removal results have changed. The result of the revised comparison show 
BAT removals greater than POTW removals for the following eight 
pollutants: ammonia, alpha-terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid, 
naphthalene, p-cresol, phenol, and pyridine. For its removal comparison 
for ammonia, EPA compared the nation-wide median percentage of ammonia 
removed by well-operated POTWs to the percentage of ammonia removed by 
BAT treatment systems from both the Hazardous and Non-Hazardous 
subcategories. (For the reasons explained at Part 1.b of this section, 
in the case of ammonia, EPA supplemented the Hazardous subcategory data 
with data from non-hazardous landfill facilities.) For all other toxic 
pollutants, in determining whether a pollutant would pass through a 
POTW, the Agency compared the nation-wide median percentage of a 
pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs with secondary treatment to 
the percentage of a pollutant removed by BAT treatment systems from 
only the Hazardous subcategory. For the proposal, EPA proposed 
pretreatment standards that were equivalent to the BPT/BAT limitations 
for the pollutants that passed through. EPA has reconsidered its 
decision that it should promulgate national pretreatment standards for 
hazardous landfills. The reasons for this decision are explained in 
more detail below.
    Two of the indirect discharging landfills have treatment technology 
in place that EPA considers to be BAT, and currently discharge very low 
concentrations of pollutants to their local POTWs. The third and only 
other indirectly discharging Subtitle C landfill for which EPA has data 
discharged less than 1,000 gal/day of landfill gas collection 
condensate to a POTW. In addition to the low wastewater flow at this 
landfill, the facility has relatively low raw wastewater pollutant 
concentrations and employs neutralization with ammonia followed by 
settling prior to discharge to the POTW.
    Several commenters on the proposal questioned EPA's rationale for 
developing ammonia pretreatment standards for the Hazardous subcategory 
while not establishing ammonia pretreatment standards for the Non-
Hazardous subcategory. EPA's database indicate that the median raw 
wastewater ammonia concentration for hazardous landfills is 268 mg/L as 
compared to the raw wastewater ammonia concentration for Subtitle D 
landfills which is 199 mg/L.\6\ EPA has current information on

[[Page 3025]]

ammonia concentration in wastewater discharges for two of the three 
Subtitle C landfills in EPA's database. One of the landfills employs 
biological treatment and discharges an average of 4.9 mg/L of ammonia 
to the POTW. The other landfill employs chemical precipitation prior to 
biological treatment and discharges ammonia at an average concentration 
of 156 mg/L. This discharge level presents no apparent problem to the 
receiving POTW. According to discussions with this facility and the 
POTW, the POTW has not set local pretreatment standards for ammonia for 
this landfill, and the POTW does not perform nitrification nor is there 
an ammonia limit in the POTW's NPDES permit. Since 1995, the POTW has 
seen the ammonia concentration at its headworks increase from 13 mg/L 
to 20 mg/L and has experienced some upsets at the POTW. However, the 
POTW explained that it was unsure whether the upsets are a result of 
the increased ammonia concentrations or due to some other constituent 
in the wastewater. In addition, the POTW is not sure if the landfill 
leachate discharge is contributing at all to the upsets. As was the 
case in the Non-hazardous subcategory, EPA concluded that national 
pretreatment standards for ammonia are not warranted by the small 
quantity of ammonia being discharged to POTWs from landfills in this 
subcategory and due to the site specific water quality and POTW 
nitrification issues associated with ammonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the comments received on the proposal, some commenters 
referred to the Hazardous subcategory median ammonia raw wastewater 
concentration referred to in Table 6-8 on page 6-44 of the Proposed 
Landfills Development Document (EPA-821-R-97-022). This table lists 
the median ammonia raw wastewater concentration of 8.6 mg/L. 
However, this median concentration included numerous CERCLA 
facilities with discharges that consisted primarily of ground water. 
After proposal, EPA recalculated the median ammonia raw wastewater 
concentration for the Hazardous subcategory using only data from 
Subtitle C landfills in EPA's database. This results in a median raw 
wastewater ammonia concentration of 268 mg/L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the removal comparison suggests that phenol may pass 
through, EPA decided not to establish pretreatment standards for it 
because it is highly biodegradable and is, in fact, treated by POTWs to 
the same degree as the landfill direct dischargers. The Agency 
concluded that any apparent difference in removals in the removal 
comparison is an artifact of differing influent concentrations rather 
than any difference in performance between landfill direct dischargers 
and POTWs.
    In EPA's landfills database, raw wastewater concentrations of 
phenol at the two BAT facilities in the Hazardous subcategory were much 
higher than the influent concentrations at the POTWs used in the 
determination of the POTW percent removal. The average influent 
concentrations for phenol for the two hazardous BAT facilities used in 
the pass-through analysis ranged from 5,120 g/L to 98,500 
g/L, and the average effluent concentrations ranged from 10 
g/L to 814 g/L corresponding to an average percent 
removal of 99.8 percent. For POTW performance, EPA used a total of 
eight POTWs in the analysis for POTW percent removal of phenol. The 
average influent concentration for phenol at these eight POTWs was 387 
g/L, and six of the eight effluent values were below the 
analytical minimum level and therefore assigned values of 10 
g/L. Thus, the average percent removal for the POTWs was 95.3 
percent, and therefore EPA determined that the pollutant passed 
through. In this case, EPA concluded that the pass-through 
determination is an artifact of the differing influent concentrations 
and does not necessarily reflect a real difference in removals. 
Therefore, EPA concluded that phenol is treated to essentially the same 
level by direct dischargers and POTWs and, therefore, does not pass 
through.
    Further review of the comparison for alpha-terpineol, aniline, 
benzoic acid, naphthalene, and pyridine under the revised analysis 
showed that all of these pollutants were treated down to non-detect 
levels in both the landfill's BAT treatment option and in the RREL 
facilities representing POTWs. That is, both BAT facilities and POTWs 
achieve the same level of treatment for these pollutants, and the 
differences in removal once again were simply a function of smaller 
influent concentrations at facilities representing POTWs. (Alpha-
terpineol and benzoic acid are compounds for which a high removal 
efficiency would be expected at a POTW due to their relatively high 
biodegradability.) Therefore, the Agency determined that, not only are 
the current pollutant loads not a problem for POTWs, but also all of 
these pollutants are present in concentrations that are treated down to 
non-detect levels in a well-operated POTW. Thus, given the small 
loadings and low concentrations of these pollutants, EPA concluded that 
these five pollutants are susceptible to treatment at the POTW and do 
not pass through.
    Furthermore, EPA has concluded that while the removal comparison 
suggests that two pollutants, naphthalene and aniline, may not be 
susceptible to POTW treatment, in fact, they will receive equivalent 
treatment. First, the median untreated wastewater concentration 
observed in EPA's data collection effort for these pollutants is less 
than the Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) EPA has developed for 
these pollutants in F039 wastes (multi-source leachate) in 40 CFR 
268.48. The UTS for naphthalene is 0.059 mg/L which is slightly greater 
than the median concentration found in hazardous landfills (0.049 mg/
L). The UTS standard for aniline is 0.81 mg/L while the median 
concentration in hazardous landfills is 0.237 mg/L. Second, aniline and 
naphthalene (as well as p-cresol and pyridine) will be removed from 
wastewater through attachment to the biosolids in the POTW's biological 
treatment system and then undergo subsequent biodegradation while 
entrained in the biosolids.
    In addition, as noted above, the revised comparison shows a lower 
POTW removal for p-cresol than that achieved by BAT treatment. However, 
as was the case in the Non-Hazardous subcategory, EPA has concluded 
that the concentrations of p-cresol and the associated loadings 
discharged to POTWs from landfills in the Hazardous subcategory would 
be insignificant compared to the total loads received at the POTW. The 
median Subtitle C raw wastewater concentration for p-cresol is 144 
g/L (this includes only Subtitle C landfills and not the 
CERCLA data included in the median on page 6-44 of the Proposed 
Landfills Development Document) which is less than the UTS developed 
for p-cresol in F039 wastes which is 770 g/L (40 CFR 268.48).
    Therefore, based on the small quantity of pollutants involved and 
low pollutant concentrations discharged from landfills in the Hazardous 
subcategory, EPA concluded that national pretreatment standards for 
landfills in the Hazardous subcategory are unnecessary. In addition, 
EPA concluded that local limits are adequately controlling wastewater 
discharges from Subtitle C landfills.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
    a. Introduction. Section 307 of the Act requires EPA to promulgate 
both pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) and new source 
performance standards (NSPS). New indirect discharging facilities, like 
new direct discharging facilities, have the opportunity to incorporate 
the best available demonstrated technologies including: process 
changes, in-facility controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies.
    b. Rationale for Setting PSNS Equivalent to PSES for Both 
Subcategories. In today's rule, EPA has

[[Page 3026]]

decided not to establish pretreatment standards for new sources for 
both subcategories for many of the same reasons that EPA did not 
establish PSES limits. As stated in the PSES discussions above, EPA 
concluded that the typical concentrations of pollutants in landfill 
leachate are not at levels that will cause problems for POTWs. In 
addition, EPA determined that the relatively small wastewater flows 
from landfills coupled with the concentrations of pollutants typically 
found results in a small pollutant loading rate discharged to POTWs 
from landfills. Finally, in site-specific cases where a particular 
pollutant may be found at concentrations that are of concern to the 
POTW, EPA concluded that local pretreatment standards are the most 
appropriate means for controlling such discharges.

F. Development of Effluent Limitations

    EPA based the final effluent limitations in today's notice on 
widely-recognized statistical procedures for calculating long-term 
averages and variability factors. The following presents a summary of 
the statistical methodology used in the calculation of effluent 
limitations.
    EPA bases effluent limitations for each subcategory on a 
combination of long-term average effluent values and variability 
factors that account for variation in day-to-day treatment performance 
within a treatment plant. The long-term averages are average effluent 
concentrations that have been achieved by well-operated treatment 
systems using the processes described in the following section 
(Treatment Systems Selected for Basis of Regulation). The variability 
factors are the results of a calculation of the ratio of a high 
effluent value that would be expected to occur only rarely relative to 
long-term average effluent values. The purpose of the variability 
factor is to allow for normal variation in effluent concentrations. A 
facility that designs and operates its treatment system to achieve a 
long-term average on a consistent basis should be able to comply with 
the daily and monthly limitations in the course of normal operations.
    EPA developed the variability factors and long-term averages from a 
data base composed of individual measurements on treated effluent. The 
Agency uses a combination of EPA sampling data and industry supplied 
data. While EPA sampling data reflect the performance of a system over 
a five day period, industry supplied data (collected through the 
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire) reflect up to three years worth of 
monitoring data. EPA used a combination of EPA and industry supplied 
data whenever possible in order to better account for the variability 
of leachate over time. For further information on the calculation of 
effluent limitations, see Chapter 11 of the Technical Development 
Document.

G. Treatment Systems Selected for Basis of Regulation

1. Non-Hazardous Subcategory BPT Facility Selection
    There were 46 in-scope landfill facilities in the EPA database that 
employed various forms of biological treatment considered for BPT/BAT 
for the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA evaluated these facilities 
selected as potential BPT/BAT candidates to determine the performance 
across the various types of biological treatment systems. In order to 
determine the best performers for biological treatment EPA established 
a number of criteria. The first criterion used in the selection of the 
best facilities was effective treatment of BOD5. Under this 
criterion, there were several reasons why a facility might be 
eliminated from the selection of BPT/BAT facilities. First, EPA 
required that both influent and effluent BOD5 data be 
available so that the Agency could evaluate the effectiveness of the 
biological treatment system at the facility. In addition, EPA 
eliminated those facilities whose BOD5 influent data were 
less than 100 mg/L because EPA did not consider the wastewater at these 
facilities to be representative of the landfills population as a whole. 
Because EPA based BPT/BAT limitations on the effectiveness of 
biological treatment, the Agency eliminated facilities that used 
additional forms of treatment (other than biological treatment) for 
BOD5 removal. The final requirement for BPT/BAT selection in 
the Non-Hazardous landfill subcategory was that the biological 
treatment system at the facility had to achieve a BOD5 
effluent concentration less than 50 mg/L. EPA determined that 
facilities not able to maintain an effluent concentration below 50 mg/L 
were not operating their biological systems effectively.
    After applying the criteria above, EPA identified seven facilities 
that met all of the BPT/BAT criteria. These seven facilities employed 
various types of biological treatment systems including activated 
sludge, a sequencing batch reactor, aerobic and anaerobic biological 
towers or fixed film, and aerated ponds or lagoons. Most of the 
facilities employed equalization tanks in addition to the biological 
treatment while several facilities also employed chemical precipitation 
and neutralization in their treatment systems. Clarification or 
sedimentation stages followed the biological treatment systems. EPA 
used data from all seven facilities employing well-operated biological 
treatment systems to calculate the effluent limitations for 
BOD5. (For those BPT facilities that employed both chemical 
precipitation as well as biological treatment, EPA determined that the 
biological treatment systems, and not the chemical precipitation 
systems, were removing the BOD5 from the landfill 
wastewater. Therefore, EPA used these facilities for the calculation of 
BOD5 limitations.) The average influent BOD5 
concentrations to these seven treatment systems ranged from 150 mg/L to 
7,600 mg/L, and as mentioned above, all of the average effluent 
concentrations for these seven facilities were below 50 mg/L.
    EPA used the data from the seven facilities identified as having 
good biological treatment systems to calculate the limits for 
additional pollutant parameters, including alpha terpineol, ammonia, 
benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, and zinc. Because one facility employed 
air stripping, EPA did not use its data for determining the limit for 
ammonia. In addition, EPA did not use facilities that operated chemical 
precipitation systems in addition to biological treatment for the 
calculation of the zinc limitation. Many of the facilities selected as 
BPT/BAT did not provide data for all the pollutants identified for 
regulation by EPA. In these cases, EPA based the effluent limitations 
on the BPT/BAT facilities for which data were available.
    While the BOD5 edits discussed above ensure good 
biological treatment and a basic level of TSS removal, treatment 
facilities meeting this level may not necessarily be operated for 
optimal control of TSS. To ensure that the effluent limitation 
developed for TSS reflects proper control, EPA established additional 
editing criteria for TSS. The primary factor in addition to achieving 
the BOD5 criteria cited above was that the facility had to 
employ technology sufficient to ensure adequate control of TSS, that 
is, a sand or multimedia filtration system. The Agency eliminated 
facilities that used additional forms of treatment (other than a sand 
or multimedia filter) for TSS removal. The second factor EPA considered 
was whether the treatment system achieved an effluent TSS concentration 
less than or equal to 100 mg/L. EPA selected treatment facilities 
meeting these criteria as the average best existing performers for TSS. 
Two of the seven

[[Page 3027]]

BPT/BAT facilities employed a sand or multimedia filtration system and 
achieved an effluent TSS concentration far less than 100 mg/L. EPA used 
the TSS effluent data from these two facilities to calculate the TSS 
limitation for the Non-Hazardous subcategory.
2. Hazardous Subcategory BPT/BAT Facility Selection
    As previously noted, EPA's statistical analysis of the facility 
identification and survey data suggests that there are no Subtitle C 
landfill facilities that discharge directly to navigable water and six 
that discharge to POTWs. However, EPA has specifically identified only 
three Subtitle C landfills that discharge to POTWs. EPA is transferring 
data from these facilities to establish BPT/BAT limitations. The 
wastewater flow from one of the three facilities was very small (less 
than 1,000 gallons per day) and consisted of only gas collection 
condensate and required only minimal treatment (neutralization using 
ammonia) prior to discharge to the POTW. Consequently, EPA did not 
consider this facility as appropriate for establishing BPT/BAT 
limitations. The two remaining facilities both had treatment systems in 
place that achieved very good pollutant reductions. The treatment at 
one facility consisted of equalization and chemical precipitation 
followed by activated sludge biological treatment. The second facility 
utilized equalization followed by three sequencing batch reactor 
biological treatment units operated in parallel. The treatment systems 
in place at these indirect hazardous facilities achieved low effluent 
concentrations with average removals of 88 to 98 percent of organic 
toxic pollutants, and 55 to 80 percent of metal pollutants. Thus, EPA 
concluded that it should use both facilities in the development of the 
Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT limitations for nonconventional and toxic 
pollutants.
    However, for the ammonia, BOD5, and TSS limitations, EPA 
concluded that establishing BPT/BAT limits based solely on two indirect 
discharging treatment systems was not appropriate because indirect 
dischargers often do not operate their treatment systems to achieve 
optimal control of these pollutants. In the case of BOD5 and 
TSS, POTWs do not establish local standards because the POTWs install 
treatment designed specifically to treat these pollutants. In the case 
of ammonia, some POTWs do not establish standards because they have 
installed advanced treatment for ammonia control. Other POTWs may 
establish ammonia standards based on local water quality concerns. EPA 
supplemented the Hazardous subcategory data for these three pollutants 
with data from non-hazardous landfill facilities. For BOD5, 
EPA used data from both of the Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT facilities 
and the Non-Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT facilities to calculate the 
limitations. Because neither of the Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT 
facilities used a multimedia filter, EPA based the TSS limitation on 
the two Non-Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT facilities that employed 
multimedia filtration.
    In the case of ammonia, EPA concluded that it was not appropriate 
to establish limits using the performance of only indirect discharging 
facilities because only one of these facilities in the Hazardous 
subcategory demonstrated good ammonia control. Many POTWs with advanced 
or tertiary treatment units for nutrient control may not establish 
stringent local limits for ammonia. Therefore, basing ammonia limits 
only on indirect discharging landfills may not appropriately reflect 
the effluent discharge concentration of ammonia achieved by well-
operated direct discharging landfills. Since only one indirect 
discharging hazardous BPT/BAT facility achieved BPT/BAT ammonia 
removals, EPA chose to supplement the hazardous data with data from two 
non-hazardous BPT/BAT facilities, one of which was a direct discharger.

