INDUSTRY GUIDE TO CLOSURE, POST-CLOSURE,
GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND FINANCIAL
REQUIREMENTS UNDER RCRA
This report was prepared by:
A.T. KEARNEY, Inc.
699 Prince Street
P.O. Box 1405
Alexandria, VA. 22313
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1982
-------
INDUSTRY GUIDE TO CLOSURE,
AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING
CORRECTION. AND
POST-CLOSURE, FINANCIAL,
REQUIREMENTS UNDER RCRA
UPDATE SHEE.T
Page 29 - Section 4.2, 1st sentence
"Initial closure, and post-closure cost estimates.
Page 36 - Section 5.1, 1st sentence
"....apply to all facilities operating under interim status ,in.
una u t ho.r l ze d' States as..."
Page 41 - 9th line
"... .estimates after, the, pay-in, p,e.r,ipd, ,ig. compl.eted. "
Pages 54-56, Section 5.12
- Massachusetts will receive public comments through August 1982.
- New Hampshire will adopt the federal financial assurance regula-
tions on December 31, 1982. Note that interm status facilities
will not have to submit documentation, only have it on-site.
Only facilities that have had their permit called will have to
submit documentation.
- Connecticut requests that the plans and cost estimates be sub-
mitted along with the financial documentation by October 6, 1982
- Maine officials hope to have their regulations finalized by
the end of 1982 or early 1983.
Page 58 - Section 5.14.2
The ICF guidance manual can be obtained from NTIS under number
PB 82-237595.
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703)487-4650
Pages 66-67, Section 6.6
- Massachusetts will receive public comments through August, 1982.
- New Hampshire will adopt the federal liability insurance regula-
tions on December 31, 1982. Sudden coverage will be effective
on December 31, 1982. Nonsudden coverage will have the federal
effective dates of January 15, 1983, '84, and '85.
- Connecticut has adopted the federal liability regulations by
reference. Sudden coverage will be effective on October 6, 1983
Nonsudden coverage will have the federal effective dates of
January 15, 1983, '84 and '85.
- Maine hopes to have its regulations finalized by the end of
1982 or early 1983.
Page 74 - Section 7.3, last paragraph
"....reported to the Regional Administrator p.r, responsible state
agency, dire.ctpr quarterly "
-------
8. Page 75 - Section 7.4, 15th line
Same addition as the previous correction.
9. Page 76 - Section 7.4, 14th line
Same addition as the previous correction,
10. Page 78 - Section 7.6.1, 11th line
"Rotary drilling is appropriate in most areas...." (delete
no,t)
11. Page 80 - Section 7.6.2, middle of page
. Characterization parameters (annually) (delete sejn.i)
. Indicator Parameters - change total costs to:
$825 - $1,055
$3,300 - $4,220
12. Page 85 - Section 7.8.2, 1st sentence
"All Region J states
13. Page 109 - Attachment 1, page 3
The 1982 should be moved from the end of the first sentence
to the end of the second sentence.
14. Page 139 - Appendix B
The entire denominator should be placed under a square
root sign (radical).
-------
INDUSTRY GUIDE TO CLOSURE, POST-CLOSURE,
GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND FINANCIAL
REQUIREMENTS UNDER RCRA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 CLOSURE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 4
3 POST-CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AT HAZARDOUS
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 18
4 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
COST ESTIMATES 29
5 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR CLOSURE
AND POST-CLOSURE 36
6 LIABILITY INSURANCE 60
7 GROUNDWATER MONITORING 70
APPENDIX A MODEL PLANS 87
APPENDIX B STUDENT'S T-TEST 135
APPENDIX C FEDERAL AND STATE CONTACTS 144
-------
- 1 -
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This guidance manual was prepared to assist hazardous waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (T-SDFs) located in
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region I under-
stand and comply with the regulations issued under the Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and
applicable state regulations. This includes facilities located
in the states of:
Vermont;
Connecticut;
Massachusetts
Rhode Island;
Maine; and
New Hampshire.
The requirements addressed in this guidance manual are those
applicable to facilities that have qualified for interim status
from the EPA as described in Section 122.23 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 122.23). The regulations
applicable to interim status facilities are found, for the most
part, in 40 CFR 265.
The requirements described in this guidance manual are
related to:
Closure of TSDFs at the end of their
operating life:
-------
- 2 -
Caring for disposal facilities after
they are closed (the post-closure care
period);
Providing financial assurance that funds
will be available to conduct closure and
provide post-closure care;
Insuring TSDFs against third party
liability claims; and
Monitoring groundwater both during and
after the facility's active life.
All six states in Region I have obtained Phase I authoriza-
tion from the EPA. Under this authorization, each state is res-
ponsible for administering its own closure, post-closure and
groundwater monitoring regulatory programs. The states' re-
quirements regarding closure and post-closure are essentially
equivalent to the Federal regulations described in Chapters 2
and 3. However, some Region I states have implemented specific
groundwater monitoring requirements in addition to issuing regu-
lations equivalent to the Federal groundwatering monitoring re-
quirements. Chapter 7, which describes the Federal requirements,
also identifies the principal differences between state and
Federal groundwater monitoring requirements in Region I states.
Federal regulations governing (1) cost estimates, (2) fin-
ancial assurance and (3) liability insurance were issued in
April of 1982. Region I states had not developed regulations in
the latter two areas as of this writing. However, the states'
-------
- 3 -
current plans regarding financial assurance and liability in-
surance have been included in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively.
Federal requirements for estimating closure and post-closure
costs are reviewed in Chapter 4.
At the end of each chapter of this report additional sources
o£ information are listed that can be of farther assistance to
the reader. Many of the cited publications are available froic
the Rational Technical InfotTm&tio^ Service {"OTIS) in Springfield,
Virginia (703/557-4650). Moat are also available for review in
the EPA Region. I library in Bostcnr Massachusetts (617/223-5791).
To illustrate the required content and submittal format for
closure plans, cost estimates, financial assurance instruments,
liability insurance policies an<3 groundwater monitoring plans,
examples of these are pieseivted for a hypothetical treatment and
it facility ir. Append is A. fii though tbese examples- will
further assist a facility in developing its own compliance plans,
the reader Is advised that s-Lts-spec-f i: cc-nsidera-Scns w=j r=-
gulre zhe ase of alternate mechanisms and/or approaches.
Appendix B contains an example of the Student's T-Tesr; used
to evaluate groundwater monitoring data.
Appendix C contains a listing of Federal and state regula-
tory authorities who can be contacted for additional guidance or
information*
-------
- 4 -
CHAPTER 2
CLOSURE OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
This chapter describes the planning and performance require-
ments for closure (and partial closure) of hazardous waste man-
agement facilities and the minimum required content of the writ-
ten closure plan. This material is presented in the following
order:
2.1 Applicability
2.2 Closure Plans
2.3 Closure Standards and Inventory Removal
2.4 Partial Closure
2.5 Maximum Waste Inventory
2.6 Equipment Decontamination and Disposal
2.7 Certification of Closure
2.8 Closure Schedule
2.9 Extensions for Closure Time
2.10 Modifications to the Closure Plan
2.11 Sources of Information
Facilities required to have a closure plan must also prepare a
closure cost estimate, as described in Chapter 4, and provide
assurance that financing of closure activities will be available
at the time of closure through one of the mechanisms described
in Chapter 5. States and the Federal government are exempt from
these additional requirements.
2.1 Applicability
Any facility that stores hazardous wastes for 90 days or
longer or treats or disposes of such wastes must plan for the
facility's eventual closure. Closure requirements are not
-------
- 5 -
applicable to hazardous waste generators or transporters unless
those facilities are also treatment, storage or disposal
facilities.
2.2 Closure Plans
A written closure plan must be submitted with the facility's
Part B RCRA permit application or 180 days before closure is to
begin, whichever comes first. Existing facilities that filed
Part A applications and are operating under interim status (as
described in 40 CFR Section 122.23) were required to have written
closure plans by May 19, 1981. A copy of the most recent closure
plan must be kept on-site until closure is certified to be com-
plete and is accepted by EPA or the responsible state agency.
Closure plans will be subject to a 30-day public comment
period and may also be subject to a public hearing. The EPA
Regional Administrator (RA) or state agency director will ap-
prove, modify or disapprove the closure plan within 90 days of
its receipt. If the closure plan is not approved, the applicant
will have 30 days to submit a modified or new plan and the RA or
state agency director another 60 days to approve or modify it.
The closure plan must identify the steps necessary to com-
pletely or partially close the facility at any point during its
intended operating life, and to completely close the facility at
-------
- 6 -
the end of its intended operating life. The closure plan need
not address major accidents or spills. Only events expected to
occur during normal operations should be considered in preparing
the plan.
The minimum required content of the written closure plan is
described in Sections 2.3 through 2.8 of this chapter.
2.3 Closure Standards and Inventory Removal
2.3.1 General Standards
Hazardous waste facilities must be closed in a manner that:
(1) minimizes the need for further maintenance and controls, (2)
minimizes or eliminates threats to human health and the environ-
ment; and (3) avoids post-closure escape of hazardous waste,
hazardous waste constituents, leachate, contaminated rainfall,
or waste decomposition products to the ground or surface waters
or to the atmosphere.
The closure plan should describe in detail how, at closure,
all hazardous wastes; hazardous waste residues; and contaminated
containers, tanks, liners, soils and other equipment will be
disposed of or decontaminated so as to achieve the closure
standards.
-------
- 7 -
If any hazardous wastes, residues, or contaminated soils or
equipment are to remain at the facility after closure, the fac-
ility must be closed as a disposal facility. Such facilities
are subject to additional requirements, such as post-closure
care, ground water monitoring and nonsudden liability coverage
requirements, and are also subject to the closure requirements
described below in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3.
2.3.2 Closure of Hazardous Waste Landfills
A final cover that will achieve the closure standards speci-
fied in Section 2.3.1 must be placed over the landfill. This
will generally consist of an impermeable seal over the landfill,
such as a clay cap, covered by a layer of soil and revegetated
with plants that will prevent soil erosion without causing root
damage to the cap itself. The cover design and performance
should be thoroughly described in the closure plan. At a mini-
mum, the description of the cover design should include materials
to be used, final surface contours, thickness, porosity, permea-
bility, slope, length of run of slope, and type of vegetation on
the cover.
-------
- 8 -
Adequate long-term performance of the landfill liner should
be demonstrated in the closure plan based on waste/liner compat-
ability analyses, leaching tests, and review of construction and
operation records. If closure activities or post-closure use of
the site would require that the liner and/or cover support heavy
loads, such as large earth-moving equipment, the closure plan
should demonstrate that those loadings will not result in cover
or liner damage.
The closure plan should show how the landfill design and
closure will prevent consolidation of materials within the
landfill that could lead to rupture of the protective cover.
The closure plan must specify how the steps taken to close
the facility will:
(1) Control pollutant migration from the
facility via ground water, surface
water, and air;
(2) Control surface water infiltration and
prevent surface water pooling over the
landfill;
(3) Prevent erosion of the landfill cover;
and
(4) Be compatible with the site's intended
or expected post-closure use.
The closure plan must also demonstrate that the owner or operator
has considered the following factors in developing the closure
plan:
-------
- 9 -
(1) Type and amount of hazardous wastes in
the landfill;
(2) The mobility and expected migration
rate of wastes;
(3) Site location- topography, and sur-
rounding land use, with respect to the
potential effects of pollutant migra-
tion (e.g., ground water, surface water
and drinking water contamination);
(4) Climate effects, including the amount,
frequency, and pH of precipitation; and
(5) Site geology, hydrology and
geohydrology.
If access to the site is to be restricted, the closure plan
should describe the activities undertaken at the time of closure
to prevent intrusions. For example, fencing off the landfill at
closure to prevent cover disturbance by hunters or off-road
vehicles should be considered an element of the closure plan.
2.3.2 Closure of Land Treatment Facilities
In addition to the requirements specified in Section 2.3.1,
hazardous waste land treatment facilities must meet the require-
ments described in this section.
Land treatment facilities must be closed in a manner that
adequately controls the escape of (1) hazardous contaminants
into groundwaters and surface waters and (2) airborne particu-
late contaminants through wind erosion. Unless all contaminated
-------
- 10 -
soils and materials are to be removed from the facility at clo-
sure, the closure plan must state how adequate control will be
assured. If contaminants are to remain, the closure plan must
consider at least the.following:
(1) Design, function and characteristics of
any cover to be used;
(2) Collection and treatment of site run-off;
(3) Diversion structures to prevent surface
water run-on from entering treated soil
areas; and
(4) Monitoring of soils, soil-pore water,
and ground water.'
In describing the effectiveness of these and any other controls
utilized, the closure plan must at a minimum, demonstrate that
the controls will be adequate, considering:
(1) The amount, characteristics, mobility,
and expected migration rates of wastes;
(2) Site location, topography and surround-
ing land use with respect to potential
pollutant migration effects (e.g., prox-
imity to ground water, surface water and
drinking water sources);
(3) Climatic effects, including amount, fre-
quency and pH of rainfall;
(4) Geological and soil profiles and surface
and subsurface hydrology of the site;
(5) Soil characteristics, including cation
exchange capacity, total organic carbon
and pH; and
-------
- 11 -
(6) Type, concentration and depth of migra-
tion of waste constituents in the soil
as compared to background levels. Cur-
rent information from unsaturated zone
(zone of aeration) monitoring conducted
at the site should be used in the closure
plan to evaluate the performance of con-
trols to be used for site closure in the
closure plan.
2.4 Partial Closure
The closure plan must describe any partial closure that will
take place at the facility prior to final closure. Examples of
partial closure activities would be (1) the periodic closure of
hazardous waste landfill cells at a facility or (2) discontinuing
a process line and removing certain storage and treatment equip-
ment from use. All partial closure activities must be conducted
in accordance with the same regulations described in this guide
that govern final closure activities.
2.5 Maximum Waste Inventory
The closure plan must describe the maximum inventory of
wastes that will be in storage, treatment and disposal at any
time during the life of the facility. Amounts of waste should
be stated, in appropriate units, for each activity at the site
(i.e., treatment, storage and disposal). Maximum waste inven-
tory may differ from a facility's maximum capacity to allow for
unusual occurances, such as inventory buildups during process
outages. The estimate of maximum inventory will become a condi-
tion of the permit.
-------
- 12 -
2.6 Equipment Decontamination and Disposal
The closure plan should identify the number or amount of
storage tanks-, pumps, containment structures, piping, liners,
soils and other contaminated materials that will require decon-
tamination, or disposal as a hazardous waste, during closure.
Decontamination procedures to be used, such as steam cleaning,
hydro-blasting and solvent rinsing, should be described. The
methods to be used to analyze washing residues to verify satis-
factory decontamination and the intended disposal method for
those residues should be identified.
A disposal facility disposing of its own contaminated equip-
ment and materials on-site during closure must assure the com-
patibility of those materials with other wastes at the facility,
as appropriate. Disposal of contaminated equipment should not
interfere with planned future uses for the land.
2.7 Certification of Closure
Upon completion of facility closure, a certification that
all closure activities contained in the approved closure plan
have been completed must be submitted to the EPA Regional Admin-
istrator or responsible state agency director. This certifica-
tion must be signed by both the owner/operator and an indepen-
dent registered professional engineer.
-------
- 13 -
2.8 Closure Schedule
The closure plan must estimate the year in which closure
will take place and include a detailed schedule of closure and
partial closure activities. The owner/operator must notify the
EPA Regional Administrator or state agency director at least 180
days before closure or partial closure activities begin.
The closure schedule must include the total time required to
close the facility and a milestone schedule depicting the time
required for intervening closure activities. Provisions should
be included in the plan for scheduling periodic certification
inspections during the closure period.
Closure activities should begin within 30 days after receipt
of the last waste shipment at the site. All hazardous wastes
must be treated, removed off-site, or disposed of on-site within
90 days of receipt of the final volume of waste and all closure
activities must be completed within 180 days from the receipt of
the final volume of waste, unless an extension is granted.
