vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9476.02(83)
Interpretation of Closure and Post-Closure Re-
quirements Regarding Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facilities
APPROVAL DATE: i'11'83
EFFECTIVE DATE: i-11"83
ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of Solid Waste
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
CTATIIC
STATUS:
A- Pending OMB approval
B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C- For review &/or comment.
D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other documents): headquarters
[ ]
[ ,- ]
[ ]
OS WER OS WER OS WER
/£ DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE D
-------
PARTS 264 AND 265 SUBPART G - CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE 'TOG: 9^76.02(83)
Key Words: Closure, Final Cover, Liquid Wastes, Pose-Closure
Regulations: 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, HSWA.201(c)
Subject: Interpretation of Closure and Post-Closure Requirements Regarding
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Addressee: Dr. Reva Rubenstein, Director, Institute of Chemical Wastes
Management Association, National Solid Wastes Management Associa-
tion, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Originator: -John H. Skinner, Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste
Source Doc: -#9476.02(83) • '''"'.'
Date: ' •' ' 1-11-83 .
Summary:
Recontouring the final cover material and adjusting inplace waste in the.
same unit as required to maintain the function of the final cover (as a result
of subsidence and settlement) does not constitute receipt of hazardous waste
after July 26, 1982 (HSWA). These actions must be approved as part of each
facilityrs closure plan by the Regional Administrator. Modifications can be
made with Agency approval.
Controlled irrigation of the vegetative cover is allowed in order to
establish vegetation during the closure period or to maintain it during pro-
longed dry spells in the post-closure period. However, to provide long-term
minimization of migration of liquids through the closed landfill and to func-
tion with minimum maintenance, the plant species chosen should be indigenous,
require little or no additional moisture, and be selected based on anticipated
moisture, light, temperature, elevation, competitive cohabitants, etc. The
closure and post-closure plans should contain a description of when and why
irrigation may be necessary. The placement of bulk liquids in non-containerized
liquid hazrdous waste, or free liquids contained in hazardous waste, is prohibited
from any landfill after May 8, 1985 (HSWA §§ 201(c)). In addition, the following
points must be emphasized:
o Any liquid added to sustain vegetation cannot be a hazardous waste.
o Liquids may not be injected into the waste after closure.
o Liquids are not allowed during closure, after May 1985, including
leachate recirculation.
o The characteristics and purpose of any liquids to be added to the cover
during or after closure must be specified in the closure or post-closure
plans and approved by the RA or authorized State. Such purpose and
extension must be consistent with the environmental objectives specified
in Parts 264 and 265.
Assuming an owner/operator completes the cell in a timely manner (i.e.
within the 180-day closure period), landfills that are currently engaged in
co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes could continue to accept
non-hazardous wastes after-July 26, 1982, in order to complete a partially
-------
Continued from Document 9476.02(83)
filled hazardous waste unit and close pursuant to Part 264 and 265 requirements.
If the closure- cannot be completed within the 180-day closure period, the
owner/operator must apply to have the period extended beyond six months, for a
specified time period [see §§265.113(b) or 264.113(b)] to allow the waste to be
filled until the designed elevation is reached. This type of closure could be
approved if it provides for a more environmentally sound closure, and not
merely for the economic convenience of the owner/operator.
Where a surface impoundment receives no more hazardous wastes after July
26, 1982, but closure has not yet been effected, the waste may be removed from
the surface impoundment, solidified and placed in the same impoundment to
ensure 'that it •will-bear the weight of the cover. Assuming that this solidi-
fying material is not a hazardous waste, EPA does not consider this replacement
of waste (after January 25, 1983) to be "receipt" of hazardous waste which
would constitute a "regulated unit."
Where multiple hazardous waste trenches will cease to receive hazardous
waste on or before July 26, 1982, and where the closure plan provides for a
delayed closure of a half-filled trench for the deposit of solidified hazardous
waste from closed and capped trenches, such placement of solidified hazardous .
waste into the reserved half filled trench, even at the same facility, will be
considered "receipt" of. hazardous waste. Therefore, the trench will constitute
a "regulated" unit. This is because the waste is received and disposed of at
the facility unit after July 26, 1982. Where landfills consist of a series of
trenches which are separately lined, each trench is a separate waste management
unit. The transfer of hazardous waste from one unit to another after July 26,
1982, therefore makes the receiving trench or unit a "regulated" unit.