IV. Assessment of Costs and Impacts

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

    The methodology EPA used for the final rule for estimating costs 
and pollutant reductions achieved by the various treatment technologies 
is the same as the methodology used by EPA for the proposal. However, 
there are differences in the estimated costs and pollutant reductions 
from the proposed rule. These differences are a result of several 
revisions EPA made when reviewing the costs and loads reductions after 
proposal. These changes are explained in detail in the Technical 
Development Document at Chapter 9.
    The Agency calculated pollutant reductions for each of the 
questionnaire recipients that would potentially be subject to this rule 
and then modeled the national population by using statistically 
calculated survey weights. EPA estimated pollutant reductions by taking 
the difference in the current performance of the landfill industry and 
the expected performance after installation of the treatment 
technology. The Agency estimated pollutant reductions for each 
pollutant of interest at each questionnaire facility. EPA determined 
the current performance discharge concentrations from data supplied by 
the facility, or in cases where the facility did not supply current 
wastewater discharge data for a particular pollutant, the Agency based 
the current discharge concentration on data supplied from similar 
treatment systems at similar landfills. EPA determined the discharge 
concentrations expected to be achieved for a particular technology 
option from EPA sampling data or from industry supplied data at 
facilities selected as the best performers.

B. Costs of Compliance

    The Agency has estimated the cost for landfill facilities to 
achieve the effluent limitations promulgated today. Table IV.B-1 
summarizes the estimated costs and the Technical Development Document 
discusses them in more detail. All of the cost estimates in this 
section are expressed in terms of 1998 dollars.
    The only costs associated with this final rule are for direct 
discharging landfills in the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA did not 
identify any commercial hazardous landfills in the United States that 
discharged directly to surface waters, and thus, the Agency did not 
estimate any costs of compliance for direct dischargers from hazardous 
landfills. In addition, there are no costs associated with PSES for 
either subcategory because the Agency is not establishing PSES for the 
Landfills Point Source Category.

[[Page 3028]]



             Table IV. B-1.--Capital and Annual Costs of BPT
                      [In millions of 1998 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of     Capital     Annual O&M
           Subcategory              facilities     costs        costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Hazardous Direct Dischargers           143        18.87         6.50
 (BPT)...........................
Hazardous Direct Dischargers                 0            0            0
 (BPT)...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Pollutant Reductions

    The Agency estimated pollutant reductions for landfill facilities 
achieving each of the effluent limitations promulgated today. Table 
IV.C-1 summarizes the estimated reductions and the document 
``Environmental Assessment of Final Effluent Limitations and Standards 
for the Landfills Category'' discusses them in more detail.
    All of the pollutant reductions realized by this regulation are a 
result of the effluent limitations promulgated for direct dischargers 
in the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA did not identify any commercial 
hazardous landfills in the United States that discharged directly to 
surface waters, and thus, the Agency did not evaluate pollutant 
reductions for direct dischargers from hazardous landfills.
    Furthermore, there are no pollutant reductions associated with PSES 
for either subcategory because the Agency is not establishing PSES 
limitations for the Landfills Point Source Category.

                        Table IV.C-1.--Pollutant Reductions Achieved by Implementing BPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Conventional        Toxic
                                                                     Number of       pollutant       pollutant
                          Subbcategory                              facilities       removals        removals
                                                                                     (pounds)        (pounds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Hazardous Direct Dischargers (BPT)..........................             143         600,000         323,150
Hazardous Direct Dischargers (BPT)..............................               0               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction and Overview

    This section summarizes EPA's analysis of the economic impacts of 
the final regulation. EPA describes the economic impact assessment in 
detail in the ``Economic Analysis for the Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category'' (hereafter 
``EA''). The EA estimates the economic effect on the industry of 
compliance with the regulation in terms of facility closures (severe 
impacts) and financial impacts short of closure (moderate impacts) for 
privately-owned landfill facilities. For publicly-owned landfill 
facilities, the report estimates financial impacts short of closure. 
The report also includes an analysis of the effects of the regulation 
on new landfill facilities and an assessment of the impacts on small 
businesses and other small entities.
    EPA estimated the economic impacts of final regulatory options in 
each subcategory for BPT and NSPS. The technical evaluation and 
description of each option and the rationale for selecting the final 
option is discussed in Section [III] of today's notice. EPA has based 
its BPT/BCT/BAT limitations for the Non-Hazardous subcategory on 
technology Option II, which EPA estimates will have a total annualized 
cost of $ 7.64 million (1998$). (For privately-owned facilities, EPA 
evaluated costs in terms of after-tax costs.) Table V. A-1 summarizes 
the costs associated with the Option II.

        Table V. A-1.--Total Costs of Selected Regulatory Option
                      [In millions of 1998 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Post-tax
   Selected option for the non-       Total      Total  O &     total
  hazardous landfill subcategory     capital      M costs     annualized
                                      costs                     costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option II........................        18.87         6.50         7.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Economic Impacts

1. Cost Reasonableness and Economic Impacts of BPT
    As discussed above in Section [II.A], in establishing BPT 
limitations, EPA considers the cost of the limitations in relation to 
the effluent reduction benefits achieved. EPA compares these costs and 
benefits by first calculating pre-tax total annualized costs and total 
removals of TSS and BOD5 in pounds. EPA then compares the 
ratio of the costs to the removals for an option to the range of ratios 
in previous regulations to gauge the option's relative cost. Table V.B-
1 presents the results of the cost and removal comparison. In the Non-
Hazardous subcategory, Option II has a ratio of $ 14 per pound. Option 
II is within the historical bounds of BPT cost comparisons.

[[Page 3029]]



                                 Table V. B-1.--BPT Cost Reasonableness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Pre-tax total                       Average cost
Selected option for the non-hazardous landfill subcategory  annualized costs   Removals  (lbs)   reasonableness
                                                             (million 1998$)                       (1998 $/lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II........................................................              8.57           598,579                14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is promulgating BPT limitations based on Option II for both 
privately-and publicly-owned facilities. The impact analysis for Option 
II projects two facility closures as a result of compliance. The EA 
projects no additional economic impacts beyond these two severe 
impacts. The direct job losses associated with the projected closures 
are 20 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. Table V.B-2 summarizes the 
economic impacts for BPT.

                                     Table V. B-2.--Economic Impacts of BPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Post-tax total
 Selected option for the non-hazardous landfill     annualized        Severe         Moderate         Direct
                   subcategory                      costs  (mil       impacts         impacts       employment
                                                      1998$)                                      losses  (FTEs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option II.......................................            7.64               2               0              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Economic Analysis of Final NSPS limitations
    EPA is establishing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations 
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT for the Non-Hazardous and 
Hazardous subcategories. In general, EPA believes that new sources will 
be able to comply at costs that are similar to or less than the costs 
for existing sources, because new sources can apply control 
technologies more efficiently than sources that need to retrofit for 
those technologies. EPA has determined that BPT/BCT/BAT limitations are 
economically achievable and, therefore, NSPS limitations will not 
present a barrier to entry for new facilities.
3. Firm Level Impacts
    Firms differ from facilities in that firms are business entities or 
companies, which may operate at several physical locations. Facilities 
are individual establishments defined by their physical location, 
whether or not they constitute an independent business entity on their 
own. Some of the surveyed facilities are single-facility firms. In 
these cases, the firm-level impact depends only on the facility-level 
impact. In other cases, though, facilities are owned by multi-facility 
firms, so that the impact on the parent firm depends not only on that 
facility, but also on the impacts on and characteristics of other 
facilities owned by the same firm.
    In this analysis, the test for significant adverse impacts on firms 
is whether firm-level compliance costs exceed five percent of firm 
revenues. Using this criterion, EPA finds no significant adverse 
impacts on affected firms and therefore determines that the effluent 
guideline will not impose unreasonable economic burdens on firms that 
own in-scope landfills.
4. Community Impacts
    EPA assesses community impacts by estimating the expected change in 
employment in communities with landfills that are affected by the final 
regulation. Possible community employment effects include the 
employment losses in the facilities that are expected to close because 
of the regulation and the related employment losses in other businesses 
in the affected community. In addition to these estimated employment 
losses, employment may increase as a result of facilities' operation of 
treatment systems for regulatory compliance. It should be noted that 
job gains will mitigate community employment losses only if they occur 
in the same communities in which facility closures occur.
    EPA projects that the final regulation will result in two post-
compliance closures, with the direct loss of 20 Full-Time Equivalent 
(FTE) positions. EPA estimates secondary employment impacts based on 
multipliers that relate the change in employment in a directly affected 
industry to aggregate employment effects in linked industries and 
consumer businesses whose employment is affected by changes in the 
earnings and expenditures of the employees in the directly and 
indirectly affected industries.
    The EA projects an estimated community impact of between 49 and 89 
FTE losses as the result of the final rule. The direct and secondary 
job losses are not expected to be significant in terms of employment 
impacts to affected counties. EPA estimates that the regulation will 
result in employment gains of an additional 79 FTEs as a result of the 
operation of control equipment associated with treatment systems at 
landfill facilities.
5. Foreign Trade Impacts
    EPA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of the 
effluent limitations guidelines. International trade in landfill 
services for the disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes is 
virtually nonexistent.

VI. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits

A. Introduction

    EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling priority 
and nonconventional pollutant discharges to surface waters and 
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). Pollutant discharges into 
freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats, 
adversely affect aquatic biota, and may adversely impact human health 
through the consumption of contaminated fish and water. Furthermore, 
pollutant discharges to a POTW may interfere with POTW operations by 
inhibiting biological treatment or by contaminating POTW biosolids.
    Many pollutants commonly found in landfill wastewater have one or 
more toxic effects (e.g., the pollutant may be a human health 
carcinogen or toxic to either some human system or to aquatic life). In 
addition, several of these pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic 
organisms and persist in the environment.
    The Agency's analysis focused on the effects of toxic pollutants 
but did not evaluate the effects of two conventional

[[Page 3030]]

pollutants and five nonconventional pollutants. The pollutants not 
assessed included total suspended solids (TSS), five-day biochemical 
oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total 
dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon (TOC), hexane extractable 
material, and total phenolic compounds. Although the Agency is not able 
to monetize the benefits associated with reductions of non-toxic 
parameters, discharges of these parameters may have adverse effects on 
human health and the environment. For example, suspended particulate 
matter may degrade habitat by reducing light penetration and thus 
primary productivity and can alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding 
habitats by accumulation in streambeds. High COD and BOD5 
discharges may deplete oxygen levels, which can result in mortality or 
other adverse effects on fish.

B. Methodology Used for Estimating Water Quality Impacts and Benefits

    A report prepared for this rule, ``Environmental Assessment of the 
Final Effluent Guidelines for the Landfill Category,'' presents the 
Agency's analyses of these environmental and human health risk concerns 
and of the water quality-related benefits resulting from the final 
effluent guidelines. This assessment both qualitatively and 
quantitatively evaluates the potential: (1) Ecological benefits; (2) 
human health benefits; and (3) economic productivity benefits of 
controlling discharges from direct discharging non-hazardous landfills 
based on site-specific analyses of current conditions and the 
conditions that would be achieved by compliance with the limitations 
being established today. EPA estimates in-stream pollutant 
concentrations from direct discharges using stream dilution modeling, 
and from these models, EPA estimates the potential impacts and benefits 
of the final rule.
    EPA projects ecological benefits by comparing the steady-state in-
stream pollutant concentrations, predicted after complete immediate 
mixing with no loss from the system, to EPA published water quality 
criteria guidance. Or, for those chemicals for which EPA has not 
published water quality criteria, EPA compares the steady-state in-
stream pollutant concentrations to documented toxic effect levels 
(i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic concentration). In performing 
these analyses, EPA used guidance documents published by EPA that 
recommend numeric human health and aquatic life water quality criteria 
for numerous pollutants. States often consult these guidance documents 
when adopting water quality criteria as part of their water quality 
standards. However, because those State-adopted criteria may vary, EPA 
used the nationwide criteria guidance as the most representative value. 
EPA used the findings from the analysis of reduced occurrence of 
pollutant concentrations in excess of both aquatic life and human 
health criteria or toxic effect levels to assess improvements in 
recreational fishing habitats and, in turn, to estimate, if applicable, 
a monetary value for enhanced recreational fishing opportunities. EPA 
expects such benefits to manifest as increases in the value of the 
fishing experience per day fished or the number of days anglers 
subsequently choose to fish the cleaner waterways. These benefits, 
however, do not include all of the benefits that are associated with 
improvements in aquatic life, such as increased assimilation capacity 
of the receiving stream, improvements in taste and odor, or 
improvements to other recreational activities such as swimming and 
wildlife observation.
    EPA projects human health benefits by: (1) comparing estimated in-
stream concentrations to health-based water quality toxic effect levels 
or EPA published water quality criteria; and (2) estimating the 
potential reduction of carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard 
from consuming contaminated fish or drinking water. EPA estimates 
upper-bound individual cancer risks, population risks, and non-cancer 
hazards (systemic) using modeled in-stream pollutant concentrations and 
standard EPA assumptions regarding ingestion of fish and drinking 
water. The Agency then used the modeled pollutant concentrations in 
fish and drinking water to estimate cancer risk and non-cancer hazards 
(systemic) among the general population, sport anglers and their 
families, and subsistence anglers and their families.
    Due to the hydrophobic nature of one chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 
(CDD) congener and one chlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF) congener being 
evaluated, EPA projected human health benefits for these pollutants by 
using the Office of Research and Development's Dioxin Reassessment 
Evaluation (DRE) model to estimate the potential reduction of 
carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard from consuming 
contaminated fish. The DRE model estimates fish tissue concentrations 
of the CDD/CDF congeners by calculating the equilibrium between the 
pollutants in fish tissue and those adsorbed to the organic fraction of 
sediments suspended in the water column. EPA did not establish effluent 
limitations for the dioxins and furans that it detected at hazardous 
and non-hazardous landfills. EPA discusses the reasons for not 
establishing limitations for these congeners in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (63 FR 6438-6439) and in Chapter 6 of the Final Technical 
Development Document.
    Of these health benefit measures, the Agency is able to monetize 
only the reduction in carcinogenic risk using estimated willingness-to-
pay values for avoiding premature mortality. The values used in this 
analysis are based on a range of values from a review of studies 
quantifying individuals' willingness to pay to avoid increased risks to 
life. In 1998 dollars, these values range from $2.5 to $13.1 million 
per statistical life saved.
    EPA evaluated the potential aquatic life and human health impacts 
of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water quality at 
current levels of treatment and at final BAT treatment levels. EPA 
performed this analysis for a representative sample set of 37 direct 
non-hazardous landfills discharging 26 pollutants to 35 receiving 
streams. EPA extrapolated the results to 143 non-hazardous landfills 
discharging 26 pollutants to 139 receiving streams. EPA based this 
extrapolation on the same statistical methodology used for estimated 
costs, loads, and economic impacts.

