-“ ‘ --•
; -
E i
• — - -.
-ODRAFT.:
,‘-•c t ‘ -4-.-
-.. ‘ r -r -
44 enu ng 0MB approval
STATUS. - “ Pending M-0sw approval
. -•
:Lrc ng
ters
1•.
— ————- -—— - -—
—
- - • -• - -
fl iAiP:P c:w p i 9 fi IC D
k
E DIRECTiVE 5 hiREC TIVE :
—•- •--; -- •: -,-2 - r-. -‘ ? ,-•
1 - — . -- --— -- - — -.- —--- - -
-‘Z:
Ssaiu ? -- ‘ - of ? - J -, —
•• -
___
-------
&EPA
Unnea Slates Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1 Directive Number
9523.00-18
2. Originator Information
ime of Contact Person
James F. Michael
Mad Code
OS-343
Office
OSW
Telephone Code
(202) 382-2231
Summary of Assistance Branch Permitting Comments
Summary of Directive (include bnel statement of purpose) " —
This is the fifth in a series of periodic reports which summarize issues that HQ staff
have addressed in their reviews of RCRA Part B permit applications, permits, and
™T^JJ K03^ T^ls.reP°rt covers issues that are of national interest from reviews
conducted by the Assistance Branch during April and May 1988. This report provides
current EPA policy and guidance to the Regions and States.
Land Disposal Facility / Corrective Action / Permit / closure / Treat
. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Drective(s)' [==! f=i ;
<*** NO Y0« \A/hst HirA«»tn.A /M..Mh.«,
/ Incineration /
it
b Does It Supplement Previous Directivets)'
No
XX
Yes What directive (number, title)
Yes What directive (number, title)
9523.00-12 / 9523.00-14 / 9523.00-15 / 9523.00-17
A - Signed by AA/DAA
B - Signed by Office Director
D - In Development
C - For Review & Comment
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards
O^^A^V ^
Jennifer A. Barker/ Office of Solid Naste
10 Name and Title ol Approving Official
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete
Date
Date
10
'/IS/66
3/14/89
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00-18
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
A IQflQ OfP'CE OF
** WW«^ SOLID WASTE AND
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Summary of Assistance Branch Permitting Comments
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director A\ *V
Office of Solid Waste (OS-30#f>V~ ^
TO: Regional Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Attached is the fifth in a series of periodic reports
which summarize najor issues that Assistance Branch staff
have addressed in their reviews of specific Part B applications,
permits, closure plans and in their responses to site-specific
situations . These reports cover issues that are of generic
national interest rather than strictly site-specific interest.
The attached report includes reviews conducted by the Disposal
and Remediation Section and the Alternative Technology and Support
Section during April and May, 1988. To ensure that the report
reflects current EPA policy and guidance, we obtained review
comments and concurrences from within OSW, from the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement, and from the Office of General
Counsel .
We hope that the recommendations provided in this document
will be helpful for permit writers encountering similar situations
at other RCRA facilities. By sharing the Assistance Branch's
suggestions from a few sites, we hope that permit decision-making
will be somewhat easier and faster at many more sites nationally.
We encourage you to distribute this report to your staff and State
permit writers. To make the distribution easier, I have attached
multiple copies of the report.
(These reports were formerly entitled "PAT Summary Reports":
previous reports were issued on Match 14, 1986 (OSWER Policy
Directive No. 9523.00-14), March 30, 1987 (OSWER Policy
Directive No. 9523.00-12), March 30, 1988 (OSWER Policy
Directive No. 9523.00-15), and September 2, 1988 (OSWER Policy
Directive No. 9523.00-17)
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—18
—2—
Attachment A to the report lists the facility names,
Regions, review coordinators, and dates for the reviews
summarized in this report. Attachment B provides a list of
guidance documents and directives used in preparing the reviews.
If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions on the
Summary of Assistance Branch Permitting Comments, please contact
Jim Michael, Chief, Disposal and Remediation Section, OSW at FTS
382—2231.
