vvEPA
Unifad States
Environments* Protection
Afency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9523.00-15
TITLE:
Summary of Pertait Assistance Teai (PAT) Comments
APPROVAL DATE: March 30- 1988
EFFECTIVE DATE: jterc^aOi 1988^
ORIGINATING OFFICE; office of solid, waste
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents);
pLfPolicy:: Directive #9523.00-li*
#9523.00-14
OS WER OS WER OS WER
fE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
Washington. DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Orteuvt Numoer
9523.00-15
3. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
James F. Michael
Mail Coda
WH-563
Offica
osw
Teiep*one Code
(202) 382-2231
Summary of Permit Assistance Team (PAT) Comments
4. Summary o< Directive (include bnef statement of purpose)
This is th» third in a series of periodic reports which summarize issues that HQ s
have addressed in their reviews of RCRA Part B permit aoplications, oermits, and
closure plans. This reoort covers issues that are of national interest from revie
conducted- by the Land Disposal Permit Assistance Team from September 1986 thru Apr
1987.
5. Keywords
Land Disoosal Facilitv / Permit / Closure
oa. Does i nis Directive suoerseoe rrevious uirectivets)'.
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
[xx J No Yes What directive (number, title)
No |xx I Yes What directive (number, title)
9523.00-12 & 9523.00-14
Draft L«ve»
[ } A - Signed by MJDAA
B - Sgnad by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
i - In Oevetot
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
^MtfV
XX
Ye*
— •
No
This Raqueat Me«ta OSWER Dlrectlvaa System Format Standards.
lure ol Lead Office Directives Coordinator
10. NameartdTitle/olApprovioeCrliqan
Date
lic,4/0irective Coordinator
^_ _
Date
EPA Fom 1315-17 (Rev. S-17) Previous ediuoniare obsolete
OSWER OSWER OSWER (
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OSW Policy Directive No. 9523
MAD 7 fl IOQC OFF ICE OF
MAK «3U lyy* SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENO
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Summary of Permit Assistance Team (PAT) Comments
FROM: Sylvia Lowrance, DirectorO^A/V^ [C "4-o-C——-
Office of Solid Waste (WH-3*2\
TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Attached is the third in a series of periodic reports which
summarize major issues that PAT members have addressed in their
reviews of specific Part B applications, permits and closure
plans. (The first and second PAT summary reports were issued
on March 14, 1986 (OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-14) and
March 30, 1987 (OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-12),
respectively.) These reports cover issues that are of generic
national interest rather than strictly site-specific interest.
The attached report includes reviews conducted by the Land
Disposal PAT from September 1986 thru April 1987. In order to
ensure that the report reflects current EPA policy and guidance,
we obtained review comments from all divisions in OSW and from
the Office of General Counsel.
We hope that the recommendations provided in this document
will be helpful for permit writers encountering similar
situations at other RCRA facilities. By sharing the PAT's
suggestions from a few sites, we hope that permit decision-
making will be somewhat easier and faster at many more sites
nationally. We encourage you to distribute this report to your
staff and State permit writers. To make that easier, I have
enclosed multiple copies of the report.
AttactBMBt A to the report lists the facility names,
Regions, PA* coordinators, and dates for the reviews summarized
in this report. Attachment B provides a list of guidance
documents and directives used in preparing the PAT reviews.
Attachment C provides information on user access to the
Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model.
Attachment D is a memorandum addressing the RCRA regulatory
status of contaminated ground water.
-------
-2-
If you have any questions/ comments, or suggestions on
the PAT Summary Report, please contact James Michael at
FTS 382-2231.
Attachments
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs,
Regions I-X
Permit Section Chiefs,
Regions I-X
J. Winston Porter
Jack McGraw
Tom Oevine
Jeff Denit
Bruce Weddle
Susan Bromm
Ken Shuster
Joe Carra
Mike Gruber
Jim O'Leary
Suzanne Rudzinski
PAT Staff
Paul Cassidy
Les Otte
Art Day
Jon Perry
Jim Bachmaier
Elaine Stanley
Lisa Friedman
Tina Kaneen
Fred Chanania
Matt Hale
George Garland
Terry Grogan
Tom Kennedy (ASTSWMO)
I
-------
G&ER Policy Directive No. 9523.(
SUMMARY OF PAT REVIEWSi
TABLE OF
TOPIC Page
Ground-water Monitoring 1
Landfill Design 3
Land Treatment Units 6
Permit Issuance 9
Corrective Action 10
Miscellaneous Topics 13
Attachment A: List of PAT Reviews
Attachment B: List of Guidance and
References
Attachment C: Access to HELP Model
Attachment D: Regulatory Status of Contaminated Ground Water
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00
SWfftJCf OP PERMIT ASSISTANCE TEAM (PAT) COMMENTS
Ground-water Monitoring
1) Well Develocment
An owner/operator indicated in his/her permit application that
extracting the required well volumes by bailing prior to sampling,
removed fine materials that were 'trapped during well installa-
tion1. This sample extraction that occured over a year of monit-
oring resulted in additional well development.
