UAI
i Protection
0*>ct of
Send
SEPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9523.00-17
TITLE: Suircnary of Assistance Branch Permitting
Conments
APPROVAL DATE: 09/02/88
EFFECTIVE DATE: 09/02/88
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Solid Waste
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
[ ] A- Pending OMB approval
STATUS: [ ] B- Pending AA-OSWZR approval
[ ] C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other documents): headquarters
OSWER Directive #9523.00-12
OSWER Directive #9523.00-14
OSWER Directive #9523.00-15
'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE L
-------
United Siates Environmental Protection Agency
&EPA Washington. DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
(Suninary continues)
4 -‘—infonnatIori
This report provides currert EPA policy arid guid nce to the
Regions and States.
Os
WER Os
WER OS
WER 0
VE
DIRECTIVE
DIRECTIVE
DIRECTIVE
Directive Number
9523.00—17
a.
Name of Contact Person Mail Code Office Telephone Code
James F. Michael WH—563 03W (202) 382—2231
3 Title
Surrinary of Assistance Branch Permitting Corrment s
4 Summary of Directive (include bnel statement of purpose)
This is the fourth ma series of periodic reports which summarize issues that HQ
staff have addressed in thier reviews of RCRA Part B permit applications, permits,
and closure plans. This report covers issues that are of national interest from
reviews conducted by the Assistance Branch from January 1987 through March 1988
(continued below)
5 Keywords
Land Disposal Facility / Permit / Closure / Treatment / Incineration I Storage
6a Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)’
XX No Yes What directive (number, title)
b Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)
No XX Yes What directive (number title)
9523.00—12 & 9523.00—14 & 9523.00—15
7 Draft Level
A - Signed by ANDAA B - Signed by Office Director C - For Review & Comment C - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? Yes No
This R.quest Meta OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9 Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator J1 • 1 , Date
09/07/88
Jennifer A. Barker, Office of Solid waste
10 Name and fltie of Approving Official
Date
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
09/02/88
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete
-------
0 5W DLrectj.ve Io. 9523.00-17
% O Sr 4 J
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1(1-’ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I . . ,
ouo
SEP — 2 t988 OFFICE OF
$01.10 WASTE ND EMERGE’ C ESP3’ S
MEMO RANDUM
SUBJECT: Summary of Assistance Branch Permitting Comments
.1
FROM: Sylvia E.owrance, Directo f\ J— ______
Office of Solid Waste (OS—3 0)
TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Attached is the fourth in a series of periodic reports
which summarize major issues that Assistance Branch members
have addressed in their reviews of specific Part B applications,
permits arid closure plans. (These reports were formerly called
the “PAT Summary Reports”; previous reports were issued in
March 14, 1986 (OSWER Policy Directive Mo. 9523.00—14)
March 30, 1987 (OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00—12), and 4
March 30, 1988 (OSWER Policy Directive No. 9523.00—15)). 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 from January 1987 to March 1988. In order to ensure
that the report reflects current EPA policy and guidance, we
obtained review comments from within OSW arid 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 fe ’ 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 that easier, I
have attached multiple copies of the report.
Attachment A to the report lists the facility names,
Regions, 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.
-------
OSW Directive tic. 9523.00-17
—2—
If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions on the
Summary of Assistance Branch Permitting Comments, please contact
James Michael at FTS 382-2231.
Attachments
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs DRS Staff
Regions I-X ATSS Staff
Permit Section Chiefs Paul Cassidy
Regions I-X Les Otte
J. Winston Porter Art Day
Jack McGraw Jim Bachmaier
Tom Devine Elaine Stanley
Jeff Denit Lisa Friedman
Bruce Weddle Tina Kaneen
Susan Bromin Fred Chanania
Ken Shuster Matt Hale
Joe Carra George Garland
Jim O’Leary Tom Kennedy (ASTSWMO)
Suzanne Rudzinski -
Elizabeth Cotsworth
Jim Michael
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00—17
SummarY of Assistance Branch Permitting Comments
Table of Contents
Topic Page
Issue Resolution i
Ancillary Equipment on Tank Systems i
New Tank Systems 2
Variances for Classification as a Boiler 3
Incinerators 6
Land Disposal Expansions 6
Waiver Petitions for Minimum Technology Requirements 8
RD&D Permits 9
RecommendationS 11
Tank Systems 11
Incinerators 11
Ground-water Monitoring 13
Ground-water Modeling 14
Landfill Design 15
Permit Conditions 16
Availability of New Guidance 17
Attachment A - Staff Reviews Included in this Summary 18
Attachment B - List of Guidances Used in the Summary 19
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00-17
SUMMARY OF ASSiSTANCE BRANCH PERMITTING CO? il4ENTS
January 1987 - March 1988
This is fourth in a series of documents summarizing some of
the comments provided to Regional permit writers by staff of
OSW’s Asssistance Branch on permitting. It was formerly called
the “PAT Summary Report”.
