Wednesday
September 23, 1987
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 124, 264, and 270
Permit Uodificatfons for Hazardous
Waste Management Faculties; Proposed
KiilQ
•' "i'i.
••'i..;..
3*
-------
35838
Federal Register /Vol. 52. No. 184 / Wednesday, 8»«timht>r 23, 1987 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 124,264, and 270
[FRL-3220-2]
Permit Notifications for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) today proposes
to amend its regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRAJ governing modifications of
hazardous waste management permits.
This proposed rule would establish new
procedures that apply to the various
types of changes that facility owners
and operators may want to make at
their facilities. Today's proposal is
based on a negotiated agreement
between EPA, members of the regulated
community, and representatives of State
agencies and public interest groups. EPA
is proposing to categorize all permit
modifications into three classes and
establish sdrnirrhrtnrbVe procedures for
approving modifications in each of these
classes. The purpose of these proposed
amendments is to provide both owners
and operators and EPA more flexibility
to change specified permit conditions, to
expand public notification and
participation opportunities, aid to allow
for expedited approval if no public
concern exists for a proposed permit - •'
modification. - •"~ *~
DATE Comment* must be received on or
before November 23,3837.
ADDRESSES: The public must submit an
original and two copies of their
comments to: EPA RCHA Docket fS-212)
(WH-562J. 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
Place "Docket number F-87-PMHP-
FFFFF" on your comments. The OSW
docket for this proposed rulemaking is
located in the sub-basement at the
above address, and is open from 9 00
a.m. to 4 00 pjn., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The
public must make an appointment by
calling (202) 475-9327 to review docket
materials. The public may copy a
maximum of 50 pages of material from
any one regulatory docket at no cost;
additional copies cost S0.20 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
RCRA hotline at (800) 424-9346 (in
Washington. DC call 382-3000) or Frank
McAlister, Office of Solid Waste (WH-
563), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agpnr.y Washington. DC 20460.
telephone (202) 382-2223.
swf\*HSMJ»#y INFOHMATKJM:
Preajnhte OotHiM
I. Authority
II. Background
A. Current Permit Modification
Requirements
B. Need for Revisions to Modification
Process
C. Recent Proposed Changes
D. Regulatory Negotiation
HI. Summary of Proposed Approach
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule Language
A. Modification, Revocation, and
Reissuance of Permits
B. Procedures for Class 1. 2, and 3
Modifications
1. Class 1 Modifications
2. Class 2 Modifications
3. Class 3 Modifications
4. Temporary Authorizations
5. Other Modifications
6. Permit Modification AppWs
7. Newly Listed or Identified Waste*
8. Publication of Permit Modification List
C. Classification of Permit Modification
1. General Permit Provisions
2. General Facility Standards
3. Ground-Water Protection
4. New Wastes in a Unit
5. General Approach to Defining Unit-
Specific Changes
j. Tanks and Containers
n. Surface Impoundments
iii. Waste Piles
iv. Laedfflte
v. Land Treatment
vi. Incinerators
6. Closure
7. Post-Closure
«. KSWA Concactive Action
O. Cmfcrming Ctenges. to Permitting
Regulations '
'V. Other Ime.
A. Pemft Modification Form
B. Technical Review and Public Education
Fund
VI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
StBvfiS
a Effect «t Stote Authorizations
VTT. Effective Date
VIII. Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Authority
These regulations are proposed under
the authority of section 2002(a), 3004.
3005, and 3008 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, a»
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6924,6925,
and 6926.
II. Background
Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
creates a "cradle-to-grave" management
system designed to ensure that
^hazardous waste is identified and
properly transported, stored, treated.
and disposed of. Subtitle C requires EPA
to identify hazardous waste and
promulgate standards for generators and
transporters of such wastes. Under
section 3004 of RCRA, owners and
operators of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities are required to comply
with standards "necessary to protect
human health and the environment."
These standards are generally
implemented initially through interim
status standards and later through
permits issued under authorized State
programs or by EPA.
Under section 3005{a) of RCRA, all
treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste is prohibited except in
accordance with a permit that
implements the section 3004 standards.
However, recognizing that the issuance
of pemits can be time-consuming,
Congress created "interim status" for
facilities in existence on the effective
-------
Federal Register / Vol 5?
' -
procedures are the same as for initial
permit issuance. However, for permit
modifications. Ihe scope oi the public
re»»w >s limited to the specific permit
conditions being modified.
The current minor modification
regulations are set forth in § 27tt42.
They allow EPA or authorized States to
make a limited set of minor changes, in
-. ?6l?fit*,?ritk the coose^- of the
Ji^° der> fc^ wlhoitf following the
ffo. 184 / Wednesday. September 23. i^ ; p^^ Ru]eg
"n the permit pending subsequent
approval as a major modification
Any permit modifications not included
TU-!S »• are ma'or modifications.
l fits bst of minor modifications is the
result of several separate mlemakrngs.
The May 19.1980 regulations included
the first five minor modifications listed
above (45 FR 33430J. Subsequent minor
modificatH»s. were added as follows-
jaaaavy 12,1981,«—=- —*-
TOe frequent
by the peraMttae •
an toetimco»intianced«iB
m a we^aace «hedute.
hi
modifications were listed for Ian*
tre*tm«* permits f47 PR K3W}:
Novambw T, tare.
• Allow for a diangB io ownership or
operational control of
land d»po«af restricted- wastes. t» tfee
permit
emageney cooodmaton or eqmnmeiit in
th ' ^
Pennnerf nml9 {51 FH «853h and ^
35839
and the opportunity for a hear-in*. Major
modifications, which can range from
omidrng ? rocF over a storage area Eo
adding a new incinerator to a facility
permit, can take six months to a year for
approval. The result of this situation has
been to delay or discourage facility
changes, many of which would lead to
improved management of wastes.
The Agency believes that permits
must be viewed 34 living documeats-iaat
can be modified, to. allow fecilitiea to
make tedSnofogical improvenents.
comotjrwfffiniweamronmental '" "'
standards., respond to changing waste
streams, and generally improve waste
management practices. Since permits
are usually ,wiiie»t9.eBcwnpafls a ten-
year penodof-operatioa. the facility or
toe paraut writer cannot anticipate all or
even most ol the adHawstrattveT
fp*fijii*»..j. "***
greater
temnmng eperattteaai
readiness after completion of.
conatmcticB.
• Make ariner changes nttt*
treatment roaMi att (brand
Jtecause-tfcere fs naexperience wim me
»yetHPAf»ck8the
hazardona
be minor. (Sac 4S-FR.33312.)
•••••c u^uurGuaij
specified far hmd tteaHKnr »mnr |
f S^Ltile Fesnlt» offieai test* OF
aootBteiy analjnses asedin maJbjBga
treatment demoB3*rata». •
• Allow a seems* treatment
demonstratk» kriand teaoaeat, aader
specified draanalancea. protrided tfaat
the conditions for a second
demonstration are substantially the
same as those for the first
demonstration.
• Allow treatment of ahaaarctou*
waste not prawioosiy specified in. oW
permit if the waate BU been prohibited
from land otspon* anrfif awtaitt^^^
conditions ""T°~4i~rr'J— aiaaap inIMII jf
*e OHTBII* penra* modification
or store
container units not previ
;——i-«~«a*y iwmperrne
implemestatron of the permitting-
program. EPA has found that the
modification procedures are time-
conswnins and resource-intensive, even
for routine and administrative tasks.
Simple permit modifications, sncfr as a
change HI the name of the emergency
coordinator, require significant
peperworfc on the pert of EPA and hr
some- cases entail a delay fn
pTiStT^aSiior^o^^^
'££^°zzf£:±™^
need for greater flb»c«a«y j, becoming
\nt vtimim**J~i ••^•J—* ^ PH^W ..
as more permits
''in response to
* specified in the
Waste
(MSWA) «rf 1984). leading
to a corresponding increase in demand
for permit OHxMfications. te addition.
the demandt far permit modifications5*
tor example, recent and upcoming land
disposal ret*icfton»9R an tree ted
wastes w&foree haoanhms waste
"" fa-way from disposal
*aste treatment.
*- — »«W«*IS^;CT enri flOt flble tO
make thwechanges rewHy, EPA cmifd
be forced to delay the effective date of
some aspects- of the land disptml
restrietwiw program became of the lack
of nafMWKrt capacity. As another
example, hr response- to- HSWA and
other initiatives. EPA is in- the process of
identifying anrf listing new hazardous
wastes. Permitted facilities will require
permit modifications to handle these
new wastes—even if they were already
handling tfie wastes at the time of
!£Llf P^lit mo*«ca«ons cannot be
draft
permit
notificsrtfcjii.
.
F«f tftese reaaens. (he demand for
ease
few years.
-------
35840
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 184 / Wednesday. September 23. 1987 / Proposed Rules
Unless EPA improves the permit
modification procedures, significant
EPA (and permit holder) resources will
be spent on making trivial or
environmentally irrelevant changes to
permits, and will be diverted from more
important tasks. More important,
perhaps, improvements in the handling
and treatment of hazardous waste will
be delayed, and the regulated
community will find itself frozen by rigid
permit conditions. The net result of this
situation will be an increased threat to
human health and the environment and
an increased shortfall in hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal"
capacity.
C. Recent Proposed Changes
Amendments to the permit
modification regulations were proposed
by EPA in 1964.1988, and 1987. •
In 1980. industry and environmental
groups challenged the RCRA permitting
rules, as well as other hazardous waste
regulations (NRDCet al. v. U.S. EPA
No. 80-1607 and consolidated cases
(D.C. Circuit)). Industry groups argued.
among other points, that the range of
causes for minor modifications was too
narrow and would-significantly
complicate and delay trivial facility
changes. As part of a broader settlement
between EPA and the industry and
environmental groups, EPA agreed to
propose an expanded list of minor
modifications. The expanded list which
was proposed on March 15.1984 (49 PR
9850). defined three additional areas in
which minor permit modifications could
be made: (l) Modifications to various
plans contained in the permit; (2) the
addition of new wastes at the facility
under certain circumstances; and (3) the
use of new treatment techniques in
certain units.
The rule did not provide a definition
of "minor" in each of these areas.
Instead. EPA or the authorized State
would have discretion in determining
whether a given modification was major
or minor. The preamble, however,
provided extensive guidance on the
kinds of modifications in each of the
areas that would be considered niinor.cur
major. Furthermore, as a broad policy,
the preamble stated that EPA would
consider a modification "minor" if it
reflected a routine technical or
administrative change that would have
negligible impact on human health or the
environment.
Response to the proposal was varied.
In general, industry and State
governments supported the flexibility of
the proposed approach, .although
industry commenters suggested ways to
broaden it. A coalition of environmental
groups, however, strongly opposed the
proposal, stating that it reflected a
departure from existing public
participation policy and gave too much
discretion to regulating officials.
Environmental commenters supported a
list of minor modifications that was
more narrow in scope and more specific
in detail.
Because of the importance of the issue
and the diverse nature of public
comments. EPA decided not to issue the
March 1984 proposal as a final rule, but
instead identified RCRA permit
modifications as a project for regulatory
negotiation. Negotiations on this issue
are discussed in section II.D of this
preamble.
Two other recent EPA rulemakings
addressed permit modifications. The
December 1,1988 land disposal
restriction rule (51FR 44740) proposed
to allow* as-a minor modification,
chaage&at a facility to treat or store
restricted wastes in tanks and
containers. This proposal was issued in
final fonn en July 8,1987 (52 FR 25760).
In addition, on August 14,1987 (52 FR
30570), the Agency proposed that
permitted facilities may receive a minor
modification to allow continued
management of newly identified or
listed hazardous wastes. This proposal
wovld.requir« the owner and operator
subsequently to obtain approval of the
change as a major modification, thereby
invoking the public participation
procedures of Part 124.
It should be noted that the
amendment proposed on August 14.
along with the other current minor
modification provisions, will be
replaced by today's proposed
modification scheme if it is adopted as
proposed. Nevertheless, the Agency will
proceed with the August 14 proposal
independent of today's proposal
because of the need for expeditious
permit changes for newly identified or
listed hazardous wastes. The Agency
recognizes that any final action taken on
tna August 14 proposal will most likely
have only a short-term effect, pending
the outcome of today's proposal
D. Regulatory Negotiation
Todays proposed rule was developed
through the process of regulatory
negotiation. This process is an
alternative means for developing
regulations in which individuals and
groups with negotiable interests directly
affected by the rule work cooperatively
with EPA to develop a standard by
committee agreement.
In mid-1986. EPA communicated with
various parties interested in developing
a new approach to permit modifications,
including hazardous waste generators
and representatives from the waste
management industry. State
governments, and environmental and
citizen groups. Once the appropriate
affected interests had been identified.
EPA established a committee under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act to
negotiate the provisions of the standard.
The formation of the Permit
Modification Negotiating Committee
was announced in the Federal Register
on July 16.1986 (51 FR 25739).
Between September 10,1986 and
February 24,1987, the Committee met
six times to discuss a variety of
technical and policy issues associated
with developing a new permit
modification scheme. At the final
meeting on February 24, the Committee
members, with one exception, reached
agreement on the major provisions of
the permit modification approach
presented in today's proposal One
Committee member did not sign the final
agreement because the member could
not concur on one critical provision.
That provision and the Committee
members' comments on it are discussed
in section IV.B.2 of this preamble.
The 18 parties who signed the
agreement concurred with the new
permit modification system as a whole.
Inevitably, as in any negotiation, some
parties may have made concessions in
one area in exchange for concessions
from other parties in other areas. As a
result, changes in particular parts of the
proposed rule could significantly affect
one or more of the Committee members'
support for the proposal. For this reason.
the Agency has tried carefully to"
translate the agreement in principle into
specific regulatory language. A few
items that are a part of today's proposal
were not addressed or resolved by the
Committee. The Agency included them
because it believes they are necessary
to support the proposed rule. Any
provision that EPA has added has been
clearly identified in this preamble.
The signed Committee statement has
been included in the public docket for
this rule. It is available at the address
listed at the beginning of this notice.
