&EPA
$(•(•«
Environmental Protection
Offici of
Solid W«»t« «nO
Em«rg«ncy Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9475.00-13
TITLE: Regulatory Interpretation of the Closure
Performance Standard
APPROVAL DATE: 02/08/88
EFFECTIVE DATE: 02/08/88
ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of solid waste
S FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
[ ] A- Pending OMB approval
[ ] B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
[ ] C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other document*):
rE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
tinite Si.i.. - Ots , o
Eflwu,Dnm, 1 Ptoi.c n
- - marg.r , Rai on ,
IrM
- T47jf: i uiat y nterpr o th C1pspr
ar&or a Stapdard ‘
A PPRovAI. DATE: o g;. - -;
- E F F CT1VE,DATE 4 02/OB/2s
ORIGINATING OFFJCE: 0 fj of Sofl j Was
IJDRAiT - - - -
- 1 3 A— Pending o ap ro aj.
STATUS: - f J B- Pending appr va1
- - - - f J - C— For rev , Comment
- 1 1 D— In veio p1nent or ircniatj
RE9RENCE (other documentzj: -,
-U
- — - — - - — - - —
f WFP fl 1i1iio
c
DIREC TItlE DIREC TIVE
- -
• ...-. - —
-------
LDA United States EnvIronmenla Protection Agency 1 Directive Number
OSWER Directive Initiation Request 9476.00-13
2 OrigInator Information
Name of Contact Person Mail Code Office Telephone Code
Hope Pillsbury —563 OSW (202) 475-6725
3 Title
Regulatory Interpreta j 0 of the Closure Performance Standard
4 Summary of Directive (include bnef statement of purpose)
The purpose of this Policy directive is to interpret certain aspects of the
Closure regulatjo 5 as they apply to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
5 Keywords
Closure / Hazardous Waste / Landfill / Surface Impoundment / TSDF
boes This Directive Supersede Previous Directive sy
XX No Yes What directive (number title)
b Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)’,
No L_J Yes What directive (number title)
7 Draft Level
A - Signed by B - Signed by Office Director C — For Review & Comment D - In Development
Document to be distributed to States by Headqua e 5 Yes No ]
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards
9 Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator Date
z / ii!
10 Name and Title of Approving Offi ai Date
Marcia Williams, Director, Office of Solid Waste 02/08/88
EPA Fofrn 1315—17 (Rev. 5—87) Previous editions are obsolete
Os
WER Os
WE
R
VE
DIRECTIVE
OS
DU ECTIVE
WER
DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWER DIR TIVE # 9476.00—13
S; 4p s
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
C’ joc c.
MENORANDUTwI
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation of the Closure
Performance Standard
FROM: Marcia Williams, Diréct
Office of Solid Waste
TO: William Miner, Chief
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
In your memorandum of December 31, 1987 you requested our
views on whether the closure performance standard (264.111 and
265.111) could be used to require source control at two
particular surface impoundments which the owner/operator wishes
to close as landfills. Our response to your question first
addresses the issue in a general way and then turns to your
specific question concerning the two surface impoundments.
The general performance standards and the technical
standards complement each other, and both must be complied with
(See 51 16424). Where the unit-specific technical standards
provide detai.led instructions, those procedures should be
followed. In exceptional cases where unit-specific standards
may not be enough to minimize or eliminate post-closure escape
of hazardous constituents, you should look to the closure
performance standard for authority to require additional
control measures.
In addition, the preamble to the March 19, 1985 Proposed
Rule for Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (a
Final version of the Rule was published on May 2, 1986) states,
in 51 11070, that
“the amendment explicitly requires owners or operators of
TSDFS to comply with both the general performance
standard and the applicable process-specific standards.
Owners or operators must close their facilities in a
manner that complies with applicable process-specific
requirements where specified; the general performance
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9476.00—13
—2—
standards apply to activities that are not otherwise
addressed by the process-specific Standards but are
necessary to ensure that the facility is closed in a
manner that will ensure protection of human health and
the environment.”
The final rule for Closure, Post-Closure and Financial
Responsibility Requirements (May 2, 1986) further states, in 51
FR 16424, that TSDFS must “comply with both the general
performance standard and the applicable process-specific
standards.”
These authorities support your position that the closure
performance standard can be used as a basis for requiring
source control when necessary to achieve this standard. 40 CFR
Subpart G, Sections 264.112 and 265.112 requires a description
of how each unit and facility will be closed in accordance with
Sections 264.111/265.111 (see Sections 264 .112/265.ll2(b)(1)
and (2)). Section 265.112(b) in particular, requires that the
closure plan include “a detailed description of other
activities necessary during the partial and final closure
period to ensure that all partial closures and final closure
satisfy the closure performance standards, including, but not
limited to, ground-water monitoring, leachate collection, and
run-on and run-off control.”
Your memoraridu.m indicates that hazardous constituents may
migrate into ground water because the water table may come into
contact with the bottom of the unit. The closure requirements
at 264.228/265.228 were designed to minimize infiltration
through the cap. Therefore the problem identified in this case
is not addressed by the design-specific requirements, and the
264.111/265.111 performance standard can be invoked to require
additional actions.