This summary is organized into three 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 to 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. Finally, there is a section
describing new guidance that may be of interest to the Regions.
ISSUE RESOLUTION
Ancillary Equipment on Tank Systems
1) Secondary Containment for Flanges and Joints
Threaded joints and flanges used in tank system piping vary
widely. Frequently, the Assistance Branch staff is asked
to clarify if a specific design is exempt from the
requirement for secondary containment.
An owner/operator asked if a joint consisting of a flange
bolted to a second flange is required to have secondary
containment. Bolted flange joints, that are above ground
and inspected daily, are not required to have secondary
containment; however, the completed and installed system
must be tested for tightness prior to use.
Secondary containment is intended to apply to any threaded
joint system, including threaded joints fabricated of
special materials such as teflon or plastic. Any joint
where waste may come in contact with the thread must have
secondary containment.
2) Secondary Containment for Ancillary Equipment
A facility submitted a design for a secondary containment
system for the waste lines entering a neutralization tank.
The proposed secondary containment system was an existing
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00—17
—2—
trench that conveyed non-hazardous wastewater to the same
neutralization tank. The Assistance Branch was asked to
determine if the existing trench was acceptable as
secondary containment.
The hazardous waste pipe was to be suspended over the
existing trench which was adequately sized to contain both
the flow in the pipe, should a leak occur, and the maximum
volume of wastewater. Secondary containment, however, must
be dry in order to detect any leaks from the hazardous
waste line. Once a release is detected, any waste must
then be removed. The proposed system, therefore, was not
acceptable.
The facility modified its proposal to include a dry trough
below the hazardous waste pipe. The second proposal met
the full intent of the secondary containment requirement
and was deemed acceptable.
New Tank Systems
1) The Status of New Tank Systems at Facilities Permitted
between the Promulgation and Effective Dates of the New
Tank System Regulations
Any tank system installed after July 14, 1986 is, by
definition, a new tank system. About six months fall
between this date and the effective date of the revised
Federal regulations (January 12, 1987). For tanks subject
to RCRA standards but not HSWA, this time lapse is even
more pronounced in States that had pre-HSWA authorization
and have additional time to adopt equivalent tank system
regulations. Can permits issued during this time lag
reflect the intent of the revised tank regulation?
In the case of a State-issued permit, the permit must
reflect the State statutory or regulatory requirement in
effect prior to final permit disposition. If a State has a
regulation analogous to Section 270.41(a) (3) (Reference 5)
the Director can modify a permit in order to include new
statutory requirements or regulations applicable to the
permit upon the effective date of the legal authority.
Thus, a permit issued for a tank system can be modified to
reflect the revised standards when they go into effect.
After the permit modification, any tank system installed
after July 14, 1986 would be considered a “new” tank system
which must have secondary containment. The phase-in period
allowed for ‘existing’ tank systems would not apply.
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00-17
—3—
The State Director has the option to use a State law
analogous to the “omnibus provision” (Section 270.32(b) (2))
to reflect the requirements of the regulations during this
lag time. OSWER Policy Directive #9523.00-15 (Refer ence
11) clarifies when to use the (Federal) omnibus provision.
It should be noted that new underground tanks are regulated
under HSWA. At this time, no States are authorized to
apply these requirements.
Variances for Classification as a Boiler
The Assistance Branch was requested to determine if
specific units which do not meet the definition of boiler
were eligible for a variance to be classified as a boiler
under Section 260.32. Two proposals were reviewed and the
following issues were specifically addressed. An
evaluation of all the applicable criteria, however, was
conducted in each case prior to making the final
determination. At both facilities, the inability of either
unit to meet any of the criteria for classification as a
boiler supports the final determination that these units
are not eligible for a variance.
1) Integral Boiler Design of the Combustion and Energy
Recovery Sections.
In order for a controlled flame combustion unit to meet the
definition of a boiler given in Section 260.10, the
combustion chamber and the energy recovery section must be
of integral design. Two facilities have units which they
refer to as “post-combustion chambers” located between the
combustion section and the energy recovery section. The
post-combustion chambers are insulated flow passages
between the main combustion chamber and the heat recovery
section. The owners of these units requested variances.