2.9 Extensions for Closure Time
In the event that more time is needed for closure than is
normally allotted, the closure plan must demonstrate that: (1)
the activities will necessarily take longer than 180 days to
complete or (2) that the facility will have the capacity to
-------
- 14 -
receive additional wastes, that a person other than the owner or
operator will recommence operation of the site, and that closure
of the facility would be incompatible with continued operation
of the site. The closure plan must also demonstrate that all
steps have been and will continue to be taken to prevent threats
to human health and the environment from the unclosed but in-
active facility.
2.10 Modifications to the Closure Plan
If changes in the operating plans or facility design affect
the closure plan or the expected year of plant closure, the
owner/operator must request a modification of the closure plan.
For example, changes in any of the following should result in a
modification of the closure plan: facility size/capacity; types
and quantities of wastes onsite at maximum closure inventory;
schedule for partial and final closure; and schedules for peri-
odic maintenance and inspection activities.
Changes in technical considerations can also result in clo-
sure plan modification; for example, the application of new
technology or changes in monitoring requirements, operating con-
tingencies, land-use patterns around the facility, and the res-
ponse of the EPA Regional Administrator or responsible state
agency director to petitions by owners or operators.
-------
- 15 -
2.11 Sources of Information
2.11.1 Federal Regulations
The Federal regulatory requirements for closure described in
this chapter can be found in the sections of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations identified in Table 1.
Table 1
Federal Regulatory Citations for
. Closure Standards
Topic
Section*
Applicability
Closure Performance Standard
Closure Plan
Amending the Closure Plan
Time Allowed For Closure
Disposal of Decontamination of Equipment
Certification of Closure
Closure of Tanks
Closure of Surface Impoundments
Closure of Land Treatment Facilities
Closure of Landfills
Closure of Incinerators
Closure of Thermal Treatment Facilities
Closure of Chemical, Physical and Biological
265.110(a)
265.111
265.112
265.112
265.113
265.114
265.115
265.197
265.228
265.280
265.310
265.351
265.381
Treatment Facilities
265.404
* Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 190 to 399; Re-
vised as of July 1, 1981; U.S. Goverment Printing Office;
Washington, D.C.
-------
- 16 -
2.11.2 State Regulations
All Region I states have issued final regulations regarding
closure that are essentially equivelant to the Federal require-
ments described in this chapter. However, readers are advised
to contact their state hazardous waste permitting authorities to
determine if additional state regulations may be applicable to
their facilities.
2.11.3 Additional Guidance
Further guidance in developing closure plans can be found in
the EPA's guidance manuals:
"Draft Guidance for Supart G of the Interim
Status Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Dis-
posal Facilities" (Draft Report, IR&T Corp.,
October 6, 1980); and
"Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface Im-
poundments", EPA Publication No. SW-873,
September, 1980 (NTIS Publication No.
PB-81-166-894).
The latter document also contains information concerning closure
of hazardous waste landfills.
Other publications that may be of use in developing closure
plans include:
"Manual for Evaluating Cover Systems for
Solid and Hazardous Wastes", EPA Publication
No. SW-846, October, 1980, (NTIS Publication
No. PB-81-166-340);
-------
"Guidance Manual: Lining of Waste Impound-
ments and Disposal Facilities", EPA Publica
tion No. SW-870, October, 1980, (NTIS Publi
cation NO. PB-81-166-365)
"Design and Management of Hazardous Waste
Land Treatment Facilities", EPA Publication
No. SW-874, October, 1980,1 (NTIS Publica-
tion No. PB-81-182-107);
"Hydrologic Simulation of Solid Waste Dis-
posal Sites", EPA Publication No. SW-868,
October, 1980, (NTIS Publication No.
PB-81-166-332); and
"Decontaminating Vessels Containing Hazard-
ous Materials", by P.B. Dransfield and R.T.
Greig in Chemical Engineering Progress,
January, 1982, pp. 35-38.
-------
- 18 -
CHAPTER 3
POST-CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AT HAZARDOUS
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
This chapter describes the planning and implementation re-
quirements related to caring for hazardous waste disposal facil-
ities after they are closed.
This guidance material is presented in the following order:
3.1 Applicability
3.2 Post-Closure Plan
3.3 Post-Closure Care Requirements
3.4 Schedule
3.5 Amending the Post-Closure Plan
3.6 Notice to Local Land Authority
3.7 Notice in Property Deed
All facilities required to have post-closure plans must al-
so prepare post-closure cost estimates, as described in Chapter
4, and provide assurance that financing of post-closure activi-
ties will be available through one of the mechanisms described
in Chapter 5. Only states and the Federal government are exempt
from these additional requirements.
-------
- 19 -
3.1 Applicability
All hazardous waste management facilities where wastes, waste
products or contaminated materials are to remain after closure
are considered disposal facilities and must provide post-closure
care. Such facilities would include hazardous waste landfills,
land treatment facilities, seepage facilities and surface im-
poundments, so long as hazardous contaminants remain after
closure.
3.2 Post-Closure Plans
Owners and operators of disposal facilities were required to
have written post-closure plans by May 19, 1981. A copy of the
most recent post-closure plan must be kept at the facility until
the post-closure care period begins. A copy must also be sub-
mitted with the facility's Part B RCRA permit application or
180 days before closure is to begin, whichever comes first.
As with closure plans, post-closure plans are subject to
public comments, public hearings, an initial 90-day review cycle
by EPA or the responsible state agency and, if necessary, a
30-day period for the applicant to modify the plan followed by a
60-day period in which the Regional Administrator or state
agency director will modify or approve the post-closure plan.
The requirement content of written post-closure plans is
described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of this chapter.
-------
- 20 -
3.3 Post-Closure Care Requirements
3.3.1 General Requirements
Closed hazardous waste disposal facilities or operations
must be inspected, monitored and maintained, as necessary, to
prevent adverse impacts on human health and on the environment.
The post-closure plan must specify how these goals will be
achieved.
The post-closure plan must provide the name, address and
phone number of a person or office to contact during the post-
closure period concerning the facility, or the post-closure
program.
All post-closure plans must contain a plan for monitoring
groundwater and reporting the results of that monitoring to the
EPA Regional Administrator or responsible state agency
director. The requirements of the groundwater monitoring plan
are described in Chapter 7 of this guidance document.
The post-closure plan must also describe any planned
operations or maintenance and inspection activities and the
frequencies of those activities.
This would include activities such as:
Inspections to assure that monitoring
equipment is fully functional;
-------
- 21 -
Periodic mowing to prevent deep-rooting
plants from damaging covers or caps;
Operation and maintenance of groundwater
treatment systems used to decontaminate
soils; and
Inspections and maintenance to assure
the integrity of covers, caps, or any
other containment/control structures to
be employed.
If access to the site is to be controlled after closure, the
post-closure plan should describe the staffing and/or care re-
quired to prevent intrusions onto the site. Examples of post-
closure access control could include periodic inspection with
maintenance, as needed, of security fences and stationing
security guards at entry points.
If the post-closure plan does not provide for restricting
site access, the EPA Regional Administrator or state agency
director may require that the post-closure plan be revised to
include security measures when:
Wastes may remain exposed after
completion of closure; or
Access by the public or domestic
livestock may pose a hazard to human
health.
Any planned use of the property on or in which hazardous
wastes are to remain must be described in the post-closure plan.
Such uses must not disturb the integrity of the final cover,
liners or other containment structures unless it is demonstrated
that the proposed uses:
-------
- 22 -
Will not increases potential health or
environmental hazards; or
Are necessary to reduce threats to human
health or the environment.
3.3.2 Post-Closure Care of Landfills
In addition to the general requirements described in Section
3.3.1, hazardous waste landfill owners or operators must: (1)
operate, maintain and monitor any leachate collection removal
and treatment system present so as to prevent excess leachate
accumulation in the containment system; (2) maintain and monitor
any gas collection and control system; and (3) protect and main-
tain surveyed benchmarks. These requirements must be addressed
in the post-closure plan.
3.3.3 Post-Closure Care of Land Treatment Facilities
Post-closure plans for land treatment facilities must, in
addition to the requirements of 3.3.1, provide for maintaining
and operating any: (1) run-off collection and treatment system
and (2) unsaturated zone monitoring system.
Furthermore, the growth of food chain crops at closed land
treatment facilities is subject to extensive controls, documen-
tation and testing to assure the purity of the crops grown.
-------
3.4 Schedule
The post-closure plan should include a schedule of activities
planned during the post-closure period. The post-closure period
begins upon the certification by an independent registered pro-
fessional engineer that closure has been completed. The EPA
Regional Administrator or responsible state agency director must
be notified at least 180 days prior to the date that closure is
to begin.
Post-closure care must last for 30 years (unless the post-
closure plan is amended as described in Section 3.5). The EPA
Regional Administrator or state agency director may require that
post-closure care last longer than 30 years if he deems that
addditional care is necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
3.5 Amending The Post-Closure Plan
The post-closure plan may be amended by the owner or operator
at any time during the active life of the facility, during the
post-closure period or at the end of the post-closure period.
The disposal facility owner or operator must submit an amended
plan within 60 days of any changes in operating plans or facil-
ity design, or events which occur during the active life of the
facility, that groundwater contamination during the facility's
active life would necessitate that the post-closure plan be
-------
- 24 -
amended. Any changes in the intended future use of.the property
here hazardous wastes are located also requires an amendment to
the post-closure plan.
The owner or operator of the facility may request an amend-
ment to his post-closure plan at any time through a petition to
the Regional Administrator or responsible state agency director.
During and at the end of the post-closure period, any member
of the public (or the owner/operator) may submit a petition re-
questing a plan modification. Any petition to alter the required
post-closure care (or care period) must provide just cause for
doing so and demonstrate that the changes:
Are necessary to prevent or reduce
threats to human health or the envi-
ronment; or
Will not increase such threats.
Petitions submitted after closure is complete are subject to
a 30-day public comment period and may also be subject to public
hearings.
3.6 Notice to Local Land Authority
Within 90 days after closure is complete, a notice must be
submitted to both the local land authority and the EPA Regional
Administrator (or responsible state agency director) containing
a site survey plat and an inventory of disposed waste.
-------
- 25 -
The plat must be prepared and.certified by a professional
land surveyor. It must contain a prominent note stating the
owner's or operator's obligation to restrict disturbance of the
site.
The inventory of disposed wastes must identify the type,
location and quantity of all wastes disposed of within each cell
or area since November 19, 1980. Wastes disposed of before that
date should be similarly identified to the best of the owner's
or operator's ability.
3.7 Notice in Deed to Property
A notice must be permanently placed in the official property
deed (or any other record that would normally be examined in a
title search) that will alert any potential purchaser that the
land has.been used to manage hazardous wastes and that its use
is permanently restricted by Federal and state law (40 CFR
265.117(C)).
3.8 Sources of Information
3.8.1 Federal Regulations
The Federal regulatory requirements for post-closure
described in this chapter can be found in the sections of Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations identified in Table 2.
-------
- 26 -
Table 2
Federal Regulatory Citations for
Post-Closure Standards
Topic Section*
Applicability 265.110(b)
Security Requirements 265.114
Post-Closure Care and Use of Property 265.117
Post-Closure Plans 265.118
Amending the Closure Plans 265.118
Notice to Local Land Authority 265.119
Notice in Property Deed 265.120
Post-Closure Care of Surface Impoundments 265.228
Post-Closure Care of Land Treatment
Facilities 265.280
Post-Closure Care of Landfills 265.310
* Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 190 to 399; Re-
vised as of July 1, 1981; U.S. Goverment Printing Office;
Washington, D.C.
3.8.2 State Regulations
All Region I states have issued final regulations regarding
post-closure care that are essentially equivelant to the Federal
requirements described in this chapter. However, readers are
advised to contact their respective state hazardous waste
permitting authorities to determine if state requirements vary
from those described in this chapter.
-------
3.8.3 Additional Guidance
Further guidance in developing post-closure plans can be
found in the EPA's guidance manuals:
"Draft Guidance for Supart G of the Interim
Status Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Dis- '
posal Facilities" (Draft Report, IR&T Corp.,
October 6, 1980); and
"Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface Im-
poundments", EPA Publication No. SW-873,
September, 1980 (NTIS Publication No.
PB-81-166-894).
The latter document also contains information concerning
post-closure care at hazardous waste landfills.
Other publications that may be of use in developing closu
plans include:
"Manual for Evaluating Cover Systems for
Solid and Hazardous Wastes", EPA Publication
No. SW-846, October, 1980, (NTIS Publication
No. PB-81-166-340);
"Guidance Manual: Lining of Waste Impound-
ments and Disposal Facilities", EPA Publica-
tion No. SW-870, October, 1980, (NTIS Publi-
cation NO. PB-81-166-365)
"Design and Management of Hazardous Waste
Land Treatment Facilities", EPA Publication
No. SW-874, October, 1980,1 (NTIS Publica-
tion No. PB-81-182-107);
Hydrologic Simulation of Solid Waste Dis-
posal Sites", EPA Publication No. SW-868,
October, 1980, (NTIS Publication No.
PB-81-166-332);
-------
"Landfill and Surface Impoundment Perfor-
mance Evaluation Manual", EPA Publication
No. SW-864, October, 1980 (NTIS Publication
No. PB-81-189-359); and
"Hazardous Waste Leachate Management Manual"
EPA Publication No. SW-871, October, 1980
(NTIS Publication No. PB-81-189-357).
-------
- 29 -
CHAPTER 4
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES
This chapter describes requirements for preparing, filing
and updating closure and post-closure cost estimates. This
material is presented in the following order:
4.1 Applicability
4.2 Cost Estimate Preparation
4.3 Closure Cost Estimates
4.4 Post-Closure Cost Estimates
4.5 Revising the Cost Estimates
4.6 Sources of Information
4.1 Applicability
All treatment, storage or disposal facility owners or oper-
ators that must prepare closure plans must also prepare closure
cost estimates. Similarly, disposal facilities required to have
post-closure plans must have accompanying post-closure cost
estimates. Only states and the Federal government are exempt
and need not prepare cost estimates.
4.2 Cost Estimate Preparation
Initial post-closure cost estimates were to have been
prepared by May 19, 1981. Facility changes or corrections to a
previously-prepared cost estimate may require that a revised
document, termed the "latest cost estimate," be prepared. (If
-------
- 30 -
no such revisions are made the initial cost estimate is con-
sidered the latest cost estimate.) The latest cost estimate
must be revised annually to adjust for inflation, yeilding the
"latest adjusted cost estimate." Copies of the latest cost
estimate(s) and the latest adjusted cost estimate(s) must be
kept at the facility until closure is certified to be complete
and must be included in a facility's RCRA Part B permit
application submittal.
4.3 Closure Cost Estimates
A facility's closure cost estimate must provide an accurate
estimate of the total costs that would be incurred if the facil-
ity were to be closed at the point in its operating life when
the extent and manner of its operation would make closure the
most expensive. Thus, the conditions on which the cost estimate
is based may differ from anticipated conditions at the end of
normal facility life with respect to factors such as:
The amounts of materials requiring
disposal;
The status of processing equipment; and
The area of the facility in disturbed
condition.
Significant differences between the basis of the cost
estimate and the normal planned closure activities should be
identified in the cost estimate. Except for such adjustments,
the closure cost estimate should include all costs expected in
conducting closure in adherence with the closure plan.
-------
- 31 -
Closure cost estimates need not include provisions for high-
ly unusual contingencies such as 50-year storm damage or an un-
expected major system failure. Only predictable events that
may occur over the life of the facility should be considered.
Cost estimates should be based on the operating costs to the
owner or operator. This means that in developing the cost esti-
mate, factors such as depreciation costs, capital recovery fac-
tors and interest on debts need not be included. For example,
if earth-moving equipment owned by the facility operator is to
be used, only the costs of owning or operating the equipment
need be considered, and not equipment depreciation costs. How-
ever, if this equipment must be rented to conduct closure, the
full rental costs must be part of the cost estimate.
