SummaryDetails
Summary
FEB. 11, 2000 - The Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Technology Council today reached a settlement agreement on the pending litigation over the Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) regulation for remediation waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The settlement is being filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Under the settlement, if EPA promulgates amendments to the CAMU rule described in the settlement and certain other conditions are met, the CAMU lawsuit will be dropped.
Timothy Fields Jr., EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, said, "Today's landmark settlement on CAMU is critical to sustain the success of the RCRA cleanup reform agenda. The settlement significantly reduces the cloud of legal uncertainty over the CAMU rule that has discouraged hazardous waste cleanups. By doing so this settlement will allow cleanups already underway to proceed, and it will encourage the cleanup of thousands of other hazardous waste sites across the nation."
The Agency has been in discussions for the better part of a year in an effort to settle litigation over the CAMU rule. In conjunction with the settlement process, EPA obtained feedback from many stakeholders from industry and the states to help inform today's settlement. The settlement calls for EPA to propose amendments to the existing CAMU rule by August 7, 2000, and to publish a final rule by October 8, 2001. While not part of the settlement, EPA also intends to include in the proposed amendments provisions for expediting state authorization of these amendments and will take public comment on all of the proposed changes.
Today's settlement calls for the Agency to amend the 1993 CAMU rule. That rule was written to address the potential disincentives to cleanup created by RCRA rules when applied to the management of RCRA hazardous remediation wastes during cleanup. Amendments to the 1993 rule specified in the settlement would establish CAMU-specific treatment and design standards. Among other things, the amendments would impose minimum treatment standards for principal hazardous constituents in CAMU wastes and minimum liner and cap standards for CAMUs. The settlement also includes a number of adjustment factors that allow for site-specific adjustments to treatment, striking a balance between minimum national standards and flexibility that is appropriate for the site-specific nature of cleanups.
Details
(Attachment to settlement agreement filed February 11, 2000 in Environmental Defense
Fund v. U.S. EPA, No. 93-1316(D.C. Cir.)(petition for review of Corrective Action
Management Rule). Settlement also addresses petition for review filed by same
petitioners in Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. EPA, No. 99-1077 (D.C. Circuit)
(regarding the "HWIR-Media" rule).)
TOP
BOTTOM
ATTACHMENT A
NOTE: The language below contains either rule language, points for discussion in
the preamble (generally identified by an asterisk (*)), or otherwise describes
the changes to be made.
I CAMU Eligibility
Location: Up front in the CAMU rule (�264.552)
CAMU-Eligible Waste means,
(a) all solid and hazardous wastes, and all media (including groundwater, surface water, soils, and
sediments) and debris that contain listed hazardous wastes or that themselves exhibit a hazardous
characteristic and are managed for implementing cleanup. As-generated wastes (either hazardous or
non-hazardous) from ongoing industrial operations at a site are not CAMU-eligible wastes.
(b) Wastes that would otherwise meet the description in (a) are not "CAMU-Eligible Wastes" where: (1)
the wastes are hazardous wastes found during cleanup in intact or substantially intact containers,
tanks, or other non-land-based units, unless (i) the wastes are first placed in the tanks, containers
or non-land-based units as part of cleanup, or (ii) the containers are excavated during the course of
cleanup; or (2) the Director exercises the discretion in [discretionary kickout--below] to prohibit
the wastes from management in a CAMU.
(c) Notwithstanding (a), where appropriate, as-generated non-hazardous waste may be placed in a CAMU
where such waste is being used to facilitate treatment or the performance of the CAMU.
Part (a) of the CAMU-Eligible Waste Definition:
* Added clarifying language (from current CAMU preamble) to the existing definition of remediation
waste, which is currently used to define what wastes are eligible to be managed in a CAMU. The
changes are intended to make clear that "as-generated" wastes from routine hazardous waste management
activities are not eligible for management in a CAMU. The primary intent is to create a "firewall"
between industrial process waste and cleanup waste. Similarly, the discussion below is intended to
clarify the distinction between process and cleanup waste by more thoroughly fleshing out what types
of wastes are and are not "managed for implementing cleanup."
* Wastes "managed for implementing cleanup" include wastes removed during RCRA closure at closed or
closing permanent land disposal units. "Closed or closing" means units that have received their final
volume of waste. "Permanent land disposal units" are those for which the regulations provide a
closure in place option (e.g., landfills, surface impoundments and some land treatment units).