They contend that these passages are not ducts or other
connectors which, as stated in the regulations, are not
permissible as components between the combustion and energy
recovery sections in units which meet the integral design
requirement of a boiler.
The owners assert that additional thermal oxidation of
wastes occurs in the post—combustion chambers, providing
high hazardous waste destruction, and that combustion
therefore continues until the gases reach the energy
recovery section.
The oxidation of additional waste products, however, does
not mean that combustion occurs. Combustion, as defined
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00—17
—4—
in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, is a specific
process which is “accompanied by the evolution of light and
heat”. In fact, information on the performance of these
units showed a net loss of heat over the length of the
chamber instead of a heat gain as would occur during
combustion. The conditions in the chamber that promote the
oxidation of trace organics is part of a good incinerator
design. The Assistance Branch found that these units do
not meet this criteria for a boiler.
2) Integral Boiler Design Based Upon the Operation of a
Control System Between the Combustion and Energy Recovery
Sections
40 CFR Section 260.10, which defines boilers, - provides an
example of units that do not meat the integral design
requirement as units “in which the combustion chamber and
the primary energy recovery section(s) are joined only by
ducts or connections carrying flue gas...” An
owner/operator maintained that his unit was a boiler
because the combustion section was connected to the energy
recovery unit not only by a duct but by a control system as
well. The Assistance Branch evaluated the owner’s
contention that his unit was a boiler.
The control system in this unit does connect the steam
raising portion with the combustion chamber. The control
system, however, was designed for safety purposes to reduce
the risk of explosion and other unsafe conditions. Under
unsafe conditions this type of automatic control system
would shut the unit down.
True boilers have control systems designed to regulate
steam output. Boiler control systems would typically
provide at least a 3 to 1 turn down control on steam
production by varying the fuel, air and water. When
evaluating the appropriateness of any unit to meet the
definition of a boiler, the common and customary usage of
similar units is important. The lack of steam control by
this unit’s control system is typical of incinerators. The
Assistance Branch noted that the lack of a true boiler
control system supported the denial of the boiler petition.
3) Variance Petition under Section 260.32 for Classification
as a Boiler Based upon Innovative Design of the Unit
An owner submitted a petition for classification of his
unit as a boiler. He maintained that the innovative
techniques employed during the construction of his unit
should be a factor in the evaluation of his petition since
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00-17
—5—
the boiler classification variance was meant to allow for
new or unusual units which EPA did not have the opportunity
to consider when developing the boiler definition. During
the review of the petition, the Assistance Branch evaluated
the performance of the innovative component in order to
determine if it was significantly different from that of
the current technology.
The inhovative component was the insulation around the
post-combustion chamber. The insulation was constructed of
8 inches of compressed refractory material installed by a
unique, soon to be patented process. The owner of the unit
and the designer of the process stated that the use of this
material was innovative.
The performance of the insulation was both theoretically
and practically evaluated. Actual performance was
considerably less than what was anticipated from the
theoretical calculations. Based on the theoretical heat
transfer calculations, the performance of the innovatively
applied insulation was not significantly better than that
for insulation designed and installed according to current
incinerator industry standards. While the installation
technique for the insulation may be “innovative”, the
insulation process did not provide any improvement over
current practice. Thus, even though the insulation was
different from the type normally used, the difference was
deemed insignificant since it achieved results similar to
conventional insulation.
4) Thermal Efficiency Requirement for Boilers
Section 260.10 states that any “boiler” must “maintain a
thermal energy recovery efficiency of at least 60 percent”.
As part of a demonstration to support a waiver petition
for classification as a boiler, a unit was described as
operating with a 65% energ recovery. The Assistance
Branch evaluated this claim.
The unit in question is not able to measure the fuel flow
rate and the waste addition varies by 50 percent. Without
appropriate documentation, the thermal efficiency data is
unsupported. The determination of boiler efficiency should
be conducted under controlled conditions following one of
the methods certified by the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00—17
—6—
Inc therators
1) Use of Thermal Relief Vents
Design drawings in a permit application for a new
incinerator included a thermal relief vent between the
combustion chamber and the air pollution control
equipment. The Assistance Branch was requested to
determine if the use of a vent to bypass the air pollution
control equipment should be allowed.
The thermal relief vent was proposed to protect the air
pollution control equipment from excessive heat during
emergency situations such as failure of power and water
cooling systems. OSWER Policy Directive #9488.00—3
(Reference 1) discusses the acceptability of these vents in
new incinerators. Indiscriminate use of relief vents is
deemed to be a violation, however, EPA has recognized that
they may occasionally be needed to protect employees and
air pollution control equipment. Thermal relief vents,
therefore, are allowed in the design of new incinerators.