Members of the negotiating
Committee and their affiliation are as
follows:
Negotiators/Affiliation
1. Johan Bayer. Chemical Waste
Management, Inc.
2. John Campion, Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Association
3. Lecil Colburn. American Coke and
Coal Chemical Institute
4. Frank Coolick, New jersey Bureau of
Hazardous Waste Engineering
5. Gary Dietrich. ICF Corporation/
ENSCO. Inc.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 5,
6. Larry Eastep. Illinois EPA
~ Bonnie Exner. Citizen Intelligence
Network
8. Richard Fortune, Hazardous Waste
Treatment Councrl
9. Arthur alien. BASF Corporation.
Synthetic Organic Chemica)
Manufacturer.s Association
]?• 5rn3 Halt JBM Corporation
11 -William Hamner. North Carolina
Division of Health Services
12. Minor Hibbs, Texas Water
Commission
13. Gretchen Monti. League efWe
Voters - .
do not substantially alter the permit
conditions or reduce the capacity of the
facility to protect human health aad £
eflfironment. Class 1 covers routine
changes, such as typographical error* or
new telephone numbers. Class 2
modifications address common or
frequently occurring changes needed to
maintain a facility's capability to
manage wastes safely or to, conform
with new regofefoty retirements. Class.
3 modifications cover mawr cHana*,
"SjS^*•3f*35$lS$$$i '•
and Chemfcal Maimfaetarera
eake Bay
Foundation
17. Suz»RaU. Legal Envtev
AsMrtance Foundation
m Mareia Wi^aro. UA EPA
19. Eleanor Winaor.
Ihe Agency also proposes to change
tne current permit modification
requirement for facilities that are
handling a waste-when that wa»e
becomes newly listed or is identified as
hazardous. For Class 1 modifications.
facilities may make the change
immediately, as long as they notify EPA
and the public of the changes. For Class
2 or Class 3. modifications, the owner or
operator, aaay mate the change without.
prior approval? fiowevax. k» BU^ svborifc
approvaf is reqiutad TheAaenc* ma«
reject any Class 1 modtEcaUoo, witt
cause. ^^
Enviroeaaentai Council
Facilitators
John A.S. McGleaw» aad Pefer
Schneider. EKM-McGkaaoa Associate*
fxecutiv. Secretary, Chris KirU^
IH. Sununatyof Proposerf Apimmcfe
The Agency is proposing to rewse tfee
regulations governing permit
modifications (40 CFR 270.41 and 27O.42)
to introduce a permit modificatiaa
orSe^™^^^"^^^
or classes of modifications, and asagQg
regulatory requirement* aeeordim to
type of modification. Tke revision*
provide both owners and operatowW
EPA more flexibility to change specified
pe™tcondiUpns,expano!puoiic; I
notification and participation ""'
opportunities, andaflbw for exneiSSai"'"''
approval if no public concemexSa ' !q
regarding a proposed change. * "Ta"
The Agency's proposal mainly '-"*'*{"-'^1
addresses modifications requesfedl^*;:"
permittee. It restructures 5f 270141 aitf"^
270.42. which currently specify major
and minor modiffcatfoaprocedur«r
respectively, for modfficatibns instigated:'
by either the permittee or Ae Agency!
The proposal wotrfd alter J 27TU1 to
mcfude only modifications initiated by
the authorized Agency; the current
major modification procedures for these
changes remain in effect. The proposal
alters § 270.42 to refer only to
modifications requested by ffie '
permittee. " - *."•••
m D»fa«gitt wi&a
modificafloa request to the autfioiizei
Agency, pu&JTc notice by, ffie facilife
owner of a mfldiScaiioja requesZaT
early comaaenf period, and an.
mformatioBaf meeting with, fie puofia
W.tiungodays-Qfsubmiasioao£a
request for a Class 3.«iodiScatioa,
reqjiest.fh« Agency must appioveo"
deny the tequeaf axfand. £bye. aeyiew
eriotfJD
apft
authonzaSoa for up to
£lncy d5e* nof talce actioafajf theeni
of the 3(Way extension, tfee cnaagea
speciffed i« the medm
0- , „ mwiu mVJUfJU^f.V IQ a*]
fesulatorj repii^nenis; atKa as,the
K r?^"*1 «9frfctl&"' THe preposal
aiso removes the current prohibition, on
preconstractfon for Class 2
modifications.
Class a modifications aresutjtct to-
the same ihfiial public notice and
meeting requiraiaenta as Oaas.2
modifications. However, the "defeuh"
pro vision of Class 2 does not aBnlw :
Furthermore, an EPA dacisiea togiaAt
the modification request is.au&iecVfo, ihe
permit issuance prbr*^ " "--••'•
Part 124,The ,-='•'•'-
r r"~~ ~»«^ji«nmi(j iae waste as-
nazardotts^ ......
The proposal also gives EPA (be
authority t»graal teaipoiary .
authorization, without priof public
notice afuicsMBmeat, for activities Iha4
are xecsssafy fos £acjj^ owners and
operators to respond pro«ptly to
changing amditiona Temporary
autn««a4HHw fo, terms ranging frwa »
to MO^iays. may be panted to Class 2
oriCh»»Bwdttca»toM, that meet
cnt«» siMseified m proposed 1270.42e>
Owness and operatora wtio are granted
a tempMuy aatfaoriaatiaa a«%equired
to notify tte pttfaAic. Temp--—-^^
authorizations, that inroiv
e. .a, *a«itie* Aa
beyoad 18O
-------
35842
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 184 / Wednesdav.
scope of the Committee's attention. In
revising the permit modification
provisions of §§ 270.41 and 270.42,
therefore. EPA has left the Agency's
authority to reopen permits unchanged.
The Agency, however, is proposing to
substantially restructure §§ 270.41 and
270.42 to reflect the Committee's
agreement. Under this restructuring, .
§ 270.41 would refer to permit
modifications initiated by the Agency,
and the current major modification
procedures would remain in effect for
these changes. Section 270.42 would
refer to changes requested by the
permittee: in this case, the permit
modification classifications and
procedures agreed upon by the
Committee would apply.
Section 270.41. as proposed today,
would identify three causes for which
EPA might require a permit
modification: Alteration* or additions to
the permitted facility or activity; new
information received by the Agency; or
new standards, regulations, or judicial
decisions affecting the basis of permit
requirements. The first two of these
causes remain unchanged from the
current regulatory language. The third
cause—new regulations—has been
revised so that it is consistent with the
language EPA proposed on March 28,
1988 (51FR10700), which allows-the
Agency to reopen RCRA permits when
necessary to ensure compliance with
new regulatory standards. EPA intends
to promulgate the 1988 proposal in the
near futurain a separate rulemaldng.
EPA is also proposing to delete those
portions ofr§ 270.41(a)(3) that would
allow permittees to request major
modifications for changes made in
response to new regulations or judicial
decisions. These, presumably, would
generally be changes in cages where
EPA standards were relaxed, and the
permittee wished to relax permit
conditions correspondingly. Under
today's proposal, permittees could still
request such changes; however, they
would do so in accordance with the •
procedures for Class 1.2, or 3
modifications in proposed §-270.42. The
effect of this proposed amendment-will-
be to eliminate the deadline* in the
current ! 270 41(a)(3) by which
permittees must request permit
modifications in the case of new
regulations or Judicial decisions. Under
§ 270.4I(a)(3), permittees must now
request such modifications within 90
days after the Federal Register notice
announcing the regulatory change or
within 90 days of a judicial remand of
the regulations. EPA. however; now
believes that facilities should have the
opportunity to make such changes at
any time, as long as they are approved
according to the appropriate permit
modification procedures. Therefore, it is
proposing to eliminate the deadlines on
- submission of the modification request
The Agency requests comment on this
amendment, and on other alternative
procedures for this category of permit
modification.
Finally, EPA is proposing today to
remove from § 270.41 those
modifications that would be made at the
request of the permittee. These include
changes in. compliance schedules ' .'.
(f270.41(a){4)) and changes required by
regulation, such as modification of a
closure plan in accordance with
S 284.112(b) or f 284.118(b)
(§ 27D.41(aK5Ki)) or extension of the
closure period R 270 4HaH5flii}). These
modifications are being addressed
instead in proposed S 270.42, where they
are categorized as Class 2 or 3 changes.
Under today's proposal, changes
authorized by§ 270.41 would be subject
to the current major modifica don
procedures—that is, the current
procedures for permit issuance. The
Agency considered adopting Class 2 or 3
procedures for these changes, but
believes that such an approach would
not be appropriate. The procedures
developed by the Negotiating Cdmmittee
are designed primarily for situations
where a facflfry desires a change. The
Agency believes that, where EPA is
imposing a change on a permitted
facility, the facility owner or operator
should not be required by regulation to
notify or meet with the public; this
should be the Agency's responsibility. In
addition, the default provision of Class 2
modifications makes no sense where the
Agency is requiring permit modifications
that the facility may be less than
enthusiastic about adopting. In these
cases, the Agency believes that the
current major modification procedures
provide an appropriate level of
protection for the permittee, and
reasonable opportunity for public
comment. Therefore, the Agency has not
amended the procedures by which it
may modify a permit in the case of
facility alterations;- new information, or
new regulations. As discussed, the
Negotiating Committee did not
specifically address changes of this
type. The Agency solicits comment on
the approach it is taking.
The Agency would like to point out
that today's proposal primarily
addresses the procedures for approving
facility changes and for public
notification and participation regarding
these changes. The substantive
standards that apply jo the design and
operation of the new activities at a
facility are not affected by today's
proposal. Therefore, any permit
modification, whether a Class 1. 2. or 3
change, will impose the appropriate Part
264 requirements, including any new
standards that are applicable to the
activity (e.g., air emission standards of
part 269 pursuant to section 3004(n),
when promulgated).
B. Procedures for Class 1, 2. and 3
Modifications
1. Class 1 Modifications
modifications cover changes
that are necessary to correct
typographical errors in the permit or
routine changes to the facility or its
operation. They do not substantially
alter the permit conditions or reduce the
facility's capacity to protect human
health and the environment Generally,
these modifications include correction of
typographical errors; necessary updating
of name* addresses, or phone numbers
identified in the permit or its supporting
documents; upgrading, replacement or
relocation of emergency equipment:
improvements of monitoring, inspection,
recordkeeping, or reporting procedures;
updating of sampling and analytical
methods to conform with revised
Agency guidance or regulations;
updating of certain types of schedules
identified in the permit replacement of
equipment with functionally equivalent
equipment* and replacement of damaged
ground-water monitoring wells. The
specific modifications that fall into
Class 1 are enumerated in Appendix I to
40 CFR Part 270. This Appendix is
discussed more fully in section IV.C of
this preamble.
Because Class 1 modifications do not
substantially alter the permit or reduce
the human health and environmental
protection it provides, the Committee
agreed that they do not need to be
reviewed and approved in the same
manner as permit applications and
requests for major permit modifications.
The Committee concluded that, in most
cases, the permittee should be allowed
to put Class 1 modifications into effect
without prior approval, and should be
required simply to notify EPA and the
public of the changes. In other cases, the
Committee agreed that prior Agency
approval should be required. The
modifications that would require prior
Agency approval are identified with an
asterisk in Appendix I.
Proposed § 270.42(a) specifies in detail
the approval procedures agreed upon by
the Committee for Class 1 modifications.
Under these procedures, the permittee
could, at any lime, put into effect a
Class 1 modification (except those
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52.
requiring prior Agency approval)
However, the permittee would be
required to notify the Agency by
certifiea mail or by any other means
that establish proof of deiiveiy within
seven calendar days of making the
change. The notice would have to
specify the change being made to the
permit conditions or documents
referenced in the permit and explain
briefly why it was necessary.
In addition, the Committee agreed that
wtthin 14 days of putting the change into
effect, the permittee would be required
to notify by mail all persons on the
facility mailing list concerning the
change. EPA or an authorized State is
currently required under 40 CFR
™ffi(H(viii) 'u "'JSP116 and maintain
such a list for each RCRA permitted
who h J!8!,must include a11 Persons
who have asked in writing to be on the
list (for example, in response to public
solicitations from the Agency). Also, it
generally would include both local
residents in the vicinity of the facility
and statewide organizations that have
expressed interest in receiving such
information on permit modifications.
Because the facility mailing list is
maintained by the Agency or the
authorized State, rather than the facility,
EPA recognizes that facilities may not in
all cases have the most recent facility
mailing lists. The Committee did not
specifically address this issue. EPA,
however, believes that the facility has
the responsibility initially to obtain from
faPA or the authorized State a complete
facility mailing list and to update it bv
contacting the Agency periodically.
However. EPA believes it should be the
Agency's responsibility to inform the
facility of new additions to the list, and
the facility should not be held
responsible for failure to notify persona
recently added to the EPA list whenT
™ 'hf current requirements of 40
124.lo(c}(iJ(ix) (A) and (B). notice
of permit applications and major permit
modification requests must also be sent
to units of local and State governments
having jurisdiction over the facility The
Committee did not address the question
of whether notices of Class 1, 2,or 3
permit modifications should be sent to
these authorities as well as to persons
on the public mailing list. However, the
Agency recognizes that it may be
appropriate to require notification of
local and state authorities and solicits
comment on this issue.
Although the permittee may make
most Class 1 modifications without EPA
approval or prior public notice,
proposed.§ 27
-------
3SM4
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 1B4 / Wednesday. September 23. 1987 / Proposed Rute
facility matting list is defined in
proposed f 270.2 and is discussed in
section IV.B.l of this preamble.) Under
the Committee agreement the notice
would have to be mailed to persons on
the facility list and published on the
date of submission of the request to -the
Agency. Although the Agency is
proposing this requirement as agreed
upon by:the Committee, EPA requests
comment on whether the permittee
should be provided more flexibility in
the timing of the notice mailing and
publication. The Agency believes il may
at times be logistically difficult for the
facility to ensure that tie -submission to
EPA, the facility list mailing, and the
newspaper publication all occur on-the
same day. As me alternative, the rule
might require that the notice be mailed
to persons on the Eacillry list ho later
than the date of submission of the
request to the Agency, and no earlier
than seven days before Out date. A
second alternative would be to require
the permittee to submit Bis request to
the Agency no fewer than 7 days and
not more^than 21 days bafor e mailing
and publishing the notice.
