5 :7. :—e 4 J)OCU I’IELN F D/- FE ‘7’ IC’ 54
FERN IT FOL 1 LV QUEST it ‘N tJIj AlJ .1zJEk OU h’TE LRY REr-’ jk F: Li E OF -“2 H
GENCY FERN I T
ORIGINATOR
BRA N C’ H
AFRRIJVEjL’ BY
APPROVAL DATE
DATE EN 1ERED
SLIPERCEDED - , F
SUPPLEMENT’Th F
E / EMERGENCy
TEF”RY GROCAN
F’S PC ’ / SF’ B
BRUCE MEDDLE
09’ 1’ 8 — i
- ‘ / I
I I
SUPERCED I NC NUMBER
SLIF’PLEMENT NUMBER
FERNIT
OFFICE 0 5W
PHONE NC’ 8—22:4
I1TLE DIRECTORq
STAIUS (A/B/c/D’
EFFECTIVE DATE
PSPD
FINAL AFP’ JV L
,i9 1C ’ , 84
OCUNENT TYPE
RELATED FR
NTIS NUMBER
DEW NUMBER
NI t i E p
Ti L C
DO’::’IiErJ- - 1 OP 1
RED JNTERF
N , A
N ,’ A
N/A
DOfl ET NUMBER
FR DATE
GPO NUMBER
CIRCULATION
/
N/A
IJTHER AVAILABLE N/A
-------
h J r ri the iir’ L ri S &rJe ‘‘T
qcsrter- i re 3 - bE 5L’rnrn ri —j q P nnhi I
qiic. Pn je e j:$ FSFD t +-: TFi PUrpr C.
t e £ 111ir;r-’, Is to E3ris’jre rsFij,, i r:t ] te1:y Lr
i t . theEc rJ °‘(S Lirr
Th€ t: - Provide the be t I i i lt• i -preb I: i ’ m or
L, on o tu b RLR re u] JLJ-, to ri :Ij en
1 U i O i l
i on ; LI, J r “fl’ -e 1 q srid i1p b p t i flq
S b nj ir’J : “ ‘i’sl; i i I H ‘;rt 1?44 to;hr Ic si t ’1dar’ds
S O d I :LI ’PLé cf —1Js’ 8mner er i,:b, perrnil
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP I 0 1984 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Permit Policy Question and Answer Quarterly Report
From: B rue eSeQleT^D ^rec to r^^"
Permits and State Programs Division
To: Regional Hazardous Waste Management Directors
Region I-x
Attached is the first in a series of quarterly reoorts
summarizing permit policy questions answered by mystaf ? over
ensu?f 5eW m?nths'. The Purpose of this summar/is to
ensure national consistency in dealing with these frequently
asked questions. Each question has been given careful
Econ™ratn°n-b? th? Pe™itS Branch' the *ast* Management and
Economics Division (WMED) and OGC. The, answers provide the
S
toa
^
Lifisons- Other issues were ra!sed^ur?ng
nth \Team reviews of individual applications?
imn?r M *****' "her6 SUCh 9u««tions and answers have policy
implications for RCRA permitting and are likely to arise in
other Regions, they have been summarized here.
the
0n t0 the ?uestions and answers summarized on
nf « PTS'-We haVe Provided Britten guidance on a
n7 fP Slf 1C .lssues in the Past few months. Each
you n locaMnn ^^ °f the**^**™* memoranda. To assist
you in locating these raemos, a list identifying the subjects
the signatory, and the point of contact, Is attached.
in ^KWe 3re 2°W PreParln9 a number of memoranda for issuance
to permUaLaUtUA6iWhJCh,COrer °ther si^^^t ?onclrns
is a^'attac'ned" ^ °*
-------
—2—
When confronted with permit issues, your staff Should
contact the appropriate Regional Liaison in the Permits
Branch, or the PAT coordinator for the technology involved.
A list of these individuals is attached. The Regional Liaisons
and the PAT coordinators will ensure that answers to their
questions represent headquarters’ current policy and include
input from technical and legal staff, as necessary. Centralizing
referral of permit questions to the Permits Branch will enable
OSW to provide complete and Consistent responses to similar
questions, and summarize these answers in subsequent permit
policy reports for all Regions.