The permit, however, should require the design to include
the necessary backup systems to reduce the use of these
vents. The system should have interlocks such that the
vent can only open after the waste feed has been cut of f.
The operating plan should include a list of parameters and
cut-off points at which the vent may be used. A review of
the permittee’s operating plan should be made to identify
and eliminate the use of the thermal relief vent in
situations where it may not be absolutely necessary.
Minimum Technoloay Recuirements for Vertical and Lateral
Ex ans ions
1) Application of Minimum Technology Requirements to Vertical
Expansions.
A facility planned to expand its landfill vertically.
During the public comment period on their draft permit, the
applicability of minimum technological requirements to such
an expansion was raised. The Assistance Branch was
requested to evaluate the issue.
The facility opened the landfill trench in question in 1978
under a TSCA permit. Currently the unit accepts RCRA waste
under interim status. The proposed vertical expansion
would not exceed the capacity of the unit stated in the
Part A application, and there are no limits in the
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00-17
—7—
existing permits on the elevation of RCRA wastes placed in
the unit. The proposed expansion will extend 21 feet
vertically above the original grade limitation for TSCA
wastes; however, no waste will be placed beyond the
existing lateral boundaries.
The Assistance Branch found that the proposed vertical
expansion is permissible without meeting the minimum
technological requirements because: (1) The proposed
vertical expansion does not exceed the unit boundaries; and
(2) The landfill was in use and operational prior to the
date of the enactment of HSWA, therefore, the above—grade
expansion does not fit the definition of a new unit.
May 1985 guidance (Reference 4), however, states that a
vertical expansion beyond any hazardous waste permit
capacity or elevation limits affects the operational status
of the unit. If the operation of the unit was limited on
November 8, 1984, a subsequently proposed vertical
expansion would constitute a “new unit” and is subject to
minimum technology requirements. This facility has no
vertical RCRA hazardous waste permit limits; therefore, the
minimum technology requirements do not apply to this
vertical expansion.
2) Lateral Expansion During Closure.
After a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI), an
owner/operator planned to close several solid waste
management units by consolidating the waste from two waste
soil piles with the residue in a surface impoundment
regulated under interim status. The Volume of the
resulting waste mixture is estimated to exceed the existing
capacity of the impoundment. The Region was concerned that
the proposed closure plan would not be permissible.
The consolidation of waste material is an acceptable
closure activity. If the proposed consolidation
necessitates the placement of any hazardous waste beyond
the boundary of the regulated unit or beyond any limits
imposed by a RCRA permit since November 8, 1984, the action
results in a lateral expansion which must meet the minimum
technological requirements. Moreover, if the consolidation
into the surface impoundment occurs after November 8, 1988,
the surface impoundment must meet minimum technology
requirements. Finally, if waste from any of the units
being placed in the impoundment are subject to the land
disposal ban, then the waste may not be placed in the
impoundment unless it is treated in accordance with 40 CFR
268 Subpart D or the owner/operator has sucessfully
petitioned under 40 CFR 268.6.
-------
05W Directive No. 9523.00-17
—8—
Waiver Petitions from Minimum Technological Reauireinents -
3004(o (2
A facility may petition for a waiver from minimum
technological requirements under Section 3004(o) (2) if
their alternate design and specific operating practices,
when viewed in combination with the characteristics of the
site location, will prevent the migration of hazardous
constituents into ground or surface water as effectively as
the required design. The Assistance Branch is often asked
to evaluate facility specific factors to see if they meet
the conditions of the waiver. During two recent
evaluations, the following issues were raised.
1) Minimum Technology Waiver Petition due to Alternate Design
and Operational Factors
An owner/operator of an existing surface impoundment
proposed to install a liner system consisting of a 36-mi
hypalon sheet over a leachate collection system constructed
over two existing 4-inch layers of bentonite separated by a
drainage layer. The owner contends that this design is at
least as effective as the minimum technology requirements
(MTR). The MTR specify a 36-inch clay layer because a
liner of such thickness would be constructed by the
placement of several clay lifts. Discontinuities in an
individual lift would be unlikely to occur in the same area
on subsequent lifts. The existing 4—inch layer is applied
in one lift and does not provide any safeguard over any
irregularities that might allow leakage.
While the new design alone was insufficient, the
owner/operator also planned to use operational factors
which he claimed would make the alternate design as
effective as the minimum technology requirements. The
impoundment has a limited life span with planned closure in
1989 which makes the unit a short-term operation. The
leachate system does not show any evidence of a leak, and
no ground-water contamination has been found. If a leak
were to occur, the owner plans to drain the impoundment.
