Tuesday
July 26, 1988
Part 111
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 264 and 270
Ground-Water Monitoring at Hazardous
Waste Facilities; Proposed Amendment to
Rtiie
-------
28180
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 143 / Tuesday. July 26. 1988 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 264 and 270
(FRU-3277-21
Ground-Water Monitoring at
Hazardous Waste Facilities
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed amendment to rule.
SUMMARY: On July 26.1982. EPA
promulgated regulations for detecting
contamination of ground water at
permitted hazardous waste land
disposal facilities under Subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. as amended
by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. as amended
(RCRA). Several technical aspects of the
regulations require improvement;
therefore. EPA is today proposing
rulemaking to revise the regulations. The
amendments proposed in today's
rulemaking are designed to foster the
early detection of leaks and to better
tailor the current ground-water
monitoring regulations to site-specific
conditions.
DATS: Written comments should be
submitted on or before September 26,
1088. The origincl and two copies of
comments on this proposal should be
mailed to the Docket Clerk. Office of
Solid Waste (WH-562). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agcsncy. 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460. The
docket is open from 9:30 to 3:30 Monday
through Friday, except for Federal
holidays. The docket number for this
rule is F-88-AGWP-FFFFF. The public
must make an appointment to review
docket materials. Call (202) 475-9327 for
appointments. The public may copy
material from the regulatory docket at a
cost of S.lS/page.
ADDRESS: The official docket for this
regulation including comments received
by the Agency is located in Room MLG
100. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT!
For general information contact: RCRA/
Superfund Hotline. Office of Solid
Waste (WH-563C). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW.,
Washington. DC. 20460. telephone (800)
424-9346. or (202) 382-3000. For
* technical information contact Joseph M.
Abe. (202) 382-4654.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Outline
1, Authority.
II. Background.
III. Proposed Changes.
A. Summary of Major Proposed Changes.
B. Discussion of Specific Part 264 Subpart F
Changes.
1. Applicability (§ 26490).
2. Establishment of Programs.
a. PouU of Compliance (§ 264.95).
b. Multiple Programs (§ 264.91).
3. Return to Detection Monitoring
(I 264.99).
4. Alternate Point of Compliance at
Existing Facilities.
5. Supplemental Monitoring Wells
(§ 264.95).
6. Compliance Period (§ 264.96).
7. General Ground-Water Monitoring
Requirements {§ 264.9").
a. Monitoring in the "Uppermost Aquifer".
b. Unsaturated Zone Monitoring.
c. Quality Assurance and Quality Control.
8. Detection Monitoring Program (§ 284.98).
a. Determination of Ground-Water Flow *
Rate and Direction.
b. Sampling for Appendix IX Constituents.
c. Submission of Demonstrations Showing
Statistical Increases Caused by Error/Other
Source.
9. Compliance Monitoring Program
(§ 264.99).
C. Discussion of Specific Part 270 Changes.
IV. State Authority.
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States.
B. Effects on State Authorization.
V. Regulatory Analysis.
A. Executive Order 12291: Regulatory
Impact Analysis.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act.
I. Authority
These regulations are' issued under the
authority of sections 1006. 2002(A). 3001,
3004. 3005, 3006, and 3007 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42
U.S.C. 6705, 6712. 6924. 6925, 6926. and
6927.
II. Background
Subtitle C of RCRA creates a
comprehensive program for the safe
management of hazardous waste.
Section 3004 of RCRA requires EPA to
promulgate regulations as "necessary to
protect human health and the
environment" that are applicable to
owners or operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal
facilities. Section 3005 provides for
implementation of these regulations
under permits issued to owners or
operators of facilities by EPA or
authorized States. Section 3005 also
provides that certain owners or
operators of existing facilities that apply
for a permit and comply with applicable
notice and certification requirements
("interim status" facilities) shall be
treated as having been issued a permit
for purposes of RCRA and its
implementing regulations until a final
permit determination is made.
Among the 3004 standards
promulgated for permitted'facilities in
1982 were standards under 40 CFR Part
264. Subpart F, which establish
programs for protecting ground water
from releases of hazardous wastes from
treatment, storage, and disposal units
(47 FR 32274. July 26, 1982). Under these
standards, facility owners or operators
are required to sample ground water at
specified time intervals and determine
whether or not hazardous wastes or
constituents from the facility are
contaminating ground water. If
unacceptable contamination is found.
the owner or operator must perform
corrective action in accordance with
§ 264.100.