* Wastes "managed for implementing cleanup" would not typically include wastes removed during RCRA
closure of non-permanent land-based units (e.g., waste piles); in other words, closure of such units
would not be considered "cleanup." Similarly, hazardous sludges periodically removed from subtitle C
regulated surface impoundments would not be included. Of course, wastes that have been released from
such units would likely be the subject of "cleanup" and therefore eligible. The "typically" is
intended to preserve the Agency's ability, for example, at abandoned facilities, to place waste found
in old piles or similar units in a CAMU because once they are abandoned, management of wastes they
contain is for the purpose of implementing cleanup.
* Rationale for previous two bullets: for piles and similar land-based storage units, removal of wastes
is part of the normal course of operation; these units were not intended as the final resting place
for wastes. Therefore, it would typically be inappropriate to consider such removal "cleanup."
However, for permanent disposal units, closure by removal is cleanup, because the regulations provide
an option for closure in place. Plus, the Agency seeks to encourage closure by removal - allowing
CAMUs will do that.
Part (b)(1) of the CAMU-Eligible Waste Definition:
* "Other non-land-based units" - This concept is intended to include intact or substantially intact non-
land-based units that are not "containers" or "tanks," but were designed to contain wastes (e.g.,
containment buildings under Part 264, Subpart DD and Part 265, Subpart DD).
* EPA interprets "substantially intact" to include units/containers with imperfections such that the
unit/container can be removed without likelihood of a significant release to the environment. For
example, some facilities have old underground masonry constructed units that have not been used in
decades, and would arguably meet the definition of a tank. In some cases, given the age,
construction, and size of these units, it would be reasonable to assume that the units are not
substantially intact and therefore the wastes removed from the units would be CAMU-eligible. In other
cases, such historic units would be considered land-based units under RCRA (e.g., old building
foundations) and the waste would not be excluded from CAMU-eligibility.
Part (b)(2) of the CAMU-Eligible Waste Definition:
The Director may prohibit, where appropriate, the placement of waste in a CAMU where the Director has
or receives information that such wastes have not been managed in compliance with applicable land
disposal treatment standards of Part 268, or applicable Part 264 or 265 unit design requirements, or
that non-compliance with other applicable RCRA requirements likely contributed to the release of the
waste.
Amended �264.552(d):
The owner/operator shall provide sufficient information to enable the Regional Administrator to
designate a CAMU in accordance with the requirements of �264.552. This information must include,
unless not reasonably available, information: 1) on the origin of the waste and how it was
subsequently managed (including a description of the timing and circumstances surrounding the disposal
and/or release); 2) whether the waste was listed or identified as hazardous at the time of disposal
and/or release; and 3) whether the waste was subject to the land disposal requirements of Part 268 of
this chapter at the time of disposal and/or release.
* Intent of Kickout: Allows exclusion from CAMU of wastes not managed in compliance with certain RCRA
requirements through exercise of Director's discretion. Discretion provides balance between
facilitating cleanups with CAMUs and maintaining incentives for waste minimization and proper waste
management in the first instance. With discretionary authority, Director has the ability to use
CAMUs, even if there had been prior non-compliance, where appropriate.
* Where appropriate to disallow CAMU management: The Director should consider exercising discretionary
kickout where there was prior non-compliance with the applicable land disposal treatment standards of
Part 268, the Part 264 or 265 unit design requirements, or where non-compliance with other applicable
RCRA requirements likely contributed to the release of the waste. In the analysis of whether to
disallow management in the CAMU, the Director will consider the significance of the violation, among
other site-specific factors. It would be generally appropriate to allow management in a CAMU where
the entity seeking the CAMU is not the same entity, or affiliated with the entity, that mishandled the
waste.
* The information submission approach would provide the Director and the public with information on the
circumstances surrounding the origin and subsequent management of the waste. The Director would use
this information for the purposes of deciding whether the waste is CAMU eligible, including whether
such waste is one for which kickout should be considered. For the purpose of determining CAMU
eligibility, the Director should, where appropriate, seek information regarding waste history beyond
that initially submitted pursuant to �264.552(d). In particular, where the information submission
raises concerns about prior waste management or where the Director has some other information--such as
information already in its possession or brought to the Director's attention by a citizens group--that
raises concerns about prior waste management, the Director should seek additional information
necessary to determine whether to invoke the discretionary kickout authority. Where information
responding to the requirements in �552(d)(1)-(3) is not reasonably available, the facility could
fulfill these information submission requirements by informing the Director on the extent of its
knowledge about the waste and releases.
