5EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off tee of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9474.01-84
TITLE: Permit Policy Question and Answer Quarterly
Report: ContingencyXPlans
APPROVAL DATE: 9/10/84
EFFECTIVE DATE: 9/io/84
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
E FINAL
O DRAFT
•
STATUS: | j
[ 1
osw
REFERENCE (other documents):
A- Fending OMB approval
B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C- For review &/or comment
D- In development or circulating
headquarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
s>EPA
. . .
Wasnmgion. iJC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
9474.01-84 ,
informal on
Name of Contact Person
Weddle
Mail Code - Branch
PSPD
Telepnone Numoer
382-2210
Lead Office
D OERR
Q OSW
D OUST
D OWPE
D AA-OSWER
Approved fur Review
Signature of Office Director
Date
Title
Permit Policy Question and Answer Quarterly Report; Contingency
Plans
Summary of Directive
An owner/operator of a new facility must submit information for the •
contingency plan (cp) at the same time as the Part B [Section 270.14(b)
(7)]. If the applicant cannot make the required arrangements, s/he
must document this seperately 'according to Section 262.37(b), in which
cas.e the CP need not address arrangement with local authorities. Under
Section 264.5(d), the applicant may submit information regarding specfic
emergency coordinators after the time application.
Key Words:
Contingency pain
Type of Directive /Manual. Policy Directive. Announcement, etc./
Status
D
Draft i Lj New
Final I LJ Revision
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directiveis;'[ | Yes | | No Does It Supplement Previous Directives!' | I yes | | No
If "Yes" to Either Question. What Directive (number, tnlel
Review Plan
D AA-OSWER D OUST
D OERR D OWPE
LJ OSW LJ Regions
D OECM
D OGC
D OPPE
D
Otner iSpecily!
Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Signature of Lead Office Directives Officer
• Date
Signature of OSWER Directives Officer
! Date
-------
dSWER POLICY DM€TIVE NOl-
^7 4 . 01-8 4
SEP | 01984
MEMORANDUM
Subject! Permit Policy Question and Answer Quarterly Report
Promt Bruce Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
Tot Regional Hazardous Waste Management Directors
Region I-X
Attached is the first in a series of quarterly reports
summarizing permit policy questions answered by my staff over
the past few months. The purpose of this summary is to
ensure national consistency in dealing with these frequently
asked questions. Each question has been given careful
consideration by the Permits Branch, the Waste Management and
Economics Division (WMED) and OGC. The answers provide the
best interpretation or application of the RCRA regulations
to a given situation.
Many of these questions were raised during telephone
conversations between Regional personnel and the Permits
Branch Regional Liaisons. Other issues were raised during
Permit Assistance Team reviews of individual applications.
In either case, where such questions and answers have policy
implications for RCRA permitting and are likely to arise in
other Regions, they have been summarized here.
In addition to the questions and answers summarized on
the following pages, we have provided written guidance on a
variety of specific issues in the past few months. Bach
Region received copies of these guidance memoranda. To assist
you in locating these memos, a list identifying the subjects,
the signatory, and the point of contact, is attached.
We are now preparing a number of memoranda for issuance
in the near future which cover other significant concerns
to permitting. A list of these, including subject and contact,
is also attached.
WH-563:RChrismon:djg:S243D:24691:7/30/84:Disk Randy Chrismon M
Correction:JSkinner:sed:9/10/84
-------
-2-
When confronted with permit issues, your staff should
contact the appropriate Regional Liaison in the Permits
Branch, or the PAT coordinator for the technology involved.
A list of these individuals is attached. The Regional Liaisons
and the PAT coordinators will ensure that answers to their
questions represent headquarters* current policy and include
input from technical and legal staff, as necessary. Centralizing
referral of permit questions to the Permits Branch will enable
OSW to provide complete and consistent responses to similar
questions, and summarize these answers in subsequent permit
policy reports for all Regions.
Attachments
cct Hazardous Haste Branch Chiefs
Permit Contacts
Ken Shuster
Hark Greenwood
Perrait Branch Staff
-------
Permits Branch
Regional Liaisons
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Naiae
Art Glazer
Dave Pagan
Doug Ruby
Rich Steirele
Chaz Miller
Nancy Pomerleau
Susan Mann
Chaz Miller
Randy Chrisnon
Jeff Detlefsen
Number
382-4692
382-4497
382-4499
382-4754
328-4535
382-4500
382-4498
382-4535
382-4691
382-4422
Permit Assistance Team
Coordinators
Terry Grogan
Randy Chrismon
Dave Pagan
Amy Mills
Chris Rhyne
Rich Steirale
Chairman
Incineration
Storage
Land Disposal
Land Disposal
Land Disposal
382-2224
382-4691
382-4497
382-4755
382-4503
382-4754
-------
RECENTLY ISSUED PFRMIT GUIDANCE
1. Subjects
Contact t
Frosu
To:
Datet
2. Subject:
Contact!