HI. Proposed Changes
A Summary of Major Proposed Changes
The following is a summary of the
major changes proposed in today's
package. These proposed amendments
to the Subpart F regulations arise from
several sources. Some are changes
stemming from litigation on the July 26,
1982 land disposal regulations. Other
changes have been developed in
response to recommendations from the
Agency's Hazardous Waste Ground .
Water Task Force (U.S. EPA. 1986) as
well as from EPA Program and Regional
staff.
(1) The Agency proposes to amend the
§ 264.90(b)(4) ground-water monitoring
variance to require no migration
demonstrations to be based upon either
site-specific field measurement,
sampling, and analysis of physical.
chemical, and biological processes
affecting contaminant fate and transport
or upon an adequate margin of safety
using predictions that assume maximum
contaminant migration and consider all
human health and environmental
impacts.
(2) The Agency proposes to allow
alternate point(s) of compliance for
existing units where monitoring well
installation in locations specified by
§ 264.95(a) is extremely difficult due to
existing physical obstacles as long as
early detection is not compromised.
(3) The Agency is proposing
regulatory changes regarding the
establishment of waste management
areas and clarification of the Regional
Administrator's authority to require
different ground-water programs (i.e.,
detection, compliance, or corrective
action) for individual waste
management areas within the same
facility.
(4) The Agency proposes to allow the
permittee to continue or resume
detection or compliance monitoring, as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 143 / Tuesday. }uly 26. 1988 / Proposed Rules_
28161
appropriate, any time that the permittee
is able to demonstrate that
concentrations of hazardous
constituents no longer show statistically
significant increases over background
concentrations for a period of time
based on site-specific conditions.
provided that the Regional
Administrator determines that the
increase is due to an unregulated source
or an error in sampling, analysis, or
evaluation.
(5) The Agency is proposing to amend
the regulations to allow a modification
of the deadlines contained in
§§ 264.98(h)(5) and 264.99(i)(2] where a
substantive need for such a modification
is shown.
(6) The Agency proposes to amend
Subpart F to eliminate the requirement
that the ground-water flow rate and
direction be defined annually as part of
the detection and compliance
monitoring programs and to institute a
requirement that the ground-water flow
rate and direction be defined whenever
any well exhibits a significant change in
water level.
(7) The Agency is proposing to amend
the regulations to give the Regional
Administrator explicit authority to
require the owner or operator to monitor
the unsaturated zone as well as any and
all zones of saturation in the uppermost
aquifer in order to detect early migration
of contaminants.
(8) The Agency is proposing to clarify
the authority of the Regional
Administrator to designate
supplemental monitoring wells when
complicated site conditions caused by
hydrogeology or contaminant
characteristics can allow contaminants
to move past or away from the point of
compliance as defined in § 264.95{a)
without being detected.
(9) The Agency is proposing to add
quality assurance and quality control
requirements such as documentation,
operation and maintenance, and
procedures for devices and methods
used in ground-water measurement,
sampling, and analysis.
(10) The Agency is proposing to
correct an inconsistency in § 264.99{f)
which presently requires the annual
monitoring of all constituents contained
in Appendix IX even though some of
these constituents may have been
excluded from the list of hazardous
substances specified in the facility
permit by the Regional Administrator
under § 264.93.
B. Discussion of Specific Part 264
Subpart F Changes
Subpart F contains the requirements
for the ground-water monitoring and
response programs for permitted
hazardous waste units at RCRA
treatment, storage and disposal
facilities, excluding those units
exempted by § 264.90(b). The
requirements of this Subpart define a
general set of responsibilities that the
owner or operator must meet, yet allow
considerable flexibility in how the
monitoring and response programs may
be designed. EPA's objective in today's
proposed regulations is to develop an
effective monitoring program that will
provide reliable information about the
effects of these land-based hazardous
waste units on ground water in order to
ensure protection of human health and
the environment.
1. Applicability (§ 264.90).
The requirements of Subpart F apply
to new and existing surface
impoundments, landfills, waste piles,
and land treatment units that manage
hazardous waste. Section 264.90 uses
the term "regulated unit" in defining that
portion of the facility that is subject to
the requirements of Subpart F. A
regulated unit is any solid waste
management unit of the above types that
has received hazardous waste after July
26,1982.
Section 264.90(b}{4) allows the
Regional Administrator to issue a
waiver from the ground-water protection
requirements if the owner or operator
can demonstrate that there is no
potential for migration of liquid from the
regulated unit to the uppermost aquifer
during the active life of the regulated
unit and, where applicable, during the
post-closure care period as well.
