Uniiø S*at.s Off c i of
£l ’VIfOflhIlfl%ii PiQ(c Øn Sold We.,. $ d
Em.rg. c R 1 51
F A
DIRECTIVENUMBER: 9487.00-9
TITLE: Vertical Expansion at the U.S. Ecology’s
Trench 10, Beatty, Nevada Facility
APPROVAL DATE: 02/10/88
EFFECTIVE DATE: 02/10/88
ORIGiNATING OFFICE: Office of Solid Waste
FINAL
O DRAFT
J A— Pending 0MB approval
STATUS: j B- Pending AA -OSWER approval
f ] C— For review &/or co ent
D— In development or circulat1
REFERENCE (other documsnts): headquar
() 1A,PP fl 1fl, P
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE £
-------
United Stales Environmental Protection Agency Ii Directive Number
Washington DC 20460
PIIPEPA OSWER Directive Initiation Request 9487.00-9
2 OrIginator Information
Name of Contact Person ‘Mail Code (Office I
Chris Rhyne WH—563 OSW 1
Telephone Code
(202) 382—4695
3 Title
Vertical E cpansion at the U.S. Ecology’s Trench 10, Beatty, Nevada Facility
4 Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
This n itorandtmi explains the circumstances under which additional hazardous waste
can be placed on a landfill that had a pre-HSWA elevation restriction.
5 Ke ’words
Minirrn.xrn Technoloqical Standards / Closure
6a Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(sF No Yes What directive (number, title)
b Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s) No Yes What directive (number trtle)
7 Draft Level
A — Signed by &ND&A B — Signed by Office Director C For Review & Comment D — In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? Yes No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards
9 Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
tJ Ut,L i_f- V &
10 Name and Title of 1 Approving Official I
Dale
f
Date
Marcia Wflli s, D ector, Office of Solid Waste
02/10/88
EPA Form 1315—17 (Rev 5—87) Previous editions are obsolete
OSWER
VE
DIRECTIVE
OSWER
DIRECTIVE
OSWER
DIRECTIVE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C Z0460
OS.vER POL-CV Duec:ice No. 9437.00-9
-id
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Vertical Expansion at U.S. Ecology's
Trench 10, Beatty, Nevada
FROM:
TO:
Marcia Williams, Director _/
Office of Solid Waste (WH-
I
Jeff Zelikson, Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
This is in response to your memorandum of December 30, 1987
requesting a written clarification as to whether the Minimum
Technology Requirements would apply to a vertical expansion at
U.S. Ecology's Trench 10 in Beatty, Nevada. Based on our
understanding of the facts contained in your memorandum, we
agree with Region IX and conclude that the Minimum Technological
Requirements do not apply to Trench 10. Our position is based
on the following:
1.
2.
3.
The existing unit had obtained all necessary permits
and was operational as of November 8, 1984.
The Part A submitted by U.S. Ecology in 1980 indicates
a landfill capacity of 800 acre-feet. Neither the
landfill nor the proposed vertical expansion will
exceed that capacity.
The TSCA permit in effect on November 8, 1984 required
a three-feet-beiow-grade limit on placement of PCB
waste (this limit was rescinded in August 1987). This
applied to PCB wastes only and did not affect the RCRA
permit for this unit. Other permits that would affect
RCRA wastes placed in this unit placed no limitations
on the elevation of RCRA waste.
The proposed
placement of
boundaries.
vertical expansion will
waste beyond the unit's
not allow
existing lateral
-------
OS3EI Policy Directive No. 9487.00-9
- 2 -
5. Dikes constructed to provide for additional waste are
not addressed in any permit in effect on November 8,
1984, and State and local permits do not require a
permit change to address construction of the dikes.
We are in agreement with your general conclusion that the
vertical expansion is permissible, however, we believe your
discussion of "vertical expansion" should emphasize the fact
that regardless of whether the expansion occurs within the unit
boundary or not, vertical expansions are limited by the Federal,
State and local permits in effect prior to the enactment of HSWA
including any requirements for pre-approval of a vertical
expansion of RCRA wastes. Thus, consistent with our May, 1985
guidance, where a permit concerning the placement of hazardous
waste includes an elevation limit, a vertical expansion beyond
that elevation limit after November 8, 1984 would constitute a
"new unit" subject to Minimum Technological Requirements. This
is because the vertical expansion would not be "operational" due
to the legal impediment to its operation. (See also, 50 F_R
28702 & 28707, July 15, 1985.) On the other hand where no
elevation or construction limits are required by applicable
permits and/or other State, local, or Federal requirements
concerning hazardous waste, as in this case, additional waste
can be placed on the area taking into consideration the slope of
the final cover at closure. Furthermore, the limitations
imposed on U.S. Ecology for disposal of PCB wastes are not
relevant in this case but would have been meaningful, as is
apparent from the preceding discussion, if RCRA hazardous wastes
had been included in the height limitation specified in the TSCA
permit.