Proposed { 27&42(b^2) specific* the
information that would be requfced in
the nolke: -»*»• UA«, iicuuc, auu£G99, tUXKZ tcJVUUOlH
number «f Hie Agency contact person,
who would be specified in the notice.
Finally, the "permittee's compliance
history," referred to in proposed
§ 27(H2f»fljj(Yi). might conttfftrte a
summary flat of violation! during flie Mg
of the permit or other reascnattB
8umMry4fta*Bn«Htt*.ltwo«*0>)Mt •
include confideatHtttnuymgen igportt
or other ftcM «•? »Mft*pob*e weani
The Agency -wwal**aftitein «**
summary end unrtw R avafltMe to «e
public on rsavest
The CoBHnmee'ahw agreed ftetfte -
permittee should be required to IwM an
inforn«6onal meefing, open to aB
int»re»tei menAen of the puWfe, no
fewer than IS days after pubHshfag the
notice and w> fewer than » days-before
the end of H» oaimm-nt perKnL The
purpose of Aemettag would be to
enaMe Ae peiudVtee and thepnbfic to
exchange view an4 to *e extent
ponibte, reaorve any issues raised by
the BMdlficatton raquesL fWhere issno
were not resoived at the meefing,
interertwl partjes nright meet fa sniaBer
subseqneat aeifings to resolve them.}
The meeting wwakl have no ofiteSai
status—that h>, an official transcript of
record of the statements made at the
meeting -would not be required and the
Agency woakl not be obligated to attend
the meeting or to consider comments
made at the meeting. However, the
Committee expects that the meeting
would lead to more informed written
comoMats *>*e Agency and, to the
exttmUMJiOTM W«M Mealed, *««ten
ee agree* ofrspeefflc
pwoedwee for Agenejr review and
aaproval or denial of Gteaa 2
modification requests, which are
proposed at 5 270.42(bX6). Under
proposed 5 27O.42(fa)(6)(i). the Agency
must make-one of the following four
decisions within 90 days of receiving the
modification request (ij Approve the
request with or without changes; (iij
deny the request; (iii) notify the
permittee that it will make a decision on
the request within 30 days; or (iv)
approve the request, with or without
changes, as a temporary authorization
having a term of up to 180 days. If EPA
notifies the permittee of a 30-day
extension for a decision, it must, by the
120th day after receiving the
modification request make one of the
following decisions: (i) Approve the
request with or without changes: (ii)
deny the request' or (iii) approve the
request as a temporary authorization for
up to 180 days.
It should be noted that the Committee
agreement specified that the Agency
would have to male* its decision within
90 (or 120) days of submission of the
Class £ modification request. EPA
believes that this date may at times be
diffigak to ascertain, and therefore haa
modified the caqttireaent ao that it
appttes 90 (or 120) day* after receipt of
the modifiaatieH request. The Agency
solicits vanaaents on this change.
If Ike Aflacy £•& to make one of the
three detiaioaB listed above by the 12Gth
day, tke actsvWea described in the
modification request, as sobantted, are
authorized EOT a period of 180 days as an
autoaurtfc temporary aothoriaatioa
wtihovt Agency action. At any time
during the term of the automatic
temponry authorisation, however, the
Agency aay approve or deny the permit
modification ivqoest. If the Agency does
so, this action wtii terminate the
tempecary aathorfeatioa. If the Agency
has not acted on the modification
request within 2S8 days of receipt of the
moettfieatioa request, the permittee most
under prapoeed f 27O.«(bK«Kiv) notify
penoas on the facility mailing fist, and
make a reasonable effort to notify other
penona who submitted written
comments, that the temporary
authorization will become permanent
unless EPA acts to approve or deny H. If
the Agency fails to approve or deny the
modification request during the term of
the automatic temporary authorization,
the activities described in the
modification request become authorized
without Agency action on the day after
the end wf the term of the automatic
temporary authorization. This
authorization worfd last for the Bfe of
the permh.wrfesi modified rater by the
permittee (under S 270.42) or the Agency
(under J 270.41).
During the term of any automatic
authorization, whether it was a •
temporary authorization occurring at
day 120 or a final authorization at day
300, the newly authorized activities
would be limited to those described in '
the modification request. Furthermore,
the permittee would be required to •
-------
Federal Register^. K. No. 184 / Wedne.cW S^u... 23.
comply with all applicable Part 2G5
standards and. to the extent practicable.
with the standards of Part 264. These
standards would be enforceable by EPA
or an authorized State, and any
deviation from them-even if the
deviation was explicitly described in the
modification request—would constitute
a violation of Part 264 or Part 265.
As proposed today, an automatic
temporary authorization can only occur
!i!JSU£Snce ?f an Agencydecision by
the 120th day after a Class 2
modification request (or by an
alternative date established by
§ 270.42(b)(6)(vii) or 5 270.42(e](4){ii},
discussed later in this preamble). In
Z"raH-rf *? Agency takes ac«°" on
the modification request by issuing a
temporary authorization by the
prescribed deadline, then an automatic
authorization cannot subsequently occur
°f ,k*modlfication request- In this case
if the Agency has not approved the
modification by the date that the
temporary authorization expires, then
the facility's activities under the
authorization would have to cease. The
facility would then have to await
Agency action or resubmit the permit
modification request. Although this
approach is consistent with the
Committee Agreement, the Committee
did not specifically address the
operation of automatic authorizations
after Agency-issued temporary
authorizations. An alternative to today's
proposed approach would be to make
the automatic authorization provision
also apply to these Agency-issued
temporary authorizations, including the
notification on the 250th day as
described above. This alternative would
assure the permittee that a final action
on his or her modification request would
occur on a certain schedule. The Agency
solicits comments on these and other
alternatives in the Class 2 modification
process.
It should be noted that the Committee
agreement specified that during the term
°L an *"tomatic authorization, facilities
should be required to comply with Part
264 standards. However, the Agency is
concerned that in some cases the Part
264 standards are not self-
implementing—they require the permit
writer to determine the appropriate
permit condition based on the
requirements of Part 284 and the
operation at the specific facility. The
non-self-implementing nature of some of
these standards, may cause enforcement
"18
/ Proposed Rules 35845
standards
-- £OT these reaaon8- EPA h
modified the Committee Agreement on
this point to require compliance with
Part 265—which is designed to be self-
p3 ^"'i"8"^ a minimum' and with
Part 264 where the standards are clearly
'IfiSm'8/-1 ^-e 3Ctivity Subject to the
automatic authorization. The Agency
solicits comments on this proposed
approach.
The automatic authorization of Class
2 modifications if EPA or a State failed
to approve or deny a modification
request expeditiously proved to be a
controversial element of the negotiated
agreement One CoimmttsemaMber ~
declined to sign, the final agreement^ ,
because of this, provision (waiekbecame
Known as the "default provision"); She >
stated concerns in a letter to EPA, which
is included in the record for this.
rulemaking. The rest of the Committee
members, however, accepted the default
provision as necessary to ensure that
the regulated community received some
assurance that Class 2 modifications—
which are relatively straightforward in
nature—can be made on a
predetermined schedule.
EPA believes that the default
provision is an important feature of the
negotiated agreement, and disagrees
with the concerns expressed by the
dissenting Committee member. Class Z
medications represent a restricted
category of changes, such as increase*
m tank or storage capacity up to » •
percent, addition of new wastes>tnat oV
not require new management practices,
and changes in vegetative requirements
for closure. They are the kinds of'
changes that can be readily reviewed
because they do not represent major
deviations from the facility's permitted
activ.ties. and the risks they might eriteH
ai*1™Ited-In fact. these modifications
will frequently improve operations at
the facility, leading to more efficient
handling and treatment of the nation's
hazardous waste. Requests for these
kinds of changes can and shoufd-fae
acted upon promptly by the Agency,.
Where the modification fails to comply
with Part 284 standards, or where
information in the request is insufficient
to determme compliance. EPA will deny
he request. However, where the request
is justified, it should be granted
expeditiously. The "default provision-
will both ensure prompt Agency
attention and assure the facility owners
that the review of their requests will not
drag on indefinitely.
EPA believes that the "default
provision" will only rarely be exercised.
However, it should be emphasized tnat;
even m the case of a decision by default
the proposal provides ample protection
to human health and the environment In
the first place, as dejwribed above, the
kinds of activities that could take place
under an automatic authorization are
limited. In the second place. Part 2b5
standards, and to the extent prartirah|p
Part 264 standards, would apply to all
activities conducted under an automatic
authorization, ensuring that the changes
must comply with enforceable
standards. Therefore. EPA disagrees
with the comment that this approach
would be unenforceable or would not
provide reasonable protection to human
health and the environment.
•vi^ *%*** rea3ona- EPA supports th* :
^default provision" in today's proposal.:
The concept of automatic approvals has
worked well in other programs, such as
tPA s review program for new
jawmtcals under the Toxic Substances
Control Act and it is equally applicable
here. Particularly because it is balanced
by significantly strengthened procedures
for public participation. EPA believes
that the "default provision" for limited
classes of modifications would
contribute to a more effective and
streamlined permitting program.
One final issue related to Class 2
modifications deserves discussion. The
Committee agreed that the facility
owner/opera tor should be allowed to
perform any construction necessary to
implement a Class 2 change before the
modification request is granted. The
permit modification regulations
currently prohibit "preconstruction" for
permit modifications, just as the statute
prohibits preconstruction of hazardous
Waste management facilities" before a
permit is issued. The Committee agreed
mat, because of the limited nature of
Class 2 modifications and the need for
flexibility in maintaining permits,
preconstruction should be allowed for
this category of modification. The
Agency believes that it has the authority
under RCRA to allow ^reconstruction"
of these Class 2 changes. The facility
owner/operator, however, would
assume the risk that EPA might deny the
permit modification request, and the
construction already undertaken would
become unusable, at least for managing
hazardous waste. The preconstruction
provision for Class 2 modifications is
proposed under § 270.42(b)(8J.
3. Class 3 Modifications
Class 3 modifications cover changes
that substantially alter the facility or its
operations. Generally, they include any
increases in the facility's land-based
treatment, storage, or disposal capacity-
increases of more than 25 percent in the
faculty s non-land-based treatment or
storage capacity: authorization to treat
store, or dispose of wastes not listed in
the permit that require changes in unit
design or management practices;
-------
35846 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No.
/ Wednesday. SeptBmber 23. 1987 / Proposed Rules
substantial changes to fcmdfHl, surface
impoundment, and waste pHe liner and
leachate colfection/detection.«ystms; -
and substantial changes to-the gromid-
water monitoring systems or incinerator
operating conditions. The spedfW •
modifications that fafl into Class 3-ai* •
identified in Appendix I to 46 CFR Part
270 and discussed more folly in section
1V.C of this preamble.
The Committee agreed that, became
Class 3 modifications invohre
substantial changes to finality operating
conditions or waste manegeaent
practices, titey should b« subjected*)
the sane review and puobc
participation procedure* as permit
applications. In addition, the Committee
agreed that the public skouid few die
opportunity to sum with tkm fiuaifty -
owner /operator end conmeat on ts»
modification request before the ^taojr
developed a draft permit HM specific
procedures efneedioe* by toe
Committee for Class 3 modification*
have been proposed at 40CFR 23U4^el
The Cist steps in the application
procedures fox Class 3 modifications AM
similar to the procedures for Class 2,
Under proposed 1270.42(cXl), the
permittee must submit a modification
request to EPA indicating the cxacl
change to be made to the permit
identifying the change «• a Class 3
modification; explaining why the
modification is needed: and providing
applicable information required by 40
CFR 27ai3-through27a2a and 27082. As
with Class2 modifications, the
permittee is encouraged to consult with
EPA before submitting the modiEcatioa
request.
As agreed upon by the Committee, the
permittee would also be subject to
essentially the same public notice and
meeting requirements for Class 3 as for
Class 2 modifications. Proposed
I 270.42(c)(2] would require the
permittee to notify persona on the
facility mailing list concerning the
modification request. This notice would
have to occur on the date of submission
of the request to the Agency, and would
have to contain the same information as
the Class 2 notification, except that it
would include an announcement that a
second public meeting migkt teisrid-ff a
written request were made. Proposed
§ 270.32{c)(4Ki) would require The
permittee to hold an informational
public meeting, just as in Class 2.
However, proposed § 270.42(c)(4)(ii)
adds a provision that the permittee may
hold a second meeting at his or her own
discretion, or if requested in writing by a
member of the public.
The Committee agreed that if the
permittee chose to conduct a second
public meeting, he or she would be
required to notify the public in
accordance with proposed
|27D.42(cM4KJi)TA}-(E). The purpose of
the meeting •would be to afiow the
permittee and the public to further
discuss issues raised in the first meeting
and, if possible, to resolve them, hi
many cases, the Committee believed,
this second meeting might lead to a
revision to the permittee's modification
.request. The meeting would have to be
hwd no fewer than 15 days after the
notice and no fewer than 15 days before
the end of the comment period, ff tt were
not possible to bold the meeting at least
15 days before the end of the comment
peried, The permittee would be reoalred
to extend the comment period. The
Committee dw agreed that to faeiState
the*eeo*otion of feme*, the permittee
miglttcjBptojr a nentral facilitator to
ctafrti* meeting. ft»fti» cow, the
peraattea md&t Agency would hare to
agree OR UN ••faction of ** faeffitMer.