* The term "unit design requirements" refers to substantive design standards, such as the tank design
standards under 40CFR �264.192 or the design requirements for waste piles under �264.251. Maintenance
requirements, such as the owner/operator requirement to inspect tanks under �264.195, would be
addressed under the phrase "or that non-compliance with other applicable RCRA requirements likely
contributed to the release of the waste."
Liquids in CAMUs
Location: Up-front in CAMU rule (�264.552)
Prohibition Against Placing Liquids in CAMUs
(a) The placement of bulk or noncontainerized liquid hazardous waste or free liquids contained in
hazardous waste (whether or not absorbents have been added) in any CAMU is prohibited except where
placement of such wastes facilitates the remedy selected for the waste.
(b) The requirements in �264.314(d) for placement of containers holding free liquids in landfills
apply to placement in a CAMU except where placement facilitates the remedy selected for the waste.
(c) The placement of any liquid which is not a hazardous waste in a CAMU is prohibited unless: (i)
such placement facilitates the remedy selected for the waste; or (ii) a demonstration is made pursuant
to �264.314(f).
* Consistent with the long-standing approach for landfills, liquids should generally not be placed in
CAMUs. However, there will be instances where it is appropriate to place liquids or wastes containing
liquids in CAMUs to facilitate the remedy selected for the waste. Liquids might be introduced into
the CAMU, for example, during dewatering of sludges or sediments, to facilitate bioremediation, for
soil washing or solvent extraction technologies, for dust suppression.
II Identification of "Principal Hazardous Constituents"
Location: probably after or as a modification to �264.552(e).
(a) CAMU-eligible wastes that, absent this section, would be subject to the treatment requirements of
Part 268, and that the Director determines contain principal hazardous constituents must be treated to
the standards specified in [treatment requirements]. Principal hazardous constituents are those
constituents that the Director determines pose a risk to human health and the environment
substantially higher than the cleanup levels or goals at the site. In general, the Director will
designate as principal hazardous constituents: 1) carcinogens that pose a potential direct risk from
ingestion or inhalation at the site at or above 10-3; and, 2) non-carcinogens that pose a potential
direct risk from ingestion or inhalation at the site an order of magnitude or greater over their
reference dose. The Director will also designate constituents as principal hazardous constituents,
where appropriate, based on risks posed by the potential migration of constituents in wastes to
groundwater, considering such factors as constituent concentrations, and fate and transport
characteristics under site conditions. The Director may also designate other constituents as
principal hazardous constituents that the Director determines pose a risk to human health and the
environment substantially higher than the cleanup levels or goals at the site.
(b) In determining which constituents are "principal hazardous constituents," the Director must
consider all constituents which, absent this section, would be subject to the treatment requirements
in 40 CFR Part 268.
* The Director identifies principal hazardous constituents as constituents that pose a risk that is
substantially higher than the cleanup levels or goals at the site. Once designated, these principal
hazardous constituents would be subject to the treatment standards. For carcinogens, the Agency
generally sets site-specific risk goals for final cleanup within the risk range of 10-4 to 10-6, with
10-6 being the point of departure. Therefore, concentrations in CAMU waste that pose potential risks
at or above 10-3 will typically define principal hazardous constituents. In the rare cases where the
final cleanup goal for the site falls at the upper end of the risk range (e.g., at 10-4),
concentrations in CAMU waste at or above the 10-3 level should still be generally established as
defining principal hazardous constituents.
* Constituents posing a risk of 10-3 or greater, or 10 times the reference dose or greater, will
generally be identified by the Director as principal hazardous constituents. Concentrations above, but
near the 10-3 potential risk level would be looked at closely in light of assumptions that underlie
the 10-3 determination (e.g., their chemical characteristics and site conditions) prior to determining
whether they were principal hazardous constituents.
For example, if a constituent posed risks close to a 10-3 level, based on conservative default
assumptions (e.g., promulgated state default tables or generic assumptions used to determine
bioavailability), and the underlying assumptions are not applicable at the site in question,
the Director could determine that the constituents should not be designated as principal
hazardous constituents.