The current rule requires that in order
to provide an adequate margin of safety
in the prediction of potential migration
of liquid, the owner or operator must
base predictions on assumptions that
would maximize the rate of liquid
migration (e.g., assume the maximum
possible hydraulic head of liquids in a
regulated unit). This approach, based on
conservative assumptions, did not
discuss the submission of actual data
(e.g., measurements of hydraulic head)
by the owner or operator for use in
making predictions.
The Agency proposes to amend
5 264.90(b)(4) to require the ground-
water monitoring variance to be based
upon either: (1) Site-specific field
measurement, sampling, and analysis of
physical, chemical and biological
processes affecting contaminant fate
and transport: or (2) an adequate margin
of safety in predicting contaminant fate
and transport, by basing predictions on
assumptions that maximize contaminant
migration and consider all impacts to
human health and environment.
The first approach is generally the
preferred one from the perspective of
the RCRA Permit Writer since the
demonstration is based on actual site-
specific collection and analysis of field
data regarding contaminant fate and
transport. Site assessment supporting
the demonstration should include, at a
minimum, the following:
(1) Definition and characterization of
hydrogeologic boundaries;
(2) Assessment of the degree of
hydraulic communication between the
vadose zone, water-table aquifer and
deeper aquifers;
(3) Estimation of the temporal and
spatial variability of ground-water
seepage velocities; and
(4) Collection and analysis of
remaining field data that are necessary
to assess site-specific physical.
chemical, and biological processes
affecting contaminant fate and
transport.
In addition to these site assessment
factors, the RCRA Permit Writer may
require actual field demonstrations (i.e.,
pilot studies). Considering .that many of ,
the above requirements should already
be fulfilled in obtaining the RCRA
Permit, it is probably in the interest of
the owner or operator to pursue this first
approach.
Field data is often preferred to
laboratory data since the latter may give
misleading results due to differences
between actual field conditions and
laboratory conditions. For this reason,
site-specific information should be
based on field data rather than
laboratory measurements. The test
method used to obtain field data should
be specified in the monitoring variance
request.
The second approach is provided to
give flexibility to the owner or operator
regarding no migration demonstrations.
However, demonstrations based on
models not supported by proper site
characterization may not be accepted by
RCRA Permit Writers due to technical
limitations and inaccuracies. On the
other hand, models may be very useful
tools for planning effective and efficient
data collection. Considering the volume
of data required for no migration
demonstrations, an iterative procedure
of data collection and modeling may
often be the preferred approach (i.e., a
combination of both approaches).
Owners or operators are cautioned
that very few waivers from the ground-
water monitoring requirements have
been granted thus far due to insufficient
data'and analysis submittals and the
scarcity of sites that could meet the
requirements. In addition, although
attempts are sometimes made to
-------
23162
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 143 / Tuesday. July 26. 1988 / Proposed Rules
circumvent the site assessment
rpquirements with models, actual site
characterization that includes obtaining
geologic logs, using geophysical
mo'hods. and the sampling.
measurement, and analysis of ground
water is irreplaceable.
In addition to the above changes to
§ 264.90{b)(4). the Agency is proposing a
minor change to § 264.00(bK4) that
clarifies the performance requirements
of units regarding ground-water
protection and parallels similar
descriptions elsewhere in the
regulations. The specific change revises:
"The Regional Administrator finds that
there is no potential for migration of
liquids from a regulated unit to the
uppermost aquifer" to read: "The
Regional Administrator finds that there
is no potential for migration of
hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents from a regulated unit to the
uppermost aquifer." The reasons for this
change are: (I] To provide consistency
with other sections of this Subpart and
elsewhere in Part 264 and [2] address
situations where wastes or
contaminants are conveyed by
nonliquids (i.e.. gases) into the
surrounding soil and then contaminate
ground water by interacting with
percolating water.
2. Establishment of Programs
Under the requirements of Subpart F,
the Regional Administrator establishes
In the facility permit the elements of a
monitoring and response program. The
purpose of § 264.91 is to inform the
owners or operators of regulated units
subject to this Subpart that they must
institute one of three types of monitoring
or response programs set forth in
Subpart F—a detection monitoring
program, a compliance monitoring
program, or a corrective action program.
the specifics of which are either
governed by other sections of Subpart F
or by the facility permit itself. The
permit may contain all three programs
and specify the conditions under which
each will be used at the waste
management unit or units at a given
facility.
