United States
               Environmental Protection
            Office of
            Solid Waste and
            Emergency Response

TITLE: Closure Activities
               APPROVAL DATE

               EFFECTIVE DATE:

               ORIGINATING OFFICE:

               El FINAL


               Office of Solid Waste
               D DRAFT

           [  ]  A- Pending OMB approval
           [  ]  B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
           [  ]  C- For review &/or comment
           [  J  D- In development or circulating
               REFERENCE (other document*):

                                                 DOC:  9476.05(84)
Key Words:





Source Doc:


Closure, Final Cover

40 CFR 265.113(b), 265.117(c), 265.310

Closure Activities

James Reidy, Chief, RCRA Permits Section, Region II

Chris Rhyne, HQ Permits Assistance Team, Steam Team Comments,
Crucible Steel, Syracuse, N.Y.


     Closure activities may be extended for a period longer than 180 days
[265.113(b)]  if the longer period is related to a need for extra time to
complete legitimate closure activities or there is the likelihood of transfer
of the operation to new parties.  If EPA extends the closure period, the owner
or operator must take all steps to prevent threats to human health and the
environment.  The preamble of the May 19, 1980, regulations states that a
closure plan must contain only that time needed to complete legitimate closure
activities and must reflect a closure time of less than three years.

     The addition of non-hazardous waste over the in-place hazardous waste at
the same site by the same owner does not constitute a legitimate reason to
extend closure activities.*

     The final cover on a facility must be final.  Covering the final cap with
an additional non-hazardous solid waste might be allowed if the facility can
demonstrate that this disturbed cap will function as well as a normal exposed
final cap [265.117(c) and 265.310] and that periodic inspections will not be
   The proposed closure regulations, published on March 19, 1985, preclude
   receipts of non-hazardous waste after the receipt of the final volume of
   hazardous waste.

                                        I 8  1984
      Subject:  Stearn Tean Conr.ents, Crucible Steel, Syracuse, MY

      From:     Chris Rhyne
                HO Permit Assistance Tean

      To;       Janes Re idy, Chief
                PCHA Permits Section, Region II


""          Crucible Corporation operates a speciality  steel mill nn
-*     the west side of Onondaga Lake approximately  2 miles northwest
.i     of Syracuse, New York.  Since 1973 Crucible. has  been operating
      a 20 jcre landfill to dispose of  its steel mill  wast;?.  The^o
      wastes, including EAF and ACD dusts, waste caustic  solids, and
      acid pickling sludc.es, are spread over the surface  of an. inactive
^     Solvay Process Wastebed that is 60 feet deep  and 365 acres in
i      areal extent.
^          The Solvay Process Wastobed was fomed as a by-product  frcn
fN     tho production of Soda Ash (sodiun carbonate) dating hack to 1831
'.'.     and is comprised of Calcium Carbonate, Calciun Silicate, Magnesium
     Hydroxide, and lessor amounts of other compounds.   The average  ,H
^     is approximately 12.0.
C?          After spending time with the State of New York in an Jttenpt
"*>     to obtain a permit to dispose of  their hazardous waste, Crucible .
ri     decided to halt the disposal of hazardous waste  at  this site
^     in March of 1982.  Since Crucible was no longer  disposing of
;     hazardous waste, they agreed to submit a closure pl*n to the
3     Region II offices.  In this plan, Crucible proposes  to continue
^     operating the landfill as a non-hazardous waste  landfill,
r-     applying non-hazardpus waste over tho in-pl*ce hazardous waste.
"     Final cover would be appli*ri-in stages as the landfill, is ccn-
x     pleted.  Crucible anticipates completion in eight years.

     * ^ay the rei-uirenent for cover at closure be delayed for an
       extended period of time?

     4 Assuming the regulations allow delayed cover, do Cruciblo's
       arguments for delayed cover demonstrate that, the facility
       will prevent threats to hunan health and the environment?