Cost estimates for each activity must include all associated
costs such as fully loaded labor costs, any costs of supervision,
fuel and maintenance costs for equipment, administrative costs
and provisions for normal contingencies. Depending on the un-
certainty of the cost estimate, provision for contingencies could
reasonably be expected to fall within the range of 15 to 25
percent.
Cost estimates may not be reduced to account for salvage
values or land sales at the time of closure.
-------
- 32 -
4.4 Post-Closure Cost Estimates
Post-closure cost estimates must be based upon the activi-
ties, quantities and methods indicated in the post-closure plan.
The cost estimate should reflect the costs of purchasing or rent-
ing, as appropriate, all necessary labor, materials and equip-
ment to carry out post-closure care. Unlike the closure cost
estimate, it may not be assumed that the owner or operator al-
ready has adequate equipment for carrying out the post-closure
plan.
The cost estimate must cover the period beginning at comple-
tion of closure and lasting for 30 years thereafter (unless the
post-closure period is amended by the EPA Regional Administra-
tor or responsible state agency director). The cost estimate
need not cover the costs of maintaining any partially closed
portions of the facility prior to certification of complete
facility closure. However, the fact that partial closure has
occurred for portions of the facility does not shorten the period
of post-closure care for those operations in the cost estimate.
The cost estimate should provide an estimate of the annual
post-closure costs arrived at by adding all annual expenditures
plus expenditures that will occur less frequently than once per
year and dividing the resulting sum by the number of years in
the post-closure period (normally 30).
-------
- 33 -
4.5 Revising the Cost Estimate
The cost estimate must be revised annually within 30 days of
the anniversary date of the first cost estimate and at any time
when changes in closure or post-closure plans increase the costs
of conducting those activities. Also, if during the active life
of the facility it is found that the costs have been over- or
under-estimated, the cost estimate should be revised.
Closure and post-closure care cost estimates are adjusted
annually for inflation using a factor derived from the annual
Implicit Price Deflator for Gross National Product as published
by the Department of Commerce in the Survey of Current Business.
To illustrate the calculation, consider the following hypotheti-
cal example:
previous year cost estimate = $50,000
previous year deflator = 141.70
current year deflator = 152.05
After rounding off to the nearest whole number, the inflation
factor is computed as 152/142 = 1.07. The current year cost is
then:
1.07 x $50,000 = $53,500
Post-closure cost estimates are adjusted annually in this manner
only during the operating life of the facility (and not after
closure has commenced).
The latest cost estimate must be kept at the facility to-
gether with the latest adjusted (for inflation) cost estimate.
-------
- 34 -
4.6 Sources of Information
4.6.1 Federal Regulations
The Federal requirements regarding cost estimates may be
found in the sections of Title 40 of the Code of Federal regula-
tions cited in Table 3.
Table 3
Federal Regulatory Requirements
for Cost Estimates
Topic Section*
Applicability 265.140
Definitions 265.141
Cost Estimate for Closure 265.142
Cost Estimate for Post-Closure 265.144
* Revised in the Federal Register, Volume 47, April 7, 1982,
page 15032.
4.6.2 State Regulations
All Region I states have issued regulations regarding cost
estimates that are essentially equivelant to the Federal require-
ments described in this chapter. However, readers are advised
to contact their state hazardous waste permitting authorities to
determine if they may be required to comply with additional
state requirements.
-------
- 35 -
4.6.3 Additional Information
Further guidance in developing cost estimates can be found
in the EPA's draft guidance manuals
"Draft Guidance for Supart H of the Interim
Status Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Dis-
posal Facilities" (Draft Report, IR&T Corp.,
August 29, 1980)
Publications containing cost data that may be of use in
estimating closure and post-closure costs include the annual
editions of:
"Building Construction Cost Data", Robert
Snow Means Company, Inc., Kingston,
Massachusetts; and
"Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy Con-
struction Costs", McGraw-Hill Information
Systems Co., New York, New York.
-------
- 36 -
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
FOR CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE
This chapter describes the manner in which owners and opera-
tors of treatment, storage and disposal facilities are to provide
assurance that funding will be available to conduct the closure
and post-closure activities required at their facilities. This
material is presented in the following order:
5.1
Applicability
5.2
Financial Assurance Instruments
5.3
Trust Funds
5.4
Financial Tests
5.5
Surety Bonds
5.6
Letters of Credit
5.7
Insurance Policies
5.8
State Assumption of Responsibility
5.9
Multiple Financial Assurance Mechanisms and
Multiple Sites
5.10
Reduction of Coverage
5.11
Termination of Assurance Instruments
5.12
State Requirements
5.13
Choosing a Mechanism
5.14
Sources of Information
5.1 Applicability
The financial assurance requirements discussed in this chap-
ter apply to all facilities operating under interim status as
treatment, storage or disposal facilities, excepting states and
the Federal government but including municipalities and other
local authorities. All facility owners and operators required
to provide closure or post-closure cost estimates must also
demonstrate financial assurance as described in this chapter.
-------
- 37 -
Facilities in states with an authorized phase I RCRA hazard-
ous waste program (all States in EPA Region I are authorized for
phase I) are subject to state requirements, which must be at
least substantially equivalent tc the Federal requirements as
promulgated May 19, 1980. Facilities in a phase I authorized
state are not required to supply financial assurance to the EPA
Regional Administrator except for those existing facilities that
have been notified by EPA through certified mail to submit Part
B of their permit application or have voluntarily submitted Part
B's.
State regulations may require that facility owners or opera-
tors submit financial assurance to the responsible agency direc-
tor in the state in which the site is located. The status of
the requirements of states in Region I is reviewed in Section
5.12 of this chapter. Interim status facilities are advised to
keep abreast of regulatory developments in their states prior to
selecting a method for providing financial assurance.
5.2 Financial Assurance Instruments
Corresponding to the cost estimates for closure and post-
closure of each facility, the owner or operator must meet speci-
fic requirements to ensure that the required funds are provided.
The regulations enable owners or operators to meet this objective
in any of the following three ways:
-------
- 38 -
The owner or operator can actually pro-
vide the funds to cover anticipated clo-
sure and post-closure care requirements
by establishing a trust fund equal to
anticipated requirements; or
The owner or operator can demonstrate
capability to provide adequate funds for
closure and post-closure care by meeting
certain tests of financial strength; or
The owner or operator can provide for
coverage of anticipated requirements by
third parties states, insurance com-
panies, financial institutions through
letters of credit, or surety companies
through surety bonds in the event
that owners or operators themselves are
unable or unwilling to meet the funding
or financial test requirements.
The regulations allow a degree of flexibility over time in
the choice of financial assurance mechanisms. Subject to the
rules concerning the timing of notifications and delivery of
instruments, the. owner or operator is free to substitute among
alternative financial assurance mechanisms which, singly or com-
bined, satisfy the funding requirements for facility closure and
post-closure. In the event that a trust fund is substituted for
one or more of the other instruments, the trust must be estab-
lished at an initial funding level equal to what the trust fund
would have contained if it had been established at the time of
the initial permit.
The regulations contain required standard language for each
of the following financial assurance instruments:
-------
- 39 -
Trust Agreement and Certification of
Acknowledgement
Surety Bond
Irrevocable Stand-by Letter of Credit
Certificate of Insurance for Closure
or Post-Closure Care
Letter from Chief Financial Officer
Corporate Guarantee for Closure or
Post-Closure Care
The regulations cited at the end of this chapter should be
examined to determine the appropriate wording of these
instruments.
Rules regarding the mechanics and operation of each of the
financial assurance instruments are described in detail in the
following sections.
5.3 Trust Funds
A trust fund is a mechanism whereby the site owner or opera-
tor sets aside funds in the form of cash or marketable securities
to pay for the proper closure of the site and the required post-
closure care. The trustee, a financial institution, controls
the fund and invests the money in low risk assets. All income
earned by the fund is retained in the fund and reinvested to-
gether with fund principal.
-------
- 40 -
Upon closure of the facility, monies in the fund are avail-
able to reimburse authorized expenditures for closure or post-
closure care, upon submission of itemized bills to the Regional
Administrator. Funds remaining after all closure or post-closure
requirements have been fulfilled are returned to the owner or
operator of the facility.
During interim status, payments into the trust are made
annually over 20 years or the remaining life of the facility,
whichever is less (the "pay-in" period). After a permit has
been issued, the pay-in period is reduced to the life of the
initial permit. A Federal permit may be written for a maximum
of ten years.
The trustee will furnish annual valuations at least thirty
days before the anniversary date of the establishment of the
fund to both the Grantor (i.e., facility owner or operator) and
the Regional Administrator of the trust fund for closure or
post-closure at each facility. Valuations are based on market
values no more than 60 days prior to the anniversary date of the
establishment of the fund.
During the pay-in period, the minimum annual payment is equal
to the unfunded closure and post-closure costs of the facility
divided by the number of years remaining in the pay-in period:
minimum annual payment = CE - CV
Y
-------
- 41 -
where CE is the latest adjusted cost estimate for closure or
post-closure care, CV is the current value of the trust fund,
and Y is the number of years remaining in the pay-in period.
The first payment should be made at the time the trust fund
is established and subsequent payments no later than 30 days
after each yearly anniversary date of the trust fund. The fund-
ing level of the trust fund must be increased within 60 days
after any increase in the current closure or post-closure cost
estimates.
After the pay-in period is completed, the owner or operator
must maintain the value, of the trust fund at a level equal to or
greater than CE. Release of amounts from the fund requires
written instructions from the Regional Administrator to the
trustee.
The trustee must be a bank or other financial institution
which has the authority to act as a trustee and whose trust
operations are regulated and examined by a Federal or state
agency. The trustee may accept written directions from the
grantor concerning investment guidelines and objectives, how-
ever. The trustee must abide by the "prudent man" doctrine for
investments, and may not include securities or other obliga-
tions of the grantor in the trust fund portfolio. All expenses
-------
- 42 -
of the trust, including taxes, brokerage commissions, legal ser-
vices, and trustee compensation to the extent not paid direct-
ly by the grantor are paid by the fund. The trustee must
notify the Regional Administrator within 30 to 40 days after the
anniversary of the establishment of the Trust if the grantor
fails to make a required annual payment.
Prospective grantors should review all tax aspects of trust
fund operations with their accountant or tax advisor. Tax status
of payments into a trust fund are presently under review by the
IRS, but no rulings have been issued to date. Under present
statutes, payments into a trust fund are not considered expenses
and are therefore not deductible on Federal income tax re-
turns. Payments by the trust fund for closure or post-closure
care expenses are deductible, however, in the year of closure or
post-closure care when such expenses are incurred. Income earned
by the trust fund is taxable to the grantor, even though not dis-
tributed to him in the year earned. Grantor's Federal income tax
liability will be credited (reduced), however, to the extent of
any Federal income taxes paid by the trust fund on a fiduciary
return.
The trust fund is terminated and remaining monies returned
to the grantor under one of two conditions:
-------
- 43 -
The requirements for closure or post-
closure care have been satisfied; or
An alternative financial assurance
instrument has been provided to substi-
tute for all or part of the trust fund.
Only the Regional Administrator can release the trustee from his
obligations under the trust agreement.
5.4 Financial Test
An owner or operator of a hazardous waste facility is allow-
ed to satisfy the financial responsibility requirements by pass-
ing a financial test. The test is based on a.firm's most recent
audited financial statements and must be recertified on an annual
basis within 90 days after the end of the firm's fiscal year.
If a firm passes the financial test, it need not provide any
additional assurance that it can meet its closure and post-
closure care obligations. A parent company which passes the
financial test and which directly owns at least 50 percent of
the voting stock of the corporation that is the owner or opera-
tor, can provide a guarantee of its subsidiary's obligations.
If a firm fails to provide certification of satisfactory
financial condition during any year prior to termination of its
closure or post-closure care obligations, an alternative
financial assurance mechanism must be supplied within 30 days.
-------
- 44 -
To pass the financial test, the firm must satisfy either one
of two sets of criteria, as listed in Table 4. The criteria
differ in respect to items (c) and (d). They are based on the
firm's most recent independently audited year-end annual finan-
cial statements.
The test takes into account the adjusted cost estimates for
closure and post-closure care of all facilities owned and oper-
ated by the firm (or by the parent company, if the parent com-
pany is providing the guarantee) that are not covered by an al-
ternative financial assurance mechanism. Financial ratios are
computed based on conventional definitions for the terms speci-
fied (for publicly held corporations they correspond generally
to the figures reported in annual Form 10-K filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission). To the extent that any
portion of closure or post-closure care costs are included in a
firm's reported liabilities, such costs can be subtracted from
liabilities (and added to net worth and tangible net worth) in
computing the firm's ratios for this test.
To certify satisfactory financial condition under the finan-
cial test, the owner or operator supplies the following documents
to the EPA Regional Administrator in each region where hazardous
waste facilities are located (and for which financial assurance
is required):
-------
- 45 -
Table 4
Criteria for Financial Test and
Corporate Guarantee for Closure or Post-Closure Care
Criteria (i) Criteria (ii()
(a) Tangible net worth of at
least $10 million; and
(b) Assets in the United States
amounting to at least 90% of
total assets or at least six
times the sum of the current
closure and post-closure cost
estimates; and
(c) Net work capital and tangible
net worth each at least six
times the sum of the current
closure and post-closure cost
estimates; and
(d) Two of the following three ratios:
(1) A ratio of total liabilities
"to net worth less than 2.0;
(2) A ratio of the sum of net
income plus depreciation/
and amortization to total
liabilities greater than 0.1;
(a) Tangible net worth of at
least $10 million; and
(b) Assets in the United States
amounting to at least 90%
of total assets or at least
six times the sum of the
current closure and post-
closure cost estimates; and
(c) Tangible net worth at least
six times the sume of the
current closure and post-
closure cost estimates; and
(d) Current bond rating for the
most recent bond issuance
of at least BBB as issued
by Standard and Poor's or
Baa as issued by Moody's.
(3) A ratio of current assets to
current liabilities greater
than 1.5.
-------
- 46 -
(a) Letter from chief financial officer;
(b) Accountant's report for latest fiscal year;
(c) Accountant's special report; and
(d) Other information as requested.
The letter from the chief financial officer indicates the
facilities owned or operated by the company making the financial
guarantee and provides the basic data required by the financial
test, including cost estimates for the facilities and computa-
tion of ratios. Wording and content of the letter are given
explicitly in Section 264.151(f) of the Federal regulations.
The independent Certified Public Accounant's (CPA's) report
for the latest fiscal year is a copy of the auditor's examina-
tion of the owner's or operator's financial statements for the
latest completed fiscal year. It includes the CPA's opinion,
stating any qualifications, disclaimers, or adverse opinions, as
appropriate. The accountant's special report provides confirma-
tion that the chief financial officer's letter correctly reflects
the year-end financial statements and amounts stated therein.
In the example developed in Appendix A, illustrative submis-
sions to qualify under the financial test are presented.
-------
- 47 -
5.5 Surety Bonds
A surety bond is a contract whereby a surety company guaran-
tees to pay the amount of closure or post-closure care costs
should the owner or operator fail to meet his obligation.
Federal regulations allow two types of surety bonds, financial
guarantee bonds and performance bonds. However, performance
bonds cannot be used at interim status facilities.
A standby trust fund must be established in conjunction with
the surety bond. Payments from a surety company would be made
directly into the standby trust. The owner or operator need not
make any payments into the standby trust fund.
After obtaining the surety bond from, at a minimum, a feder-
ally acceptable surety company (listed in Treasury Circular 570),
the owner or operator delivers the bond and standby trust fund
documents to the Regional Administrator. The penal sum of the
bond is adjusted yearly to correspond to adjustments in the clo-
sure or post-closure cost estimates. Adjustments to the penal
sum must be made within 60 days after any changes in the cost
estimate. The bond remains effective until cancelled with the
consent of the Regional Administrator.
The cost to the owner or operator of providing financial
assurance by means of a surety bond are the cost of the bond
itself plus the incremental opportunity cost of any capital re-
quired to be set aside as collateral. The direct cost of the
-------
- 48 -
surety bond is generally between 1.0 and 2.0 percent of the face
value of the bond per year and is deductible for tax purposes.
