vv EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9477.01(84)
TITLE:
Closure Cost Estimates Based on Third Party Costs
l-12-ff4
1-12-84
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of solid waste
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
[ 1
{ 1
I 1
A- Pending OMB approval
B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- .In development or circulating
headquarters
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
fE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Di
-------
PARTS 264 AND 265 SUBPART H - FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
DOC: 9477.01(84)
Key Words:
Regulations:
Subject:
Addressee:
Originator:
Source Doc:
Date:
Summary:
Closure, Cost Estimates, Recycling
40 CFR 264.142, 264.112(a)(4), 264.113(a)
Closure Cost Estimates Based on Third Party Costs
James H. Scarbrough, Chief, Residuals Management Branch, Region IV
John H. Skinner, Director, Office of Solid Waste
#9477.01(84)
1-12-84
EPA regulations and guidance allow the owner/operator to estimate closure
costs for a recycling facility based on his/her own costs of carrying out the
closure ativities rather than on third-party costs. In addition, continued
recycling at a recycling facility is a form of treatment and a legitimate
closure activity.
According to §264.113(a) and §265.113(b), cost estimates for recycling
facilities could reflect labor and materials for up to 90 days of recycling
plus the cost of disposing of the waste which could not reasonably be recycled
with existing throughput capacity during 90 days. This requirement reduces
the likelihood of recycle stockpiling more hazardous waste than they are
able to recycle in 90 days unless they have made provisions in their closure
plans and cost estimates for disposing of the excess hazardous wastes, either
on-site or off-site by the end of the 90-day period.
* The proposed closure regulations, published on March 19, 1985, require
third-party costs for closure and post-closure activities.
-------
9^77.01 (3i)
JAN ! 2 19?-'
8u&j«ct* Closure Cos% isti»ates Based on Third Fsrty Costs
rrowt Joon a. aiiniver, Mreetor
Office of solid Haste (wfl-443)
Tot James H. scarbrov*gh, Chief
Residuals Maaageswnt aranc&
ftagion rv
Tnis is in respoA** to your •e^Kirsndusi of Moveaber 22r 1M3,
in vttlcft you r*i«* th« l»*u« oC wft*th«r « elo«ur* plaa for a re-
cycling fAcility c*n *9«cify continuation of rwcyclinq in or<3«r
to r«<1uc« vast* lay*ntory during clo«ur». Tc« raiaod thia ia«u«
in tMo cont«xt of a «tat«a«nt »a<4« la th« 9«pt«no»« point aftar th«
facility's inr«ntory is r«dac«<3 by continued r*cycli»3 of vast* on
or atfttr sal* of capital.
Hotlia* «««o is corr«cxf yo«r a««o raises a »*p«rat*
ia»u», waicta tb« aotlia« report did not addr««a. T&«t isso* is
vn*tb«r th« closor« coat •stimat* nay r«fla«t tlt« cost of. elo«tir-»
activities carried out by th« owner/operator (vlio »«y «•• his own
and «Knaii*eot if b« desires)/ or w»iet*«r tb« estimate
reflect th« costs of closure activites carried out by a ttkird
p«rty, s«eh as th« go^erTSAsnt or a private contractor.
Yo« referenced several statevemts in ta« regulations and B9A
guldaace docunents vhictk you interpret to sveaa t&*t tbs firtt ease/
is correct. In the context of recycling facilities, you have ia-
terpreted the req«lationa tad aaidance to sv««a that 1) coatiaued
recycling at a recycling facility is a fora of *tr«AtaMnt* and a
legitimate alosor* activity, and 2) the closure cost estimate for
a recyclia^ facility a«y reflect the owner/operator's owa costs of
carrying out nix closure plan.
-------
I concur witn thaae interpretations. with regard to your
last »;oint, piaasa .T»ake note oc an Important requirement whicn
i»»330ns tha li^slihood ot a iar'-j*, aoan
-------
UNITED S7A7r'-=NV!RCNMcN7AL ?5
2 2 ??33
Closure Plans and Cost Estimates-Treatrremt of wasta Inventory As Part
Closure Activities
Chief, Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
John Skinner, Director
Off ice-of Solid, waste (WK-563)
The September. 20, 1983. memo from Carolyn iarley -.ransmitting Superiund
hotline monthly status report for August cents ./.ed a response with which we
do not agree. Cm cage six the following statement is made "The Agency has
interpreted these two statements to not allow a Closure Plan to include
recycling of waste or sale of equipment or property in order to reduce the
closure cost estimate." Region fv dees not totally agree with this response.
We agree that the money gained from the sale of recycled hazardous waste
equipment or property can r.ot be included in the closure cost estimate as a
credit. However we feel that the regulations and guidance are clear that a
recycling facility can continue to treat its waste inventory as a part of
its closure operations.
The following citations frcm RCRA Regulations and Guidance Docvrer.ts
support this position:
DOCUMENT CITED
SUPPORTING CUCTATTCN
40 CFR 264.142
Preamoie to May 1980
Peg.
40 CFR 264.112 (a)(4)
40 CFR 264.113 (a)
Cost estimates for closure are to
be based on the closure plan
"Closure is the period after wastes
are no longer accepted, during
which the owners or operators ccm-
• plete treatment, storage and
disposal operations, apply final
cover to ail cap landfills, and
dispose of or decontaminate equipment"
"For example , in the case of a
landfill, estimates of the time required
to treat and dispose of all -waste inventory.
"Within ninety days after receiving
the final volume of hazardous wastes,
the owner or operator must treat, remove
frcm the site, or dispose of en-site, all
hazardous wastes in accordance
with the accroved closure olan.
-------
DCCJMENT CITED
EPA Craft Guidance Closure
and Pest Closure: Interim
Status Standards 40 CFR. 265,
?. 2-9
? 2-11
P. 4-2
P. 5-5
'tmu^ 3] ^^ (• — •» /^c.. .v-.^ > -'-«" ' '• -^ 5 T •= —
.Li-*. „ l._— . ^ ^,-^s^OW*. - / .3•- c—-
-------
-3-
4. Once Closure begins the Closure Cost £sti.Tate must reflect ail operating
costs, disposal costs, and clean-up costs incurred, during the closure
period including any costs associated with continued treatment during
closure,such as all costs associated with the operation of facility. The
guidance manual indicates that the company should submit the previous
years: financial, budget and put up. the percentage of the year it will take
for the. treatment, ultimate' disposal .and decontamination in.their closure.
' 'fund..' " .:.-.'. •'-.'.'• • '.•-'• •
There are .nany waste recycling facilities throughout the country that are
subject, to the RC3A permitting requirements. Because of the significant
impact which the financial assurance requirements have on these facilities,
it is important that EPA be consistent nationwide in cur application of the
RdA. regualtions for Closure Plans and Cost Estimates, we have issued and ar=
about to issue several permits to recycling 'facilities using the above stated
guidance-. If you disagree with our approach please call Couglas C. McCurry
of my staff at 5T3 257-3433 before December 15, 1983.
Region IV State Directors
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-III,V-X
------- |