Prooer well develoonent, as described in the RCRA Ground-Water
Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (TEGD)
(Reference 11), requires that the wells be clay and silt free.
Turbid ground water promotes biochemical activity and possible
interference with ground-water sample quality. Turbidity
readings over 5 nephelometric turbidity units (p.T.U.) may be
grounds for rejecting samples from a monitoring well. TEGD
provides a decision chart for turbid ground-water samples.
The quality of any monitoring data that was obtained from
improperly developed wells is questionable.
2) Aooropriate Well Construction Materials
Several facilities have used polyvinyl chloride (PVC) as
monitoring well construction material in the saturated zone.
PVC is not an inert material and constituents such as phthalate
and tetrahydrofuran in ground-water samples have been attributed
to PVC well casing or pipe solvents. PVC materials can be
used, however, in composite well construction where PVC or
other non-inert material is used above the saturated zone while
inert materials are used in the saturated zone. The TEGD
(Reference 11) provides a complete description of appropriate
monitoring well construction materials.
a facility has already installed wells with materials that
•eet the TEGD requirements, it is not necessary that the
t Monitoring system be replaced and the data discarded. A
properly constructed and located comparison well can be installed
and sampled. Comparison of data from the new well with the
existing data will determine if constituents detected in the
older wells, such as phthalate, are due to the PVC materials or
to contamination of ground water from other sources.
3) Calculation of Purge volume
A commonly encountered error in samoUng procedures involves the
calculation of the evacuation volume prior to sampling. The correct
calculation should include the volume of water in the gravel pack
as well as the volume of water in the casing. With a small diameter
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.
casing (e.g. 2 inches), the actual boring may be much larger, ^ane
water in the gravel pack can represent a significant percentage of
the well volume and should be removed in order to sample the
aquifer correctly.
4) Appendix IX
In the July 9, 1987, Federal Register, EPA promulgated a new list
for ground-water monitoring, Apoendix IX to Part 264, which will
replace the Appendix VIII monitoring requirement. Existing SW-846
methods are adeouate for the compounds listed on Appendix IX.
[See Reference 4 for the final Appendix IX list]
Appendix IX is a list of chemicals taken from Appendix VIII for
which it is feasible to analyze in ground-water samples. In
addition, Appendix IX contains 17 chemicals routinely monitored
in the Superfund program.
5) Use of Accelerated Monitoring Schedules (
A facility which was deficient in the ground-water monitoring
section of their Part B Application was requested to improve their
monitoring network by drilling more wells and developing then
properly. Once these deficiencies are corrected, an accelerated
ground-water monitoring schedule, sampling four times within four
months, was recommended.
This recommendation, which was designed to bring a facility into
compliance as soon as possible, is in accordance with the recommend-
ations in the RCRA Ground-water Monitoring Compliance Order Guidance
(Reference 10). When scheduling the accelerated monitoring, the
facility could schedule one sampling event after a significant
rainfall, the second event after a dry period and the remaining two
events can be interspersed within the four month time frame. At the
site in question, this sampling scheme should allow data representatr
of the site to be obtained quickly. Note, however, that this type
of an accelerated sampling scheme may-not be appropriate for all
facilities in all locations.
6) Maintenance of Ground-water Monitoring Networks
Groand-water monitoring networks that will be used during the life
of the facility and its closure period, will need at least some
maintenance in order to assure that representative samples are being
obtained. Often the maintenance needed will be redevelopment of the
monitoring well. The inital performance of a well should be determ-
ined and any* significant changes over time may indicate the need
for periodic redevelocment or a maintence assessment. In other
cases, such as after severe damage by accidental or natural occur-
rences like flooding, well replacement may be warranted.
- 2 -
-------
QSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-
A contingency plan should be prepared by the facility addressino
the proposed course of action should the integrity of the monitoring
wells become damaged. The regulations ($264.310(b)(3» clearly
require the owner/operator of'a landfill to maintain their monitoring
well network during closure period. However, appropriate language
should be included in the permit to make adequate maintenance of the
system during the life of a unit and its closure period a permit
condition. While not absolutely necessary for enforcement, further
elaboration of the reouirements will clarify the duties of the
owner/ooerator.
Landfill Design
1) Definition of Replacement Unit
A reolacement unit, as defined in the preamble to the Final Cod-
ification Rule; Hazardous Waste Management System (50 PR 28706,
July 15, 1985) is a "unit that is taken out of service and emptied
by removing all or substantially all the waste from it" prior
to being reused. A facility planned to dewater half of an interim
status surface impoundment that is bisected by an underwater dike
and to route all incoming waste to the southern portion. The
northern section was scheduled to receive consolidated waste
from several other impoundments and to close as a landfill.
