[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49537-49539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23840]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49538]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 270, and 271
[FRL-5303-3]
Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) at
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Response to Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 2, 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and request for comment
in the Federal Register, which announced the availability of a revised
draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) prepared by the Agency for the
proposed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements for
corrective action for solid waste management units at hazardous waste
management facilities. The information included data in support of the
proposed Subpart S rule relating to corrective action, published on
July 27, 1990, and the final rule for Corrective Action Management
Units (CAMUs) and Temporary Units (TUs), promulgated on February 16,
1993. This notice constitutes a response to comments received on that
NODA.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the comments may be obtained by calling or
visiting the RCRA Information Center. The RCRA Information Center is
located in Room M2616 at EPA Headquarters and is available for viewing
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. Requests for obtaining the document by telephone may be made
by calling (202) 260-9327. Copies cost $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(800) 424-9346; in the Washington, DC metropolitan area the number is
(703) 412-9810, TDD (703) 412-3323.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. July 27, 1990 Proposal
On July 27, 1990 EPA proposed a comprehensive rule (Subpart S, 55
FR 30798) specifying corrective action requirements for facilities
regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HWSA) of 1984. The proposed rule was developed to provide both the
technical (e.g., action levels, investigation aspects, remedy selection
criteria, etc.) and procedural aspects (e.g., definitions, reporting
and permitting requirements, etc.) of corrective action. A Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) to estimate the costs and benefits of the Subpart
S proposed rule was developed to support the proposed rule. In that
proposal, the EPA explained that it would continue to refine its
estimates and make the results available to the public. In the June 2,
1994 Federal Register Notice of Data Availability and request for
comments, EPA made available the revised draft Subpart S RIA that
includes supporting data regarding studies conducted by EPA concerning
the use of CAMUs in RCRA corrective actions. EPA used these supporting
data in a rulemaking authorizing the establishment of CAMUs (58 FR
8658, February 16, 1993). Although the CAMU rulemaking included a
supplemental notice (57 FR 48195, October 22, 1992) as well as a
separate RIA and a summary report, some commenters requested additional
information on the data supporting that analysis. EPA believes the
summary report provided sufficient detail for purposes of the CAMU
rulemaking. However, because the results of the CAMU RIA will be
relevant to the regulatory options analysis in the final Subpart S RIA,
as well as a related RCRA rulemaking initiative known as the Hazardous
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) for contaminated media, a more
detailed breakdown of the CAMU data was included in the supporting data
made available through the June 2, 1994 Federal Register notice.
EPA believes the data made available through the June 2, 1994
Federal Register notice satisfy the outstanding requests for additional
information on the data supporting the CAMU rulemaking. To date, EPA
has received ten (10) sets of public comments on these data. EPA has
evaluated these comments and believes that none of the issues raised by
the commenters indicate a need for EPA to re-visit the impact analysis
done in support of the CAMU rulemaking. However, because of the
potential relevance of these comments to EPA's ongoing rulemaking
efforts, EPA will continue to evaluate and respond to comments within
the context of the Subpart S RIA and HWIR rulemaking for contaminated
media.
II. Summary of Public Comments
As of the July 18, 1994 deadline, ten (10) commenters had submitted
letters with comments regarding the data made available through the
June 2, 1994 Federal Register notice. A number of commenters stated
that the Subpart S proposal is likely to be affected by the HWIR
rulemaking for contaminated media, and recommended that the impact of
the HWIR rulemaking be reflected in the Subpart S rulemaking. In
addition, commenters raised a number of issues regarding the
methodology and assumptions used for the draft RIA. EPA agrees that
events that have occurred since the Subpart S proposal was issued,
including the development of HWIR, should be taken into account in the
Subpart S rulemaking. Because EPA is now considering how to proceed
with the Subpart S rulemaking, the Agency is not providing a detailed
response to these comments at this time. However, EPA will take these
comments into account when deciding whether to finalize or repropose
portions of the Subpart S proposal.
One commenter, in addition to addressing the RIA methodology as it
applies to the Subpart S proposal, also addressed its applicability to
the final CAMU rule. The commenter first argued that EPA's failure to
conduct sensitivity analyses on the effects of parameter uncertainty
undermined many of the draft RIA's conclusions. In response to this
comment, EPA conducted an analysis in the Draft RIA for the Final
Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units in
which OSW identified and evaluated the sources, magnitude, and
consequences of uncertainty in predictions of chemical concentrations
and exposures in the multimedia fate and transport modelling component
of the RIA. The scope of the analysis of uncertainty focused on
predictions of concentrations and exposures from unremediated sites
using a Monte Carlo version of MMSOILS (a multimedia contaminant fate,
transport, and exposure model) at two sample facilities (one facility
and environmental setting was well characterized, the other was
limited.) The two sample facilities were subjected to quantitative
(sensitivity) analyses of the effects of parameter uncertainty on
chemical concentration, with the Monte Carlo results used to estimate
the cumulative distribution frequency of the chemical concentration in
ground water, surface water, air, agricultural and food products, and
biota. In addition, Monte Carlo parameter sensitivity methods were used
to evaluate model sensitivity to parameter uncertainty.
