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-
------- |