C. Estimated National Water Quality Impacts and Results

    The Agency estimates that the final regulation will reduce loadings 
of priority and nonconventional pollutants into receiving streams by 39 
percent. The model also indicates that excursions of acute aquatic life 
criteria or toxic effect levels due to one pollutant in two receiving 
streams will be eliminated at BAT discharge levels. EPA estimates that 
the final regulation will reduce excursions of chronic aquatic life 
criteria or toxic effect levels due to the discharge of ammonia in two 
receiving streams. EPA projects that a total of 36 excursions in 34 
receiving streams at current conditions would be reduced to 34 
excursions in 34 streams. Since the final rule would not reduce the 
estimated number of stream reaches with excursions, EPA estimates there 
would be no increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers based 
on the baseline value of the fishery and the estimated incremental 
benefit values associated with freeing the fishery from contaminants.
    EPA modeled cancer cases and systemic health effects resulting from 
the ingestion of fish and drinking water contaminated by non-hazardous 
landfill

[[Page 3031]]

wastewater. EPA estimates that current wastewater discharges from 
landfills result in far less than one (0.003) annual cancer case per 
year for all populations evaluated. Final treatment options would 
reduce this value to 0.002 annual cancer cases per year, which would 
result in negligible monetized benefits ($2,100 to $11,000 per year). 
EPA projects systemic health effects from one pollutant (disulfoton) in 
two receiving streams at both current and final BAT discharge levels 
affecting a total population of 643 subsistence anglers and their 
families.
    EPA's survey of hazardous landfills in the United States indicated 
that there were no in-scope respondents which were classified as direct 
dischargers. Therefore, the Agency did not evaluate potential aquatic 
life and human health impacts of direct wastewater discharges from 
hazardous landfills.

VII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

    The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or 
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and 
306 of the Act require EPA to consider non-water quality environmental 
impacts of effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Accordingly, 
EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air pollution, 
solid waste generation, and energy consumption. While it is difficult 
to balance environmental impacts across all media and energy use, the 
Agency has determined that the impacts identified below are justified 
by the benefits associated with compliance with the limitations and 
standards.

A. Air Pollution

    The primary source of air pollution from landfills is due to the 
microbial breakdown of organic wastes from within the landfill. 
Landfills are known to be major sources of greenhouse gas emissions 
such as methane and carbon dioxide. These emissions are now regulated 
under the Clean Air Act as a result of the ``Standards of Performance 
for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing 
Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' promulgated by EPA on March 
12, 1996. (61 FR 9905). Many municipal solid waste landfills are 
required to collect and combust the gases generated in the landfill. 
Wastewater collected from within the landfill contains organic 
compounds which include volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP). This wastewater must be collected, treated and 
stored in units which are often open to the atmosphere and may result 
in the volatilization of certain compounds. The regulations promulgated 
today are based on the performance of an aerated biological system. 
Wastewater aeration may increase the volatilization of certain organic 
compounds, a potential environmental concern. However, indications are 
that the potential increase in air emissions due to this regulation 
will be minimal. VOCs in hazardous waste landfill leachate are being 
steadily minimized due to the RCRA land disposal restriction rules, 
which typically require aggressive destructive treatment of organics in 
hazardous wastes before the waste can be landfilled (see 40 CFR 268.40 
and 268.48).\7\ VOC levels in historic landfill leachate (from both 
hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfills dating from the 1930s to 
the mid-1990s) are also at levels which are low enough as not to call 
into question EPA's determination to base these rules on the 
performance of aerated biological systems. Tables 6-9, 6-10, and 6-13 
in Technical Development Document show the concentrations of VOCs found 
in landfill wastewater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ There are certain exceptions to these treatment requirements 
for hazardous wastewater which is disposed in surface impoundments. 
RCRA section 3005 (j) (11). However, if this wastewater contains 
VOCs above a designated concentration level, then the impoundments 
are subject to rules requiring control of the resulting air 
emissions. 40 CFR 264.1085 and 263.1086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is currently 
evaluating the air emissions from wastewater generated at municipal 
solid waste landfills, and intends to take today's rule into account in 
determining whether further controls under section 112 of the Clean Air 
Act (which requires technology-based standards for hazardous air 
pollutants emitted by major sources of emissions of those pollutants) 
are justified. (Preliminary indications are that hazardous air 
pollutant emissions from aeration would be a minor fraction of those 
from other landfill emission sources such as landfill gas emissions.)
    In addition, EPA is addressing emissions of VOCs from industrial 
wastewater through a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) under Section 
110 of the Clean Air Act. In September, 1992, EPA published a draft 
document entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from 
Industrial Wastewater'' (EPA-453/0-93-056). This document addresses 
various industries, including the hazardous waste treatment, storage, 
and disposal industry, and outlines emissions expected from their 
wastewater treatment systems and methods for controlling them.

B. Solid Waste Generation

    Solid waste will be generated due to a number of the treatment 
technologies selected as BPT/BAT for this regulation. These wastes 
include sludge from biological treatment systems and chemical 
precipitation systems. Solids from treatment processes are typically 
dewatered and disposed in the on-site landfill. Therefore, the 
increased amount of sludge created due to this regulation will be 
negligible in comparison with the daily volumes of waste processed and 
disposed of in a typical landfill.

C. Energy Requirements

    EPA estimates that the attainment of these standards will increase 
energy consumption by a very small increment over present industry use. 
The selected treatment technologies are not energy-intensive, and the 
projected increase in energy consumption is primarily due to the 
incorporation of components such as power pumps, mixers, blowers, power 
lighting and controls. The costs associated with these energy costs are 
included in EPA's estimated operating costs for compliance with the 
final rule.

VIII. Regulatory Implementation

    The purpose of this section is to provide assistance and direction 
to permit writers to aid in their implementation of this regulation. 
This section also discusses the relationship of upset and bypass 
provisions, variances and modifications, and analytical methods to the 
final limitations.

A. Implementation of Limitations and Standards

    Upon the promulgation of these regulations, all new and reissued 
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers in the 
landfills industry must include the effluent limitations for the 
appropriate subcategory. Permit writers should be aware that EPA has 
proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 122 and is currently addressing 
public comments on its proposal. One of several aspects of the proposal 
which could be particularly relevant to the development of NPDES 
permits for the Landfills Point Source Category is the proposed 
revisions of Section 122.44(a). In EPA's current thinking, the 
revisions would require that permits have limitations for all 
applicable guideline-listed pollutants but allows for the waiver of 
sampling requirements for guideline-listed pollutants on a case-by-case 
basis if the

[[Page 3032]]

discharger can certify that the pollutant is not present in the 
discharge or present in only background levels from intake water with 
no increase due to the activities of the discharger. EPA anticipates 
that new sources and new dischargers will not be eligible for this 
waiver on their first permit term, and monitoring can be re-established 
through a minor modification if the discharger expands or changes its 
process. Further, the permittee will not need to reapply for the waiver 
each permit term, but only needs to notify the permit writer of any 
modifications that have taken place over the course of the permit term 
and, if necessary, monitoring can be reestablished through a minor 
modification.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

    A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any 
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional 
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance 
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors 
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations 
concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41 (m) and 
(n).

C. Variances and Modifications

    The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations 
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of 
Section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the 
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in 
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established 
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the 
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority, 
conventional and nonconventional pollutants.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
    EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from 
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing 
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors 
considered in establishing the limitation or standards applicable to 
the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a 
``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance.
    Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from 
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and 
nonconventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional 
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA 
provided for FDF modifications from pretreatment standards for existing 
facilities. FDF variances for priority pollutants were challenged 
judicially and ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court. (Chemical 
Manufacturers Ass'n v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
    Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new 
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the 
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical 
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is 
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in 
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in 
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section 
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish 
alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for 
approval of an FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information 
submitted during the rulemaking raising the factors that are 
fundamentally different or (2) information the applicant did not have 
an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be 
no less stringent than justified by the difference and not result in 
markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the 
national limitation or standard.
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR 125 Subpart D, authorizing the Regional 
Administrators to establish alternative limitations and standards, 
further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF variance 
requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) 
identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and 
size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in determining 
if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must determine 
whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the facility in 
question is fundamentally different from the facilities and factors 
considered by EPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent 
guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g., 
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's 
ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In 
addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for limitations less 
stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if 
compliance with the national limitations would result in either (a) a 
removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered 
during development of the national limitations, or (b) a non-water 
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements) 
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during 
development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF 
variance for existing indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The 
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment 
standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct 
dischargers.
    The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity 
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the 
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in 
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that 
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's 
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact, 
fundamentally different from those factors considered by EPA in 
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulation 
incorporates a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
    An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or 
PSNS.
2. Permit Modifications
    Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit 
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain 
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration, 
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit 
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could 
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the 
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person 
may request modification of a permit be made. There are two 
classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural 
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice 
requirements. Major modifications require public notice while minor 
modifications do not. Virtually any modification that results in less 
stringent conditions is treated as a major modification, with 
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would 
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in 40 CFR 
122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes. The 
conditions for minor modifications are described in 40 CFR 122.63.

D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and Monitoring 
Requirements

    Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control the 
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United

[[Page 3033]]

States. These limitations are applied to individual facilities through 
NPDES permits issued by EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of 
the Act.
    The Agency has developed the limitations for this regulation to 
cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial category. In 
specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may elect to establish 
technology-based permit limits for pollutants not covered by this 
regulation. In addition, if State water quality standards or other 
provisions of State or Federal Law require limits on pollutants not 
covered by this regulation (or require more stringent limits on covered 
pollutants) the permitting authority must apply those limitations.
    Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations are the 
monitoring conditions set out in a NPDES permit. An integral part of 
the monitoring conditions is the point at which a facility must monitor 
to demonstrate compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can 
have a dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility. 
Therefore, it may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in 
order to ensure compliance. Authority to address internal waste streams 
is provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h). Permit writers 
may establish additional internal monitoring points to the extent 
consistent with EPA's regulations.

E. Implementation for Facilities With Landfills in Multiple 
Subcategories

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

F. Implementation for Contaminated Ground Water Flows and Wastewater 
From Recovering Pumping Wells

    As discussed in Section [III], ground water flows and wastewater 
flows from recovering pumping wells (which have very similar 
characteristics to contaminated ground water) are not subject to the 
effluent limits established in today's rule. These terms are defined in 
Section [III] of this preamble. According to the ``1992 Waste Treatment 
Industry: Landfills Questionnaire,'' there are a number of facilities 
which collect contaminated ground water in addition to flows regulated 
under this rule, and many facilities commingle these flows for 
treatment. In the Agency's analysis of contaminated ground water at 
landfills, EPA found that contaminated ground water may be very dilute 
or may have characteristics similar in nature to leachate. Due to this 
site-to-site variability, the Agency is not able to determine how the 
guidelines should be implemented for commingled flows of ground water 
and regulated wastewater.
    In the case of such facilities, EPA believes that decisions 
regarding the appropriate discharge limits should be left to the 
judgment of the permit writer. As indicated by data collected through 
the questionnaires and EPA sampling, ground water characteristics are 
often site-specific and may contain very few contaminants or may, 
conversely, exhibit characteristics similar in nature to leachate.
    In cases where the ground water is very dilute the Agency is 
concerned that contaminated ground water may be used as a dilution 
flow. In these cases, the permit writer should develop BPJ permit 
limits based on separate treatment of the flows, or develop BPJ limits 
based on a flow-weighted building block approach, in order to prevent 
dilution of the regulated leachate flows. However, in cases where the 
ground water may exhibit characteristics similar to leachate, 
commingled treatment may be appropriate, cost effective and 
environmentally beneficial. EPA recommends that the permit writer 
consider the characteristics of the contaminated ground water before 
making a determination if commingling ground water and leachate for 
treatment is appropriate. EPA recommends that the permit writer refer 
to the leachate characteristics data in Chapter 6 of the Technical 
Development Document in order to determine whether contaminated ground 
water at a landfill has characteristics similar to leachate.

G. Implementation for Subtitle D Landfills Which Received Newly Listed 
Hazardous Wastes in the Past

    There are situations where a Subtitle D landfill received wastes 
that, at the time, were not classified as hazardous, but since disposal 
of the waste, EPA now classifies that type of waste as hazardous. In 
these situations, leachate that is derived from the treatment, storage, 
or disposal of listed hazardous wastes is classified as a hazardous 
waste by virtue of the ``derived-from'' rule in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2). The 
Agency has been very clear in the past on the applicability of 
hazardous waste listings to wastes disposed of prior to the effective 
date of a listing, even if the landfill ceases disposal of the waste 
when the waste becomes hazardous. 53 FR 31147 (August 17, 1988). EPA 
also has a well-established interpretation that listings likewise apply 
to leachate derived from the disposal of listed hazardous wastes, 
including leachate derived from wastes (which meet the listing 
description) disposed before a listing effective date. Id. EPA's 
interpretations were upheld by the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit in Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. EPA, 869 F.2d 
1526, 1536-37 (D.C. Cir. 1989). (These points are restated here to 
provide context. EPA is not reconsidering or in any other way reopening 
these principles for comment or review.)
    This does not mean that landfills holding wastes which are now 
listed as hazardous become subject to Subtitle C regulation. However, 
previously disposed wastes now meeting the listing description, 
including residues such as leachate and gas collection condensate which 
are derived from such wastes and are actively managed (i.e., collected 
for discharge), do become subject to Subtitle C regulation. 53 FR 
31149. Thus, in these types of situations, a non-hazardous Subtitle D 
landfill will produce a leachate that is subject to Subtitle C 
regulation. In many cases, however, as discussed at 64 FR 6807, no 
significant regulatory consequences under RCRA result from leachate 
management.
    As discussed at Section [III] above, EPA established two different 
sets of effluent limitations for the landfills point source category 
based on the RCRA classification of the landfill, and not the RCRA 
classification of the leachate. Therefore, according to the 
subcategorization scheme adopted by EPA in today's rule, a hazardous, 
Subtitle C leachate generated from a

[[Page 3034]]

non-hazardous, Subtitle D landfill is subject to the effluent 
limitations for the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA concluded that such 
an approach was appropriate because EPA's Non-Hazardous subcategory 
landfill database reflects those facilities that may, as a result of 
future RCRA hazardous waste listings, generate a hazardous leachate in 
the future. However, due to both pollutant-specific and site-specific 
factors in these types of situations, EPA determined that the local 
permit writer may need to require monitoring of pollutants in addition 
to those required by this rule for the Non-Hazardous subcategory in 
order to ensure appropriate treatment of the hazardous, Subtitle C 
leachate.
    EPA does not believe that these types of situations are very 
common, and therefore EPA concluded that the determination of effluent 
limitations for additional pollutant parameters will have only a 
minimal impact on the permit writer. Since the majority of Subtitle D 
landfills discharge indirectly to POTWs, and since EPA did not 
establish pretreatment standards for either non-hazardous or hazardous 
landfills, the local control authority will not need to make the 
determination in these cases.
    EPA recommends that the permit writer refer to the leachate 
characteristics data in Chapter 6 of the Technical Development Document 
in order to determine whether the leachate resembles Subtitle C or 
Subtitle D leachate and whether monitoring requirements in addition to 
those for the Non-Hazardous subcategory are necessary.