The general approach for designating principal hazardous constituents is qualified by the
phrase, "The Director may also designate other constituents as principal hazardous
constituents...," because there may be other constituents that meet the standard (i.e., that
pose a risk to human health and the environment substantially higher than the cleanup levels
or goals at the site). For example, the Director could also determine that constituents
posing risks less than 10-3 are principal hazardous constituents, such as a constituent posing
10-4 potential risk that is highly mobile, at a site where protection of groundwater is an
especially significant issue.
* As a general principle, in situations where constituents in soil pose a significant potential threat
through the groundwater pathway (e.g., based on fate and transport modeling) and the soil is excavated
for disposal in a CAMU, the Director should strongly consider whether to designate such constituents
as PHCs if they are not otherwise designated. In determining the appropriateness of this designation,
the Director could consider a range of site-specific factors, including location of the CAMU, nature
of the waste and constituents, how the waste will be managed and beneficial use of groundwater.
* The above approach to principal hazardous constituents (i.e., emphasizing risks from toxicity) does
not mean that only the listed factors could be used to determine whether constituents meet the
principal hazardous constituent standard (i.e., constituents that pose a risk to human health and the
environment substantially higher than the cleanup levels or goals at the site). Other site-specific
factors, such as ecological concerns, constituent mobility, or potential risks posed by dermal
contact, might, on a site-specific basis, be weighed in identifying principal hazardous constituents.
* The principal hazardous constituent approach compares risks posed by the waste to the cleanup levels
or goals established at the site. This approach would make use of the process typically used by EPA
or the authorized state for establishing cleanup levels or goals at a site. The comparison would
assume direct exposure and consider reasonably anticipated land use (which could be residential or
non-residential). Fate and transport would only be considered for assessing the migration of
constituents from waste into groundwater or air, for the purpose of determining the risk posed by
direct exposure to the groundwater or inhalation.
* In determining which constituents are "principal hazardous constituents," the Director must consider
all constituents that would be subject to Part 268 treatment standards if not placed in a CAMU. This
means: for listed sludges, "regulated hazardous constituents" (see �268.40, Table "Treatment Standards
for Hazardous Wastes"); for characteristic wastes, all "underlying hazardous constituents" (see
�268.40(e), �268.2(c)); for soil, "constituents subject to treatment" (see �268.49(d)).
III Treatment Standards
Location: probably after or as a modification to �264.552(e).
Treatment standards for waste placed in CAMUs other than temporary CAMUS. Waste that the Director
determines contains principal hazardous constituents must meet treatment standards determined in
accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) below:
(a) Treatment standards for wastes placed in CAMUs.
(1) For non-metals, treatment must achieve 90 percent reduction in total principal hazardous
constituent concentrations, except as provided by paragraph (3) of this section.
(2) For metals, treatment must achieve 90 percent reduction in principal hazardous constituent
concentrations as measured in leachate from the treated waste or media (tested according to
the TCLP) or 90 percent reduction in total constituent concentrations (when a metal removal
treatment technology is used), except as provided by paragraph (3) of this section.
(3)When treatment of any principal hazardous constituent to a 90 percent reduction standard
would result in a concentration less than 10 times the Universal Treatment Standard for that
constituent, treatment to achieve constituent concentrations less than 10 times the Universal
Treatment Standard is not required. Universal Treatment Standards are identified in 40 CFR
�268.48 Table UTS.
(4) For waste exhibiting the hazardous characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity or
reactivity, the waste must also be treated to eliminate these characteristics.
(5) For debris, the debris must be treated in accordance with 40 CFR �268.45 or by methods or to
levels established under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
(b) Adjusted standards. The Director may adjust the treatment level or method established in (a) to a
higher or lower level, based on one or more of the following factors, as appropriate. The adjusted
level or method must be protective of human health and the environment:
1) the technical impracticability of treatment to the levels or by the methods established by
(a);
2) the levels or methods established by (a) would result in concentrations of hazardous
constituents that are significantly above or below cleanup standards applicable to the site
(established either site-specifically, or promulgated under state or federal law);
3) the views of the affected local community on the treatment levels or methods for the site
under (a), and, for treatment levels, the treatment methods necessary to achieve these levels;
4) the short-term risks presented by the on-site treatment method necessary to achieve the
levels or treatment methods established by (a);
5) the long-term protection offered by the engineering design of the CAMU and related
engineering controls:
(A) where the treatment standards in (a) are substantially met and the principal
hazardous constituents in the waste or residuals are of very low mobility; or
(B) where cost-effective treatment has been used, or where, after review of
appropriate treatment technologies, the Director determines that such treatment is not
reasonably available, and:
1) the CAMU meets the Subtitle C liner and leachate collection requirements for
new land disposal units, or
2) the principal hazardous constituents in the treated wastes are of very low
mobility, or,
3) where wastes have not been treated and the principal hazardous constituents in the
wastes are of very low mobility, (i) the CAMU meets the liner standards for new,
replacement, or laterally expanded CAMUs (i.e., those in the amendments to �264.552(e)
in this discussion paper) or (ii) the CAMU provides substantially equivalent
protection.
