oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9528.01(82)
TITLE: Changes to Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
During Interim Status; Current and Proposed
Regulations
APPROVAL DATE: 5-28-82
EFFECTIVE DATE: 5-28-82
ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of Solid waste
m FINAL
* ^ ^
D DRAFT
[ 1 A- Pending OMB approval
STATUS: i B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other document*): headquarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
PART 270 SUBPART G - INTERIM STATUS DOC: 9528.01(82)
Key Words: Interim Status
Regulations: 40 CFR 270.72
Subject: Changes to Hazardous Waste Management Facilities During
Interim Status; Current and Proposed Regulations
Addressee: Stephen R. Wassersug, Director, Air Toxic, and Hazardous
Materials Division, Region III
Originator: John H. Skinner, Director, State Programs and Resource
Recovery Division (WH-563)
Source Doc: #9528.01(82)
Date: 5-28-82
Summary:
Section 270.72 regulates four facility changes which may be made during
interim status subject to the following criteria:
1) New hazardous waste may be added for treatment, storage or disposal if
the owner or operator submits a revised Part A application prior to
adding the new waste.
2) The design capacity of processes used at a ficility may be increased
if a revised Part A application is submitted explaining the need for
the proposed change. In addition, the Director must approve the
change.
3) Additions of new processes or changes in processes may be implemented
only if a revised Part A application is submitted explaining the need
for the proposed change. Again, the Director must approve the change.
4) Changes in the ownership or operational control of a facility may be
made if a revised Part A application is submitted at least 90 days
before the change. The old owner/operator must comply with Subpart H
until new owner/operator has demonstrated compliance. The Directory
then provides written notification to the old owner/operator that
he/she need no longer comply with Subpart H.
These changes are all subject to the overriding reconstruction cost limit.
Under §270.72(e) no change shall be made to an HWM facility when the capital
investment in the changes exceeds fifty percent of the capital cost of a compar-
ible entirely new HWM facility.
As a result of a 1981 NRC vs. EPA settlement agreement, the Agency committed to
propose amendments to the permit modification rules. (These proposed changes
appeared in the Federal Register on 2/8/83 and 3/15/84.)
-------
9528.01 (82)
SUBJECT: Changes co Hazardous Waste Management Facilities During
interim Status; Current and Proposed Regulations
r'RUJi: John H. Skinner
Uirector, State Programs and
Resource Recovery division (Wd-5oJ)
To: Stepaen K.. Wassersug
Director, Air, Toxic, and
hazardous naterials Division
III
At our meeting on May 19, iyo"2 you asked for a status report oa
the regulations governing changes to hazardous waste uanageuent
(uwil) facilities during interim status. In response, I au outlining
_j what the regulations currently require; what changes we agreed to
* propose under the settlement agreement'in the NRDC lawsuit, (.'< K 0 C v.
<• £PA, iJo. oo-lOo7 aud consolidated cases. (O.C. Cir., filed June 2,
^ 1'JtfU)); and on what provisions of the settieuent of this isaue ue
^ have reopeaed settieuent discussions with tde litieanrs in the
'r I
-------
(i) of a lack of availaole treat i.ienc, storage,
or disposal capacity ac other Un>i facilities;
(ii) it is necessary to prevent a threat to
liuuaa health or tne eaviroaaent because of aa eae r^t: ncy situation;
or
(ill) it is necessary to couply * I c i: reueiai
regulations (including Fart 263) or State or lox^al laws.
V
3. Additions of new processes or changes in proc^=seu jay
occur oaly if:
(a) the owner or operator submits a revised Pare A ,-. ersit
api-lic .ion prior to the change and a jus t if lea t io a ex t>la i .1 i n/j t.ie
need -or the change; and
(b) Che Director approves the change oecause:
' s,
(i) it la accessary to prevent a threat to hunan
health and the environment because of an euergency situation; or
(ii) it is necessary to coaply with Federal regula-
tions (including Part 265) or State or.lo.cal laws.
4. Changes in the ownership or operational control of a
facility ra122.23 agreed to under the settlement afcreeuent
Section 122.23 was c^allensed by the litigants in N'ADC v. EPA
as being too restrictive. Tne Agency negotiated and signed a
settleae.t agreement in Noveaber, 1981, which requires EPA to
p ropose amendments to this section, among others* .-ic.-is important
to nota .that we have not yet propose^ c *»«.««• ciianges. Furthernore,
any actual change in the re>;ui--1'"~ would have to follow such
prooo^fll and* a -:-bi«~ ---ue"'' period.
-2-
-------
i'ne auendnents we agreed co prooose to §122. 23 would allow nore
changes during interim status than tne current regulations allow.
As a!22.23 appears la Che settlement agreeaent:
1. New hazardous wastes uay oe added by submitting a revised
fart A perait application prior to adding the new waste. (No change
to this section is proposed*)
2. The design capacity of processes nay be increased:
(a) up to 1UX if the owner or operator submits a revised
•'arc A perait application prior to making the change;
(b) rroa 10-iUX if the owner or operator submits a revised
Part A perait application at least 180 days before increasing the
capac11 y;
(c) any aaount if the process increased is- storage or
treatment in containers or tanks, if a revised Fart A permit
application is submitted at least 60 days before increasing the
capaci t y•
(d) any aaount if it isnecessary to comply with federal,
State, or local laws or regulations (including Parts 2b4 and 2o5).
3. New processes may be added if:
(a) the owner or operator submits a revised Part A prior
to the change; and
(b) (i) the Director approves the addition oecause it is
necessary to comply with federal, State, or local laws or regula-
tions (including farts 264 and 265); or
(ii) the addition or change is storage or treatment
in containers or tanks.
4. Units oay be replaced if:
(a) it is replacement of tanks >r containers for storage
or treatment, or units replaced at exactly the saae location, with-
out submitting a rev '.sed Part A;
(b) for any other process, or units replaced at a
different location, a revised Part A is a ubm <. c >-~d oU days before
construction begins.
•>» The section on changes in the ownership or operational
control of a facility has not been changed.
-3-
-------
o. The overriding recons t r uc t ioa cose liuic has been eiinina-
t ci u ; aad
7. A provision has been added that all advance notice periods
may be shortened lor good cause shown.
Renegotiation of the sectleoent agreement
Since signing the settlement agreement in November, 19bl, there
have oacn some changes in tiPA's ability to issue permits. EPA will
be in a position to issue permits to existing land disposal facili-
ties s:ix aontus after promulgation of the Part 264 standards. In
addition, the Agency will have the ability to permit existing
incinerators when the technical standards for existing incinerators
are reevaluated. Both of these development a are imminent and
encourage a change in the settlement agreement on this issue.
We have reopened settleaent discussions on this issue. The
position we currently favor would allow increases in design
capacity up to 1UX of the capacity of a process as reflected in
the facility's initial Pare A. Any increase above 10* would require
a pernit. All other provisions of the proposal specified in the
settleaent agreement would reaain the saue.
1 realize that the existing regulations are difficult to work
with. Since we have not yet aade any amendments to §122.23, we
cannot recoanend as a general matter that you allow changes which
would not be allowed under the current regulations. In the memo-
randum from Christopher Capper of November 20, iy
------- |