v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off tee of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9476.04-83
TITLE: Trlp Report: Region*X - Closure Standards for
Disposal Facilities^
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
0 FINAL
8/10/83
8/10/83
OSW
Q DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (othtr documents):
[ ] A- Pending OMB approval
[ ] B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
[ ] C- For review &/or comment
f ] D- In development or circulating
* .j
headquarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
SEPA
Wasnmgton. u>C 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
• r.i-r.n. D.I, _:..e .'.^ir^e
Originator info»ma!-on
Name of Contact Person
Arthur Day
Mail Code - Branch
Telepnone Nomoer
Lead Office
OERR
OSW
OUST
D OWPE
D AA-OSWER
Approved for Review
Signature of Office Director
Date
Title
Trip Report: Region X-Closure Standards for Disposal Facilities
Summary of Directive
Closure standards for disposal facilities require the owner/operator
to place a notice in their property deed that the land was used to manage
hazardous waste. Where the state/local deed authority refuses to •
cooperate, the problems should^be addressed to the Permits Branch
Key Words:
Closure
Type of Directive /Manual. Policy Directive. Announcement, etc./
' Status
! n
l_l Draft
O Final
i U New
I LJ Revision
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directivels;' | | Yes | | No Does It Supplement Previous Directives!' | ] Yes [ | No
If "Yes" to Either Question. What directive (number, titlel
Review Plan
D AA-OSWER
D OERR
D OSW
D OUST
D OWPE
I—I Regions
D OECM
D OGC
D OPPE
D
Other I Specify)
is Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Signature of Lead Office Directives Officer
: Date
Signature of OSWER Directives Officer
• Date
-------
10 983
Trip Report - Region X
Arthur Day, Acting Program Manager
Land Disposal Branch, Office of Solid Waste (WH-565E)
Kenneth A. Shuster, Chief
Land Disposal Branch, Office of Solid Waste (WH-565E)
I led the presentation of two LDB training programs in
Region X during July 11-14, 1983. The first program was the
Permit Applicant's Training Program for Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Ed Nonnig
of TRW, Inc. assisted with this program, as has been the
usual practice. The attendance sheet is attached. Questions
raised during the program are discussed below. Additional
work is being conducted on the underscored numbered items.
The second program was the Permit Writer's Training
Program for Subpart P. I presented modules 1, 7, 10,
and 11. Ed Monnig presented modules 3, 4, 5, and 9, while
Larry Greenfeld presented nodules 2, 6, and 8. The program
was generally well-received. Unfortunately, Charlie Faust
(Geotrans) was unable to participate.
Larry Greenfeld's trip report discusses the subjects
raised during the Subpart ¥ program.
1. The closure standards for disposal facilities require the
owner/operator to place a notice in the property deed
that the land was used to manage hazardous waste. How
should this be applied if the state/local deed authority
will not record this notice?
This subject has been raised before, and at that time no
one could indicate why a State, etc., would refuse to
cooperate. New information/problems should be addressed
to the Permits Branch.
2. What is the status of the Permit Applicant's Guidance
Manual for the General Facili'ty ,*%if*idards?
An in-house draft of this manual was sent tp th* Regional
Offices for review/comment in June. Peer ceview is being
conducted in August. A revised manual should be sent to
the Regional Offices in September.
WH-565E:ADay:SWalker:rmM2102:382-4680:WSM:8/8/83
-------
3. How should the Regional Offices interpret information on
traffic patterns? Are there any Part 264 standards which
this information can be evaluated against*
Tentative Answer: Traffic pattern documentation is
addressed in the Permit Applicant's Guidance Manual for
the General Facility Standards. The application information
requirement applies to on-site traffic flow. There is no
explicit Part 264 standard. However, the broad performance
standards in $264.31 and $264.51 can be considered as the
264 analog of the 270 traffic pattern information require-
ments.
4. What is sufficient for a waste analysis for a spill or
Superfund site cleanup material?
Tenative Answer: General guidance on waste analysis is
presented in the Permit Applicant's Guidance Manual for
the General Facility Standards. This subject should be
considered by the Waste Characterization Branch* The
draft manual does not address this specific question* ,
5. What is the enforcement policy toward owners/operators
of existing facilities who have not submitted Part A
permit applications?
This question should be directed to Amy Schaffer of the
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (PTS 382-4826).
Generally, the enforcement policy has been to either issue
an enforcement order through RCRA $3008 to comply with
the interim status standards, or to seek site closure and
criminal prosecution. '
6. What is the status of an Interim Status facility at which
only non-hazardous wastes are received after January 26,
1983?
Tentative Answers Such facilities should be closing. If
not, the Regional Office should assume that the Isst
shipment of hazardous waste has not yet been received,
and the facility contains a regulated unit. In this
case, a Part can be required.
If the last shipment of hazardous waste was received
just before January 26, 1983, the owner/operator should
have submitted a closure plan and begun closure activities
under Part 265 by this date. If these actions have not
occured, the owner/operator is in violation of Part 265
Subpart G. If the owner/operator claims that the facility
has been inactive since before January 26, 1983, the
last shipment of hazardous wast has not yet been received.