Although the permit may contain all
three programs, currently only one
program may be instituted at any given
lime, even if the facility contained more
than one regulated unit. This is because,
under § 264.95(b)(2). the waste
management area where a facility
contains more than one unit is described
by an imaginary line circumscribing the
several regulated units. Because of
today's proposal to allow multiple waste
management areas in such situations,
the Agency is also proposing to allow
the Regional Administrator to require
multiple programs, to be instituted
simultaneously, in a single permit. The
following will explain these changes in
greater detail.
a. Point of Compliance {§ 264,951 The
point of compliance, as described in
§ 264.95(a), is the point at which the
ground-water protection standard must
be met and at which monitoring must be
conducted. This point is a vertical
surface located at the hydraulically
downgradient limit of the waste
management area that extends down
into the uppermost aquifer underlying
the regulated unit(s). The waste
management area, as defined in
§ 264.95(b), is the limit projected in the
horizontal plane of the area on which
waste will be placed during the active
life of the regulated unit(s). This area
will be specified in the facility permit.
The edge of the waste management area
is not the outer limit of the waste itself;
rather, it includes any horizontal space
taken up by liners, dikes, or other
barriers designed to contain waste in a
regulated unit (§ 264.95(b)(l)). The
purpose of this provision is to avoid the
implication that monitoring and
corrective action wells should be drilled
through the structures which are
designed to control the waste, clearly a
counterproductive effort.
The Agency is proposing and asking
for specific comments on two options
the Regional Administrator would have
for determining the waste management
area for facilities with more than one
regulated unit Presently. § 264.95(b}(2)
of the regulations provides that if the
facility contains more than one
regulated unit, the waste management
area is described by an imaginary line
circumscribing several regulated units.
This option would be retained in the
proposed regulation*. In addition, the
Agency is proposing another option that
would give the Regional Administrator
the authority to require the waste
management area be described by a line
circumscribing individual units when a
facility contains more than one
regulated unit. According to this
proposal, the Regional Administrator
would decide on whether to delineate
multi-unit or unit-specific waste
management area(s) based on the
number, spacing, and orientation of the
units: the waste types handled: and the
hydrogeologic setting.
This proposal ia prompted by several
important considerations. If a facility
contains more than one regulated unit,
and contamination is detected by a
multi-unit monitoring system, it is often
difficult and time consuming to identify
which of the regulated units is
responsible for tha contamination. The
Agency is concerned that :hr rpgi'latory
requirement that the waste managpment
area be described by an imaginary line
circumscribing all trie regulated units •
may hinder in certain circumstances the
early detection of leakage of hazardous
constituents into the ground water. If
contamination of ground water beneath
a facility goes undetected for a
substantial period of time, remediation
of this contamination becomes more
complex and extensive. Furthermore, in
certain situations the cleanup of
contaminated ground water may
become so burdensome to the owner or
operator that the facility can only be
remediated with federal assistance (i.e..
CERCLA cleanup action).
There are some situations where it
may be appropriate to define the
compliance point boundary around
several regulated units and the Regional
Administrator may choose to do so.
Situations where there is a dike betv/een
two lagoons or a small strip of land
separating two landfills are examples of
where it may be appropriate to install
monitoring systems around groups of
units. Another possible situation where
multi-unit monitoring may be
appropriate is where, if a contaminant
leak were to occur, it would be
impossible to distinguish which unit is
the source of the contamination due to
the proximity of units and types of
wastes handled.
b. Multiple Programs (§ 264.91)
Proposed changes to § 264.95 allows
creation of separate waste management
areas at facilities that include more than
one regulated unit. With this proposed
change, the Regional Administrator
could require more than one monitoring
program to be conducted simultaneously
at a single facility. Today's proposed
amendment to § 264.91 will make it clear
that the Regional Administrator haa the
authority to require different monitoring
programs (i.e., detection, compliance, or
corrective action) for the different waste
management areas within the same
facility. The appropriate monitoring
program for each waste management
area shall be selected on the basis of the
concentration of contaminants detected
and the monitoring requirements
associated with the concentrations as
specified in §5 264.98, 284.99, and
284.100.
Monitoring requirements defined on
the basis of individual waste
management areas should promote a
ground-water monitoring and corrective
action strategy which corresponds to the
extent, concentration, and distribution
of contamination throughout the RCRA
hazardous waste facility. This
amendment also eliminates the potential
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26. 1988 / Proposed Rules
233 63
for one unit which triggers a particular
monitoring program to unnecessarily
cause all other units to adopt the same
monitoring program, regardless of the
source and extent of contamination.
