vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
TITLE:
9476.04(84)
Closure Issues Related to Wood Preserving Plants
APPROVAL DATE: 8-7-84
EFFECTIVE DATE: s-7-84
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS
Office of Solid Waste
[ 1
C " J
t "I
A- Pending OMB approval
B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C- For review It/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 DOC: 9476.04(84)
Kxy Words: Wood Preserving, Closure
Regulations: 40 CFR 264.U3(b), 264.272, 270.72
Subject: Closure Issues Related to Wood Preserving Plants
Addressee: James H. Scarbrough, Chief, Residuals Management Branch,
Region IV
Originator: John H. Skinner, Director, Office of Solid Waste
Source Doc: #9476.04(84)
Date: 8-7-84
Summary:
A Regional Administrator can grant an extension to the time of 180 days
allowed for closure as specified in §264.113(b) for only two reasons:
1) definition of necessity, if it takes longer than 180 days to perform closure;
or 2) if a new owner/operator will recommence operations at a site, making
closure incompatible with continued operation. The first criterion of necessity
may apply to wood preservation plants. However, if the owner/operator can use
a proven technology to complete closure within the 180-day period, an extension
may not be justified. In no case can closure take longer than three years.
Closure techniques should be based on proven techniques and not concepts
still in the research and development phase. An owner/operator must prove the
effectiveness of any technique to be used at closure in the permit application.
The addition or creation of new processes that an interim status facility
owner/operator wants to use at closure must be allowable under §270.72 as
changes to interim status. If the processes cannot be justified under §270.72,
the owner/operator must obtain a RCRA permit before s/he can use the new
technology, regardless of whether the owner/operator will use it -during the
facility's operating life or at closure. If the facility has a permit, process
changes or additions are not allowed as minor modifications. Therefore, the
new processes would require a RCRA permit.
-------
UNITED 5TATE5 ENVIRONMENTAL =crC ~~Z~:C?> -iG£x-~
" - . •: . J -
WASHINGTON. C.C. ZO-15C
v^r
AUG 07 1984
=>e3i»C.v»Sc
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Closure Issues Related to Wood Preserving Plants^
^
, >
FROM: i John H. Skinner, Director . ( '
'\ Office of Solid Waste- / •/ ' ' v • ,f)f
• (A ' • i ' , X ' -w - . - J ^
TO: , James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch, Region. IV
In your June 26, 1984 memorandum you posed three .questions
regarding closure activities and the use of unproven technolo-
gies for closure at wood preserving plants. Several questions
regarding the definition of KOQ1 hazardous wastes generated
by these facilities were also raised; these latter questions
have been partly answered in my July 25, 1984 memorandum. A/
First, the maximum time- allowed for closure after final
receipt of waste is 130 days as specified in §264.1L3(b)
unless the Regional Administrator grants .the owner or operator
an extension. The grounds for extensions are strictly limited
to instances when: (1) of necessity, it takes longer- than
180 days to perform closure, or (2) a new owner or operator
will recommence operations at the site and closure would be
incompatible with continued operation. It seems that, the
first criteria could be argued in the case of wood preservation
plants. However, if the owner or operator could use "a proven
technology to complete closure within the 180 day period, an
extension may not be justified. In addition, I agree with
your assessment on this issue and reaffirm the guidance in
the preamble to the May 19, 1980 regulations: "A variance
procedure will allow a longer period, where it can be justified,
although in no case may closure take more than three years."
I/ A question was raised regarding contaminated rainwater
run-off from treated wood storage areas. We hope to resolve
this issue along with the regulatory status of spray irrigation
fields in conjunction with EGD. We expect to get back to
you on these points in the near future.
-------
Second, we agree with you that closure :: • .. - ._;-_2s should
be based on proven techniques and not ccncec.-- _•:', 11 in the
R and D stage. Foe example, if the owner or t/.rancr wishes
to use land spreading of hazardous waste at r^jsure, he must
demonstrate the effectiveness of the technique in his permit
application in accordance with Subpart M (lane treatment) in
§264.272.J/ In this instance, more details are required
to determine the specific nature of the technology. However,
if an interim status facility wishes to add a land treatment
technique, these new processes must be allowable under §270.72
as changes to interim status. If these processes cannot be
justified under §270.72, a RCRA permit is required before
they can be used at the facility regardless oS whether it is
to be used, during, the operating life or a,t closure.
Third;,, the addition or creation of new processes at. the .
facility during interim status may be allowable under S270.72.
If the facility is permitted, however, process changes are
not allowed as minor modifications; therefore, the new process
would require a RCRA permit.
. I hope this memorandum addresses your concerns. Please
contact Carole Ansheles at 382-4761 if you have any further
questions.
2/ As explained in my July 2S, 1984 memorandum, we are currently
~~ investigating the regulatory status of spray irrigation
technologies to determine if they meet the definition of a
land treatment unit, a surface impoundment, or a landfill.
------- |