Hazardous Waste Identification Rule

The hazardous waste identification rule has finally been signed by the EPA Administrator.  It was just published on November 30, 1998 - 63 FR 65874 - see below to download a copy of the rule as ASCII text or an Adobe PDF file.


hzsitguy.JPG (4472 bytes)


EPA issued regulations that it says will make it easier to treat, store and disposal of hazardous remediation waste. The Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Contaminated Media (also known as the HWIR-Media Rule) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is expected to eliminate many of the existing regulatory disincentives to remediation, making it faster and easier to cleanup hazardous waste sites. Specifically, the rule:


Makes it easier to obtain permits for treating, storing and disposing of cleanup wastes;


Provides that obtaining these permits will not subject owners and/or operators to facility-wide corrective action;


Creates a new kind of unit called the "staging pile" that allows more flexibility in temporarily storing remediation wastes during cleanup;


·Excludes dredge material from RCRA hazardous waste requirements if the wastes are managed under an appropriate permit under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act or the Clean Water Act;


· Makes it faster and easier for states to receive authorization when they update their RCRA programs to incorporate revisions to the federal RCRA regulations.

These regulations are effective on June 1, 1999.  The requirements of this rule are optional for authorized state RCRA programs to adopt because they are less stringent then the existing requirements. EPA decided not to pursue broad regulatory reform at this time and has chosen to retain the Corrective Action Management Units (CAMU) rule as it currently exists (see 40 CFR Section 264.552).

Download the full text Federal Register notice as: TXT, or PDF (it is about 75 PDF pages or 148 ASCII printed pages)

horizontal rule

The first 10 pages or so of the rule are reprinted below, as they inclide the summary and outline.  If you need more, download one of the versions above. 

For further information and assistance applying the rule to your own scenario, call EHSO, John Slemmer; at 770-645-0788.

horizontal rule

[[Page 65874]]


40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 268, 270 and 271

RIN 2050-AE22

Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (HWIR-media)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.


SUMMARY: As part of President Clinton's March 1994 environmental regulatory reform initiative, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing new requirements for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous remediation wastes treated, stored or disposed of during cleanup actions. These new
requirements make five major changes: First, they make permits for treating, storing and disposing of remediation wastes faster and easier to obtain; second, they provide that obtaining these permits will not subject the owner and/or operator to facility-wide corrective action; third, they create a new kind of unit called a ``staging pile'' that allows more flexibility in storing remediation waste during cleanup; fourth, they exclude dredged materials from RCRA Subtitle C if they are managed under an appropriate permit under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act or the Clean Water Act; and fifth, they make it faster and easier for States to receive authorization when they update their RCRA programs to incorporate revisions to the Federal RCRA regulations.

DATES: These final regulations are effective on June 1, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA
Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The Docket Identification
Number is F-98-MHWF-FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket
materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by
calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from
any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page.
The index and some supporting materials are available electronically.
See the Supplementary Information section for information on accessing

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing
impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 412-
9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323.
For more detailed information on specific aspects of this
rulemaking, contact Michael Fitzpatrick, Office of Solid Waste 5303W,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460, (703) 308-8411, fitzpatrick.mike@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index and supporting materials are
available on the Internet. Follow these instructions to access the information electronically:



The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Overview Information
A. Why do This Rule and Preamble Read so Differently From Other
B. What Law Authorizes This Rule?
II. Background Information
A. What Problems Does Today's Rule Address?
1. Response-oriented Programs Have Different Objectives and
Incentives Than Prevention-oriented Programs
2. LDRs, MTRs, and Permitting Raise Problems When Applied to
Remediation Wastes
B. How has EPA Tried to Solve These Problems in the Past?
C. How did the Proposed Rule Attempt to Solve These Problems?
1. The ``Bright Line'' Approach for Contaminated Media
2. Other Options Within the ``Bright Line'' Approach
3. The ``Unitary'' Approach--An Alternative to the ``Bright
D. What General Comments did EPA Receive About the Two Major
Proposed Options?
E. What did EPA Decide to do After Considering Those Comments?
III. Definitions Used in this Rule (Sec. 260.10)
A. Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU)--Changes to the
Existing Definition, and Changes to the CAMU and Temporary Unit
Regulations at Secs. 264.552(a) and 264.553(a)
1. Definition of CAMU
2. Secs. 264.552 and 264.553
B. Remediation Waste--Changes to the Existing Definition
C. Remediation Waste Management Site and Facility--New
Requirements for Remediation Waste Management Sites
1. EPA Changed the Term From ``Media Remediation Site'' in the
Proposal to ``Remediation Waste Management Site'' in the Final Rule
2. EPA has Created Different Requirements for Remediation Waste
Management Sites than for Facilities Managing ``As-generated''
Hazardous Wastes
3. Differences Between the Proposed Definition of Media
Remediation Site and the Final Definition of Remediation Waste
Management Site
4. Remediation Waste Management Sites are Not Subject to
Facility-wide Corrective Action
5. Remediation Waste Management Sites are Excluded From Only the
Second Part of the Definition of Facility
6. Facility
D. Staging Pile--A New Kind of Unit
1. Differences Between the Definition of Staging Pile and the
Existing Definition of Pile
2. Differences Between the Proposed Definition of Remediation
Pile and the Final Definition of Staging Pile
E. Miscellaneous Unit--An Edit to the Existing Definition
IV. Information on Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) (Secs. 270.2, 270.68
and 270.80-270.230)

General Information About RAPs

A. What are EPA's Objectives for RAPs?
B. What is a RAP? (Secs. 270.68, 270.2 and 270.80)
1. The Differences Between a RAP and a Traditional RCRA Permit
2. Some Advantages of a RAP Compared to a Traditional RCRA
3. Differences Between ``Remediation Management Plans'' in the
Proposal and ``Remedial Action Plans'' in the Final Rule
C. When do I need a RAP? (Sec. 270.85)
1. What Activities Require RCRA Permits?
D. Does my RAP Grant me Any Rights or Relieve me of Any
Obligations? (Sec. 270.90)

Applying for a RAP

E. How do I Apply for a RAP? (Sec. 270.95)
F. Who Must Obtain a RAP? (Sec. 270.100)
G. Who Must Sign an Application for a RAP? (Sec. 270.105)
H. What Must I Include in my Application for a RAP?
(Sec. 270.110)
1. Description of the Specific Content Requirements
2. Comments on the Contents of RAPs
3. Contents of RAPs in the Proposal that are Not Required in the Final Rule
I. What if I Want to Keep this Information Confidential (Sec. 270.115)
J. To Whom Must I Submit my RAP Application? (Sec. 270.120)
K. If I Submit my RAP Application as Part of Another Document, What Must I do? (Sec. 270.125)
1. Provisions From the Proposal that are Not Included in the Final Rule

Getting a RAP Approved

L. What is the Process for Approving or Denying my Application
for a RAP? (Sec. 270.130)
M. What Must the Director Include in a Draft RAP? (Sec. 270.135)
1. Provisions of the Proposal that are Not in the Final Rule
N. What Else Must the Director Prepare in Addition to the Draft RAP or Notice of Intent to Deny? (Sec. 270.140)
O. What are the Procedures for Public Comment on the Draft RAP
or Notice of Intent to Deny? (Sec. 270.145)
1. A Description of the Requirements
2. Commenters Requested More Flexibility
P. The Importance of Public Involvement in the RAP Process
Q. How Will the Director Make a Final Decision on my RAP
Application? (Sec. 270.150)
1. A Description of the Requirements
2. Comments on the Proposed Requirements
R. May the Decision to Approve or Deny my RAP Application be
Administratively Appealed? (Sec. 270.155)
S. When Does my RAP Become Effective? (Sec. 270.160)
T. When May I Begin Physical Construction of New Units Permitted
Under the RAP? (Sec. 270.165)

How May my RAP be Modified, Revoked and Reissued, or Terminated?