While the liquids stored in the impoundment are listed
hazardous wastes, they do not exhibit any of the
characteristics for which the wastes were listed. The
Permit Assistance Staff recommended that the waiver be
granted contingent upon the short-term operation of the
unit.
2) Waiver Petition Demonstrating Design and Operating
Practices which Prevent Migration
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00-17
—9—
A facility petitioned for an alternate design and operation
approach that prevents the migration of contaminated ground
water from under the unit. The Assistance Branch was asked
to determine if the proposed design met the intent of the
3004(0) (2) waiver provision.
The owner of the surface impoundment proposed to install
intragradient cut-off walls downgradient of their surface
impoundment. The collected, contaminated ground water
would be removed from behind the walls and treated.
Migration of contaminated ground water beyond the waste
management area, therefore, would be prevented.
Section 3004(o) (2) allows a waiver only if the owner can
demonstrate that the proposed alternative will “prevent the
migration of any hazardous constituents into the ground
water”. The term “ground water” is intended to mean any
ground water and not ground water beyond the waste
management area. In order to meet the equivalency test
required by this waiver, the alternate liner design must be
as effective as the minimum technology requirements for
liner design in preventing the migration of any constituent
through the liner. The Assistance Branch recommended
denial of this waiver request.
RD&D Permits
1) Qualifying for a RD&D Permit for an Incinerator
Research, development and demonstration permits, regulated
by Section 270.65, were intended to be available for
processes and units which treat hazardous wastes with
innovative technologies. Several Regions have received
applications for RD&D permits for technologies already
established for treating hazardous waste and which are
specifically regulated elsewhere under RCRA. The
Assistance Branch was askeci to determine if incinerators,
in particular, could be eligible for a RD&D permit and
under what circumstances they would qualify.
The purpose of RD&D permits is to produce data on technical
or economic feasibility of experimental processes or
technologies; however, existing treatment methods may
qualify if the permit is intended to allow treatment of
waste streams not previously treated by this type of unit,
or if the operating conditions would be modified for
different or expanded uses of the technology. The
Assistance Branch, after discussion with the Office of
General Counsel, clarified that incinerators are eligible
for RD&D permits (Reference 8) if they further the
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00-17
—10—
knowledge on treatability, design and/or combustion
research through experimental (but not commercial) research
applications.
In one such instance, a research facility applied for an
RD&D permit for an incinerator and they proposed to conduct
a study on the products of incomplete combustion (PICs)
from incinerators. They also proposed to produce a
biological system study on the fate and transport of PICs
in the environment. The results of these proposed studies
would add to the body of information on the characteristics
and quantity of residuals emitted from incinerators. Based
upon the proposed study of the effects of PICs on
biological systems, the proposed incinerator was determined
to be eligible for a RD&D permit.
2) operating Time for RD&D Permits
Section 270.65(a) (2.) states that an RD&D permit can be
issued for up to 365 days of operation. A particular
facility wishes to continue o eration under its RD&D permit
for longer than one calendar year. A Region asked the
Assistance Branch for appropriate wording on the permit.
While RD&D permits are limited to 365 days of actual
operation, many experimental units operate sporadically for
a few days and are then shut down for longer periods while
the results are evaluated. In some cases, 365 days of
operation may extend over numerous years. In order to keep
track of the unit’s operation, guidance (Reference 3)
suggests that permit writers may include a calendar-based
expiration date in RD&D permits in cases when warranted.
RD&D permits may be renewed up to three times. The
appropriateness of the justifications for an extension
should be considered with any future permit renewal
applications. The application will be evaluated based upon
the initial results of operation, the need for more data,
any changes in operating conditions and the occurrence of
any enforcement actions.
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00-17
—11—
RECOMMENDATIONS
Tank Systems
1) Applying Regulations Promulgated Under Two Authorities
The universe of hazardous waste tank systems currently affected
by the July 14, 1986 regulatory amendments varies from State to
State. The tank system regulations were promulgated under two
authorities. Those applicable to RCRA tank systems are now in
effect only in States that do not have authorized RCRA base
programs. States authorized for the base RCRA program must
amend their programs before the regulations become effective.
Those provisions applicable to HSWA regulated tank systems are
effective in all States. The Assistance Branch is often asked
to clarify which provisions apply universally and which apply
only in unauthorized states.
