United Si*'«»
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9528.00-1
TLE: Interim Status Expansion to Add an Incinerator
APPROVAL DATE: November 25, 1987
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 25, 1987
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Solid Waste
S FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other document*):
A- Pending OMB approval
Pending AA-OSWER approval
For review &/or comment
In development or circulating
headquarters
'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE L
-------
United States Environmentat Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
&EPA OSWER Directive Iniflation Reauestl
Name of Contact Person
Barbara Foster
3 Title
1 DirectIve Number
9528.00-1
2 Or1gIn ter Informati ii TeIe rione Code
IMailCode jOffice 0Sw (202) 382-4751
WH—563
Interim Status Expansion to Add Art Incinerator
4 Summary of Directive (include bnef statement of purpose)
Response to a request from Region 6 for guidance on whether an
incinerator may be added to a facility as a change in interim status
under the authority of 40 CFR 270.72 (c).
5 Keywords
Incinerator / Interim Status
6a Does This Directive Supersece Previous Directive(s)’ No
Yes
What directive (number
title)
b Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)’ No
E
Ves
What directive (number
title)
7 Draft Lev&
A - Signed by AAIDAA B - Signed by Office Director
E
C - F
or Review & Comment
0 — In
[ 8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? Yes No
I
OSWER
OSWER
OSWER
0
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9528.00—1
DST4
/ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D C 20460
4( pqŘ
25
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Status Expansion to Add an Incinerator
.
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director -
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562) \
TO: Allyn N. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
This is in response to your memo of October 22, 1987
regarding a request from U.S. Pollution Control Incorporated
(USPCI) to the State of Oklahoma for approval of an interim
status expansion to add an incinerator at its Lone Mountain,
Oklahoma facility. You requested an opinion on the question of
whether an incinerator may be added to a facility as a change in
interim status under the authority of 40 CFR 270.72(c).
Section 270.72(c) allows EPA or an authorized State to
approve the addition of a new unit at an interim status facility
if the change is determined to be necessary to comply with a
Federal, State, or local requirement. On its face, this
provision authorizes the addition of an incinerator as a change
- in interim status; however, section 270.72 allows the Director
to exercise discretion in approving or disapproving changes
under that section. Generally, we have significant concerns
about new incinerators being added as changes in interim status
without the benefits of a trial burn and public participation.
While we do not believe that the Director may be arbitrary in
deciding to approve or disapprove a change in interim status, we
believe that it is important to consider protection of human
health and the environment and the rights of the public, and
that it is generally unwise to allow operation of a new
incinerator without a trial burn and opportunity for public
comment.
As an authorized State, Oklahoma may implement its own
hazardous waste program and interpret its own regulations.
While the State of Oklahoma has the authority under section
270.72(c) to allow addition of this incinerator as a change in
interim status, we believe that the preferable approach would be
to include the proposed incinerator in the ongoing permit
process for USPCI. Since the facility’s permit is scheduled for
issuance in 1988, the incinerator activity could be pursued as
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9528.00—1
2
a subsequent permit modification. lthough the proposed
incinerator would not be subject to the 1989 permitting
deadline for incinerators, I would recommend that the
Regional Office work closely with the State to establish a
priority for developing the incinerator portion of the
permit.
If you have any questions about this issue, please
contact Frank McAlister (FTS 382-2223) or Barbara Foster
(FTS 382-4751) of the Permits Branch.
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9528.00—1
tO I 4,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
‘ °‘ ALLIED BANK TOWER AT FOUNTAIN PLACE
1445 ROSS AVENUE
DALLAS. TEXAS 75202
OCTOBER 22, 1987
NtEtIJRANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Status Expansion to d an Incinerator
FROM: Allyn M. Davis, Director QTh O&rt.J 3
Hazardous Waste Manag ent Division (6H)
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH—562)
Attached is a recent request frc n U.S. Pollution Control Incorporated
(USPCI) to the State of Oklahcxna for approval of an interim status expansion
to add an incineratqr at its Lone Mountain, Oklahcxna facility. The Oklahcxt a
State Dapartment of ealth (OSDH) requested EPA ’s opinion on this issue.
