a) Based on a petition filed by a generator
or treater of hazardous waste, USEPA has stated that it may approve a variance
from an applicable treatment standard if the petitioner can demonstrate that
either of the following applies to treatment of the waste:
1) It is not physically possible to treat the
waste to the level specified in the treatment standard, or by the method
specified as the treatment standard. To show that this is the case, the
petitioner must demonstrate that because the physical or chemical properties of
the waste differ significantly from waste analyzed in developing the treatment
standard, the waste cannot be treated to the specified level or by the
specified method; or
2) It is
inappropriate to require the waste to be treated to the level specified in the
treatment standard or by the method specified as the treatment standard, even
though such treatment is technically possible. To show that this is the case,
the petitioner must demonstrate that either of the following applies to
treatment of the waste:
A) Treatment to the
specified level or by the specified method is technically inappropriate (for
example, resulting in combustion of large amounts of mildly contaminated
environmental media); or
B) For
remediation waste only, treatment to the specified level or by the specified
method is environmentally inappropriate because it would likely discourage
aggressive remediation.
BOARD NOTE: A variance from a treatment standard is available
only from USEPA. USEPA has reserved to itself the authority to grant a variance
from a treatment standard.
b) Each petition must be submitted in
accordance with the procedures in
40 CFR
260.20.
c) Each petition must include the following
statement signed by the petitioner or an authorized representative:
I certify under penalty of law that I have personally
examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this petition and
all attached documents, and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals
immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the
submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment.
d) After receiving a petition for an adjusted
treatment standard, USEPA has stated that it may request any additional
information or samples that are necessary to evaluate the petition. Additional
copies of the complete petition may be requested as needed to send to affected
states and Regional Offices.
e)
USEPA has stated that it will give public notice in the Federal Register of the
intent to approve or deny a petition and provide an opportunity for public
comment. USEPA has stated that the final decision on a variance from a
treatment standard will be published in the Federal Register.
f) A generator, treatment facility or
disposal facility that is managing a waste covered by an adjusted treatment
standard must comply with the waste analysis requirements for restricted wastes
found under Section
728.107.
g) During the petition review process, the
applicant is required to comply with all restrictions on land disposal under
this Part once the effective date for the waste has been reached.
h) Based on a petition filed by a generator
or treater of hazardous waste, USEPA has stated that it may approve a
site-specific variance from an applicable treatment standard if the petitioner
can demonstrate that either of the following applies to treatment of the waste:
1) It is not physically possible to treat the
waste to the level specified in the treatment standard, or by the method
specified as the treatment standard. To show that this is the case, the
petitioner must demonstrate that because the physical or chemical properties of
the waste differ significantly from waste analyzed in developing the treatment
standard, the waste cannot be treated to the specified level or by the
specified method; or
2) It is
inappropriate to require the waste to be treated to the level specified in the
treatment standard or by the method specified as the treatment standard, even
though such treatment is technically possible. To show that this is the case,
the petitioner must demonstrate that either of the following applies to
treatment of the waste:
A) Treatment to the
specified level or by the specified method is technically inappropriate (for
example, resulting in combustion of large amounts of mildly contaminated
environmental media where the treatment standard is not based on combustion of
such media); or
B) For remediation
waste only, treatment to the specified level or by the specified method is
environmentally inappropriate because it would likely discourage aggressive
remediation.
3) For
contaminated soil only, treatment to the level or by the method specified in
the soil treatment standards would result in concentrations of hazardous
constituents that are below (i.e., lower than) the concentrations necessary to
minimize short- and long-term threats to human health and the environment.
USEPA has stated that a treatment variance granted under
40 CFR
268.44(h)(3) will include
the following features:
A) At a minimum, USEPA
has stated that a treatment variance approved under
40 CFR
268.44(h)(3) will impose an
alternative land disposal restriction treatment standard that will achieve the
following, using a reasonable maximum exposure scenario:
i) For carcinogens, it will achieve
constituent concentrations that result in the total excess risk to an
individual exposed over a lifetime, generally falling within a range from
10-4 to 10-6;
and
ii) For constituents with
non-carcinogenic effects, it will achieve constituent concentrations that an
individual could be exposed to on a daily basis without appreciable risk of
deleterious effect during a lifetime.
B) USEPA has stated that a treatment variance
approved under
40 CFR
268.44(h)(3) will not
consider post-land-disposal controls.
4) For contaminated soil only, treatment to
the level or by the method specified in the soil treatment standards would
result in concentrations of hazardous constituents that are below (i.e., lower
than) natural background concentrations at the site where the contaminated soil
will be land disposed.
5) USEPA has
stated that public notice and a reasonable opportunity for public comment must
be provided before granting or denying a petition.
i) Each petition for a site-specific variance
from a treatment standard must include the information in
40 CFR
260.20(b)(1) through
(b)(4).
j) After receiving an application for a
site-specific variance from a treatment standard, USEPA may request any
additional information or samples that USEPA determines are necessary to
evaluate the petition.
k) A
generator, treatment facility, or disposal facility that is managing a waste
covered by a site-specific variance from a treatment standard must comply with
the waste analysis requirements for restricted wastes in Section
728.107.
l) During the petition
review process, the petitioner for a site-specific variance must comply with
all restrictions on land disposal under this Part once the effective date for
the waste has been reached.
m) For
any variance from a treatment standard, the petitioner must also demonstrate
that compliance with the requested variance is sufficient to minimize threats
to human health and the environment posed by land disposal of the waste. In
evaluating this demonstration, USEPA has stated that it will take into account
whether the treatment variance should be granted if the subject waste is to be
used in a manner constituting disposal pursuant to
40
CFR
266.20 through
266.23.
n) This subsection (n) corresponds with
40 CFR
268.44(n), marked "reserved"
by USEPA. This statement maintains structural consistency with corresponding
federal regulations.
o) The
facilities listed in Table H are excluded from the treatment standards under
Section
728.143(a)
and Table B, and are subject to the constituent concentrations listed in Table
H.
p) After USEPA grants a
treatability exception by regulatory action pursuant to
40 CFR
268.44 and a person demonstrates that the
treatability exception needs to be adopted as part of the Illinois RCRA program
because the waste is generated or managed in Illinois, the Board will adopt the
treatability exception by identical in substance rulemaking pursuant to Section
22.4(a) of the Environmental Protection Act.