Attachments
cc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs
Permit Contacts
Ken Shuster
Mark Greenwood
Permit Branch Staff
-------
Permits Branch
Regional Liaisons
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
Name
Art Glazer
Dave Fagan
Doug Ruby
Rich Steim].e
Chaz Miller
Nancy Pomerleau
Susan Mann
Chaz Miller
Randy Chrismon
Jeff Detlefsen
Number
382—4692
382—4497
382—4499
382—4754
328—4535
382—4500
382—4498
382—4535
382—4691
382—4422
Terry Grogari
Randy Chrismon
Dave Fagan
Amy Mills
Chris Rhyrie
Rich Stej.mle
Chairman
Incineration
Storage
Land Disposal
Land Disposal
Land Disposal
382—2224
382—4691
382—4497
382—4755
382—4503
382—4754
Permit Assistance Team
Coordinators
-------
RECENTLY ISSUED PERMIT GUIDANCE
1. Subject: Extent of Permit Cond1tj 5
Contact: Terry Grogan
From: Bruce Weddle
To: Hazardous Waste Management DjVj 5 j 0 Directors
Date: January, 1984
2. Subject: Closure Cost Estimates Based on Third Party Costs
Contact: D -v e Pagan—
From: John Skinner
To: Jim Scarbrough, Region IV
Residuals Management Branch
Date: January, 1984
3. Subject: Guidance on Tank Storage
Contact: Dave Fagan
From: John Skinner
To: Regional Hazardous Waste Management Branch Chiefs
Date: February, 1984
4. Subject: Inadequate Part B Permit Application
Contact: Jeff Detlefsen
From: John Skinner
Gene Lucero
To: Jim Scarbrough, Region IV
Residuals Management Branc1
Date: May 1984
5. Subject: Permit Policy for Decanning and Crushing Operations
Contact: Dave Fagan
From: John Skinner
To: Jim Scarbrough, Region IV
Residuals Management Branch
Date: April 1984
6. Subject: Transfer of Federal RCRA Permits to Authorized
States and Compliance with 40 CFR l 24 .1O(e)
Contact: Debbie Wolpe, Chaz Miller
From: Truett DeGeare
To: Regional Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs
Date: June 1984
7. Subject: National (RCRA) Permits Strategy
Contact: EliZabeth Cotsworth
From: u.s. EPA — Office of Solid Waste
To: General Publication — EPA/530—Sw—84_007
Date: August 1984
8. Subject: National CRA Permits Strategy
Contact: Chaz Miller
From: John Skinner
To: Regional Djvj j 0 Directors
Date: July 1984
-------
1. Subject:
Contact:
2. Subject:
Contact:
3. Subject:
Contact:
4. Subject:
Contact:
5. Subject:
Contact:
UNDER DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT GUIDANCE
Schedules of Compliance
Randy Chrismon
Post Closure Permits
Chaz Miller
Policy on CERCLA Compliance with other
Environmental Laws
Randy Chrismon, Terry Grogan
Guidance on Processing Part Bs with Insufficient
Groundwater Monitoring Data
An iy Mills
Department of Defense Signatories for
Permit Applications
Jeff Det].efsen
-------
PERMIT POLICY QUESTION & ANSWER
QUARTERLY REPORT
Groundwater Protection Standards
1. Question: Do the definitions of “uppermost aquifer” and
“aquifer” include the top most saturated clay layer even though
that Stratum is not used as a groundwater resource? 40 CFR 260.10.
Answer: The 26 July 1982 preamble suggests that “signifjc
yield” of groundwater is determined on a case by case basis,
depending on site specific factors. Significant yield in the
Southwest is likely to be a much lower quantity than Significant
yield in the East. In addition, the flow from a number of well
systems can be totaled in order to reach the level of signjficance
Thus, if the saturated clay layer can produce a significant yeild
of groundwater from a single well or from a combination of
wells, then that layer may meet the definition of an aquifer.
If that layer is also the formation nearest to the natural ground
surface or 1$ hydraulically interconnected to such a surface,
it meets the definition of uppermost aquifer.
2. Question: Can EPA declare a Part B application complete
even though the applicant has not submitted ground—water moni-
toring (GwM) data? 40 CFR 264 Subpart F and 40 CFR 27 O.14(c)
Answer: No. The Agency cannot declare permit application
complete without ground water monitoring data. The Agency can
use enforcement to secure facilities’ compliance with Part 265
ground water monitoring requirements, §3013 orders if a substan-
tial hazard is suspected, and the authority of 40 CFR 27 O.14(c)
to obtain the necessary ground water monitoring information.
More detailed guidance on this issue will be issued shortly.
DESIGN AND OPERATING STANDARDS
1. Question: Can a facility comply with the liner requirements
by placing waste below the saturated zone so that ground water
flows into the cell, thus preventing waste migration out of the
cell. 40 CFR 264 .301(a).
Answer: No. The regulatory intent is that compliance with
264 .30l(a) is to be achieved by construction of a liner rather
than reliance on hydrogeologic forces.
2. Question: Can an applicant receive a variance from a
specific design or operating requirement when the regulations
do not contain a variance provision for that standard?
Answer: No. The regulat jons .4 ave no general provision for
waiving specific sections on a case by case basis. There are,
however, instances where the regulations provide alternative
means for complying with, or waiving, a specific section.
-------
3. Question: Can a land disposal facility achieve compliance
with the double liner requirement by installing a synthetic
membrane over a clay liner or must both liners be Synthetic?
40 CFR 264.301, 264.302.
Answer: Both liners must be Synthetic. The land disposal
regulations provide an exemption from Subpart F requireme
for landfills if they meet certain requirements, one of which
is that the landfill must be underlain by 2 liners, both of
which meet the liner design and operating standards. Liners for
landfills must be constructed of materials that prevent wastes
from passing into the liners. Clay liners do not meet this
standard.
