oEPA
                United States
                Environmental Protection
                Agency
            Office of
            Solid Waste and
            Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9523.oo-u
TITLE:  Summary of Recent Permit Assistance Team (PAT)
      Comments
APPROVAL DATE: 03/14/86
EFFECTIVE DATE: 03/14/86
ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of solid waste
O FINAL
D DRAFT
  STATUS:
            [
                                A- Pending OMB approval
                                B- Pending AA-OSUER approval
                                C- For review &/or comment
                                D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other documents):
  - OSWER Policy Directive #9523.00-12
  - -OSWER Policy Directive #9523.00-15
                                          headquarters
  OSWER       OSWER       OSWER
VE    DIRECTIVE    DIRECTIVE   Dl

-------
      &EPA
           United States Environmental Protection Agency
                 Washington, DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
                    1. Directive Number

                      9523.00-14
                                  2. Originator Information
      Name of Contact Person
        James F. Michael
                   Mail Code
                    WH-563
Office
       OSW
Telephone Code
 (202)  382-2231
      3. Title
             Summary  of Recent Permit Assistance Team (PAT) Comments
      4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)

       This is the first in a series of periodic reports which summarize issues that HQ
       staff have addressed in their reviews  of RCRA Part B permit applications, permits,
       and closure plans.  This report covers issues that are of national interest  from
       reviews conducted by the Land Disposal Permit Assistance Team in 1985.
      5. Keywords
              Land Disposal Facility / Permit  / Closure
      6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)?
      b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
                                            No
                                            No
                                   Yes    What directive (number, title)
                                   Yes    What directive (number, title)
                                         9523.00-12 &  9523.00-15
      7. Draft Level
          A - Signed by AA/DAA
             B - Signed by Office Director
       C - For Review & Comment
         D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
XX

Yes


No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
VJWifV A. TifeJu^-
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
Terry Grogan, Program Manager, Land Disposal PAT Program
Date
2-\ \ l&e>
Date
03/14/86
     EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
   OSWER           OSWER               OSWER               0
VE    DIRECTIVE         DIRECTIVE        DIRECTIVE

-------
                                                  ' dsWER POLICY DIRECTIVE NO.

                                                  9523«00*1  4
           UNITED STATES EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                           MAR  I 4 !985
                                                       OFFICE OF
                                              SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Summary of Recent Permit Assistance Team
          (PAT) Comments
FROM:     Terryj GrogaVi, Program Manager
          Land Disposal PAT  Program

TO:       Permit Section Chiefs
          Regions  I - X

     The OSW Permits Branch  plans  to provide  a  semi-annual  report
summarizing major  issues that PAT  members  address in their  reviews
of specific Part B applications.   These  reports will cover  issues
that are of national interest rather than  strictly site-specific
interest.  The attached report is  the  first in  this series;  it
summarizes generic issues addressed in PAT comments prepared for
nine land disposal Part B applications reviewed during  1985.  We
hope the recommendations provided  in this  summary of recent  PAT
comments will be helpful for permit writers encountering similar
situations at other RCRA facilities.  Therefore, we encourage you
to share this report with your staff and State  permit writers.

     Since this report is the first attempt to  derive written
national suggestions from site-specific PAT comments, we are
very interested in your reaction.  Please  let me know if the
report and current format are useful.  Is  the level of detail
provided here adequate?  Would you like to see  the original
PAT comments for specific sites or some other form of guidance?

     Attachment A  to the report lists the  facility names, Regions,
and PAT reviewers  for each application included in this report.
Attachment B provides a current roster of the members and expertise
of the Land Disposal PAT staff.

cc:  Marcia Williams
     Bruce Weddle
     Jack Lehman
     Eileen Claussen
     Lloyd Guerci
     Peter Guerrero
     Truett DeGeare
     Ken Shuster
     Jerry Kotas
     Sylvia Lowrance
     Mark Greenwood

-------
                                                  OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE NO.

                                                9523-00-1   4
     SUMMARY OF RECENT PERMIT ASSISTANCE TEAM  (PAT) COMMENTS


Sampling Procedures

1)  Filtering Ground Water Samples

     The practice of filtering ground water prior to analysis can
     remove contaminants sorbed onto particulates which can give
     misleading indications of ground water quality.  The
     August 1985 Draft RCRA Ground-water Monitoring Technical
     Enforcement Guidance Document recommends that ground water
     samples collected for metals analysis should be split into
     two portions.  One portion should be filtered through a 0.45
     micron filter and analyzed for dissolved metals.  The
     recommended approach for the second unfiltered portion is to
     use a mild acid digestion method (e.g., Method-3010, SW-846)
     to yield total recoverable metals.  Any difference in
     concentration between the total and dissolved fractions may
     be attributed to either the original metals content of the
     particles or to the migration of dissolved metals onto
     the particles.