3. Return to Detection Monitoring
(§ 264.99)
A compliance monitoring program, as
described in § 264.99, is required under
§ 264.91 whenever hazardous
constituents exceed the concentration
limits at the compliance point as
specified in the ground-water protection
standard. Currently, a mechanism for
remaining in compliance monitoring
(rather than entering corrective action)
is provided under § 264.99(j). Within the
timeframe necessary to establish a
corrective action program (e.g., usually
90 days), the owner or operator can
demonstrate under § 264.99(j) that
entering corrective action is
inappropriate. Such demonstrations
must show that the exceedance of the
ground-water protection standard at any
monitoring well is due to either a source
other than a regulated unit or an error in
sampling, analysis, or evaluation.
However, § 284.99 does not currently
provide a mechanism by which the
owner or operator can return to
detection monitoring from compliance
monitoring when he or she has been
inappropriately triggered into
compliance monitoring due to a source
other than a regulated unit or an error in
samplying, analysis or evaluation.
Adding such a mechanism would avoid
unnecessary compliance monitoring for
such instances. Today's rule proposes to
allow an owner or operator who is
required to carry out compliance
monitoring as a result of exceeding
background levels for the above reasona
to return to a detection monitoring
program under | 284.98. The owner or
operator must demonstrate that
concentrations of hazardous
constituents no longer show statistically
significant increases over background
values for a period of time based on site-
specific conditions.
We are also amending f 264.S6
(Compliance Period) by proposing an
alternative time period bassd upon site-
specific data and analysis of
contaminant migration potential in
addition to the current three-year
period. This provision provides
flexibility in setting the compliance
period and is also consistent with the
above change to | 284.99. Key factors to
consider in assessing these site-specific
conditions are covered in the discussion
on § 264.36 amendments.
4. Alternate Point of Compliance at
Existing Facilities
For some existing facilities, physical
obstacles (e.g.. natural geologic features,
buildings, highways, or railroads) may
prevent the installation of downgradient
monitoring wells, at the currently defined
point of compliance. In order to provide
flexibility in specifying compliance point
well locations, a provision is being
proposed to § 264.95(a) which would
allow the point of compliance to be
located downgradient from such existing
physical barriers as long as the
performance standard of early detection
is met. However, other drilling
techniques (i.e., directional drilling)
should be considered where physical
barriers are present and the alternate
point of compliance should be as close
as practical to the downgradient limit of
the waste management area while still
avoiding any such physical obstacles.
This provision would be limited to
existing units with existing physical
barriers. New units, lateral expansions
and replacement units are among those
units that would not be eligible for the
provision. The presence of physical
obstacles which prevent the installation
of compliance point wells capable of
detecting early leakage at those units,
could provide grounds for denial of
authorization for new, expansion, or
replacement units.
5. Supplemental Monitoring Wells
{§ 2M.95(a)(2))
There may be certain situations in
which monitoring wells installed at the
currently defined point of compliance
would be unable to detect contaminants
due to complicated site conditions
caused by hydrogeology or contaminant
characteristics. Two examples of such
contamination problems include lateral
migration of contaminants in the vadose
zone and contaminant transport strongly
influenced by density gradients.
The first example involves a "step-
wise" movement of contaminants
caused by discrete low-permeability
layers (e.g., perched water tables above
clay lenses) that are encountered at
various depths in the vadose zone.
Under these conditions, contaminants
may spread laterally along the top
surface of ths low-permeability layer,
then move downward once they reach
the layer's edge. The contaminants, by
moving laterally above the water table
in this fashion, could escape detection
by moving past the point of compliance
wells as defined by § 284.95 before
entering the uppermost aquifer.
The second example is a dense
contaminant plume that moves
predominantly downward due to
differences between the density of the
plume and the surrounding ground
water. Lateral movement of such plumes
is generally controlled by subsurface
structural features (e.g., an inclined
bedrock surface),- and may be contrary
to the prevailing ground-water flow
direction. Consequently, as in the
previous example, monitoring wells
placed only in locations as prescribed
by § 264.95 may not detect the release of
contaminants.
In the proposed regulatory
amendments, the Regional
Administrator may require the
installation of supplemental wells in the
vicinity of the waste management area
as necessary for early detection of
contaminants. These wells could be
equivalent to the currently defined
compliance point wells in that the
ground-water monitoring requirements
could be fully applied at these well
locations. We are requesting comments
regarding how such supplemental wells
would be used for corrective action (e.g..
should these wells be used as point of
compliance wells for monitoring
purposes only, or also for corrective
action).
8. Compliance Period (5 264.96)
The Agency is addressing two issues
dealing with § 264.96. First, we propose
to allow the compliance period to be
based on site-specific conditions in
addition to the current requirement that
the ground-water protection standard
not be exceeded for three years. Second,
we propose to clarify that the
compliance period will apply to
individual waste management areas
within the facility which may be
regulated under different programs
pursuant to today's amendment to
§ 264.91(b).