The following requirements apply in all States:
- interim status requirements applicable to small quantity
generator tank systems (Section 3001(d))
- leak detection for all new underground tanks that cannot be
entered for inspection (Section 3004(o) (4))
- permitting standards for underground tanks that cannot be
entered for inspection (Section 3004(w)) -
Regulations applicable to above-, on—, in-, and enterable
underground tanks currently apply only in unauthorized States.
Authorized States have until July, 1988 (if only regulatory
changes are needed) or July, 1989 (if statutory changes must be
made) to amend their programs to reflect the Federal
requirements. Further information is provided in the
Implementation Strategy for Tank Systems (Reference 12).
Incinerators
1) Selection of Principle Organic Hazardous Constituents
(POHCs)
Current research by the University of Dayton Research Institute
has led to a new incinerability ranking of Appendix VIII
compounds based upon thermal stability data (Reference 9).
Until now, incinerability ranking of Appendix VIII compounds has
been based upon a compound’s heat of combustion.
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00—17
—12—
Guidance is being developed to reflect the new ranking of
compounds. A Regional Office proposed to specify at least one
POHC based on each of these rankings as an interim approach.
The Assistance Branch agreed that this approach is acceptable,
and suggested additional criteria, such as chemical structure,. .
toxicity and concentration, which may also be used.
2) Use of Surrogate Wastes During a Trial Burn
Surrogate wastes are mixtures of chemicals combined to exhibit
the characteristics of the actual waste materials and to contain
the same hazardous chemicals expected to be burned by an
incinerator. Surrogate wastes are often proposed by facilities
for use during the trial burn. Simulating the burning
characteristics of any individual waste, however, is very
difficult. As a result of this difficulty, facilities should
use actual wastes during the trial burn if they are available.
In cases where the principle organic hazardous constituents
(POHC) concentrations in the actual waste are not high enough to
determine the desbruction and removal efficiency (DRE), the
wastes may be spiked.
If the facility cannot modify its plan to burn actual wastes,
such as in the case of a commercial incinerator, the
owner/operator should provide justification for the use of
surrogates. If any facility must use surrogate wastes, the
surrogate waste should be as much like the actual waste as
possible. If an incinerator is planning to burn solid waste,
surrogate solids should be mixed with the POHC feed.
3) Destruction and Removal Efficiency DRE) Calculations
A facility planned to include in their DRE calculations the POHC
input into the system from city water used to prepare a lime
slurry for removing acid gases by their scrubber. During a
review of the trial burn plan, the Assistance Branch evaluated
their methodology for the DRE determination.
According to Section 264.343(a) (1), the mass feed rate of POHC
input used for DRE calculations must equal the mass feed rate in
the waste stream only. In order to complete the determination,
all the POHCs in the exhaust gases must be included in the
calculations. Any additional POHCs volatilized from the slurry
used in the scrubber system must be included if they are
released with the emission gases.
-------
0 5W Directive No. 9523.00-17
—13—
4) Sampling During a Trial Burn
In their trial burn plan, a facility proposes to obtain one grab
sample per test run for residue analysis. The proposed
frequency of sample collection is inadequate for the collectióh
of a representative sample from any test run. An acceptable
plan would be to collect grab samples at frequent intervals over
the entire test period. These samples should be composited
before analysis.
5) Use of Sampling Trains in Modified Method 5 (MM5)
Several facilities planned to use a single ?015 train to sample
for both particulates and semi-volatile POHCS during a trial
burn. This approach is incorrect. The drying of the filter for
the particulate analysis results in the potential loss of
semi-volatile compounds. The correct procedure involves the use
of two separate trains, one for particulate sampling and one for
the sampling of semi-volatile organics.
Ground-water Monitoring
1) Confirming Ground-water Contamination
A draft permit condition for a detection monitoring program
required three sampling events to confirm ground-water
contamination. Under Part 264 Subpart F, only one confirmatory
sampling event is necessary to trigger a compliance monitoring
program.
The Subpart F requirement for triggering a compliance monitoring
program is based upon one sampling event and one confirmatory
sampling. A slug of contamination detected in the initial
sampling could pass the compliance point during the time it
takes to obtain results from additional confirmatory sampling
events.
2) Disposal of Purged Water.
The ground-water sampling and analysis plans at many facilities
have no procedures for handling purged water. Purged water from
monitoring wells should not be discarded onto the ground because
the purged water could contain hazardous waste. It should be
tested for hazardous characteristics in order to determine an
appropriate disposal method, particularly if previous sampling
events indicated the presence of hazardous constituents.
Alternately, collected purge water can be disposed back into
surface impoundments that are permitted to receive any
constituents expected in leachate or contaminated ground water.
