oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9481.12(84)
TITLE: Ground-Water Monitoring of a Land Treatment Unit
(LTU) Overlaying a Closed Industrial Landfill
APPROVAL DATE: n-s-84
EFFECTIVE DATE: II-B-SA
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Solid Waste
EJ FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
t ]
[ ]
[
A- Pending OMB approval
B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C- For review &/or comment
j D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other documents):
headquarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
PARTS 264 AND 265 SUBPART F - GROUND-WATER PROTECTION DOC: 9481.12(84)
Key Words: Land Treatment, Landfill, Ground-Water Monitoring
Regulations: 40 CFR 264.90(a), Part 264 Subpart F, 264.97(a)(l), 270.14(c)
Subject: Ground-Water Monitoring of a Land Treatment Unit (LTU) Overlaying
a Closed Industrial Landfill
Addressee: James Reidy, Chief, RCRA Permits Section, Region II
Originator: Rich Steimle, HQ Permit Assistance Team
(Steam Team Coments re: Exxon, Linden, N.J.)
Source Doc: #9481.12(84)
Date: 11-8-84
Summary:
Leakage from a LTU overlaying .a closed industrial landfill is likely to
enter the landfill since there is no evidence of art impermeable separation
between the two units. One ground-water monitoring system is appropriate for
both units.
It is not possible to differentiate the LTU from the closed landfill by
•monitoring and comparing its ground-water quality with the ground-water quality
of an adjacent landfill that received similar wastes. Every landfill is unique,
and its environmental impact.is contingent on a variety of site-specific conditions.
Since the LTU and the closed landfill are both accepting wastes (the closed
landfill through leakge), they are both "regulated" units for the purpose of
Part 264 ground-water monitoring.
Background water quality should be determined in ground water not affected
by existing or previous land disposal activities at the site, e.g., an area
upgradient from the facility.
If tidal influences compromise the integrity of the ground-water monitoring
system, the applicant, in order to receive a permit, must be able to precisely
describe: 1) the effects tides have on ground-water flow rate and direction
and 2) the quality of the ground water [§264.97(a) and 270.14(c)].
-------
9481.12 (84)
NOV 8 1984
Sfean
Co^rsonta r* t Exxon, Linf?«r>,
Steit?)*
V'O P*rMc Mclst.ince T ««;--.
Jarjcs Pei^.y, Chiaf
?>.CPA Pes.nita Section/ .-•."•;. I:
I
Ul
•73
•V
o
r—
3
!-•
3
VI
,SJ
ON
Ul
toch
fill
foot
"..ICK^ rou fid - F.xxcr. hds acf>li*vJ tor a haz^r^ous v«»»to r>er:sit Co
an axi.i tiro l^r.J -t reatsynt facility In Lind«n, N'«J. Tns B sor
site accepts API separator sludge a'icl alop oil euulsicn sollcls
p-trclcu-o rofini.ny wastas. The Lan^ Treatr.»nt Unit (t.7*.?)
ed on tor» of. a closed Industrial l»in(*fill, whlc.'i was uaod
in a salt vat^r rjarsh. The application roporta tl'.at a tr.
clay can with a aoil covor W^K inatJilo-J on the landfill
g clo^uro, Tho lani'flll arcept*1 other res ina
? in the early 1970's and closed tDe.orc 193J. Althougn t
f.icility has bsen nr>ni tor Ino ' ^r^uc :' w't-jr since !i?12, fho T-)roc;
ii not eonMsticntec! Qp.cur,:*. for t.'-« ccnolex 'situation. Fur r-.x.
'jrounc wator flow rat»»s ari'1 uircwtion hava atill not t-»^n c'Qtt»
InitiAl qualitative rtata inOicatw chat the oround wator is pro'
cor.t fl:", inatarJ , but tho source i^a.i not been defined. r.ackgr-*>anij
Duality has not be-an ostabliohe^; therefore*, a statiaticai co^
of <3«t<» ?\as not be«n nad«.
ry
K."
rr>.'
. TV,'
cc.
M-
o
•y
c.
- 1} I i it appropriate for th<» f;rounrt v^cor r.oni rorl n-j syf>to:.*.
to rf 1 f feronti ate IPAkicn froui tho lan.1 traat-aar.t unit an-i
the closed landfill?
^
2) Is tne-cloa^cl landfill a roqula te-J or mir.erjulAc.oa unit
for Part 264 Sub-part f purposes?
3) >ihcro should
.'J orouncl wator quality be.