H. Implementation for Superfund Response Actions at Landfills

    This section addresses compliance with the landfills effluent 
limitations promulgated today when CERCLA response action is taken at a 
landfill. In cases where a Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill is also 
subject to response action under the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, also known 
as Superfund, it is possible that the landfills effluent guideline may 
be an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR) for the 
Superfund site.
    CERCLA directed EPA to identify abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous 
waste sites and to clean up the worst of these sites. The Agency 
carries out these responsibilities through the Superfund response 
process, according to procedures outlined in the National Oil and 
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Section 
121(d)(1) of CERCLA as amended by the 1986 Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act (SARA) requires that on-site remedial actions must 
attain (or waive), at completion of the action, federal or more 
stringent state applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARARs) 
environmental law. The 1990 National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires 
compliance with ARARs during remedial actions as well as at completion 
and compels attainment of ARARs during removal actions whenever 
practicable. See 40 CFR 300.415(j) and 300.435(b)(2). Therefore, CWA 
limitations, such as those promulgated today, may be applicable or 
relevant and appropriate to hazardous substances discharged on-site 
into surface water from a Superfund site.
    CWA requirements are intimately connected to CERCLA as all 126 CWA 
priority toxic pollutants are CERCLA hazardous substances (CERCLA 
Section 101(14)). EPA thus has the authority under Superfund to respond 
to releases of priority toxic pollutants. EPA also must adhere to or 
waive ``applicable'' or ``relevant and appropriate'' CWA standards 
during on-site response actions.
    ``Applicable'' requirements are those cleanup standards, standards 
of control, and other substantive environmental protection 
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or 
timely identified state law that specifically address a hazardous 
substance, pollutant, or contaminant, remedial action, location, or 
other circumstance at a Superfund site (40 CFR 300.5). Basically, to be 
applicable, a requirement must directly and fully address a CERCLA 
activity. For example, the Hazardous subcategory landfill effluent 
limitations could be considered applicable for a CERCLA landfill that 
collects and discharges landfill leachate (or other wastewater 
regulated by the landfills guideline) on-site to a surface water. 
Because the landfill effluent guidelines did not establish pretreatment 
standards, today's rule would not be ``applicable'' for a CERCLA 
landfill discharging indirectly to a POTW. Determining which standards 
will be applicable to a Superfund response is similar to determining 
the applicability of any law or regulation to any chemical, action, or 
location. The lead or support agency must examine federal and state 
statutes and regulations to identify those which directly govern 
response activities.
    CERCLA, in addition to incorporating ``applicable'' environmental 
laws and regulations into the response process, requires compliance 
with (or waiver of) other ``relevant and appropriate'' standards. A 
requirement which is not applicable may be relevant and appropriate if 
it addresses problems or pertains to circumstances similar to those 
encountered at a Superfund site. ``Relevant and Appropriate'' 
requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, or 
other substantive environmental provisions that while not applicable 
address sufficiently similar situations or problems to those 
encountered at a Superfund site such that their use is well-suited to 
the particular site. 40 CFR 300.5 and 300.400(g)(2). A requirement may 
be ``relevant'' in that it covers situations similar to that at the 
site, but may not be ``appropriate'' to apply for various reasons and, 
therefore, not well-suited to the site.
    The types of legal requirements applying to Superfund responses 
will differ to some extent depending upon whether the activity in 
question takes place on site or off site. In the case of CERCLA 
actions, a direct discharge of Superfund wastewater would be considered 
on site if the receiving water body is in the area of contamination or 
is in very close proximity to the site and necessary for implementation 
of the response action (even if the water body flows off site). 
``CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual'' Chapter 3, ``Guidance for 
Compliance with Clean Water Act Requirements,'' (EPA, August 8, 1988).
    For response actions that are on-site, the site must comply with or 
waive both ``applicable'' as well as ``relevant and appropriate 
requirements.'' However, EPA does not need to comply with procedural 
environmental requirements on site. In addition, CERCLA Section 
121(e)(2) states that no Federal, State or local permit (e.g., a permit 
for a direct discharge to surface waters) is required for the portion 
of any removal or remedial action conducted entirely on-site. 
Therefore, Superfund sites are not required to obtain permits for on-
site actions. For off site actions, a CERCLA response generally must 
comply only with all applicable law.
    Therefore, administrative NPDES standards, such as the permit and 
certification requirements required by today's rule, are applicable to 
CERCLA discharges to off-site surface water. Because only surface water 
that is within or in very close proximity to an area of contamination 
is considered on site, most CERCLA response actions will trigger 
administrative NPDES standards.
    Also see ``CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual'' at p. 1-65 
(EPA,

[[Page 3035]]

August 8, 1988); Final NCP, 59 FR 47416 (Sept. 15, 1994).

I. Implementation for TSCA Landfills

    Concern over the toxicity and persistence in the environment of 
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) led Congress in 1976 to enact 
Sec. 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that included 
among other things, prohibitions on the manufacture, processing, and 
distribution in commerce of PCBs. Thus, TSCA legislated true ``cradle 
to grave'' (i.e., from manufacture to disposal) management of PCBs in 
the United States. Today's guidelines do not apply to landfills that 
are only permitted under TSCA as Chemical Waste Landfills. Rather, it 
applies only to those landfills subject to the requirements under 
Subtitle C or Subtitle D of RCRA. However, landfills that are subject 
to Subtitle C or D of RCRA and are also permitted under TSCA will be 
subject to the landfills effluent limitations guidelines promulgated 
today. In fact, at least one of the landfills sampled by EPA (and 
selected as BAT) for the Hazardous subcategory, is a Chemical Waste 
Landfill permitted under TSCA and is also a Subtitle C landfill under 
RCRA.

J. Implementation for Landfills Located at Centralized Waste Treatment 
Facilities

    EPA is in the process of developing guidelines for Centralized 
Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities which will be promulgated next year. 
As previously explained at Section [III], this part does not apply to 
landfills operated in conjunction with CWT facilities that will be 
subject to 40 CFR Part 437 (when issued) so long as the CWT facility 
commingles the landfill wastewater with other non-landfill wastewater 
for discharge. A landfill directly associated with a CWT facility is 
subject to this part if the CWT facility discharges landfill wastewater 
separately from other CWT wastewater or commingles the wastewater from 
its landfill only with wastewater from other landfills.
    For example, under current thinking, following promulgation of the 
CWT guidelines, a landfill treatment system that accepts wastewater 
from a non-landfill source for treatment would be a CWT and subject to 
the CWT guidelines and standards to be codified at 40 CFR Part 437. 
However, a landfill treatment system that only accepted wastewater for 
treatment generated off-site from off-site landfills would be subject 
to the landfill guidelines.

K. Determination of Similar Wastes for Captive Landfill Facilities

    As discussed at Section [III] above, the Agency concluded that 
discharges from captive landfills should not be subject to the 
guidelines if the captive landfills only accepted waste for disposal 
from another facility that was similar to the waste generated by the 
industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the 
landfill. This section offers guidance to permit writers for 
determining whether a solid waste received for disposal in a captive 
landfill is similar to those wastes generated by the facility directly 
associated with the landfill.
    According to EPA's database, many of the industrial or commercial 
facilities that operate captive landfills are subject to effluent 
limitations guidelines in 40 CFR Subchapter N. For the most part, 
facilities subject to a particular industrial category effluent 
guideline produce similar types of wastes. Therefore, EPA decided that 
this rule does not apply to landfills operated in conjunction with 
other industrial or commercial operations when the landfill receives 
wastes generated by the industrial or commercial operation directly 
associated with the landfill and also receives other wastes generated 
by a facility that is subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR 
Subchapter N as the waste-receiving facility.
    However, there are cases where a captive landfill is directly 
associated with an industrial or commercial operation that is not 
subject to an effluent guideline. Or, a facility, subject to an 
effluent guideline, may operate a landfill in conjunction with 
industrial or commercial operations, but may also accept other wastes 
from facilities that are not subject to the same effluent guideline or 
not subject to an effluent guideline at all. In these cases, the permit 
writer must determine whether the other wastes received for disposal 
are of similar nature to the wastes generated by the industrial or 
commercial operation directly associated with the landfill. In cases 
where the permit writer determines that the other waste accepted by the 
captive landfill is not similar to the waste generated by the 
industrial or commercial activity directly associated with the 
landfill, then the landfill wastewater will be subject to the landfills 
effluent limitations. However, if the permit writer determines that the 
wastes are similar, then the wastewater from the captive landfill 
should be subject to the same categorical effluent guideline (or BPJ 
limitations) as the industrial or commercial facility.
    A permit writer should consider the following factors in deciding 
whether other wastes received by a captive landfill are similar to 
those wastes generated by the industrial or commercial operation 
directly associated with the landfill:
    1. Are the other wastes received from facilities that are subject 
to the same provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N as the facility directly 
associated with the captive landfill?

    If so, then the landfills effluent guidelines do not apply to 
this captive landfill. If not, then the permit writer should 
consider the other factors listed below.

    2. Are the other wastes received from facilities that are part of 
the same effluent guidelines ``grouping'' as described in Chapter 2 of 
the Landfills Technical Development Document?

    If so, it is likely that the wastes are similar and the 
landfills effluent guidelines do not apply. In the Landfills 
Technical Development Document, EPA grouped the industrial 
categories under Subchapter N into six groups: Organics, Metals, 
Inorganics and Non-metals, Pesticides, Explosives, and Asbestos. It 
is likely that industries within the same industrial effluent 
guideline ``grouping'' will generate similar types of constituents 
in the solid wastes, and the leachate resulting from the disposal of 
these wastes will be controlled adequately by the effluent 
limitation for the industrial or commercial facility directly 
associated with the captive landfill. However, this may not always 
be the case, and therefore EPA left to the local control authority 
the determination of whether the landfills effluent guideline should 
apply to a captive landfill that accepts wastes from other 
facilities that are not subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR 
Subchapter N. The local permitting authority will determine whether 
a captive landfill which accepts wastes from other industrial 
activities apart from those directly associated with the landfill is 
subject to today's guidelines based on the similarity of the other 
wastes and the likelihood that these wastes will result in leachate 
that is compatible with the wastewater treatment technology used to 
treat the landfill leachate.

    3. In the case of hazardous captive landfills, do the other wastes 
being received have the same hazardous waste codes as those generated 
at the facility directly associated with the landfill?

    If so, it is possible that the wastes are similar. However, this 
may not always be the case, and therefore EPA left to the local 
control authority the determination of whether the landfills 
effluent guideline should apply to a captive landfill that accepts 
wastes from other facilities that are not subject to the same 
provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N.

    4. Is a significant portion of the waste deposited in the landfill 
from the industrial or commercial operation that

[[Page 3036]]

is directly associated with the captive landfill?

    The control authority should analyze the number of customers and 
the amount of the off-site or inter-company waste deposited relative 
to the quantity of on-site or intracompany waste placed in the 
captive landfill. Again, the main reason for the exclusion for 
captive landfills is that their leachate should resemble the 
industrial wastewater of the operation directly associated with the 
landfill, and therefore, the landfill leachate will be adequately 
controlled by the applicable industrial effluent guidelines. 
However, this logic is only applicable when the bulk of the waste 
placed in the landfill is of similar content to that being produced 
by the industrial facility directly associated with the landfill. 
Therefore, when applying the captive exclusion, the control 
authority should analyze the volume and characteristics of waste 
received from inter-company waste transfers in determining whether 
the leachate generated by the captive landfill will have similar 
characteristics to the industrial wastewater generated by the 
company owning the landfill.

    5. Is the facility that is directly associated with the captive 
landfill deriving revenues from waste disposal at the landfill?

    In developing the exclusion for captive landfills, EPA's intent 
was to exclude those non-commercial landfills that are directly 
associated with an industrial or commercial operation and whose 
leachate is currently being adequately addressed by the facility's 
categorical or BPJ limitations. EPA believes that where revenues are 
being derived from the collection of fees for solid waste disposal 
at a captive landfill, the facility is accepting wastes on a 
commercial basis--wastes that may well be dissimilar to that being 
disposed of at the landfill. The captive exception is premised on 
the fact that in most cases leachate from a landfill associated with 
an industrial operation will resemble the industrial process 
wastewater generated by the industrial operation, and therefore, the 
landfill leachate will be adequately controlled by the applicable 
industrial effluent guidelines or BPJ limitations. However, this is 
a reasonable assumption only in circumstances where the waste placed 
in the landfill is of similar content to that being produced by the 
industrial operation directly associated with the landfill. It is 
likely that a commercial landfill may accept significant volumes of 
waste that are not similar to the wastes generated by the industrial 
operation directly associated with the landfill.

    6. Is the industrial or commercial facility directly associated 
with the captive landfill accepting wastes for disposal as part of 
public service activities?

    If so, and the facility does not receive a fee or other 
remuneration for the disposal service, the captive landfill is not 
subject to this rule. EPA defines public service activities in 
Appendix A of this preamble.

L. Analytical Methods

    Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate 
guidelines establishing test methods for the analysis of pollutants. 
These methods are used to determine the presence and concentration of 
pollutants in wastewater, and are used for compliance monitoring and 
for filing applications for the NPDES program under 40 CFR 122.21, 
122.41, 122.44 and 123.25, and for the implementation of the 
pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA has 
promulgated methods for conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants, and 
for some nonconventional pollutants. The five conventional pollutants 
are defined at 40 CFR 401.16. Table I-B at 40 CFR 136 lists the 
analytical methods approved for these pollutants. The 65 toxic metals 
and organic pollutants and classes of pollutants are defined at 40 CFR 
401.15. From the list of 65 classes of toxic pollutants EPA identified 
a list of 126 ``Priority Pollutants.'' This list of Priority Pollutants 
is shown, for example, at 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. The list 
includes non-pesticide organic pollutants, metal pollutants, cyanide, 
asbestos, and pesticide pollutants. Currently approved methods for 
metals and cyanide are included in the table of approved inorganic test 
procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I-B. Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists 
approved methods for measurement of non-pesticide organic pollutants, 
and Table I-D lists approved methods for the toxic pesticide pollutants 
and for other pesticide pollutants. Dischargers must use the test 
methods promulgated at 40 CFR 136.3 or incorporated by reference in the 
tables, when available, to monitor pollutant discharges from Landfills, 
unless specified otherwise by the permitting authority.
    The final rule establishes limitations for BOD5, TSS, 
pH, ammonia, arsenic (total), chromium (total), zinc (total), alpha 
terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, naphthalene, and 
pyridine. Except for aniline, benzoic acid, p-cresol, and pyridine, 
there are methods specified for these pollutants at 40 CFR 136.3. 
Although these four pollutants are not directly covered in the list of 
approved methods, EPA has successfully used Methods 625 and 1625 to 
measure these semivolatile pollutants. EPA has collected analytical 
data for these four pollutants and for other pollutants of interest in 
the wastewater program using Methods 625 and 1625. One of the 
pollutants, alpha terpineol, is currently an analyte in Method 1625 but 
not in Method 625. EPA has also collected data for alpha terpineol 
using Method 625 to provide greater flexibility in the selection of an 
analytical method for monitoring discharges. As part of today's final 
rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR Part 136.3, Appendix A, to add attachments 
to EPA Methods 625 and 1625 with method performance criteria for 
additional pollutants, including the pollutants of concern for 
Landfills. The modified versions of Methods 625 and 1625 will allow the 
analysis of all semivolatile organic pollutants in today's final rule.
    EPA proposed to amend Methods 625 and 1625 to include additional 
pollutants as part of the Centralized Waste Treatment proposal last 
year (64 FR 2345). Since then, EPA has gathered data on additional 
analytes. The attachments to Methods 625 and 1625 consist of text, 
performance data, and quality control (QC) acceptance criteria for the 
additional analytes. This information will allow a laboratory to 
practice the methods with the additional analytes as an integral part. 
The QC acceptance criteria for the additional analytes were determined 
in single-laboratory studies. The collected data are summarized in a 
report in the docket for today's rulemaking.

