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 ------- |