EPA expects the use of surety bonds for financial assurance to
be limited at first (based on discussions with the Surety
Association of America).
5.6 Letters of Credit
A letter of credit is an instrument issued by a financial
institution on behalf of the owner or operator of the hazardous
waste facility which gives EPA the right to draw from the issu-
ing institution to cover the costs of closure and post-closure
care in the event the firm fails to meet its obligation. In a
sense, the financial institution substitutes its credit for that
of the firm.
The owner or operator establishes a nominally funded standby
trust fund in conjunction with a le-tter of credit in an amount
equal to or greater than the current closure or post-closure
cost estimates. Both instruments are delivered to the Regional
Administrator and are updated annually, as appropriate. Adjust-
ments to the value of the letter of credit must be made within
60 days of any changes in the closure or post-closure cost
estimates.
-------
- 49 -
The institution issuing the letter of credit must be a bank
or other financial institution which has authority to issue let-
ters or credit and whose letters of credit operations are regu-
lated and examined by a Federal or State Agency. The letter of
credit is irr-evocable and is issued for a period of at least one
year, with automatic extensions for each subsequent year unless
90-day notification is given to the Regional Administrator.
Upon determination under Section 3008 of RCRA that the owner
or operator has failed to meet his closure or post-closure care
obligations, the Regional Administrator may draw on the letter
of credit. Drafts under the letter of credit are deposited into
a standby trust fund, from which payments are made for approved
closure or post-closure care expenses.
The costs to the owner or operator of providing financial
assurance by means of a letter of credit are the cost of the
letter of credit itself plus the incremental opportunity cost of
any capital required to be set aside as collateral. The annual
direct cost of the letter of credit is generally between 0.25
and 2% of the value of the letter of credit, depending on.the
credit-worthiness of the firm. Such costs are deductible for
income tax purposes. Collateral required for letters of credit
typically averages 20% of the value of the letters of credit.
-------
- 50 -
5.7 Insurance Policies
A firm may purchase an insurance policy for the amount of
the estimated closure and post-closure care costs. The insur-
ance company will pay the cost of closure whenever closure occurs
and/or post-closure care during the post-closure care period, up
to the full amount of the policy. The policy must also be as-
signable, meaning that the insurance will continue in force for
a successor owner or operator.
The face amount of the policy is at least the amount of cur-
rent closure or post-closure care costs. Premiums paid during
the active life of the site serve to fund the face amount of the
policy, in similar fashion to whole life insurance. At the end
of site life, the insurer will pay out funds, up to the face
amount of the policy, to reimburse authorized expenditures for
closure or post-closure care over the post-closure period. The
face amount of the insurance must be adjusted accordingly within
60 days of any change in the cost estimates. The policy cannot
be cancelled except for failure to pay the premium, and then
only 120 days after providing notification of such failure
to both the Regional Administrator and the owner or operator.
¦The owner or operator submits a certificate of insurance
signed by the insurer and indicating the face amount of the
policy. The insurer must be licensed to transact the business
-------
- 51 -
of insurance, or eligible to provide insurance as an excess or
surplus lines insurer, in one or more states. The face amount
of the insurance must be adjusted to equal or exceed the covered
costs of closure and post-closure, or else other forms of
financial assurance provided to make up the difference.
The key issue regarding the insurance mechanism is the de-
ductibility of premium payments for tax purposes. If the pre-
miums are deductible, then the insurance policy would be similar
to the trust fund without the adverse tax treatment of fund pay-
ments. Until the tax issue is resolved, however, it is doubtful
whether any significant interest will develop concerning this
option. Currently, no insurance firms are offering to issue
this type of policy.
5.8 State Assumption of Responsibility
A state may assume either the owner's or operator's legal-
responsibility for closure, post-closure care, and liability, o£
the financial responsibility to cover those requirements in ac-
cordance with the Federal standards. If state guarantees for
financial responsibility are less than the amounts estimated for
closure and post-closure care, then the owner or operator of the
facility must supply additional financial assurance mechanisms
to cover the shortfall.
-------
- 52 -
5.9 Multiple Financial Assurance
Mechanisms and Multiple Sites
The objective of the regulations is to ensure that adequate
funding is available to cover the estimated costs of closure and
post-closure care. Accordingly, the regulations permit the si-
multaneous use of more than one financial assurance instrument
(FAI) to satisfy the funding requirements for a given facility,
and the use of a single FAI to satisfy the funding requirements
of several facilities simultaneously. Restrictions on the use
of multiple financial assurance mechanisms and of FAI's for
multiple facilities are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.
5.10 Reduction of Coverage
Financial assurance instruments may be reduced from time to
time to reflect reductions in cost estimates, if any, for the
covered facility. Amounts deposited or accumulated in a trust
fund may not be recovered, however, unless the aggregated value
of the fund exceeds the total amount of the adjusted cost esti-
mate for closure or post-closure care.
5.11 Termination of Assurance Instruments
The owner or operator must obtain formal release (by letter)
from the Regional Administrator in order to terminate the re-
quirements for financial assurance for closure and post-closure
-------
- 53 -
Table 5
Restrictions on the Use of Multiple Financial
Assurance Mechanisms for a Single Facility
Allowed mechanisms
Trust funds
Surety bonds guaranteeing payment
Letters of credit
Insurance
Rule of construction
Stand-by trust funds
Combined financial assurance must
add up to sum of current closure/
post-closure estimates
Can be consolidated: trust fund
can serve as standby trust fund for
other mechanisms
Callability
Regional administator can invoke
any or all mechanisms
Table 6
Restrictions on the Use of Financial
Assurance Mechanisms for Multiple Facilities
Allowed mechanisms
Rule of construction
Notifications
Callability
All approved mechanisms
Available funding must equal or
exceed the sum required for each
facility considered separately
Relevant documents must be
submitted to Regional Administrator
in each EPA region where covered
facilities are located
Regional Administrator restricted
to level of funding specified for
each facility considered separately
-------
- 54 -
care. This release is only for the financial assurance require-
ments and does not release the owner or operator from legal res-
ponsibility for meeting the closure or post-closure standards.
Release for closure requirements will be obtained within 60
days of certification by the owner or operator and an indepen-
dent registered professional engineer that closure has been ac-
complished in accordance with the closure plan. Release for
post-closure requirements, after the period of post-closure care,
will require the satisfaction of the Regional Administrator that
all post-closure care requirements have been completed.
5.12 State Requirements
The status of financial assurance requirements in each of
the Region I states is as follows:
Massachusetts
Financial assurance regulations in Massachusetts are in the
"Phase II discussion draft" stage. Currently, their regulations
do not allow the use of insurance policies or a financial test,
however, State authorities will be holding public hearings and
plan to have received public comments on incorporating those two
alternatives by the end of May, 1982.
-------
- 55 -
New Hampshire
New Hampshire is in the process of adopting the Federal
financial assurance regulations by reference. Anticipated
adoption will occur in the Summer, 1982.
Connecticut
Connecticut has adopted the Federal financial assurance re-
gulations by reference. The effective date of these regulations
is October 6, 1982. Connecticut permits are of 5 years duration
(noteworthy especially for trust funds), and municipalities are
subject to less stringent requirements.
Vermont
In Vermont, hazardous waste officials are using the Federal
financial regulations as a minimum standard for facilities to
follow but have not adopted the regulations by reference.
Vermont officials may ask a facility to meet certain additional
requirements, on a case-by-case basis.
Maine
Financial responsibility regulations for owners/operators of
hazardous waste facilities in Maine are in the draft stage and
are currently under review by EPA. Maine officials hope to have
the regulations finalized by late summer or early fall of 1982.
-------
- 56 -
Maine's regulations are similar to the Federal regulations
except as outlined below:
A 5 year pay-in period is required for
trust funds with 25% paid in at the
beginning of the period and 15% paid in
at the end of every year;
Trustees are prohibited from making high-
risk investments such as in foreign cur-
rency. The state suggests preferred
investments such as money market funds
or T-bills, where liquidity is assured;
Some of the financial test requirements,
including the 1.5:1 ratio for solvency
criteria and the $10 million tangible
net worth criteria, are under review; and
Firms may be required to submit 10K
Forms every year.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island has established regulations requiring closure
and post-closure cost estimates similar to those of EPA. No
regulations have been prepared governing financial assurance at
treatment and storage facilities. Financial assurance require-
ments for disposal facilities differ significantly from the
Federal requirements, however, no interim status disposal
facilities are located in Rhode Island.
5.13 Choosing a Mechanism
Table 7 arrays the various financial assurance mechanisms
according to their.advantages, disadvantages, and anticipated
pattern of use.
-------
Table 7
Comparison of Alternative Financial Assurance Instruments
Instrument
Advantages
Disadvantages
Who Uses
Trust Funds
Financial Test
Surety Bonds
availability
investment earnings
simplicity
low cost of
administration
fee tax deductible
capital retention
loss of capital
tax treatment
limits financial
flexibility
cyclical companies
susceptible
availability
borrowing ability
inhibited
smaller owners/operators
less financially stable
larger owners/operators
limited at first
Letters of Credit
Insurance
State Assumption
fee tax deductible
capital retention
simplicity
possible tax
advantages
self-funding
loss protection
simplicity
availability
borrpwing ability
inhibited
tax treatment
uncertain
cost uncertain
availability
state assumes
responsibility
larger owners/operators
more financially stable
smaller owners/operators
limited at first
municipalities
i
i_n
i
-------
- 58 -
Owners and operators are urged to weigh these advantages and
disadvantages carefully with their bankers, financial advisors,
attorneys, accountants, and senior management officials before
opting for one or another of the alternative mechanisms.
5.14 Sources of Information
5.14.1 Federal Regulations
The Federal regulatory requirements related to closure and
post-closure financial assurance can be found in the sections of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations shown in Table 8.
5.14.2 Additional Guidance
Additional guidance can be found in the EPA publication:
"Financial Assurance for Closure and
Post-Closure Care: Requirements for
Owners or Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facili-
ties" (Guidance Manual , ICF, Incor-
porated, 1982).
Background information and cost impacts of the regulations
are discussed in:
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Finan-
cial Assurance Regulations (Industrial
Economics, Inc.: 25 September, 1981);
and Background Document for Financial
Assurance Regulations (U.S. EPA:
December 21, 1980).
-------
- 59 -
Table 8
Federal Regulatory Citations
for Financial Assurance Standards
Topic Section*
Applicability 265.140
Definitions 265.141
Financial Assurance for Closure 265.143
Financial Assurance for Post-Closure 265.145
Use of One Mechanism for Both Closure and
Post-Closure 265.146
Incapacity of Owners, Operators, Guarantors
or Financial Institutions 265.148
Use of State-required Mechanisms 265.149
State Assumption of Responsibility 265.150
Wording of Instruments 264.151**
* Citations are from 40 CFR as revised in the Federal Regis-
ter, April 7, 1982, Volume 47 pages 15032-15074, unless
otherwise noted.
** Minor typographical errors were corrected in the Federal
Register, May 10, 1982, Volume 47, page 19995.
-------
- 60 -
CHAPTER 6
LIABILITY INSURANCE
This chapter describes the manner in which owners and opera-
tors of hazardous waste management facilities must demonstrate
financial responsibility for bodily injury and property damage
to third parties caused by sudden and nonsudden accidents. This
material is presented in the following order:
6.1 Sudden Accidential Coverage
6.2 Nonsudden Accidental Coverage
6.3 Financial Test
6.4 Extensions
6.5 Variance And Adjustment Procedures
6.6 State Requirements
6.7 Sources of Information
Financial responsibility may be demonstrated by providing
proof of insurance, passing a financial test (self insurance),
or any combination of the two. Only states and the Federal
government are not required to provide liability coverage.
Financial responsibility must be demonstrated throughout the
active life of the facility until closure is certified complete.
6.1 Sudden Accidental Coverage
Coverage for sudden occurrences (accidents that are not con-
tinuous or repeated in nature) is required for all treatment
storage and disposal facilities. The levels of coverage for
-------
- 61 -
sudden accidental occurrences must be in the amount of at least
$1 million per occurrence with an annual aggregate of $2 mil-
lion. If insurance is used to cover all or part of this liabil-
ity, proof must be submitted to each EPA Regional Administrator
in which covered facilities are located in the form of a signed
duplicate original of either: (1) the policy's Hazardous Waste
Facility Liability Endorsement or (2) the Certificate of Liabil-
ity Insurance. The wording for these documents is specified in
the Federal regulations (refer to the end of this chapter for
regulatory citations).
In states without phase I authorization, proof of coverage
must be supplied to the EPA Regional Administrator by July 15,
1982. Facilities in states with phase I authorization, which
includes all Region I states, must meet individual state
deadlines.
6.2 Nonsudden Accidental Coverage
Coverage for nonsudden occurrences (accidents that happen
over an extended time and are associated with continuous or re-
peated contaminant exposures) is required for all surface im-
poundments, landfills, and land treatment facilities. Levels of
coverage must be at least $3 million per occurrence with an
annual aggregate of $6 million.
-------
- 62 -
In states without phase I authorization, the date by which
an existing facility must submit proof of responsibility is based
on the company's total sales or revenues as follows:
If annual sales are greater than $10
million, January 15, 1983;
If sales are between $5 million and $10
million, January 15, 1984; and
If sales are under $5 million, January
15, 1985.
Facilities in states with phase I authorization, which includes
all Region I states, must meet individual state deadlines.
When liability insurance is used, submittal requirements are
identical to those for sudden accidental insurance: copies of
either the Liability Endorsement or a Certificate of Liability
Insurance with language as specified in the regulations, must be
submitted.
6.3 Financial Test
Owners or operators may provide assurance for all or part of
their financial liability requirements by passing a financial
test. The test is based on the firm's most recent independently
audited year-end financial statements and must be recertified on
an annual basis. To certify satisfactory financial condition
under the financial test, the owner or operator supplies to the
-------
- 63 -
Regional Administrator: (1) a letter from the firm's chief
financial officer; (2) an accountant's report confirming the
results of the test; (3) the accountant's opinion, and (4) other
information as may be requested by the Regional Administrator.
The wording of the letter from the firm's chief financial
officer must be identical to that supplied in the regulations
(see citations at the end of this chapter).
To pass the financial test, the owner or operator must meet
either one of two sets of criteria, as listed in Table 9. The
criteria differ in respect to item (d). They are based on the
firm's most recent independently audited year-end annual
financial statements.
If a firm fails to provide certification of satisfactory
financial condition for any portion of the required liability
coverage at any time during its active life, such coverage must
be provided through an insurance policy within 30 days.
6.4 Extensions
A one-time extension of the time allowed for submission of
proof of coverage through a financial test is allowed. To qual-
ify, the owner's or operator's fiscal year must end during the
90 days prior to the normal due date for proof of coverage. The
-------
- 64 -
Table 9
Criteria for Financial Test for Liability Coverage
Criteria (i)
Criteria (ii)
(a) Tangible net worth of at
least $10 million; and
(b) Assets in the United States
amounting to at least 90% of
total assets or at least six
times the amount of liability
coverage to be demonstrated by
the test; and
(c) Tangible net worth at least
six times the amount of lia-
bility coverage to be demon-
strated by the test; and
(d) Net working capital at least
six times the amount of lia-
bility coverage to be demon-
strated by the test.
(a) Tangible net worth of at
least $10 million; and
(b) Assets in the United States
amounting to at least 90%
of total assets or at least
six times amount of liabil-
ity coverage to be demon-
strated by the test; and
(c) Tangible net worth at least
six times the amount of li-
ability coverage to be de-
monstrated by the test; and
(d) A current rating for the
most recent bond issuance
of at least BBB as issued
by Standard and Poor's or
Baa as issued by Moody's.
-------
- 65 -
extension will last no longer than 90 days past the end of the
owner's or operator's fiscal year. The required content of an
extension request may be found in the regulations cited at the
end of this chapter.
