&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9528.02(32)
TITLE: Facility Changes During Interim Status
APPROVAL DATE: 7-20-82
EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-20-82
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
/£ DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Di
-------
PART 270 SUBPART G - INTERIM STATUS DOC: 9528.02(82)
Key Words: Interim Status
Regulations: 40 CFR 270.72(e)
'Subject: Facility Changes During Interim Status
.Addressee: Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski,. House of Representatives,
""Washington'-, D.C. 20515
Originator: Rita M. Lavelle, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response
Source Doc: #9528.02(82)
Date: 7-20-82
Summary:
Section 270.72(e) provides that "[i]n no event shall changes be made to a
hazardous waste management (HWM) facility during interim status which amounts -
to reconstruction of the facility. Reconstruction occurs when the capital
investment in.the changes exceed fifty percent of the capital cost of a compar-
able entirely new HWM facility."
. .The,.following..interpretations are provided to clarify the regulations:
. o The cost computations for a comparable entirely new HWM facility would
include the fair market value of the land necessary for such a facility,
whether or not the expanding site is State-owned. Therefore, EPA would
r. use :the :f.air. market value of. necessary land in its cost computations.
.;..:/.:'a;. If., a., site ,1s ...expanded, .construction of an .off-site access to a freeway
concurrent with the expansion is not included in the capital cost of
changes to the facility. This is because off-site access to a freeway
is:"hdt part :of the HWM-facility. An HWM facility means all contiguous
... . ... . .land, and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the
land, used for treating, storing or disposing or "hazardous waste..."
(emphasis added).
o Where a site is to be considered for expansion, certain criteria will
be applied by EPA in determining the relationship of the capital costs
of a comparable facility. The capital cost for a comparable entirely
new HWM facility is the cost in today's dollars of building a hypothetical
facility comparable to the facility which qualified for interim status
in both area and capacity, but using current state-of-the-art technology.
The costs would include: the fair market value for the acquisition of
land and construction materials; structuring of the site; and construction
of ground water monitoring and control features. The costs of construction
of access to the site would not be included in the cost of relocating
the residents of adjacent communities. This is because "facility"
means the land, etc., used for treating, storing or disposing of
hazardous waste. Adjacent communities are not part of an HWM facility.
-------
Continued From Document #9528.02(82)
o EPA may approve requests for increasing the design capacity of existing
facilities because of a Lack of available treatment, storage, or disposal
capacity at other HWM facilities. This determination is made by the
Regions on a case-by-case basis. The Agency will consider factors such
as incineration; shipment to other facilities in the Region or the
Nation; and recycling programs to promote at-source recovery. In
addition, technical feasibility and cost constraints of the alternatives
will be looked at within the time constraints for the needed additional
capacity; ' "'' ""' '-"."''. ' '''.
-------
9528.02 (32
UNI7ED 37A7E3 EN VIRCNMEN7AL 3RC"C7:GN AGENCY
,v A S H ! N G T O N . 2 C. Z C '. = D
2 0 ISS2
SOLIU WASTE A.NQ SU
Honorable 3 a r b a r a A . M i k u 1 s '< i
Hou's"'e'"'o'f "^'ep-rese-ntat'l've'S' '' " '" '' " ' ' " -
w i s n i n g t o n , 0 . C . 20515
3 - i r ,u, s . M i k u 1 s k i :
A G rn : n i s t r a ~ o r A n r, 3 1 o r s.u c h aaor2Ciit2S y * u r June 22 letter
- e c 2 s i '' n 9. c 1 a r i f i c a t i o n or" t' .". e r ec - i r 2 m e n t 5 . n d 2 r t h 2 3- e s c u r c 2
T..C - s 2 -v £ : :' 3-n and :. 2 c : / -2 r y Ac - ' 3 CR A ) f'c r 2 x 2 a r: s i o n of 2 x 1 3 : '! " g
i a i i - 1 : u 3 * 2 s ~ 2 n a n i : 2 m e n t " i c ', 1 i : 1 2 s . " h 2 A -3 rn i .1 i 3 * r a i o r has
i s '< 2 i ~ a : a r 2 p I y .