The northern section, however, meets the criteria of a 'replace-
ment unit1 since the deposition of the original waste material
has stopped, substantial dewatering is planned and placement
of waste from other units is to occur prior to closure.
Under S3015fb) of HSWA, facilities authorized to operate under
53095(e) shall be subject to the mininum technological reouicements
' of 3094(«) for each replacement or lateral expansion of an existing
landfill or surface impoundment. The north section must be retro-
fitted to satisfy these reouirements before the deposition of the
waste from other units can begin.
The southern unit, as an existing surfa.ce impoundment, becomes
subject to the minimum technological requirements and must be
retrofitted if it continues operation after November 8, 1988
per I3005(j), unless a waiver is obtained.
2) Doubli Liner Ittiver Petitions
Another facility requested a waiver from the double liner require-
ment for a new unit based upon Section 3004(o)(2), which allows
for an exemption to the double liner requirement if "alternate
design and operating practices, together with location characteristics,
will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents into the
ground water or surface water at least as effectively as such
liners or leachate collection systems".
- 3 -
-------
OSWER Policy Directive NC-. 9523.
proposed bottom liner design is a 2-ft layer of com-
pacted material with 5 x 10-6 on/sec permeability. This bottom
liner design is substandard because it does not meet the requirement
of section 264.221(c) (3-foot layer of recompacted clay of at
least 1 x 10~7 cm/sec permeability). Since the design does not
meet the requirements of S264.221(c), location characteristics
or operating practices must compensate for the deficiency, as
allowed under 5264.221(d). This unit is to receive wet sludges and
an unusually large amount of leachate is expected. The owner/
operator did not present any operational reason to grant the
petition. Similarly, the location of the unit would not prevent
miaration of hazardous constituents to the ground Mater because
ground water is typically near or at the surface. Therefore,
the PAT saw no compelling evidence that hydrogeologic conditions
would favor a variance.
Since this alternate double liner design did not satisfy the
5264.221(d) criteria for preventing migration to ground water
at least as effectively as a double liner system under S264.221(c),
and location characteristics and operational practices did
not compensate for the liner design, the PAT recommended that the
petition for a double liner waiver not be granted.
3) Determination of Equivalent Liner Design
The PAT reviewed a proposed double liner design in order to
verify that it meets the general minimum technology requirement
set forth in Section 3004(o)(l)(A)(i). The liner design was
compared to the interim statutory design found in Section
3004(0)(5)(B) of HSWA and codified in $264.301(c).
The comparison was conducted on a layer by layer basis. The pro-
posed primary leachate collection system, the top liner and
the secondary leachate collection system for the facility were
either identical or exceeded the Agency's recommended specifications
for the interim statutory design. The secondary liner system, how-
ever, varies significantly from the interim statutory design which
may be satisfied by at least 3 feet of 10~7 cm/sec compacted clay
or other natural material. The proposed bottom liner will con-
si4t of an 80 nil high density polyethylene (HDPB) liner to be
JMiallad immediately over an existing ethylene propylene rubber
(BOD liner and an existing leak detection system. Before instal -
lation of the bottom liner, the EPDM liner will be cleaned and
the seams tested for leaks. The HDPB liner will form a compression
fit over the existing liner and its seams will be constructed
perpendicular to the existing liner's seams.
The interim statutory design requires that a bottom liner be
designed, operated and constructed to prevent the migration of
any constituent through such a liner during the operating and post-
closure monitoring period ($3004(o)(5)(B)K The PAT concluded
that a carefully constructed redundant PNL bottom liner should
- 4 -
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523
reoult in a liner that controls migration as well as, or better
than, 3 feet of 1 x 10~7 on/sec clay. As long as waste/liner
compatibility is clearly demonstrated, a system constructed of the
proposed components was determined to be equivalent to the interim
statutory design.
4) Calculation of Leachate Volume for Collection system Design
An engineer for a facility designed the leachate collection system
for their new landfill based upon leachate volume estimated from
calculations using Moore's Equation (see Permit Writers' Guidance
Manual for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities, Reference 7). While the use of this equation is ac-
ceptable, the equation best applies to a long term, steady-state
impingement rate and not to short-term storm events. In order to
most accurately consider variations in rainfall data such as
storm events, the KELP (Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Perform-
ance) model is preferred. This model is available to any engineer
or technically trained individual for evaluating the design of
leachate collection systems. See Attachment C for information on
obtaining the user guide and software package.
5) Cap Design Modifications
A facility proposed several modifications to their cap design spec-
ifically to reduce erosion potential. The soil layer was increased
from two feet to three feet. The increased soil depth, plus the
presence of a drainage layer and geotextile material, mitigates
the impacts of frost action.