6.5 Variance and Adjustment Procedures
An owner or operator may obtain approval from the Regional
Administrator for a reduction in the required liability amounts
normally required. Such approval depends on an evaluation of
the degree and duration of risks associated with the ownership
or operation of each facility or group of facilities, and on
other technical and engineering information as determined
necessary by the Regional Administrator.
The Regional Administrator may elect to increase the amounts
of liability coverage required for any facility or group of fac-
ilities, and he may elect to impose nonsudden liability coverage
requirements on treatment or storage facilities. Such a deter-
mination is based on an evaluation of the degree and duration of
risks, as deemed necessary to protect human health and the envi-
ronment. Any adjustment of the level of required coverage for a
facility that has a permit is treated as a permit modification.
EPA is considering a proposal to delete variance and adjust-
ment provisions from the Federal regulations.
-------
- 66 -
6.6 State Requirements
The status of liability requirements in Region I states is
as follows.
Massachusetts
Liability coverage requirements in Massachusetts are in the
"Phase II discussion draft" stage. The regulations are equiva-
lent to the Federal regulations but do not currently allow for
the use of a financial test or submission of a certificate of
insurance to provide proof of insurance. State authorities will
be holding public hearings on incorporating these revisions into
their requirements and plan to have received public comments by
the end of May, 1982.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire is in the process of adopting the Federal
regulations by reference. It is anticipated that adoption will
occur in the Summer of 1982.
Connecticut
Connecticut has adopted the Federal regulations by reference.
The effective date for the regulations is 90 days after the
Federal effective date. For existing facilities, the phase in
dates are April 15, 1983, 1984, and 1985.
-------
- 67
Vermont
Vermont is using the Federal regulations as a minimum stan
dard but have not adopted the regulations by reference. Facil
ties in Vermont will be evaluated on a case by case basis and
additional requirements may be imposed.
Maine
Maine's regulations are in a draft stage and are currently
under review by EPA. Maine intends to have its regulations
finalized by late summer or early fall of 1982. They have
tentatively adopted the Federal liability regulations but may
amend the "claims made" type policy to include a six month
discovery period.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island has not developed any liability requirements
applicable to interim status treatment or storage facilities.
Although Rhode Island's requirements for disposal facilities
differ significantly from the Federal requirements, there are
interim status disposal facilities in the State.
-------
- 68 -
6.7 Sources of Information
6.7.1 Federal Regulations
The Federal requirements for liability insurance described
in this chapter can be found in the sections of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations identified in Table 10.
Table 10
Federal Regulatory Citations for
Liability Insurance Requirements
Topic Section
Applicability 265.140
Definitions 265.141(1)
Liability Requirement 265.147(1)
Wording of the Instruments 264.151(1/2)
(1) Revised April 16, 1982, Volume 47, Federal Register, page
16544.
(2) Minor typographical errors were corrected on May 10, 1982,
Volume 47, Federal Register, page 19995.
-------
- 69 -
6.7.2 Additional Guidance
The U.S. EPA is currently drafting a guidance manual des-
cribing Federal liability insurance requirements. The EPA
Region I contacts given in Appendix C of this guide should be
contacted to determine the availability of that document.
-------
- 70 -
CHAPTER 7
GROUND-WATER MONITORING
This chapter describes the required content and implementa-
tion of groundwater monitoring programs at hazardous waste man-
agement facilities. This material is presented in the following
order:
7.1 Applicability and Effective Dates
7.2 Groundwater monitoring systems
7.3 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis
7.4 Preparation, Evaluation and Response
7.5 Waivers
7.6 Approximate Costs
7.7 State Requirements
7.8 Sources of Information
7.1 Applicability and Effective Dates
Owners and operators of facilities that have surface im-
poundments, landfills or land treatment operations used to man-
age hazardous waste and that have qualified for interim status
must prepare groundwater monitoring plans and implement ground-
water monitoring programs in accordance with those plans.
Table 11 presents the effective dates of the Federal
groundwater monitoring requirements and describes the
significance of those dates.
-------
- 71 -
Table 11
Effective Dates for Federal Groundwater Monitoring Requirements
Milestones
Description
Dates
November 19, 1980
Regulations
Promulgated
November 19, 1981
First Year of
Monitoring Begins
November 19, 1982
Second Year of
Monitoring Begins
The regulations allowed
one year for the regulated
community to establish a
groundwater quality moni-
toring program as des-
cribed in 40 CFR 265.91
to .94, Subpart F - Ground-
water Monitoring,
The regulations required
that a groundwater moni-
toring program be estab-
lished and that regular
monitoring of the ground-
water quality be ini-
tiated. This first year
of monitoring is essential
to establish background
measurements of the
groundwater quality in
the upper most aquifer
beneath of facility.
At the completion of the
first year of monitoring,
statistical analyses of
the results of the moni-
toring program must be
made to determine the
background groundwater
quality. The second year
measurements of certain
indicator parameters are
to be compared to the
established background
data for statistically
significant changes in
the quality of the
groundwater beneath the
facility.
-------
- 72 -
7.2 Groundwater Monitoring Systems
The owner or operator must install a groundwater monitoring
system capable of detecting any hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constituents eminating from the waste handling area into
the uppermost aquifer. At least one monitoring well must be
located hydraulically upgradient in order to provide background
data on ambient groundwater quality. This monitoring well must
not be affected by the facility and must provide representative
data. A minimum of three groundwater monitoring wells must be
located hydraulically downgradient of the waste handling area,
at the limit of the waste management facility. The location,
depth and number (more than three wells may be necessary) must
be such that any hazardous waste or hazardous waste constitutents
eminating from the waste management areas would be immediately
detected by statistical analysis. Facilities with more than one
component or area for which groundwater monitoring is required
need not monitor each component separately. Instead, a waste
management area should be determined and the monitoring system
installed at its perimeter.
All monitoring wells should be constructed so that surface
water may not enter the well screen area through the annular
space. The well screens should be sand or gravel packed and the
annual space backfilled with cement grout.
-------
- 73 -
7.3 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis
The owner or operator must develop and implement a plan de-
linating the procedures and techniques for sample collection,
sample preservation and shipping, analytical procedures, and
chain of custody control. The plan activities must, at a mini-
mum, determine the concentrations or values of the following
parameters:
Drinking Water Suitability Parameters
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Fluoride
Lead
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,4,D
2,4,5-TP Silvex
Radium
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Coliform Bacteria
Endrin
Mercury
Nitrate [as N)
Selenium
Silver
Parameters Establishing Groundwater Quality
Chloride
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sodium
Sulfate
Parameters Used as Indicators of Groundwater
Contamination
PH
Total Organic Carbon
Specific Conductance Total Organic Halogen
The frequency with which samples must be taken and analyzed
for these parameters is shown in Table 12. In addition, during
the first year, at least four replicate measurements of the
-------
- 74 -
groundwater contamination indicator parameters must be made from
each upgradient well sample. Prom these initial background data,
arithmetic mean and variances must be determined by pooling the
replicate measurements.
Table 12
Required Sampling and Analysis Frequencies
at Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Parameter
Drinking Water
Standards
Groundwater Quality
Parameters
Groundwater Con-
tamination
Indicators
During First Year
After First Year
none
Background concentrations or values for all wells must be
established and, at the time of sample collection, water level
measurements must also be made and the water table elevations
determined.
Results from all analyses and water-level observations must
be reported to the Regional Administrator quarterly during the
first year and annually thereafter. Complete records must be
kept at the facility.
-------
- 75 -
7.4 Preparation, Evaluation and Response
Within one year of the institution of the groundwater moni-
toring program, the owner or operator must prepare an outline of
a groundwater assessment program which details whether hazardous
waste or hazardous waste constitutents have entered the ground-
water. If such wastes have entered the groundwater system, the
rate and extent of migration and the concentrations of the mate-
rials in the groundwater must be defined. The owner or operator
of the facility must calculate the arithmatic mean and variance
for each indicator parameter and compare them with the background
data. The Student's T-Test should be used at a 0.01 level of
significance to determine statistically different increases (or
decreases) over the initial background values. An example of
the Student's T-Test is presented as Appendix B to this report.
Any changes in the water quality in the upgradient wells
must be reported to the Regional Administrator. Statistically
significant changes in the water quality of the downgradient
wells require that the owner or operator obtain and analyze
additional samples immediately. The procedure for this analysis
requires that the sample be split in two and the analysis of all
additional samples be obtained to determine if the difference
was due to error. If the analysis confirms that the difference
is not due to error, the Regional Administrator or responsible
state agency director must be informed within seven days.
-------
- 76 -
Within 15 days of the notification of the appropriate authority,
the owner or operator must submit a specific plan, certified by
a qualified geologist or engineer, for a groundwater quality
assessment program at the facility. The groundwater assessment
plan must specify:
The number, location and depths of moni-
toring wells;
The sampling and analysis program;
The evaluation procedures to be
employed; and
A schedule of implementation.
The owner or operator must implement the plan to assess ground-
water quality and determine the rate and extent of migration of
hazardous waste materials and the concentrations of hazardous
wastes in the groundwater.
If the owner or operator of the facility determines that
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constitutents have not en-
tered the groundwater, the routine indicator evaluation program
may be re-instituted and a report submitted to the Regional
Administrator. If hazardous wastes have entered the groundwater
aquifer, the owner or operator must continue to make quarterly
determinations until final closure (if the groundwater quality
assessment plan was implemented prior to final closure). The
owner operator may cease to make determinations if the plan was
implemented during the post-closure care period.
-------
- 77 -
7.5 Waivers
The groundwater monitoring requirements may be fully or par-
tially waived if the owner or operator can demonstrate that there
is a low potential for the migration of hazardous waste or haz-
ardous waste constitutents from the facility through the ground-
water system. In cases where the owner or operator suspects or
knows that the facility has already impacted the uppermost aqui-
fer in such a way that the indicator parameters would show
statistically significant increases when evaluated, an alternate
groundwater monitoring system may be utilized to determine the
rate and extent of contaminant migration and the concentrations
of hazardous wastes and hazardous waste consitutents in the
groundwater.
7.6 Approximate Costs
The estimated costs of implementing the Federal groundwater
monitoring requirements are presented in this section for both
installing groundwater monitoring wells and conducting water
quality analysis programs.
7.6.1 Drilling and Well Installation Costs
Factors affecting the final costs of monitoring well instal-
lation include:
The type of material to be penetrated
during the drilling (bedrock or
unconsolidated material);
-------
- 78 -
The depth to the uppermost aquifer; and
The number of monitoring wells
necessary to effectively monitor the
facility.
A survey of well drillers in the New England states
indicates that costs will range between $18.00 to $30.00 per
foot of well depending on the material drilled and the type of
drilling rig used. Average costs are shown in Table 13.
Table 13
Average Well Installation Costs
Type Drilling Rig Material Drilled Cost/Foot
Auger (solid/hollow stem) Unconsolidated $18.00
Rotary (Air/Mud/Water) Unconsolidated $24.00
Rotary (Air/Mud/Water) Bedrock $30.00
Cable Tool Unconsolidated $27.00
The use of auger or cable tool drilling rigs is not
appropriate in bedrock due to the auger's inability to penetrate
lithofied material and the amount of time required by cable tool
rigs to penetrate rock. Auger rigs are most appropriate for
relatively shallow drilling in unconsolidated materials (less
than 50 feet) where large boulders are not encountered. Rotary
drilling is not appropriate in most areas where depth and speed
are required.
Based on the average costs shown on Table 13, a typical
facility monitoring system installation with the following
characteristics:
-------
- 79 -
four monitoring wells each 30 feet deep, 2.25-inch
diameter
20 feet to water
unconsolidated glacial material
auger drilling
could be expected to cost approximately $1,500.00
7.6.2 Water Quality
Sample analysis for the required Federal groundwater para-
meters has been estimated through a survey of laboratories in
the northeastern part of the country. Due to the services pro-
vided by many surveyed labs, customers are not restricted to
local facilities as most laboratories will provide shipping and
preservative materials. In addition, many labs offer special
rates for RCRA requirement packages under yearly analysis con-
tracts. These types of contracts appear to be the most eco-
nomical of all laboratory services available. The range of costs
for the individual analysis blocks required by RCRA are shown
below.
Groundwater Suitability Parameters $400 to $525
Water Quality Characterization $ 65 to $ 95
Contamination Indicator Parameters $ 95 to $120
TOTALS $560 to $740
First Year Costs
Analytical costs during the first year could be expected to
be approxiately $16,000 to $21,000 for a four-well facility,
estimated as follows:
-------
- 80 -
Suitability Parameters
(quarterly)
4 X $560 to $740 = $ 2,240 to $ 2,960
Characterization Parameters
(quarterly)
4 X $ 65 to $ 95 = $ 260 to $ 380
Indicator Parameters
(quarterly/split 4 X)
16 X $ 95 to $120 = $ 1,520 to $ 1,920
Cost per well
$ 4,020 $ 5,260
Cost for 4 wells
$16,080 $21,040
As the drinking water suitability parameters need not be
determined after the first year and sampling frequencies are
less, costs in the second and following years would drop
significantly for the same facility, estimated as follows:
Characterization Parameters (semi-annually)
2 X 65 to 95 = $130 to $ 190
Indicator Parameters (semi-annually/split 4 X)
8 X 95 to 120 =$ 760 to $ 960
Cost per well $ 890 $1,150
Cost for 4 wells $3,560 $4,600
7.7 State Requirements
This section describes the differences that exist between
the Federal groundwater monitoring requirements and the require-
ments of the states in EPA Region I.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island's requirements are equivalent to the Federal
requirements.
-------
- 81 -
Connecticut
Connecticut's requirements are equivalent to the Federal
requirements. Groundwater monitoring plans are approved by the
Connecticut DEP which is currently developing guidelines for
approval. Connecticut also has its own well specifications.
If an owner or operator assumes that groundwater monitoring
results would indicate that hazardous constituents are entering
the groundwater, he/she may install and operate an alternate
system. This system would be designed to define the character-
istics, areal extent, and rate of flow of the contaminant plume.
DEP approval is required for this type of system.
Vermont
Vermont may require of the owner or operator of an existing
or closed hazardous waste management site or facility to under-
take such studies as may be necessary, including but not limited
to, soils investigation, and subsurface hydrology and geology
investigations. In addition, any person exercising control over
a hazardous waste or a waste suspected to be hazardous may be
required to obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis
of the waste.
-------
- 82 -
New Hampshire
New Hampshire's requirements are equivalent to the Federal
requirements. Sample analyses in New Hampshire must be measured
against evaluation criteria and methodology previously approved
by the Bureau in consultation with the WSPCC. These criteria
must be able to detect whether hazardous wastes or their consti-
tuents have entered the groundwater, the rate of migration and
the concentration of the constituents.
Maine
In the state of Maine, a minimum of one test pit or boring
per acre on site is required to properly evaluate subsurface
conditions. Borings must penetrate the entire thickness of un-
consolidated materials and a minimum of 5 feet into the underly-
ing bedrock. Abandoned bore holes and test pits must be sealed
to prevent surface water infiltration or groundwater movement
between aquifers.
Piezometric measurements are required for all aquifers under-
lying the site. A minimum of one piezometric station per acre
should be installed. A series of monthly piezometric readings
over a 6 month time period, including the spring high groundwater
period, will usually be necessary as a minimum for an adequate
study of groundwater movement.
-------
- 83 -
The following information is required for licensing in Maine:
A bedrock contour map including a report
on the nature of the bedrock and the
alignment of structural elements in the
bedrock;
A surficial geologic map including a
report on surficial deposits, and repre-
sentative cross-sections to show three-
dimensional relationships;
A groundwater coutour map (two foot con-
tour interval); and
A ground water flow net analysis, to
determine the movement of groundwater
into, within and from the site, and the
direction of possible leachate flow.
The analysis shall consist of equipoten-
tial and flow lines in both horizontal
and vertical directions.
A report on soil attenuative capacities,
including information on cation exchange
capacities, permeabilities, grain size,
and pH of the soils beneath the proposed
landfill.