2)  Bailers

     The composition of bailers is important when monitoring for
     certain types of constituents.  For example, brass bailers
     should not be used when sampling for metals because brass can
     introduce metallic ions into the samples.

The Use of Models

1)  Unusual Ground Water Situations

     In situations where aquifers are composed of highly
     stratified sediments or have other unique features, most
     current mathematical models may not accurately predict
     aquifer characteristics.  Therefore, the model used should
     include a trial-and-error phase, in which computed drawdowns
     are matched with observed field drawdowns. A recommended
     reference is: Land, Larry F., "Utilizing a Digital Model to
     Determine the Hydraulic Properties of a Layered Aquifer"
     Ground Water v.15, no. 2 pp 153-159 (1977).


Applying HSWA Corrective Action Requirements to Releases
from Process Areas

1)  Interpretation of "SWMU"

     A facility is underlain by contaminated soils and ground
     water resulting from prior releases from process areas.
     Draft policy guidance (January 30, 1985) interprets the term

-------
                                                   OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE i\iu.

                                                  9523.00-1   4
                               -2-
   "solid waste management unit" (SWMU) to exclude accidental
    spills from production areas.  However, the contamination at
    this facility appears to be the result of routine,
    deliberate, and systematic discharges from the process area.
    Such deliberate deposition qualifies the process area as a
    de facto SWMU.

Request for a Liner Exemption

1)  Liner Exemption Based on Design Concept

     A facility applied for an exemption from the landfill liner
     and leachate collection and removal system requirements of
     §264.301.  The owner/operator claimed that the landfill
     unit will not result in migration of leachate from the unit
     due to its intergradient design.  The unit is located
     within the uppermost aquifer and the net migration of water
     is into the unit.  Theoretically, migration of contaminants
     out of the unit will be prevented since this is counter to
     the inward flow of water.  However, this design does not
     qualify for a liner exemption, which requires that the unit
     prevents the migration of hazardous constituents into
     ground or surface water at any future time.  Although the
     net flow of ground water is into the proposed facility,
     under certain conditions (i.e., when the waste reaches
     saturation) constituents can be expected to migrate out of
     the waste and eventually out of the unit.

Stabilization of Bulk Liquids

1)  Acceptable Chemical Stabilization Techniques

     To treat bulk hazardous liquids, owner/operators must
     demonstrate that the 'treatment' applied to the liquid is
     not absorption.  Chemical stabilization is one treatment
     alternative for bulk hazardous liquids.  Stabilization
     technologies commonly used include Portland cement-based
     processes and other pozzolanic processes using lime
     products and materials such as fly ash, ground slag, and
     cement kiln dust.

2)  Demonstrations of Stabilization

     After chemical transformation has occurred, the end product
     should pass the Paint Filter Liquids Test finalized on
     April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18370).  In addition, the owner/
     operator must demonstrate that the waste has been
     adequately stabilized.  EPA is in the process of
     recommending a performance standard to help owners/

-------
                                                 OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE NO.

                                               9523.00-1  4
                             -3-

     operators and permit writers determine whether a process
     is "chemical stabilization" (as opposed to absorption).
     This standard uses an unconfined strength test to make
     the determination.  The owner/ operator has the option
     of proposing a different methodology as long as adequate
     stabilization can be demonstrated.

Corrective Action

1)  Regulatory Status of Contaminated Ground Water

     John Skinner's memo of December 26,  1984,  states that
     contaminated ground water collected  and derived from a
     listed waste or hazardous due to presence  of_a
     characteristic is a hazardous waste  and subject to
     Subtitle C regulations.  Therefore,  owner/ operators
     proposing a corrective action such  as counterpumping
     must manage such collected ground water as a hazardous
     waste.  The Part B application must  include the
     procedures used to manage ground water so  that they can
     be evaluated.

2)  Removal of PCP by Activated Carbon

     Passing contaminated water through activated carbon
     usually works well for most organic  chemicals. However,
     the applicability of this method for PCP (penta-
     chlorophenol) may be questionable.   The phenolic group
     in PCP is weakly acidic (pKa = 4.7)  and PCP will ionize
     in neutral water.  In the ionic form, the  compound is
     highly water soluble and its affinity for  carbon
     severely reduced.  Specific data must be provided
     (e.g., from bench or pilot studies)  that demonstrate
     the applicability of activated carbon in removing PCP.

