United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Wasie and
Emergency Response
5EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER
9347.0-1
TITLE: Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance on
Non-Contiguous Sites and On-Site Management
of Waste and Treatment Residue
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
Exl FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
March 27, 1986
March 27, 1986
OSWER/OERR
WER OS WER OS WER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Solid Waste and
Agency Emergency Response
&EPA DIRECTIVENUMBER: 9347.0-1
TITLE: Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance on
Non-Contiguous Sites and On-Site Management
of Waste and Treatment Residue
APPROVAL DATE: March 27, 1986
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 1986
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OSWER/OERR
t J FINAL
o DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DA
-------
,EPA
United States Environrnentai Protection Agency Interim Directive Numb
Washington DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
Originator Information
Name of Contact Person Mail Cods Telepnon. Number
Betsy Shaw
WH—54R
Lead Office
i OERR
0 OUST A rov d to, Review
Signature of Office Director Oat.
OWPE
o OSW
Q AA-OSWER
Title
Interim RC
RA/CERCLA Guidance on Non—Contiguous Sites and
On-Site Ma
nagement of Wasste and Treatment Residue
Summary of Directive
Addresses s
everal RCRA/CERCLA interface issues in relation to
the MOTCO,
TX, site which have broad implications for remedial
actions at
many other Superfund sites. Lays out EPA policy on
several of
the issues where RCRA and CERCLA authorities intersect
(such as, c
ombined treatment of CERCLA waste from non—contiguous
locations,
limitations on the construction of hazardous waste
incinerators for on—site CERCLA use, and on—site disposal of
treatment residue.
Type of Directive (Manual. Policy Osricvve. Announcement. .rcj Status
0 0
New
Policy directive Final 0 Revision
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Oirect,ve sf? Yes No Does It Supplement Prev,ous Directivef a)? D Yes No
If Yes” to Either Question. What Direct,vs (numbe,. uric)
Review Plan
O AA-OSWER 0 OUST 0 06CM 0 Other (Specify)
o OERR 0 OWPE 0
o osw 0 Regions 0 OPPE
This Reauest Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Signature of Lead Office DirectIves Officer
Date
Signature of OSWER Directives Officer
Date
EPA Form 1315.17110.85)
-------
. øo sl;4,
‘ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
ppcø°
MAR 2 7 986
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
9347.0—1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance on Non—Contiguous Sites
and M 9 ment of Waste and Treatment Residue
FROM: J inston Porter
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I - X
Region VI has recently raised several RCRA/CERCLA interface
issues that have broad implications for remedial actions at
many other Superfund sites. The purpose of this memorandum is
to lay out EPA policy on several of these issues, including:
1. Combined treatment of CERCLA waste from non—contiguous
locations;
2. On—site disposal of treatment residue;
3. Limitations on the construction of hazardous waste
incinerators for on—site CERCLA use; and
4. Off—site treatment of waste and redisposal on—site.
This memorandum and attachment represent interim guidance
which should be used now, but will be refined following regional
review. Please submit your comments on this interim guidance to
Betsy Shaw (FTS 382—3304) of the Hazardous Site Control Division,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response by April 28, 1986. We
are particularly interested in comments which address the impli-
cations of this guidance for Superfund removal actions at both
NPL and non—NPL sites.
-------
9347.0—1
-2 —
Select RCRA/CERCLA Issues :
1. Combined treatment and/or disposal of CERCLA waste from
non—contiguous NPL sites
NPL sites may be combined for remedial action if the
following statutory criteria are met: the sites must be
geographically close or pose similar threats to public
health and the environment (CERCLA §104 (d)(4)). It combined
remedial actions will involve the transport of waste from
one site to another site, the wastes must be compatible for
the selected treatment or disposal method and managed in a
manner that is part of the highly reliable long—term remedy
selected for that site or group of sites. Combined remedies
must be cost—effective and should not result in any significant
additional short—term impacts on public health and the
environment at the receiving site. As in every case, CERCLA
waste which is transported must be manifested. The Record
of Decision (ROD) for a remedial action that involves more
than one site should state that several sites are being
treated as one and that their combined treatment constitutes
on—site action. (See attachment.)
2. On—site management of waste and treatment residue
EPA interprets CERCEJA to require that off—site treatment,
storage and disposal of hazardous wastes comply with all RCRA
requirements, including permitting. With respect to on—site
disposal, the National Contingency Plan (50 FR 47912,
November 20, 1985) requires that CERCLA activities meet the
technical requirements of RCRA (and other Federal environmental
requirements) that are applicable or relevant and appropriate’
while the procedural requirements, such as permitting, need
not be met.