The facility also proposed to use roughened HDPE membrane as the
synthetic liner over the clay layer in order to reduce the potent-
ial for sliding. The friction angle between the roughened membrane
and the clay is 29 degrees, a significant increase over the
friction angle between a smooth membrane and the clay layer. A
potential problem with the use of roughened HDPE membrane is its
limited commercial availability at th& time.
Anchor trenches have also been proposed to tie down the liner,
fUMr and drainage layer material for the purpose of increasing
•lift stability. The trenches act as drainage conduits as well,
the efficiency of the drainage systea.
6) Ose of a Test Plot to Support an Alternate Cover Design
A facility proposed a cap design that is significantly different
from the recanmended design criteria specified in the July 1982
Draft Guidance Document; Landfill Design—Liner Svstens and Final
Cover (Reference 2).
- 5 -
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 952:
The final cover/ based upon the guidance, should have two or Me
feet of "soil capable of sustaining plant species". The facimy
proposed that the cap will be comprised of 24 inches of compacted
Ponce clay/ 18 inches of compacted caliche and 6 inches of veget-'
ated, uflcompacted caliche. Caliche is a limestone deposit that
is found in arid regions. This soil/ when in contact with moisture
could harden like concrete and may not sustain vegetative growth. '
The proposed plant specie/ weeping lovegrass/ is not indigenous
to the area and has roots up to 18 inches in length/ which is
longer than the 6 inch vegetative layer could support.
The best alternative for this facility would be to redesign their
cap to conform to the specifications in the guidance. However,
they can use cap components which differ from the recommended
design if the facility constructs a test plot in order to demon-
strate that the proposed material will support a vegetative cover.
7) Potential for HDPB Failure
An engineering report prepared for a landfill liner design indicated
that the material to be used as a sub-base under an HPDE liner
showed differential settlement of up to 1.5 feet over a horizontal
distance of 2 feet.
The engineering report assumed that the HDPB membrane could tolerate
such settlement/ but research has shown that HDPB liners usually
fail along a narrow area. Stretching a localized imperfection/
such as a shallow scratch/ over the 1.5 feet differential settle
ment could result in a hole in the liner.
The facility should prepare a stable base under the HPDE liner as
required in 5264.301 (a)(l)(ii).
Land Treatment Units
1) waste Characterization/Waste Analysis Plan
A petroleum refinery is undertaking a-land treatment demonstration
but has not adequately characterized its waste. A waste analysis
plan prepared according to the requirements of 55264.271 (b) and
2M-272(c)(l)(i) must include testing for Appendix VIII constit-
that are reasonably expected to be in or derived from the
The waste analysis plan for refinery wastes should
inclod* testing for the EPA approved subset of Appendix VIII
constituents found in petroleum wastes (e.g., the "Skinner List").
The Permit Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Land Treatment
Demonstrations (Reference 5) should be referred to for a complete
discussion on:the development of waste analysis plans. Appendix D
in reference 5 provides a copy of the list of Appendix VIII
constituents that may be found in petroleum wastes.
- 6 -
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-
2) Denonstration of Land Treatability
A facility based its land treatment demonstration on the degradation
of the oily fraction of the wastes and on the immobilization
of lead and chromium in the soil. They did not account for the
treatment of any other Appendix VIII constituents detected in
their waste. This same facility only conducted the feasibility
test program using leachate column tests. These tests will
provide information on the loading rate of the soil, but will
not be able to determine the site/soil assimilative capacity.
Section 264.272 requires that the owner/operator must demon-
strate that hazardous constituents in the waste can be complete-
ly degraded, transformed or immobilized in the treatment zone.
A properly conducted demonstration should evaluate all the pro-
cesses involved in a land treatment unit including degradation,
transformation and immobilization. A toxicity study, which
identifies toxic loading rates and evaluates the impact of the
wastes on indigenous soil microorganisms, should;be conducted.
A transformation/detoxification study, which is also a necessary
part of the demonstration, should provide information on the
decrease in toxicity of the waste/soil mix to soil microorganisms
over time. Reference 5 provides complete information on the
components of a good land treatment demonstration.
3) Control of Soil Moisture
A saturated land treatment unit is unable to accept sludge with
a high quantity of water since these conditions would promote
anaerobic conditions in the treatment zone. These conditions
would lead to a decrease in microbial degradation of organics
and the migration of run-off containing large amounts of hazard-
ous constituents. An owner/operator at a facility where satura-
tion of the unit is possibile, even during a portion of the
year, should conduct studies to measure and control soil moisture.
A water balance for the facility that accounts for seasonal
changes should be part of such a study.