Attachments
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs
Regions I—X
Permit Section Chiefs
Regions I-X
Jon Cannon
Jeff Denit
Jim O’Leary
Joe Carra
Matt Hale
Ken Schuster
Suzanne Rudzinski
Elizabeth Cotsworth
Alex Wolfe
Jim Michael
DRS Staff
ATSS Staff
Art Day
Les Otte
Ken Skahn
Susan Bromm
Steve Heare
Scott Parrish
Lisa Friedman
Tina Kaneen
Fred Chanania
Bob Dellinger
Tom Kennedy (ASTS *1O)
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—18
Summary of Assistance Branch Permitting Comments
Table of Contents
Topic Page
Issue Resolution 1
Popping Furnaces 1
Subpart X — Miscellaneous Units 2
Closure 5
RCRA Corrective Action 7
Recommendations 10
Popping Furnaces 10
Liner Requirements 11
Hazardous Waste Stabilization 13
Permit Issuance 13
Staff Reviews Included in This Summary Attachment A
List of Guidances Used in This Summary Attachment B
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523. ø—18
SUMMARY OF ASSISTANCE BRANCH PERMITTING COMMENTS
April 1988 — May 1988
This report is the fifth in a series of documents
summarizing some of the comments provided to Regional permit
writers by OSW’S Assistance Branch. The report is organized
into two sections. The first section, Issue Resolution,
provides examples of issues that have been raised at one or more
facilities. This section covers special situations where
regulations or policy decisions were applied in actual
circumstances. The second section, RecommendationS, addresses
comments routinely made to answer questions on items often
overlooked or poorly understood, and to convey technical
information. This section should be generally helpful to the
permit writer. A contact person has been listed for each item
to answer additional questions.
ISSUE RESOLUTION
Popping Furnaces
1) Automatic Waste Feed Shut--off
The Army is in the process of applying for permits for
their munitions deactivation (popping) furnaces that
are located at about a dozen A my facilities around the
nation. These “popping furnaces” are hazardous
incinerators where the waste material is obsolete
munitions that must be exploded in the incineration
chamber during the incineration process. The explosive
nature of the waste poses specific problems unique to
these units in meeting Subpart 0 requirements.
Section 264.345(e) requires that “an incinerator must
be operated with a functioning system to automatically
cut off waste feed to the incinerator when operating
conditions deviate from limits . . .“. Explosive
wastes in the “hot zone” near the furnace cannot be
safely stopped before the incinerator chamber due to
risk of explosion outsi. e the unit. A design was
proposed at an Army facility that meets the requirement
for an automatic waste feed cut-off without
compromising safety. Ihe proposed design consists of
two conveyors. The ficst conveyor feeds waste
munitions onto a second conveyor which, in turn, feeds
the munitions in the “hot zone” into the feed chute.
The automatic control would stop the first system in
the event of deviations from permit operating
conditions, while the waste in the “hot zone” would
continue safety into the unit.
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—18
—2—
The Assistance Branch reviewed the proposed waste feed
system and concurs that this system meets the
regulatory requirements under Section 264.345(e) for an
automatic waste feed cut-off.
Contact: Sonya Stelmack 2 2 or FTS—382—4500
2) Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions are characteristic of popping
furnaces during the explosion of the munitions waste in
the incinerator chamber. Section 264.345(d) requires
that fugitive emissions from the combustion zone be
controlled by keeping the combustion zone totally
sealed; or by maintaining a combustion zone pressure
lower than atmospheric pressure; or by an alternate
method which can be demonstrated to provide fugitive
emissions control equivalent to the maintenance of
combustion zone pressure lower than atmospheric.
An Army facility proposed to maintain lower than
atmospheric pressure in their combustion zone; however,
they could not do so continuously. They requested that
the permit be worded so that a specific number of
positive pressure excursions would be allowed. The
Assistance Branch concluded that allowing positive
pressure excursions would not meet the regulatory
requirement for fugitive emission control. The
kssistance Branch informed the Army that their, other
proposed option of providing a totally enclosed system
where the collected fugitive emissions would then be
returned to the incinerator with the air intake would
be acceptable. A more recent Army proposal to enclose
the furnace retort in a negative—pressure shroud rather
than totally enclosing the system will also be
considered, provided the Army submits adequate
supporting data.
