The document provides an update on Missouri's Hazardous Waste Program Permits Section. It discusses regulatory changes due to the "No Stricter Than" rulemaking, the evolution of the permit workload to focus on modifications, guidance on evaluating post-closure care periods, progress on corrective action, impacts of changes to EPA funding formulas, and staffing in the Permits Section.

1. REGFORM
Missouri Hazardous Waste Seminar
November 5, 2015
Richard Nussbaum, P.E., R.G.
MDNR – Hazardous Waste Program
rich.nussbaum@dnr.mo.gov
(573) 751-3553
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
PERMITS SECTION UPDATE

2. What Will I Cover?
• “No Stricter Than” Rulemaking Impacts
• Permit Work Load Evolution
• Post-Closure Care Guidance
• Corrective Action GPRA Progress
• EPA STAG Funding Formula
• Permit Section Staff Resources

3. “No Stricter Than” - Summary of Changes
for Interim Status/Permitted Facilities
• No Health Profile in the Permit Application
• No Habitual Violator Disclosure in the Permit Application
• Elimination of additional permit application content requirements
(certain maps, drawings and seismic certification) and number of
copies of application
• No additional plan/reports in application addressing additional
facility siting requirements
• Elimination of additional requirements for elementary
neutralization units
• “24 Hour Rule” elimination (future reliance on EPA 24 hour
policy)

4. “No Stricter Than” - Summary of Changes
for Interim Status/Permitted Facilities
• WAP Content (inclusion of leachate/run-off requirements for regulated
units eliminated)
• Facility operating record (recording of several items eliminated)
• Elimination of specific SWMU release/surface water monitoring
requirements (handled under corrective action if needed)
• No Deed Notice/Survey Plat for regulated units if close above background
but below unrestricted use standards
• Elimination of additional Financial Assurance requirements
• Elimination of prescriptive additional technical requirements for
containers, tanks, surface impoundments, waste piles, landfills and
incinerators
• Elimination of AWFCO requirements for Miscellaneous X Units

5. Permit Work
Load Evolution
The majority of facilities that
continue to treat, store or dispose
of hazardous waste have been
issued permits under the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The bulk
of permitting activity has now
shifted to responding to business
needs and changes in facility
operations while ensuring that
the permitted conditions
continue to be protective and
prevent releases.
Permit Issued/ Reissued
Examples of Changes over the Life of a Permit
- Operating -
Change waste streams managed
Add capacity in existing units
Incorporate new units in the permit
Comply with new regulations (e.g., for incinerator units)
Improve waste management in order to save costs and conserve natural resources
Upgrade to more efficient/green technologies
- Closure/Post-Closure/Facility-Wide Cleanup -
1. Closure of storage tanks/remove conditions for unit
2. Improve cleanup process for historic contamination
3. Institute and assess new monthly groundwater monitoring
4. New ownership triggering financial assurance reviews
5. Final remedy selection for facility-wide cleanup
6. Extend post-closure care period for landfills
- Recurring Changes -
Change in the general permit provisions (e.g., schedule of compliance, corrections,
adjust unit conditions)
Change in the general facility standards (e.g., emergency response/coordinator,
sampling, and analysis)
Permit Modifications Issued for each
Change

6. General Distribution of Permit Modification Approvals by Type (2011-2013)

7. Permit Modifications as compared to Initial Permits and Renewals 2011-2013
As the majority of facilities on the permitting track now have permits in place, the permitting workload is now
shifting to modifications.
• There were about seven times more permit modifications than renewals.
• Permit modifications and renewals outnumber new issuances at a rate of 141 - 1.
• 1,429 facilities are permitted and appear to be in the workload for modifications and renewals.
• Generally 17% of the modifications require “substantial” changes to the permit and these can be comparable to
initial permit issuance or renewal with regard to complexity, workload, and public participation requirements.
Relative Workload in 2011 thru 2013:

8. RCRA Permitting Workloads in 2015
Permitted (88%)
1429 - The “Permit Maintenance Workload” contains the facilities
that are permitted and are expected to need permit modifications and
other maintenance. The facilities that would also eventually need
permit renewals are included in this set. At the current rate of
renewals, about 300 facilities (~21%) are administratively continued
past their permit expiration date and need renewals. Renewals are
tracked for GPRA.
Never Permitted, Tracked for GPRA and Need Initial Controls (12%)
16 – Need Operating Permit: Facilities have at least one unit that is
“operating, actively managing RCRA hazardous waste” and is under
interim status standards.
172 – Not Operating: Need Post-Closure Permit, Complete Closure
Obligations, or Other Approved Controls in Place. The majority of
these facilities are on track for clean closure (and/or a corrective
action order), but some will be issued post-closure permits.
Note: There are additional facilities that are less of a priority (not tracked
for GPRA), but are still under the oversight of the permitting programs.

9. Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Administrative and
informational changes
Changes in frequency or
content of inspection
schedules
Addition of corrective action
program
Correction of typographical
errors
Changes to corrective action
program
Creation of a new landfill as
part of closure
Changes in names,
addresses, and phone
numbers of emergency
coordinators
Extensions of post-closure
care period
Addition of compliance
monitoring to groundwater
monitoring program
Changes to waste sampling
and analysis methods to
comply with new regulations
Changes to facility training
plan that affect the type or
amount of employee training
Reduction in post-closure
care period
Changes to analytical quality
assurance and quality
control plan to comply with
new regulations
Changes in number, location,
depth, or design of
groundwater monitoring
wells
Addition of temporary
incinerator for closure
activities
Note: Permit modifications are classified in more detail in 40 CFR §270.42, Appendix I
Examples of Permit Modification Classifications

10. See 40 CFR 270.42 for the full federal regulations for permittee mod requests. State regulations may vary. Several states have not adopted the regulations for the three class structure, and use the preexisting Major and Minor
Mod structure. * The permitting Agency may need additional information from the facility in order to make a decision and these interactions can be lengthy. The Permitting Agency may also determine that the class should be
higher or lower (or deciding if a Class 1 needs prior approval) based on the change being made. The separate temporary authorization process can be used for Class 2 or 3 as appropriate (although not referenced in the Class 3
process above).
Facility Action
Permitting Agency Action
Key to Flow Chart Symbols
Decision
Sends notice to the
Director
Within 7 days
of the change
Does this change
require prior
approval by the
Director?
No
Yes
Within 90 days
of the change
Notifies mailing list
Assess
request*
Agency
Decision
Class 1 Mod
Request
Deny the
request
Approve
request
Updates the Permit
Assess the mod
request* and
incoming
comments
Sends mod request to the
Permitting Agency
- Send notice of mod request to the mailing list
- publish in local newspaper
- Make a copy available near the facility
Host public meeting
during the comment
period
60 day
comment
period
Written public comments due to
permitting Agency
Approve request and prepare the draft permit with
the modification included. Notifies the public of the
draft permit conditions
45 day comment period
Holds a public hearing if requested
Issue the revised permit
Agency Decision
Approve
Deny request
Deny
Class 3 Mod
Request
Agency
Decision Deny the request
- Sends mod request to the Permitting Agency
- Send notice of mod request to the mailing list
- Publish in local newspaper
- Make a copy available near the facility
Host informal public meeting
during the comment period
Written public comments due to
permitting Agency
- At 120 days after public notice, requested activity may begin for
180 days
- At 250 days the public is notified that it may be permanent.
- At 300 days authorized for the life of the permit
Approve the request (with or without changes)
and issue the revised permit
Agency response
to Mod Request*
No additional
Agency
response
Subsequent Agency decision
before end of 300 days
Delay decision for
30 days
Deny permit mod
No Decision
Assess the mod
request* and
incoming
comments
Class 2 Mod
Request
30 days
Decision
Optional
Temporary
AuthorizationPerform activity for
up to 180 days
Permit Modification Process for each Class

11. Permit Issuance & Modification History
Above information is for both hazardous waste permits and resource recovery certifications

12. Post-Closure Care Guidance
• Hazardous waste regulations require ongoing maintenance and
monitoring (post-closure care) at closed (dirty) land-based
hazardous waste management units.
• Post-closure care period begins after completion of closure of the
unit (acceptance of the closure certification) and continues for 30
years thereafter.
• The regulations allow the regulators to shorten or extend the
post-closure care period as necessary to protect public health and
the environment.

13. Background
Post-closure care requirements apply to different types of units:
• Land disposal units closed with waste in place
• Units required to be closed as landfills (e.g., storage areas
used to manage hazardous waste that could not be “clean
closed”)
• Land treatment areas, surface impoundments and waste
piles

14. Background
Post-closure care consists of two primary activities:
• Monitoring and reporting
• Maintaining waste containment and remedial systems
Required activities are codified in 40 CFR 264/265 Subpart G
for permitted facilities and interim status facilities, respectively.
Initial impetus for preparing guidance came from the States.
State work group participants (through ASTSWMO) partnered
with EPA Headquarters to do research and help draft guidance.

15. Why the Guidance?
• Many facilities are at or approaching the end of the
initial 30-year post-closure care period established in
their hazardous waste permits or post-closure plans.
• The regulations do not specify the factors that should be
considered by the regulators when determining whether
to extend or shorten the post-closure care period.
• Consequently, questions have arisen about how to
determine whether the post-closure care period needs to
be adjusted.

16. Guidance Objectives
• Assist regulators in evaluating the length of the post-
closure care period and whether it should be adjusted.
• Provide information to assist facility owners and
operators in preparing documentation to support post-
closure care period adjustment decisions.
• Provide greater transparency and consistency in the
adjustment decision-making process.

17. Guidance Scope
• RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste (TSD) facilities.
• Provides technical criteria for regulators to consider when
adjusting the post-closure care period.
• Recommends a process for preparing to evaluate the post-closure
care period in a timely fashion.
• Summarizes applicable federal regulatory requirements.
• Does not replace existing guidance.
• Does not provide guidance on financial assurance requirements
associated with post-closure.

