TITLE:  Partial Permitting

ORIGINATING OFFICE:  office of solid waste
                                [  ]   A- Pending OMB approval
                                [  ]   B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
                                [  ]   C- For review &/or comment
                                [  ]   D- In development or circulating
               REFERENCE (other docum.nti):

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
Originator: John R. Skinner, Director, Office of Solid Waste
Source Dcc: i/9522.04(85)
Date: 8—30—85
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. .
- jiL 2 . ) WASHINGTON, 0 C, 20460

t 2fl OFFICEOF —
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.

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.
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

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
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. 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)