4) Can w.? accept
influ«ncc?u
a grouar!
vonitoririQ sysvwn if
th« intos'rif/ of tno ayct«-i?
p_if.cus:iioT» - I si -.jo 1)
mon if;orinr; purposcar to
Th«? rflDortod 3 Ct. clay
is not dr-propr ia to/ tor cround
i f f orenci 3 to tfie L.T.'J. fron th*»
th<» landf.111 vas n.i
lino: 11 1
f^'un'l
in say of tho soil hcringaj thsreror^/ t.'iare is no ovidenca ot *:j
cap overiyi r.;j
-------
separation between the two units. There is a soil
buffer in this area but information submitted with the application
indicates that this is being used ns tho treatment »«diuc of tho
L.T.U. Consequently, leakage (hazardous constituents) frora. tho
L.T.U. is likely to b* entering th-3 closed landfill. Since one
unit- overlays the other and leakage apparently aigratos botwe«n
the units, on*» monitoring system is appropriate.
Exxon has proposed that the units can Da differentiated if
they monitor an adjacent landfill that accepted similar wastes arrd
uso that data as a controlled reference source. Any additional
leakage fron the land treatment unit would bo indicated by any
differences between the ground water quality of the two landfills.
v>e recoct this arqunent because every landfill is unique and its
onvironr.ental inpact la contingent upon a variety of site-specitic
conditions. He doubt that both landfills accepted exactly tha sane
quantities and types of wastes and that both site conditions are
prooinely the saw*. Therefore, the proposed comparison for
background and downqradient raonitoring would be faulty.
Exxon still h«3 tho option to attempt to conclusively show
that tho landfill.has not accepted leakage fron the L.T.U. and
that a around wntor monitoring systea can be designed to detect
ground water contamination froa the L.T.U. alone. However, we
believe that this demonstration la practically unachievable.
Issue 2.) Since both units ara presently accepting wastes
(the L.T.U. by application, the closed landfill by leakage) they
both are "regulated units" as defined in section 264.90(a) ana thus
ara both subject to Subpart F Part 26-1. However, as explained,
separate monitoring systems are not appropriate.
Issue 3.) Section 264.97fa)(l) explains that tho monitoring
systea must "Represent the quality of background water that has
not been affected by leakage fron a regulated unit." Since both
the L.T.U. and tho landfill ara regulated units, background should
b« determined without influences fron the contamination from
these units; i.e., it should be determined in an area in the
oarsh upgradient fron the facility.
Issue 4.) The ground water is probably affected by adjacent
brackish surface waters because they are hydraulically connected
and th* flow direction is contingent upon the hydraulic pressures of
the fluctuating tides. This condition compronises reliable qrcund
water taonitoring at the downgradient Point of Compliance (POC).
However, to receive a pernit the aoylicant aust bo able to adequate-
ly describe ground water quality and flow as required by Sections
264.97{a) and 270. W(c). In this caao, he raust precisely describe
the effects tides have upon flow rate and direction and, also,
ground water quality.
1.) Unless it can be established that leachate
has not migrated from t.he land treatment unit
to the landfill, both units sr.oul«1 be
considered to be regulated units for the
purposes of. Part 264 ground water monitoring.
-------
2.) Background water quality should be determined
In ground water not affected by existing or
previous land disposal activities at this
site, e.g.* an area in the marsh upgradient
froa the facility.
3.) If the effects of tidal brackish waters cause -
doubt 'about the ability of the monitoring*
system to detect leaks, and the applicant •
is unable to convincingly refute these doubts,'.'.
then tho facility should not- bo permitted.
4.) The applicant aust comply with the requirenonts
of section 270.14(c). He suggest that this be '
accoaplishod through a condensed ground water
atudy, possibly within 6 months. Sirnce the
applicant is in violation of S26S.91(a), the
Region has the option of using a compliance
order under RCRA 3008. Since the applicant
is also in violation of S270.l4(c), the
. Region should issue a Notice of Deficiency
and Warning Letter to enforce a tir&e schedule
for each phase of the investigation. Guidance
on this procedure can be found in the
September 9, 1933 jneraorandua from Leo Thomas
on late and incomplete Part 0 applications.
5.) Tho Region should also consider the possible
effects of tho now BCRA provisions concerning
"continuing releases' in permitting this facil-
ity. Thoao provisions nay add new authority
to address any releases froa tho closed landfill*
Contacts
John Chang — Chen
Air and Waste Hanageiaant Division
u.s. EPA •••'.- • ; . .
26 Federal Plaza
Hew York, U.Y. 10278
FTS 264-1064 ,
Rich Steiale
U.S. EPA
Permits and fitate Prograos Division
401 M Street, S.W. ,
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 382-4754 ' f '
cci Conrad Simon
Ernest Pegna ,.
Bruce v/oddle
Peter Guerrero
Terry Grogan
Bumoll Vincent
Nancy Hutzel
Mike Plynn
------- |