18. Post-Closure Care Period Decision Criteria
1. Presence of hazardous waste/residual contamination
2. Nature of hazardous waste/residual contamination
3. Type of Unit
4. Leachate
5. Groundwater
6. Siting and geology/hydrogeology
7. Facility history
8. Gas collection system integrity
9. Integrity of cover system
10.Long-term care

19. Approach
• Guidance recommends regulators examine post-closure care plans and other
relevant information (e.g. monitoring results, results from testing and
inspection of cover and containment systems and information concerning
land use and institutional controls, etc. well in advance of the end of the 30-
year period.
• EPA Regional Administrator/State Director (or designee) has the
responsibility for deciding whether to end, extend or shorten the post-
closure care period.
• The facility owner/operator is responsible for providing the information
necessary to support the regulators in decision-making through the terms of
their permit, order and/or the regulations.
• The timing of these decisions is flexible. They can be made at any time but
there are certain times that may be more favorable (e.g., at the time of
permit renewal).

20. Public Review and Comment
EPA invited public comment on the draft guidance specifically
requesting comments from operating hazardous waste treatment
storage and disposal facilities, permit writers, trade associations, and
environmental groups.
• Public comment period ended July 31, 2015. EPA received many
comments reflecting a multitude of different views on the elements
of the guidance. Draft guidance and comments may be found at:
http://www2.epa.gov/hwpermitting/draft-guidelines-evaluating-
and-adjusting-post-closure-care-period-hazardous-waste
• EPA hopes to issue final guidance by Spring 2016.

21. Corrective Action GPRA Progress

22. EPA STAG Funding Formula
• EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) formula for RCRA
activities had not been updated in almost 20 years.
• In considering potential changes to the STAG formula, EPA solicited input
from the states/territories/tribes and state organizations in 2013.
• Missouri provided input regarding the potential STAG formula elements to
EPA and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials (ASTSWMO).
• EPA announced the new STAG formula on March 26, 2015, to be effective
starting in FFY2016. Formula is premised on the following major RCRA
program areas:
• HW Generators (primarily enforcement) – 17% SQG, 12% LQG
• TSDF permitting (including related enforcement) – 37%
• Corrective action (including related enforcement) – 34%

23. STAG Funding Formula Impacts
• National annual funding amount for FFY2016 estimated at $99,397,000
(Note: FFY1995 amount was $98,889,700). Seven EPA Regions (1, 3, 4, 5,
8, 9 and 10) will see funding increases (2-30%) and three EPA Regions (2, 6
and 7) will see funding decreases (9-15%).
• EPA Region 7 STAG amounts would be reduced by approximately 12% from
FFY2015 ($5,882,000) to FFY2020 ($5,171,165).
• Missouri’s STAG amount would be reduced by approximately 30% from
FFY2015 ($2,823,948) to FFY2020 ($1,966,594).
• Missouri’s reduction of $857,354 (est. 8-10 FTE) would be phased in over 5
years ($171,471/year on average). Other states in EPA Region 7 would
actually experience funding increases during this period.
• Missouri has expressed concerns to EPA Region 7 and EPA Headquarters
regarding the pending funding decreases and is currently working with EPA
Region 7 to minimize the potential impacts of these decreases.

24. Permit Section Organizational Chart
LynnHartman
EnvironmentalSpecialistI/II/III
HeidiRice
EnvironmentalSpecialistI/II/III
TheresaSalzbrenner
ResearchAnalystI/II
Vacant (held).
EnvironmentalEngineerIII
TheresaDoggett
PlannerII
Vacant
Environmental Supervisor
Outreach,Planning&StewardshipUnit
CedricCunigan
EnvironmentalEngineerI/II
NathanKraus,P.E.
EnvironmentalEngineerIII
DavidWalker
EnvironmentalEngineerI/II
MariaBonney,P.E.
EnvironmentalEngineerI/II
RaduMariuta
EnvironmentalEngineerI/II
AmandaCoffer
EnvironmentalEngineerI/II
UnitChief- BillFanska,P.E.
EnvironmentalEngineer IV
OperatingFacilitiesUnit
VACANT
EnvironmentalEngineer I/II
DonDicks
EnvironmentalEngineerI/II
VACANT
EnvironmentalEngineer I/II
DianeVitello
EnvironmentalEngineerI/II
SushmitaSharma,P.E.
EnvironmentalEngineerIII
ChristineKump-Mitchell.P.E.
EnvironmentalEngineerIII
JalalEl-Jayyousi,P.E.
EnvironmentalEngineerIV
CorrectiveAction&GroundwaterUnit
Melinda Jones
SeniorOfficeSupportAssistant
TeriBibbs
SeniorOfficeSupportAssistant
AdministrativeUnit
BruceStuart,P.E.,R.G.
EnvironmentalEngineerIII
SeniorTechnicalAdvisor
RichardNussbaum,P.E.,R.G.
EnvironmentalManager

25. Permits Section Turnover Statistics
24 Total Positions in Section (28 positions turned over since July 1, 2009)

27. Questions?