Since this appears to be an issue of national importance and precedence,
Region VI requests your opinion on US CI’s request, as well as the issue
in general.
USPCI wishes to add an incinerator to its Lone Mountain facility as an
expansion under interim status. As stated in the attached argu ent, US I
claims this expansion is necessary to satisfy requirenents of the land
disposal restrictions. The August 14, 1987, preamble to the proposed
changes to 40 CFR 270 appears, to s e extent, to support this position.
However, such a change would be a drastic departure frcxn USPCI’s historical
waste disposal practices at the Lone Mountain facility. US I has never had
an incinerator at the facility, and has not inclt. ed a planned incinerator in
its Part B application. Allowing such an expansion under interim status
would allow USPCI to construct and to operate a hazardous waste incinerator
with no permit, no public participation, and no trial burn. In fact, such
an incinerator would not appear to be sublect to the 1989 permitting deadline.
(The land disposal permit for US i is expected to be public noticed in
July 1988 with final determination in the fall of 1988.)
The Region views this as a vitally important issue, since there are
other cc tinercia1 disposal facilities which would like to avoid the permitting
process by adding interim status incinerators. The Region is not aware of
any cases in which such an expansion at a c itnercial facility has been approved
in the past. -
Your inu nediate attention to this issue is requested since OSD1-I must
respond to t i soon. If you need further information, please contact me,
or have your staff contact Bill Honker at FTS—255—6785.
Attachment
ji
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9528.00-1
joan K leavltt. M 0
Ce—"S3ic-e-
OKLAHOMA STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Board of Health
. e . W D
MO
.C-.iCi.gr. 'i 30
Jorn 8 Cdfrncrvei D D 5
James \ Cox ji M D
L'ica M Jornscn M 0
E'nesi D Mttin
Witter Scot; viasor t
\VA *aie 5a> 10'
P.O. BOX 53551
1000 N.E. TENTH
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73152
September 22, 1987
Mr. Sam Becker, P.E., Chief
EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Dear Sam:
Attached is an application for a proposed modification at the USPCI Lone
fountain facility. I need your assistance in evaluating this proposal.
In reading the cover letter, the argument offered sounds reasonable.
Please advise me of EPA's position.
In the interest of responding promptly to this issue, I have taken the
liberty of prescheduling a conference call for Thursday, September 24 at
2:00 p.m., at which time I will initiate the call to your office. If the
time is inconvenient, please let me know.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Rabatine
Programs Manager
Waste Management Service
RAR/lp
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9528.00—1
H I 1t I VI
4
SFP
vVjste M r.7e’ • r C
beptejn r 21, 1987
Dr. Dwain Farley
Chief of Waste Managerrent Services
0klah State Depar nent of Health
P. 0. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152
Subject: Changes Under Interim Status
Thcjnerator at Lone Mountain Facility
Dear Dr. Farley:
U. S. POl1utio Control, Inc. requests that the 0k1ah State
Depar rent of Health approve the revision to the Part A
application for the Lone Mountain Facility which uld allow the
installation of an incinerator. Authority for this action is
found under 40 CFR 270 .72(c)•
“.. .addjtjofla processes may be added if the owner or
operator suthuts a revised Part A application prior to
such change (along with a Justification e la1n1ng the
need for the change) and the Director approves the
change because:
(2) It is necessary to cat ly with Federal regulatiop
(including interim status standards at 40 CFR Part
265) or State or Local laws.”