3)  Permit Specifications

     Corrective action programs, when warranted for regulated
     land disposal units, must be specified as  part of a
     facility's permit.  The permit should include the basic
     measures to be taken for the corrective action, and
     predict when the goals of the corrective action plan will
     be met.  Any future changes in the specifics of the
     corrective action program would entail a permit modif-
     ication.  It is important that the owner/operator
     adequately define the zone(s)  of contamination, aquifer
     hydraulic characteristics, and the hazardous constituents
     in the groundwater.  The owner/operator should conduct
     pilot pump tests to verify the performance of any counter-
     pumping installation if necessary.

-------
                                                  i  I
                                                  OSWER POUCY DIRECTIVE NO.

                                                 9523-00-1   4
                                -4-

ACLs

1)  Use of Acceptable Surface Water Limits

     When the only exposure to ground water contaminants is via
     surface water, then it is possible to base the ACLs on
     acceptable surface water limits for the contaminants
     present in the ground water and to use a surface water
     dilution factor to derive the ACLs.  The dilution factor,
     however, must be sufficiently conservative relative to the
     assumed stream flow.   In general,  the owner/operator should
     assume a 7-day, 10-year low flow.   The dilution
     calculations should only consider  mixing within some
     State-approved zone and will depend on the ground water
     loading to the river.

     Owner/operators intending.to use surface water dilution in
     an ACL application must prepare a  surface water analysis to
     determine the cumulative impact on the river.   The analysis
     should include upstream, downstream and point  of discharge
     sampling for the Appendix VIII constituents present in the
     ground water.

     The actual ground water discharge  to a surface water body
     must be verified by appropriate ground water delineation
     methodology.  It is not sufficient to assume that all
     ground water discharges to a surface water body.  It must
     be demonstrated that  ground water  flow does not go under
     and beyond the surface water body.

2)  Potential Point of Exposure

     In an ACL submission,  the applicant must address the on-
     site use of ground water as well as any use downgradient of
     the facility.  Ground water exposure is assumed to be at
     the facility's waste  management boundary unless there are
     use restrictions on-site.  The fact that ground water is
     not currently used is not sufficient evidence  to assume no
     potential exposure.  If ground water use restrictions,
     i.e., deed restrictions, are implemented on-site, then the
     property boundary is  assumed to be the potential point
     of ground water exposure.  If the  point of exposure is at  a
     surface water body, ground water use restrictions should be
     in effect from the waste management boundary to the point
     where ground water discharges to surface water.

     When calculating exposure through  surface water in order to
     determine an ACL, surface water exposure should be based on
     exposure immediately  outside the mixing zone.   Applicants

-------
                                                           f   I
                                                              OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE NO.

                                                           9523.00-1   4
                                 Attachment A

                     PAT Reviews Included in This  Summary
    Facility
Allied Chemical


Chem Waste
Management


Ciba-Geigy


Eaton Corp


G.E. Waterford


Hytek


International
Paper


Permapost


USPCI
Region


 III


  IV



  IV


   V


  II
 VII
  VI
PAT Coordinator


  Amy Mills


  Chris Rhyne



  Rich Steimle


  Amy Mills


  Amy Mills


  Amy Mills


  Vernon Myers



  Robert Kayser


  Robert Kayser

-------
                                      1  I
                                          OSWER-POLICY DIRECTIVE NO.


                                        9523 -00-1   4
              Attachment B


           OSW Permits Branch

Land Disposal Permit Assistance Team (PAT)

    0  Terry Grogan, Manager (382-4740)

    Current Staff;

    0  Chris Rhyne  (Civil Engineer;  382-4695)
         - Disposal D & 0 Standards
           (liners, leachate collection)
         - Closures (caps, etc.)
         - CERCLA sites

    0  Bob Kayser (Chemist;  382-4536)
         - Appendix VIII Monitoring
         - Waste  Analysis
         - Exposure Assessments

    0  Nestor Aviles (Chemical  Engineer; 382-2218)
         - Land Treatment

    0  Janette Hansen (Hydrogeologist;  382-4754)
         - Groundwater Monitoring
         - Corrective Action
         - PA/SI  Field Test  and Training

    0  Mark Salee (Environmental  Scientist;  382-4740)
         - ACLs
         - Exposure/Risk Assessments

    0  Dave Eberly  (Civil Engineer;  382-4691)
         - Disposal Standards

    0  Vacancy (Geologist)


    Others;

    0  Mickey Hartnett (Environmental  Engineer;  382-4755)
         - On detail from Region  IV  to develop  program
           for Corrective Action  technical assistance.