When setting the ground-water
protection standard hi a facility permit,
the Regional Administrator must define
the time period over which it will apply.
In 5 264.96, the regulations specify that
the compliance period is the number of
years equal to the active life of the
waste management area, including any
waste management activity prior to
permitting, and the closure period. The
regulations now require that once an
owner or operator ia engaged in
corrective action, the compliance period
may be extended beyond the active life
of the waste management area until the
owner or operator can demonstrate that
the ground-water protection standard
has not been exceeded for a period of
three consecutive years. We are
proposing to allow, in addition to the
three-year requirement, a time period
based upon a site-specific assessment of
-------
28184
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 143 / Tuesday. July 26. 1988 / Proposed Rules
contaminant migration potential.'
Assessment factors that the Agency is
considering for compliance period
extensions include hydrogeoiogic
characteristics such as the spatial and
temporal variations in_ground-water
seepage velocities and contaminant
characteristics such as solubility.
specific gravity, adsorptive potential
and biodegradability. We are also
requesting comments on how such an
alternative time period can be
determined based on these factors and
any other factors that the Agency has
not identified.
A compliance period based on such
factors could relate the compliance
period to site-specific conditions and
thus more effectively protect hum.=
health and the environment than tr.rf
three-year timeframe for the compliance
period currently in effect. The three-year
period may be protective at some sites
while providing too little protection at
other sites. Using site-specific criteria to
define an appropriate compliance period
would provide for better agreement
between the nature and degree of
contamination present at a waste
management unit and the length of the
compliance period.
As noted earlier, changes to
f 264.9Ub) would allow individual
waste management areas within the
same facility to be regulated under
different monitoring programs (i.e.,
detection, compliance or corrective
action). Today's proposed amendment
to § 264.96 will allow the Regional
Administrator to establish, when
appropriate, individual compliance
periods for each individual waste
management area within the facility.
7. General Ground-Water Monitoring
Requirements (I 264.97)
In § 264.97. EPA has set forth a series
of general requirements that address
such topics as well design and
placement, sampling and analysis
procedures, analytical methods,
measurement of water-level elevations.
determination of background and
statistical procedures.
a. Monitoring the "Uppermost
Aquifer."The existing rules provide the
Regional Administrator explicit
authority to require monitoring the
ground water in the uppermost aquifer.
However, some owners and operators
have argued that low permeability
saturated zones within the uppermost
aquifer are not part of the aquifer. They
have also argued that perched aquifers
and intermittent zones of saturation
within the aquifer do not have to be
monitored. The Agency believes that, in
most cases, contamination reaching any
ground water in these saturated zones of
the uppermost aquifer will migrate to the
principal water bearing zone in the
aquifer. Monitoring data from perched
aquifers or intermittent zones of
saturation can be useful in indicating
present or potential threats of
contamination in the uppermost aquifer.
The Agency believes that low yielding
saturated zones in the aquifer (whether
saturated permanently or intermittently)
should, in many cases, be subject to
monitoring requirements.
Accordingly, the Agency is proposing
to amend § 264.97(a) to give the
Regional Administrator explicit
authority to monitor any and all zones
of saturation in the uppermost aquifer.
We are also requesting comments on the
need to further clarify the Regional
Administrator's authority to require ,'
monitoring of any saturated zone not
part of the uppermost aquifer that can
act as a contaminant transport pathway
under the facility. We would replace the
existing language "uppermost aquifer"
with "ground water in any saturated
zone below the facility that can act as a
contaminant transport pathway,"
wherever this language appears in
Subpart F and in 1270.14(c).
b. Unsaturated Zone Monitoring. The
Agency is proposing to add a provision
to § 284.97(a) that clarifies the Regional
Administrator's authority to require the
use of unsahrrated zone monitoring for
determining early migration of
contaminants. We envision the use of
unsaturated zone monitoring to be
especially useful in situations where the
facility is located above a hydrogeologic
setting where depth to the water table is
substantial or where such monitoring
improves or assures early detection of
released hazardous wastes or
constituents. Monitoring options, which
could be considered in site conditions
prone to lateral contaminant migration
through the vadose zone, or where depth
to ground water is substantial, might
include the following:
(1) Permanent geophysical monitoring
stations,
(2) Soil gas measurements.