I hope this clarifies Headquarters' position that the
vertical expansion at Trench 10 of U.S. Ecology's Beatty, Nevada
facility does not constitute a new unit or a lateral expansion.
To promote national consistency in determining the applicability
of the Minimum Technological Requirements to new units and
lateral expansions, all Regions will receive a copy of this
memorandum.
Should you have additional questions, please contact Chris
Rhyne, of my staff, on FTS 382-4695.
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Permit Section Chiefs, Regions I-X
Bob Tonetti
Les Otte
Frank McAlister
Para Savage
-------
OSWER Policy Directive No. 9487.00-9
tO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
4 pqØ1 .
215 Fremont Street
3an Francisco, Ca. 94105
(DEC 3 0 1987
C( )NFIDENTIAL: Attorney Work Product/Attorney Client Privileged
MEMORANDUM
SUBJE 2T: Minimum TechnologIcal Requirements (MTRs) for Vertical.
Expansion of a Landfill at Beatty, Nevada
‘ ) —
PR0M: / Jeff Zellkson, Director ZiJ ’t L’,L ’ ’
/ Toxics & Waste Management Division
TO: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
I- ru ’poDucTIow:
would like you to clarify an issue recently raised
during the public comment period on the draft permit for U.S.
Ecology’s landfill in Beaity, Nevada. The issue was raised by
1J. 3• Pollution Control Inc., a competitor of U.S. Ecology, and
by the azardous Waste Treatment Council. The issue raised
rel.atus to a provision i’ the draft permit that allows U.S.
Ecolo jy Lu vertically expand an existing trench to provide an
ariditiona.’ year of waste aispos. l capacity.
it— cssu
Does a vertical expansion of an existing Interim Status
RCRA—regulatecj landfill require that the above—grade expansion
meet the minimum technological requirements (MTRs) either because
the expansion constitutes “a lateral expansion” or “a new unit ?
In- BACKGROUND:
The Beatty landfill site is owned by the State of Nevada and
operatcd by U.S. Ecology. The site Is situated approximately ii
miles i.)utheast of the City of Beatty. It consists of 80 acres
along the eastern edge of the Amargosa Desert in the southern
portion of Nye County. Desolate arid desert surrounds the entire
region. There are no residences close to the site. There is no
shallow ground water (upper aquifer is about 250—300 feet below
:he surface).
-------
The site .consists of two distinct sections: 47 acres of a
ra'dioactive disposal area and 33 acres of chemical disposal area.
The facility opened in 1961 as a low-level radioactive disposal
site, and in 1970, started accepting chemical wastes. The chemical
disposal area consists of 10 trenches and a waste pile. Trenches
1 through 9 and the waste pile are closed. Trench 10, the hazardous
waute management unit in question, started operating under a TSCA
permit issued by EPA in 1978. Trench 10 also accepts RCRA wastes
under Interim Status (Part A submitted 8/18/80, Part B submitted
8/1/83). Part A of the application was for a capacity of 800 acre-
feet (100 feet deep). However, Trench 10 was excavated only
45 feet below grade.
The original TSCA permit limited the disposal of PCB wastes
to three feet below grade. There are, however, no regulatory
requirements for this limit. Further, there is no environmental
reason to impose the 3-foot below grade limit at this site.
However, the provision was copied from TSCA permits issued in
other Regions. In October 1987, we amended the TSCA approval to
eliminate this limitation.
In August 1987, we public noticed a draft RCRA permit for
Trench 10. The draft permit allows U.S. Ecology to continue to
dispose of RCRA wastes above grade, without meeting MTRs.
The landfill is presently filled almost to capacity and the
a^ove grade expansion would only allow for an additional year
of operation, during which time we would make our final permit
determination on a new trench at the facility. The new trench
shall meet MTRs.
