&EPA
Unitwd Sutet
Environmental Prelection
Oltica of
Soda vv««ts «n
-------
vvEPA
Wasnmgton. DC 2W60
• C . ^.".1 i
OSWER Directive initiation Reauest
Signature ot Office 0.rector
T,tie
Region I Issues on Technical Standards and Corrective Action
Summary of Directive
This memorandum responds to the memorandum of February 6, 1987, in which
guidance was requested on several issues which have been raised by the
State of Rhode Island in the area of technical permit requirements and
corrective action.
Key Words:
underground vaults, cleanup standards for soils and groundwater
Type of Directive (Manual. Policy Directive. Announcement, etc.)
Memorandum to Regional Office
' Status
i
D Draft
0 Fma.
D New
LJ Revision
Does tms Directive Supersede Previous Directive**;' \_\ Yes |yl No Does It Supplement Previous Oirective(siJ | | Yes | H No
f "Yes" to Eitner Question. Wnat Directive (number, title!
Review Plan
G AA-OSWER
D OERR
00SW
D OUST
U OWPE
LJ Regions
D OECM
D OGC
D OPPE
D
Other iSoecifyl
fh.s Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Signature of Lead Office Directives Officer
: Date
Sianature of OSWER Directives Officer
Date
-------
<-..;*.• uirtlujnVE NO.
• (i {) - . «
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
31 1987
OFFICE OF .
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:. Region I Issues, on; Technical Standards and Corrective
Action . -
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director if j£uu/u» ^JlM^~
Office of Solid. Waste '
TO: Dennis Huebner, Chief
VT, RI & NH Waste Management Branch, Region I
This memorandum responds to your memorandum of February 6,
1987, in which you requested guidance on several issues which
have been raised by the State of Rhode Island in the area of
technical permit.requirements and corrective action.
The first issue which you raised concerned the standards to
be applied in a permit to an underground "vault" in which hazardous
wastes (contaminated soils) are to be stored and treated, and
which is to be located at a facility which currently has neither
interim status nor a permit. The Agency has previously taken
the position that certain vaults or vault-like structures which
may be designed to resemble tanks, but which as a practical
matter are intended to be used for the purpose of disposal rather
than storage, must be considered land disposal units (e.g., land-
fills) for regulatory purposes (see attached). Therefore, in
order for the proposed vault to be permitted as a tank, it must:
(a) meet the definition of a tank in §260.10; and (b) be used
only for temporary storage or treatment of hazardous wastes. At
closure the tank would be required to comply with the closure
performance standard under §264.197 (i.e., removal of all hazard-
ous wastes and hazardous waste residues). Note that this perfor-
mance standard would be met if the wastes in the tank were to be
delisted.
We assume that the current Rhode Island State regulations for
hazardous waste tanks are similar, if not identical, to the Federal
Part 264 Subpart J regulations that were in effect before the
July 14, 1986 revised regulations were promulgated. If the vault
in question were to be considered a tank (as per the above discus-
sion), but it is an underground tank that cannot be entered for
inspection, it-cannot be granted a RCRA permit, since there are no
applicable standards for-s.uch tanks. It would thus be necessary
to provide some means for entry for inspection, or to build an
.above ground or in-ground tank.
^^.^..^iprp^TiMl^^^-^^
-------
-2-
The second issue that you raised in your memorandum dealt
with cleanup standards (i.e., target levels) for soils and ground
water in the context of RCRA corrective actions. It is our
understanding that/ using State authorities, the State of Rhode
Island wishes to specify cleanup standards for both soils and
ground wa»i-er in the permit, even though it has not been established
whether or not ground water contamination has occurred. As you may
know, the question of how ground water cleanup standards will be
established is a major policy issue in developing the RCRA correc-
tive action regulations under §3004(u) and is currently under
intensive review ^by the Agency. We expect to be able to issue
interim-guidance-''in this area-, in the next, several months. Regardless
of what: standards .will, be set, however, it would seem somewhat
prematur.e= and a departure from past practice to specify in a permit
a ground water protection standard before any ground water
contamination has been detected or characterized.
As with ground water, "how clean is clean" standards for soils
have yet to be established for the RCRA corrective action program.
RCRA regulations and guidance are being developed regarding closures-
by-removal of surface impoundments, which may orovide guidance, in *
establishing clean up levels in soil. Thrs guidance should be
available in final form in September. In the meantime, the Superfund
program has developed guidance which may be of use. If ingestion
of soil by children is anticipated to be a possibility at this
facility, we would advise you to consult the Superfund program's
Public Health Evaluation Manual. To calculate a level based on
protecting ground water, the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual
can be used. In either case, you may wish to consult the Permit
Assistance Team in the Permits and State Programs Division (Mark
Salee, 382-4753) and the Technical Assessment Branch of the Charac-
terization and Assessment Division (Reva Rubenstein, 382-5219) in
the Office of Solid Waste.