IX. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is a not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

[[Page 3037]]

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that has 
annual revenues less than $6 million (i.e., the definition for SIC 
4953, Refuse Systems); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district 
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA prepared 
a detailed assessment of the impacts of today's rule on small entities. 
This assessment is included in the ``Economic Analysis of Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfill Category,'' which 
is summarized in Section [V], above, and is part of the Record for 
today's rule. Today's rule establishes requirements applicable to 
landfill facilities owned by both small businesses and small 
governmental jurisdictions. We determined that, of the 138 facilities 
expected to incur costs, only 39 facilities are small entities. Of 
these two are privately owned and 37 are government owned. The 
projected costs for these entities are low--in all cases less than one 
percent of revenues. Further, EPA projects that only two facilities 
owned by small entities will incur economic impacts such as facility 
closure. Further, EPA's assessment project no economic impacts, such as 
plant closure, for these small entities, Although this final rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule 
on small entities. The Agency considered various technology options in 
establishing a basis for today's effluent limitations. The Agency's 
analysis specifically included economic impacts to the regulated 
community. While complying with the statute, EPA also reduced 
regulatory impacts by selecting economically achievable and cost-
reasonable options.

C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective February 18, 2000.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains no information collection requirements. 
Therefore, this rule is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. EPA has estimated total annualized costs of the 
rule as $ 7.64 million (1998$, post-tax). Thus, today's rule is not 
subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. EPA determined that no small governments are significantly 
affected by this rule as discussed in Part B. of this section. Thus, 
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of the 
UMRA.

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that

[[Page 3038]]

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's Rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments because EPA determined that no 
communities of Indian tribal governments are affected by this rule. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that 
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule will not impose 
substantial costs on States and localities. The rule establishes 
effluent limitations imposing requirements that apply to landfills when 
they discharge wastewater. The rule does not apply directly to States 
and applies to localities only when they operate a municipal landfill 
that discharges wastewater. The rule will only affect States when they 
are administering CWA permitting programs. The final rule, at most, 
imposes minimal administrative costs on States if the States have an 
authorized NPDES programs. (These States must incorporate the new 
limitations in new and reissued NPDES permits). Similarly, local 
governments operating directly discharging landfills will not 
experience substantial cost. The cost of complying with this guideline 
will not be significantly greater than current costs of meeting 
existing NPDES permit limits. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 
the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, under Section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub L. No. 
104-113 Sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard 
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the Agency decided 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Today's final rule requires dischargers to monitor for 3 metals, 7 
organic pollutants, BOD5, TSS, ammonia and pH. EPA performed 
a search of the technical literature to identify any applicable 
analytical test methods from industry, academia, voluntary consensus 
standard bodies and other parties that could be used to measure the 
analytes in today's final guideline. EPA's search revealed that there 
are consensus standards for many of the analytes already specified in 
40 CFR Part 136.3. Pollutants in today's rule with consensus methods 
already specified in 40 CFR Part 136.3 include the metals, 
BOD5, TSS, ammonia, pH, phenol, and naphthalene. Pollutants 
without consensus methods include alpha terpineol, aniline, pyridine, 
p-cresol, and benzoic acid. EPA did not identify applicable consensus 
methods for these five pollutants. EPA may promulgate consensus methods 
for these pollutants in a future rulemaking if such methods become 
available.

I. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health

    The Executive Order ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that is determined to be (1) ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is 
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

X. Summary of Proposal Comments and Responses

    The following section describes the major comments on the proposed 
rule, and EPA's responses. The public record includes a full comment 
summary and response document for this rulemaking.
    Forty-eight commenters provided detailed comments on the February 
6, 1998 proposal. In all, the comments dealt with 32 separate aspects 
of the proposal. The following responds to the most significant of the 
comments.
    Comment: EPA's selection of biological treatment as BPT/BAT for all 
non-hazardous landfills is inappropriate because the technology is not 
effective at utility ash monofills whose leachate does not contain 
sufficient biologically degradable organic material to sustain a 
biological treatment system.
    Response: EPA agrees that there are certain landfill facilities in 
the Non-Hazardous subcategory, such as utility ash monofills, that 
would have difficulty operating biological treatment systems due to the 
low organic content of the wastewater. In these circumstances, such 
facilities may need to install different treatment systems to ensure 
compliance with the promulgated limits. However, one of the several ash 
monofill facilities sampled by EPA currently meets these limitations 
and therefore will not need to install any additional treatment 
technologies in order to comply with the landfills rule.
    For the final rule, EPA re-evaluated available technology for 
reducing pollutant discharges from landfills with low organic content 
wastewater. EPA's data on ash monofills showed that two regulated 
pollutants (ammonia and phenol) could be found at concentrations which 
do not meet the BPT/BAT limitations. In addition, because various 
metals may be expected to be present in ash monofill

[[Page 3039]]

wastewater, EPA also considered the treatment of zinc (the only metal 
for which EPA promulgated a limitation for the Non-Hazardous 
subcategory) in evaluating the treatment technologies for monofills 
with low organic content.
    EPA concluded that breakpoint chlorination would likely be the most 
practicable and economic alternative technology for the removal of 
ammonia at non-hazardous facilities that cannot sustain or chose not to 
install biological treatment. For landfill facilities that require 
removal of both phenol and zinc, EPA evaluated granular activated 
carbon as a non-biological alternative treatment technology. EPA also 
looked at the cost of these alternate treatment technologies to meet 
the final limits. For the final rule, EPA costed two ash monofill 
facilities for treatment of ammonia, phenol, and zinc using a 
combination of breakpoint chlorination and granular activated carbon. 
Based on this assessment, EPA has concluded that there are viable 
alternative technologies available to facilities with low 
BOD5, such as ash monofills, to treat ammonia, phenol, and 
zinc that are comparable to those biological treatment systems found to 
be economically achievable for the landfill industry generally. These 
treatment systems may be installed at costs comparable to those for 
biological treatment. In these circumstances, EPA has concluded that it 
should not develop separate limitations for utility ash monofills.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that EPA further develop its 
database to assess adequately the influence of age-related changes on 
the concentrations and quality of pollutants in Subtitle D landfill 
leachate.
    Response: EPA considered whether age-related changes in leachate 
concentrations of pollutants necessitate different discharge limits for 
different age classes of landfills. Several considerations lead to the 
conclusion that age-related limits are not appropriate.
    First, a facility's wastewater treatment system typically receives 
and commingles leachate from several landfills or cells of different 
ages. The Agency has not observed any facility which has found it 
advantageous or necessary to treat age-related leachates separately. 
The Agency did, however, sample two landfill facilities that had only 
one cell. One of the facilities had been receiving wastes for nine 
years in its landfill cell, while the other facility had only been 
receiving waste for one year. EPA compared the raw wastewater 
concentrations of the constituents in these two cells and found the 
concentrations to be very similar. In addition, most of the 
constituents in both cells were close to the median raw wastewater 
concentration for the Non-Hazardous subcategory. Second, based on 
responses to the questionnaire, discussions with landfill operators and 
historical data, EPA understands that leachate pollutant concentrations 
appear to change substantially over the first two to five years of 
operation but then change only slowly thereafter.
    These two observations imply that treatment systems must be 
designed to accommodate the full range of concentrations expected in 
influent wastewater. EPA concluded that the BPT/BAT/NSPS treatment 
technologies are able to treat the variations in landfill wastewater 
likely to occur due to age-related changes. EPA has taken into account 
the ability of treatment systems to accommodate age-related changes in 
leachate concentrations, as well as short-term fluctuations by 
promulgating effluent limitations which reflect the variability 
observed in monitoring data spanning up to three years.
    Additionally, EPA addressed age-related effects on treatment 
technologies, costs, and pollutant loads by utilizing data collected 
from a variety of landfills in various stages of age and operation 
(e.g., closed, inactive, active). EPA sampled landfills of various ages 
and stages of operation (active, inactive, closed), lined and unlined, 
and concluded that the landfill database used to develop the effluent 
limitations represents leachate typically found at Subtitle D 
landfills. In addition, EPA received comments from several commenters 
stating that the leachate characterization data presented in the 
proposal was consistent with their own monitoring data.
    In response to comments, EPA evaluated the data from non-hazardous 
landfill facilities of different ages to compare general raw leachate 
characteristics. When EPA compared landfills of various ages from EPA's 
landfill effluent guidelines database, it was difficult to pinpoint any 
particular trends (i.e. organic pollutant concentrations decrease 
significantly with age). The absence of any particular trend associated 
with pollutant concentrations across landfill facilities of various 
ages may be due to the fact that most of the older landfill facilities 
in EPA's database have newer landfill cells whose leachate is 
commingled for treatment with the leachate from the older landfill 
cells. For example, a landfill facility that may have opened prior to 
1980 may have landfill cells that opened since 1991 which contribute a 
large portion of the leachate flow. EPA acknowledges that age-related 
changes in landfill leachate characteristics would be expected from 
individual landfill cells. Most of the older landfill cells have lower 
concentrations of BOD5, COD, and most organic pollutants 
indicating a smaller amount of degradable compounds from the aged 
waste. \8\ In addition, aged leachates contain high levels of 
chemically reduced compounds, such as ammonia, and high chlorides 
because of the anaerobic environment of the landfill. These trends tend 
to be true for individual landfill cells. However, when looking at a 
landfill facility as a whole (where a facility commingles leachates 
from several cells of various ages for treatment), the landfills 
effluent guidelines database does not fully support such a trend. In 
EPA's data collection efforts, EPA did not identify any landfill 
facilities that treated leachate from different aged cells separately. 
Based on the fact that landfill facilities commingle leachate from 
cells of various ages for treatment, EPA concluded that its leachate 
effluent database appropriately represents the landfills industry 
covered by this guideline, and that the pollutant concentrations found 
at landfill facilities of various ages did not vary significantly as to 
warrant different treatment technologies for landfills of different 
ages. As mentioned above, the Agency sampled raw wastewater at two 
landfill cells of different ages and found the concentrations of 
constituents to be very similar. EPA concluded that neither the age nor 
the size of the landfill facility will directly affect the treatability 
of the landfill wastewater. For the non-hazardous landfills, the most 
pertinent factors for establishing the limitations are costs of 
treatment and the level of effluent reductions obtainable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Eckenfelder, Welsey. Industrial Pollution Control, New York: 
McGraw-Hill, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: EPA's sampling data may not be a true reflection of 
Subtitle D leachates as a result of the time at which EPA collected its 
sampling data. Between the years of 1992 and 1995, when most of EPA's 
data collection activities were underway, most of the lined Subtitle D 
landfills had only recently begun accepting waste. As a result, EPA's 
data reflect relatively new landfills that tend to have less 
concentrated leachate since it usually takes 9-15 months after opening 
a new cell before the leachate begins to strengthen. In addition, EPA's 
sampling included leachate being collected from unlined landfills that 
could be diluted by the influence of ground water and, therefore, was 
not representative of

[[Page 3040]]

more concentrated leachates found in lined Subtitle D landfills.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' conclusions. EPA 
sampled landfills of various ages and stages of operation (active, 
inactive, closed), lined and unlined, and is confident that the 
landfill database represents leachate typically found at Subtitle D 
landfills. A number of commenters also share this view. These 
commenters stated that the leachate characterization data presented in 
the proposal was consistent with the results of their own monitoring.
    EPA characterized wastewater from non-hazardous landfills based on 
data from several different sources including industry responses to 
EPA's detailed questionnaires, monitoring reports, industry supplied 
data, and data from landfills sampled by EPA. Several non-hazardous 
landfill facilities responding to the ``Waste Treatment Industry 
Questionnaire Phase II: Landfills, Part I, Technical Information, 
1994'' (Detailed Questionnaire) began accepting waste prior to 1931. 
The majority of the landfill facilities responding to the 
questionnaire, however, began receiving wastes after 1971. Only sixteen 
of the 204 non-hazardous landfills in EPA's Detailed Questionnaire 
database began accepting waste as recently as 1992. Therefore, EPA has 
concluded that landfill facilities of all ages were well represented in 
EPA's Detailed Questionnaire database.
    In addition, EPA sampling episodes comprised a large portion of the 
wastewater characterization data for Subtitle D landfills. EPA sampled 
twelve different non-hazardous landfill facilities during a two year 
period from 1993 to 1995. The period of years in which the landfills 
sampled by EPA began accepting wastes ranged from 1962 to 1994.
    Grouping the sampled facilities according to the year the facility 
began accepting waste and by regulatory history, there are four pre-
1980 landfill facilities (before 1980 Section 3001 of RCRA); one 
landfill facility that falls in the 1980 to 1983 range (before the 1984 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment to RCRA); five landfill facilities 
that fall in the 1984 to 1988 range (before Land Disposal Restrictions 
(LDR)); and three landfill facilities that are post-1988 (after LDR). 
EPA sampled only one ``new'' landfill facility. It opened in 1994 and 
EPA sampled the following year. All other landfill facilities sampled 
by EPA were between four years and 32 years of age at the time of 
sampling. EPA agrees with the commenter that relatively new landfill 
facilities tend to have less concentrated leachates. However, EPA 
combined the data from the one new facility sampled with 
characterization data from 12 other landfill facilities that have an 
average age of 13 years. In addition, for the most part, these other 
landfill facilities commingled leachates from cells of differing ages 
and stages of operation. The Agency did not identify any landfill 
facilities which found it advantageous or necessary to treat leachates 
from landfill cells of different ages separately. Most landfill 
leachates sampled by EPA were composite samples of several cells. 
Therefore, EPA concluded that the landfills sampled and the resulting 
data in the EPA database adequately represent Subtitle D leachates.
    The commenters also claim that during the years EPA collected data, 
most lined landfill cells were just being constructed or had just begun 
operating. Although this may be true, all of the landfills (and cells) 
chosen by EPA for sampling were lined, with the exception of one 
facility and one landfill at another facility. EPA specifically 
selected lined landfills with leachate collection systems for sampling 
visits because these facilities would be more likely to employ advanced 
leachate treatment, and facilities with advanced treatment were under 
consideration as BAT. Even though federal regulations for Subtitle D 
landfills are fairly recent, several states were already implementing 
requirements similar to the current Subtitle D regulations prior to the 
enactment of the federal regulations. Therefore landfills in many 
states (e.g., CA, NY, NJ, and PA) incorporated lining and leachate 
collection systems in advance of federal requirements.
    Another commenter also stated that leachate from unlined landfills 
may be diluted by ground water, and therefore, would not be 
representative of more concentrated leachates found in lined Subtitle D 
landfills. EPA collected leachate data from only two unlined landfills 
out of the 13 sampled. EPA has determined that the leachate from one of 
the unlined landfills sampled by EPA was unlikely to be diluted by 
ground water because the leachate is collected by two gravity flow 
sumps located well above the water table. The other unlined landfill 
sampled by EPA is also unlikely to be diluted by ground water since the 
collection system is located 12 feet above the water table. In 
addition, this facility commingled the leachate collected from the 
unlined landfill with the leachate from the lined landfill at the 
facility. In these circumstances, EPA determined that these data 
adequately represent the concentrations of leachate found at Subtitle D 
landfills.
    Comment: EPA should further subcategorize the Subtitle D landfills 
because it is not appropriate to have the same effluent limitations for 
both municipal solid waste landfills and non-municipal solid waste 
landfills (or monofills).
    Response: EPA decided to include non-municipal solid waste 
landfills (including monofills) in the same Non-Hazardous subcategory 
as municipal solid waste landfills and concluded that, based on the 
available raw wastewater data, such facilities can meet the BPT/BAT 
limitations using available technologies. EPA did consider 
subcategorizing the Non-Hazardous subcategory further but chose not to 
be based on several factors.
    EPA did not choose to further subcategorize Subtitle D landfill 
facilities because the leachate characteristics from monofills, 
ashfills, construction and demolition landfills, sludge landfills, and 
non-municipal solid waste co-disposal sites were comparable to the 
leachate characteristics from municipal solid waste landfills. EPA 
found that the pollutants present in dedicated monofills were a subset 
of those pollutants found at municipal solid waste landfills, at 
comparable concentrations, with many parameters found at lower 
concentrations than typically found at municipal solid waste landfills, 
as shown in Table 5-3 in the Technical Development Document.
    EPA evaluated data from monofills in the EPA database and from 
commenters submitting monofill data, as presented in Chapter 5 in the 
Development Document, and determined that there are differences in 
wastewater characteristics between different types of monofills. Most 
of these differences result from the fact that not all monofills accept 
the same types of waste. The greatest difference observed was between 
monofills that accept organic wastes and those that do not. EPA 
concluded that monofills that accepted wastes containing organic 
material could meet the promulgated limitations using biological 
treatment and, therefore, were similar enough to other landfills in the 
subcategory to warrant inclusion. For those monofills that do not 
accept organic wastes, EPA found that many of the facilities could meet 
the subcategory limitations without treatment, and for those that could 
not, alternative technologies were available at cost no greater than 
those technologies EPA evaluated (and determined) to be economically 
achievable for the subcategory as a whole. EPA included the costs 
associated with these alternate