Like the first meeting, theveoaad
meeting would u««anm any official
status.
finely, the Committee agreed that «he
Agency would MW the pens* issuance
procedures of 40 CFR Part 124 for-Class
3 modification* altar the conclusion of
the 6&y the
Ageaoy during the avbiic comment
period announced by the perauttee at
the time of ihe modification request
4. -Xeaafxtrafy Authoraatioas The
Committee also agreed that EPA should
have.the authority to grant a pemittee
temporary authorization, wi&hout prior
public notice and comment to conduct
activities necessary to respond promptly
to changing conditions. In granting a
temporary authorization, under the
Committee agreement, the Agency
would have to End tkat the Modification
waa nnnpBgary UK (i) Facilitate timely
impTementatioi of closure or -collective
action activities; £MJ fadCtats timely
management of a newly regulated waste
at the permittee's facility; (Hi) avoid
disrupting ongoing waste management
activities at the permittee's facility; (iv)
enable the permittee to respond to
sudden changes in the types or
quantities of wastes being managed at
the facility or (v) carry out other
changes to protect human health and the
environment Temporary authorize lions
could be granted for any Class 2
modifications that met these criteria, or
for a Class 3 modification that met the
criteria and that was necessary to: (i)
Implement corrective action or facility
closure activities, fli) manage a newly
regulated waste, or (iii) provide
improved management or treatment of a
waste already listed in me permit.
EPA has proposed these criteria for
temporary authorization in § 270.42(e).
However, the Agency believes that it
may be appropriate to drop item (u). the
management of newly regulated waste,
from the list. Elsewhere in the
negotiated agreement the Committee
agreed on a special modification
procedure for facilities handling newly
listed or identified wastes. This
procedure would allow the owner/
operator to handle the newly regulated
waste as a Class 1 modification, pending
the retriew of a Class 2 or 3 modification
request The Agency has proposed this
procedure in 5 270.42{gJ [see section
IVJ3.7 of this preamble). The Agency,
therefore, is proposing a dual approach:
A facility owner/operator would have
the option of seeking a modification to
handle a newly listed waste either as a
temporary authorization or under the
special procedures of J 27D.42(g).
Although the Committee agreed on
including both approaches during its
negotiations, EPA believes that the
special procedures of S 270.42(g) are
generally more appropriate for newly
listed wastes. (This point is explained
more fully in section FV.C.7 of the
preamble.] Therefore, the Agency
specifically solicits comments on
whemer it should retain changes
necessary to handle newly listed wastes
as a criterion for temporary
authorizations.
In addition. EPA believes that other
criteria not addressed by the Committee
may be appropriate justifications for
temporary authorizations. For example.
EPA solicits comment on whether
temporary authorizations should
explicitly be allowed for storage or
treatment of hazardous wastes subject
to land disposal restrictions under 40
CFR Part 268. These restrictions are
likely to lead to severe short-term
dislocation of waste management
systems and a shortfall in capacity. The
regulated industry will require flexibility
to handle and treat restricted wastes
under these circumstances. For these
reasons, the Agency recently
promulgated a regulation classifying
changes to facility permits for storage or
treatment of restricted wastes as minor
permit modifications, pending review of
the changes as major modifications. (See
§ 270.42(p), as amended on July 8,1937.
52 FR 25760.) If today's proposal
-------
. r | 11 .
becomes final, the minor modification
provls,on will be eliminated. EPA
believes that it may be appropriate to
retain the flexibility provided by this
rule by allowing non-land-based
management of restricted wastes fat
east for Class 2 modifications) under
temporary authorizations. The Agency
solicits comments on this question.
— .••I»(M«»^P »**JL~
authorizations. iuuue
the permittee miwt snout to th
a request lor a tenuMxaiy auilic
describing the activitiaB to b*.
Cflnn-iif*tA*3i Auw3**i_* * .•
Proposed 5 27a42fetf3J would Kanir«
the Agency to approve the tenMnary
^anSI!011 M^^ asatacticatja
granting tne atiiKru^7fl Una, EEAJor it«
iS9s^ffiaitt
The Committee agreed inal denMflf a '
temporary authorizaaaa«oiiejl »u^£
not pnejudica actkm oa a~i~*t£!5£ ''
request. The deaial ^rwMBoi. '
necessarily mean f*"»» *- --*^ -"j'i';j;:;03
contemplated I '
requirement, of course, that the
authorized activities xua at least 96
'f -- u>e «
end of the authorization. There/ore. th
Agency believes that there is no M*d
specifically to allow ternary
tS ^ OH8J° ^ s^'6*1 «• f<™
than 90 days. Howewer. tie AMQCT
aoiiciU coaaenis oa t
—.^.uuiqg UBS ttUHvmes to oa
conducted; explainiag «4y tba
temporary authorization uraa Aecesawic
and providing sufficient Moxnationto
ensure compliance with Part 284
standards. In addition, the Monittee
would be required to notify aB pft*r>m
on the facility maiEcg lint ^^^ ^
temporary authorization reqaesl wi&iii
seven days of the request Rr "^^
temporaiy authorizaflona, iowwrac. &«
Committee agreed (hat ftere would ie
no automatic requirement for nubfic
comment or hearings. Instead, tajy"
temporary authorizafiona that were 'Inoi
of short duration {Le., penaaa
need to go through either the J
Class 3 approval prscedurea."
isSU@ ifi- ^Uar>iieaa J l«« f_ .a.*-
r
emporary autnri->Ttinn ^^ ».. i
for a term of no fewer than 90,a«djB
more than lao dayjtandiiatihe
authorization could be^xteaded for
another 180 days. Althougk.tlw
Committee Agreement.specified t&u
requirement, at least one member af fte
Committee raised the T^MVI of
Sfw? temP°"u?' ^li
should be allowed for a
Aem
term of flie temporary
w
authoilzatfiiB lortne exteadeJ ~ '
emoorwy atrtharirafJonJ expired. At
tnat rrnie, the Agency would be required;
to make one of the dedstana otherwise
requkec? on day 120 for Claw 2
modificalioBi. If the Agency fa3ed to
make one«f those decision* the
activities described in Ae.BiodaicatJon
would be tenjporarny aBthorized
wtthont action by tije Agency.
It-scouldb* noted thai fM« .
ffieaof
wzafc
would begin at the time el ofe Miwowal
by the Agency, or at some s
effective date shortly after
approval. There would be no
-
coufef anowa s
to pass before
fcga final dedrtcn on
the end of A&sx^otiad
autoorizanan. the A&Dt
another tempatary m.rt.?r,Trticin. or an '
automatic aa>-day temporary
authorizatoa «ay «oir in tfaeabseace
of* deosiaa. in either ewe. *e fi^
Agency action on Use ee^ues* ctmld be
delayed for tU. addUj^TSriod^
time. EPA believes that it * in tne
interest of the permittee, the puote. and
rimeframes
this ap
Agency be m
Agency to make its j
public participat
a temppnny authorization
for up to tao days -wtftoot proviolM a
formal opportetty for public comment
ana wiBwmt Iroidteg the informational
meeting required for Cfess 2 aad 3
modfficafloM. These steps would be
reqafeedbefore &e actl»«fes continued
beyond the IS^day termxtf ihe
acttvlTtes
e*P*anwdabove.,Inihe case of aB
temporary aMftorfzalion reqaesls. the
permittee would bo-a^mcedte notify
the public witbia seuea days of ihe
raqaeat. Tktrefoce. the public would
have aa opportunity to raise any issues
or concenw4t had uiitfa tie parmiUee or
uie Agency, aad it .could app°tj ^y
Agency decision to grant a ianuxjrary
authorization.
In summary, temporary authoazations
may occur in *
co
the
or
-------
35846
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 184 / Wednesday, September 23, 1987 / Proposed Rules
2. The permittee requests and the
Agency approves a temporary
authorization while the Agency and the
public are reviewing the Class 2 or 3
modification. This temporary
authorization is renewable once, for ur>
to 180 days.
3. The Agency approves a temporary
authorization after public review of a
Clnss 2 modification request but before
the Agency issues the final permit
modification. This temporary
authorization is not renewable.
4. An automatic temporary
authorization is granted where the
Agency fails to make a decision on a
Class 2 modification request within
prescribed deadlines.
EPA believes thU approach provides a
reasonable balance between the public's
right to know of and comment on
activities at permitted hazardous waste
facilities and the facility owner/
operators' need to implement certain
changes rapidly. The Agency also
believes that this approach allows a
reasonable implementation of the
Committee's agreement that full public
participation was not necessary for
short-term activities conducted under
temporary authorizations at hazardous
waste facilities.
More generally, the Agency believes
that the temporary authorization
procedure approved by the Negotiating
Committee will provide important
flexibility USpermitted hazardous waste
facilities, wijhout sacrifice to public
health or the environment. In fact,
because temporary authorizations are
designed specifically for activities
necessary to improve management of
hazardous waste, or to conduct timely
closures and corrective actions, this
authority should reduce actual risk and
promote safe handling of wastes. For
this reason, the Agency believes that the
temporary authorization procedure will
greatly benefit the regulated industry.
regulating agencies, and the public.
5. Other Modifications
As explained later in this preamble,
the Agency has chosen to codify the list
of permit modifications developed by
the Negotiating Committee. This
approach leaves open the question of
how to handle modifications that have
not been listed in one of the three
categories.
While the Committee did not
specifically address this question, the
Agency is proposing an approach in
§ 270.42(0. Under this proposal, a
facility owner/operator wishing to make
a permit modification not included on
Appenui* I ouulii submit a Class 5
modification request, or alternatively
ask the Agency for a determination that
Class 1 or 2 modification procedures
should apply. In making the
determination, the Agency would
consider the similarity of the
modification to modifications Hsted in
Appendix I, and would apply the
general definitions of Class 1. 2. and 3
modifications developed by the
Negotiating Committee. Furthermore, the
Agency would notify persons on the
facility mailing list of its decision to
classify the modification as Class 1,2, or
3, and the public and the permittee
would have the right to appeal the
classification, as well as EPA's decision
to grant or deny the request itself.
Finally, EPA intends to monitor
decisions by permitting authorities (both
the EPA Regional offices and authorized
states) on modification request
classifications and will periodically
amend Appendix I of thia regulation to
include these classifications.
As an alternative, the Agency
considered requiring the Class 3 process
for any modification that did not appear
in Appendix I and periodically
amending-the regulations to add new
modifications. EPA. however, has
rejected this approach as unwieldy and
as significantly undermining the
flexibility provided by this proposal.
The Negotiating Committee and the
Agency have made a concerted effort to
develop a comprehensive list of permit
modifications in Appendix I. However,
experience has shown that a complete
list is not possible, and that there will
inevitably be many requests for
modifications not found in the
Appendix. Thus, unless a simple and
flexible process is developed for
addressing unclassified modifications,
today's proposal will provide only
limited relief. The Agency believes that
proposed 5 270.42(f) provides such an
approach.
8. Permit Modification Appeals
The Committee agreed that members
of the public and the permittee should
have the same rights to appeal Agency
decisions on permit modifications as
they have to appeal permits. The
proposal would require EPA to notify
the public of its decisions on permit
modification requests, including the
automatic authorization of permit
modifications through the default
provision. It would also explicitly allow
the public to appeal these decisions
under the procedures of 40 CFR Part 124.
These requirements are proposed in
§ 270.42(d).
7. Newly Listed or Identified Wastes
Under current regulations, facility
owner/operators must secure a major
permit modification before handling
hazardous wastes net listed in the
facility permits. This requirement
applies not only to hazardous wastes
new to a facility, but also to wastes that
a facility is already handling that are
newly listed or identified by EPA as
hazardous. Thus, if a permitted facility
is handling a solid waste that EPA lists
as hazardous under section 3001(b) of
RCRA or that possesses characteristics
that EPA identifies as hazardous under
sections 3001 (g) and (h), the facility's
permit must undergo a major
modification to allow it to continue to
handle the waste. This modification
might simply entail adding the new
waste to the permit, because the facility
had been handling the waste in an
already permitted unit. Alternatively, it
might entail adding to the permit storage
or treatment tanks, surface
impoundments or landfills, incinerators,
or other units, because the waste had
been handled hi an unpermitted unit.
The Committee agreed that permit
modifications necessary to handle
newly listed or identified wastes present
a special case and do not fit readily into
the established procedure. In particular,
the Committee recognized the severe
disruption that a lengthy permit
modification process might cause a
facility already handling a newly
regulated waste—especially if the
facility had to go through a Class 3
modification to continue to handle the
waste. The Committee also
acknowledged a potential inequity
between permitted and interim status or
unpermitted facilities handling newly
regulated wastes. Under RCRA.
previously unregulated facilities can
gain interim status, allowing them to
continue to handle the waste, simply by
submitting a Part A application and
complying with 3010 notification •
requirements. Interim status facilities
would be able to continue to handle
newly listed or identified wastes
through a change in interim status
without a detailed permitting review by
the Agency. Permitted facilities,
however, would require a major permit
modification. As a result, permitted
facilities would be penalized when it
came to handling newly listed or
identified wastes.
For this reason, the Committee agreed
that special procedures should be
developed for modifications involving
newly listed or identified wastes, and it
provided general guidance to EPA on
developing an approach to this class of
modifications
• The permittee would submit a Class
1 modification request at the time the
waste became subject to the new
requirements.
-------
Federd Register / VoJ.
J permittee would comply to the
extent practicable, with Part 264
requirements, and where this was not
practicable with Part 265 requirements.
• In the case of Class 2 and 3
modifications, the permittee would
submit the appropriate modification
request within a specified time period.
The Committee also agreed that where
new wastes or units are added to a
faculty s permit under this,
they would aot couat,
wastes-either in permitted or
unpermitted unit*_if they were
Committee agreed. the permittee w«id
be required to sabnrit a Class 1 ^^
modification at the time the waste
became subject to the new tigO
idennficaiion (thai is,
toof
to comply
he or she would
complete
i ne Agency considered luutaaa th«<*>
special modification proceduWto
publication^ rather than tfaedaterf
publication. EPA has tentatively
rejected tfai* approach, b«aw/it *
provide an opportunity fcf ne,—i«I
facilities to introduce r-»~ -.-^-Tr
However. EPA acknowladge. Jbrttt
proposed approach doeTraSa^B
questions, because interim statuiaZ
unpermitted facilities under current
g" / Proposed Rufes 35349
where a new unit, such as an incinerator T,nM » j ,-
or a surface impoundment, is inVjived AP *"*£$ 'S availab!e for review. The
i i "" '"JMHWH. * U* lIlIS 1*63
• believes that 180 days is an
appropriate period.