A water balance analysis.
Background concentrations and limits of
detection of all possible hazardous
contaminants.
A groundwater monitoring plan including
as a minimum:
1. Monitor well specifications;
Location.
Elevation of land surface and
the top of the well casing to
the nearest tenth of a foot.
Depth to the bottom of the well.
Screened interval (depth to top
and bottom of well screen).
Type and size of casing.
Type and size of screen.
-------
- 84 -
2. Procedures and techniques of sample
collection;
3. Sample preservation and shipment;
4. Chain of custody control; and
5. Analytical procedures.
Prior to construction of the landfill a full chemical, physical
and biological analysis is required for all wells, springs and
surface water bodies within 1000 feet of the site.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts authorities have developed detailed criteria
for the installation of groundwater monitoring wells.
A water table contour map showing presumed flow directions
must be developed using measured groundwater elevations from
each sampling period. At least annually (by April 30th) the
data will be evaluated to determine whether the requirements for
well locations continue to be satisfied. If the requirements
are not satisfied the well locations must be modified to bring
the monitoring system into compliance.
7.8 Sources of Information
7.8.1 Federal Regulations
The Federal regulatory requirements discussed in this
chapter can be found in the specific sections of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations cited in Table 14.
-------
- 85 -
Table 14
Federal Regulatory Citations for
Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements
Topic Section
Applicability 265.90*
Ground-water Monitoring System 265.91
Sampling and Analysis 265.92
Preparation, Evaluation and Response 265.93**
Recordkeeping and Reporting 265.94***
* Paragraph (e) added on January 11, 1982, 47 Fed. Reg. 1254.
It provides a waiver of the ground-water monitoring require-
ments for certain surface impoundments used to neutralize
corrosive wastes.
** The requirement for preparation of ground-water quality
assessment program outlines was delayed on February 23,
1982, 47 Fed. Reg. 7841, until August 1, 1982.
*** The compliance date for the initial-year quarterly ground-
water monitoring parameter readings was delayed on February
23, 1982, 47 Fed. Reg. 7841, until August 1, 1982.
7.8.2 State Regulations
All Region 2 states have issued groundwater monitoring re-
gulations equivalent to the Federal regulations with additional
requirements as described in Section 7.6 of this chapter. How-
ever, readers are advised to contact their state environmental
protection authorities to determine if they may be required to
comply with additional state regulations.
-------
- 86 -
7.8.3 Additional Guidance
Further guidance concerning groundwater monitoring can be
found in EPA's guidance manual:
"Interim Status Groundwater Monitoring
Program Evaluation", EPA Publication
No. SW-954, April, 1982.
Other publications containing potentially useful information
include:
"Monitoring Groundwater Quality: Moni-
toring Methodology", D.K. Todd et.al,
Publication No. EPA-600/4-76-026, USEPA
Environmental Support Laboratory, Las
Vegas, Nevada, 1976;
"Groundwater and Wells", Johnson Divis-
ion: UOP, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota,
1975; and
"Groundwater", R.A. Freeze and J.A.
Cherry, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.
-------
- 87 -
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE PLANS
Appendix A presents illustrative examples of required plans
and- submittals developed for a hypothetical treatment and stor-
age facility authorized to operate under interim status. This
material is presented in the following order:
A.l Site Description
A.2 Closure Plan
A.3 Closure Cost Estimate
A.4 Latest Adjusted Closure Cost Estimate
A.5 Closure Financial Assurance
A.6 Liability Insurance Certification
A.7 Groundwater Monitoring Plan
Because the facility described is to be closed as a storage
and treatment facility, neither a post-closure plan nor a
post-closure cost estimate is required.
The site description presented in Section A.l is only in-
tended to provide relative background information for the reader.
The required content of site descriptions submitted with RCRA
Part B permit applications is considerably greater.
-------
- 88 -
A. 1 Site Description
BFD, Inc. is presently engaged in the production of elec-
tronic components used in the manufacture of computers/ calcu-
lators, and word processing units. These components include
printed circuit boards, liquid crystal display units, and
silicon micro-processor chips. The facility was opened in the
fall of 1961. Figure A.1 presents a plan view of the existing
facility.
Since 1975, all process wastewater has been discharged to
the regional sewerage authority system after treatment on-site.
Under the agreement reached with the authority, sanitary waste
and cooling water are allowed to be discharged without any
on-site treatment.
Approximately 3500 gallons per day of wastewater contaminated
with cyanide and hexavalent chromium are generated at the facil-
ity. During treatment of the wastewater, about 2800 pounds of
sludge, classified as hazardous waste type F006 by EPA, are gen-
erated each day. The materials removed from the treatment tanks,
clarifer and settling/storage lagoon are disposed of off-site at
a secure chemical landfill. Figure A.2 is a schematic of the
treatment systems and Figure A.3 is a scale drawing of the
lagoon.
-------
- 89 -
SITE LAYOUT
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
-------
Figure A.2 Treatment System Schematic
-------
- 91 -
SETTLING/STORAGE LAGOON
i B
I
A*
L-b*
HORIZONTAL ,
1u°
Figure A.3
BFD, Inc.
Fiddlers Green, MA
WASTE STORAGE/SETTLING LAGOON
-------
- 92 -
At times of high production or treatment system outages,
there is a possibility that the flow to the treatment facility
may exceed its capacity. To off-set that possibility, two
20,000 gallon auxiliary holding tanks are available to accept
peak flows.
A.2 Closure Plan
A.2.1 Closure Performance Standard
This closure plan for BFD, Inc. is designed to conform to
the closure performance standard. Specifically, the plan
insures that the BFD storage and treatment facility will not
require further maintenance and controls, minimizes threats to
human health and the environment, and eliminates post-closure
escape of hazardous waste, hazardous waste constitutents,
leachate, contaminated runoff, or waste decomposition products
to the ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere. The
following discussion describes in detail efforts to be made at
BFD to satisfy the closure performance standard.
A. 2.2 Partial Closure
Partial closure is not planned during the life of the facil-
ity. However, partial closure may become necessary if process
or operating changes result in retirement of portions of the
current storage and treatment system.
-------
- 93 -
If partial closure were to be required, a partial clos-
ure plan would be developed and the closure plan revised
accordingly.
A.2.3 Maximum Waste Inventory
The maximum waste inventory of the BFD storage and treatment
facility is as follows:
275/000 gallons of liquid and sediment
in the surface impoundment;
21,000 gallons in the polymer precipi-
tate clarifer tank;
20,000 gallons in the two acid-alkaline
treatment tanks;
20,000 gallons in the two cyanide-chro-
mate holding tanks; and
40,000 gallons in the two auxiliary
holding tanks.
The maximum waste inventory for the facility is 376,000 gallons.
A.2.4 Waste Disposal and Decontamination of Equipment
Within 90 days after generation of the final volume of haz-
ardous wastes, final closure will be initiated. Closure will be
completed within 180 days of this occurrence. At closure, all
hazardous wastes will be treated in BFD's on-site treatment sys-
tem and pumped into the existing lagoon. A maximum of 101,000
gallons of liquid wastes would be treated in this manner, how-
ever, it is anticipated that less than 60,000 gallons would
actually be in the storage and treatment tanks at the time of
closure.
-------
- 94 -
Following waste treatment, all tanks, pumps and piping will
be steam-cleaned to remove contaminants and residues. This will
serve to decontaminate the tank interiors and associated
auxiliary equipment. All rinse waters will be pumped into the
lagoon. Final rinse waters will be analyzed to assure that
decontamination is complete.
Rinsewaters will be analyzed at an independant certified
laboratory. Analyses will be conducted for the hazardous
constituents of BFD's wastestream. These are listed below:
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Flouride
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Silver
Zinc
If any of these materials are detected in the rinsewater at con-
centrations higher than existing background levels in the muni-
cipal water supply, the equipment will be recleaned and rinse-
waters reanalyzed until all traces of contaminants are absent
from the rinsewaters.
Present plans call for dismantling the decontaminated
equipment and selling it to reclaim any salvage value.
-------
- 95 -
Present plans call for dismantling the decontaminated
equipment and selling it to reclaim any salvage value.
A.2.5 Lagoon Closure
The first step in closure of the BFD lagoon is dewatering.
The dewatering of standing liquids in the impoundment will be a
decanting process, as it is anticipated that there will not be a
large percentage of settleable solids. The treated wastewater
will be discharged into the regional sewerage system. The re-
maining residual solids and sediments will be removed as a
slurry. Dewatering of the surface impoundment will be stopped
when the remaining water volume is the minimum necessary to
transport the sediment as a pumpable slurry. An airjet will be
used to resuspend the sediment after which a vacuum tank-truck
with internal mining capability will pump the slurry from the
impoundment. Throughout the entire sediment removal process,
precautions will be taken to insure that liner integrity is
preserved.
The clay liner will then be excavated and removed for off-
site disposal as a hazardous waste. It is estimated that the
entire 1000 cubic yards of clay liner will be removed and dis-
posed of in this manner.
Dncontaminated fill material available on the BFD site will
be used to fill the depression of the former lagoon. The entire
-------
- 96 -
restoration area will be regraded, using contractual earth mov-
ing services, and allowed to revegetate naturally.
Accumulated data from the groundwater monitoring program in
place at BFD will constitute verification that no soil and/or
groundwater contamination has occured. If, however, groundwater
contamination is detected at a future date, closure plans will
be revised at that time in accordance with agreements reached
with EPA Region I or Massachusetts State authorities, as
appropriate.
BFD, Inc. will provide the Region I Administrator with cert-
ification that the facility has been closed in accordance with
the specifications contained in the approved closure plan. An
independent professional engineer will also certify that closure
activities were performed in accordance with the approved clo-
sure plan.
A.2.5 Schedule for Closure
Closure is scheduled for the year 2005. The EPA Regional
Administrator or Massachusetts Department of Environmental Qual-
ity Engineering Commissioner, as appropriate, will be notified
by BFD at least 180 days before beginning closure. The proposed
schedule for closure is shown in Figure A.4. Closure will be
supervised and certified by the plant operator and certified by
a registered professional engineer.
-------
DAYS
10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 80100110120130140160160170160
GENERATION OF FINAL VOLUME
OF HAZAROOU8 WASTE
TREATMENT OF FINAL
WASTE INVENTORY,
8TEAM CLEANING OF TANKS AND
ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT
DECANTING OF LAGOON
3EDIMENT REMOVAL
DISMANTLING AND SALyAQE
OF TANK8 AND PIPING
REMOVE CLAY LINER
BACKFILL LAGOON AREA
CERTIFY CLOSURE COMPLETE
O O O O
P INDICATES
CONCURRENT INSPECTION
Q
O O O <)
FIGURE A.4 ANTICIPATED CLOSURE SCHEDULE FOR BFD STORAGE AND TREATMENT FACILITY
vo
-4
-------
- 98 -
A. 3 Closure Cost Estimate
May 10, 1981 Revision #0
The latest cost estimate for conducting closure at the BFD,
Inc. treatment and storage facility is $78,183. The closure
cost estimate is based upon treatment of the maximum inventory
of wastewater that could be on-site during the operating life of
the facility (376,000 gallons) and disposal of resulting F006
sludges. This closure cost estimate is higher than the normal
anticipated cost of closure based on the closure plan, as only
260,000 gallons is expected to be on-site at the time of closure.
The closure costs are summarized by activity in Table A.2.
The closure cost estimate will be kept on file at the BFD,
Inc. facility. It will be revised whenever a change in the
closure plan affects the cost of closure. It will be adjusted
annually, by June 9 of each year, to reflect changes in closure
costs brought about by inflation. The Department of Commerce's
Annual Implicit Price Deflator for Gross National Product will
be used to make this adjustment. This "latest adjusted cost
estmate" will be retained on-site together with the "latest cost
estimate" throughout the active life of the facility.
-------
- 99 -
Table A.2
Estimated Closure Costs
Item Cost
1.
Treatment of wastes
$ 5,050
2.
Equipment decontamination
2,020
3.
Rinsewater analysis and disposal
2,315
4.
Equipment disposal
0
5.
Lagoon decanting
680
6.
Sludge removal and disposal
2,800
7-.
Liner removal and disposal
46,600
8.
Lagoon back-filling
4,180
9.
Professional certification
2,000
10.
Administrative costs
2,340
11.
Total costs
$67,985
12.
Contingencies (15% of #11)
10,198
13.
Total cost estimate
$78,183
The following pages present a step-by-step sequence of
closure activities and associated costs.
A.3.1 Treatment of Wastes
Wastes will be treated on-site using existing neutralization
and clarification equipment. Treatment of the maximum amount of
wastewater in the storage and treatment system, 101,000 gallons,
at the design operating rate of 3500 gallons per day will
require operation of the treatment system for 29 days.
-------
- 100 -
Operating costs for the treatment system, which include
fully-burdened labor, utilities, polymer chemicals, laboratory
analyses and maintenance, average $0.05 per gallon. Total costs
to treat the wastewater would be:
101,000 gallons x $0.05/gallon = $5050
A.3.2 Equipment Decontamination
The total storage and treatment tank volume to be steam
cleaned is 101,000 gallons. Means Construction Cost Guide, 1981
edition, estimates that equipment rental, labor and operation of
a 2000 gph steam-cleaner will cost $0.02 per gallon of capacity
cleaned. Total decontamination costs would be:
101,000 gallons x $0.02/gallon = $2020
A.3.3 Rinsewater Analysis and Disposal
Rinsewater will be pumped, as generated, into a tank truck,
analyzed to verify adequate decontamination, and hauled off-site
by a contractor for disposal at an approved hazardous waste
treatment/disposal facility. Approximately 1 gallon of rinse-
water would be generated for every eight gallons of tank volume
cleaned. Total rinsewater generation would be:
101,000/8 = 12,625 gallons
-------
- 101 -
Disposal costs, estimated from disposal contractor quotes,
would be $0.12 per gallon, including pickup and transportation
charges. Total rinsewater disposal costs would be:
12,625 gallons x $0.12/gallon = $1515
Off-site analysis of the final rinsewaters generated to
verify complete decontamination would cost an estimated $200 per
sample for AA/Flame Photometric inorganic analyses. For an
estimated 2 samples, replicate analytical costs have been quoted
at $800 total. Total rinsewater analysis and disposal costs
would be:
$1515 + $800 = $2315
A.3.4 Equipment Disposal
As all equipment will be decontaminated during closure, no
disposal will be required.
A.3.5 Lagoon Decanting
The lagoon will be decanted, after allowing approximately 50
days for maximum soilds settling to occur. The wastewater will
be decanted using suction pumps owned by BFD. Approximately 40
hours of the treatment plant operator's time at $17.00 per hour
(fully burdened) would be required to operate the decanting
equipment. Total labor costs would be:
40 hours x $17/hour = $680
-------
- 102 -
Decanted liquids will be discharged into the regional sewer
age system. Sewerage charges for disposal of wastewater from
the lagoon would have been previously paid as a part of the
facility's water and sewer bill.
A.3.6 Sludge Removal and Disposal
Based on operational records, an estmated two-foot sludge
blanket (approximately 14,000 gallons) will remain after the
lagoon is decanted. Disposal costs for removal, transportation
and disposal of sludge currently average $0.02 per gallon.
Total sludge removal and disposal costs would be:
$14,000 gallons x $0.20/gallon = $2800
A.3.7 Liner Removal and Disposal
The 1000 cubic yards of clay liner will be excavated and
transported to a secure chemical landfill for disposal by con-
tractors. ALERT, Inc. of Sleepy Hollow, Connecticut has quoted
excavation and transportation costs fo $15.60 per cubic yard.