Waste and treatment residues may be managed on—site
in several ways. The approach selected will depend on the
cost—effectiveness analysis at each site. One approach is
to remove the waste (and treat if desired) and dispose of
the waste and/or treatment residue in a new on—site land
disposal unit. This unit would meet the technical RCRA
Subtitle C land disposal requirements of 40 CFR Part 264
(e.g. §264.301 design and operating requirements, and land
disposal closure and post closure care requirements in
§264.310).
1 “Applicable requirements” are those Federal requirements that
would be legally applicable if the response actions were not
undertaken pursuant to CERCEJA §104 and §106. “Relevant and
appropriate requirements” are those Federal requirements that,
while not applicable, are designed to apply to problems
sufficiently similar to those encountered at CERCLJA sites that
their application is appropriate.
-------
9347 . 0 —l
—3 —
The second approach allows waste to be removed, treated
and the residuals to be replaced in the area from which they
originated. The area would then be capped and monitored
consistent with the technical requirements of land disposal
closure (S264.310). Under this approach, a double linen
leachate collection system would not be required if the
wastes are removed during closure for the purpose of treating
them to enhance the effectiveness of the closure.
A third approach requires no further management of waste
or treatment residue if the waste can be evaluated, deter-
mined to be non—hazardous and delisted. This would normally
entail preparing a delisting analysis using the Vertical and
Horizontal Spread (VHS) model (50 FR 48886, November 27, 1985)
or other similar generic models that do not consider site
specific factors. A delisting petition is not required for
on—site CERCLA actions.
Finally, the National Contingency Plan (40 FR 47947 —
47948) provides for selection of a remedy that does not
attain applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
if: 1) the alternative is only an interim remedy; 2) the
need to use the Fund at other sites outweighs the need to
implement a remedy that fully attains all requirements;
3) it is technically impractical to implement a remedy that
meets all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements;
4) meeting all such requirements will result in an unacceptable
environmental impact; or 5) there is an overriding public
interest related to enforcement.
The determination that RCRA requirements for treatment,
storage and disposal will be met should be made during the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). In
the case of incinerator residue, a waste analysis should
be conducted during the RI to provide the necessary data.
Subsequent analyses, including a test burn, may be conducted
during Remedial Design (RD) as appropriate on a case by case
basis. Assurance of the consistency of the remedy with
RCRA and other applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal requirements should be presented in the ROD, and,
if appropriate, reviewed again during RD.
3. Limitations on the construction of hazardous waste incinerators
for on—site CERCLA use
If an incinerator is to be constructed for on—site
remedial action, there should be a clear intent to dismantle
or remove the unit after the CERCLA action is completed.
Dismantling or removal should be a part of the remedy presented
in the ROD and funds should be included in the financial or
contractual documents. Should there be plans to accept
commercial waste at the facility after the CERCLA wastes have
been treated or destroyed, it is EPA policy that a RCRA
permit be obtained before the unit is constructed. (See
attachment.)
-------
9347.0—1
—4—
4. Off—site treatment of waste and redisposal on—site
On—site disposal may involve transport of waste off—site
for treatment or storage if the CERCLA waste or treatment
residue is ultimately disposed of at the site of waste origin.
For this activity, the CERCLA waste is manifested to and from
the site and maintained separately throughout all off—site
activities.
If you have any questions regarding this memorandum or
attachment, please call Betsy Shaw or Bill Hanson (FTS 382—2345).
Attachment
-------
9347. 0—1
Attachment: Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance am Non—Contiguous Sites
and On—Site Management of Waste and Treatment Residue
Combining Hazardous Waste Sites for Remedial Action
Background :
Several situations have arisen where it may be advantageous
to combine several NPL sites together for the purpose of conducting
a more effective remedial action. Subject to the requirements in
CERCLA §104 (d)(4), sites in proximity to one another, sites with
similar wastes, and sites with the same PRPs may be good candidates
for combined remedial actions. A treatment system or incinerator,
for example, may be more efficient treating wastes from several
sites. Expected economies of scale would lower the unit costs
and favor more reliable technologies. Overall, protection of
public health and the environment may increase if the waste of
several smaller sites are combined at a central treatment or
disposal location.
Legislative Authority : Section l04(d)(4) of CERCLA states that
non—contiguous sites may be treated as one site when the separate
sites are reasonably related on the basis of:
1) Geography; or
2) Threat or potential threat to public health and the
environment.