-------
JAN j I IS83
Dr. Reva Rubenstein
Director .-...-
Institute of Chemical waste ; ; .: . ' . ... .........
Management •'•'..
National Solid Wastes
Management Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue, M.W.
Washington, O.C. 20036
Dear Dr. Rubenstein:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 6,
1982, requesting interpretation of closure and post-closure
requirements regarding land disposal facilities. I have
responded to your questions in the order presented in your
letter and attachment.
1. . Recontouring the final cover material and/or adjusting
~ inplace waste in the same unit as required to maintain the
function of the final cover as a result of.-subsidence and
settlement, does not constitute receipt of hazardous waste
after January 25, 1983.J These actions must be described
in each facility's closure and post-closure plans which
must be approved by the Regional Administrator. Modifica-
tions can be made to these plans as- necessary- with Agency
approval.
2. The controlled irrigation of the vegetative cover is allowed
in order to establish vegetation during the closure period
or to maintain it during prolonged dry spells in the post-
closure period. But the regulations require the final cover
to provide long-terra minimization of migration of liquids
through the closed landfill (S264.'310(a) (1) ) , and to function
with minimum maintenance (S264.310(a)(2)). Thus, the
guidance documents recommend that the plant species chosen
be indigenous, require minimal or no additional moisture,
and be selected based on anticipated moisture, light,
temperature, elevation, and competitive cohabitants, etc.
-------
The closure and post-closure plans should contain a descrip-
tion of why and when the irrigation may h*» determined to
be necessary (e.g., recommended by local agrononisit to
establish vegetation during- a dry period), the amount and
frequency of water application, and water balance analysis
showing the effect of the irrigation water on total annual
liquid input through the final cover./
EPA has available two reports that provide technical
information on this subject, entitled "Evaluating Cover
Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste" sw-867, September
1982, which discusses irrigation of plant cover and other
plant requirements; and (2)."Hydrologic Simulation on
Solid Waste. Disposal Sites". SW-868, September 1982, which
is a computerized water balance model, to evaluate the
probable hydrologic performance of existing or proposed
landfill designs. Both of the reports are available from
the Government Printing Office^ (SW-367 i« stock No. 055-
000-00228-2 «S4.75, SW-S68 is Stock No. 055-000-00225-8
$36.00). EPA is currently revising the model for "Hydrologic
Simulation on Solid Waste Disposal sites" to enable its
use in estimating seepage through the liner as well as
through the cover. The revised model should be available
early in 1983.
Your statement that 40 CPK Parts 264 and 265 prohibit the
addition of bulk liquids to the waste^ management unit ,1s
not quite accurate. Bulk liquids^aVe^ 'afrlnfiefl "'i'r "itne' site
is lined and has a leachate collection and "removal system.
Liquids in the leachate collection system must be removed
during operation, closure, and post-closure. In general,
the addition of liquids into the unit during closure would
be permitted only if by doing so the facility and waste
will be stabilized sooner. As you know, the objective
during and after closure is to remove liquids and keep them
out. If liquids are added during closure, the closure period
would need to be extended until the addition stopped.
To further clarify the above explanations I must emphasize
four points* First, any liquid applied to the final cover
of a landfill to sustain vegetation cannot be a hazardous
waste (e.g., cannot be leachate unless it is no longer a
hazardous waste), cannot harm the vegetation, and cannot
otherwise iapair the integrity of the final coyer (e.g.,
cause increased infiltration because of damage caused by
pH). Second, liquids may not be injected into the waste
after closure (e.g., leachate recirculation by injection),
since this is contrary to the post-closure objective of
keeping liquids out. Third, as stated aoove, liquids
could be allowed during closure, including leachate
-------
recirculaiion, id: (a) there is a liner and leachate
collection system, (b) leachate is removed from the
leachata collection system, (c) the addition of liquids
serves Jtpjj* njiariJCLa."closure~Te.g. , accelerates subsidence
-end" Ytab ill sat ion P/~ r^JLh.er jyiajT_jnQrely serves as a__cpnveniant
way to dispose of thjTl'iqu id a, ~anH~T d ) tn e liquid addition
ia explained ^aad "luatitied in the cl.Qaugg_glan. .Such
Saure would not be completed _unti_l _recircu^a_tion__c:ea.8e8j
Also/ recircuiaTion ot a~ hazardous waste (leachate) after
Tanuary 26, 1983 vould make the unit a regulated uni£
subject to tha requirements of Part 264._ I should point
out that racirculatio'n of a hazardous waste (leachate) can
occur during operation_jn4» would normally be considered an
operational ra~tF«r than closure activity. Closure activities
are those which _lejid_to_stabflTzation ~o~f~" the unit in a_
'.tinely Bannerafter receipt of wastes has ceased.. Four^b,
'>the./characterist'i'cs and purpose of any"TlquldsTo be added^
Co the land'fill or to the cover during or after closure.