The third issue which you raised dealt with the applicability
of §3004(u) to wastes that were placed in a unit prior to 1980.
As explained in the July 15, 1985 codification rule, S3004(u)
applies to any solid waste management unit at a facility, regardless
of when wastes were placed in such units(s). Thus, the 1980 date
has no significance in determining the applicability of §3004(u) to
a solid waste management unit.
If there are any further questions regarding these issues,
please contact Dave Pagan at FTS 382-4740.
Attachment
cc: S. Bromm
T. Kaneen
M. Hale
S. Lowrance
J. Carra '
B. Weddle
-------
MAR 2.6 1986
Honorable James J. Plorio
Chairman c
Subcommittee on Coronerce, Transoortntion
and Tourism
Committee, on Snergy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairnant
This i» in response to your letter of February 2C, 1986,
regardinq the regulatory status of "above-ground land emplacermentr-
facilities" under the federal hazardous waste regulatory
program.
The phrase "above-ground land emplacement facilities"
is not a term used in the federal regulation* for treatment,
storage, and disposal of haiardoua waste. However, based on
the information in your letter, it appears that the Hew
Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Cceenlasion defines
that phrase as permanent placement of wastes on or in the land.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RC*A) and
implementing regulations, permanent placement of hazardous
waste, including perpetual "storage", falls into the regulatory
category of land disposal.
Over the past several years, we have reviewed a number
of proposals for 'above-ground" long-term storage or disposal*
Without exception, we have viewed each of these proposal! as
land disposal, and, more specifically, as landfills.
SPA permitting regulations for hazardous vasts facilities
recognize five kinds of land-based treatment, storage, or
disposal unitsi surface impoundments, wasts piles, land.
treatment units, underground injection walls, and landfill!.
The permanent placement of hazardous waste is permitted, only
at land treatment units, disposal surface impoundments,
underground injection wells, and landfills. Onder IT* regulations
(40 CP* f200.10), a landfill is defined as a "catchall"
category, encompassing land disposal of hazardous waste that
in any of
CONCUftftEMCES
-------
-2-
tb«ae proposals typically include some design
variation frca what has been conventionally perceived as a
landfill, we> COBS i da r thaso variation* to be relatively minor,
and they have not alfcarad our viewpoint that these "above-
ground* facilities bo considered landfills.
your l^ttsr does not describe specifically the
deeig* a»d cm«ratiea of th® above-ground land emplacement
fa«lllti«* that tha Siting Ccaaisaion is considering, for
the purpose* of this latter we aacuate that the facilities
are siaiilxT t» thoae aixiva-g round facilities with which we
are f**iliar* Therefore, we: will answer your questions based
on the assumption- that the units you refer to are landfills.
You. posed three questions in your letters
1. "Do the land ban provisions, of the 1984 Aaendaenta,
which prohibit the land disposal of toxic wastes,
spply to New Jersey's so-called land emplacement
facilities?*
•
Assuming that land emplacement facilities are deemed
to be landfills, the land ban provisions would apply, RCRA
Section 3004(k) expressly defines land disposal for purposes
of the land disposal restrictions proqraa to includs 'landfills."
Moreover, even if it were to be determined that the New
Jersey units did not constitute landfills for purposes of
federal law, such units are still potentially subject to
the land ban. We believe Section 3004 U) allows EPA to
include within the definition of land disposal units other
than those specifically enumerated, and the Agency has done
so in its January 14, 1986, land ban proposal.. There, we
proposed to add any 'concrete vault or bunker intended for
disposal' to the list of facilities identified in the
ststute as land disposal. Thus, if the proposed land
emplacement facilities are concrete vaults or bunkers, our
proposal would subject them to the land disposal restrictions
whether or not they qualified as landfills. (See proposed
40 C?R 5282.2 regarding the definition of land disposal (51
FR 1602, 1607 (preamble), 1741 (proposed rule)),)
2. "Has EPA developed any standards, guidelines or other
criteria to assure the integrity of 'land emplacement
facilities,1 including 'above-ground, long-term
storage1 facilities?"
Aqain, assuming thst New Jersey's land emplacement
facilities would be deemed landfills under the federal RCRA
scheme, EPA's operating standards in 40 CPR Part 264 Subparts
? and N would apply. These include requirements for liners,
leachate collection and removal systems, groundwater monitoring,
corrective action, final covers and post-closure maintenance.
-------
*Tfc« 1994 amendment* establish* variety o£ minimum
t^timnsri ogle ad: requirement* foe- land disposal facilities.