As discussed earlier. EPA recently
propaaed a rule mat wouid r» ''
wastes
intends te prondaert *« ^T
^^•.l^^P-'^lt,
supersede that rate.
One aaior differeace tietw
aHow fatties
regulated wastes tfarougfa
proposal would oat requi
approval. The pen*te«
have ta ratify EPA aai fhe
or regulated
proposal
approach. Wee tittane
was to adhere ta the
frame wodt of the coraent aanor
ations, whidi does not
^
EPA
The Negotiating Committee did not
provide specific guidance to
application. However, the Agency
beli
8. Ptrbflcation of Permit Modiflcation
The Committee also agreed
or an authorized State
list of approved permit a
and periodicaHy publish
the list is available for review Tbe
Committee did not specify now efte*
such a notice would have to be
1 notice w
adequate rr. „
how the Age^y wis3 r^ning the permit
modifccation program. Members of the
public interested m a closer revfew
could follow the Agency', actions on a
site-specific basis.
C. CJa&sificatlsa
Modifications
** C«n«r«ee
an
o
presented m AppentHx ! trf Part 270
TneAppendbcIdaasificationfist
$e OI«anization °f the
r Part 284- The "st is
y. and,
.
XCeptiQn8 noted " the
SCUSSi°n be!ow' «P«sents
agreement. Therefore, the
,„ tJ *-«i."c Background
J useful, sujgesfioos fet did not
receive Committee consenwft or
substantive additions thatSpA is
proposing.
InadpptfngfbeCommittee's oexmit
modTBcalion daaaificaikmiisi foT
mclueioa in Part aiUne Agency needed
to make some minor changes to the list
Howevar. ^AgencyEJ3^ l*L
reo3^^3"318 ^
-------
35850 Federal Regi»ter./ Vol. S2. No.. 1M / Wednesday. September 28. M87
regulations but would more simply be
addressed in one place (e.g., frequency
ofreportingj.a ., ....,„
The Committeefcgretd.that. . • .v
to ah hazardous waste factfttie*
(Subpart»B-E of Part 284). These
cnang»priswrny terolwthe voriou
. • .••
changes and correction of typographical-
errors are of little concern, and are
primarily necessary to maintain a •
current permit document One
Committee member suggested that
correction of minor factual errors should
also be Included as a Class 1 change,
but the Committee did not have time to
address this suggestion. Tha Agency.
requests public comment on whether
correction of minor factuil errors should-
be added to this lists* a Class 1 change,-
and if so, -how Mpninpr factual errors" .
should be.daiifced. ',,'.., .._'. '
The Cdmmittfle.atto'^piead thai it i* .
important that4hep*nniitee be.*bl«4o
make routine equipment replacement*
that are necessary for the continued
operation •£ tfct fecUity.,Equipanent that
frequently needs replacement includes
pumps, pipea, valves, incinerator fire- '
brick, instrument readout devices. In "
most cases, aucb replacements should • .
not even require a permit modification
since the permit-should acknowledge
them as ongoing maintenance activities.
However, some Committee members
offered examples where permits
specified a particular piece of
equipment,. including the manufacturer!* "•
name and themodei number of ti»e item-.
Such aniteEfcmay-not be available at a
later date i4fen-it needsreplacement. -
(Some pemilfconditions may
inadvertently create *uch restrictions by
incorporating the Part B permit-
application fay reference.) The
Committee decided that when a-permft
modification for such a change is
needed, it would be a Class 1 change.
The Committee further agreed that the
facility should be able to upgrade these
kinds of ancillary equipment without
prior approval to take advantage of
better designs or more suitable products.
so long as the new equipment is
"functionally equivalent" to the
equipment it replace*. (The definition of
"functionally equivalenT-Is discnssed
id!itjrf*f4%o«ttagenc!r pftttutramttfr
' "
.. - .-..-,.•*,. ,-..?.^
••s-jZ&e propc*afc»o*i4«}*o-ettwwt .-.. X
.xfeanges in interim e9mplfxiM&date»ta><:
. schedules otoorapUance with -Director -
approval. Where such changes would be
likely to delay the final date of
compliance, it would not qualify as a
Class 1 change.
2. General Facility Standards
The "General Facility Standards"
portion of Appendix I encompasses
changes that affect the general
standards and requirements that apply
3. GroundrWaiET Erotection"'
Subpart F of Part 284 specifies the
water; Pannitted facilities subject to
oraund-water mentoring retjuiremen^
f detailed-permit coodttoas
be mQett8fBO^-concaatta&m.itndift of >
hazardouuionstitaaats. that trigger :--
subsequent actions; and the number,
Jocation>vdaptfc and design
typical cfaangMr mcoxpvntaitafo'
Committae^PA «mhM to empH
howewrpdut itfSonMdera gronnd-^wtw •
P««nitB for koa
reqi«»cWe-attesrttoa by 4h» Agency-
groiind*w»tisrninoitoHi
». ->- --
chanfrfe djnmmber.4eoation.-or dapth
of wetis: «a±Mdustioii>ih theiiwnbw of
hazardou»osnj*jtu«it« anaiyrod for A»
assesameafepeegcam. FenBtttees «boul*
unde»t«ad^Mt; if •permit modification
request did. nDt-pravidadootHaerrtatton
that durmodirieatioawwid faUy coorary
with fiazt 284 saneucto and vmuld not
reduce th«7«a>otiv8nw»-of Aba fjouad-
water motHtoray •ystem, BPA or an •
authorized S*«t« wwdd be obHged to -
deny the permit modification raqvest
(AlternativeJiy,.thB-Agency could extend
the review period, with the approval of
the permittee.) Therefore, EPA
appropriate category for these types of
changes regarding ground-water
monitoring, because of the requirement
that Class 2 modification requests
indicate compliance with Part 264
requirements and because—once
ground-water monitoring systems have
been established and approved as part
of the original permit—changes in the
systems will generally be minor and
technical. In fact EPA believes that
most changes will be made to "improve"
permitted systems, because of new
inrorlnalloli, -technology, or other
consideration*. Therefore, the Agency
believe* that public health and the
environment will be best served by an
expedited approval procedure for these
. kind*, of changes.
The Agency, however, specifically
solicits comments on the Committee's
categorization of these permit
modifications as Class 2. The Agency
also solicit* comments on whether
Mrtain modification* related to ground-
water mom'toriagnhcmld be categorized
a*
-------
since they are not called for unless there
is ev,dence that the ground-water
protection standard is being exceeded
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
categorize them as Class 3 permit
modifications. This classification is
consistent with earlier Committee
deliberations on corrective action and
ground-water monitoring. We invite
comment on including this additional
item in Appendix I.
4. New Wastes in a Unit
The use of the term "new-wastes" in
he Appendix I list refers to changes
wSe'"8 •introduction of hazardous
h=r,^i« «u Um*s tnat are not permitted to
handle these wastes. In other words, the
facility may be seeking to accept wastes
that were not previously identified in
the permit, or it may already be
managing the waste but would prefer to
smtt it to a different treatment, storage,
or disposal process. Permit
modifications for "newly regulated
wastes -those wastes that are newly
listed or identified—are treated
somewhat differently, as described in
section IV.B.7 of this preamble.
The Committee agreed that permit
modifications to allow new wastes at a
permitted unit should be classified into
two general categories. The first
situation would involve new wastes that
are sufficiently similar to wastes
currently authorized at the unit so that
no additional or different management
Asa*nC,fvS' ,igni or Process is required.
AS an example, a unit may be permitted
only to treat specific solvent wSsfat
may be equally capable of treating other
solvent wastes that exhibit similaf
physical and chemical properties within
the same management conditions of the
permit. In these cases, the Committee
,sPeci.fied that the permit modification
should follow the Class 2 process
The second situation would be where
the introduction of a new waste at a unit
would require different or additional
management practices, design, or '
process in order to properly manage the
waste—for instance, if the new waste
was reactive or ignitable and the permit
conditions did not anticipate that such
wastes would be managed in the unit.
The Committee agreed that these
35851
This section of the preamble describes
toe Committee's classification of permit
modifications involving the various
types of hazardous waste management
units at a facility. In general, the
Committee addressed for each type of
unit: [1) Changes to or addition of units
that affect the facility's capacity. f2r
changes tounits that do not affect - •
facility capacity. C3J replacement of
units, (4.) introduction of new wastes
into a umt. and (5) changes to thewaste
manage men* practices involving the
unit. Also the Committee identified
additional changes that were
appropriate for specific units.
i. Tanks and containers. The
permitting standards for containers and
tanks are found in Part 264 Subparts I
and J. Because of the similarities of the
classifications that the Committee
developed for these units, they are
discussed together. Furthermore, EPA
made a structural change to the
Committee's classification list in that it
{^»mlle?..the "-ank Stora8e" aad "tank
treatment sections into a sinale section
ee. The
preferable because it dSSSSSftto
confusion created by duplicauve
language and because the Part 284
standards, do not differentiate between
tanks used for treatment and tank» used
52MX!£2'1?ha^ d°e* not
on the initial container capacity On, ,.
the 25 percent limit js reached, all
subsequent modifications mvoivin°
capacity increase for the specific type of
unit would follow the Class 3 process.
Another example that illustrates the
limited nature of this Class 2 provision
would be where a facility's permit
specifies extensive container storage
out there is no provision for tank
storage. In this case; the container
storage operation may be expanded «»«
. ClassicfaaflgB subject to the 23 percent.
limit .bat addition of tanks-would bfc »
Class 3 rapdificalion since there was ntf "
permitted tank capacity.
The Committee also discussed- the
addition- of certain tanks that perform
particular treatment activities-
neutralization, dewatering, phase
separation, or component separation-
thai are fairly elementary physical
processes. These unit operations are
relatively simple in design and are well
?££? i^86,?3 mobile treatment units
MTUs>. Furthermore, it was recognized
mat there is growing interest in the
waste management field for-using such
MTUs since they provide industry
significant flexibility in selecting among
treatment technologies, in {^treating
wastes before final treatment, and m
rTBtfacmg-waste vohme before shipping.
(Neto Aft fiPA recently proposed S
amendnienls to the-RCRA permitting •
program to remove regulatory "
impediments- to using MTUs in treating
,na^ US waste«-.52FR =20914, June 3
• •
For each type of unit in Appendix I
the _Committee defined general criteria
as discussed above to determine
whether permit modifications involving
tne management of new wastes
Ahhn861? fhCIa38 2 °r a Class 3 chan«e.
Although these criteria are general in
wnHrfK*6 Af C,ncy beiieve9* hat *ey
would be useful and appropriate in
The Committee decided that tank
system and container changes or
additions resulting in a capacity
increase of 25 percent or less should
quahfy as a Class 2 modification. This
arrangement would allow modest
capacity growth at a facility without the
procedures currently associated with
major modifications, but with an
appropriate level of public notice and
participation. Any change leading to an
increase of more than 25 percent would
require a Class 3 modification (except-
for certain specific unit operations
described later in this section).
. The 25 percent limit is based on the
initial permitted capacity for tank
systems or containers. As an example, a
facility that has a permit for both tank
systems and containers may bring on
additional tank systems as Class 2
modifications until the cumulative
increase in tank capacity equals 25
Sfp nil0-! o? tank "P^Ky sPe«fied in
the permit. Similar changes may be
made involving container units, based
For these reasons, the Committee
decided thafthe temporary (i.e., up to 90
days) addition of tanks to perform
neutralization, dewatering, phase
separation, or component separation
operations may merit a separate
classification from tanks intended for
other uses. However, the Committee
could not reach consensus on the
appropriate modification class for these
units. Initial discussions of the issue
centered on treating these changes as
Class 1 modifications..and some
members of the Committee preferred
this approach. Most Committee
' members believed that temporary use of
these particular tanks should be
assigned to Class 1 but should require
Agency approval prior to operation
However, there were a few members
who believed that there may be
circumstances where the addition of
such units would merit a Class 2
ranking. Therefore, the Committee
decided that EPA should solicit public
comments on these various approaches
and consider the comments when
developing the final rule.
-------
85B52 Fttoal Ttegjster
In today's-proposal. the Agency is
Indicating that (he addition-df "new
classification
the pu
I.
t
decision,
add«on.ef uoit^
than 90-days is.a Ckssimodificatioo,
without limitation to lite r°mltin£
capacity incrsMe.Xhi«-wiU.ailew
facilities to ioatituta these .aunpla
operations even if their cnrtaat
penniUed treaimentcapacity.ia linatad,
by tba [
(See item G^)C^aaoiawi,a»aatbe»"'l.''
acknowledsBi tt may-aot always be ~ '.
pOBsibU ,to-•place *jank with aofthac..-
tank of exactly the saine capacity.. - .•„".'
Therefore, thp Committee agreedlhat • ~
allow alO percent variation in the size -.
of the replacement .tank, but it.woahLnoi
authorize the use of any additional
capacity gained in this fashion. A»
discussedaboye, increases in the . -
permitted tank capacity .wouldrequire*
Class 2 modification [if limited to 25
percent or less). {For example, if a 5,000-
gallon tank is replaced by a 5,500-gallon
tank, the replacement would b« a Class.
1 modification if the tank willta UMd4a-
treat or store only-5,OOO-gaHon» or 'I***. :
Tkefadtlty cnuM aae the entire 5,500-..
..• aallons-after a Class 2 raodlQcslion).'
•'fhrtO percent variation would further "
ba liraited to « maxhsum ofa^SOO gaRohs •
sincfftanks of 15,000 gallons and mote
are usually made to order and therefore
would net have to deviate from the
original tank size.