      May the final cover be covered by non-hazardous waste
       after installation?                .           *:

Discuss ton

     The first issue is whether there is a legal basis for delaying
placement of the cover.  The owner or operator nust generally con-
plete closure activities within 130 days after closure plan approval
The regulations do provide in sore casos for a longer than 190
day closure period;  however, the conditions outlined in $2r>5.113(h)
are specific and r.ust'be met by the applicant.  That is, tho
closure activities must, of nec^ng it-.y, take him longer than 130
days to corplote;  or closure would be inconpatible with continued
operation, there is a reasonable likelihood that operation will
he recor.nenced by a person other than the owner or operator, and
the facility has the capacity to receive additional waste.  In
addition, the owner or operator oust take all steps to prevent
threats to hunan health and the environnent. . 

     1C the Rrrjional Adrainistntor finds that the above conditions
have been pt, Crucible nay delay closure for a period lonqer than
IhO days.  Discussions with OSf-f staff and vitn o<;c staff hav*
concluded, however, that the longer period nust be rnlaten to a
need for extra tirae to conplete legitimate closure activities or
to a likely transfer of the operation to new parties, not to the
addition or non-hazardous waste disposal operations at the sare
site by the sane owner or operator.  We havo not been inforrod o'f
any likelihood that someone other than the current owner will take
over operations at this site.  In addition, tho preamble to the
tt.v/ 19, 1930 regulations (45 FP 33197) provides that '..in
no case naay closure take nore than 3 years." Therefore, the
Crucible closure plan nust contain only that tire ned?d to
complete legitinate closure activities and must reflect .1 closure
tine of less than 3 years.

     The second issue is whether or not Crucible's arqur^jnts for
delaying final cover are environmentally pound.  Cruci-ble has
indicated that an impermeable nerbrane ever their waste would
cause excess settlement and subsequent S'olvay Uasto dike instabi-
lity.  They reference a report by Ray M. Teeter, P.P., addressing
settlonent and stability of the Crucible Landfill.  Mr. Tetor
states that if the water table within the Solvay Waste w*ro

lowered (as would h the case if the landfill were covered with
inperneable liner), this would increase the effective stresses
in the Solvay V^aste, resulting in increased settlenent.   Nowhere
does. r. Teeter indicate that the increased settlenent would
create instability in the dike.

     Crucible's other environnental argument for delaying cover
is that the Solvay Waste adsorbs the chromiun being leached from
the hazardous steel mill waste. This argument is based on Section 4
of the Engineering Report and Plan of Operation accompanying
the application for a State of Sew York permit.

     In this docunent lab scale and fild scale test results are
reported.   The report, however, does nots support Crucible's
conclusion.  The.following questions and observations are included
for your use:                             \
     1.  Significant arounts of chromium were leached from the
         Pilot column leaching test (see tables 4-4,  4-5,  4-6,
         and 4-7 for examples).

     2.  The "Multiple 2 Column Testa"  did not indicate how much
         tap water was leached through  tho columns or what the
         conposition of the leacheata was at the completion of
         the teat.  This information is critical to proper
         evaluation of the data.

     3.  Hexavalent Chroniun is readily leached from both  Air
         Pollution Dust and Waste Caustic Solids (See Table 4-8,
         page 412.).

     4.  Crucible indicates that Caustic Sludge and Acid Pickling
         Sludge do not leach chroreate with neutral pH water, but
         do leach chromate during the BP toxicity teat at  pH 5.0.
         They then conclude that these  wastes could not be
         expected to leach Hexavalent Chromium in the Crucible
         Landfill (see page 4-13).  This is not necessarily
         true since acid rain deposited in this region can be
         expected to have a pH of <5.0  (see pages 4-7 and  4-10).