•-* #*n-»H*BUt tfc«e- regulation* be adequate to ej**ur«~ th«
•- i.* >H 1 sated i*poe>sft of. hesmwrdou* vestste in a. »lan4 emplacement
If the N«w Jersey facility meets tJxet- federal definition
of a landfill, then the minimum technical requirements for
la ml disposal facilities, introduced by the 1984 Amendments,
would apply* The minimum technological requirements, together
with other existing requirements such as the ground-water
•onitorit+j and corrective action standard*,-, would, ensure the
safm disposal of hasardous waste in such facilities*
Xe wish to address one additional issue not raised
explicitly in your letter, pertaining to the relationship
between federal and state hazardous waste management programs.
It is not possible to determine, on the- basis; of your letter,
whether a New Jersey stats pen* it for a land emplacement
facility would constitute an authorisation to operate under
RCXA. New Jersey is currently authorized to allow permanent
disposal of hasardous waste only in facilities that meet the
definition of a disposal surface impoundment, landfill,
injection well, or land treatment unit* If New Jersey
regulations currently consider land emplacement units to be
landfills, then they aust be permitted as such in order to be
considered an authorised RCRA facility. Any attempt to
permit the land emplacement units as other than landfills
would be inconsistent with the State's RCRA authorization.
Therefore, if New Jersey elects to permit these units as
other than a landfill— either because it lacks authority
under New Jersey law to permit them as a landfill or because
it has decided, for other reasons, not to permit then as a
landfill— then any authorization to operate would be effective
only for state law purposes and would not constituts authorizatio
to operate under RCRA.
EPA intends to issue separate permitting standards
under a new Subpart X to Part 264) for units that do not
logically fit into any pre-existing facility management
category. These may include standards for land disposal
units that do not fit w«ll under the land disposal unit
categories discussed above. We anticipate the Subpart X
standards will be issued in final by th« end of this year.
If the Agency were to promulgate Subpart X rules that applied
to certain above-ground land emplacement units in lieu of the
landfill standards. Mew Jersey would h*ve one or two years
afte-r the- new rules were issued to apply to EPA for authorizatic
to implement Subpart X. In the interim, such facilities would
have to continue to be permitted as landfills if they are to
be considered authorized RCRA units.
-------
-4-
the opportunity to provide you with
regarding th» federal program- for hazardous
facilities. Pleaae feel free to contact
Garcia Williaw*/ Crtr»ctor of th« Office of Solid Waste, if
further auestionon thia
Sincercly,
J. Wins-ton Porter-
Assistant Administrator
WH-562; Susan Sawtelle; 382-4627; 3/14/86; 13
AL-600591 Due Date 3/14/86
-------
•/-
TOOM H1-1SI
MOUSC OfflCC auiUMNG ANMOC MO. 2
IUAMVIANO
ICECUXT. OMO
Mi. nOUAOSOM. NCW UOOCO
RALfM U.HAU. TCKAC
fW** d 1MAIV. MOIAMA
HO«MMI ». LENT. NCW YO«K
THO*U« J. TAUKt. IOWA
oowomw.fwwsin.vAHu
QAM COATS. MOIAMA
JACK f*LD». TCtA*
> i nn» n
gnome ia
of
CannnUta on ftsttyp nto Connncnt
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE. TRANSPORTATION. AND TOURISM
ra, SC 20515
. L»WU«
CH1W COUMSEt AHO STAff W«CTO«
February 26, 1986
Dr. J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator .. . . ........ .... . ....
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Dr. Porter:
The New Jersey Hazardo.us Waste Facilities! Siting Commission
("Siting Commission"), which is responsible for proposing site
designations for new major commercial hazardous waste facilities
in the state, has recently proposed several sites for the
location of either a rotary kiln incinerator or an. "a_bove-grou_nd
land emplacement ^facility." According to New Jersey'regulations,
a "land emplacement facTlity" is defined as a "controlled
facility", for the permanent disposal of hazardous waste into or
onto the land and which is designed and1 operated to contain waste
so that any migration of pollutants shall not create a health
hazard," and could include "secure landfills, landfarms, and
above ground perpetual storage facilities."
Although the Siting Commission has recognized that "it is
unrealistic to assume that land emplacement facilities built
today will last forever," the Commission has nonetheless
determined that these facilities "are a part of an effective
hazardous waste management program." They have reached this
conclusion even though there are, as yet, no regulations to limit
the types of wastes or general uses of these facilities. The
Siting Commission has proposed the siting of facilities which
neither have construction standards, hazardous waste limits, or
other regulations to ensure the protection of New Jersey's
groundwater.
It is my understanding that the Environmental Protection
Agency does not have guidelines or specific regulations that
would apply to so-called "land emplacement facilities" including
"above-ground, long term storage" facilities. I also understand
that, in considering a permit application, the EPA would treat
any of these facilities as though they were typical land disposal
facilities, with- no special permit conditions because they might
use a vault for permanent -storage or other technologies for the
disposal of hazardous waste.