[[Page 3041]]

technologies in the final cost impact analysis.
    As a result of its study of the various types of monofills, EPA 
determined that a single subcategory for all monofills would still not 
address the situation where a certain class of constituents is 
regulated even though not all types of monofills contain those 
constituents (e.g., a utility ash monofill with low raw wastewater 
BOD5 concentrations would still be in the same subcategory 
as a sludge monofill which may contain moderate levels of 
BOD5 ). Therefore, EPA would need to establish a separate 
subcategory for each type of monofill to address the differences among 
monofills. Rather than develop multiple monofill subcategories, EPA 
decided that because the types of pollutants and concentrations of 
pollutants found at monofills were, for the most part, equivalent to or 
less than those found at municipal solid waste landfills, a single 
subcategory would be appropriate for Subtitle D landfills.
    Comment: One commenter, a wastewater treatment technology vendor, 
submitted two sets of comments concerning EPA's evaluation of BAT 
Option III (reverse osmosis following biological treatment). The 
commenter disagreed with the BAT Option III stating that the Pall 
Rochem Disc Tube\TM\ technology does not require biological 
pretreatment.
    Response: EPA agrees that the Pall Rochem Disc Tube\TM\ technology 
may effectively treat landfill leachate without prior biological 
treatment. EPA sampled the Rochem unit at a landfill that did not 
employ biological treatment and the Rochem unit was very effective at 
treating the landfill leachate. The data from EPA sampling is contained 
in the regulatory record for this rule.
    However, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the methodology used 
to evaluate BAT was incorrect. As discussed in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (63 FR 6443), EPA evaluated BAT treatment options as an 
increment to the baseline treatment technology used to develop BPT 
limits. Therefore, the BAT Option III consisted of BPT Option II 
(biological treatment followed by multimedia filtration) followed by a 
single stage reverse osmosis unit. For the analysis, EPA concluded that 
a biological system followed by multimedia filtration would already 
remove the majority of toxic pollutants, leaving the single-stage 
reverse osmosis to treat the very low levels of pollutants that 
remained. Additionally, EPA concluded that the limits under BAT would 
not be significantly more stringent than BPT because the BPT technology 
was already treating most pollutants to very low levels.
    Additionally, the selection of the BAT treatment options took into 
consideration the fact that many of the existing direct discharging 
landfills already employed some sort of biological treatment system. 
While EPA acknowledges that the referenced Disc Tube\TM\ reverse 
osmosis technology does not require pretreatment using biological 
treatment, EPA concluded that it was more cost effective to upgrade 
existing biological treatment systems than to add on a reverse osmosis 
system (or to replace the existing biological system with a reverse 
osmosis system). EPA determined it has reasonably evaluated and 
rejected reverse osmosis treatment as a BAT option. However, the 
regulation, of course, does not require the installation of a 
particular technology, only that the discharger comply with the 
limitations. Therefore, if a discharger determines that reverse osmosis 
will achieve the effluent limitations established in this rule, then 
the discharger is free to install a reverse osmosis treatment system to 
treat its landfill wastewater.
    Comment: One commenter questioned how a facility will achieve such 
low zinc limits using biological treatment without employing a metals 
removal technology. The commenter also stated that zinc levels in 
landfills typically tend to be in the range of 2 to 7 mg/L.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's claim. The record 
supports EPA's determination that the promulgated zinc limitations 
levels can be achieved through well-operated biological treatment 
systems without metals removal technology. In establishing zinc limits 
for the Non-Hazardous subcategory, EPA used zinc data from three of the 
seven BPT/BAT facilities for the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA did not 
use the data from the other four BPT/BAT facilities because all four 
employed chemical precipitation in addition to biological treatment, 
and chemical precipitation was not part of the selected BPT/BAT option. 
All three of the facilities used to calculate the zinc limitations 
operated a biological treatment system. Because one of these three 
facilities supplied two separate sets of data, EPA used four data 
sources from the three BPT/BAT facilities to calculate the limitations 
for zinc. The average raw wastewater zinc concentrations for these four 
data sets ranged from 0.31 mg/L to 0.995 mg/L with average effluent 
concentrations ranging from 0.05 mg/L to 0.21 mg/L. The percent 
removals of zinc for these BPT/BAT facilities ranged from 58 percent to 
94 percent.
    Since the proposed rule, EPA has recalculated the final zinc 
effluent limitations for the Non-Hazardous subcategory using the 
effluent data discussed above from the four data sources along with 
variability factors developed for zinc discharges from these landfills. 
EPA calculated a zinc monthly average limit of 0.11 mg/L and a daily 
maximum limit of 0.20 mg/L. (EPA explains the statistical methods used 
to develop these limitations more thoroughly in the Statistical Support 
Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 
the Landfills Point Source Category and in Chapter 11 of the final 
Technical Development Document.)
    The commenter expressed concern about the ability of biological 
treatment systems to achieve the zinc removals EPA had proposed for 
landfills without metals removal technology. The commenter stated that 
landfill concentrations of zinc are normally in the 2 mg/L to 7 mg/L 
range. However, the raw wastewater data submitted by the commenter did 
not support that claim. The commenter submitted zinc raw wastewater 
data from three Subtitle D landfills with concentrations of 0.065 mg/L 
and 0.569 mg/L for one landfill, and 0.165 mg/L and 0.59 mg/L for the 
other two landfills. These concentrations are consistent with the raw 
wastewater zinc concentrations at the BPT/BAT facilities that EPA used 
for the calculation of the effluent limitations for zinc. EPA has 
concluded that concentrations such as those submitted by the commenter 
are representative of concentrations typically found in Subtitle D 
landfill leachate. According to EPA's database, EPA determined that the 
mean raw wastewater concentration of zinc in Non-Hazardous subcategory 
was 1.2 mg/L and 75 percent of Subtitle D facilities in the database 
had zinc concentrations below 0.27 mg/L. Therefore, the EPA Landfills 
database does not reflect the commenter's claim that zinc levels at 
non-hazardous landfills typically range from 2 mg/L to 7 mg/L.
    In addition, all of the influent zinc concentrations at the BPT/BAT 
facilities used to develop the non-hazardous BAT limitations for zinc 
were above the 75th percentile concentration of 0.27 mg/L, and one 
influent zinc concentration is above the 90th percentile concentration 
of 0.93 mg/L. Therefore, since the BPT/BAT facilities used in the 
calculation of the zinc limitations had zinc raw wastewater 
concentrations above 75 percent of other landfills in the Non-Hazardous 
subcategory, EPA concluded that the BPT/BAT technology will adequately 
treat zinc concentrations

[[Page 3042]]

found in raw waste loads at Subtitle D landfills. Additional 
information supporting EPA's determination is provided in the Comment 
Response Document and in Chapter 11 of the Technical Development 
Document.
    While EPA acknowledges that if an individual non-hazardous landfill 
has higher zinc raw leachate concentrations than observed for virtually 
all of the landfills EPA sampled that the facility may not achieve the 
BPT/BAT discharge limitations for zinc using biological treatment and 
multi-media filtration alone. EPA's data show, however, that virtually 
all of non-hazardous landfills have raw leachate zinc concentrations 
that would be amenable to these two technologies. In fact, the one 
facility in EPA's database that had an average raw wastewater zinc 
concentration of 32 mg/L already has chemical precipitation in place. 
EPA determined that all other facilities in the database had raw 
wastewater zinc concentrations that could be treated adequately by a 
biological treatment system. While they are not designed to remove 
zinc, EPA has found that biological treatment systems achieve 
incidental removals of zinc through sorption into the biomass. It 
should be noted, that although EPA developed the non-hazardous 
landfills effluent limitations based on the performance of biological 
treatment followed by filtration, EPA does not require the use of the 
BPT/BAT technology to treat landfill wastewater. Landfill facilities 
have the freedom to choose any technology available to meet the 
promulgated effluent limitations.
    Comment: One commenter, a manufacturer of insulation and fiberglass 
products, stated that monofills do not have the same leachate 
characteristics as municipal solid waste landfills. The commenter 
points out that parameters such as alpha terpineol, benzoic acid, p-
cresol, and toluene would not normally be anticipated in the leachate 
from their monofill wastes and, therefore, should be excluded from the 
monitoring protocol.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that there will be cases 
where a monofill (i.e., lime, construction and demolition, fly ash, 
etc.) will not have the same leachate characteristics as municipal 
solid waste landfills. EPA concluded there was sufficient similarity 
across these landfills so that subcategorization (and development of 
separate limitations) was not warranted as explained earlier in this 
section. EPA's permitting regulations require permit applications to 
supply the permit writer with information on a wide variety of 
pollutants which the permit writer must evaluate for possible limits in 
addition to guideline limitations. However, all federally regulated 
pollutants are required to be monitored, and the permitting authority 
may not alter the list of pollutants regulated as established under 
federal guidelines, except to require the monitoring of additional 
pollutants in specified circumstances. At a minimum, the final list of 
pollutants to be monitored must include all pollutants listed in the 
effluent limitations guidelines. The permit authority, however, can 
vary the monitoring frequency of the regulated pollutants, but must 
require no fewer than once per year for direct discharging facilities.
    In addition, as explained in Section [III], EPA has decided not to 
set limitations for toluene. See Section [VIII] for information 
regarding proposed changes to the monitoring requirements under NPDES 
permits.

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

    Agency: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    BAT: The best available technology economically achievable, 
applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by July 1, 1984, 
for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Sec. 
304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
    BCT: The best conventional pollutant control technology, 
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing 
industrial point sources, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
    BPT: The best practicable control technology currently 
available, applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by July 
1, 1977, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by 
Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
    Clean Water Act (CWA): The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended by 
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217), and the Water Quality 
Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
    Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308 Questionnaire: A questionnaire 
sent to facilities under the authority of Section 308 of the CWA, 
which requests information to be used in the development of national 
effluent guidelines and standards.
    Closed: A facility or portion thereof that is currently not 
receiving or accepting wastes and has undergone final closure.
    Commercial Facility: A facility that treats, disposes, or 
recycles/recovers the wastes of other facilities not under the same 
ownership as this facility. Commercial operations are usually made 
available for a fee or other remuneration. Commercial waste 
treatment, disposal, or recycling/recovery does not have to be the 
primary activity at a facility for an operation or unit to be 
considered ``commercial''.
    Contaminated Ground Water: Water below the land surface in the 
zone of saturation which has been contaminated by landfill leachate. 
Contaminated ground water occurs at landfills without liners or at 
facilities that have released contaminants from a liner system. 
Ground water may also become contaminated if the water table rises 
to a point where it infiltrates the landfill or the leachate 
collection system.
    Contaminated Storm Water: Storm water which comes in direct 
contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and treatment 
areas, or wastewater that is subject to the limitations and 
standards. Some specific areas of a landfill that may produce 
contaminated storm water include (but are not limited to): the open 
face of an active landfill with exposed waste (no cover added); the 
areas around wastewater treatment operations; trucks, equipment or 
machinery that has been in direct contact with the waste; and waste 
dumping areas.
    Conventional Pollutants: Constituents of wastewater as 
determined by Sec. 304(a)(4) of the CWA, including pollutants 
classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil 
and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
    Deep Well Injection: Disposal of wastewater into a deep well 
such that a porous, permeable formation of a larger area and 
thickness is available at sufficient depth to ensure continued, 
permanent storage.
    Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ): Questionnaires sent to 
collect monitoring data from 27 selected landfill facilities based 
on responses to the Section 308 Questionnaire.
    Direct Discharger: A facility that discharges or may discharge 
treated or untreated wastewater into waters of the United States.
    Drained Free Liquids: Aqueous wastes drained from waste 
containers (e.g., drums, etc.) prior to landfilling. Landfills which 
accept containerized waste may generate this type of wastewater.
    Effluent Limitation: Any restriction, including schedules of 
compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on 
quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, 
biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point 
sources into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or 
the ocean. (CWA Sections 301(b) and 304(b).)
    Existing Source: Any facility from which there is or may be a 
discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced 
before the publication of the proposed regulations prescribing a 
standard of performance under Sec. 306 of the CWA.
    Facility: All contiguous property owned, operated, leased or 
under the control of the same person or entity.
    Gas Condensate: A liquid which has condensed in the landfill gas 
collection system during the extraction of gas from within the 
landfill. Gases such as methane and carbon dioxide are generated due 
to microbial activity within the landfill, and must be removed to 
avoid hazardous conditions.
    Ground Water: The body of water that is retained in the 
saturated zone which tends to move by hydraulic gradient to lower 
levels.
    Hazardous Waste: Any waste, including wastewater, defined as 
hazardous under RCRA (40 CFR 261.3).