S c e c i f i c a I ' y , . y o u i s .'< 2 d for an i n c 2 r o r 2 ~ a c i o n of "he p r 3 v i 3 ;.
or -'- ZrR § 12.2 . 23 (c*) ( 5 ) . 7-ia.- section prpviGes tha: "In no avert:
's'-ij'' ;" c-.". i rices' 'i-5-- Ti^C2-*o in HWM facility d'jrin-g :ncar- im. s:a'us
-n'ic* a m o u rr ; : 3 reconstruction of h a facility. Reconstruction
o c c .u r s . * n 2 n t r, a c a j i t a 1 i n v e s t .TI e n t in t .", a chances 2 x c e 2C s fifty
: 2 r c ? n t of the c i o 1 t a i cost of a c o n 3 a r a o . 2 2 n 1 1 r e ' y new '- Wiy
' ac i .- 'i-.-t'y-'V ''vetnc-nas s- a.c c a d "; . -
. /our .3 'jest i ons a"<: our -res pons as . are :
. : . ."-jes t i on :-. J.f a S.tata-ownec a.;'t2. is expanding, p*ou;C the
''": "'':': ft" c '3m p:'j't"2"t c"-'s' '"or '5 c-'o'mpar 10 "; e new facility assj~a nc
_.. - _ . ; a .-.c.- : ur.ch as a ..c.os t 3 i nee . a compa rao 1 e new *acility rfou'c1
-...- .--; ,-" j- ox"rr'e:?'2:na'"0;;vy':'2"e'-' 2u:'i"'' f 'on-' "a ' 'S't at e -o* n 3-1 site1
.,...'.-:. ..ve s..:-on s,2-:. . -T'l e--.c.3S..t ..c om p u t.a t.i o ns. fo-r .a co.Tiparaoie enti-ely
new -I-
-
. .
f ac i 1 i ty wou 1 d include th
e air
cet value o the
''? a he 'n'e'-c'e s s;a ry fO"'r such ''a f ac i 1 i ty , *n ether o^ no* t.na ex-
: a n c i n -g site is S t a t e - ow n e a . L a n d h a s value whether c- r not
t ' s State-owned. Therefore, -?A «ou!: usa t.te f a ' r -nar'
-------
. r a 5 : : e ' s e x : a n d e c '" o r e t n a n a n c e , w o >j!.-' .; n a
cufiiu T a t i "- 3 costs of expansions si.-ice November ' I?, 19'li, be
used for a -determination of >/ h a t constitutes a - > c c n s * r u <~" i o "
un.jcr iO C"' § 1 22 . 2 3 ( c \ ( 5 ; ?
Response : Y <2 s . T h 3 cumulative costs of : a;;' t a i i n v 2 s : .T. e n t s
in tne changes since November 19, 1931, are us»-J to determine
what constitutes a reconstruction. Any other interpretation
would allow facilities to spread out the costs of expansion
over several different changes at different times, defeating-
t h G ? u r p o s e o f c h i s r e g u 1 a t i o n .
' Oiies'tTo'n': '[f a sice is to be considered for expansion,
what criteria- will be applied by SPA in determining the
relationship of the capita! costs of a comparable facility
on the following matters: acquisition of ianci, acquisition
of construction materials, transportation of TU t.?r-al s and
structuring of t h e . 3- i t e , construction : * : r o u n -d y a t e r .T. c n : -
tc'-: 19 and control features, ate construction of access
tO t h 3 S' ° t 2' ? '
' e s o o n s e : The caoitai cost of 5 "cornearac1e entirely new
,-!:.iM facility" is t:ie ccst in today's dollars of ouilding a.
ny po t n e t i c a'l- facility comuarable to the facility *nioh '
-^ujli. f ied f:r inter-f.-n status, in botn area ancj capacity, ;>ut
..-using c u:r r e-n t s t a t e - o f -1-.;; e - a rt techno.! o gy .