4) Selection of Principal Hazardous constituents (PHC)
are defined in S264.278(a)(2) as "hazardous constituents
in the wastes to be applied at the unit that are the
difficult to treat, considering the combined effects of
degradation, transformation and immobilization". Therefore,
the PHC for any land treatment unit can only be selected after
the completion of an adequately designed land treatment demon-
stration (see^previous item 2). PHCs are those hazardous con-
stituents that have the lowest site/soil assimilative capacity.
Constituents selected should also have a low to moderate vapor
pressure so they will not volatilize from the waste shortly
after application. The criteria for the selection of PHCs is
covered in Reference 5.
- 7 -
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-
5) Permitting of Land Treatment Onits
After several years of an on-going land treatment demonstration,
a facility still has not proven that their unit can degrade,
transform and immobilize the hazardous constituents in their
waste. A satisfactory land treatment demonstration will require
more effort, time and a large investment by the applicant.
The land ban restrictions for the 'California List' or 'first
third' waste constituents will affect most of the current land
treated wastes. Due to the potentially short life of certain
land treatment units, the owner/operators of units that have
not demonstrated satisfactory treatment should be requested to
consider closure of their land treatment unit. As stated in
OSWER Policy Directive 9486.00-2 (Reference 6), any Part B defic-
iencies should be addressed quickly. Only one Notice of Deficiency
should be necessary for the applicant to submit a complete applic-
ation. If they are unable to quickly correct the deficiencies,
the Region should consider permit denial.
•
6) Presence of High Water Table in Limited Areas of Unit
During a land treatment demonstration, a land treatment unit was
observed to have two central areas that had a seasonal high water
table within 3 feet of the treatment zone. The facility proposed
to use a pumping system to lower the water table.
While the treatment zone in any land treatment unity per S264.271
(c)(2), must be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high water
table, a costly pumping system is not the only alternative to
achieve this standard. The facility may clean up the areas with
a high water table and discontinue their use for the treatment of
waste. Clean up entails the removal of soil from these areas and
placement of the soil in the active treatment unit. New soil should
be replaced in these areas and the areas should be fenced off. In
effect, this land treatment unit could be operated as two smaller
units separated by the high water table areas.
7) issuance of an IBMdiate Pull-Scale Facility Permit
A facility with an existing interim status land treatment unit
•utBdtted a carefully prepared, complete land treatment demonstra-
tion a* part of their permit application. The demonstration
addressed all the requirements of Subpart M - Land Treatment,
identifed all the potential problems encountered at the unit and
provided measures that will be implemented to correct these problems,
Because the demonstration addressed all Agency requirements, the
issuance of a full operating permit was recommended instead of a
two-phase permit.
- 8 -
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-
Permit Issuance
1) Joint Permitting by EPA and a State
Facilities located in a State which has been authorized for the
RCRA 'base program1, but not the HSWA provisions, may currently be
issued joint State and Federal permits which together constitute
the "RCRA permit". The State prepares the portion of the permit
covering non-HSWA matters. EPA should incorporate the HSWA provisions
into the State issued permit or, if necessary, EPA may issue a
separate permit for HSWA requirements. In instances where a new
facility has a joint permit, the permittee must be informed that
construction cannot begin until both the State permit and the EPA
HSWA permit are issued (either jointly or separately).
2) use of HSWA Omnibus Provision to Incorporate Land Disposal Restrictions
in Permits
A Region prepared a draft permit in which they used the 'omnibus pro-
vision* (S3005(c) (3)) to incorporate proposed larid disposal restrictioi
as a permit condition. The 'omnibus provision', as stated in the
preamble to the December 1, 1987 final codification rule (52 PR 45788
gives EPA the authority to impose permit conditions above and beyond
existing regulatory requirements if the current requirements are
inadequate to protect human health and the environment.
The self-implementing HSWA provisions, such as the land disposal
restrictions, supersede the $270.4 provision (i.e., "permit as a
shield") which states that compliance with a RCRA permit constitutes
compliance with Subtitle C. Therefore, the land disposal restriction:
apply regardless of whether or not they are included in the permit.
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9522.00-1 (Reference 3) clarifies the self
implementing requirements of HSWA.
To simplify enforcement and to clarify the duties of the owner/
operator, however, the PAT recommends that permits issued after land
ban or other self-implementing HSWA regulations incorporate the
requirenenta of those regulations, as they apply to the specific
facility. In the case under discussion, since the restrictions rule
w only proposed at the time, the PAT recommended that the
peo&t not contain specific conditions for these restrictions due
to tfa* likelihood of changes in the rule.
. 3) Editing*of Permit Content prior to Issuance
Several Regions have prepared draft permits with unedited portions
of the permit; application appended to the permit. Unedited attach-
ments may not correspond with the wording in the body of the permit
and some sections may be contradictory or confuse requirements in
the permit. Permit conditions need to be precise.