[[Page 3043]]

    Inactive: A facility or portion thereof that is currently not 
treating, disposing, or recycling/recovering wastes.
    Indirect Discharger: A facility that discharges or may discharge 
wastewater into a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW).
    Landfill: An area of land or an excavation in which wastes are 
placed for permanent disposal, that is not a land application or 
land treatment unit, surface impoundment, underground injection 
well, waste pile, salt dome formation, a salt bed formation, an 
underground mine or a cave.
    Landfill Generated Wastewater: Wastewater generated by landfill 
activities and collected for treatment, discharge or reuse, include: 
leachate, contaminated ground water, storm water runoff, landfill 
gas condensate, truck/equipment washwater, drained free liquids, 
floor washings, and wastewater from recovering pumping wells.
    Leachate: Leachate is a liquid that has passed through or 
emerged from solid waste and contains soluble, suspended, or 
miscible materials removed from such waste. Leachate is typically 
collected from a liner system above which waste is placed for 
disposal. Leachate may also be collected through the use of slurry 
walls, trenches or other containment systems.
    Leachate Collection System: The purpose of a leachate collection 
system is to collect leachate for treatment or alternative disposal 
and to reduce the depths of leachate buildup or level of saturation 
over the low permeability liner.
    Liner: The liner is a low permeability material or combination 
of materials placed at the base of a landfill to reduce the 
discharge to the underlying or surrounding hydrogeologic 
environment. The liner is designed as a barrier to intercept 
leachate and to direct it to a leachate collection.
    Long-Term Average (LTA): For purposes of the effluent 
guidelines, average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time 
by a facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs are used in 
developing the limitations and standards in the landfill regulation.
    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: 
A permit to discharge wastewater into waters of the United States 
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system, 
authorized by Section 402 of the CWA.
    New Source: As defined in 40 CFR 122.2, 122.29, and 403.3(k), a 
new source is any building, structure, facility, or installation 
from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, the 
construction of which commenced (1) for purposes of compliance with 
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) established under CWA 
section 306, after the promulgation of today's standards; or (2) for 
the purposes of compliance with Pretreatment Standards for New 
Sources (PSNS), after the publication of proposed standards under 
CWA section 307(c), if such standards are thereafter promulgated in 
accordance with that section.
    Nonconventional Pollutants: Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants listed at 40 CFR Part 401.16 nor priority 
pollutants listed in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 423.
    Non-Contaminated Storm Water: Storm water which does not come in 
direct contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and 
treatment areas, or wastewater that is subject to the limitations 
and standards. Non-contaminated storm water includes storm water 
which flows off the cap, cover, intermediate cover, daily cover, 
and/or final cover of the landfill.
    Non-Hazardous Subcategory: For the purposes of this report, Non-
Hazardous Subcategory refers to all landfills regulated under 
Subtitle D of RCRA.
    Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact: Deleterious aspects of 
control and treatment technologies applicable to point source 
category wastes, including, but not limited to air pollution, noise, 
radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy usage.
    NSPS: New Sources Performance Standards, applicable to new 
sources of direct dischargers whose construction is begun after the 
promulgation of effluent standards under CWA section 306.
    OCPSF: Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers 
manufacturing point source category. (40 CFR Part 414).
    Off-Site: Outside the boundaries of a facility.
    On-Site: The same or geographically contiguous property, which 
may be divided by a public or private right-of-way, provided the 
entrance and exit between the properties is at a crossroads 
intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going along 
the right-of-way. Non-contiguous properties owned by the same 
company or locality but connected by a right-of-way, which it 
controls, and to which the public does not have access, is also 
considered on-site property.
    Pass Through: A pollutant is determined to ``pass through'' 
POTWs when the nationwide median percentage removed by well-operated 
POTWs achieving secondary treatment is less than the percentage 
removed by the industry's direct dischargers that are using the BAT 
technology.
    Point Source: Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance 
from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
    Pollutants of Interest (POIs): Pollutants commonly found in 
landfill generated wastewater. For the purposes of this rulemaking, 
a POI is a pollutant that is detected three or more times above a 
treatable level at a landfill, and must be present at more than one 
facility.
    Priority Pollutant: One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a 
subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined 
in Section 307 of the CWA and listed in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 
423. The priority pollutants are specified in the NRDC settlement 
agreement (Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Train, 8 
E.R.C. 2120 [D.D.C. 1976], modified 12 E.R.C. 1833 [D.D.C. 1979]).
    PSES: Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
    PSNS: Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect 
discharges, applicable to new sources whose construction has begun 
after the publication of proposed standards under CWA section 
307(c), if such standards are thereafter promulgated in accordance 
with that section.
    Public Service: The provision of landfill waste disposal 
services to individual members of the general public, publicly-owned 
organizations (schools, universities, government agencies, 
municipalities) and not-for-profit organizations for which the 
landfill does not receive a fee or other remuneration.
    Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW): Any device or system, 
owned by a state or municipality, used in the treatment (including 
recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes 
of a liquid nature that is owned by a state or municipality. This 
includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey 
wastewater to a POTW providing treatment (40 CFR 122.2).
    RCRA: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) 
(42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation, 
treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid and hazardous 
wastes.
    Subtitle C Landfill: A landfill permitted to accept hazardous 
wastes under Sections 3001 and 3019 of RCRA and the regulations 
promulgated pursuant to these sections, including 40 CFR Parts 260 
through 272.
    Subtitle D Landfill: A landfill permitted to accept only non-
hazardous wastes under Sections 4001 through 4010 of RCRA and the 
regulations promulgated pursuant to these sections, including 40 CFR 
Parts 257 and 258.
    Surface Impoundment: A natural topographic depression, man-made 
excavation, or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials 
(although it may be lined with man-made materials), used to 
temporarily or permanently treat, store, or dispose of waste, 
usually in the liquid form. Surface impoundments do not include 
areas constructed to hold containers of wastes. Other common names 
for surface impoundments include ponds, pits, lagoons, finishing 
ponds, settling ponds, surge ponds, seepage ponds, and clarification 
ponds.
    Toxic Pollutants: Pollutants declared ``toxic'' under Section 
307(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
    Truck/Equipment Washwater: Wastewater generated during either 
truck or equipment washes at the landfill. During routine 
maintenance or repair operations, trucks and/or equipment used 
within the landfill (e.g., loaders, compactors, or dump trucks) are 
washed and the resultant washwaters are collected for treatment.
    Variability Factor: The daily variability factor is the ratio of 
the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of daily values 
divided by the expected value, median or mean, of the distribution 
of the daily data. The monthly variability factor is the estimated 
95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the 
data divided by the expected value of the monthly averages.
    Zero Discharge: No discharge of pollutants to waters of the 
United States or to a POTW. Also included in this definition are 
alternative discharge or disposal of pollutants by way of 
evaporation, deep-well injection, off-site transfer, and land 
application.

[[Page 3044]]

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 136

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 445

    Environmental protection, Waste treatment and disposal, Water 
pollution control.

    November 30, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 136--TEST PROCEDURES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF POLLUTANTSI111. The 
authority citation for Part 136 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Secs. 301, 304(h), 307, and 501(a) Pub. L. 95-217, 
91 Stat. 1566, et seq. (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) (The Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 as amended by the Clean 
Water Act of 1977).
Appendix A [Amended]

    2. Appendix A to Part 136 is amended to add text at the end of 
Method 625 as an attachment and to add text at the end of Method 1625 
as an attachment, reading as follows:

Appendix A To Part 136--Methods For Organic Chemical Analysis of 
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater

* * * * *

Method 625--Base/Neutrals and Acids

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Method 625

Introduction

    To support measurement of several semi-volatile pollutants, EPA 
has developed this attachment to EPA Method 625 \1\. EPA Method 625 
(the Method) involves sample extraction with methylene chloride 
followed by analysis of the extract using either packed or capillary 
column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment 
addresses the addition of the semivolatile pollutants listed in 
Tables 1 and 2, to all applicable standard, stock, and spiking 
solutions utilized for the determination of semivolatile organic 
compounds by EPA Method 625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA Method 625: Base/Neutrals and Acids, 40 CFR Part 136, 
Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.0  EPA METHOD 625 MODIFICATION SUMMARY

    The additional semivolatile organic compounds listed in Tables 1 
and 2 are added to all applicable calibration, spiking, and other 
solutions utilized in the determination of base/neutral and acid 
compounds by EPA Method 625. The instrument is to be calibrated with 
these compounds, using a capillary column, and all procedures and 
quality control tests stated in the Method must be performed.

2.0  SECTION MODIFICATIONS

    Note:  All section and figure numbers in this Attachment 
reference section and figure numbers in EPA Method 625 unless noted 
otherwise. Sections not listed here remain unchanged.

Section 6.7  The stock standard solutions described in this section 
are modified such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
attachment are required in addition to those specified in the 
Method.
Section 7.2  The calibration standards described in this section are 
modified to include the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
attachment.
Section 8.2  The precision and accuracy requirements are modified to 
include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment. 
Additional performance criteria are supplied in Table 5 of this 
attachment.
Section 8.3  The matrix spike is modified to include the analytes 
listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 8.4  The QC check standard is modified to include the 
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment. Additional 
performance criteria are supplied in Table 5 of this attachment.
Section 16.0  Additional method performance information is supplied 
with this attachment.

                   Table 1.--Base/Neutral Extractables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Parameter                             CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetophenone................................................     98-86-2
Alpha-terpineol.............................................     98-55-5
Aniline.....................................................     62-53-3
Carbazole...................................................     86-74-8
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................................    608-27-5
o-Cresol....................................................     95-48-7
n-Decane....................................................    124-18-5
n-Docosane..................................................    629-97-0
n-Dodecane..................................................    112-40-3
n-Eicosane..................................................    112-95-8
n-Hexadecane................................................    544-76-3
n-Octadecane................................................   593-45-36
n-Tetradecane...............................................    629-59-4
Pyridine....................................................    110-86-1
1-Methylphenanthrene........................................    832-69-9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry


                       Table 2.--Acid Extractables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Parameter                             CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
benzoic acid................................................     65-85-0
p-cresol....................................................    106-44-5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry


   Table 3.--Chromatographic Conditions,\1\ Method Detection Limits (MDLs), and Characteristic m/z's for Base/
                                              Neutral Extractables
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Retention   MDL  ( g/L)   --------------------------------------
                                                    \2\                      Primary     Secondary    Secondary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyridine......................................         4.93         4.6             79           52           51
N-Nitrosodimethylamine........................         4.95  ............           42           74           44
Aniline.......................................        10.82         3.3             93           66           65
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether.......................        10.94  ............           93           63           95
n-Decane......................................        11.11         5.0             57  ...........  ...........
1,3-Dichlorobenzene...........................        11.47  ............          146          148          113
1,4-Dichlorobenzene...........................        11.62  ............          146          148          113
1,2-Dichlorobenzene...........................        12.17  ............          146          148          113
o-Cresol......................................        12.48         4.7            108          107           79
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether...................        12.51  ............           45           77           79
Acetophenone..................................        12.88         3.4            105           77           51
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine.....................        12.97  ............          130           42          101
Hexachloroethane..............................        13.08  ............          117          201          199
Nitrobenzene..................................        13.40  ............           77          123           65
Isophorone....................................        14.11  ............           82           95          138

[[Page 3045]]

 
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane....................        14.82  ............           93           95          123
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene........................        15.37  ............          180          182          145
n-Dodecane....................................        15.45         3.0             57  ...........  ...........
Alpha-terpineol...............................        15.55         5.0             59  ...........  ...........
Naphthalene...................................        15.56  ............          128          129          127
Hexachlorobutadiene...........................        16.12  ............          225          223          227
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.....................        18.47  ............          237          235          272
2,3-dichloroaniline...........................        18.82         2.5            161          163           90
n-tetradecane.................................        19.21         1.7             57  ...........  ...........
2-Chloronaphthalene...........................        19.35  ............          162          164          127
Dimethyl phthalate............................        20.48  ............          163          194          164
Acenaphthylene................................        20.69  ............          152          151          153
2,6-Dinitrotoluene............................        20.73  ............          165           89          121
Acenaphthene..................................        21.30  ............          154          153          152
2,4-Dinitrotoluene............................        22.00  ............          165           63          182
n-hexadecane..................................        22.49         3.0             55  ...........  ...........
Diethylphthalate..............................        22.74  ............          149          177          150
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether...................        22.90  ............          204          206          141
Fluorene......................................        22.92  ............          166          165          167
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine........................        23.35  ............          169          168          167
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether....................        24.44  ............          248          250          141
Hexachlorobenzene.............................        24.93  ............          284          142          249
n-octadecane..................................        25.39         2.0             57  ...........  ...........
Phenanthrene..................................        25.98  ............          178          179          176
Anthracene....................................        26.12  ............          178          179          176
Carbazole.....................................        26.66         4.0            167  ...........  ...........
Dibutyl phthalate.............................        27.84  ............          149          150          104
1-methylphenanthrene..........................        27.94         2.7            192          191          165
n-eicosane....................................        27.99         3.0             55  ...........  ...........
Fluoranthene..................................        29.82  ............          202          101          100
Benzidine.....................................        30.26  ............          184           92          185
n-docosane....................................        30.43         2.0             57  ...........  ...........
Pyrene........................................        30.56  ............          202          101          100
Butyl benzyl phthalate........................        32.63  ............          149           91          206
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine........................        34.28  ............          252          254          126
Benzo(a)anthracene............................        34.33  ............          228          229          226
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate....................        34.36  ............          149          167          279
Chrysene......................................        34.44  ............          228          226          229
Di-n-octyl-phthalate..........................        36.17  ............          149  ...........  ...........
Benzo(b)fluoranthene..........................        37.90  ............          252          253          125
Benzo(k)fluoranthene..........................        37.97  ............          252          253          125
Benzo(a)pyrene................................        39.17  ............          252          253          125
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene........................        44.91  ............          278          139          279
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene.......................        45.01  ............          276          138          277
Benzo(ghi)perylene............................        46.56  ............          276          138          277
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:
 Column--30+/-5 meters x 0.25+/-.02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl, bonded phase fused silica
  capillary column (DB-5).
 Temperature program--Five minutes at 30  deg.C; 30-280  deg.C at 8  deg.C per minute; isothermal at 280  deg.C
  until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.
 Gas velocity--30+/-5 cm/sec at 30  deg.C.
\2\ Retention times are from Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be
  consistent for all analytes in Tables 4 and 5 of this attachment.


   Table 4.--Chromatographic Conditions, \1\ Method Detection Limits (MDLs), and Characteristic m/z's for Acid
                                                  Extractables
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Retention   MDL  (g/L)    --------------------------------------
                                                   (min)                     Primary     Secondary    Secondary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phenol........................................        10.76  ............           94           65           66
2-Chlorophenol................................        11.08  ............          128           64          130
p-Cresol......................................        12.92         7.8            108          107           77
2-Nitrophenol.................................        14.38  ............          139           65          109
2,4-Dimethylphenol............................        14.54  ............          122          107          121
Benzoic acid..................................        14.85         3.0            105          122           77
2,4-Dichlorophenol............................        15.12  ............          162          164           98
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol.......................        16.83  ............          142          107          144

[[Page 3046]]

 
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.........................        18.80  ............          196          198          200
2,4-Dinitrophenol.............................        21.51  ............          184           63          154
4-Nitrophenol.................................        21.77  ............           65          139          109
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol....................        22.83  ............          198          182           77
Pentachlorophenol.............................        25.52  ............          266          264          268
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:
Column--30 +/-5 meters  x  0.25 +/-.02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl silicone bonded phase fused
  silica capillary column (DB-5).
Temperature program--Five minutes at 30  deg.C; 30-280  deg.C at 8  deg.C per minute; isothermal at 280  deg.C
  until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.
Gas velocity--30+/-5 cm/sec at 30  deg.C.
\2\ Retention times are from EPA Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be
  consistent for all analytes in Tables 3 and 4 of this attachment.


                                        Table 5.--QC Acceptance Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Test       Limits for
                                                            conclusion    s  (g/     m>g/L)      (g/  P,  Ps (%)
                                                                L)                          L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetophenone.............................................           100            51        23-254       61-144
Alpha-terpineol..........................................           100            47        46-163       58-156
Aniline..................................................           100            71        15-278       46-134
Carbazole................................................           100            17        79-111       73-131
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................................           100            13        40-160       68-134
o-Cresol.................................................           100            23        30-146       55-126
Benzoic acid.............................................           100            24         ns-ns        ns-ns
p-Cresol.................................................           100            22        11-617       76-107
n-Decane.................................................           100            70         D-651         D-ns
n-Docosane...............................................           100            10        52-155       49-163
n-Dodecane...............................................           100            36        13-103       10-359
n-Eicosane...............................................           100            28        57-133       72-117
n-Hexadecane.............................................           100            37        44-135       69-105
n-Octadecane.............................................           100            10        52-147       65-123
n-Tetradecane............................................           100             8        75-100       47-113
Pyridine.................................................           100            ns         7-392       33-158
1-Methylphenanthrene.....................................           100            16        39-240       60-161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s=Standard deviation for four recovery measurements, in g/L (Section 8.2)
X=Average recovery for four recovery measurements in g/L (Section 8.2)
P,Ps=Percent recovery measured (Section 8.3, Section 8.4)
D=Detected; result must be greater than zero.
ns=no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.