Accu i s.i t i o n o la n d : "he fair m a r r e -t /3. '. : e of
n ece s s a ry TT"Tc w c u T: o.e i n c 1. j -d e d i 'i !: -. e -" s t : * a
. ': "-' .'; : " c'G'iitaa r-:b. I 2 ' en: i .-2 ' y n -2^ f 3 : ! i -y .
' ' Acc:uisition of construct^- mete--'?'s: "he fair
..;iar*ans'^C'""'J"'t.'1 o^ 7!a"a>"iJ^"' " ~ a 3 . t^sts "C>. I lie
n'a tari al s . ^
-rfOu 1 d. b-e i. nc.l uaea . '
C o n s. t r u c t; : n of : - o u ": * i: e - ":-:::'--: a.-. -i- -: o ": - o V
f e a : u r 3 s : r n e c : i: s of sue." f e i: j r e s : u '. i T -e n c : u - e
s. o n s : r u c : : o n o - i : c a s s :: ': » e ; : : e : .13S.1 :os.t;
wo u 1 a no: oe i n c !:; a e o fn :.;ie 7^"s; , > > c :;.". p i r i o '
facility, for :he reasons statec.:;i :.;:e " .^ 3 -;o .-,; e
to Question 2.
C u a s 1 1 on : If a site is to be considered for e x r. a n s : : n , -» h a :
criteria will be applied by £ ? A in d e t -2 r:n i .-; -t g : :; e r _' ; = : o n -
s ii ' p of t n e capital costs of 2 c o.p" -v a r i 'j '. e * a c ''". v i * : n e
-elocution of adjacent c o .r.m -j .-. ' : ' e s ; i c ' j c ; .-. ; ? e : ' :; j -
". o in o s a " c a c j a c e n t p r o : j e r t : a s ; n o / i g. o o e - 3 ._ :
" 3 s : J e T t s and : o.-rn u n i t y institutions; a n j r o ;; ^ .- ; .-, = s e
"
-------
3 g s o " n s j : 7 h 2 calculation of c o s f s f o - a c o m;.; a r 2 h 1 3 ,
5"tir-i!r' .-. ew facility would n o t inc!>;-io the cos-", of re-
locating the residents of adjacent c o;;::::-.M i : i 2 s . As
explained before,, "facility" c e ?. n s t h e 1 a n -c- , -2 t c . , used
for treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste.
Adjacent com-un i t i es are'noc part of an h'W.M facility.
o. Question: Under the provisions of -0 C:-H § 122 . 23 ( c ) ( 5 ) ,
wnat alternatives ,-nust be considered for purposes of es-
tablishing chat no a 11 e r n.a t i v e s C o the proposed expansion
'' -"'li'x'-'i'-sc.?- '-'Must any^'of' ttie f ol 1 owi ng 'b« 'cons fdersd : incin-
eration; shipment to other facilities in the r20 ion orXthe
nation; recycling programs to pro.-note at-scurce recovery";
3-0:32 combination of these or other alternatives?
' e s - o r. s e : i?A .:*ay 20 oreve recuasts "or : r, ere as i MU t-:a-
'>" a » .3 * " s* * ' a .3 i "" T ^ ** ' ~- ,^ * 3 ^- A * » '"j^1*?"1 *" J "l ^ <* f * *y I
- *' »!.. M . C - w * IC ' - i i » w -« t, f J i ^j^'Jiw- ;./ n ^ i . y .* .
** * ^ i «~ "^ 3 ^ * ^* * w .i r * A ' T ^ ** 3 C '"* '71 "^ H " !" ~ "* I j ^ * 1 ^ 3 i^'a '* '--'^
-. - - - e c e n 11 y r e o p s n e c settlement o i i c i: s; ' : n s ;"! < '. ~ 7.
' ' J":*'.^"jf-e i '11' n t 1 i' '-» ^ 1 <; " ,- " ' ^ < § a < i r- -> .> ,-\
^» »w .».j i^ilw, ,'J \JU«>., iuj .ij^ 'jlU.i . '< v.^vj
-------
.
r-. .z.
--
.. I }
Sincerely y c u r a ,
../£<*'- ' ' -'
°, i : a M . L a v e 11 e
A s s 1 s t 3 n c A d .TI i n i s ' r a
------- |