of Cnvtronm«nul Soli «nd 6EPA DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9522.04(85) TITLE: Partial Permitting APPROVAL DATE: 8-30-85 EFFECTIVE DATE: 8-30-85 ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of solid waste E 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 docum.nti): ------- PART 270 SUBPART A — GENERAL INFORMATION DOC: 9522.O4( 5) Key Words: Partial Permits, KSWA, Corrective Action Regulations: 40 CFR 270.1(c)( 4 ), Part 264 Subpart F Subject: Partial Permitting Addressee: Harry Seraydarian, Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division Originator: John R. Skinner, Director, Office of Solid Waste Source Dcc: i/9522.04(85) Date: 8—30—85 Summary: The memo discusses the issuance of a partial permit for a new incinerator unit at a facility where there are existing land disposal units that may need ground—water corrective action. The partial permit could address the new incinerator unit, all releases to media other than ground water from the regulated unit, and all releases from non—regulated units. A permit issued separately to the regulated units would address any needed ground—water cor- rective action in accordance with Subpart F of Part 264. ------- 9S22. . tO UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - jiL 2 . ) WASHINGTON, 0 C, 20460 t 2fl OFFICEOF — A U SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEMO RAN DUM SUBJECT: Partial Permitting FROM: John H. Skinner Director, Office t f Solid Waste (WH—562) TO: Harry Sera aria r 1 Director roxics and Waste Management Division In your memorandum of May 9 (attached) you requested our response to your proposal for permitting of a new incinerator unit at the Dow Chemical plant in Pittsburg, California. Outlined below is a discussion of that proposal and our recommendations regarding issuance of a separate permit. We agree with your conclusion that issuance of a new inc1nerato permit for the facility which is to be phasing out its land disposal units is consistent with EPA’S policy of encour- aging treatment alternatives to land—based waste disposal methods. As you know, however, any such permit must address corrective action for releases from all solid waste management units at the facility as required by new section 3004(u) of RCRA. You proposed that the preliminary assessment, site investigation and/or corrective action for those land disposal units be addressed through a schedule of compliance in a permit which could be issued for constructIon of the new incinerator, but which would not otherwise cover the lafld disposal units at the facility. The existing land disposal units at the facility are also regulated units as defined in §264.90(a). As discussed in the preamble to the HSWA final codification rule, (see discussion of §3005(iY) regulated units are subject to existing standards under Subpart F of Part 265 and Part 264 for g thering information on releases to ground water. Permit schedules of compliance for information gathering —— as provided for in §3 00 4(u) for solid waste management units —— cannot be used for Lnvesti;atLng ground water releases from regulated units. Consequently, the proposed approach which you have suggested for permitting this facility dces not appear to be workable. We can, however, suggest an alternative approach which would expedite the issuance of the permit to the incinerator unit oy addressing any releases to ground water from the regulated units in separate permits. ------- —2— Section 3005(i), as amended by HSWA, reaffirmed that ground water releases from regulated units are subject to existing RCR?. regulations. This regulatory scheme encompasses not only the substantive cleanup requirements in Part 264 Subpart F, but also the procedural permitting requirements in Part 270, and the provision for partial permitting in 40 CFR 270.l(c)(4) in par- ticular. We could, therefore, issue a partial permit covering the new incinerator unit, all releases to media other than ground water from the regulated unit, and all releases from non—regulated units. A permit issued separately to the regulated units would address any needed ground water corrective action in accordance with Subpart F of Part 264. We believe this approach is fully consistent with the basic objectives of sections 3004(u) and 3005(i). If you have any further questions on this issue, please call Peter Guerrero, Chief, Permits Branch at 382—4740. Attachment cc: Regional Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs ------- 09 y 1985 Multiple RCPA Permits at A Single Facility o — Byi Udrry Sercydarian Director, Tvxics and Waste Management I iviaion, Region 9 John B. Skinner Director, Office, of Solid Waste (WH—562) ! ssuez Are the Re tona precluded by statute, regulation or policy from issuing øore than one RCRA pers it at a