U. After my RAP is Issued, How May it be Modified, Revoked and Reissued, or Terminated? (Sec. 270.170)
V. For What Reasons May the Director Choose to Modify my Final RAP? (Sec. 270.175)
W. For What Reasons May the Director Choose to Revoke and Reissue my Final RAP? (Sec. 270.180)
X. For What Reasons May the Director Choose to Terminate my Final RAP, or Deny my Renewal Application? (Sec. 270.185)
Y. May the Decision to Approve or Deny a Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination of my RAP be Administratively Appealed? (Sec. 270.190)
Z. When Will my RAP Expire? (Sec. 270.195)
AA. How May I Renew my RAP if it is Expiring? (Sec. 270.200)
BB. What Happens if I Have Applied Correctly for a RAP Renewal
But Have Not Received Approval by the Time my Old RAP Expires?
(Sec. 270.205)

Operating Under Your RAP

CC. What Records Must I Maintain Concerning my RAP? (Sec. 270.210)
DD. How are the Time Periods in the Requirements in this Subpart and my RAP Computed? (Sec. 270.215)
EE. How May I Transfer my RAP to a New Owner or Operator? (Sec. 270.220)
FF. What Must the State or EPA Region Report About Non-compliance with RAPs? (Sec. 270.225)

Obtaining a RAP for an Off-site Location

GG. May I Perform Remediation Waste Management Activities Under a RAP at a Location Removed From the Area Where the Remediation
Wastes Originated? (Sec. 270.230)
HH. Comparison of the RAPs Process to that for Traditional RCRA Permits

V. Requirements Under Part 264 for Remediation Waste Management Sites (Sec. 264.1(j))

A. Comments on Applying Part 264 Standards to Remediation Waste
Management Sites
B. EPA's Response to These Comments
C. EPA is Providing Relief From Part 264, Subparts B, C, and D

VI. Application of RCRA Sections 3004(u) and (v), and Sec. 264.101 to Remediation Waste Management Sites (Sec. 264.101(d))

VII. Staging Piles (Secs. 260.10 and 264.554)

A. Introduction and Background
B. A Summary of Principal Changes From the Proposal
1. Changes From the Proposal
2. Consistent With the Proposal
C. What is a Staging Pile? (Sec. 264.554(a))
D. How is a Staging Pile Designated? (Sec. 264.554(b))
E. What Information Must I Provide to get a Staging Pile
Designated? (Sec. 264.554(c))
F. What Performance Criteria Must the Staging Pile Satisfy?
(Sec. 264.554(d))
1. Performance Standards for Staging Piles (Sec. 264.554(d)(1))
2. Decision Factors for Staging Piles (Sec. 264.554(d)(2))
G. May a Staging Pile Receive Ignitable, Reactive, or
Incompatible Wastes? (Sec. 264.554(e))
H. How do I Handle Incompatible Remediation Wastes in a Staging
Pile? (Sec. 264.554(f))
I. Are Staging Piles Subject to Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) and Minimum Technological Requirements (MTRs)?
(Sec. 264.554(g))
J. How Long May I Operate a Staging Pile? (Sec. 264.554(h))
K. May I Receive an Operating Term Extension for a Staging Pile?
(Sec. 264.554(i))
L. What is the Closure Requirement for a Staging Pile Located in
a Previously Contaminated Area? (Sec. 264.554(j))
M. What is the Closure Requirement for a Staging Pile Located in
an Uncontaminated Area? (Sec. 264.554(k))
N. How May my Existing Permit (for Example, RAP), Closure Plan,
or Order be Modified to Allow me to Use a Staging Pile?
(Sec. 264.554(l))
O. Is Information About the Staging Pile Available to the
Public? (Sec. 264.554(m))
P. What is the Relationship Between Staging Piles, Corrective
Action Management Units, and the Area of Contamination Policy?

