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— ------- |