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00-17
—14—
Ground-water Model jng
1) Determination of Site-specific Permeability for Application
in a Model.
A facility proposed to use a model to support their no-
migration waiver petition. They obtained several soil samples
in order to determine a soil permeability factor. A mean value
was calculated for input into the model.
Modeling efforts to determine the potential for migration of
- hazardous constituents to or in ground water should use the
worst—case value measured representative of a site in order to
incorporate a margin of safety. The applicant was asked to
re—run the model using the highest value of the coefficient of
permeability.
2) Selection of Critical Constituents for Use in a Transport
Model
A waiver applicant planned to demonstrate no migration into
ground water by selecting critical constituents for use in their
modeling effort. Inputs included half-life and retardation
factors. The applicant selected acrolein and acrylonitri].e
based upon their relatively long half-lives in ground water.
However, the high retardation factors which indicate slow
movement, make the selection of these two chemicals
unrepresentative of the worst case. The most appropriate
constituent(s) for modeling must be based on an evaluation of
all relevant factors. Concentration of the constituents in the
waste and their retardation factors should be evaluated along
with half-life when selecting constituents with the greatest
potential to migrate. The Assistance Branch recommended that
other constituents be chosen in this case.
3) Use of Appropriate Models based upon Site Characteristics
A waiver applicant proposed to use a one—dimensional model to
demonstrate no migration of hazardous constituents into ground
water. The hydrogeologica]. and soil characteristics of the site
displayed several non-uniformities and could be described as a
fairly complex system.
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00-17
—15—
A one—dimensional model, as proposed by the applicant, can be
very limiting. The attributes of the model must reflect the
conditions observed at the site. Also, data representative of
the whole site should be collected for input into the chosen
model. Given the complexities of the site, a more sophisticat d
model, such as a 2- or 3-D model, would be necessary to support
a demonstration of a ‘no migration’.
Landfill Desicrn
1) Composite Bottom Liner Equivalency
A facility proposed to install a 60-mi high density polyethylene
(HDPE) liner over a compacted clay layer with a permeability not
exceeding i. x io 6 cm/sec as the lower liner for a new cell.
The Assistance Branch was asked to determine if the proposed
liner was equivalent to the current requirement under Section
264.301(c) for a 3 foot compacted clay-only liner with a
permeability not greater than 1 x 10 centimeters per second.
The staff felt that a. composite liner with a clay component of 1
x l0 cm/sec permeability was equivalent to a clay liner with
lower permeability. Regulations proposed on March 28, 1986
(Reference 6), when they become effective, will be more
restrictive. They will require a composite bottom liner
consisting of a flexible membrane li 9 er over a 3 foot clay layer
with a permeability not more 1 x 10 . Until then, the clay—
only liner requirement is the standard applied to evaluate liner
equivalency.
2) Evaluation of a Steep Slope Using the Universal Soil Loss
Equation
A facility proposed to install a cover with a slope that
significantly exceeds the recommended 3-5% grade. The owner
maintains that the annual soil loss, based upon the Universal
Soil Loss Equation, would be just less than the 2 tons/acre/year
limit recommended by EPA. The Assistance Branch was asked to
review the facility’s calculations.
The five factors used in the soil loss equation are subjective
and selected based upon the site engineer’s best judgement. If
slightly larger factors were applied than the ones selected by
the applicant, the soil loss would be substantially greater (as
much as 33 tons/acre/year). In order for the Assistance Branch
to accept the applicant’s predicted soil loss, the anticipated
loss should be significantly less than 2 tons/acre/year so that
any underestimation of the selected factors would not result in
an actual loss of more than the soil loss limit. The Assistance
Branch requested additional documentation from the applicant.
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00—17
—16—
3) Demonstration of Material Durability
An applicant conducted a demonstration of material durability by
using polyethylene tanks to perform the compatibility testing on
their HDPE liner components. The polyethylene tank material
absorbs the same kinds of chemicals as the HDPE samples, thereby
reducing the constituent level in the test leachate. This could
lead to an unrealistic strength data after immersion testing.
The Assistance Branch recommends that glass vessels be used for
immersion testing.
4) Minimum Technological Requirements for Secondary Soil Liner
A facility planned to construct a side slope liner by scarifying
and remolding the exposed soils prior to placement of the
synthetic membrane. Section 264.301(c) requires that this liner
be constructed “with at least a 3 foot thick layer of
recompacted clay or oth 9 r natural material with a permeability
of no more than 1 x 10 cm/sec.” Scarifying and remolding
alone do not meet the requirements for recouipaction.