Proras
Tos
Datet
3. Subject*
Contacts
Proas
To:
Dates
4. Subjects
Contacts
Proms
To:
Dates
5. Subjects
Contact:
Proms
To:
Dates
6. Subject:
Contacts
Prosas
Tos
Dates
7. Subject!
Contacts
Prows
Tos
Dates
8. Subjects
Contacts
Front
Tos
Dates
Extent of Permit Conditions
Terry Grogan
Bruce Weddle
Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
January t 1984
Closure Cost Estimates Rased on Third Party routs
Dave Pagan
John Skinner
Jim Scarbrough, Region IV
Residuals Management Branch
January, 1984
Guidance on Tank Storage
Dave Pagan
John Skinner
Regional Hazardous Waste Management W ranch Chiefs
February, 1984
Inadequate Part B Permit Application
Jeff Detlefsen
John Skinner
Gene Lucero
Jim Scarbrough, Region IV
Residuals Management Branch
May 1994
Permit Policy for Decanning and Crushing Operations
Dave Pagan
John Skinner
Jira Scarbrough, Region IV
Residuals Management Branch
April 1984
Transfer of Federal RCRA Permits to Authorized
States and Compliance with 40 CP* §124.10(e)
Debbie Wolpe, Chaz Miller
Truett DeGeare
Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chief a
June 1984
National (RCRA) Permits Strategy
Elizabeth Cotsworth
U.S. EPA - Office of Solid Waste
General Publication - EPA/530-SW-84-007
August 1984
National (RCRA Penaits strategy
Chaa Miller
John Skinner
Regional Division Directors
July 1984
-------
UNDER DBVELOPMFNT
PERMIT GUIDANCE
1. Subject!
Contact!
2. Subject!
Contacts
3. Subjects
Contacts
4, Subjects
Contacts
5* Subjects
Contacts
Schedules of Compliance
Randy Chrismon
Post Closure Permits
Chaz Miller
Policy on CBRCLA Compliance with other
Environmental Lavs
Randy Chriswon, Terry Grogan
Guidance on Processing Part Ba with Insufficient
Groundwater Monitoring Data
Amy Mills
Department of Defense Signatories for
Permit Applications
Jeff Detlefsen
-------
PKP.MIT POLICY CUESTION f, ANS\.'KP
QiJARTKPLY REPORT
Groundwater Protection standards
1. Ouestiont Do the definitions of "uppermost aquifer" and
"aquifer" include the top nost saturated clay layer even though
that stratum is not used as a groundwater resource? 40 CF.R 260.10.
Answer: The 26 July 1982 preamble suggests that "significant
yield" of groundwater is determined on a case by case basis,
depending on site specific factors. Significant yield in the
Southwest is likely to be a much lower quantity than significant
yield in the Bast. In addition, the flow from a number of well
systems can be totaled in order to reach the level of signif icance,
Thus, if the saturated clay layer can produce a significant yeild
of groundwater from a single well or from a combination of
wells, then that layer nay meet the definition of an aquifer.
If that layer is also the formation nearest to the natural ground
surface or is hydraulically interconnected to such a surface,
it meets the definition of uppermost aquifer*
2. Ouestiont Can EPA declare a Part B application complete
even though the applicant has not submitted ground-water noni-
toring (GWM) data? 40 CFR 264 Subpart F and 40 CFR 270.14{c) -
Answers No. The Agency cannot declare a permit application
complete without ground water monitoring data. The Agency can
use enforcement to secure, facilities'., compliance with Part 265 :? .••--.
ground water rronitbring requirements, $3013 orders if a substan-
tial hazard is suspected, and the authority of 40 CFP 270.14(c)
to obtain the necessary ground water rsonitoring information.
More detailed guidance on this issue will be issued shortly.
DESIGN AND OPBPATING STANDARDS
1. Question: Can a facility comply with the liner requirements
by placing waste below the saturated zone so that grnunri water
flows into the cell, t)Mi<=; preventing waste migration out of the
cell. 40 CFR 264.301(s).
Answer* No." The reouiatory intent is that compliance with
264.301(a) i« to be achieved by construction of a liner rather
than reliance on hydrc-;?'olc(jic forces.
/
2. Question: Can <>n *pV- lic.*»nt receive a variance fror> n
specific design or o~<> rating requirement when the renu lotions
do not contain a vari^To provision for that standard?
Answer: ?
-------
3. Question: Can a land disposal- facility achieve compliance
with the double liner requirenent by installing a synthetic
membrane over a clay liner or nust both liners be synthetic?
40 CFR 264.301, 264.302.
Answer: Both liners nust be synthetic. The land disposal
regulations provide an exemption fron Subpart P requirements
for landfills if they meet certain requirements, one of which
is that the landfill must be underlain by 2 liners, both of
which meet the liner design and operating standards. Liners for
landfills must be constructed of materials that prevent wastes
from passing into the liners. Clay liners do not meet this
standard.
4. Question! At the tine an ISS facility has its Part f* applica-
tion called, storage surface impoundments are being rebuilt with
clay liners. Does this constitute an'increase in design capacity
or a change in process under 270.72(b) and (c)7 If so, can the
HA refuse to allow the change under ISS and require the surface
impoundments to raeet the Part 264 standards? 40 CFR 270.72.