Contact: Sonya Stelrnack 202 or FTS—382—4500
Subpart X — Miscellaneous Units
1) Units Regulated under Subpart X
A facility has ten units that the owner/operator
maintains are miscellaneous units which should be
regulated under Subpart X. The owner/operator
describes these units as pits. Wastewater containing
reactive waste enters the unlined pits. The liquid is
first allowed to evaporate or percolate out of the
units. The owner/operator then ignites the remaining
residue after the liquid is removed.
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—18
The Region contends that these units are surface
impoundments and should be regulated under Subpart K.
The Assistance Branch was asked to evaluate the nature
of these units and identify the applicable regulations.
Surface impoundments may be used to store, dispose or
treat hazardous waste. The process occurring in these
units is the treatment of wastewater (which does not
have the potential to detonate) by dewatering with the
subsequent open burning of the residue. dditionally,
Section 260.10 specifically includes pits as an example
of surface impoundments. Therefore, all requirements
applicable to surface impoundments, including land
disposal restrictions, November 8, 1988 retrofit
deadlines, and minimum technology requirements, apply
to these units. Subpart X is intended to cover units
not regulated elsewhere and will not replace or
supercede any restrictions or requirements contained in
another Subpart. Units that are containers, tanks,
surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment
units, landfills, incinerators, boilers, industrial
furnaces and injection wells are specifically excluded
from Subpart X.
If the Regional dministrator feels that the Subpart K
standards do not provide adequate protection during the
burning phase of the treatment process, additional
permit conditions may be based upon the HSWA omnibus
provisions in Section 3005(c) in order to protect soil
and air.
Contact: Chet Oszman 202 or FTS—382-4499
2) Open Burning/Open Detonation (OB/OD) Unit Requirements
Non-military waste explosives can be open burned/open
detonated if the waste has the potential to detonate as
stated in Section 265.382. If the waste explosives,
including wastes consisting of part solvent, do not
have the potential to detonate, the waste cannot be
destroyed in OB/OD units. Solvents contaminated with
explosives to the extent that they have the potential
to detonate may be open burned provided that the unit
qualifies under either 264, Subpart X or 265,
Subpart Q. The open burning and detonation of waste
explosives is considered to be a treatment process
rather than waste disposal, and therefore the land
disposal deadlines and restrictions do not apply.
Treatment residues, however, may be subject to such
restrictions.
Contact: Chet Oszman 202 or FTS—382--4499
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—18
—4—
3) Permit Requirements for Waste Explosives
The Assistance Branch was asked to clarify the
circumstances under which the disposal of explosives
would require a permit and to define the point at which
unused explosives become a waste.
A Subpart X permit or interim status is necessary for the
non-emergency open burning/open detonation of waste
explosives. The immediate response provisions of
Sections 264.1(g) (8), 265.1(c) (11), and 270.1(c) (3) allow
an exception to the permit requirement to be made in
situations where the threat of explosion (i.e., the
discharge or threat of discharge of a hazardous waste)
presents an emergency situation. If immediate action is
not required, but the threat to human health and the
environment persists, the Director may issue ar emergency
permit under Section 270.61(a), bring an imminent hazard
action under RCRA Section 7003, or perform a removal
action pursuant to CERCLA Section 104.
When explosives are fulfilling their normal use pattern
and there is no intent to discard them, they are not
hazardous waste nor are they subject to Subpart X.
However, damaged or leaking explosives or other
undetonated explosives that, for safety reasons, cannot
be used (such as expired shelf life) are waste, and can
be hazardous waste.
Contact: Chet Oszrnan 202 or FTS—382—4499
4) Applicability of Subpart X Permits to Fire Training Exercises
Fire fighters routinely train by extinguishing blazes set
as part of a training exercise. Often various types of
fuel are used to ignite the training structure. The
Assistance Branch was asked to determine if these
exercises and training areas require Subpart X permits.
The burning of commercial fuel in fire training exercises
is within the normal use of that fuel product. However,
verification must first be made to establish that the
material to be burned is actually commercial fuel. Once
the material is verified as commercial fuel, burning in
fire fighter training exercises does not constitute a
RCRA regulated activity. If the material to be burned is
not a commercial fuel but any other ignitable hazardous
waste such as used oil or spent solvents, this type of
open burning is prohibited.