Further, the commenter argued that, because no sensitivity analyses
were performed on sample selection, facility characterization,
contaminant releases, remedy selection, remedy effectiveness, human
health and ecological benefits, averted water use costs, residential
[[Page 49539]]
property value changes, and cost/ benefit comparisons, results may not
be reliable in predicting decision-making during actual corrective
actions. EPA does not believe that this type of analysis was necessary
here, since the RIA did take account of potential uncertainty. In the
draft RIA, EPA conducted a stratified random sampling procedure
developed to maximize the precision of the population estimator in
extrapolating the sample findings to the corrective action population.
In addition, EPA used information collected from EPA Regional files and
state regulatory agency files with regard to facility operations and
history, environmental setting, SWMU characteristics, extent of
existing contamination, and potential receptors to substantially
increase the reliability of the draft RIAs conclusions. All of these
factors reduce the need for additional uncertainty analysis. Therefore,
EPA believes that the scope of the uncertainty analysis was adequate
and further sensitivity analyses were not required. However, EPA will
continue to assess this issue as the Agency moves forward with the
Subpart S rulemaking.
The commenter also argued that the draft RIA's conclusions, which
are based on the proposed Subpart S rule, do not apply to corrective
actions performed under the final CAMU rule, which differs from the
proposal. Another commenter also suggested that the draft RIA should be
revised to reflect the promulgation of the CAMU rule. The commenters
are correct that the draft RIA incorporates the proposed CAMU rather
than the final version. However, as indicated above, EPA in its June 2,
1994 Federal Register notice made available a more detailed breakdown
of data supporting the final CAMU RIA so that commenters would have
additional information on the data supporting the final version of the
CAMU rule. EPA believes that this supplemental material, along with the
information provided in the CAMU RIA, provides sufficient support for
the final rule. The final CAMU rule expanded the CAMU concept from the
July 27, 1990 proposed rule to increase flexibility in selection of
more cost-effective remedies, increase treatment of waste and
contaminated media, and speed implementation of the program. According
to the supplemental data and analyses, remedy selections based upon the
more flexible expanded CAMU provisions, using facility-specific data on
actual contamination (where available) and modelling data to estimate
the extent of contamination, allow for consolidation of contaminated
media prior to treatment and result in more treatment of waste that
otherwise would not be treated.
The commenter also stated that the remedy selection process was
flawed because the technical panels did not fairly represent real-world
facilities and time frames. EPA disagrees; the process contained a
number of safeguards to assure that it was representative of actual
decision-making. In order to account for the complexity of the
decision-making process when simulating the selection of remedies, EPA
developed an approach that relied on panels of experts to select
remedies at the sample facilities. In order to capture the interactions
between EPA and the facility, EPA convened policy and technical expert
panels. Policy panels were identified and selected by officials in
EPA's Office of Solid Waste to represent the role of the regulatory
agency in setting remedial objectives, assess technical information on
the performance of potential remedies, and make final remedy selection
decisions. The policy panels consisted of experienced Regional EPA and
State regulatory staff with expertise in a variety of technical areas
including geology, engineering, and risk assessment. Technical panels
consisting of national remediation experts were identified through a
selective search across many well-recognized firms in the U.S.,
representing the hydrogeology, geology, geochemistry, soil science,
civil, chemical, or environmental engineering, and chemistry
disciplines. The technical panels developed the technical remedies for
each facility based on guidance from the policy panel, then estimated
the costs of the remedies. Because sample facility scenarios were based
upon actual facilities, actual owner/operators were not employed in
determining remedy selections at the sample facilities in order to
ensure the confidentiality of sample facility deliberations and remedy
selections determined by the expert panels. However, the qualifications
of the selected experts made them well-suited to take on the decision-
making role of owner/ operators. Time constraints imposed upon the
expert panels reflected the simplified decision making process
specified in the ground rules for the expert panel process as described
on page 4-4 of the RIA. The CAMU provisions specified five decision
factors for selecting remedies: long-term reliability and
effectiveness; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes;
short-term effectiveness; implementability; and, cost. Agency officials
were present throughout the expert panel process to resolve specific
questions concerning the interpretation/applicability of current Agency
policy and to ensure that remedial objectives were consistent with the
CAMU provisions. Accordingly, the expert panel process, though somewhat
simplified compared to the actual decision-making process, involved a
consideration of relevant factors by qualified experts. As such, it
adequately represented real-world decisions for purposes of this
rulemaking.
Based upon results of the impact analysis done in support of the
CAMU rulemaking, as well as the above discussion in response to public
comments, EPA believes it is not necessary to re-visit the regulatory
impact analysis for the CAMU rulemaking.
Dated: August 24, 1995.
Elliott P. Laws,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 95-23840 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