- 9 -
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-
Appending Part B sections that are not relevant to the permit
mean that any operational changes affectinq subjects within thos
sections, however insignificant, may require a permit modification.
The PAT recommends that all portions of the permit be reviewed for
"applicability, importance and clarity."
4) Permit Language
A permit prepared for a container storage area stated that the
permittee can "store a maximum of 600 drums in the container storage
area". Because the permit is an enforceable document, the permit
language must be precise. This statement implies that the only
containers to be stored at this facility will be drums. The language
should reflect all the types of containers to be stored at this
site.
5) Methods for Establishing Background
The use of the minimum detection limit (MDL) to establish background
as a ground-water protection standard is an acceptable method.
However, the permit should reference the appropriate analytical
methods in SW-846 (Reference 13) and specify target detection
limits. The new list of Appendix IX to Part 264 includes suggested
methods and practical quantification limits (See Reference 4).
6) Permit Condition for Corrective Action Site Investigation
A facility has several abandoned waste disposal ponds (SWMUs)
from a previous owner. Based on the results of the RCRA Facility
Assessment, the units to be evaluated in the facility's RCRA Facility
Investigation (RFI) should be specified as a permit condition.
Any comoonents required in the RFI, such as the characterization of
the nature and extent of contamination, the definition of pathways
for migration, the identification of areas threatened by releases and
the evaluation of interim measures, should also be specified in the
permit. The draft document, RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)
Guidance* July 1987 (Reference 9) should be consulted.
A alta investigation could identify, a release that does not require
remedial measures because it is not currently a threat to
health or the environment, but has the potential to become a
threat in the future. Corrective actions under 53004(u) should not
be limited to releases that already pose a threat. The monitoring
of such a release for a reasonable period of time would be an
appropriate permit condition.
Corrective Action
1) Location of the Point of Compliance Wells
Under Subpart P, once ground-water contamination is detected from
any regulated unit, the owner/operator is required to establish a
- 10 -
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-
ground-water protection standard as described in S264.92. The point
of compliance (POC) must be established directly downgradient of the
regulated unit(s).
For corrective action programs under HSWA, however/ specific monitor-
ing wells/ which were installed as part of the site investigation/
may be designated as POC wells. The POC wells for non-regulated solid
waste management units should be identifed in the HSWA portion of
the permit.
2) Treatment Reouirements for Ground Water Removed During Corrective Actior
Permits including corrective action conditions for ground-water
treatment programs must not only include pumping and removal reouire-
ments but must specify treatment standards or methods of handling
contaminated ground water. Although ground water itself is not a
hazardous waste/ ground water that contains hazardous waste leachate
must be managed as if it were hazardous waste since the leachate
is subject to regulation under Subtitle C. Once, the ground water
is treated such that it no longer contains a hazardous waste/ the
water is no longer subject to Subtitle C regulation. See the memo-
randum from osw'to Region IV, "RCRA Regulatory Status of contaminated
Ground Water"/ November 13, 1986 (Attachment D).
3) Selection of Appropriate Treatment Technologies
A facility proposed a corrective action program where contaminated
ground water was treated by air stripping. One of the organic con-
taminants/ methyl isobutyl ketone (NIBK), is extremely soluble in
water and may not readily volatilize from aqueous solutions.
The degree to which a contaminant leaves the water phase and enters
the air phase is dependent on the design of the system employed and
on a combination of physiochemical characteristics. A substance's
solubility in water and its vapor pressure are key factors for
determining whether a substance is amenable to air stripping. MIBK
tends to remain in the water phase instead of being released into
the air phase. Therefore/ MIBK may not be a good candidate for removal
froB ground water by the air stripping method presented by the owner/
Anf pcoyostJ technology that is approved as part of the corrective
•aamrai at a facility must be based upon the type of contaminants
found, the level of contamination/ and the technology's ability to
meet the treatment standard.
4) Evaluating Air Emissions from Treatment Units
Some treatment technologies do not destroy contaminants but remove
them from one medium/ such as ground water/ and then release them intc
a second medium/ such as air. Air emissions from treatment units,
- 11 -
-------
OSHER Policy Directive NO. 9523.00-
particularly those resulting from air stripping and other air release
technologies, should be considered by the permit writer before approv:
a corrective action plan. The owner/operator should be required4|
determine stack emission rate estimates as well as perform disperWon
modeling in order to determine if air emission controls are necessary.