Cost—Effective Reasons for Combining NPL Sites for Remedial Action
Several different circumstances may occur that favor combining
site remedial actions.
Example 1: Incineration is effective for destroying wastes
at several closely arrayed sites. One alternative
is to use a mobile incinerator at each site.
another alternative that may be cost effective is
to incinerate the wastes of several sites at one
location. The residue could be disposed at the
original site but, again, it would probably be
more cost—effective to dispose of all ash at the
same location.
Example 2: Construction of a new on—site land disposal facility
has been found to be cost effective at site A.
Wastes at nearby site B are similar in character
and a small quantity needs to be managed.
Site B wastes could be managed on—site but it
could be less expensive and more effective to
dispose of the waste at Site A.
-------
—2-- 9347.0—1
Example 3: Site A and Site B have similar wastes and are
close to one another. RCRA closure with a cap
has been found to be cost effective at both
sites. It may be cost effective to design and
remediate both sites at the same time. Therefore,
the State or Region would like to contract with
one design firm and one construction company to
undertake both remedies.
Regions should identify opportunities to combine RI/FSs
for several NPL sites in the Site Management plan or other pre—
remedial activities. Combining RI/FSs may improve the timing
and effectiveness of remedial actions and should be shown in the
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP).
Criteria for Treating Non—Contiguous Sites as one
The September 21, 1984 NPL listing (40 FR 37076) provides
the flexibility to respond to several sites listed separately on
the NPL with a single response if the statutory factors are met
and it appears cost—effective to do so.
The following criteria would be used to treat non—contiguous
sites as one when transportation of the waste is involved:
1. Sites are reasonably close to one another;
2. Wastes must be compatible for the selected treatment or
disposal approach;
3. Wastes that are transported to another site need to be
managed in a manner that is part of a highly reliable,
long—term remedy; 1 and
4. Incremental short—term impacts (e.g. sudden releases,
fugitive dust and fumes) to public health and the
environment at the receiving site will be minimal.
(Thi factor is important when the receiving site is
located near a residential community.)
Of course, the remedy must also be cost—effective by either
costing less or by providing increased or more reliable protection
of public health and environment than two separate remedies.
When short—term impacts are found to be significant, combining
sites may be determined to be inappropriate and the remedy may
be reconfigured. Options include but are not limited to:
1 This type of remedy generally is defined as:
a. Requiring little or no long—term active O/M;
b. Relatively low probability of release to the environment;
c. If a release did occur, it would not endanger public
health or the environment.
-------
—3—
1. Use another hazardous waste site where there would be
fewer impacts;
2. Pretreat wastes at the original site locations
(e.g., metal extraction) or improve materials handling
procedures;
3. Dispose of treated residuals (e.g., incineration ash)
at originating sites.
If incremental short—term impacts are significant and cannot be
mitigated, then non—contiguous sites should not be treated as one
for the purpose of combined treatment or disposal regardless of
cost —effectiveness.
CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Laws
Under response actions occuring at non—contiguous sites which
are treated as on—site actions, Superfund or PRPs under an EPA
approved enforcement action would:
1. Manifest hazardous wastes transported to another
site;
2. Meet the applicable or relevant and appropriate technical
requirements of RCRA TSD facilities but would not be
required to obtain RCRA permits.
Limitation: The cost of dismantling or removing a treatment or
storage unit constructed as part of an on—site
remedy should be factored into the determination of
the cost-effectiveness of that remedy. If that
alternative is selected, funds for the dismantling of
the unit should be included in the remedy obligation.
Should there be plans for a treatment or storage
unit constructed as part of an on—site remedy to
accept commercial wastes after the CERCLA waste has
been processed, it is EPA policy that a RCRA permit
be obtained before the unit is constructed. The
cost and scheduling implications of obtaining a
permit should also be factored into the analysis of
cost—effectiveness.
Proposed Implementation Process :
1. Initial evaluation of NPL sites to determine if the
RI/FSs of several sites should be combined. Show
combined RI/FSs on SCAP.
2. Feasibility Study recommends that a combined site action
would be cost—effective. Further, the Feasibility Study
shows that the selected remedy meets the necessary criteria
of this policy. (The NPL need not be amended.)
-------
9347. 0—1
-.4 —
3. A joint public comment period is held to seek comment
from all interested parties on the proposed consolidation
of sites and a responsiveness summary is written.
4. Regional Administrator or Assistant Administrator signs
Record of Decision for non-contiguous site action.
5. A new Record of Decision, public comment period and
responsiveness summary would be required if additional
sites are added to the response plan after the first
Record of Decision.
------- |