An additional $1000 equipment mobilization and decontamination
charge is added by ALERT, resulting in total excavation and
transportation costs of:
$1000 + 1000 yd3 x $15.60/yd3 = $16,600
-------
- 103 -
Disposal costs at the nearest secure chemical landfill, SCA
in Boston, have been quoted at $30.00 per cubic yard. Total
liner disposal costs would be:
1000 yd3 x $30/yd3 = $30,000
Total liner removal and disposal costs would be:
$16,600 + $30,000 = $46,600
A. 3.8 Lagoon Backfilling
Under local ordinances, the lagoon depression must be filled
at closure to conform to existing ground contours. Costs for
excavating, hauling, spreading and compacting fill soil avail-
able on the northwest corner of the facility have been quoted by
Snedley. Construction in Fiddler's Green, Massachusetts at $1.90
per cubic yard. The excavated lagoon depression will require
approximately 2200 cubic yards of backfill soil resulting in a
total cost of:
2200 yd3 x $1.90/yd3 = $4180
A.3.9 Professional Certification
Approximately 40 hours of an independent registered
professional engineer's time, estimated at $50.00 per hour, will
be required to perform closure inspections and certify closure
complete. Total costs would be:
40 hours x $50/hr = $2000
-------
- 104 -
A.3.10 Administrative Costs
Approximately 120 hours of BFD administrative time will be
involved in managing and certifying closure at a fully-burdened
rate of $19.50 per hour resulting in total administrative costs
of:
120 hours x $19.50/hr = $2340.
-------
DISCLAIMER
This manual has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for release. The mention of
trade names or commercial products in this manual does not
constitute endorsement or recommendations for use.
-------
- 105 -
A.4 Latest Adjusted Closure Cost Estimate
May 20, 1982
Latest closure cost estimate: $78,183
1980 Annual Implicit Price Deflator: 177.36
1981 Estimated Annual Implicit
Price Deflator (March, 1982): 193.77
Inflation factor: 194/177 = 1.096
Latest Adjusted Cost Estimate: 1.096 x $78,183 = $85,692
-------
- 106 -
A.5 Financial Assurance for Closure
BFD, Inc. has provided the EPA with financial assurance that
adequate funding will be available to conduct closure by means
of the financial test specified in 40 CFR 265.143(e). Copies of
the required certifications, as submitted to the USEPA Regional
Administrator on June 25, 1982 with BFD's Part B RCRA permit
application , are attached as follows:
Attachment 1: Certification by the Chief Financial
Officer of BFD, Inc.
Attachment 2: The CPA's Report regarding BFD, Inc.'s
Fiscal Year 1982 financial statements
Attachment 3: The CPA's Report verifying the Chief
Financial Officer's Certification
-------
- 107 -
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 4
June 12, 1982
Mr. Lester Sutton
Regional Administrator
Region I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. Sutton:
I am the Chief Financial Officer of:
BFD, Inc.,
23 Industrial Place
Fiddlers Green, Massachusetts 12345
This letter is in support of this firm's use of the financial
test to demonstrate financial assurance, as specified in Subpart
H of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265.
1. This firm is the owner or operator of the following
facilities for which financial assurance for closure or post-
closure care is demonstrated through the financial test specified
in Subpart H of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. The current closure
and/or post-closure cost estimates covered by the test are shown
for each facility:
BFD, Inc.,
23 Industrial Place
Fiddlers Green, Massachusetts 12345
EPA ID. No. MST 123456789, Closure Cost Estimate $85,692.
2. This firm guarantees, through the corporate guar-
antee specified in Subpart H of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, the
closure or post-closure care of the following facilities owned
-------
- 108 -
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 4
or operated by subsidiaries of this firm. The current cost
estimates for the closure or post-closure care so guaranteed are
shown for each facility:
NONE
3. In states where EPA is not administering the fin-
ancial requirements of Subpart H of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265,
this firm, as owner or operator or guarantor, is demonstrating
financial assurance for the closure or post-closure care of the
following facilities through the use of a test equivalent or
substantially equivalent to the financial test specified in Sub-
part H of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. The current closure and/or
post-closure cost estimates covered by such a test are shown for
each facility:
NONE
4. This firm is the owner or operator of the following
hazardous waste management facilities for which financial assur-
ance for closure or, if a disposal facility, post-closure care,
is not demonstrated either to EPA or a state through the finan-
cial test or any other financial assurance mechanism specified
in Subpart H of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 or equivalent or
substantially equivalent state mechanisms. The current closure
and/or post-closure cost estimates not covered by such financial
assurance are shown for each facility:
NONE.
This firm is not required to file a Form 10K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the latest fiscal
year.
-------
- 109 -
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 4
The fiscal year of this firm ends on February 28, 1982. The
figures for the following items marked with an asterisk are
derived from this firm's independently audited, year-end finan-
cial statements for the latest completed fiscal year, ended
February 28.
Alternative I
1. Sum of current closure and post-closure
cost estimates
*2. Total liabilities
*3. Tangible net worth
*4. Net worth
*5. Current assets
/
*6. Current liabilities
7. Net working capital (Line 5 minus Line 6)
*8. The sum of net income plus depreciation,
depletion and amortization
*9. Total assets in D.S. (required only if
less than 90% of firm's assets are
located in the U.S.)
Yes No
$ 85,692
61,020,000
17,600,000
23,300,000
18,980,000
10,800,000
8,180,000
15,500,000
All U.S.
10. Is line 3 at least $10 million?
11. Is line 3 at least 6 times line 1
x
x
-------
- 110 -
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 4
Yes No
12. Is line 7 at least 6 times line 1 x
*13. Are at least 90% of firm's assets located
in the U.S.? If not complete line 14 x
14. Is line 9 at least 6 times line 1
15. Is line 2 divided by line 4 less than 2.00 x
16. Is line 8 divided by line 2 greater than 0.15 x
17. Is line 5 divided by line 6 greater than 1.50 x
I hereby certify that the wording of this letter is identical to
the wording specified in 40 CFR 264.151(f) as such regulations
were constituted on the date shown immediately below.
xedrick P. Plater
President, BFD, Inc.
June 12, 1982
-------
- Ill -
Attachment 2
(FLATT, BLACK AND ASSOCIATES LETTERHEAD)
April 20, 1982
Mr. Fredrick Plater
President
BFD, Incorporated
23 Industrial Place
Fiddlers Green, Massachusetts 12345
Dear Mr. Plater:
We have examined the consolidated balance sheets of BFD, Inc.,
and subsidiaries as of February 28, 1982, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity, and
changes in financial position for the year then ended. Our
examinations were made in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests of the
accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above pre-
sent fairly the consolidated financial position of BFD, Inc.,
and subsidiaries as of February 28, 1982, the consolidated re-
sults of their operations and the consolidated changes in
financial positions for the year then ended, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistant
basis.
Respectfully,
Jane Flatt
Certified Public Accountant
Flatt, Black and Associates
-------
- 112 -
Attachment 3
(FLATT, BLACK AND ASSOCIATES LETTERHEAD)
June 25, 1982
Mr. Fredrick Plater
President
BFD, Incorporated
23 Industrial Place
Fiddlers Green, Massachusetts 12345
Dear Mr. Plater:
We have compared the data contained in your letter of June 12,
1982 to Mr. Lester Sutton, the USEPA Region I Administrator,
which you specify was derived from the independently audited,
year-end financial statements of BFD, Inc. as of February 28,
1982, with the amounts in those financial statements.
In our opinion, the data contained in the letter, referred to
above presents fairly the consolidated financial position of
BFD, Inc., and subsidiaries as of February 28, 1982 and the con-
solidated results of their operations for the year then ended,
in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles
applied on a consistant basis. No matters came to our attention
which caused us to believe that the data in the letter referred
to above should be adjusted.
Respectfully,
Jane Flatt
Certified Public Acountant
Flatt, Black and Associates
-------
- 113 -
A.6 Certificate of Liability Insurance
BFD, Inc./ has obtained a liability insurance policy cover-
ing both sudden and nonsudden accidents that many occur at its
Fiddlers Green facility. (Nonsudden insurance is required be-
cause of BFD1s on-site lagoon.) A copy of the certificate of
liability insurance" is attached.
-------
- 114 -
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
1. Fiddler's Green Insurance Company, Inc., (the
"Insurer"), of
50 Main Street
Fiddlers Green, Massachusetts 12345
hereby certifies that it has issued liability insurance covering
bodily injury and property damage to BFD, Inc., (the "insured"),
of
23 Industrial Place
Fiddlers Green, Massachusetts 12345
in connection with the insured's obligation to demonstrate
financial responsibility under 40 CFR 264.147 or 265.147. The
coverage applies at
EPA Facility No. MST 123456789
BFD, Inc.
23 Industrial Place
Fiddlers Green, Massachusetts 12345
for sudden and nonsudden accidental occurances. The limits of
liability are
Each occurance $1,000,000 (sudden)
Annual aggregate $2,000,000 (sudden)
Each occurance $3,000,000 (nonsudden)
Annual aggregate $6,000,000 (nonsudden)
exclusive of legal defense costs. The coverage is provided
under policy number EL-0074, issued on July 14, 1982. The
effective date of said policy is July 15, 1982.
-------
- 115 -
2. The Insurer further certifies the following with
respect to the insurance described in Paragraph 1:
(a) Bankruptcy or insolvency of the insured shall
not reliev,e the Insurer of its obligations under the policy.
(b) The Insurer is liable for the payment of
amounts within any deductible applicable to the policy, with a
right of reimbursement by the insured for any such payment made
by the Insurer. This provision does not apply with respect to
that amount of any deductible for which coverage is demonstrated
as specified in 40 CFR 264.147(f) or 265.147(f).
(c) Whenever requested by a Regional Administrator
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/ the Insurer
agrees to furnish to the Regional Administrator a signed dupli-
cate original of the policy and all endorsements.
(d) Cancellation of the insurance, whether by the
insurer or the insured, will be effective only upon written
notice and only after the expiration of sixty (60) days after a
copy of such written notice is received by the Regional Adminis-
trator of the EPA Region in which the facility is located.
-------
- 116 -
(e) Any other termination of the insurance will be
effective only upon written notice and only after the expiration
of thirty (30) days after a copy of such written notice is re-
ceived by the Regional Administrator of the EPA Region in which
the facility is located.
I hereby certify that the wording of this" instrument is
identical to the wording specified in 40 CFR 264.151(j) as such
regulation was constituted on the date first above written, and
that the Insurer is licensed to transact the business of insur-
ance, or eligible to provide insurance as an excess or surplus
lines insurer, in one or more States.
John Fiddler
Vice President
Authorized Representative of
Fiddlers Green Insurance Co., Inc.
50 Main Street
Fiddlers Green, Massachusetts 12345
-------
- 117 -
A.7 Groundwater Monitoring Plan
This document outlines the ground-water monitoring system,
and sampling and analysis program, developed for the BFD plant
to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 265, Subpart P. This
regulation requires the owner or operator of a surface impound-
ment, used to manage hazardous waste, to implement a monitoring
program capable of determining the facility's impact on ground-
water quality in the uppermost aquifer underlying the facility.
The waste management area, shown in Figures A.5 and A.6, con-
tains the only hazardous waste impoundment at the site.
Test borings were conducted to establish the geological
materials in the waste area and to serve as monitoring wells.
Drilling and well construction were performed by Ditch and Sons
Drilling Company under the supervision of BFD1s consultant,
Succombe Drye and Associates. Locations of borings are shown in
Figure A.6, and boring logs and geologic cross-sections are
shown in Attachment 4. The material beneath the site is glacial
outwash, and the lithology is highly variable over short dis-
tances. Sand, silt, and silty clay are the principal consti-
tuents. The presence of silt or clay may locally inhibit the
vertical migration of contaminated ground water, but lateral
interconnection with coarser material presents the possibility
of contaminents reaching the deeper sand aquifers.
-------
- lis -
-------
-------
- 120 -
Monitor Wells
The uppermost aquifer is defined as the brown fine sand and
silty sand, situated beneath the topsoil to a depth of between 4
and 20 feet below the surface throughout the waste area. Monitor
wells MW-2 and MW-3 are upgradient monitors, and will provide
background water quality data for the uppermost aquifer. Monitor
wells MW-1, MW-4 and MW-6 are located at the perimeter of the
waste treatment area, and water level elevations (Figure A.6)
show them to be downgradient of the waste facilities. In addi-
tion, MW-5 is located downgradient at the head of a small valley
containing steam tributary to Kroy Creek.
Well MW-1, which will provide early detection of seepage
from the lagoon, has a dual completion to identify: (1) leakage
into the upper aquifer and (2) leakage into the sand which is
separated from the upper aquifer by a layer of silty clay. A
single completion to the total depth was avoided to prevent the
possibility of cross-contamination, and the depth of the intake
area was necessitated by the depth of the excavation and fill
beneath the lagoon. MW-4, 5 and 6 were completed down to layer
of clay or silty clay which would restrict vertical flow. Com-
pletion to greater depth would dilute samples with water from
zones less likely to be contaminated. A potentiometric contour
map is included in Attachment 4 showing the apparent direction
of groundwater flow.
-------
- 121 -
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Sample Collection
Each well is fitted with a length of 0.25 inch I.D. teflon
tubing which is permanently installed inside the well casing.
The bottom of the tubing is at the middle of the well screen.
Prior to sample collection, a volume of water equivalent to
three times the volume of standing water in the casing is
removed by bailing, with the bailer being carefully washed in
distilled water immediately before use. When the water level
has recovered to within one foot of the initial level, a sample
is collected by inserting the tubing into a stopper fitted to
the sampling flask; a hand vaccum pump is also connected to the
flask, and the sample is withdrawn by suction lift. The sample
is then transferred from the sampling flask to labelled
polyethelene containers which are completely filled to exclude
contact with the air.
Preservation and Shipment
Samples are immediately packed in insulated boxes containing
dry ice, and shipped by Federal Express to Quahog Laboratories
for testing. Holding period restrictions for all parameters are
adhered to, and verified through the chain of custody procedure.
-------
- 122 -
The only exceptions are pH and conductivity, which are measured
at the time of sampling in order to assure compliance with the
24 hour holding period. A Hach portable conductivity meter and
pH meter are used for these purposes.
Analytical Procedures
Samples received by Quahog Laboratories will be analyzed
using EPA approved techniques as described in "Methods for Chem-
ical Analysis of Water and Wastes", EPA-600/4-79-020. Quarterly
samples will be analyzed for the following parameters during the
first year of sampling:
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate (as N)
Selenium
Silver
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2, 4-D
2/ 4,5-TP
Coliform Bacteria
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Radium
In addition, the samples will be analyzed for the following
parameters during the first year quarterly sampling and in all
subsequent semi-annual samplings:
Chloride
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sodium
Sulfate
pH
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Halogen
Conductivity is determined in the field as discussed above.
-------
- 123 -
For each parameter in the second list, four replicate meas-
urements will be made for each sample obtained from the up-
gradient wells during the first year. From these, the initial
background arithmetic mean and variance of the parameter con-
centrations will be determined. Four replicate measurements
will also be made for these parameters during the first year
and.all subsequent years on samples obtained from the upgra-
dient and downgradient wells; these will be used in conjunction
with background values to determine significant increases (or
decreases in the case of pH) using the Student's t-test.
Chain of Custody
Chain of custody forms will be used to assure proper identi-
fication of samples and adherence to holding period requirements.
A sample form is shown as Attachment 5.
Sampling Schedule
Samples will be obtained from all monitor wells on a
quarterly basis for the first year, and on a semi-annual basis
in all subsequent years.
Record Keeping and Reporting
Analytical results, including ground water elevations taken
at the time of sampling will be kept at the site. Results of
quarterly analyses during the first year will be reported to the
-------
- 124 -
EPA Regional Administrator within 15 days of the completion of
the analyses. Results of semi-annual analyses, along with
statistical comparisons with the background arithmetic mean,
will be reported to the EPA Regional Administrator once every
year beginning in January 1983.
Outline of Groundwater Quality Assessment Program
If the statistical analyses described in the Sampling and
Analysis Plan indicate a significant change in the listed para-
meters, the Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan will be imple-
mented to determine the extent and rate of groundwater contami-
nation. Upon determination of significant change, all of the
monitor wells will again be sampled and analyses performed to
confirm the preliminary results. If increases in the parameters
(or decrease in the case of pH) are confirmed, all of the wells
will be sampled thereafter on a quarterly basis and analyzed for
the parameters listed for semi-annual determination in the
Sampling and Analysis Plan. In addition, water samples will be
obtained from Kroy Creek near the plant pumping station (see
Figure 1) on a quarterly basis, and analyzed for the above
mentioned parameters. This program will be continued until
plant closure.