•
While volatile organics released to the air via air stripping are not
hazardous waste/ releases of hazardous constituents to the air from
hazardous waste management or solid waste management units are subject
to corrective action authorities. The permit (or a 3008(h) order) she
address contamination of both the ground water and the air resulting
from waste management at the facility as necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
5) Use of Field Studies in Approving Emerging Technologies
A facility proposed to clean up contaminated soil with an in-situ
bio-reclamation technology. When a facility proposes to use an
emerging technology, such as insitu treatment, which depends
upon site specific conditions, it is best to require a pilot scale
field study which is separate from any laboratory test. Experience
at Superfund sites has shown that methods that work well in the
laboratory may not work well in the field. The reverse may also be
true. In lieu of any specific Agency guidance, the PAT will be able
to provide assistance when evaluating the results of field studies.
6) Verification Monitoring
Until HSWA corrective action policy on monitoring is established,1
ground-water monitoring to verify that the ground-water protection
standards determined for hazardous constituents released from SWMUs
have been achieved under a HSWA corrective action should be similar
to existing monitoring requirements for compliance with ground-water
protection standards at regulated units. This monitoring should
include quarterly sampling and analysis of the POC wells for all the
contaminants specified in the ground-water protection standard. Flex-
ibility, however, can be included in the HSWA corrective action permit
After the first few years, for example, a different monitoring scheme
may be appropriate. —
The permit nay also include requirements for monitoring of Appendix
IX constituents "reasonably expected to be in or derived from the
in the SWMUs. The frequency of such monitoring (e.g.,
Ly) should be included in the permit.
7) Termination of RSHA Corrective Action Programs
Corrective action programs for releases from regulated units can be
terminated when the ground-water protection standard has not been
exceeded for three consecutive years ($264.100(f)). This approach
can also be applied in HSWA corrective action permits. The HSWA
permit, however, may also include a technical feasibility clause.
When the maximum possible reduction of contaminants from the
water has been achieved and the media (ground water) protection
- 12 -
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00
standard is still being exceeded, further use of that technology may
not be required. At that point, if no other technology or combinatic
of technologies will achieve any additional reduction in contaminant
levels, the corrective action program could be terminated.
Miscellaneous Topics
Disposal of Non-hazardous Waste in RCRA Regulated Units waiver Request
for Liquid in Landfill Restrictions
A facility wished to dispose of non-hazardous dredge material in a
landfill that was undergoing closure after the loss of interim
status. The facility sought a waiver under S3004(c)(3), contending
that there is no alternative disposal site and that the liquid
condition of the dredge material will not present a risk of contam-
ination to any underground source of drinking water.
The owner/operator did not meet the requirement of S3004(c)(3){A)
which requires the demonstration that no reasonably available altern-
ative exists other than placement in their closing landfill. The
facility based their contention of no available alternatives on the
refusal of neighboring states to accept the dredge material without
dewaterinq. The facility did not adequately investigate all altern-
atives, such as the deposition of dredge material in a sanitary land-
fill, which is considered to be an available alternative based upon
the Statutory Interpretative Guidance of April 1986 (Reference 12).
The determination of 'reasonably available1 also involves technical
and engineering considerations. A dewatering option was never
thoroughly evaluated. If the dredge material could be dewatered to
pass the Paint Filter Liquids Test, the restriction in $3004(c)
would not apply. The disposal of nonhazardous waste in a landfill
that has lost interim status, however, is discouraged by Agency
policy. As stated in Gene Lucero's memorandum of December 20, 1985
(Reference 1), the receipt of non-hazardous waste is acceptable
only if it does not delay closure.
Criteria for the Referral of Facilities to the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) under $3019 ~-
Three facilities, each in different Regions, have ground-water
contamination that has migrated off-site. Releases at two of these
facilities have contaminated residential wells. At the third
facility while direct exposure to contaminated ground water has not
been documented, public concern about potential exposure is extreme.
Du« to the history of contamination at these sites, the off-site
migration, and the promixity of the public, the assistance of
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is
warranted. -
These sites were referred to ATSDR for a "health consultation".
A health consultation by the ATSDR enables a Region to determine
what information should be gathered (e.g., during a RCRA Facility
Investigation) to allow the ATSDR to undertake a more detailed
- 13 -
-------
OSWBR Policy Directive No. 9523.00-
- 14 -
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-
Attachment A
PAT Reviews Included in this Summary
Facility
American Cyan amid
Ashland Chemical Co.
B.F. Goodrich
Dow Chemical
Fondessy Landfill
G.E. Waterford
Highway 36
International Paper Co.
IT Corporation
Lion Oil
McDonnell -Douglas
Mills Services
Ross Incineration Services
Shell Oil
United Technologies/
Hamilton Standard Site
Union Carbldt
U.S. Pollution Control, Inc.