(c) The treatment required by the treatment standards must be completed prior to, or within a
reasonable time after, placement in the CAMU.
(d) For the purpose of determining whether wastes placed in CAMUs have met site-specific treatment
standards, the Director may, as appropriate, specify a subset of the principal hazardous constituents
in the waste as analytical surrogates for determining whether treatment standards have been met for
other principal hazardous constituents. This specification will be based on the degree of difficulty
of treatment and analysis of constituents with similar treatment properties.
* Under (c), the requirement to complete treatment within "a reasonable time" after placement in a CAMU
would be made in the context of the remedy selected for the waste. The Agency would expect treatment
to be completed within months or years, not decades, except in very unusual circumstances.
* EPA would take comment on the appropriateness of using leaching tests other than the TCLP for
assessing whether 90% reduction has been met for metals under (a)(2).
* Adjustment factor #1 would include the concepts of the current "unachievable" LDR variance
(�268.44(h)(1)) and the "technically inappropriate" variance (�268.44(h)(2)(i)), as well as the more
traditional concepts of technical impracticability (technically infeasible or inordinately costly).
* Adjustment factor #2 would allow for adjusting treatment up or down, if cleanup levels developed for
the site are significantly higher or lower than the levels required under (a). When applying the
adjustment factor, comparisons would be to levels (either established site-specifically or promulgated
under state or federal law) that assume there is direct exposure of a receptor to the constituents.
Site-specific cleanup standards are typically derived after consideration of factors that influence
the risk potential at the site, including fate and transport considerations (e.g., in setting levels
in soils that are protective of groundwater), distinctions between residential, industrial and other
types of land use, and location of potential receptors. However, protection offered by the
engineering of the CAMU itself would not be included in the calculation of adjusted treatment
standards. Adjustment #2 would include the concepts of the current "site-specific minimize threat"
LDR variance (Section 268.44(h)(3)).
* With respect to adjustment factor #5(A), some treatment technologies will "substantially," but not
precisely, attain 10 x UTS or 90% treatment of all principal hazardous constituents in the waste.
Where the mobility of the constituents is very low, on a site-specific basis, it can be appropriate to
consider that the "substantially met" treatment is protective of human health and the environment.
For example, the most appropriate technology at a site for organic contaminants that have low
migration potential (e.g., certain polyaromatic hydrocarbons) might be biodegradation. This
technology might come close to, but not achieve, 10 x UTS. Given that the contaminants have a low
migration potential, the Director could assess site-specific factors that affect mobility, including
the geologic setting, precipitation and evaporation, and make the determination that the CAMU would
provide long-term protection of human health and the environment. In another example, the treatment
standards would be substantially met where the overwhelming majority of constituents have been treated
to meet the treatment standards, but a very few immobile constituents do not meet the standards.
* For many waste streams with multiple constituents, treatment can be analytically assessed by measuring
the concentrations of a subset of constituents that are determined site-specifically. This
"surrogate" approach is commonly used in cleanups, taking into account such factors as characteristics
of the waste, ability to analyze and which constituents within groups with similar treatment
properties are most difficult to treat (these are generally the ones to focus on).
IV Design Standards
Location: probably after or as a modification to �264.552(e).
CAMUs, other than temporary CAMUs, into which wastes are placed must be designed in accordance with
the following:
(a) Liners.
(1) Unless the Director approves alternate requirements under paragraph (2), CAMUs that
consist of new, replacement, or laterally expanded units must include a composite liner and a
leachate collection system that is designed and constructed to maintain less than a 30-cm depth
of leachate over the liner. For purposes of this section, composite liner means a system
consisting of two components; the upper component must consist of a minimum 30-mil flexible
membrane liner (FML), and the lower component must consist of at least a two-foot layer of
compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1x10-7 cm/sec. FML components
consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE) must be at least 60 mil thick. The FML component
must be installed in direct and uniform contact with the compacted soil component;
(2) Alternate Requirements. The Director may approve alternate requirements: (i) if the
Director finds that alternate design and operating practices, together with location
characteristics, will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents into the ground
water or surface water at least as effectively as the liner and leachate collection systems in
paragraph (1); or (ii), if the CAMU is to be established in an area with existing significant
levels of contamination, and the Director finds that an alternative design, including a design
that does not include a liner, would prevent migration from the unit that would exceed long-
term remedial goals.