IV- VERTICAL EXPANSION:
As provided in the draft permit Trench 10 would be extended
21 feet vertically from the existing grade. Waste disposal would
oe confined within the existing boundaries of the trench. To
provide a horizontal barrier a compacted soil embankment will be
constructed. At the edge of the trench, waste and backfill
placement will stop at least three feet below the natural grade
to ensure a minimum of an eight-foot cover over buried waste.
Geotextile and synthetic liners will be installed around the
perimeter of Trench 10 extending out to where it will join the
cap liner. Accordingly, there will be no waste placed outside
the existing waste management boundary. The vertical extension
will be covered with an eight-foot cap which includes a synthetic
lin«r. The cap will extend over the waste and surrounding
embankment.
V- DISCUSSION:
Section 3004(o) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.S 6924(o), provides in
pertinent part, that all RCRA permits issued after November 8,
1984, must require " for each new landfill, surface impoundment
-------
—3—
and new landfill or surface impoundment at an existing facility ,
each replacement of an existing landfill or surface Impoundment,
and each lateral expansion of an existing landfill or surface
impoundment unit” the installation of the minimum technological
requirements (“MTR”) (Emphasis added). Because the expansion of
the landfill unit at the U.S. Ecology is vertical and “not new”
Region IX does not believe that MTRs apply for the following
reasons.
A— The proposed expansion is vertical not lateral .
The additional waste will be placed within the boundary of
the existing waste management unit. A similar issue Is discussed
in the “Guidance on the Implementation of the Minimum Technological
Requirements of HSWA of 1984, Respecting Liners and Leachate
Collection Systems; EPA/530—SW—85—012”. Page 8 specifically
states the following:
ISSUE:
If berms are constructed after November 8, 1984, to allow
wdstes to be placed higher on an existing unit, are the MTRs
applicable?
RESPONSE:
The new requirements do not apply if the additional waste
will be placed within the boundaries of the existing unit and
if Federal, State and local requirements, including State and
local permits, applicable to the unit on November 8, 1984,
would not require the new construction to receive wastes. Id.
at 8.
No Federal, State or local requirements, including State and
local permits, applicable to Trench 10 on November 8, 1984 required
new construction for this trench In order to receive waste. In
addition, although the Preamble to the Final Codification Rule on
Hazardous Waste Management System (p—28706 FR July 15,1985) states
that neither the statutory nor the legislative history specifically
provides an interpretation of the term “lateral expansion”, EPA
did state that “a lateral expansion would be defined as an expansion
of the boundaries of the existing unit”. EPA further elaborated
that it believed that in a landfill expansion a lateral expansion
would usually be accomplished “by excavating an additional area
to enlarge the existing trench”. Because U.S. Ecology will not
be excavating any additional areas to enlarge its existing Trench
10, Region IX does not believe the proposed vertical expansion is
a lateral expansion.
-------
-.4—
B— Above—grade expansion of Trench 10 does not constitute a “N ew
Unit” .
On page 28707 of F azardous Waste Management System, Final
Codification Rule, FR July 15, 1985 EPA explained what would constitute
a new unit as follty,,s:
If a unit had received waste prior to the date of enactment
of HSWA, it would be exempt from the MTR. Hc ver, in addition,
the unit must also be operational.
Region IX believes that because Trench 10 received waste
prior to the date of enactment of HSWA and was operational on the
date of enactment, it is not a new unit.
Vt— SUMMARY:
Based on the above we believe that above—grade expansion of
Trench 10 would constitute only vertical expansion of an existing
unit because no waste would be placed or allc ed to spread beyond
the existing boundary. The additional capacity would also be within
the capacity limits stated in the U.S. Ecology’s original Part A
application. In addition do not believe that placement of
some additional RA and TSCA waste in this trench would result
in any adverse effect on human health or the environment.
VII— ACTION REOUESTED:
Apparently there are varying interpretations of the MTR for
this type of expansion. Our staff has already discussed the
issue with the Headquarters Permits Branch staff. It is our
understanding that contrary to our interpretation, s e regions
have required MTR for vertical expansion of existing landfills.
Therefore, request a written clarification from your office
as to whether the MTR would apply to a vertical, expansion at the
U.S. Ecology landfill.
------- |