Permit Conditions
1) Specification of an Adequate Number of Emergency
Coordinators
Assistance Branch review of a Part B application addressed the
contingency plan for the facility. This facility had only one
emergency coordinator designated in their plan.
The regulations in Section 264.55 require that an emergency
coordinator be available at all times. At the minimum, one
additional employee must be designated and trained as emergency
coordinator to provide around-the-clock and vacation coverage.
At this particular facility, the Assistance Branch recommended
that two more emergency coordinators be designated in order to
provide adequate coverage.
2) Requirement for Additional Testing as a Permit Condition
In a draft permit, a State required that all stabilized wastes
that have passed the paint filter test also be subjected to an
unconfined compressive strength test at 50 psi. While a Region
can specify permit conditions for additional testing, the
current Federal policy and the proposed rule on containerized
liquids are less stringent than the draft State permit
condition. The State is allowed, however, to be more stringent
than the EPA. Note that under the Federal policy, the
compressive strength test is necessary only if the Region is
unsure that true chemical stabilization has occurred.
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00—17
—17—
AVAILABILITY OF NEW GUIDANCE
Tank SvsteTns
EPA guidance document, “Compilation of Persons Who Desigit,
Test, Inspect, and Install Storage Tank Systems”
(EPA/530—SW-88—019) is now available. The document
provides a list of individuals and firms who provide the
services of an independent, qualified, registered
professional engineer, corrosion expert, or qualified
installation inspector as required in the July 14, 1986
regulations for hazardous waste tank systems.
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00—17
—18—
Attachment A
Assistance Branch Staff Reviews Included in this Summary
Facility Name Region Staff Coordinator Review Date
Buckner Barrel II Chester Oszman May 1987
Ciba-Geigy II Chris Rhyne June 1987
(Glen Falls, N.Y.)
Ciba—Geigy II Chris Rhyne March 1988
(Queensbury, N.Y.)
Fort Barton Industries I Sonya Stelmack February
1987
General Dynamics I Sonya Stelmack June
1987
General Electric II Chris Rhyne February
(Waterford, N.Y.) 1988
Eli Lilly and Company V Chester Oszman June
1987
Envirosafe Services X Amy Mills February
(Grand View, Idaho) 1987
Memtek Corporation I Nestor Aviles January
,l 987
Monsanto VI Dave Eberly April
(Chocolate Bayou, TX) 1987
Moore Business Forms and VI Nestor Avi].es May
1987
National Institute of III Nestor Aviles February
Health (N IH) 1988
SCA Chemical Services II Chris Rhyne December
1987
SOHIO VI Chris Rhyne October
1987
Union Carbide Agriculture III Chris Rhyne July
Products Company 1987
U.S. Ecology IX Chris Rhyne February
1988
uspc l VIII Dave Eber].y January
1988
-------
OSW Directive No. 9523.00—17
—19—
Attachment B
List of Guidances Used in Preparing the Assistance Branch
Reviews
1. “Acceptability of Thermal Relief Vents on Hazardous Waste
Incinerators”, OSWER Policy Directive #9488.00—3.
2. Compilation of Persons Who Design, Test, Inspect, and
Install Storage Tank Systems, February 29, 1988,
EPA/530—SW—88—019.
3. Guidance Manual for Research, Development, and Demonstration
Permits under 40 CFR Section 270.65, July 1986, EPA/530
SW—86—008, OSWER Policy Directive #9527.00—LA.
4. Guidance on the Implementation of the Minimum Technological
Requirements of HSWA of 1984, Respecting Liners and Leachate
Collection Systems; EPA/530-SW-85-012.
5. “Hazardous Waste; Codification Rule for the 1984 RCRA
Amendments” 52 FR 45788, July 15, 1985.
6. “Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Codification of
Statutory Provisions”, 50 FR 10706.
7. “Hazardous Waste Management System; Preamble to the Final
Codification Rule”, 50 FR 28706.
8. “Incinerator Eligibility for RD&D Permits” Memorandum from
Susan Bromm, Acting Director, Permits & States Programs
Division, March 8, 1988.
9. “Predicting Emissions from the Thermal Processing of
Hazardous Wastes”, Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials,
June 30, 1986.
10. Questions and Answers Regarding the July 14, 1986 Hazardous
Waste Tank System Regulatory Amendments, August 1987,
EPA/530—SW—87—012.
11. “Summary of Permit Assistance Team Comments”, 1988, OSWER
Policy Directive #9523.00—15.
12. “Implementation Strategy for the Hazardous Waste Tank
System Regulations”. EPA/530—SW—87—0l8. May 1987.
------- |