The Agency has proposed this
modification as agreed upon by the
Committee. However, it questions
whether it is necessary to prohibit the
owner/operator's use of the extra 1095
capacity in replacement tanks under
Class 1 modifications. It believes this
provision may be difficult to enforce and
will provide limited if any additional
days fornottrdtntiqn. AswaMta
phase separatiefc-oroomponent'
separation" fea-Ci«g1,iiK»dtfit**io*6ut
requires prior Agtoojcapprowktdw ---
item G(l«d).) While th^temp^-wyMe .
of the*« units doe* not -appear to
warrant iajposinsdmCras* 2 process,
EPA doe* babeve-tiiat Agency review of
eavfcoanwafe The Agenap*f»diEarifiyx^
solicits joomaients.an thk JSBUB. . ,-,
,O. SaffbeeJmpatu&jteats* Tha surface
Pad 26* SufapartlCara designed to
prevent any migraiioniof.^msj«s.out of
the:irapoundment'ta
thai the newwrU be governed by-
Ihe applicable PartSat-aUndards (aud. •
the Part 269 air emrtMaKs.attBdanit, • -
gro»iad-«fatejvor surface votati^Bm •
Conunkte* decided to *Uow.GlaM 2
permit madifications a«ly4uadai tha •
the w&l»,G*f0ixly andtkat da^aot.. ,-'. ,'.-
''
w-
the addition** aprwM
Class 2 change can be found in section
IV jC.S.i above. ,
iv.Xflfftf77ft, 'The permitting standard*
for lanaSus ace" found in Part 264,
SubparfN. tha Committee's list of
permit modffication* that are
appropriate for landfills are presented in
section J of Appendix I. (As discussed
above, these modifications would also
apply to unenclosed waste piles.)
The Committee specified most
changes at landfjfl-faoillties as Class 3
modifications. Class .2 .changes are
indicated only foniflt) limited unit
modlgcaSoiw mat,waiiJ3 not affect a
liner, leachate naBec'tipo or detection
tninroff cbnfrof or final cover
f'CJ change* to management
-^itJie landfill, and (3) the
e^«sw wastes under certain
~ ooi'pjee jection IV,C4 of the
I"! ••; •
'treaimeat The list of
to land-treatment facilities
is O
pro vidirj^praUdwi from •prscipii
"une
same design, operating. monltertHg, MM! -
mspe««0n*a*rf»BBieats-«»4m«BB« the
Committee dasuted fta
TKe- second type ot-waste p8e inrit Is
the."encfas*d-wa«te-pHe"— «}., waste.
ater
.
contrefc-and wind-.dispErsai coattoL
SectionT of the Appendix Ksto the
modifications that the Committee .
designated for enclosed -waste piles.
Note that item I(l](b) provides for unit
changes or additions resulting in a
capacity increase of 25 percent or less
as a Class 2 modification. This ie the
same modification as allowed for tank
and container units. Further discussion
of the operation and limitations of this
pre«ewed-in section K of Appendix I is
fairly extensive, reflecting the detailed
regulatory provisions governing these
facilities in Part 264, Subpart M. The
modifications identified relate primarily
to changes in land treatment operating
pracn'oesi.monitoring of the unsaturated
zone, and the. treatment demonstration.
Tha items listed are quite specific and
self-explanatory.
Cuwently. ihste.types of permit
changRsfnr land .treatment facilities ace
minor modifications. First § 270.42(1)
afloMrra mincr.modificatioa for minor
rjianges to the treajtmeot program
rfiquiremants for the nurpose of
improvingireataant of hazardous.
CDo*titu^nt8.^incathe.filemenis of the.
treatoent .program, {identified .in
§ 264.271} .cover a wide range of possible
pecnuLcoBditians. .this minor
modification raises the question of what
constitutes^ "minorchange" that
"improvestreatment of hazardous
conatitueats." Today's proposal does not
contain a provision similar to § 270.42(1),
but instead identifies, many potential
changes: toelemsnte of tha.treaJtment
program and dassiSw each one
separatdjUlQwever. the Committee .
ag«emanlAS«gned.eithes a Class 2 JJT 3
modificatiom. level io all such changes,
tharebyNrequmng a more extensive .
approval process than in the current .
system, if the modification were to
qualify-as minor under this provision..
The Agency believes that the Committee
may have .inadvertently eliminated some
land treatment changes that are
currently .allowed as minor
modifications and ibr which a Class 1 .
modification with prior Director ..
approval would be appropriate.
Therefore. EPA is particularly interested
-------
- •
in comments on the relation of this new
5 270 4*2(1) t0
The second land treatment minor
mod.fication is for a minor change to a
permit condition to reflect the results of
a treatment demonstration (§ 270.42|ml)
i his provision is retained in today's
proposal but it is a Class 2 modification
fk . !"dudes the additional condition
that the performance standards must
still be met (item K(15)). Therefore, sudi
changes may reqwre more time far
approval under today'* proposed
system. The Agency welcomes comment
on this new classification.
Finally, a third minor modification
category allows a second treatment
demonstration when the results of the
first demonstration are not conclusive
(§ 270.42(nfl. This provision is
essentially unchanged since.it is
identified as a Class I change that
requires prior director approval (item
The Agency is also proposing
conforming changes to the land
treatment demonstration perniittina
provisions of § 270.63. Section 270.63fdl
currently specifies procedures for
modifying the second phase of a land
treatment permit based on results of
field tests or laboratory analyse*
m°r^TT these.Proc"durea.are *«
m part, to provide an opportunity to
appeal the Director's decision on a
^™r,m addresses changes to
incinerator operating or monitorina
requirements that would not be likely to
affect compliance with the performance
standards. Examples of these Class Z
changes include modification of the
waste feed systems, quench systems.
kiln refractory, or control
instrumentation. The Director may
require a trial burn if he or she believes
there is a possibility that the
modification could affect the capability-
of the incinerator to meet performance
standards-OJT could significantly change
the operating conditions.
C*an8»'to1 operating requirements
are identified in item L{4). The
Committee designated as Class 3
modifications those alterations of
The cfosare activities identified in
^ Appendix I stem from Part
4, Subpart G. Since 5 264.1l2(a)
specifies that the approved closure plan
becomes incorporated as a condition of
the permit any changes to the plan must
be made through the permit modification
process. The Committee agreed to the
classification of specific closure plan
changes as presented in Appendix I,
item D(l).
The Committee also addressed the
possible need to add units to perform
closure activities. If the addition of units
is already specified in sufficient detail ir>
the approved closure plan, then a permit
modification should not be necessary
However, the creation of units not
anticipated in the closure plan will
require a permit modification to amen,;
he plan (see { 264.112{c}). It also raises
the issue of the facility undertaking
activities.that were not initially
identified in the permit In practice, it is
not always possible for the permittee ,,r
the Agency, at the time of permit
issuance, to anticipate the specific
methods that will be best suited to c|,Jst»
a facility ten or more years in the furure!
Therefore; the Agency expects that
facility ownees will frequently introduce
units during dosare that were not
included i» the original closure plan.
The Committee decided that addin"
units to perform-closure should carrv" h,»
same classification as adding the sum,- '
-------
35854
Federal Register / VoL 52. No. 184 / Wednesday. September 23. 1987 / Proposed Rides
types of units far-other *eaaon* •
(discussed in preceding sections of the
preamble). tiowrv«r.4keCsminittBt-did-
not believe Jtwa^in
Class 3 modificatioafor adding teeka,
containers, or enolcead waste pita for
closure that result in a capacity increase
of more than 25 perceaL.lt waa
recognized that oio*ui» activities are
generally of relatively start duration.
and therefore capacity increases
resulting from tha.additioH of these units
to perform closure would £>e temporary.
Items 0 (2) and (3).in..U» Appendix J list
contain the cUuiificatioaof these
closure activities.
The CommiltaaifJsQ considered the
special case-of^a«k» Jlwtperform . .
neutralization. dewatering.,jibase
separation. andjcompooent separation.
(Sea the earlier .du'cuaaioa on tanks in
section rV.C.54 oltBis preamble.) As
described earlier.ihe-Agency expects
these four treatment operations to
become increasingly avaOable through
the uae of MTUs.iMTL&arej»artieuIariy
well adapted to cleanup activities and
closure of hazardous waste facilities.
However, as was the case with the
deliberations on the use of these
particular tank units for non-closure '
activities, the Committee could no*
reach consensus on the* appropriate
classification for these units when used
to perform closure. Therefore, in today's
proposal the Agency has indicated -that
the temporarjtaddln'an of Ihese specific
tank units wotild be a Class 1
modification l|ut would require Agency
approval (Safcltem D(3){f)).This is
consistent with tha proposed
classification for these same units if
used for fewer than 90 days to perform
non-closure activities. Again. EPA
particularly invites public comments on
this approach to assist its final decision.
7. Post-Ctoaure
Permitted fadirllies that nuwt'conduct
post-closure activities must have a pest-
closure plan in their permits. Once
approved, this pi awbecomes a condition
of the RCRA pemiftfcw* f SM.lKfa)).
The Conrntttea agreement fctenHffcd
two type*** ehaagw tethvjiMtaloaure-
plan. item*B(3r.and^2) of Appendix L
Items
-------
inspect the modification. Under today's
proposed modification scheme, the
requirements of § 270.30(k){2] are not
appropriate In many cases, particularly
for Class 1 modifications and temporary
authonzat,ons. Therefore, the projoseo7
Amendment to this provision would
allow the use of the modified portion of
the facility as long as such use is in
comormance with § 27042.
Finally, th« Agency
^ . _ _ _ | | | |
• Assist the applicant in assuring that
rona'
anged;:
lp
tn ~j VCiiJ • aPPiicant and the Agency
^ss^r"00^^
• Identify other permitting
requirements that are also affected (e.g..
permits for other media, such as
v0lnn rs Of the Committee
volunteered to serve on an informal .
working group to address the need for
and feasibility of allocating funds for
local technical review of permit
modification requests and for public
O^r* °S hazardou» waste issue*.
On» of A« altem««ww that w«t fee
ittee-initiated
avaikfale
V- Other Issues
A. Permit Modification Form
—-«•%,**»«jr, more v no presc
format for submitting permit
modification requests. The RCRA
regulations provide that in the case of a
require the submission of an updated
application. (See § i24.S{C}.) Today?
proposal would amend 1270.42 to
provide a more specific indication of th«
information that the permittee would
have to submit. However, even with
these proposed changes, each permittee
totc?d«Mriit?odific*ttoB^uha^
e oca ctizens to make
construed*, technical suctions for
improvements or to confirm that the
FS- "f, * f*0^ changes are
technically sound and protective of
human heeith and tne environment.
VL State Authority
°fRules fn Aph
« fl u «PP«P«ta
assemble his or her submission.
Certain members of the Committee
suggested that changes at interim stoTtua
facilities occur routinely, and that
correspondence to the Agency is
simplified by the use of the Part A
permit application form. Of courw.
discussed elsewhere in
the procedures for makf
interim status facUitfes^
Information that might h« included oa
a permit modification form would
Delude (l) FacUtty r*»e, addrSi H»A
ID number, contact penon, and,-1-—
number. (2J dates o/iaitial p«ra
subsequent modificatkm*.(3J % \
description of the requested
modification; (4) a list of other
environmental permits affected (if anyb
(5) a summary of voluntary public
participation activities related to the
modification (if any); (6J proposed
classification of the modification
request; and (7) components of the
permit to be modified. The form could
provide a list of typical permit
components (e.g., contingency plan, ,. ,
ground-water system, closure plan) so m Undep««?«i«B 3006 of RCHA. EPA
that the applicant would merely check. a raa* autl*>«z» qualified State to
7X a» to whether or not that item were adm""9<« and enforce the RCRA
cnanged. The Committee believed that Program withia the State. (See 40 CFR
the form should not exceed one or two -271 fop *« «asaity.
uuereana in whether such a form wo»M "W to the Haaardona a*A c^uj
beusefohwhemerit.ho.ldb.op^f WasteABM.d.iSSSr^WA, a
or required: whether it should b7 State with final erthoraatlon ''
P^Tf^lf Ae re8ulation» fl»* the administered H, hasardoue waste
fl^j ^i, V^i°* P18**01^ «« guidance; Program entirely in ifo» of EPA
Sh±L^ *™** ^ MAI ±S-rSfT»*p5r»i in
The Agency solicits comments oa the
desirability, contents, and format™
such a form. In particular,
-j. However,.-..^^m
still credited the use of the rart A J
as contributing to a more efficient
process for gaining approval of fiurfBry
changes. They suggested that a form for
requesting permit modifications misht
serve a comparable function.
The Committee therefore examined
the use of a standard form for permit
modification requests. Although the final
Committee agreement did not prescribe
the use of such a form, there was
general support for the idea. Members
,b±e:e^ala !!and^ *» would"
A * »1«^lunS «*«acy, the appocaat.
and the pubha EPA will consider peLfe
comments on this issue wher J--=£-^
whether or not to pursue the
and eou na» tsmw p^^ft. for a
fa«JWet toth* State *«»** State wa
""^ ^^ MW- «»»
State.
or an
te was
ta
of the
• Serve as the primary vehicle for
B. Technical Review and Public
Education Fund
Several Committee members
suggested that a fund should be
established to support site-specific
citizen education regarding proposed
permit modifications. It was recognized
hat citizens often do not have the
technical background to make
judgments on the merits of many
hazardous waste facility changes.
Indeed, the design of these facilities can.
involve scientific and engineering skfflT
m several discipline,. CowwjuenV,
Committee members thought that a
general fund would be useful in
providing technical support to the public
commenting on permit modification
a wer«
promuate or ^.cl^, liw state was
obliged to enact eo.Biv*tent authoritv
within specified time frames. Federal
requirement, did IK* take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirement* as State taw.
In contrast, under section 3006(s) of
RCRA.42U.S.C.8fla(gJ.n«w
J£w£S?2 n«f and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time (bat they take
effect IB neaaatioriMd States. EPA is
tes.
do
HSVVA-relatad provision* as State law
to retain final authorization, HSWA
-------
35856
Fedmal Register / Vol. 52. No. 184 / Wednesday. September 23. 1987 / Proposed Rules
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
Today's proposal would be imposed
pursuant to pre-HSWA authority.
Therefore, those standards would not be
effective in authorized States, but would
be applicable in those States that do not
have interim or final authorization. In
authorized States, the requirements will
not be applicable until the State revises
its program to adopt equivalent
requirements under State Jaw,
It should be noted that authorized
States are only required to modify their
programs when EPA promulgates
Federal staadaids that are more
stringent or broader in «cope than the
existing Federal standards. Section. 3088
of RCRA allows States to impose
standards more stringent than or in
addition to those in the Federal program.