     5.  Field Scale tub leaching tests showed a high" level
         (17.6 ng/L) of Chrcniun in the leachate when Solvay
         Waste was used as an adsorbant (see table 4-15, page

     6.  Trivalent ant! Hexavalent Chroniun tests are not
         thoroughly reported since the  quantity of leachata
         passed through the Solvay Process Waste has not been
         stated.  Results do, however,  indicate that Hexavalent
         Chromium ia not well adsorbed  by the Solvay Waste.

     7.  Kexavalent Chrorniun Adsorption Tests shew that Chrcnate
         is net well absorbed (350 ng/L) and is easily leached
         by tap water (see page 4-28.).

     8.  In the Sequential Adsorption Colur-ns test the Hexavalent
         Chroniur" content of the Solvay Process waste wa very
         low ( . 5rg/L) . Crucible indicates that thia is duo to
         the reduction of Hexavalont Chromium to Trivalent.
         Chroniun.  Our review indicates that this is unlikely ~"'
         to happen.  Since the chromate content of the leachate
         waa not reported, no reliable deductions can be nade.
         Their theory of reduction of th Hexavalent Chromium to
         Trivalent Chrcniun with Ferrous Iron as the reducing
         agent is unsubstantiated (see page 4-29).

     The third issue is whether th final cover can he covered
by additional non-hazardous waste.  It is distinctly the
intent of the regulations that final cover be "final*.  (This is
clearly implied by the reference to the vegetative layer in rule,
preamble, and guidance).  Moreover, S265.li?(c) states that
post-closure use of the property on or in which hazardous wastes
remain after closure nust never be allowed to disturb the integrity
of the final cover.  The only exception is if the owner or
operator can denonstrate that th disturbance:

     (1) Is necessary to the proposed use of the property, and
         will not Increase the potential hazard to hur.an health
         or the environnent; or

     (2) Is necessary to reduce a threat to human health or the

Obviously, the first test would be the one that night be used at
this site.  To meet neet this test, Crucible would still have to
show how disturbance of the cover would not only satisfy the
requirements of S265. 117(c) (1 ) but must denonstrate specifically
hew. this disturbance will still provide for control of pollutant
migration and surface water infiltration (S265.310(b) and other
applicable conditions outlined in $265.310.
     Crucible's request for an extended period of tine for
installation of a final cap should be denied.  First, it is
doubtful that continued operation of tno nonhazardous. landfill is
"necessary" for tht5 completion of closure activities.  Fven if it
could be construed as such, 3 years would be the limit outlined
in the regulatory praanble.  Secondly, tho purely environnental
aryununts outlined in Crucible reports are not technically sub-
stantiated.  In fact, the underlying Solvay Process Waste is

apparently a significant contributor to the poor quality ground
water underneath the site.  Crucible's steelnill waste nerely
exacerbates the problen by naking its own hazardous waste con-
tribution in the fora of Hexavalent Chromium/ and by providing a
conduit for increased infiltration into the underlying Solvay
Process Waste.     -                              .

     Covering of the final cap with additional non-hazardous
solid waste night be allowed if Crucible can denonstrata that
this disturbed cap will function as well as a normal exposed
final cap as per 5265.117{c) and 265.310, and that periodic
inspections will not be necessary.   .
                                    *   .      ~
     In any event, the currently proposed cap configuration
should not be .approved.  Since it is a soil-only cap, it will
allow significant anounts of precipitation to enter the under-
lying Solvay Process Waste.  An impervious cap design will not
only mitigate the threat posed by the chronium-containing steel
nil! wastes but will also lower the contaninant loading contri-
buted by underlying Solvay Process Waste.  If th, Region should
allow the interira cap, it should take another look"at subsidence,
since it appears to be significant.  The problem with slope -  
stability should not be increased by the addition of the iisper-
neable cap.

     Region II - Catherine Massinino FTS 264-1717
     Headquarters - Chris Rhyne K7S.382-4695
cc  Terry Grcgan
     Peter Guerrero
     Bruce Woddld
     Ernie Regna
     Ron Key
     Dov Weitnan
     Nancy Hutzel
     Art Day  "  -