(3) Nested piezometers, and
(4) Lysimetera.
c. Quality Assurance and Quality
Control. The Ag«ncy is proposing to add
to § 264.97 (c) and (e) requirements for
quality assuianc* and quality control
(QA/QC) procedures. Under paragraph
(c) the owners or operators would tm
responsible for (1) Documenting the
design, installation, development and
decommission of monitoring wells,
piezometers, and other measurement,
sampling, and analytical devices: and (2)
conducting operation and maintenance
procedures for monitoring wells,
piezometers, and other measurement.
sampling, and analytical devices
throughout the life of the monitoring
program. These requirements would
help to assure that reliable ground-water
monitoring data is gathered and
submitted to the Agency. Under
paragraph (e), the Agency is proposing
to add QA/QC requirements for
measurement, sampling, and analytical
methods.
Standard methods and a
comprehensive quality assurance
program are necessary for an effective
ground-water monitoring program. In
implementing the RCRA ground-water
monitoring program, the Agency has
observed problems with ground-water
sampling procedures, well construction
and installation, monitoring well
network design, laboratory analyses,
and data interpretation. A rigorously
enforced, comprehensive quality
assurance based on sound quality
objectives and backed up with an
appropriate set of reference methods
and procedural guidance would remedy
these problems. The owner or operator
should refer to "Ground-Water
Monitoring: Quality Assurance for
RCRA," EPA/600/X-87/035. January
1987, and "Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste Physical Chemical ' •
Methods " SW-346, September 1989.
regarding further information on QA/
QC.
8. Detection Monitoring Program
(§ 264.98)
The last three sections of Subpart F
(i.e., ii 264.98. 264.99, and 264.100) set
forth the specific elements of each type
of ground-water monitoring and
response program: detection.
compliance and corrective action. If
hazardous constituents from a regulated
unit have not reached ground water at
the time of permit consideration, the
owner or operator may receive a
detection monitoring program permit
a. Determination of Ground-Water
Flow Rate and Direction. Determination
of ground-water flow rate and direction
is an explicit requirement of the
detection and compliance monitoring
programs, and implicitly required for the
corrective action program. The existing
regulations require that flow rate and
direction be defined annually
(§§ 264.98(e) and 264.99(e)). Today, the
Agency is proposing to change this
regulation to require that the flow rate
and direction be defined whenever any
well exhibits a significant change in
water level.
The Agency is specifically requesting
comments on what constitutes a
significant change in water level. One
option that the Agency is considering is
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 143 / Tuesday. July 26. 1988 / Proposed Ruies
28165
to base the determination of significant
change on the measurement accuracy of
common water level measurement
devices (e.g., fiberglass and steel tapes).
These measurement devices are
currently accurate to 0.01 foot. The
Agency is asking whether a numerical
standard based on measurement
accuracy is appropriate for requiring a
determination on ground-water flow rate
and direction.
The present requirement that the
ground-water flow rate and direction be
defined annually may be either too
frequent or too infrequent, depending on
site-specific conditions. The purpose of
this proposed change is to provide
flexibility in assessing the ground-water
flow rate and direction so that such
assessments are commensurate with the
temporal variations in site conditions.
Consideration of these variations is
critical to both monitoring and response
programs since neglecting their
occurrence may lead to improperly
designed and operated monitoring
systems as well as to costly, ineffective
remediation attempts. Examples of
factors influencing the ground-water
flow rate and direction include seasonal
recharge patterns, tidal influences, river
stage changes, and nearby pumping or
injection wells. Permit writers should
consider the above factors when
specifying the time(s) of the year when
ground-water monitoring data should be
collected. The Agency must be made
aware of such shifts so that appropriate
modifications to monitoring systems can
be made when necessary.
In all cases, ground-water flow rate
and direction data should be presented
in the form of a flow net. If ground-water
surface elevation data indicate that the
hydraulic gradient has not changed, the
owner or operator can compare new
data to the original determination to
confirm that the flow rate and direction
have not changed.
b. Sampling for Appendix IX
Constituents. Section 264.98 (h)(2)
currently requires owners or operators,
after determining a statistically
significant increase in monitoring
parameter results, to immediately
sample the ground water in all
monitoring wells and determine the
concentration of all Appendix IX
constituents in Part 264 that are present
in ground water.
The existing rules do not allow for
any flexibility in selecting which
compliance point (i.e., downgradient]
monitoring wells should be subject to
the analysis of all Appendix IX
hazardous constituents. That is,
regardless of the extent or configuration
of the point of compliance, any well
along the compliance point would be
subject to the full Appendix IX
constituent analytical requirements. We
are requesting comments on whether to
provide more flexibility in deciding
which compliance point monitoring
wells should be subject to the above
requirements. Such flexibility could be
based on plume configuration.
c. Submission of Demonstrations
Showing Statistical Increases Caused
by Error/Other Source. The current
rules allow a facility to continue or
resume detection or compliance
monitoring, as appropriate, after
statistically significant increases in
monitoring parameters or the
concentration of particular constituents
have been detected, provided that the
owner or operator successfully '
demonstrates that a source other than a
unit within the facility has caused the
increase or that an apparent increase
resulted from error in sampling,
analysis, or evaluation. The provisions
described above require demonstrations
to be submitted in addition to, or in lieu
of, compliance monitoring and
corrective action permit modifications,
respectively.