The amendments, proposed in today's
rule are considered to be less stringent
than or reduce the scope of the existing
Federal requirements. Therefore.
authorized States would not be required
to modify their programs to adopt
requirements equivalent to the
provisions contained in today's
proposal
V1L Effective Data
This rule, if promulgated, would be
effective 30 day* after final
promulgation. Secthnr3010(b) 6f RCRA
provides that regulations concerning
permits for the treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste shall take
effect six months after the date of
promulgation. However, section
3010(b)(l) provides for a shorter period
if the Agency finds that the regulated
community does not need six months to
comply with the new regulation.
Since the proposed rule is designed to
expedite permit modifications requested
by the regulated community, the Agency
believes that the regulated community
will not need six months to come into
compliance. Therefore, these
amendments, when final, will be
effective 30 days after promulgation, as
provided under the Administrative
Procedures Act.
Vm. Regulatory Analysis
A, Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must determine whether a regulation is
"major" and thus whether EPA must
prepare and consider a Regulatory
Impact Analysis in connection with the
rule. Today's proposal is not major
because it will not result in an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or
more, nor will it result in an increase in
costs or prices to industry. There will be
no adverse impact on the ability of the
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets. Therefore, the Agency
does not believe a Regulatory Impact
Analysis is required for today's rule.
The proposed rule has been submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review in accordance with
Executive Order 12291.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.. at the time an agency
publishes any proposed or final rule, it
must prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the impact of the
rule on small entities unless the
Administrator certifies that the rule will:
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
The amendmehts proposed today
provide additional flexibility for
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities to undertake changes
and overall do not affect the compliance
burdens of the regulated community.
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(b), I
certify that this regulation will not have
a significant economic impact on-a •
substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
4OCFR Part 124
Administrative practice and
procedure. Hazardous waste. Waste
treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 264
Corrective action, Hazardous waste,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Waste treatment and
disposal.
40 CFR Part 270
Administrative practice and
procedure. Hazardous waste. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. Permit
application requirements. Permit
modification procedures, Waste
treatment and disposal.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
Date: September 13,1987.
Therefore, it is proposed that
Subchapter I of Title 40 be amended as
follows:
PART 124—PROCEDURES FOR
OECISIONMAKING
1. The authority citation for Part 124
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.: Safe
Drinking Water Act. 42 U.S.C. 300(f) et seq.:
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.: and
Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.
2. Section 124£ is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(l) and (c)(3) to
read as follows:
§124.5 ModtHcatlon revocation and
r«i«*u*nc«, or termination of permit*,
*****
(c) (Applicable to State programs, see
§§ 123.25 (NPDES, 145.11 (UIC). 233.28
(404). and 271.14 (RCRA)). (l) If the
Director tentatively decides to modify or
revoke and reissue a permit under
§5122.tB(NPDES), 144.39 (UIC), 233.14
(404). 270.41 or 270.42{c) (RCRA). he or
she shall prepare a draft permit under '
5124£ incorporating the proposed
changes. The Director may request
additional information and, hi the case
of a modified permit, may require the
submission of an updated application. In
the case of revoked and reissued
permits,'the Director shall require the
submission of a new application.
*****
(3) "Minor modifications" as defined
in §5 122.83 (NPDES), 144.41 (UIC). and
233.18 (404), and "Class 1 and 2
modifications" as defined in { 270.42 (a)
.and (b) (RCRA) are not subject to the
requirements of this section.
PART 364—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
3. The authority citation for Part 284
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section* 1006.2002(a). 3004, and
3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C
6905, 6812(a), 8924, and 6925).
S 264.54 [Amended]
4. Section 284.54 is amended by
removing the comment.
5. In S 284.112, paragraphs (c)
introductory text, (c)(l), and (c)(2)
introductory text are revised to read as
follows
§264.112 Ooeure plan; amendment of
(c) Amendment of plan. The owner or
operator must submit a written
notification of or request for a permit
modification to authorize a change in
operating plans, facility design, or the
approved closure plan in accordance
with the applicable procedures in Parts
124 and 270. The written notification or
request must include a copy of the
amended closure plan for review or
approval by the Regional Administrator.
-------
• • —^_:
(1) The owner or operator may submit
a wntten notification or request to the
Resional Administrator for a permit
mocufication to amend the closure plan
at any time prior to the notification of
partial or final closure of the facility.
(2) The owner or operator must submit
a wntten notification of or request for a
Permit modification to authorize a
change in the approved closure plan
whenever:
35357
P'-smp, kiln liner, kiln thermocouple
entire kiln, tank farm scrubber). '
*
paragraph (a)(3) introductory text to
read as follows:
nailing list means the mailing
• a facility maintained by EPA in
accordance with 40 CFR
text>
7. The authority citation for Part
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1008. 2892. 3005, 9307
and 7004 of the SoHd W«te nSS
amended by the Reaowce CoMe^^
Recovery Act of 197* •* «M«fad W2U ar
6905. 6912. 6925. 6927.
functionally equivalent component
means a component which performs the
same funcuon or measurement and
which meets or exceeds &e
perfonnaace-apacificatkstt of another
component
(d) Amendment of plan. Tha owner or
operator must submit a written
notification of or request for a permit
modification to authorize a change in
the approved post-closure plan La
accordance with the applicable
requirements in Parts 124 and 270. The
wntten notification or request must
include a copy Of the amended post-
closure plan for review or approval by
the Regional Administrator.
(1) The owner or operator may. submit
a wntten notification or requestto &T
Regional Administrator fw a permit
modification to amend the post-closure
Fhff 3t r?y *? duriHS ** active lifcrf
the facihty or during the post-closure
care penod.
•ffin^KSS^tr
permit modification .to authorize a
change in the approved post-closure
plan whenever:
ft In f 270.4. the kit sentence of
Paragraph (a) i< revised to read as
follows:
§270.4 Effect of a permit
(a) • * •
However, a permit may Be modified.
revoked and reissued, or terminated
during its term for cause as set forth in
§ § 270 41 and 270.43, or the permit may
oe modified upon the request of the
permittee as set forth in $ 270.42
* * • » «
10. In J 270.30, paragraph (k}{2)
mteodHctopy text is revised to read as
follows:
(k) * * *
WAnticiimte
-------
35858 Fedaral Register. / Vol. 52, .No. .184 / Wsdneoday, September*, M67 .
changes being made to permit
conditions or supporting documents
referenced byHkr.permit and-nwst
explain why they are n*oewapy,- • «--
(ii) The permittee must notify by mail
all persons on the facility mailing hat
maintained by the Director in
accordance with 40 CFR 124.lo(c)(viii),
about the modification. This notification
must be made within 14 calendar days
after the change is put into effect.
(iii) Any person may request the
Director to review, and the Director may
for cause reject, any Class 1
modification. The Directoraiust inform
the permittee by certified mail that a
Class 1 modification has been rejected.
explaining the reasons for the rejection.
If a Class 1 modificatioa has been •
rejected, the pennMlea*s-jx~* v* »**«^ininMni«a ifj-<«y tiTvrn nay
after receipt, af-tbrouxlifieattai request
the patmUtee i» automatically ,
authorized to conduct-the activities
described in the modification request for
up to 180 days, without formal Agency
action. The authorized activities must be
conducted as described in the permit
modification request and must be in
compliance with ail appropriate
standards of 40 CFR Part 285 and. to the
extent practicable, with those of 40 CFR
Part 264. If the Director approves, with
or without changes, or denies the
modification request during the term of
the temporary authorization provided
for ^paragraphs (b)(6)(g. (b)(6Hii), or
fb)(6%iii) of this section, such action
canceia the temporary authorization!
(iv) In the case of an automatic
authorization under paragraph (b)(6)(iii)
of this section, if the Director has not
made a final approval or denial of the
modification request within 250 days
after receipt of the request, the permittee
must at or about that time notify persons
on the facility mailing list and make a
. reasonable effort to notify other persons
who submitted written comments on the
modification request, that:
. {/3"The'pennrttee has been authorized
temporarily to conduct the activities
2. described in the permit modification
request, and
•: (B) Unless the Director acts to give
final approval or denial of the request
by the-end of the 180-day period of the
: temporary authorization, the permittee
. will receive authorization to conduct
• such activities for the life of the permit.
(v) If the Director does not approve or
deny a modification request before the
end of the 180-day automatic
authorization period, the permittee is
authorized to conduct the activities
described in the permit modification
* request-fbr the life of the permit unless
modified later under 5 270.41 or 5 270.42.
The authorized activities must be
conducted as described in the permit
modification request and must be in
compliance with all appropriate
standard* of 40 CFR Part 265 and, to the
extent practicable, with those of 40 CFR
Part 264.
(vi) In making a decision to approve
or deny a modification request,
including a decision to issue a
temporary authorization, the Director
must consider ail written comments
submitted to the Agency during the
public comment period and must
respond in writing to these comments in
his or her decision.
(vii) With the written consent of the
permittee, the Director may extend
indefinitely or for a specified period the
timjs periods.for final approval or denial
of a modification request
(7) The Director may deny or change
the terms of a Class 2 permit
modification request under paragraphs
(b)(6)(i). (b)(6)(ii) and (b)(6)(iii) of this
section for the following reasons:
(i) The modification request is
incomplete;
(ii) The requested modification does
not comply with the appropriate
requirements of 40 CFR Part 264 or other
applicable requirements; or
-------
—
(iii) The conditions of the modification
fail to protect human health and the
environment.
coifs The.permittee maV Perform any
E'1 modifircati°n request after the
submission of the request.
i rnl£!?SS? Modifications. (I) For Class
3 modifications listed in Appendix I of
tnis section, the permittee must submit a
mo°ification request to the Director that-
(i) Describes the exact change to be
made to the permit conditions and
permit?1"8 documents referenced by-the
section and no fewer than 15 days
before the close of the 60-day cor--
penod. The meeting r-.u-t b~ h-'-'"'-
extentpracticable in'the vicmitvof
permitted fadility, and the time and
classify a modification not listed in
Appendix I. The Director shall also
uouly such persons wnhm U' ^="3 afe-
an automatic authorization for a Class 2
tins why the modification is
"^******-*4» CliliJ
(iv) Provides the applicable
intormation required by 40 CFR 270.13
through 270.21 and 270.62.
of thl^!e J-l1™1"66 must send a notice
ot the modification request to all
persons on the facility mailing list
maintained by the Agency and must
publish this notice in the local
newspaper. This notice must be mailed
oflK1^ °-n the date of submission
of the modification request, and the
permittee must provide to the Director
evidence of the mailing and publication.
The notice must include:
(i) Announcement of a 60-day
comment period, and a name and
address of an Agency contact to whom
comments must be sent;
• (Ji} ^ouacement of the date, time,
±hfe>r,! ^ —«* on the
L _ ««>,cims ai 1U| ovvn aiscre'ion or if
requested by a member of the public If
the permittee chooses to hold a meeting
we permittee must notify persons on the
lacility mailing-list maintained by the
Agency and must publish this notice in a
j^newspaper. This notice must
thi^J A°nouncement of the extension of
Ae pubhc comment period if the second
meeting cannot be scheduled 15 days
before the close of the initial comment
(B) Announcement of the date, time,
and place of the meeting; the meeting
must be scheduled no fewer than 15
days after publication of the notice and
no fewer than 15 days before the end of
period* °r extended public comment
(C) Name and telephone number of
^t^J?""66'8 contact person;
(D) Name and telephone number of an
Agency contact person; and
(E) Location where copies of the
modification request and any supportina
documents can be viewed and SHf*
ito permittee must provide evidence to
Ae Agency ^ &e above-described
notice was published in the local
- ,.-, ,Hi) or(v).
(2) The Director's decision to grant or
deny a permit modification request or
temporary authorization under this
section; the granting of an automatic
autnorusation under 5 270.42(b)(8) (iii) or
(v); and the classification of a permit
modification request under § 270-42» -
may be appealed und« the penniT .
appeal procedure* of :40 CFR 124:19;
(e) Temporary authorizations. fll
Upon request of the permittee, the
Director may-, without prior public notice
and comment grant the permittee a
temporary authorization in accordance
with this subsection. Temporary
authorizations must have a term of no
i«5Ttha?^0 days and not more than
IHO days. They may be reissued for an
additional term of up to 180 days.
(2)(i) The permittee may request a
temporary authorization for:
(A) Any Class 2 modification meeting
ule Cnteri9 m nai*
-------
35880
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 1B4./ Wednesday. September 23. 1987 J Proposed gules
likely to be taken on a modification
request
(A) To facilitate timely
implementation-
action activities;
(B) To facilitate-tiiaely-jnaneujBawnt ef
a newly regulatod.waste at-ma-facility;
(C) To avoid disrupting-ongoing waste
management activities;
(D) To enabteitherpennittae to
respond to sudden changes.inthe type*
or quantities of the waste* babag
managed at theladUtyror
(E) To facilitate ether changes to
protect human health-and the
environment
(4)(i) Within 60 days of a temporary
authorization, the permttteg must submit
a complete mndification.raquflat.-If the
Director determines *fr?> thn request is
not complete, haur-«hfijhalliennjn«t«
the temporary niitTinf«VnH^n
(ii) The Dicector shall reviaw and act
on the complete,modifiEalion request
submitted under rraragraph,(4](i) of this
section according to me proceduresjbr
Class 2 and3 modfficafions specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
However, the time period specified in
paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section for
Class 2 modifications would end on the
date the temporary authorization for tne
extended temporary authorization)
expired, rather than 120 days after
receipt of the modification request
(iii) If the permittee wishes'to
continue tlw activities conducted under
the temporaipauthorixaikm after the
expiration of the term of the initial
authorizatioafwhich cannot exceed 180
days), the permittee must comply wim
the public notification procedures for
Class 2 or 3 modifications, as
appropriate (paragraph (b)(2) and (b)(8)
or (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section, as
appropriate). InjddJtion^lw.pubik
shall be provided an opportunity to
comment on the modification request, ia
accordance with paragraph (b){4) or
(c}(4) of this section.