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—18
—5—
Even when commercial fuels are used, there is the
potential for ignitables or hazardous constituents to
be released to the surrounding soil and surface water.
The individuals responsible for conducting the exercise
should be advised to prevent any such releases. In
situations were releases do occur and these releases
may pose a threat to human health or to the
environment, a variety of Federal and/or State
enforcement/cleanup authorities may be called upon.
Contact: Chet Oszrnan 202 or FTS—382—4499
Closure
1) Use of Soil Background Levels for Clean Closure
Several Regions requested clarification on setting soil
cleanup levels at facilities that plan to achieve clean
closure. As stated in the preamble to the March 19,
1987 final regulations, verified reference doses (RfDs)
and Carcinogenic Potency Factors (now correctly called
Carcinogenic Slope Factors, or CSF) can be used to
determine cleanup levels for contaminants when they are
available. In cases where no Agency-recommended levels
exist, the soil cleanup level may be based on either
background levels or data developed by the
owner/operator to support a health—based limit.
Background levels can be determined in two ways. Soil
samples can be taken from uncontaminated areas of the
facility and at representative depths. The background
samples must be taken in areas that are not
contaminated from spills or by the operation of the
waste management unit or in some cases, by the
operation of any manufacturing processes that may be
present. The second approach uses published literature
as the source of naturally—occurring levels in similar
soils to establish background levels.
At one facility the chemicals of concern were lead and
cadmium. At that time, the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) was evaluating data on the toxicity
of both of these substances. While the toxicological
information for lead and cadmium was undergoing current
review, the RED for cadmium (0.0005 mg/kg/day) was
likely to be approved and could be used to set a soil
cleanup level. After applying the appropriate exposure
assumptions, the RfD translated into a cleanup level of
9 mg/kg of cadmium. The cadmium level proposed by the
owner/operator for the closure of their land disposal
unit was acceotable as it was based on the oroposed
RfD. (The RED of 0.0005 mg/kg/day was approved on May
25, 1988.)
-------
OSWER Directive t Jo. 9523.00—18
—6—
The RfD for lead is undergoing revision as a result of
new information on the neuro-behaviora]. effects of
lead. The RfD workgroup is not expected to reach a
decision on the new level in the near future. Lead is
also undergoing evaluation to determine if it acts as a
potential carcinogen via oral exposure. The
determination of a CSF is expected to take a while;
therefore, soil cleanup levels for lead should be based
on background levels.
Contact: Chris Rhyne 202 or FTS-382—4695
2) Redesignating Unit Type during Interim Status
An owner/operator wishes to redesignate a unit that has
been operating as an interim status surface impoundment
as a landfill. The owners propose to stabilize the
waste, retain the stabilized waste, redesignate the
unit as a landfill and continue operations. The bottom
liner system of the unit does not meet the minimum
technology requirements. As a surface impoundment, the
owners must either retrofit or stop receiving wastes by
November 8, 1988. If the unit stops receiving waste,
it must close in order to comply with Section 3005(j)
requirements.
Under Section. 270.72(c) , changes in process can be made
during interim status only under the following two
ci rcumstances:
(1) It is necessary to prevent a threat to human health
or the environment because of an emergency situation,
or;
(2) It is necessary to comply with Federal regulations
or State or local laws.
The Region concluded that neither criterion could be
satisfied for this facility.
In this particular situation, however, the authorized
State regulations which are analogous to Section
270.72(c) also allow for a change if “proposed changes
are demonstrated to result in safer or environmentally
more acceptable processes.” In order to comply with
the State condition, the owner would have to
demonstrate that a landfill operating with less than a
minimum technology liner is safer or environmentally
more acceptable than a closed or retrofitted surface
impoundment. The Assistance Branch did not believe
that such a demonstration is possible and that the
facility could not, therefore, meet the State
requirement. The State, however, ultimately would be
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—la
—7—
responsible for determining if the demonstration
satisfies the condition for a more acceptable process.