It is also important that the closure process is
consistent with any corrective action process that may be
required in the future. In the case of these two surface
impoundments, your memorandum indicates that releases are
currently occurring and that these releases would not be
minimized if closure were performed with significant amounts of
waste in place. Corrective action to address such releases
could necessitate removal of the waste. If this occurred after
capping, the action would be seriously complicated and
substantial resources would have been wasted on the cap.
n alternative approach to using the closure performance
standard as a tool for obtaining environmentally Sound closure
and to address releases, would be to use a post-closure permit
and/or a 3008(h) order issued in conjunction with closure plan
approval.
-------
OSWER DIR TIVE # 9476.00—13
—3—
In Conclusion, it is the Region and/or the state’s choice
(depending on which level of government is authorized to
implement RCRA) as to which tool is used. Clearly the
regulations allow the use of the general performance standards,
post-closure permits or 3008(h) orders to ensure that
facilities close in a way that is protective of human health
and the environment.
CC: Robert Swale, Region V
Lee Tyner, OGC
Chris Rhyne, OSW
Jim Bachmaier, OSW
Lauris Davies, OSW
Regional Division Directors
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
DATE:
31 DEC 1987
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation of the Closure Performance Standard
For Surface Impoundments At GMG Harrison Radiator, Dayton, Ohio
FROM: William Miner, Chief/ «/
Solid Waste Branch^^-^f ^
TO: Marcia Williams, W-ector
Office of Solid Waste
The Closure Performance Standard under §40 CFR Part 265.111(b) calls
for the Owner/Operator to close the facility in a manner that "Controls,
minimizes or eliminates....post closure escape of hazardous waste,
hazardous constituents, leachate, contaminated run-off, or hazardous
waste decomposition products to the ground or surface waters..." GMC
Harrison Radiator has proposed the closure as a landfill option for
their regulated surface impoundments; which, we contend, will not meet
the closure performance standard as defined above. We believe that
proposed method of closure will not provide adequate protection against
the release of hazardous constituents to the groundwater underlying the
facility; and, as such, does not provide adequate protection for human
health and the environment, as called for under the Closure Performance
Standard.
The facility has two surface impoundments which received a variety of
hazardous wastes beginning with the "South Lagoon" constructed in 1966,
and the "North Lagoon" which was constructed in 1972. Both lagoons
accepted wastewaters containing halogenated solvents, which in the case
of the North Lagoon, has compromised groundwater quality to a signifi-
cant degree.
Recent groundwater quality assessment data for the North Lagoon has
revealed concentrations of halogenated solvents which exceed the Maxi-
mum Concentration Limits for drinking water by an average of twenty
times. It is also believed that the South Lagoon is affecting ground-
water quality as well, but it Is unknown at this time the concentra-
tions of any specific hazardous constituents.
The Exposure Information Report (EIR), completed for the regulated
units at the GMC facility, concluded that the proposed method of clo-
sure may not minimize the production of leachate which will occur as a
result of groundwater infiltration into the stabilized wastes. In
particular, page 47 of the EIR states, "It is assumed that water levels
will rise when pumping of (the) county wells 1s discontinued, with
gradients and water levels returning to near historic (prepumplng)
conditions. Water levels may rise to elevations above those of the
bottoms of the lagoons...
-------
-2—
As such, it is possible that some of the recompacted sludges contained within the
closed facilities may be below the water table. This could result in leaching of
the wastes...”
We do not believe that GMC can adequately demonstrate that they can minimize or
eliminate the post—closure escape of hazardous constituents to the groundwater (as
required by the Closure Performance Standard) simply due to the expectation that
the stabilized wastes will lie within the aquifer after closure has been completed.
Also, the presence of groundwater contamination from the impoundments leads us to
believe that simply capping the impoundment will not alleviate the problem. We
propose that GMC has only two options for the regulated impoundments: 1) GMC must
remove the wastes presently in the impoundments and dispose of them off-site or;
2) Remove the wastes from the present units and construct a doubly-lined landfill
unit in its place, and construct the unit at least one meter above the highest
expected groundwater elevation. We believe that these methods of closure will
adequately meet the closure performance standard, since they will demonstrate that
the post-closure escape of hazardous constituents to the groundwater has been
thoroughly minimized.
We request that a determination be made by your office concerning our argument that
the intent of the closure performance standard precludes closure as a landfill. In
any event, we will be pursuing corrective action either in a postclosure permit or
with a 3008(h) order. However, if we can require excavation through the closure
process, appropriate action can be started much more quickly. Approval of this
closure plan is a 3rd Quarter FY ‘88 commitment by the Region, and we have tenta-
tively scheduled a meeting with GMC to discuss these closure concerns for mid-
January 1988. Therefore, we request that you respond to this memo by January
1988, so that we can be prepared when we meet with the facility.
Specific questions concerning the facility can be answered by Robert Swale, the
closure plan reviewer for this facility. Mr. Swale can be reached at FTS 886—6591.
cc: Anthony Sasson, OEPA
Randy Meyer, OEPA
Richard Robertson, OEPA-SWDO
------- |