VIII. Corrective Action Management Units (CAMUs) (Sec. 264.552)

IX. Dredged Material Exclusion (Sec. 261.4(g))

A. What is the Dredged Material Exclusion?
B. Regulation of Dredged Material Under CWA and MPRSA
C. Dredged Material and RCRA Applicability
D. Determination of Regulatory Jurisdiction
E. Clarification of Future Practice
F. Comments on the Dredged Material Exclusion
G. Dredged Material as a Solid Waste
H. Clarification of Terms Related to Dredged and Fill Material
I. Normal Dredging Operations and the Exclusion
J. The Exclusion of Nationwide Permits

X. State Authority (Sec. 271.1(j))

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
B. Effect on State Authorization
1. Staging Piles
C. Authorization for Today's Rule
D. Authorization of State Non-RCRA RAP Authorities

XI. Abbreviated Authorization Procedures (Sec. 271.21(h))

A. Existing Authorization Process
B. Summary of Comments on the August 22, 1995 Proposal
C. Basis and Rationale for Today's New Procedures
D. Rules Listed in Table 1 to Sec. 271.21 to Which the
Abbreviated Procedure Applies
E. Use of Today's Abbreviated Procedure for the Authorization of
Previously Promulgated Rules
F. Final Abbreviated Authorization Procedures
G. Authorization Application Requirements
H. Procedures for Reviewing and Approving Applications
I. EPA's Decision to Not Promulgate Proposed Category 1 and 2
J. Improvements to the Existing Authorization Process

XII. Conforming Changes (Secs. 265.1(b), 268.2(c), 268.50(g),

270.11(d), and 270.42 Appendix I)

XIII. How Does Today's Rule Relate to Other EPA Regulations, Initiatives and Programs?

A. Subpart S Initiative
B. Suspension of the Toxicity Characteristic for Non-UST
Petroleum Contaminated Media and Debris
C. Deferral of Petroleum Contaminated Media and Debris from
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Actions
D. Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR-waste) (May 20,
1992, and December 21, 1995)
F. Legislative Reforms
G. Brownfields
H. Land Disposal Restrictions (Part 268)

XIV. When Will the Final HWIR-media Rule Become Effective?

XV. Regulatory Requirements

A. Assessment of Potential Costs and Benefits
1. Executive Order 12866
2. Background
3. Need for Regulation
4. Assessment of Potential Regulatory Costs
B. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
J. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments

I. Overview Information

A. Why do This Rule and Preamble Read so Differently From Other

Today's regulatory language and accompanying preamble are written
in a ``readable regulations'' format. The authors tried to use active
rather than passive voice, plain language, a question-and-answer
format, the pronouns ``we'' for EPA and ``you'' for the owner/operator
(in the regulatory text), and other techniques to make it easier for
readers to find and understand the information in today's rule and
This new format is part of the Agency's ongoing efforts at
regulatory reinvention, and may be unfamiliar to readers as it looks
very different from the existing regulatory text of the Parts affected
by today's rule. However, the Agency believes that this new format will
increase readers' abilities to understand the regulations, which should
then increase compliance, make enforcement easier, and foster better
relationships between EPA and the regulated community.
All of the requirements found in today's final regulations,
including those set forth in table format, constitute binding,
enforceable legal requirements. The plain language format used in
today's final regulations may appear different from other rules, but it
establishes binding, enforceable legal requirements just as those in
the existing regulations.

B. What Law Authorizes This Rule?

These regulations are finalized under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3001, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007 and 7004 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6921, 6924, 6925,
6926, 6927 and 6974.