Note that if the unit conversion were allowed to take
place, the unit would be an existing landfill unit, and
not a new unit subject to MTRs.
Contact: Dave Eberly 202 or FTS—382-4691
RCRA Corrective Action
In order to set cleanup standards at a facility
undertaking corrective action to remediate releases from
their solid waste management units, a Region asked the
Assistance Branch to clarify the Agency policy on
determining cleanup levels, compliance points, timing of
corrective action and the use of institutional controls.
1) Cleanup Standards
Promulgated standards should be used as cleanup standards
when they are available. Maximum contamir ant levels
(MCLs), established under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) , are available for some contaminants and should be
used for a cleanup standard for ground water that is or
potentially can be a source of drinking water. When
promulgated standards are not available, Agency
health—effects data should be used to derive the cleanup
level.
EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System ( [ RIS) provides
current Agency health assessments and reguLalory
decisions on many chemicals. When setting c eanup levels
for carcinogens based upon the Carcinogen Slope F ctor
(CSF) , he risk range should fall between 1 X 10 and
1 X l0
Standard exposure assumptions for drinking water should
be used for setting cleanup levels based upon verified
reference doses (RfDs) and CSE’s in ground water used, or
potentially used, for drinking. Cleanup lavls in soil
should be based upon exposure assumptions co’:resporiding
to the potential land use. For example, if children can
play in the area after cleanup and the soil contamination
is surficial, the potential for children to ingest soil
must be considered. Guidance on specific exposure
assumptions and exposure scenarios is currently being
developed.
Contact: Reid Rosnick 202 or FTS—382-4755
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—13
—8—
2) Compliance Points for Soil and Ground Water Cleanup
The objective of corrective action to ground water is
to restore beneficial use if possible. In cases where
ground water is or has the potential to be used for
drinking, cleanup should be throughout the plume.
However, there are circumstances, such as when the
waste is left in place or the unit is still operating,
that preclude cleanup throughout the whole plume. In
such situations, the compliance point is at the edge of
the waste management unit.
The compliance point for soils is any area that may be
available for direct contact with the soils. In cases
where subsurface soils are contaminated to the extent
that ground water contamination is or has the potential
to occur, soil cleanup levels should be set to protect
the ground water.
Contact: Reid Rosriick 202 or FTS—382—4755
3) Timing of Cleanup Activities and Monitoring of the Site
At this time, the proposed corrective action
regulations will not establish a time frame for
attaining cleanup levels. A number of factors should
be evaluated prior to setting a schedule for a
particular facility. These factors are: (1) the extent
and nature of contamination; (2) the practical
capability of the remedial technology to meet the
objectives; (3) the availability of treatment or
disposal capacity for wastes; (4) the use of emerging
technologies; and, (5) potential risk to human health
and the environment from exposure prior to the
attainment of cleanup levels. In general, expeditious
cleanup, particularly of off—site contamination, is the
goal.
With respect to ground water corrective action under
Subpart F (Section 264.100) , the owner/operator is
required to monitor ground water during the compliance
period (resume compliance monitoring) after cleanup
activities have ended to demonstrate that the
ground—water protection standard is being achieved. If
corrective action is ongoing at the end of the
compliance period, corrective action cannot be
terminated until the ground water protection standard
is not being exceeded Eor three consecutive years.
While this time frame has been applied to corrective
action from SWMrJs, it is often difficult to demonstrate
reliably that the standard has been achieved for three
years in all hydrogeological settings.
-------
OSWER Di.ective o. 9523.00—18
—9—
The Agency is proposing Section 3004(u) corrective
action regulations that determine the timing for
demonstrating compliance based on a case—by—case
basis. When selecting the length of time approoriate
to determine compliance, the Region should consider the
following: (1) the extent and concentration of the
release; (2) the behavior of the hazardous constituents
in the affected medium; (3) the accuracy of monitoring
techniques; (4) the characteristics of the contaminated
media; and, (5) any environmental, seasonal or other
pertinent factors.