-------
February 26, 1986.
Page Two
As you know, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
established a strong national policy to discourage the land
disposal of hazardous wastes. The provisions which ban land
disposal and require the treatment of wastes show that Congress
was anxious to do«.more than merely describe a" new policy. The
198.4 Amendments put teeth into this policy in an effort to steer
the nation, away from. land, disposal..
Because the Siting Commission's plan to site "land
emplacement facilities* throughout New-Jersey seems to run
counter to the national policy objectives of the 1984 Amendments,
I request that you provide answers to the following questions:
* Do the land ban provisions of the 1984 Amendments, which.
prohibit the land disposal of toxic wastes, apply to New ,wv.
"7 Jersey's so-called land emplacement facilities? ' \'
* Has EPA developed any standards, guidelines or other
\ criteria to assure the integrity of "land emplacement
facilities'," including "above-ground, long term storage"
facilities?
* The 1984 Amendments establish a variety of minimum
technological requirements for land disposal facilities.
3 Would these regulations be adequate to ensure the safe
disposal of hazardous wastes in a "land emplacement
facility?"
It is unfortunate that the Siting Commission had decided to
move forward with the siting process before regulations have been
developed, if they could be developed, to ensure that "land
emplacement facilities" will not threaten the groundwater.
Because New Jersey has no regulatory scheme for these facilities,
it is critical to understand EPA's particular policies and
regulations as they apply to "land emplacement facilities."
Because of the urgency of this matter, I request that you respond
to these questions as soon as possible.
t Sincerely,^ a
(-'{ ">
- r s «
• James J. Florio, Chairman
Subcommittee on
Commerce, Transportation and Tourism
/
•
JJF:brz "
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
••
DATE: February 6, 1987 " •.••Ay
V v~" „ ;
I/ ^^
SUBJ: Issues on Technical Standards and Corrective Action X9.
Y6V
FROM: Dennis Huebner, Chief
VT, RI & NH Waste Management Branch
TO: Marcia Williams, Director-
Of f ice of Solid. Waste,
The purpose of this memo is to request your response' to
the issues that are outlined below. Given the precedent
setting nature of these issues, a Headquarters' response
is needed. The State of Rhode Island Department of Envi-
ronmental Management has requested a response to these
issues within two weeks. We concur w.ith the response
deadline.— —
Issues;
0 What technical standards are applicable to a new under-
ground concrete vault, which will contain contaminated
soil, prior to State RCRA permit issuance and after
State RCRA permit issuance. This vault will not have
the ability to be entered for inspection. It also will
not contain any free liauids. The RCRA permit will be
issued by the State of Rhode Island, which has received
Final Authorization, but has not adopted the July 14,
1986 Final Rule on tanks.
0 Since the corrective action regulations have not been
finalized, what clean-up standard should be used for
soil and groundwater (i.e. target level for termination
of regulated status) in a State RCRA permit? Assume the
facility will need a HWSA permit and that the State
permit will be as stringent as the HSWA permit.
0 If a solid waste management unit received all wastes
prior to 1980, is 3004(u) applicable? Although the July 15
1985 Federal Register (p. 28714) addresses this issue,
the significance of 1980 date, if any, needs to be
addressed.
-------
-2-
Background
The facility notified as a generator and submitted a Part
A for treatment of the soil in 1983. The facility does
not have interim status because the treatment activity was
never conducted. There is evidence that a variety of sol-
vents, especially perchlorothylene and trichlorothane, were
disposed of on-site at the facility. In approximately 1983
the facility was sold to the current owner/operator. After
the change in ownership, hazardous waste activity at the
site ceased..
The ."State, of; Rhode; Island, has ...estimated that there, is
approximately. 2000 cu. yd. of contaminated soil on-site.
The VOC soil concentration is approximately 50 ppm. The
current- owner/operator is considering building a concrete
vault below grade to hold the contaminated soil on-site.
Some soil excavation will be reguired prior to placing the
soil in the vault. Eventually the vault will be used as
part of the treatment process which will be below grade.
However, initially the vault will bemused for storage of
contaminated soil. The State RCRA permit, if it is issued,
would be for the treatment of soil on-site. The expected
treatment method is aeration with carbon absorption.
The -facility is located in an aguifer that is not used as
a drinking water supply. Recently groundwater monitoring
wells were installed on-site. Monitoring data has not
been collected.
Please do not hesitate to'call Mary Jane O'Donnell (FTS-
223-1591) if you have any guestions regarding this matter.
cc: Thomas Getz, RI DEM
Alicia Good, RI DEM
Thomas Epstein, RI DEM
Frank Battaglia, EPA \
------- |