-------
1210
A
^wsssSSsfl^lP
f 210
1180
NLTY FINE SANO
1100
FINE TO COARSE SAW),
S1TY CLAY LAYERS IN PLACES
SH.TY CLAY AND CLAYEY 8M.T
COARSE SAM) A NO GRAVEL
HORIZ. SCALE:
Att. No. 4
BFD, Inc.
Page. 1 of 9
Fiddlers Green, MA
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A*
-------
- 126
B'
I
- 1160
O3O
6§o§
SSSL
81TV FINE SAND
FIC TO COAR8I SAND,
Stt.TY CLAY LAYERS M PLACES
SA.TY CLAY AND CLAYEY SLT
COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL
HORIZ. SCALE:
0 FT.
10 FT.
Att. No. 4 IBFD, Inc.
Page 2 of 9 ||Fiddlers Green, MA
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B#
-------
- 127 -
-------
- 128 -
Attachment 4
Page 4 of 9
1A
LITHOLOGIC LOG
0 - 2 BROWN TOP SOIL
2-8 BROWN FINE SAND AND SILT
8-14 YELLOW-ORANGE SILTY CLAY
(LAMINATED)
14 - 26 BROWN FINE SAND WITH THIN
RED-BROWN SILTY CLAY LAYERS
26 - 29 BROWN COARSE SAND
29 - 47 TAN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND
47-50 BROWN COARSE SAND AND
GRAVEL
Boring and well completed
15 November, 1981
Water level at 16
surface
below land
10
20
30
40
50
2" 4, PVC WELL PIPE
CEMENT SURFACE SEAL
#2 SAND FILTER
0.020" WELL SCREEN
CEMENT GROUT SEAL
#2 SAND FILTER
0.020" WELL SCREEN
CEMENT GROUT
BACK-FILL
BORE HOLE DIAMETER - 6"
MUD ROTARY DRILLING USING
BENTONITE DRILLING FLUID
FINISHED AT 50' BELOW LAND
SURFACE
BORING LOG AND WELL COMPLETION
MW-1
-------
- 129 -
LITHOLOGIC LOG
0 - 2 BROWN TOP SOIL
2-4 BROWN FINE SAND AND SILT
4 - 12 BROWN MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND
12 - 20 ORANGE SILTY CLAY
20 - 22 BROWN FINE SAND
22 - 25 YELLOW CLAY
25 - 29 BROWN FINE SAND
29 - 40 TAN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND
40-50 GRAY SILTY CLAY
10
20
30
Boring and well completed -
14 November, 1981
Water level at 15'-r' below land
surface
40
50
Attachment 4
Page 5 of 9
2"0, PVC WELL PIPE
CEMENT SURFACE SEAL
U SAND FILTER
0.020" WELL SCREEN
CEMENT GROUT
BACK-FILL
BORE HOLE DIAMETER - 6"
MUD ROTARY DRILLING USING
BENTONITE DRILLING FLUID
FINISHED AT 50'
SURFACE
BELOW LAND
BORING LOG AND WELL COMPLETION
MW-2
-------
- 130 -
Attachment 4
Page 6 of 9
LITHOLOGIC LOG
0-2 BROWN TOP SOIL
2-6 BROWN FINE SAND AND SILT
6-13 RED-BROWN COARSE SAND
13 - 22 BROWN FINE SAND WITH THIN
SILTY CLAY LAYERS
22 - 31 TAN MEDIUM SAND
31 - 35 YELLOW CLAY
35 - 50 BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT
10
20
Boring and well completed -
16 November, 1981
Water level at 19'-10" below land
surface
30
40
50
2"0, PVC WELL PIPE
CEMENT SURFACE SEAL
#2 SAND FILTER
0.020" WELL SCREEN
CEMENT GROUT
BACK-FILL
BORE HOLE DIAMETER - 6"
MUD ROTARY DRILLING USING
BENTONITE DRILLING FLUID
FINISHED AT 50' BELOW LAND
SURFACE
BORING LOG AND WELL COMPLETION
MW-3
-------
- 131 -
Attachment 4
Page 7 of 9
LITHOLOGIC LOG
0 - 2 BROWN TOP SOIL
2 - 7 BROWN FINE SAND AND SILT
7 - 20 BROWN FINE SAND (CLEAN)
20 - 27 ORANGE-YELLOW CLAY
27 - 36 BROWN FINE SAND
36 - 40 YELLOW CLAY
40 - 50 GRAY SILT
10
20
Boring and well completed -
17 November, 1981
Water level at 15'-8" below land
surfac e
30
40
50
2"0, PVC WELL PIPE
CEMENT SURFACE SEAL
#2 SAND FILTER
0.020" WELL SCREEN
CEMENT GROUT
BACK-FILL
BORE HOLE DIAMETER - 6"
MUD ROTARY DRILLING USING
BENTONITE DRILLING FLUID
FINISHED AT 50'
SURFACE
BELOW LAND
BORING LOG AND WELL COMPLETION
MW-4
-------
- 132 -
Attachment 4
Page 8 of 9
LITHOLOGIC LOG
0-2 BROWN TOP SOIL
2-5 BROWN FINE SAND
5-16 BROWN MEDIUM TO FINE SAND
16 - 21 ORANGE FINE SAND
21 - 26 YELLOW CLAYEY SILT
26-35 BROWN FINE SAND
35 - 36 YELLOW CLAY
36 - 41 BROWN FINE SAND
41 - 50 GRAY SILTY FINE SAND
Boring and well completed -
18 November, 1981
Water level at 11' below land
surfac e
10
20
30
40
50
2"0, PVC WELL PIPE
CEMENT SURFACE SEAL
#2 SAND FILTER
0.020" WELL SCREEN
CEMENT GROUT
BACK-FILL
BORE HOLE DIAMETER - 6"
MUD ROTARTY DRILLING USING
BENTONITE DRILLING FLUID
FINISHED AT 50' BELOW LAND
SURFACE
BORING LOG AND WELL COMPLETION
MW-5
-------
_ 133 -
Attachment 4
Page 9 Of 9
LITHOLOGIC LOG 0
0 - 2 BROWN TOP SOIL
2 - 10 BROWN FINE SAND
10 - 16 ORANGE COARSE SAND 10
16 - 20 BROWN FINE SAND
20 - 25 ORANGE-YELLOW CLAY
25 - 36 BROWN FINE SAND
36 - 37 YELLOW CLAY 20
37 - 50 GRAY SILTY FINE SAND
30
Boring and well completed -
19 November, 1981
Water level at 17'-4" below land
surface 40
50
MUD ROTARY DRILLING USING
BENTONITE DRILLING FLUID
FINISHED AT 50' BELOW LAND
SURFACE
BORING LOG AND WELL COMPLETION
MW-6
-------
- 134 -
Attachment 5
Chain of Custody Form
Well No.:
Sample No:
Date of Sampling:
Sample taken by:
Time of Sampling:
Sample delivered to:
Date of delivery:
Sample Condition as Received:
Of:
Time of Delivery:
Results returned with
this form to:
On date:
Of:
Time:
-------
- 135 -
APPENDIX B
STUDENT'S T-TEST
The RCRA regulations require that a statistical analysis be
performed on the values of the indicator parameters, as deter-
mined from the sampling and analysis of the required monitoring
wells. These operations will allow the determination of back-
ground water quality and the comparison of later analysis
results for indications of change in the groundwater quality.
Initial background water quality data is obtained by pooling
the results of the replicate measurements made during the first
year of monitoring for the upgradient monitoring wells. From
these data, the mean and variance of each indicator parameter
(pH, specific conductance, total organic carbon, total organic
halogen) are determined based on at least four replicate
measurements for each well. The results of these determinations
will be used to compare with measurements made during the second
year of monitoring utilizing the Student's T-test.
B.l First Year Analysis
During the first year of monitoring, the initial background
mean and variance for each idicator parameter is determined.
The Student's T-test requires that summary statistics be used in
the comparison and it is necessary to obtain the mean (x) and
the variance (s2) for each parameter for input into Student's
equation. The mean (average) is calculated by the following.
-------
- 136 -
_ (xl + x2* *,xn^
n
where:
x = mean of the sample set (x^ to Xn)
n = the number of readings in the sample set
x = the value of individual members of the sample set
The indicator parameter values for all four quarters of the
monitoring period are used. If more than one monitoring well is
used, the overall mean value is determined by summing the data
from each well for each indicator parameter.
The variance (s2) is a measure of variability and is the
average of the squares of the differences between the actual
measurements and the calculated mean. The variance is defined
as the sum of the squares of the difference between the mean and
the actual value, divided by one less than the number of read-
ings. Variance is calculated by:
n
2 - 2
2 i = 1 (xA - x)
s =
(n - 1)
where:
s2 = sample variance
Xi = value of each measurement
x - data set mean
2 = "the sum of" a set of numbers
n = the number of readings
-------
- 137 -
An example of the determination of the mean (x) and variance
(s2) follows. As in the mean calculations, more than one well
in the system requires that the results be pooled and the total
variance calculated.
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
VALDE
MEAN
DIFFERENCE
DIFFERENCE
SQUARED
4.8
6.4
-1.6
2. 56
6.8
6.4
0.4
0.16
6.3
6.4
-0.1
0.01
5.7
6.4
-0.7
0.49
6.1
6.4
-0.3
0.09
6.9
6.4
0.5
0.24
8.2
6.4
1.8
3.24
7.5
6.4
1.1
1.21
6.2
6.4
-0.2
0.04
5.5
6.4
-0.9
0.81
4.3
6.4
-2.1
4.41
5.7
6.4
-0.7
0.49
6.0
6.4
-0.4
0.16
8.9
6.4
2.5
6.25
8.6
6.4
2.2
4.84
4.7
6.4
-1.7
2.89
102.2
27.90
The mean is calculated by:
x = 2 = 6.39 rounded to 6.4
And the variance:
-------
- 138 -
B.2 Second Year Analysis
After the initial background values of the indicator para-
meters are determined (first year analysis), sample mean and
variance for the four replicate measurements made at least semi-
annually during the second year for each upgradient and each
downgradient well must be calculated. These determinations are
made in the same manner as described above for each indicator
parameter. The mean of each indicator parameter for each well
must be individually compared to the initial background' of each
indicator parameter using Student's T-test at the 0.01 level of
significance.
The Student's T-test is a statistical method used to deter-
mine the significance of a change between the initial background
value and subsequent measurements. The subsequent measurements
must be made at least semi-annually for each well for each indi-
cator parameter. The mean of the background values for each
parameter and the variance are calculated after the first year
- 2
and are represented by x^ and s respectively. For the
individual monitoring well under consideration/ the mean and
- 2
variance are represented by x^ and s respectively.
- 2 2
The T-test requires these summary data (xfa, s xm, s ) to
calculate the T-STATISITIC (t*) and the COMPARISON T-STATISITIC
(^c). The t* value is compared to the tQ value in order to
-------
- 139 -
reach a conclusion as to whether there has been any significant
(statisitical) change in the indicator parameter value. The
T-Test is performed as follows:
t* = 5?
2 2
l_m + lb
nm nb
Negative t* values are converted to positive by disregarding the
sign.
The determination of the COMPARISON T-STATISITIC (tc) re-
quires finding t^ and t from a table of Degrees of Freedom
and Level of Significance. Degrees of freedom are (n^ - 1)
and (nm - 1) for background and monitoring data respectively.
If there are 16 data points in the background data, there are
(16-1=) 15 degrees of freedom. The same is true of the monitor-
ing data. If 8 points are measured, there are (8-1=) 7 degrees
of freedom.
Since the RCRA regulations require a level of significance
of 0.01, t. and t are determined by locating the value of
Dm
the level of significance for 0.01 with the appropriate degree
of freedom. Refer to Table C-l for the critical t-values for
the levels of significance.
Special weightings are required to complete the
determination of the tfi value. These weights, defined as
and W , are calculated as:
-------
- 140 -
Wb '
3 b
W_
2
s m
m n
m
The COMPARISON T-STATISITIC (tc) therefore calculated as:
WK tK + Wm t_
^ _ b d mm
"c W, + Wm
d m
The T-STATISITIC (t*) is then compared to the COMPARISON
T-STATISITIC (tc) using the following decision rules:
If t* is equal to or larger than tc, then conclude
that there most likely has been an increase in the
indicator parameter. (For pH, it is a decrease if the
t* as originally calculated was negative, and an
increase if the original t* was positive.)
4 If t* is less than t , then conclude that there has
most likely been no change in the indicator parameter.
B.3 Example T-Test
This example uses the background water quality data for pH
presented earlier in this appendix. For this example, only one
monitoring well will be considered.
-------
- 141 -
Table C.l
Critical T-Values at the 0.01 Level of Significance
DEGREES OF FREEDOM 0.01 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
1
31.821
2
6.965
3
4. 541
4
3.747
5
3.365
6
3.143
7
2.998
8
2.896
9
2.821
10
2.764
11
2.718
12
2.681
13
2.650
14
2.624
15
2.602
16
2.583
17
2.567
18
2.552
19
2.539
20
2.528
21
2. 518
22
2.508
23
2.500
24
2.492
25
2.485
26
2.479
27
2.473
28
2.467
29
2. 462
30
2.457
40
2.423
50
2.406
60
2.390
120
2.326
-------
- 142 -
Monitoring well pH test results are;
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.6
From the background data presented earlier the mean (x) is:
- _ (4.8 + 6.8 + ...4.7) c ,
X, = 0.4
b 16
The variance is:
2 _ 27.90 _ , ag
b " 16-1 "
For the monitoring data, the mean is
(6.6 + 6.6 + 6.7 + 6.6)
xm = 4 = 6*625
The variance is:
2 _ ((6.6-6.625)2+(6.6-6.625)2+(6.7-6.625)2+(6.6-6.625)2)
s b " (4-1)
For the T-test
t* =
xm " xb
t* =
27 2
s + s ,
m d
n n,
m b
6.39 - 6.45
0.0025 + 1.86
4 16
t* = 0.175
-------
- 143 -
From Table C-l:
tfo with 15 degrees of freedom a significance level of 0.01
tb = 2.602
tm with 3 degrees of freedom, a significance level of 0.01
tm = 4.541
The weights are:
W_
m
m
n
m
0.0025
= 0.000625
W.
nt
1.86
16
= 0.11625
Therefore:
Vb + Vm
Wb + Wm
(0.11625 * 2.602) + (0.000625 * 4.541)
(0.11625 + 0.000625)
tc = 2.612
As t* (0.175) is less than tc (2.612) there has been no
statistically significant change in the indicator parameter.
-------
- 144 -
APPENDIX C
FEDERAL AND STATE CONTACTS
The following should be contacted for additional information
or guidance related the hazardous waste regulations described in
this report.
C.l EPA Contacts
Gary Gosbee (617) 223-1591
Mary Sanderson (617) 223-1591
Ken Wenger (617) 223-5775
C.2 State.Contacts
Connecticut
Barry Giroux
George Dews
Paul Marin
(203) 566-5712
(203) 566-5712
(203) 566-3654
Maine
John Krueger (207) 289-2251
Robert Demkowicz (207) 289-2251
George Kaplan (207) 289-2251
Massachusetts
Steven Dreeszen (617) 292-5630
Hank Southworth (617) 292-5630
Larry Giarrizzo (617) 292-5630
New Hampshire
Chuck Knox
Dan Allen
Michael Donahue
(603) 271-4623
(603) 271-3289
(603) 271-3289
-------
Rhode Island
Barry Muller
Tom Wright
Stephen Majkut
(401) 277-2808
(401) 277-2808
(401) 277-2808
Vermont
Dick Valentinetti (802) 828-3395
------- |