U. S*. Steel
Region
II
V
IV
V
V
II
VIII
IV
V
IV
VI
II
V
X
I
II
VI
V
PAT Coordinator
Chris Rhyne
Janette Hansen
Robert Kayser
Robert Kayser
Chris Rhyne
Chris Rhyne
Mark Salee
Dave Eberly
Janette Han sen1
Janette Hansen
Robert Kayser
Chris Rhyne
Nestor Aviles
Amy Mills
Janette Hansen
Robert Kayser
Chris Rhyne
Nestor Aviles
Robert Kayser
Dave Eberly
Janette Hansen
Dave Eberly
Review Date
January 1987
January 1987
November 1986
March 1987
November 1986
December 1986
November 1986
March 1987
January 1987
February 1987
September 1986
» February 1987
March 1987
February 1987
April 1987
April 1987
February 1987
March 1987
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-
Attachment B
List of Guidance Used in Preparing the PAT Reviews
1. "Accepting Nonhazardous Wastes After Losing Interim Status",
Memorandum Gene Lucero, December 20, 1985.
2. Draft Guidance Document: Landfill Design—Liner Systems and
Final Cover, (Chapter E only), July 1982.
3. Effect of Land Disposal Restrictions on Permits, Effective
Date 9/15/86, Directive No. 9522.00-1.
4. Federal Register, vol. 52, 25942.
5. Permit Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Land Treatment
Demonstrations, July 1986.
6. Permitting of Land Treatment Units: EPA Policy and Guidance
Manual on Land Treatment Demonstration, Effective Date 9/17/86,
Directive 9486.00-2.
7. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for Hazardous waste Land
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities, October 1983.
8. Procedural Guidance for Reviewing Exposure Information under
RCRA Section 3019, September 1986, Directive No. 9523.00-2A.
9. RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Guidance, Draft, April 1987.
10. RCRA Ground-water Monitoring Compliance Order Guidance, August
1985.
11. RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document,- Mpteaber 1986, NTIS No. PB87-107751.
12. Statutory-at«rpretative Guidance of April 1986, April 1986.
13. .Test Methods for Evaluating solid Waste, SW-846, March 1987.
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00-
Attachment C
Access to HELP Model User Guide and Software
User Guides
Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance, Vol. I NTIS PB85-100-840
Hydrologlc Evaluation of Landfill Performance. Vol. II NTIS PB85-100-832
Software
c/o Dr. Paul Schroder (601) 634-3709
Environmental Laboratory
Waterways Experiment Station
P.O. Box 831
Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
Send 6 formatted blank discs
-------
Attachment
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 2044O
NOV / 3 J986
~"**' SOUO WA*T| AND CMCMOINCV
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT RCRA Regulatory Status of Contaminated Ground Water
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: . Patrick Tobin, Director-
Waste Management Division, Region IV
This is in response to your memorandum of September 18/
1986, regarding the regulatory status of ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate. To answer this
question, one first has to determine the status of ground
water. Under the regulations, ground water contained in the
aquifer is not considered a solid waste, since it is not
"discarded" in the sense of being abandoned, recycled,
or inherently waste-like as those terms are defined in the
regulations. See 40 CFR 261.2(a)-(d). Therefore, contami-
nated ground water cannot be considered a hazardous waste
via the mixture rule (i.e., to have a hazardous waste
mixture, a hazardous waste must be mixed with a solid waste;
see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)). Nevertheless, ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate is still subject
to regulation since it contains a hazardous waste. Therefore,
the treatment, storage, or disposal of ground water contaminated
with hazardous waste leachate must be handled as ijf the
ground water itself were hazardous since hazardous waste _!/
leachate is subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
However, if the ground water is treated such that it no
longer contains a hazardous waste, the ground water would no
longer b* subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
y This ammo more precisely explains the position on ground
'"" water contamination presented in John Skinner's memo dated
December 26, 1984.
-------
Taking this interpretation and applying it to the example"
in your memorandum, the ground water containing a listed
hazardous waste, once collected, is subject to regulation
under the hazardous waste regulations. However, if as a
result of treatment, the ground water no longer, contains the---,
hazardous waste leachate, the ground water would no longer be f
subject to the hazardous waste rules.
Your letter also raises the question of treatment of
ground water within the context of corrective action. If the
corrective action is taken at an interim status facility in
compliance with a §3008(h) order, treatment can take place.
We are considering the possibility of amending the regulations
to clarify the relationship between corrective action and
the reconstruction ban (§270.72(e)). More broadly, the
Agency is currently examining the issue of whether permits
should be required for any corrective actions. We are also
developing rules for corrective action under RCRA §3004(u).
Until this analysis is completed, if the corrective action
takes place at a permitted facility. It can be handled as a
permit modification.
Please feel free to call Matt Straus, of my staff, if
you have any further questions; his telephone number. Is
8551 (FTS).
cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors,
Regions I-III and V-X
Gene Lucero, OWPE
Lloyd Ouercl, OWPE
Mark Greenwood, OGC
Steve Sllverraan, OGC
------- |