(f) Other modifications. (1) In the case
of modifications notexpUoiUy listed in
Appendix I of this section, the permittee
may submit a Class Amodificatian
request to the Agencyj or he nr she may
request a determinatirm^y the Director
thalthe modfficattoa sh*uid be
reviewed and approved as a Ciass 1 or
Class.2 modification. If the permittee
requests that the modification be
classified as a Class 1 or Class 2
modification, he or she must provide the
Agency with the necessary information
to support the requested classification.
(2) The Director shall make the
determination described in paragraph
(f)fl) of this section as promptly as
practicable. In determining the
appropriate class for a specific
modification, the-Director shall consider
the similarity of the modification .to
other modifications-codified in
Appendix.! and the following criteria:
.(i) Claw 1-modifications apply to
changes -ft at correct-typographical
errors in the permit and keep the permit
current with routine changes to the
facility or its operation. These changes
do not substantially alter the permit
conditions or reduce the capacity of the
facility to protect human nealth or the
environment In the case of Class 1
modifications, the Director may require
prior approval.
(ii) Class 2 modifications apply to
changes that are necessary to enable a
permittee-to respond, in a timely
manner, to (A) common variationi4n'tne
types and quantities of the wastes
managed by the facility, (B)
technologjcai-advancements, and' (C)
changes necessary .to compb/ wim new
regulations, -where these changes can'be
implemented without subaltuiliaHy
changing design specification!) or
management practices in the permit
(iii) Class 3 modifications
substantially alter the facinty or its
operation.
(3) The-BirectcTimall -notify persons
on the facility mailing list in writing of .
any determination made under
S 270.42(f). This notice must be mailed
within 10 days of the determination.
Any person may appeal the Director's
determination, as specified hi
§ 270.42(d).
-fe) Newly listed or identified wastes.
(1) The permittee is authorized to
continue to manage wastes listed or
identified as hazardous under 40 CFR
Part Miff he or she:
(i) Was managing the waste at the
time the final rale listing or identifying
the waste-was published in the Federal
Register;
(ii) Submits a Class 1 modification
request at~thetime the waste becomes
subject-tpthe new requirements;
ffli) Is in compliance -wim the
standards trf-WOTR Part 285 and, to the
extent practicable, with those of 40 CfK
Part 284; and
(iv) In-tfae-cste t>fCtas» 2 and 3
modificatfons,.rafamrt3 a permit
modfflcstfoH-nsqnwt within Utfdays.
(2) Ifew waste* or writs-added to •&
facility's permit mrderthis subsection do
not constitute expansions for the
purpose of the 25 percent capacity
expansion limit for Class 2
modifications.
(h) Permit modification list. The
Director must maintain a list of all
approved permit modifications and must
publish a notice once a year hi a State-
wide newspaper that an updated list is
available for review.
APretKMX (TO 527 (fl,^.
vafvee.pumpa, conveyors, controls)
4. Changes in the frequency of or procedures for
•amrtortno, reporting, or martenenca aovfese
by. me permittee:
a. To jpfonHe for more frequent monitoring.
Oats
b-Oher
S. Schedule of compliance:
a. Changea to.interim compliance dates, with
aner apuiuiaf e( the Ofreeter
b. Extension of final comptenee date _
8. Chang** in-aapraaan daw or permit to atlow
theOreaor'..
B. General tadKy atandaraa.
1. Ghana** to~«u» ««n
00*
Ing or anaryvs metfi-
a. To aontom wrti.eeeney eiManee er n>eu»-
fc. dnaTafcanaei ~—l__ .__."
2. Cnangefto anelyical qualty tsemnce/eontrol
plan:
a. To coofcoo.»*h agency gukteoee or regula-
tions—...._ __—^_
b. Other changes
3.-Cnaegee * pmoaduraa tor
ooenttno record
4. Changes In frequency or content o* inspection
~chedal
S. ChMgaMi Vie Uejang pan
«• Jarl aKaol the type and amount ef
flleeMo einptovees
b. Other change*
6. Conongenoypan
a. Changea-ki emergency procedures (I.e.. aptt
orrataaee «sapa»ea procedure^
b. naamijsaisia Mh dnMonaty eaur«0e«
equpment upgrade, or eetocate emergaecy
equipment listed...___._._
c. ftamova* of eqUpinem from amsrgenuy'
eqyemnt let ;_:_.
d. Change* In name, address, or phone number
of eounJiiemn or-o«)er persons or agenoea
identified in the plan
!. nmiinrf mslei l»uHiJ>jii
1. Changea M hazardoua cemtllueiiia for whfch
»» grean< »as»r pre%jeiian
-------
APPENDIX I TO § 270.42_Cu>SSIFICATK>N OF
PERMIT MODIFICATIONS—Continued
0, Closure:
'. Changes lo tne closure plan:
a. Chanc.es .n estimate of maximum extent of
operators dumg the active -ife ol the 'acuity i
D. Changes .n estimate ol maximum inventory of !
WdStRQ nn.jifa -,t -_.. . ^ ' ^ 1
APPENDIX I TO § 270.42-CLASS.FlCATION OF
;- PERMIT MODIFICATIONS—Continued
!ha Closu'e sc"etlljle 'or"an'y"u™i'.
« me final closure schedule for tne
facAty. or extension of closure period
"
0* lacikty equipment or structures
"«* iandt* unrt-as pan ol ctottira'
eD
wrnporarty for closura aawm«»:.._
a. Surface impoundments .........
b. Incinerators ..
...
a. Waste pries thai comply with 5 264.250(cl"
a'S°rta'nWS °mr
w.^separation. or component separation
«m prior Director's approval... Parall°".
t. Post-closure plan:
i. Changes ,n name, address, or phone number of
contact « post-ciosure plan
2. Extension of post-closure care period'
3. Reduction in the post-closure care period"' i
fModirkalion of a Ur*rnanac*mia«j practice ! ,
S. Management ol new wastesV,.—- i 2
H. Surface impoundmenis!
t. Modrftcanon or adarbon o)
™« urns thai retuM
surtac. irnpoundmem
< •..,<. ..... ••.-.^...._. _
2. RJ*^emen< ol a surface
,,?Tal10'1 °' a surtlco
wmoul mcreasng the teal*,-,
me
F. Containers:
'' ."Si^ti0n W addi "on W container units:
a. That requre additional or dWerent manage-
different deskjo ol the SrC
b. That do not requlra addfeonar oV iitireor
™wgement practce* or- rjffww* design ol
rage capacity
increase"^' the
TO
, -. .....
^. Moamcation ol a container urrt without
ing the capacity of the unit ........
3. Storage ol new wastes in containers- .....
a. That requ»e additional or different manage-
nwnpracoces from those author,** irTme
That do not require aooocrtl
Bfac"CBS '"
G. Tanks:
a. Modification or addition ol tank umts resuWm
•ngreater man 25% increase « the
capacrty. except as provkied m
»«G())(d) below..
.. ~.wuiiiun of a new tank that will operate f
rZL'?" ^^ "Si"9 any of me following
Physical or chermcal treatment technc4oq«i
neutralization, dewatermg. phase separation
or component separation
d. After poor approval ol »i"arecW.'"addi'ion"!
ol a new tank that win operate lor up to 90 '
cne^/V? •* "* '°"°"in9 O""**' «• !
cnemcat tfeatmem tecnnotoqies: neutrahza- I
(ion, '*"•"••• -- ***"
3
2-
2
3
2
2
. Enclosed wast* pitas;
The fonowmg mooificatiBn. are
- ModiflcaBui ol a waste pBa unit
creasing the caoaoty o< trWum
all waste pile
4.[Modificat(on oi a waste"pik,"mar^meiiV'pr'8c"'
Vie?*9" " trMI™'" Ql'""•"'"«>*<»''«" waiie"
a- That require additional or different manage- i
•«m practices or different des«jn O| the unT..j
or drfferent
mecarty
r
same design standard! and has ov
/ .- ,0% ol me replaced tank Proded
.
J. UndfiUs and unenclosed waste piies" .........
1. Modification or addition of landfill units that
result in increasing me lacmtys disposal capac-
2. Replacement ol a landfill..."" .. '...I..,'. .................
3'^SIS!! " mod"'cal'°'1 ol a iiner.'"ieac'na!e
<&*K*on system, Senate detection system
ruivofl control, or final cover system ..... *
n^f!0300" °* a 'an0fi" ural """W"1 Changmg'a
,^J,eaaa" C0ltecnon system' 'e^haSle! i
wction sysiem, runsjlf contra, or final cover j
'
a 'Kn °' 3 '"
6. LandMI new wastes:
a. niat require addraonal or different manag*
*5 <*Wwanl
3586:
APPENDIX I TO § 270.42-CtAss.F.CAT.oN OF
PEHMIT MODIFICATIONS—con!!i
6. That do not require additional or otne'eni
•nanagement practices, different oeswn ol -he
'iner .sacnate collection system, or senate
detection system „ _.
K. Land treatment:
0i,
2 Mr^J^"8"1 """ * ***<****** mem
z. Modrtcatjon ot nio-oo control system
3. Modif>ruiw>« control *y«am_
4'n
,
pone*
or standard* requ»«J n
* "** *~*!
a ' S—.!?!!^:.!!r.'**a88W''')e^!
8. Modrficatior, of » land frea'tmem"^'^'^"!
linage
crops. to add :
pem«<«i "OPS wrm d,t- :
to
'*"' tnMtm«"
t. eec
son ol releases tarn me land treatment unit '
pursuam to $ 264.2789 fnonifonng
* "oygs^t tn a cnang« to tne
.^ " • ~~p—• "WOflf or safnpfmg po*nts or
mat replaces unMtunted zone monrtormg de-
^o^W"^ ol dewes wm, dev«:es or
=ornppner«s nawng specilicaiimis dirlerent from
Permrt requirements _
12. Changes m background va'kiSlw'nazardous '
constituents in sal and soil-pore liquid .
i*. Changes m mno ireaiment demonstration pro
gram pnor to or during me demonstration
15. Changes in any conditions specified in me
Permit lor a land treatment unit to reflect resuiis
of the land treatment demonstration, provmed
performance standards are met _.... .
16.Changes to allow a second land treatment •
aernonstration to be conducted when the results i
ot me first demonstration have not shown the
conditions under which me wastes can oe treat- ,'
ed completely, provided the conditions lor ma
second demonstration are substantially ine
same as me conditions lor me first oemonstra- :
inn naue received the prior approval ol me •
^Changes lo allow a second land treatment
oemonstration to be conducted when me results
of the first demonstration have not shown rne
conditions under wnicn me wastes can oe treat-
ed completely, where the conditions for iie
second demonstration are not substantially ire
same as me conditions lot me firs; d*moi«;'a.
lion
18. Changes « vegetative cover" req^'remer'ts -0,
closure
L Incinerators:
t. Modification ol an incinerator unit:
authorized in me permit a iner. •
„ .
organic chlonrw feed raw Urn* The Director will
requre a new tnal Bum to substantiate comply •
anc« with me regulatory performance standards
unless this demonstration can be made mroi-qn
omer means ............................... H
-------
35862 Federal Register / Vol. 82. Mo. «K / Wednesday. September
23. 1987 / Tropored Rates
APPENDIX I TO §-B70;42—CtswsmcAiroN OF
Motfecabor*
f«l» *om. * moo •*«)
,.,ee«y »• numre
I n»* mai turn lo suostanuala eomnanm «W>-
me ragUMKy airte.manau *la>xtarM ,M*-a*
B*j o*reomMMn*an-to mm* Manan-ovwr
tKuu:« (torn Bw combMOon SUM. of by
2, Woohcjwn o( an ramruy urx
<«yu*vU caovntf to meet ma moJjkxy
r ma
a. Moateaban
pamwtor
lura, mrwnun ,
fcna. or orygoH.corcaK
aiy
TOOL-_-
ptanca unOl ma ragutatoy"
Muoacda —-n Itn rna»
mada mrougtuCM
ptocaduca* or eomroia
Clau
OF
MocMcaWns
or any mapactton or recordfcaaping _-,_.
niBHf *906dM0o-*w tn9'pflnri(t. ^do Otrevtc
may requ« a nao mat bum lo
cimana».i--««h-«i» rtyoaiu*/ , ... ,
nandana. pamcularty if ttwrms) faad rate*.
Til irii tn niaaan
5. Inc
a. M
=• C"«°B«»jn the oparmfirq requramanrt-»awi
d Chaogaa.in UM rangaa .o< te
M* m ma permit
Class
taa RaguMory Nefo«aar!g Commmea.
14.
paragranfa.(a] introductory text and the
last sentence of paragraph (bj(10) ate
revised to read as follows:
§1?«.62 Hazardoua wa»te HiUnanitor
ipwrnlto.
(a)'***
Th«i»flfm*t'iiM[y%e'nTodffiedito reflect
the extension according .to § 270.42.ol
this chapter.
•* **'***
(br'**\
The gRBai^modifiiaattoa shall proceed
accoading te-{ 27O.42.
* »* * * *
Eenic«8«iaHd.paragraj)68;(aj(i) and
S 270J8
muuaMmtt uUng 1MQ tatt or
(d)'V*. ,
• (1) iPfew-penmt modificatMn4nay
proceed •undarvj"270:42..or otherwise
will proceed aa a madificatien tMOer
§ 270J41(a)J[2). If such liria^iim ace
aeceasary, the second,phaae 61 the
pe^nit.wi^l.b•eoll^e•eifBctiv»<»nh/^aft«•
thosetnodflfcations-have been made.
(2) If oa modifioatioM of tke^aaGoad
phase «>f thephaa«d^>araiii.ar who
requested notice^rf tbe*finfli-d«oisroR on
iie 89COnd p%Bg»» rTfvfliPTpgnnit,'^Cfa
:ond^WBB^f^he ptamit thuanill
Jeconweffeethre-aa specffiedSn
§ 124.l5fh^
FR Doc. 87-21728"Fllea 9-22-B7;
------- |