II. Background Information

A. What Problems Does Today's Rule Address?

Currently, hazardous wastes managed during cleanup are generally
subject to the same RCRA Subtitle C requirements as newly generated
hazardous wastes. Often those Subtitle C requirements are not
appropriate for the cleanup scenario, as described below.
1. Response-oriented Programs Have Different Objectives and Incentives
Than Prevention-oriented Programs
Since 1980, EPA has developed a comprehensive regulatory framework
under Subtitle C of RCRA for identifying, generating, transporting,
treating, storing and disposing of hazardous wastes. The RCRA program
is generally considered prevention-rather than response-oriented. The
regulations center around two broad objectives: to prevent releases of
hazardous wastes and constituents through a comprehensive and
conservative set of management requirements (commonly referred to as
``cradle-to-grave management''); and to minimize the generation and
maximize the legitimate reuse and recycling of hazardous wastes.
However, in the remediation programs, EPA wants to develop a regulatory
regime that encourages people to cleanup contaminated areas thereby
generating potentially large volumes of hazardous waste.
The RCRA regulations constitute minimum national standards for
managing hazardous wastes. With limited exceptions, they apply equally
to all hazardous wastes, regardless of where or how generated, and to
all hazardous waste management facilities, regardless of how much
government oversight any given facility receives. To ensure an adequate
level of protection nationally, the RCRA regulations have been
conservatively designed to ensure proper management of hazardous wastes
over a range of waste types, environmental conditions, management
scenarios, and operational contingencies. This causes remediation
activities to be subject to conservative, and often inappropriate
requirements. For example, all waste piles must have a leachate
collection and removal system under Sec. 264.251(a)(2). This is
appropriate when highly concentrated wastes will be stored in a pile
for an extended time, but may not be necessary for less-concentrated
wastes, or shorter-term activities, or cleanup actions when the level
of oversight is high. However, to account for any activities that may
take place nationally, EPA wrote the regulations conservatively to
require all waste piles to comply with these requirements, even when
they will contain less-concentrated waste for a short time. Nationally
applicable requirements must be written in this manner to provide
protective requirements for the highest risk activities that the
regulations allow.
As opposed to requirements designed for on-going waste management,
remediation activities often involve less-concentrated wastes, one-time
activities, and shorter-term activities. Remediation activities are
also conducted under close EPA or State oversight. However, the current
regulations do not allow EPA or the State to modify the requirements
for piles, or many other Subtitle C requirements, to make them more
appropriate for the specific circumstances of the remediation taking
In administering current RCRA regulations for hazardous waste
generated during cleanup, EPA and States have recognized fundamental
differences in both incentives and objectives for prevention- and
response-oriented programs. In prevention-oriented programs, the
regulations require taking appropriate precautions against causing
contamination before an activity takes place, such as the regulations
that require liners and leachate collection systems. Also, because the
regulations provide an incentive to minimize waste production, from the
beginning, the activity is planned and managed to carefully control the
appropriate factors such as amount of waste produced, concentrations,
and handling practices to prevent unacceptable situations such as
releases. However, in administering remedial programs such as Superfund
and the RCRA Corrective Action program, EPA and the States already face
an unacceptable situation (contaminated sites) that must be remedied.
Response-oriented programs must address already existing problems.
Response-oriented programs cannot pre-determine the location of the
contamination, but must respond where contamination has already
occurred, which may be close to sensitive ecosystems or populated
areas. Response-oriented programs cannot control the volumes or
concentrations of remediation wastes, but must manage what wastes have
already been released into the environment in varying volumes,
concentrations and matrices. Often the site-specific situations facing
response-oriented programs make waste management difficult, such as
complex matrices and combinations of constituents of concern, or
concerns over on-site treatment or disposal units to manage the wastes
that must be cleaned up.
In a prevention-oriented system, if the community objected to
building new on-site units, the facility could decide not to engage in
business practices that would generate the waste that would need to be
managed. In the response-oriented situation, however, the facility (or
the regulatory agency) must deal with existing contamination, and must
find an acceptable response.
Also, remedial actions generally receive intensive government
oversight, and remedial decisions are made by a State or Federal Agency
only after they thoroughly investigate site-specific

[[Page 65877]]