Answers No. If the capacity of the surface impoundments is
enlarged and no new units are being added, improvements to
surface impoundments are a permissible change under ISS: as. ;long^4;:
as the reconstruction provision of 270.72(e) is not violatedi^S^j;
This is not a change in process. Re—built surface Impoundments.
will be treated as existing units for purposes of coup1lance with
Part 264 standards. At the tine these existing units are ;
permitted, however, only the existing portions, i.e., the land
surface area upon which wastes are placed prior to permit issuance,
will be exempt from Part 264 requirements to install liners and •-.;- ,
leachate collection systems. " .
The owner/operator should be informed of all appropriate
Part 264 technical standards and should be encouraged to
voluntarily adopt those standards as part of reconstruction.
5. Questions (1.) Can a facility handling RCRA waste build
and operate a new process which is not covered under the Part
264 technical standards and is, therefore, an unperwitted activity?
(2.) Can a facility in this case build and operate a new process
if a State with final authorization issues it a permit under
State law, even though tner© are no comparable EPA standards?
40 CPR 264.1(f)f RCRA *:$3005{a) and (c).
Answer: (1.) No. Assuming the facility cannot fit within
the terns of a defined process in the regulations, a facility
cannot treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes without
a. PCRA permit hasf-d on fCKA technical standards. Where EPA
has not issued techni<~oi standards, no permit can be issued.
This is true because KHA has not nada a judgment as to whether
the new process prot.octs public health, and the environment.
h'FA, however, is developing Suhpart X of Part 264, which should
impor.e general environmental porfornar.ee standards for processes
tor v/hich HCRA technical r>tamlar^s do not exist. Once Subpart X
-2-
-------
is effective, EPA can issue permits for these technologies.
The HA can, however, issue a 90 day emergency permit for activities
not covered by Part 264 technical standards, such as open burning,
it he finds that an irminent and substantial endangerment to
human health and the environment exists.
(2.) No. The pernit issued by the State for the new process.
is not a RCRA perr«it. The State's authority under final author-
ization only extends to the portion of its program which EPA has
found to be equivalent and has, therefore, authorized to operate
in lieu of the federal program. The State's program in regard
to the new process cannot be considered a RCRA program until (A)
EPA has issued standards in that area, and (B) the State's program
has been explicitly authorized in that area. The facility must
wait to begin construction of its new process until EPA promulgates
standards and a RCRA permit (or permit modification) is issued.
5. Questions Can an applicant submit information along with
his Part B* for potential expansions to his facility and obtain,
a pernit for those expansions when he has no definite expansion
date. 40 CFR 270.10(f ).
Answers Yes. The applicant, however, must submit information^
at the same level of detail as if construction were to begin :
immediately upon receipt of a RCRA permit or at a later dat*, ^
consistent with a schedule of compliance specified in the permit*>
The Part B application rtust be in such detail that the permit
writer can draft an enforceable permit and.so that there can be
meaningful public participation and review of the proposed facility
and permit conditions. In other words, h« nust fully satisfy
all the information requirements of a Part B application and-. .,;.
the. Part 264;'; standards tor a new facility. -This is.difficult to''
do in the absence of specific plans. In addition, when the
applicant does finally decide to undertake the expansion, he
must conform exactly to the plans and specifications contained
in the permit. Applicants without firm expansion plans should
be encouraged to restrict their permit application to the existing
facility and to request a major modification when the expansion
plflns and schedule are definite. The applicant, however, should
be warned that a major modification of this nature could, in
effect, constitute a new application. The applicant should also
be advised of any relevant regulations regarding the procedures
for expanding the capacity of a permitted facility.
Trial Burns
1. Ouestiont Has tho A^pncy issued any PCRA permits for incinera-
tion on the basis o." . .at* submitter* in lieu of a trial burn? 40
CFR 270.19(c) and <•').
Answer: The Agency ;.--•« "<-r yot issued any PCRA incineration
pernits on the basis < - .•*.n.> o:-t*ine«.l tror1? other incinerators in
lieu of a trial burn. In or^or tor rlsta submitted in lieu of a
trial burn to be acrrt .»• .•>• -\ c-, t.r.f incinerators *nd the wastes nust
be sufficiently sinil.-r ^o tnat t.^.c permit writer can confidently
-J-
-------
establish incinerator operating conditions for the second incinerator
without the benefit of a trial burn.
General Standards
1. Ouestiont For a new facility, can information for the contingency
plan, such as arrangements with local authorities, be submitted
at a date later than submission of the rest of the Part B? 40 CFR
Subpart D, $270.14(5)(7).
Answers No* If the applicant has done enough planning to support
obtaining a RCRA permit, he should have sufficient information to
atteiapt to make arrangements with local authorities and draft an
adequate contingency plan. Only those arrangements agreed to by
local authorities need to be described in the contingency plan.
If the applicant's efforts were unsuccessful, these must be
documented separately, according to $l€2.37(b), and, in this case,
the contingency plan does not need to address arrangements with
local authorities. Also, under $264.51(d), information regarding
the specific emergency coordinators may be submitted after the
tine of application.
-4-
------- |