The land disposal restrictions (40 CFR 268) for solvent wastes
published in the November 7, 1986 Federal Register (pages
40572—40654) reqw .re the incineration of F00l—5 solvent wastes
prior to landfill disposal. Lone frbuntajn Facility received in
excess of 2000 tons of FOOl through P005 wastes in calendar year
1986. Allowing the adjust t of 1986 voli. res to reflect the
land restriction applicability in November and December,
maintenance, startup, debugging, and waste voli.nie variability,
U. S. Pollution Control, Inc. has chosen a sit U 2 -ton per
hour incinerator as the necessazy unit for carpliance with the
land disposal restriction for solvent wastes F00l—F005.
The State’s authority to approve this change was confi.rned by
telephone with Mr. Matt Hale who is the Chief of the Permits
Branch, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. A Headquarters (telephone
202-382-4740). The approach was also discussed at length with
2000 Classen Center. Suite 400 South ‘Oklahoma City, OK 73106-6078 • 405/528-8371
ITROL, INC.
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9528.00—1
Letter to Dr. ain Fancy
Septemoer 21, 19E7
Page 2
and confirrred by Mr. Lee I-Laze of U. S. EPA Region VI (te1ephoj-’ e
204—655—6750)
Attached to this letter is a oklet titled, “Questions and
Answers on Land Disposal Restrictions for Solvents arid
Dioxins” (EPA/530—sw_ 7_jj 0 May, 1987) . The following
rhetorical question is raised and answered on page 31.
Q: Can a new treatrrent process be 1iployed under interim
Status?
A: Yes, a new treathent process can be introduced at an
interim status facility as long as the cord tions of
Section 270.72 are mat. Prior to such change, the
facility must su rnit a revised Part A application and
a Justification for the change to EPA for approval.
EPA may approve the change if the facility has
de irnstrated that it is necessary to catply with
Federal, State, or local requirerr However, the
extent of changes to an interim Status facility is
limited in that capital expenditures may not exceed
50% of the cost of a new facility.
The cost of this small incinerator will not exceed three million
dollars ($3,000,000). The book value of Lone .bunta .r facility
including depreciation is over thirteen million dollars
($13,000,0000). Replacemant value for Lone ?OU.ntain Considering
rnininn m technology requireir nts for units 1 through 8 is far in
excess of original cost.
USPCI does not anticipate that the final Part B permitting of
this incinerator will interfere with permitting of the rest of
the facility. The permitthig of individual units of a facility
is allowed under 40 CFR 27 0.1(c)(4), which states:
(4) Permits for less than an entire facility. EPA
may issue or deny a permit for one or nore units
at a facility without Simultaneously issuing or
denying a permit to all of the units at the
facility. The interim status of any unit for
which a permit has not been issued or denied is
not affected by the issuance or denial of a
permit to any other unit at the facility.
Accordingly, tJSPCI anticipates that the Part B permit
application will be called for shortly after the approval for
the change in interim status. Allowing 180 days for preparation
of the application would leave riore than eighte (18) nonths
for permit review prior to the statutc’i deadline for permit
issuance of incinerators by Novether 1989.
-------
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9528.00-1
Letter to Dr. ain Farley
Septerr er 21, 1987
Page 3
Sane Confusion rr y have been raised by a proposed nile change
published in the Federal Register on August 14, 1987. That
article proposed eliminating the currently effective fifty
percent (50%) reconstruction rule for interim status changes
involving tanks and containers. That proposal should not be
confused with eliminating interim status changes for
incinerators which is not proposed. The fifty (50%)
reconstruction nile governing treath .nt processes other than
tanks will remain intact under the proposal.
In way of further buttressing of our request, the August 14,
1987 Federal Register article observed on page 30572 that the
current regulations
“provide in ortant flexibility in a1l ing changes in
or additions to processes necessary to ccxtply with
Federal or other requirerrents, such as land
disposal restrictions
A copy of that article is attached for your reference.
We need to make the decision to proceed on this project by
September 30, 1987 in order to secure equi rent and adequate
professional staffing. Your expeditious handling of this matter
is appreciated.
Sincerely,
U. S. POLLtJrION aJN”I’ROL, INC.
K n Jackson
President
YJ/cam
AttacI nmit
------- |