(b) Cap.
(1) At final closure of the CAMU, the owner or operator must cover the CAMU with a final cover
designed and constructed to meet the following performance criteria, except as provided in
(2):
(A) Provide long-term minimization of migration of liquids through the closed unit;
(B) function with minimum maintenance;
(C) promote drainage and minimize erosion or abrasion of the cover;
(D) accommodate settling and subsidence so that the cover's integrity is maintained;
and
(E) have a permeability less than or equal to the permeability of any bottom liner system
or natural subsoils present.
(2) The Director may determine that modifications to (1) are needed to facilitate treatment or
the performance of the CAMU (e.g., to promote biodegradation).
(c) CAMUs into which wastes are placed with constituent levels below remedial levels or goals
applicable to the site do not have to comply with (a),(b), [groundwater monitoring requirements] or
[provisions for temporary CAMU design standards].
Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action -- Modifications to existing language in CAMU rule in italics:
�264.552(e) The RA shall specify, in the permit or order, requirements for CAMUs to include the
following:
(3) Requirements for ground water monitoring and corrective action that are sufficient to:
(i) Continue to detect and to characterize the nature, extent, concentration, direction and movement
of existing releases of hazardous constituents in ground water from sources located within the CAMU;
(ii) Detect and subsequently characterize releases of hazardous constituents to ground water that may
occur from areas of the CAMU in which wastes will remain in place after closure of the CAMU; and
(iii) Require notification and corrective action, as necessary to protect human health and the
environment, for releases to groundwater from the CAMU.
* The approach in provision (c) ("CAMUs into which wastes are placed with constituent levels below
remedial levels or goals applicable to the site do not have to comply with (a) or (b)") would allow
wastes with contaminant concentrations that are protective of human health and the environment to be
placed on the ground without engineering controls. This approach is consistent with the Agency's
"contained-in" policy.
* The liner standard contains a provision allowing the Director to approve alternate designs that are
determined to be at least as effective at preventing migration of any hazardous constituents into the
ground or surface water. This provision is necessary to provide flexibility for designs that take into
account local factors, including state design protocols and availability of construction materials.
In addition, flexibility in liner design is also needed for CAMUs that are established at certain
highly contaminated facilities. For example, at some highly contaminated facilities where
contamination is pervasive throughout the subsurface, and where groundwater pump and treat is
predicted to be necessary for hundreds of years, a liner to reduce migration of constituents from the
CAMU into the more highly contaminated subsurface would not add a meaningful additional level of
protection and would not be the best use of remediation resources.
* Groundwater monitoring and corrective action standards are general performance standards; detailed
specifications or performance standards would be included in the permit or order, based on site-
specific information and conditions.
V Temporary CAMUs
CAMUs into which wastes are placed for storage or for treatment only must be approved under the CAMU
requirements (�264.552); however, the treatment requirements in �264.552(e) would not apply for the
limited period while wastes are in the temporary unit. The design, operating and closure standards in
��264.552(c), 264.552(e)(3) and 264.552(e)(4) would be replaced by the following design, operating and
closure standards in the staging pile regulations: ��264.554(d); 264.554(e); 264.554(f); 264.554(h);
264.554(i); 264.554(j); 264.554(k).
* Although the treatment requirements in �264.552(e) would not apply, the Director would not be
prevented from requiring treatment in a temporary CAMU; nothing in this language would prevent the
Director from requiring treatment for waste in a temporary CAMU as part of the overall CAMU or remedy
decision.
* Temporary CAMUs that operate pursuant to the above-referenced design, operating and closure standards
in the staging pile regulations could only operate for two years, except when granted an extension
(see �264.554(d)(1)(iii) and �264.554(i)).
* Temporary CAMUs that will operate for a period that exceeds two and a half years would be subject to
the liner and groundwater monitoring requirements (including corrective action) for permanent CAMUs.