single hazardous waste anageI ent facility? Zr. ç.articular, may we issue a permit for a new incinerator at an existing land disposal facility, deferrinq until a later date the issuance of a pern it for the land disposal units? background z Althou Jh the subject of issuing several per 1ta at one facility nas been aiscussed in tne past with your staff, to our knowledge flO official -olicy postion was ever taken. In 19 , unen only tank and container facilities could be per Ltted, we had several discussions witn headquarters staff wnicri led to our understandin9 tnat we coulo begin to process perz its for tank/container units at facilities wnicfl also had land disposal or incinerator units. Since we felt that this could ultin ately lead to a duplication of effort, we never followed this course of action. Ey virtue of flaying only Phase II A authorization, California has proceeded with issuance of tan /conta1ner per its at sites aL u conducting lana ispoaal. In a few recent cases, we have been presented with c1rcu star.ces wfitcn cause us to recxa Lne our ‘clicy ot coing tnrough the per it process only onc? at eact. facility. .r en your bt. tf has r eefi re enteo with th ia e , we have rcce ved conflicting aovlce. perhaps the best exai le of tne situation we have in i. ’ u Is th Dow Cher ical ç.lant in PitteDury, Calitor ia. L ow has exLEtinq tan) /conta ner, incinerutor, an-i surface it ooun ient units operatin unc.er iriteri statu.c. In re5 .’onse to our request, C.ow euoultted a ?art 3 rmit for its existin uruts. CLe to corn lex ground water issues at the facility anc trial burn requirer er.ts, we cc nc t ezrect early i su nce o a per; t tur tne interirn status units. 3652 — T—2—i/ ’alson—grace: 5/J5/85 ------- —2— Recently w. received a permit application fro Dow for a new waste jncintrator at the pitt*burq plant. The unit is part of Dow’s .ftort$ to upgrade its waste mana9e ent practices and discontinue land disposal both on—site arid off—site. The new unit, because of its large cost, can not be constructed under interim status, and must receive a KCRA permit before commence- ment of construction. we are persuaded that expedited issuance of a RCRA permit for the new unit would be environmentally responsible, for the following reasons. 1. It would be consistent with CPA’S policy of encouraging high technology waste disposal as an alternative to land disposal. 2. ?lthough the incinerator would only dispose of wastes generated at Pittsburg ana a few other sr’all Dow facilities, any reduction in the amount of waste going to land disposal is an advance. 3. Toe installation of the incinerator (ano additional on—site tr at ent facilities) La required tor Dow to close its surface i ound entB. Due to the lengthy lead time required for incinerator construction, the surface i poun ent closure will oe aelaye if the incinerator is not per itted. r eco r endeo Actio.n : Tn. passage of the K5 a has clearly Led to coc. lications in tt e issuance of multiple pera its at a sinyle tacility. Since the statute now requires that we adoress all releases fru olLd waste ianage ent Units (S s) In all PCRi ter .1ts, we muSt a al with this provision. In Dow’C case, tr.e existtSrv c1a aroOu5 . tte na er ent Units (H% Us) are, or course, also s .us. .rojose the follow1n course of action t Dow ar otn r f cilir_ie with similar cirCu btaflCe3. 1. tr st—traci ing’ th peri ittinç o new, r.1qh r tecflnoloyy units y aC re&Gin’ tI e in G &ir 1e—ur it permit. 2. Acc reSsthg corrective actions at S MJ5 ( nCiu nq J ) ti rou h eririt cork. it1Ofle thM r uire tne con inu t.ion of prelLL r ry assesbtPnt, te investic atiOfl, n /or correctivC 3CtLCfl Lr’ rn rera1 terms . The conaitlons .ill lnclucc a co’t’1L nCe bc 1eo dc for corrr ’l’ tton of tne rieit ot the corretive actior. roce5s, dapcn .ir j on its status a of tne time of .cr lt is&u3nce. ------- -3— 3. Conti u4tiOfl of inttri etatu . for other units at. t e facility untLl pec it lS5ue5 can os resolved. 4. Major dification of the permit to incorporate all. other units at. tzie facility. At thic t .me, the corrective action provisionS woulo De upoated. Reçueated Action Your review of our recomsendei course of action is requested. Unlesa we receive ob sCt1oflS within tnirty (30) days, we vi ii aasua* that you have none, and we will ç.roceed Sb outlineU above. we aJ o request that in developinq regulations to codify the )‘ShAS you consider tne circuirStances aoove, ana allow anoquate fiextability tot the keqiofls to ptoc&eC with approval or new ni,h tecnno.logy units prior to resolution o I1 issue. at an ind&vi uai facility. £flouid questions arise in yo .zr •v luetion of tt.i pro oaol, 3111 .i1 on should be cor.t&CteO at FT S 45,—o3 1. cc: P r it S ctlOn Chiefs, RCGiOflâ 1—a, anc 10 bc: Jonfl hart (T—2—3) Alan t’ ltner (QF C) ------- |