4. Question: At the time an ISS facility has its Part B applica-
tion called, storage surface impoundments are being rebuilt with
clay liners. Does this constitute an increase in design capacity
or a change in process under 2 7 0.72(b) and (c)? If so, can the
RA refuse to allow the change under ISS and require the Surface
impoundments to meet the Part 264 Standards? 40 CFR 270.72.
Answer: No. If the capacity of the surface impoundments is not
enlarged and no new units are being added, improvements to the
surface impoundments are a permissible change under ISS as long
as the reconstruction provision of 27 O. 7 2(e) is not violated.
This is not a change in process. Re—built surface impoundments
will be treated as existing units for putposes of compliance with
Part 264 standards. At the time these existing units are
permitted, however, only the existing portions, i.e., the land
Surface area upon which wastes are placed prior to permit issuance,
will be exempt from Part 264 requirements to install liners and
leachate collection systems.
The owner/operator should be informed of all appropriate
Part 264 technical standards and Should be encouraged to
Voluntarily adopt those standards as part of reconstruction.
5. Question: (1.) Can a facility handling RCR.A waste build
and operate a new process which is not covered under the Part
264 technical standards and is, therefore, an unpermitted activity?
(2.) Can a facility in this case build and operate a new process
if a State with final authorization issues it a permit under
State law, even though there are no comparable EPA standards?
40 CFR 264.1(f), RCRA §S 300 5(a) and (c).
Answer: (1.) No. Assuming the facility cannot fit within
the terms of a defined process in the regulations, a facility
cannot treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes without
a RCRA permit based on RCRA technical standards. Where EPA
has not issued technical standards, no permit can be issued.
This is true because EPk .-has Ytot made a judgment as to whether
the new process protects public health and the environment.
EPA, however, is developing Subpart X of Part 264, which should
impose general environmental performance standards for processes
for which RCRA technical standards do not exist. Once Subpart X
—2—
-------
is effective, EPA can issue permits for these technologies.
The RA can, however, issue a 90 day emergency permit for activities
not covered by Part 264 technical standards, such as open burning,
if he finds that an imminent and substantial endangerment to
human health and the environment exists.
(2.) No. The permit issued by the State for the new process
is not a RCRA permit. The State’s authority under final author-
ization only extends to the portion of its program which EPA has
found to be equivalent and has, therefore, authorized to operate
in lieu of the federal program. The State’s program in regard
to the new process cannot be considered a RCRA program until (A)
EPA has issued standards in that area, and (B) the State’s program
has been explicitly authorized in that area. The facility must
wait to begin construction of its new process until EPA promulgates
standards and a RCRA permit (or permit modification) is issued.
5. Question: Can an applicant submit information along with
his Part B, for potential expansions to his facility and obtain
a permit for those expansions when he has no definite expansion
date. 40 CFR 270.10(f).
Answer: Yes. The applicant, however, must submit information
at the same level of detail as if construction were to begin
immediately upon receipt of a RCRA permit or at a later date,
consistent with a schedule of compliance specified in the permit.
Th Part B application must be in such detail that the permit
writer can draft an enforceable permit aç d so that there can be
meaningful public participation and review of the proposed facility
and permit conditions. In other words, he must fully satisfy
all the information requirements of a Part B application and
the Part 264 standards for a new facility. This is difficult to
do in the absence of specific plans. In addition, when the
applicant does finally decide to undertake the expansion, he
must conform exactly to the plans and specifications contained
in the permit. Applicants without firm expansion plans should
be encouraged to restrict their permit application to the existing
facility and to request a major modification when the expansion
plans and schedule are definite. The applicant, however, should
be warned that a major modification of this nature could, in
effect, constitute a new application. The applicant Should also
be advised of any relevant regulations regarding the procedures
for expanding the capacity of a permitted facility.
Trial Burns
1. Question: Has the Agency issued any RCRA permits for incinera-
tion on the basis of data submitted in lieu of a trial burn? 40
CFR 27 O.19(c) and (d).
Answer: The Agency has not y t issued any RCRA incineration
permits on the basis of ata obtained from other incinerators in
lieu of a trial burn. In order for data submitted in lieu of a
trial burn to be acceptable, the incinerators and the wastes must
be sufficiently similar so that the permit writer can confidently
— 3-.
-------
establish incinerator Operating Conditions for the second incinerator
without the benefit of a trial burn.
General Standards -
1. Question: For a new facility, can information for the Contingency
plan, such as arrangements with local authorities, be submitted
at a date later than submission of the rest of the Part B? 40 CFR
Subpart D, § 27 0.14(b)(7).
Answer: No. If the applicant has done enough planning to support
obtaining a RCRA permit, he should have sufficient information to
attempt to make arrangements with local authorities and draft an
adequate contingency plan. Only those arrangements agreed to by
local authorities need to be described in the contingency plan.
If the applicant’s efforts were unsuccessful, these must be
documented separately, according to S264.37(b), and, in this case,
the contingency plan does not need to ddress arrangements with
local authorities. Also, under S264.5(. d), information regarding
the specific emergency coordinators ma9 be submitted after the
time of application. —Fo-(\e
—4—
------- |