In this case, the Regional Office should conclude that "'
the unit is a regulated unit and subject to Part 264
permitting.
-------
7. What are the procedures for evaluating a proposed
expansion in capacity at an interim status facility?
Section 270.72 (formerly S122.23(c)) contains these
procedures. An increase in design capacity requires
the approval of the Regional Administrator. This approval
must be based on a finding that there is a lack of
available treatment, storage, or disposal capacity at
hazardous waste management facilities. There is also a
prohibition for facility reconstruction under interim
status.
8. Can soil liners be used in double-lined disposal surface
impoundments?
Tentative Answer: No. A soil liner is not likely to
satisfy the performance standard for disposal unit liners.
Neither the primary (top) or secondary (lover) liner of
a double-lined disposal impoundment can be constructed from
soils.
Soil liners could be used at storage impoundments. However,
the second (soil) liner night interfere with the
performance of the leak detection layer between the two
liners, because the soil liner may draw fluid into it
faster than the ability of the detection system to
intercept it. A synthetic liner could be used •• the
second liner in order to avoid this problem.
9.(a)Can soil-pore liquid monitoring be stopped during the active
period of a land treatment unit if no liquid ha* ever been
collected by the monitoring devices?
(b)If (a) is yes, can soil-core monitoring also be stopped?
Tentative Answers (a) The current Pert 264 regulations for
land treatment do not provide any exemptions from •oil-
pore liquid monitoring during the active life for any
reason. Thus, the owner/opertor must continue to operate
soil-pore liquid monitoring devices and attempt to
collect samples even if no liquid has even been collected
previously. The Agency believes that a significant
proportion of problems associated with soil-pore liquid
monitoring devices (primarily lysimeters) result frosi
improper installation and operation. If the system
fails to produce samples, the installation' and operation
of the system should be carefully examined.
As part of litigation proceedings, we are evaluating the
Inherent limitations of soil-pore liquid monitoring
devicesi the outcome of this evaluation may be a variance
from soil-pore liquid monitoring in limited situations*
In the interim, an owner/operator is required to install and
-------
operate a soil-pore liquid monitoring system. Special
attention should be paid to ensuring the proper installation
and operation of these systems by following EPA guidance.
(b) In no case should soil-core monitoring be curtailed* The
failure to collect liquid in the soil-pore liquid monitoring
system does not indicate that there is no potential for
migration of any hazardous constituents.
10, Can a land treatment unit permit contain a contingent
exemption for post-closure care?
Tentative Answer: The land treatment standards provide for
an exemption from post-closure care when it can be shown
at closure that hazardous constituent levels do not exceed
background concentrations by a statistically significant
amount. In such a case, the permittee would submit a permit
modification application requesting an exemption front
post-closure care responsibilities.
A contingent exemption may be possible. We have
recommended that permits contain contingent conditions
for other circumstances (e.g., a compliance monitoring
program on stand-by in a detection monitoring pensit)*
A contingent exemption would be activated by a thorough
demonstration that hazardous constituents were not
present in the treatment cone above background concentr-
ations. However, such an exemption is a reduction in
the scope of the permittee's responsibilities, not an
increase (as is the case in a stand-by compliance Moni-
toring program). A contingent exemption may be inappro-
priate, because it excludes the opportunity for public
comment on the data used to justify its activation.
This matter should be discussed with legal counsel at COM
future time. This is not a priority issue*
11. Is an exemption from post-closure care for a land treatment
unit a major permit modification?
Yes.
12. Can the scope of the Appendix VIII constituent Hat be
reduced by demonstrating that certain constituents are
not present in the waste?
Tentative Answeri This question was defered to the Subpart
P program.
13. Can a permit contain a compliance schedule for compliance
with the liner standard for new portions?
-------
Tentative Answer: The question is based on a concern that
insufficent data may be available at the time of permitting
to establish final conditions for the liner. As an example,
it may be unknown at the time of permit application
submission what will be the dimensions of the disposal
unit that will require a liner by the time a permit is
issued. Without this information, a design of the
liner/leachate collection system for an existing unit
(beyond the existing portion of that unit) would only
be conjectural.
It is clear that a permit must require a liner in all
parts of the unit that are not existing portions. A
compliance schedule that allows waste disposal on areas
that are not lined (and are not also existing portions) is
inappropriate.
The permit applicant must anticipate the date of permit
issuance to the best of his ability, in order to estimate
the dimensions of the area that must be lined. A proposed
design for this area should be submitted with the initial
permit application. We recognise that these dimensions
will not be precise, and that the design may need to be
slightly schematic. This should not be a major problem
at most facilities, however.
14. Are there permitting standards for underground storage
tanks.
Mo. These units cannot be permitted at this time (like
Class IV injection wells). Interested persons should
contact Dave Fagan (382-4497) of the OS* Permits Branch
for current information on permitting policies for such
units.
15. Are data available to show that most subsidence of a
landfill occurs during the first two years after closure)
and cap installation?