Contact: Reid Rosnick 202 or FTS—382—4755
4) Use of Institutional Controls in the RCRA Program
Institutional controls may be used to limit exposure
during cleanup; however, they should not be viewed as a
substitute for cleanup. In some cases, the presence of
institutional controls may allow final cleanup to be
deferred if the owner/operator can assure that there is
rio potential for exposure. Institutional controls may
also be used in situations where technical limitations
prevent compliance with cleanup standards.
Institutional, controls may be engineered features that
prevent exposure such as fences or barriers. They may
also be non-engineered controls that prohibit access to
ground water or limit use, such as deed restrictions.
Contact: Reid Rosnick 202 or FTS—382—4755
-------
OSWER Director No. 9523.00—18
—13—
RECOMMENDAT IONS
pping Furnaces
1) Conducting Trial Burns Prior to the HSWA Deadline for
Permitting Interim Status Incinerators
Because it usually takes one year to issue a permit
after a trial burn, interim status facilities should
schedule the trial burn prior to November 1988 in
order to meet the November 8, 1989 deadline for
permitting interim status hazardous waste
incinerators. The Army has proposed that the data
collected from the trial burns conducted at one
facility be applied to other popping furnaces. The
only circumstances where an owner/operator can use
data from one incinerator in lieu of conducting a
trial burn at another is when the two units are
similar in all significant respects including unit
type, combustion chamber size, dimensions of major
components and operating conditions. In addition, the
wastes burned in the other units must be adequately
represented by the wastes burned during the trial
burn. This means that the types and concentrations of
organic hazardous constituents and metals must be
similar. The incinerability, form, and ash content of
the waste must also be comparable.
The Assistance Branch feels that the use of data from
a trial burn at one facility in lieu of trial burns at
the other facilities will not be acceptable for all
Army popping furnaces because the units were built by
different manufacturers, are of different ages, have
worn differently over the years, and have had
different modifications made to them.
An alternate proposal by the Army is to conduct “base”
trial burns at each facility using the wastes that the
facility will most often burn after permitted. A
“large scale” trial burn would also be conducted with
a broad range of wastes at one facility to represent
the worst—case waste to be burned in any of the units.
The Assistance Branch and the Incinerator Permit
Writer’s Workgroup agreed that this type of approach
could be acceptable for setting a more flexible range
of permit conditions for the po ping furnaces provided
that the “large scale” trial burn is conducted at 3 or
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—18
—11—
4 facilities. Furthermore, the results from each
facility that conducted a “large scale” trial burn must
be consistent to allow the data to be used in lieu of
large scale trial burns at all popping furnaces. If the
results are not consistent, pernit conditions nust be
based on the individual facility trial burns.
Contact: Sonya Stelmack 202 or FTS—382—4500
2) Evaluation of Part B Applications for Popping Furnaces
The adequate evaluation of a trial burn plan for a
“popping furnace” involves additional criteria beyond
that required for the evaluation of most incinerators
since the explosive nature of the waste will affect the
combustion process and ash carryover. For exar ’ ple, in
typical hazardous waste incinerators, the ash content of
the waste is the major variable along with the
efficiency of the air pollution control equipment that
affects the release of particulate matter from the
stack. In the case of popping furnaces, the explosive
content of the waste must also be evaluated because of
the potential effect on particulate formation and
entrainment. For popping furnaces it is possible that
there are several “worst—cases” that c ust be evaluated
during a trial burn. The waste burned in the trial burn
should be selected for the “worst—case” with respect to
incinerability of Appendix viii compounds, particulate
and metals emissions.
The Assisi:ance Branch has also been encouraging that
metal urn ts be set to adequately protect human health
and the environment under the authority of the omnibus
provision (Section 3005 (c) (3)).
Contact: Sonya Stelmack 202 or FTS—382—4500
Liner Requirements
1) Use of In—place Hydraulic Conductivity Testing during Liner
Installation
The requirement to perform in-place hydraulic
conductivity testing on the soil liner of a test fill
was a condition of the final permit for one facility
The owner/operator of the unit objected to the
requirement and requested clarification of current EPA
policy on the use of in-place versus laboratory
hydraulic conductivity testing.