conditions. In contrast, prevention-oriented hazardous waste
regulations are generally implemented independently by facility owner/
operators through complying with national regulatory requirements.
2. LDRs, MTRs, and Permitting Raise Problems When Applied to
Remediation Wastes
In the HWIR-media proposed rule, EPA identified the application of
three RCRA requirements to remediation wastes as the biggest problems
to address; Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs), Minimum Technological
Requirements (MTRs), and permitting.
The LDRs (which appear in 40 CFR part 268) generally prohibit land
disposal (or ``placement'' in land-based units) of hazardous wastes
until the wastes have met the applicable treatment standards. Often
this placement is appropriate and desirable when managing remediation
wastes to excavate them from their current locations, and temporarily
store the wastes before on-site treatment, or to excavate the wastes
and accumulate enough volume to ship off-site cost effectively. By not
allowing temporary storage and accumulation in land-based units, the
LDRs can be a strong disincentive to excavating and managing
remediation waste. The staging pile provisions of today's final rule
address this issue by allowing temporary storage and accumulation of
remediation wastes in a staging pile without being subject to LDR.
Another example of the problems with LDRs in the cleanup scenario
is that contaminated media are often physically quite different from
as-generated process wastes. Contaminated soils often contain complex
mixtures of multiple contaminants and are highly variable in their
composition, handling, and treatability characteristics. For this
reason, treating contaminated soils can be particularly complex,
involving one or sometimes a series of custom-designed treatment
systems. It can be very difficult to treat contaminated soils to the
LDR treatment levels. The parts of the HWIR-media proposal that
addressed this issue have been finalized in the LDR Phase IV rule (63
FR 28556 (May 26, 1998)).
The MTR requirements were designed as preventative standards for
wastes generated through industrial processes. They were not designed
for the remedial context. For example, under 40 CFR Subpart F, surface
impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment units or landfills must
have specific detection, compliance monitoring programs, and corrective
action programs for potential groundwater contamination from the unit.
These are appropriate preventative requirements for units managing
process wastes. However, many cleanup actions involve short-term
placement of remediation wastes into a waste pile, and all of these
requirements may not be necessary. The staging piles provisions of
today's rule address this issue by allowing the Director to determine
appropriate design criteria for the staging pile based on the site-
specific circumstances such as the concentration of the wastes to be
placed in the unit and the length of time the unit will operate. EPA
also explained in the preamble to the CAMU rule additional reasons why
LDR and MTR requirements can be counterproductive when managing
remediation waste as opposed to as-generated process wastes. To read
about these additional reasons, see 58 FR 8658 (8659-8661)(February 16,
Finally, another area creating roadblocks is permitting. The time-
consuming process for obtaining a RCRA permit can delay cleanups,
thereby delaying the environmental and public health benefits of
cleaning up a contaminated site. For example, the traditional RCRA
permitting process requires the facility owner/operator to submit a
great deal of information on activities at the facility to EPA or the
State, and the permit must include terms and conditions to protect
against any improper waste management practices over the long-term
active life of an operating facility. Because of the large volume of
information submitted, these permits are huge documents and approval
often takes several years. However, in the remedial scenario, cleanup
activities are generally a one-time project; once the cleanup is
completed and the remediation waste is properly treated and disposed,
then the activities are completed. Also, these activities are limited
to addressing the contamination at the site, and therefore are often
more limited in scope than the operating practices of a facility that
is engaged in on-going waste treatment, storage and disposal. To
overcome the limitations discussed above from traditional RCRA permits,
the new Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) requirements in today's rule
streamline the process for receiving a permit for treating, storing and
disposing of remediation wastes, and require the facility owner/
operator to submit significantly less information than for a
traditional RCRA permit. However, the information submitted for a RAP
application and RAP terms and conditions must be sufficient to ensure
proper waste management of the remediation wastes involved during the
life of the cleanup activities.
Furthermore, a facility seeking a traditional RCRA permit to manage
remediation wastes on-site must investigate and cleanup their entire
facility (facility-wide corrective action). This requirement can deter
potential cleanups from happening at all. For instance, facility owners
and operators may wish to clean up a small portion of their facility
for any number of reasons, such as to avoid future liability, to free
the property for sale or other uses, or because they simply wish to
restore the environmental health of their property. However, they may
not be willing to take on the burden of investigating and cleaning up
their entire facility, when it is only a small portion they wish to
voluntarily clean up, and they may be reluctant to conduct the cleanup
under the RCRA corrective action program. Therefore, to encourage
cleanups, under today's final rule, facilities that need a RCRA permit
only to treat, store, or dispose of remediation wastes (remediation-
only facilities) are not subject to the facility-wide corrective action

This page was last changed on 03/11/05