This question was prompted by OSW's recoswendation that
cover installation be phased, in order to aooosssodate
subsidence. If a complete cover is installed over a short
time period, subsequent subsidence may cause the- eynthetie
membrane portion of the cover to rip. This rip nay net
be detectable during post-closure inspections*
Me do not have conclusive data that show that sx>st
subsidence will occur within the first two years. Longer
periods may be necessary in arid areas* because the rate)
of waste decomposition is probably slower. However* a
general trend in subsidence can be determined over the
first two years. Installation of a membrane cover
planned at the two year mark could be reconsidered
-------
after analysis of this trend. ORD ia collecting data
on this issue.
16. Are run-off conveyance structures (ditches) subject to any
permitting standards?
No. These "technologies" are not included in the Part
264 standards, and are not subject to specific design
standards (beyond being capable of conveying the design
flow).
However, some run-off ditches may be quite long. They Bay
be unlined as well. Permit writers should evaluate the
potential for these ditches to leak into the subsoil. If
these ditches are conveying hazardous waste, such a
discharge can be considered to be an act of disposal,
with a resulting requirement that the discharge be either
cleaned up or the area (ditch) managed as a disposal
unit.
This response corrects a response to a similar question
contained in Mike Flynn's 4/27 trip report for the Reg.
8 training session.
17. The Agency has directed a number of owners/operators of land
treatment units to submit 264 permit applications. The
264/270 land treatment standards establish three types
of permits (short term treatment demonstration, two-phased,
full scale). Which of these three types is expected from
these owners/operators?
Tentative Answert The land treatment standards require the
applicant to demonstrate that the hasardous constituents
can be completely treated* This demonstration ean be
based on lab or field studies, or on literature or
existing site operation data.
An applicant who can complete the treatment demonstration
based on available literature information or operating
data from an existing interim status land treatment unit
may apply directly for a full-scale facility permit. An
applicant who must use laboratory or field studies to
gather data to satisfy the treatment demonstration has
three options. He must either (1) apply for a short-term
treatment demonstration permit and upon completion of
tests, apply for a full scale facility permit, (2) apply
for a two-phase permit (which is a combination of the
short-term and full-scale facility permits), or (3)
conduct field studies at an interim status land treatment
unit (provided the interim status standards are not
violated) and then upon completion of field studies
apply for a full scale permit. A two-phased permit
may be sought only when incomplete but sufficient
-------
treatability data are available to establish preliminary
full scale facility conditions. Phase 1 of this permit
would include the conditions necessary for the additional
treatability studies, and phase II would include the
full-scale facility design and operating conditions.
When a land treatment permit application is called by the
Region, a pre-application meeting should be held to discuss
the above permitting approaches. The six-month time frame
specified in the regulations for submittal of a permit
application technically applies to submittal of the full-
scale facility permit (or two-phase permit if this option
is selected).
An applicant who intends to use existing data to satisfy
the treatment demonstration should submit a full-scale
permit application within six months. Likewise, an
applicant who uses the two-phase permit approach will
also usually be able to prepare an application within six
months. (The two-phase permit could include a compliance
schedule for completion of any necessary minor demonstration
tests). If extensive lab or field tests must be conducted
(via a short term permit or field studies at an IS facility)
to gather data to satisfy the treatment demonstration, the
applicant should design and plan these tests (including
applying for a short-term permit, if necessary) and m«ke
a responsible attempt to complete these testa within the
six-month period. However, this will not be possible in
many cases. In such cases, permit writers should require
the applicant to prepose a schedule for completing the
lab or field tests, and for applying for a full scale
permit as a compliance schedule. This schedule could
be incorporated into the short-term permit as a compliance
schedule. Permit writers should not allow applicants,
particularly those that elect to conduct field studies
at an existing interim status unit, to indefinitely
delay the submittal of their full scale permit application '
(and avoid the responsibilities of the Part 264 standards)
by delaying completion of treatment demonstration studies.
18. Are there standards for transporter tank truck cleaning,
There are no standards at this time.
19. A low permeability layer in the unsaturated son* may routs
leachate horizontally past compliance point monitoring
wells that are screened only in the underlying aquifer.
[This phenomenon is probably unique to arid climatsst
in humid climates, the low permeability layer would b«
saturated with a "perched water table* abore it.) (a)
can a permit require that "dry walls* be installed to
monitor potential leachats flow over this laysr? (b) If
so, can this monitoring serve in lieu of aquifsr monitoring?
-------
Tentative Answer:
(a) Yea* The objectives of the detection monitoring program
and ground water monitoring system design are consistent
with this approach. However, this issue should be more
fully addressed in the revision to the Subpart P Permit
writer's Guidance Manual.
(b) No* Unsaturated cone monitoring cannot replace ground
water (Aquifer) monitoring.
20. Is dioxin an Appendix VIII constituent?
No. The addition of dioxin-wastes to Part 261 was proposed
in June, 1983. A final rule is not likely until January,
1984. At that time, dioxin (and associated compounds)
should be added to Appendix VIII.
Attachment
ccs John Lehman
Fred Lindsey
Steve Levy
Burnell Vincent
Mike Plynn
Mark Greenwood
Regions I-IX
------- |