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—18
—12—
The current EPA policy was adopted in Nay 1985 in the
“Draft Minimum Technology Guidance on Double Liner
Systems for Landfills and Surface Impoundments ——
Design, Construction, and Operation” (see Reference 3,
Attachment B) . The Agency maintains that in-place
hydraulic conductivity testing is “the most accurate
means of consistently determining the actual hydraulic
conductivity of a constructed soil liner.” The guidance
recommends that the in—place hydraulic conductivity test
be performed on a test fill using the same equipment and
techniques that will be used during the construction of
the actual liner.
EPA policy was reinforced by OSWER Policy
Directive #9472.003 (See Reference 5, Attachment B)
which was issued in October 1986. This document
presents further support to the Agency’s position that
in—place testing is superior to laboratory testing.
This does not mean that laboratory testing is not a
significant component of a construction quality control
program. Research, however, has shown that laboratory
permeability tests often produce results that are one to
three orders of magnitude lower than the actual
hydraulic conductivity present in the field. A
satisfactory in—place hydraulic conductivity test does
not have to determine the specific hydraulic
con uctivity but must document that it is less than 1 X
10 cm/sec.
An unofficial survey found that the majority of Regions
consistently implement the policy requiring in—place
hydraulic conductivity testing.
Contact: Chris Rhyne 202 or FTS—382—4695
2) Freeze—Thaw Concerns with Clay Layer in Final Cover
A facility located in a northern state proposed to
install the clay liner portion of the final cover on
their landfill only 24 inches below the surface. In
this section of the country, frost penetration was 36
inches.
The Assistance Branch was asked to evaluate the proposed
design. Based on EPA guidance (See Reference 3,
Attachment B) , we recommended that the clay layer below
the flexible membrane layer (FML) be completely below
‘the average frost depth. It is permissible to allow for
snow cover in the frost depth calculations. At this
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00-18
—13—
location, 6 inches of snow cover is typical; therefore,
we recommended that the soil layer above the clay liner
need be increased by only 6 inches instead of one foot.
Contact: Chris Rhyne 202 or FTS—382—4695
Hazardous Waste Stabilization
1) Use of Natural Material in a Waste Stabilization Process
A facility that planned to close its interim status
surface impoundment needed to develop a site-specific
process that would sufficiently stabilize its highly
organic and oily waste material. The facility engineers
proposed to use cement kiln dust as the pozzolanic
component in the process. They also proposed to use
caliche, a locally occurring form of calcium carbonate,
as an absorbent in the process.
In order to demonstrate that stabilization has occurred,
the waste must be shown to have undergone chemical
change. The engineers conducted a series of laboratory
and field tests with various proportions of the chemical
additives. They monitored soluble organic carbon (SOC)
levels in the leachate. Based upon data showing that
lower SOC levels were found in the leachate of
stabilization mixtures containing caliche as well as the
cement kjlci dust, the engineers demonstrated that
caliche was a necessary component in the stabilization
process. Ccnsidering these results and the increased
strength of this stabilized material over time, the
Assistance E ranch concluded that stabilization was
occurring.
Contact: Dave Eberly 202 or FTS—382-4691
Permit Issuance
1) HSWA Permit Preparation
A Region prepared a draft HSWA permit for a facility by
using the PCRA Corrective Action Plan (CAP) (See
Reference 4-, Attachment B) as a guide. The Region asked
the Assistance Branch to comment on this approach and
the permit language.
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—18
—14—
While the Assistance Branch agreed that the CAP was the
best currently available guide for Regions to use to
prepare HSWA permits, the CAP is more in the nature of a
checklist, from which soecific permit conditions can be
developed. Incorporation of general CAP requirements
directly into a permit is likely not to be specific
enough. (Please note that the Module for Corrective
Action for Solid Waste Management Units of the Model
Permit, distributed for review and use on November 30,
1988, is also an appropriate guide for using Sections
3004(u) and (v) .)
Further, there are several points that the permit writer
must keep in mind when applying this reference. First,
the CAP was designed to cover all possible corrective
action requirements, including interim status corrective
action orders under Section 3008(h) as well as permit
requirements under Section 3004(u). The permit writer
must select the applicable Section 3004(u) requirements
from the “menu” of requirements presented in the CAP.