    0  Rich Steimle (Hydrogeologist; 382-7912)
         - On detail to Ground  VJater Task  Force.

    0  Amy Mills  (Geologist)
         - On academic leave until 1/87.

-------
ACTION
                                                            0 n - X   55
     Several actions can be taken to  implement this new cor-
rective action requirement prior to issuance of the above mentioned
guidance packages.  Specifically, we  recommend that a notice be
sent to each facility whose Part B has been requested and for
which a final determination was not made prior to November 8, 1984.
This notice should provide a general  explanation of the new cor-
rective action provision, and the fact that additional information
must be submitted to satisfy the new  requirement.  In general,
EPA will need to obtain the following information in order to
determine whether a facility is in compliance with section 3004(u):

     (a) Identification of each unit  at the facility that might
        ' fall within the definition of solid waste management unit,
         that has not already been described in the Part B appli-
         cation.  Although no final decision has yet been made on
         the definition, a solid waste management unit may include
         any landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, land treatment
         unit, injection well, incinerator, tank (including waste-
         water treatment units, elementary neutralization units,
         and tanks used in reuse/recovery operations), container
         storage area, transfer station, or waste recycling oper-
         ation at the facility.  The  applicant should also under-
         stand that EPA views the "facility" as not limited to the
         area where wastes are managed, but includes the entire
         contiguous property under the control of the owner or
         operator.  For each unit, the following information should
         be supplied:

              - Type of unit
              - Location of each unit at the facility on a
                topographic map
              - General dimensions
              - Whether the unit is currently operating, and if
                not, when the unit closed or ceased operating
              - Description of the wastes that were placed in
                the unit (where available)

     
-------
                                                             05- «   55
      It should be understood that there is currently no provision
 in  40 CFR Part 270 which requires submission of the above infor-
 mation in Part B applications.   In a sense, therefore, submittal of
 the information by permit applicants is "voluntary."  However,
 section 3005(c) of the Act provides that permits can be issued
 to  facilities only upon a determination that the facility is in
 compliance with the requirements of Section 3004 of the Act.
 Therefore, failure to submit information to demonstrate a facility's
 compliance with the §3004(u) requirement would be grounds for denial
 of  the permit.

      The  above information,  when submitted by the permit applicants,
 will  allow the permit writer to make an assessment as to which
 facilities are likely to require corrective action programs, and
 how permitting and enforcement  priorities might subsequently be
 realigned.

       Some States may have existing regulatory requirements analogous
 to  the new RCRA continuing release provision.   Such States may
 already have  gathered substantial information on solid waste man-
 agement units and releases at their facilities.   In preparing the
 notices to be sent to permit applicants, Regional Offices should
 coordinate with their States to avoid requesting such information
 that  has  already been collected by a State agency.

      Some facilities  may contain only units with a relatively
 low likelihood of having caused a release (e.g., indoor container
 storage areas, above-ground  tanks,  etc.).   In  such cases,  the
 Region/State  may consider going forward with issuing the permit,
 providing that:

      - The owner/operator has indicated that there is no
        information indicating a release from any of the units;
        and

      - An assessment  of the  facility,  based on a site in-
        spection and other available information,  confirms  that
        a  release that poses  a threat to human  health and the
        environment is unlikely  to have  occurred.

      For  many facilities,  the absence  of a release will not-be
 so  easily established.   Further,  some  facilities will already have
 determined  that such  a  release(s)  has  occurred.   For these facil-
 ities  further information will  have to  be  developed to identify
 and/or characterize releases.   As noted earlier," guidance  on these
 issues will be forthcoming.   .                      _       _

      Any  questions or comments  on procedural aspects of imple-
~me"nfin"g~~"t1ri s ~"corre~cti've~crctTon~aut±iorTlry—shouId~be—d irected—to—	-  	
 Dave  Fagan  (38-2-4497)-.   For  information on the guidance packages _
 being  developed,  please contact  Art Day (382-4658),  or George
 Dixon  (382-4494).
                              --3-

-------
Addressees;

Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Regional Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
State Hazardous Waste Program Directors
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Associate General Counsel for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OSWER Office Directors
                              -4-

-------