must be specified in the closure or post-closure plans and
approved by the RA (or authorized State), including any
extension of the closure period. Such purpose and extension
must be consistent with the environmental objectives specif-ted
in Part 264 or 265. __ ~~~
Landfills that are currently engaged in co-disposal of
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes could continue to accept
non-hazardous wastes after January 25, 1983, in order to
complete a partially filled hazardous waste unit and close
under either 40. CFR Part 265 or Part 264 requirements. This
assumes that the owner or operator completes the cell in a
timely manner, which generally raeans within the 180 day
closure period. I_f the closure cannot be completed _w_Lth-in
the 180 days the owner or operator must apply to have the
closure period extended beyond" 6 raonths, for a specified
time period, as pr_oyide<1_ in *0 C?* 265". ir3.ibjL.9T 2S4. ttT(_b) *.
to allow the waste to be filled until the designed elevation
is reached. _ This type of closure could be approved if it -
provides for a more enviroronentally sound closure, and not'"'
'merely for the economic convenience of the owner or operator.
'Each extension will be considered on a case—by-case basis.
The regulatory concern is closing the landfill in as expedient
a time as is practical (i.e., achieving final contour and
final cover) so as to prevent additional rainfall infiltration
and other environaental exposure.' Pertinent factors include
use of earth materials and redesigning the final contours.
The Regional Administrator or approved state permitting
authority could approve a closure plan or modification
to the closure plan allowing the unit or cell to be completed
with non-hazardous waste after January 25, 1983, and possibly
extending the closure period (wore than 6 months) after
January 25, 1983 upon such a showing. Conditions foe
accomplishing this would b« in any approved closure plan
-------
or closura permit (e.g./ ti™* period, final contours, type
of
For the situation where a surface impoundment "closes as a
landfill" before January 25 ,. 1983, I presume you mean no
rnore hazardous wastes received after January 25, 1983, but
cloaur® (e.g., dewatering, etc*) has not yet been done.
The waste will be removed from the surface impoundment,
solidified and replaced in the sane impoundment, to ensure
that it will bear the weight of the cover. BPA do«a not
consider this replacement of waste after January 25, 1983,
to b« "recaipt" of hazardous waste which would constitute
a "regulated unit". This decision assumes that the
solidifying rxaterial is not a hazardous waste.
For your last question you described the case where
multiple hazardous waste trenches will cea^e to receive
hazardous waste on or before January 25, 1983, -and where
the closure plan provides for a delayed closure of a half-
filled trench for the deposit of solidified hazardous
waste from closed and capped trenches. - Tr ^""^ral , such
placement
trenches into tho reserved half ^-filled ttre-ac&r even at
the same facility, will b« considered "receipt* of hazardous
waste such AS to constitute a "regulated" unit.^&scause the
waste is received and disposed at the facility unTE after
January 26, 1983_. I refer you to the July 26, 1982 federal
Register preamble discussion at 47 PP 32289 which describes
the concept of a waste management unit. Where landfills
consist of a series of trenches which are separately 'lined,
each trench is a separate waste aanagement unit. The transfer
of hazardous waste fron one unit to another after January 26,
1983 therefore makes the receiving trench or unit a "regulated*
unit. _
As a side note, I should mention that the closure
performance standard for interim status and for permitting
facilities is the same (40 CFR 264.111 and 40 CP3 265.111).
The final cover or cap for landfills closed under Part 264 or
265 standards should be siailar. - Significant Differences in
the design of the cap should result from site specific factors
rather than the type o? permit a facility ha«. Thus, many of
the above comment 3 apply to both Part 264 and 265 closure
requirements.
I hope the above explanations help clarify the regulations
for you. Should you have any further questions with regard to
-------
how this regulation effects NSW*A members please contact r*e or
Pred Lindsay of my staff (382-4756).
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Regions I - X (with incoming)
Cook .
Eileen Claussen.
Joh n Lehna n
Bruce We<1dle
Lisa- Friedman
Mark Greenwood
Pred Lindaey
Gene Lucero
Ken Shuster
------- |