Certain CAP requirements related to Section 3008(h) are
not appropriate for permits.
Second, the permit writer must, for any individual
facility, identify the information already available in
the Part B application and collected during the RCRA
Facility Assessment (RFA) . It is not necessary to
require information that has already been provided
elsewhere. Based upon this information,
facility-specific permit conditions can be developed
using the CAP as a checklist, but not as a model for the
actual permit condition language.
Contact: Dave Eberly 202 or FTS—382--4691
2) Authority to Implement Subpart X Standards in RCRA Authorized
States
The Agency is using the authority under Section
264.1(f) (2) to implement the regulations for
miscellaneous units in all States at the same time,
regardless of their authorization status. This authority
exists independent of HSWA. Section 264.1(f) (2) applies
specifically to the regulation of units not covered by
any Federal permit requirements at the time that an
individual state program was authorized. This authority
was created to avoid the situation that no permits (such
as Subpart X permits) could be issued in an authorized
state for several years after permit standards were
promulgated by the Agency (i.e., until the state
receives Subpart X authorization). Therefore, Subpart x
requirements will be implemented by EPA in all
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523. 00-18
—15—
states at the same time. See OSWER Policy Directive
#9489.00—2 (See Reference 1, Attachment B) for further
clarification.
Contact: Chet Oszman 202 or FTS—382—4499
3) Permitting Deadlines for Subpart X Facilities
The permit application deadline of November 8, 1988 and
the permit issuance deadline of November 8, 1992
promulgated in Section 3005(c) of HSWA, are relevant to
Subpart X facilities that had interim status as of
November 8, 1984. The permit applications due in 1988
need only address those units which were listed (or
should have been listed) in a facility’s Part A
application as of November 1984. Any permit issuance
made in 1992 need address only those units subject to
the 1988 application deadline (although it can address
other units as a discretionary matter). This may mean
that permit issuances in 1992 will be partial permits
since oniy units with interim status before November 8,
1984 must be addressed. Regions are encouraged to
notify interim status facilities in order to give them
the opportunity to meet the November 1988 deadline.
Contact: Chet Oszman 202 or FTS—382—4499
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.øg—18
Attachment A
Assistance Branch reviews included in this summary
Facility Name
Burnham Corporation
Foundry
Css I
Hawthorne Army
Ammunition Plant
IBM
Morton Thiokol
SCA
(Model City)
Region
V
x
Ix
I
VII I
II
VI
VI
VIII
x
Coordinator
Mark Salee
Chris Rhyne
Sonya Stel iack
Amy Mills
Chet Oszman
Chris Rhyne
Chet Oszrnan
Review Date
May 1988
May 1988
May 1988
April 1988
May 1988
April 1988
tlay 1988
R&D
Fabricating
Sinclair Oil
Tooele Army
Depot
Umatilla Army
Depot
Union Carbide
(Ponce, P.R.)
Union Carbide
(Sisterville, WVA)
Dave Eberly
Sonya Stelmack
Jim Michael
Sonya Stelmack
Dave Eberly
April 1988
April 1988
May 1988
April 1988
April 1988
II
III
Dave Eberly
May 1988
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9523.00—18
Attachment B
List of Guidance Documents used in Preparing the Assistance
Branch Permitting Comments
1. “Issues Relating to Miscellaneous Units,” OSWER Policy
Directive #9489.OO_2 (April 26, 1988).
2. “Hazardous c as Miscellaneous Units; Standards
Applicable to Owners and Operators,” Final Rule,
Federal Register , Vol. 52, No. 237. p. 46946.
3. Minimum Technology Guidance on Double Liner Systems for
Landfills and Surface Impoundments -— Design,
Construction and Operation , DRAFT, EPA
530—SW—85 —014 (May 24, 1985 )
4. “RCR Corrective Action Plan,” OS 1ER Policy Directive
#9902, (November 14, 1986)
5. Technical Guidance Document: Construction Quality
Assurance for Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities , EPA
533—Stq _ 86....Ø 31 OSc .JER Policy Directive #9472.003 ,
(October 1986)
------- |