* * * * *

Method 1625--Revision B--Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Isotope 
Dilution GC/MS

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Method 1625

Introduction

    To support measurement of several semivolatile pollutants, EPA 
has developed this attachment to EPA Method 1625B.\1\ EPA Method 
1625B (the Method) employs sample extraction with methylene chloride 
followed by analysis of the extract using capillary column gas 
chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment addresses 
the addition of the semivolatile pollutants listed in Tables 1 and 2 
to all applicable standard, stock, and spiking solutions utilized 
for the determination of semivolatile organic compounds by EPA 
Method 1625B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA Method 1625 Revision B, Semivolatile Organic Compounds 
by Isotope Dilution GC/MS, 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.0  EPA METHOD 1625 REVISION B MODIFICATION SUMMARY

    The additional semivolatile organic compounds listed in Tables 1 
and 2 are added to all applicable calibration, spiking, and other 
solutions utilized in the determination of semivolatile compounds by 
EPA Method 1625. The instrument is to be calibrated with these 
compounds, and all procedures and quality control tests described in 
the Method must be performed.

2.0  SECTION MODIFICATIONS

    Note:  All section and figure numbers in this Attachment 
reference section and figure numbers in EPA Method 1625 Revision B 
unless noted otherwise. Sections not listed here remain unchanged.

Section 6.7  The stock standard solutions described in this section 
are modified such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
attachment are required in addition to those specified in the 
Method.
Section 6.8  The labeled compound spiking solution in this section 
is modified to include the labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 
6 of this attachment.
Section 6.9  The secondary standard is modified to include the 
additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 6.12  The solutions for obtaining authentic mass spectra are 
to include all additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
attachment.
Section 6.13  The calibration solutions are modified to include the 
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed 
in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 6.14  The precision and recovery standard is modified to 
include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the

[[Page 3047]]

labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 6.15  The solutions containing the additional analytes 
listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment are to be analyzed for 
stability.
Section 7.2.1  This section is modified to include the analytes 
listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed in Tables 
5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 7.4.5  This section is modified to include the analytes 
listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed in Tables 
5 and 6 in the calibration.
Section 8.2  The initial precision and recovery (IPR) requirements 
are modified to include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and 
the labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment. 
Additional IPR performance criteria are supplied in Table 7 of this 
attachment.
Section 8.3  The labeled compounds listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this 
attachment are to be included in the method performance tests. 
Additional method performance criteria are supplied in Table 7 of 
this attachment.
Section 8.5.2  The acceptance criteria for blanks includes the 
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 10.1.2  The labeled compound solution must include the 
labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 10.1.3  The precision and recovery standard must include the 
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed 
in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 12.5  Additional QC requirements for calibration 
verification are supplied in Table 7 of this attachment.
Section 12.7  Additional QC requirements for ongoing precision and 
recovery are supplied in Table 7 of this attachment.

              Table 1.--Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Pollutant
                                               -------------------------
                   Compound                         CAS
                                                  registry     EPA-EGD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetophenone..................................      98-86-2          758
Aniline.......................................      62-53-3          757
2,3-Dichloroaniline...........................     608-27-5          578
o-Cresol......................................      95-48-7          771
Pyridine......................................     110-86-1         1330
1-Methylphenanthrene..........................     832-69-9          905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS=Chemical Abstracts Registry
EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division


                  Table 2.--Acid Extractable Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Pollutant
                                               -------------------------
                   Compound                         CAS
                                                  registry     EPA-EGD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzoic acid..................................      65-85-0          700
p-Cresol......................................     106-44-5         1744
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS=Chemical Abstracts Registry
EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division


                     Table 3.--Gas Chromatography \1\ of Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Retention time \2\                 Minimum Level
        EGD  No.                 Compound        ------------------------------------------------  \3\  (g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
758.....................  Acetophenone..........             818             658     1.003-1.005              10
757.....................  Aniline...............             694             657     0.994-1.023              10
578.....................  2,3-Dichloroaniline...            1160             164     1.003-1.007              10
771.....................  o-Cresol..............             814             671     1.005-1.009              10
1330....................  Pyridine..............             930            1230     1.005-1.011              10
905.....................  1-Methylphenanthrene..            1697             164     1.449-1.537              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to
  Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B.
\2\ Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes
  in EPA Method 1625B.
\3\ See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B.


                         Table 4.--Gas Chromatography \1\ of Acid Extractable Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Retention time \2\                Minimum  level
        EGD  No.                 Compound        ------------------------------------------------   (g/
                                                    Mean  (sec)      EGD  Ref        Relative         L) \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1744....................  p-Cresol..............             834            1644     1.004-1.008              20
700.....................  Benzoic acid..........             971             600     0.992-1.008              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to
  Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B.
\2\ Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes
  in EPA Method 1625B.

[[Page 3048]]

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


    Table 5.--Base/Neutral Extractable Compound Characteristic m/z's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Labeled      Primary  m/z
                Compound                      analog            \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetophenone............................              d5         105/110
Aniline.................................              d7          93/100
2,3-Dichloroaniline.....................             n/a             161
Pyridine................................              d5           79/84
o-Cresol................................              d7         108/116
1-Methylphenanthrene....................             n/a             192
------------------------------------------------------------------------
m/z=mass to charge ratio
\1\ native/labeled


         Table 6.--Acid Extractable Compound Characteristic m/z's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Labeled      Primary  m/z
                Compound                      analog            \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
p-Cresol................................              d7         108/116
Benzoic acid............................              d5         105/110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
m/z=mass to charge ratio
\1\ native/labeled


                                                   Table 7.--Acceptance Criteria for Performance Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Acceptance criteria
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Initial precision and accuracy      Labeled       Calibration
              EGD  No.                             Compound                 section 8.2  (g/L)      compound      verification      On-going
                                                                         --------------------------------  recovery sec.     sec. 12.5    accuracy  sec.
                                                                          s  (g/                 8.3 and 14.2 P   (g/       12.7  R
                                                                                L)               X           (percent)          mL)       (g/L)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
758.................................  Acetophenone......................              34          44-167  ..............          85-115          45-162
658.................................  Acetophenone-d5...................              51          23-254          45-162          85-115          22-264
757.................................  Aniline...........................              32          30-171  ..............          85-115          33-154
657.................................  Aniline-d7........................              71          15-278          33-154          85-115          12-344
700.................................  Benzoic acid......................              ns           ns-ns  ..............          ns-322           ns-ns
600.................................  Benzoic acid-d5...................              24           ns-ns           ns-ns          66-134          ns-648
578.................................  2,3-dichloroaniline...............              13          40-160  ..............          85-115          44-144
771.................................  o-Cresol..........................              40          31-226  ..............          85-115          35-196
671.................................  o-Cresol-d7.......................              23          30-146          35-196          85-115          31-142
1744................................  p-Cresol..........................              59          54-140  ..............          85-115          37-203
1644................................  p-Cresol-d7.......................              22          11-618          37-203          85-115          16-415
1330................................  Pyridine..........................              28          10-421  ..............          83-117          18-238
1230................................  Pyridine-d5.......................              ns           7-392          19-238          85-115           4-621
905.................................  1-Methylphenanthrene..............              16          39-240  ..............          78-122          46-204
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s=Standard deviation of four recovery measurements.
X=Average recovery for four recovery measurements.
EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division.
ns=no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.


    Part 445 is added to read as follows:

PART 445--LANDFILLS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Sec.
445.1   General applicability.
445.2   General definitions.
445.3   General pretreatment standards.
Subpart A--RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill
445.10   Applicability.
445.11   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
445.12   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
445.13   Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT).
445.14   New source performance standards (NSPS).
Subpart B--RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfill
Sec.
445.20   Applicability.
445.21   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
445.22   Effluent limitations attainable by the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
445.23   Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT).
445.24   New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Authority:  Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the 
Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 
1342 and 1361)

[[Page 3049]]

Sec. 445.1  General applicability.

    (a) As defined more specifically in each subpart and except as 
provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, this part 
applies to discharges of wastewater from landfill units.
    (b) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater 
discharges from land application or land treatment units, surface 
impoundments, underground injection wells, waste piles, salt dome 
formations, salt bed formations, underground mines or caves as these 
terms are defined in 40 CFR 257.2 and 260.10.
    (c) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater 
generated off-site of a landfill facility, including wastewater 
generated off-site from washing vehicles or from waste transfer 
stations.
    (d) The provisions of this part do not apply to discharges of 
contaminated ground water or wastewater from recovery pumping wells.
    (e) This part does not apply to discharges of landfill wastewater 
from landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or 
commercial operations when the landfill only receives wastes generated 
by the industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the 
landfill.
    (f) This part does not apply to discharges of landfill wastewater 
from landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or 
commercial operations when the landfill receives wastes generated by 
the industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the 
landfill and also receives other wastes provided the other wastes 
received for disposal are generated by a facility that is subject to 
the same provisions in 40 CFR subchapter N as the industrial or 
commercial operation or the other wastes received are of similar nature 
to the wastes generated by the industrial or commercial operation.
    (g) This part does not apply to landfills operated in conjunction 
with Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities subject to 40 CFR 
Part 437 so long as the CWT facility commingles the landfill wastewater 
with other non-landfill wastewater for discharge. A landfill directly 
associated with a CWT facility is subject to this part if the CWT 
facility discharges landfill wastewater separately from other CWT 
wastewater or commingles the wastewater from its landfill only with 
wastewater from other landfills.
    (h) This part does not apply to landfills operated in conjunction 
with other industrial or commercial operations when the landfill 
receives wastes from public service activities so long as the company 
owning the landfill does not receive a fee or other remuneration for 
the disposal service.


Sec. 445.2  General definitions.

    In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR 122.2, 257.2, 
258.2, 264.10, 265.10, 401.11, and 403.3 the following definitions 
apply to this part:
    (a) Contaminated ground water means water below the land surface in 
the zone of saturation which has been contaminated by activities 
associated with waste disposal.
    (b) Contaminated storm water means storm water which comes in 
direct contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and treatment 
areas, or landfill wastewater as defined in paragraph (f) of this 
section. Some specific areas of a landfill that may produce 
contaminated storm water include (but are not limited to): the open 
face of an active landfill with exposed waste (no cover added); the 
areas around wastewater treatment operations; trucks, equipment or 
machinery that has been in direct contact with the waste; and waste 
dumping areas.
    (c) Landfill directly associated with an industrial or commercial 
operation means:
    (1) A landfill located on the same site as industrial or commercial 
operations; and
    (2) A landfill not located on the same site as the industrial or 
commercial operations (off-site), but ``wholly-owned'' by the 
industrial or commercial facility and primarily dedicated to receiving 
waste from the related industrial or commercial facility.
    (d) Facility means all contiguous property owned, operated, leased 
or under the control of the same person or entity.
    (e) Landfill unit means an area of land or an excavation in which 
wastes are placed for permanent disposal, that is not a land 
application or land treatment unit, surface impoundment, underground 
injection well, waste pile, salt dome formation, a salt bed formation, 
an underground mine or a cave as these terms are defined in 40 CFR 
257.2, 258.2 and 264.10.
    (f) Landfill wastewater means all wastewater associated with, or 
produced by, landfilling activities except for sanitary wastewater, 
non-contaminated storm water, contaminated ground water, and wastewater 
from recovery pumping wells. Landfill wastewater includes, but is not 
limited to, leachate, gas collection condensate, drained free liquids, 
laboratory derived wastewater, contaminated storm water and contact 
washwater from washing truck, equipment, and railcar exteriors and 
surface areas which have come in direct contact with solid waste at the 
landfill facility.
    (g) Non-contaminated storm water means storm water which does not 
come in direct contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and 
treatment areas, or landfill wastewater that is defined in paragraph 
(f) of this section. Non-contaminated storm water includes storm water 
which flows off the cap, cover, intermediate cover, daily cover, and/or 
final cover of the landfill.
    (h) Off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
    (i) On-site means within the boundaries of a facility.
    (j) Public service means the provision of landfill waste disposal 
services to individual members of the general public, publicly-owned 
organizations (schools, universities, government agencies, 
municipalities) and not-for-profit organizations for which the landfill 
does not receive a fee or other remuneration.
    (k) The regulated parameters for this part, numbered (P) and listed 
with approved methods of analysis in Table 1B at 40 CFR 136.3, are 
defined as follows:
    (1) Ammonia (as N) means ammonia reported as nitrogen. P4.
    (2) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical oxygen demand. P9.
    (3) Arsenic means total arsenic. P6.
    (4) Chromium means total chromium. P19.
    (5) Zinc means total zinc. P75.
    (l) The regulated parameters for this part, numbered (P) and listed 
with approved methods of analysis in Table 1C at 40 CFR 136.3, are as 
follows:
    (1) Naphthalene. P68.
    (2) Phenol. P85.
    (m) The regulated parameters for this part listed with approved 
methods of analysis in the attachments to Methods 625 and 1625B in 
Appendix A at 40 CFR Part 136 are as follows:
    (1) Aniline.
    (2) Benzoic acid.
    (3) p-Cresol.
    (4) Pyridine.
    (5) a-Terpineol.


Sec. 445.3  General pretreatment standards.

    Any source subject to this part that introduces wastewater 
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must comply 
with 40 CFR part 403.

Subpart A--RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill


Sec. 445.10  Applicability.

    Except as provided in Sec. 445.1, this subpart applies to 
discharges of

[[Page 3050]]

wastewater from landfills subject to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 264, 
Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, 
Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Subpart N-(Landfills); and 40 CFR 
Part 265, Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of 
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Subpart N-
(Landfills).


Sec. 445.11  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations which represent the application of BPT:

                          Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
              Maximum daily \1\                 Regulated      monthly
                                                parameter      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................       220            56
TSS.........................................        88            27
Ammonia (as N)..............................        10             4.9
-Terpineol.........................         0.042         0.019
Aniline.....................................         0.024         0.015
Benzoic acid................................         0.119         0.073
Naphthalene.................................         0.059         0.022
p-Cresol....................................         0.024         0.015
Phenol......................................         0.048         0.029
Pyridine....................................         0.072         0.025
Arsenic.....................................         1.1           0.54
Chromium....................................         1.1           0.46
Zinc........................................         0.535         0.296
pH..........................................     (\2\)         (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Milligrams per liter (mg/L, ppm).
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.

Sec. 445.12  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations which represent the application of BCT: 
Limitations for BOD5, TSS and pH are the same as the 
corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 445.11.


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

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations which represent the application of BAT: 
Limitations for ammonia (as N), a-terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid, 
naphthalene, p-cresol, phenol, pyridine, arsenic, chromium and zinc are 
the same as the corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 445.11.


Sec. 445.14  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards: Standards are the same as those specified in 
Sec. 445.11.

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


Sec. 445.20  Applicability.

    Except as provided in Sec. 445.1, this subpart applies to 
discharges of wastewater from landfills subject to the provisions of 40 
CFR part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; and 40 CFR 
part 257, Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal 
Facilities and Practices.


Sec. 445.21  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations which represent the application of BPT:

                          Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated parameter                 Maximum    monthly avg.
                                                daily \1\        \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD.........................................       140            37
TSS.........................................        88            27
Ammonia (as N)..............................        10             4.9
a-Terpineol.................................         0.033         0.016
Benzoic acid................................         0.12          0.071
p-Cresol....................................         0.025         0.014
Phenol......................................         0.026         0.015
Zinc........................................         0.20          0.11
pH..........................................        2)           (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Milligrams per liter (mg/L, ppm)
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.


[[Page 3051]]

Sec. 445.22  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations which represent the application of BCT: 
Limitations for BOD5, TSS and pH are the same as the 
corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 445.21.


Sec. 445.23  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30--125.32, any existing point 
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following effluent 
limitations which represent the application of BAT: Limitations for 
ammonia (as N), a-terpineol, benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol and zinc 
are the same as the corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 445.21.


Sec. 445.24  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards: Standards are the same as those specified in 
Sec. 445.21.

[FR Doc. 00-1037 Filed 01-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P