The authorizing mechanism for the CAMU (i.e., permit or order) would specify the time limit for the
CAMU. The regulations would provide that this time limit could be no longer than necessary to achieve
a timely remedy selected for the waste. The preamble would state the Agency's general expectation
that storage or treatment activities in such non-permanent CAMUs would be completed within years not
decades, except in very unusual circumstances.
VI CAMU Omnibus Provision
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Director may impose additional requirements
as necessary to protect human health and the environment.
* Where the omnibus finding is made, this provision would enable the Director to impose requirements
relating to any element of CAMUs, including: requiring additional treatment of PHCs beyond the
minimum standards; requiring additional engineering or monitoring specifications; and prohibiting
specific wastes from inclusion in the CAMU.
VII Grandfathering
The rule would "grandfather" all existing, approved CAMUs, and those that are substantially in the
approval process. Rule would provide that existing CAMUs and those with substantially complete
applications (and order equivalents) submitted within 90 days after publication of the proposed rule
would be grandfathered (i.e., remain subject to the current standards for the life of the CAMU). CAMU
waste, activities and design would not be subject to the new standards as long as the waste,
activities, and design remain within the general scope of the grandfathered CAMU.
VIII Public Participation
Replace existing �264.552(f) with:
�264.552(f): The Regional Administrator shall provide public notice and a reasonable opportunity for
public comment before designating a CAMU. Such notice shall include the rationale for any proposed
adjustments under [x] to the treatment standards in [x].
* Public involvement in the corrective action program is currently being discussed as part of EPA's RCRA
Cleanup Reforms. Public participation in the CAMU process will be informed by this initiative. In
addition, EPA will take comment on whether to apply the RCRA enhanced public participation regulations
(60 FR 63417, 12/11/95) to CAMU decisions.
The following represents the general approach that the Agency intends to propose for implementing state
authorization of the CAMU amendments. The following language is not part of the CAMU settlement agreement.
State Authorization
States authorized for CAMU rule: Goal would be to ensure that such states apply for and obtain authorization
for rule amendments (which will be promulgated pursuant to HSWA) within a reasonable time frame, while
allowing them to implement the new standards in lieu of EPA in the interim.
* Interim authorization by rule. EPA would propose that State programs that are able and willing to use
amendments as guidance while they apply for and await final authorization would be "substantially
equivalent" to the federal CAMU program and thus would obtain interim authorization by rule (assuming
the state does not have unresolved audit law issues) to implement the amendments during that period.
* The interim authorization approach would be proposed in the CAMU proposal, with the intent that
interim authorizations would become effective on the same day that the CAMU amendments become
effective. The rule would contain a sunset provision - states that do not obtain final authorization
within three years would lose their interim authorization. EPA would then implement the CAMU
amendments in such states.
* States that do not wish to obtain interim authorization in accordance with the above (i.e., states
that are not able and willing to use the amendments as guidance) could take advantage of the expedited
authorization approach designed for states that are authorized for corrective action but not the CAMU
rule (see below).
States authorized for corrective action, but not CAMU: Goal would be to create an expedited approach to
authorizing such states for the CAMU rule.
* Streamlined application requirements: Rule would reduce the current authorization application
requirements (40 CFR �271.21) to revised Attorney General's statement of authority and submission of
relevant authorities. This would eliminate requirements for revised program description and revised
MOA.
* In addition, Agency would make authorization of such states for the CAMU rule a high priority. Where
states incorporate CAMU rule by reference or adopt it verbatim, EPA, upon receipt of an application,
would immediately proceed to publish a notice of a direct-finalF
Under a "direct-final" rulemaking approach, the Agency publishes
notices of proposed and final rules simultaneously. If the Agency
does not receive significant comments on the proposal within a
specified period (typically 60 days), the final rule takes effect. If
the Agency does receive significant comment during that period, the
Agency withdraws the notice of final rule before it takes effect.
F rule providing for final
authorization (or, in some cases, interim authorization). An exception to this policy would be where
in the Region's judgment known issues with the existing program greatly affect the program's prospects
for authorization. Examples of such issues would be questions regarding a state's enforcement
authority (e.g., audit law issues) or capability (e.g., resource issues). For states that do not
incorporate by reference or adopt verbatim, Regions would be directed to act as quickly as possible to
get to final authorization.
* This approach would only be available where the program seeking authorization is the same program that
has been authorized for corrective action.
For more information see: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/cleanup.htm.
This page was last changed on 08/01/04