Under the existing rules in §§ 264.98(i)
and 264.99{j). showings that another
source was responsible for an increase
or that the increase was due to an error
in sampling, analysis, or evaluation must
be submitted within 90 days of the
determination of the significant
increase, to coincide with the time
required to submit permit modification
applications.
We have evaluated the 90-day
requirement for J§ 264-98 (i) and 264.99
(j) and have reconsidered the need to
submit the above demonstrations within
the same time frame as permit
modification applications. For example,
errors resulting from seasonal variations
in the ground water may not become
apparent until well after the 90-day
period has passed. A more reasonable
approach would be to allow owners or
operators to submit such demonstrations
at any time during the required
monitoring period. The Agency believes
that this approach will not jeopardize
human health or the environment, but
will provide the owner or operator with
enough flexibility to demonstrate that
significant changes in ground-water
quality were not caused by units at the
facility. Therefore, § §264.98(0 and
264.99(j) have been amended and will
require submission of demonstrations
within 90 days or an alternate time
period approved by the Regional
Administrator. It must be emphasized
that the 90-day period would usually
apply to the permit modification process
unless an alternate time period is
approved. A permit modification would
be required if a statistically significant
increase over background levels or the
ground-water protection standard were
found.
9. Compliance Monitoring Program
(§ 264.99)
Once the owner or operator
determines that hazardous constituents
from a regulated unit are present in the
ground water, he must establish a
compliance monitoring or corrective
action program at the facility. Many of
the requirements of the compliance
monitoring program are analogous to
those required under the detection
monitoring program.
Section 264.99(f) requires the owner or
operator to analyze samples from
compliance point monitoring wells for
all constituents contained in Appendix
IX of Part 264 at least annually to
determine whether additional hazardous
constituents are present. However.
§ 284.93 (a) and (b) allow the Regional
Administrator to exclude an Appendix
IX constituent from the list of hazardous
constituents specified in the facility
permit if the constituent is not
reasonably expected to be in or derived
from waste contained in the regulated
unit and is not likely to pose a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment.
Changes to § 264.99(f) are being
proposed to correct this inconsistency.
This annual monitoring requirement
should not include any constituents
which have been excluded by the
Regional Administrator under
§ 264.93(b) from die list of hazardous
constituents.
C. Discussion of Specific Part 270
Changes
Part 270 contains requirements for
Part B permit applications for hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. The Agency is proposing to
change one of the Part B permit
application requirements.
Section 270.14(c)(4) currently requires
the applicant to provide a description of
"any plume" of contamination that has
entered the ground water from a waste
management unit located within the
facility boundary, at the time that the
Part B permit application is submitted.
Since contamination may not always
take the form of a well-defined plume,
the Agency proposes to clarify this
requirement by deleting "any plume of
contamination that has entered the
ground-water" and inserting "all
contamination that has entered ground
water from a regulated unit ' * *" The
proposed change will require that
owners or operators submit the
-------
28166
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 143 / Tuesday. July 26. 1988 ./Proposed Rules
necessary monitoring data to
characterize ground-water quality.
IV. State Authority
A. Applicability ofRul'S in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA. EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State (see 40 CFR
Part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization).
Following authorization, the Agency
retains enforcement authority under
sections 3008,7003 and 3013 of RCRA.
although authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of the Federal
program. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State.
and the Agency could not issue permits
for any facilities in a State where the
State was authorized to permit. When
new. more stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated or
enacted, the State was obligated to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under section 3006(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g); new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in non-authorized States. The
Agency is directed to carry out those
requirements and prohibitions in
authorized States, including the issuance
of permits, until the State is granted
authorization to do so. While States
must still adopt HSWA-related
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, HSWA applies in
authorized Slates in the interim.
B. Effects on State Authorization
Today's rule would establish
standards that are not effective in
authorized States since the requirements
are not being imposed pursuant to the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. Thus, the
requirements will be applicable only in
those States that do not have final
authorization. In authorized States, the
requirements will not be applicable until
the State revises its program to adopt
equivalent requirements under State
law.
40 CFR Part 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes, and must
subsequently submit the modification to
EPA for approval. The deadline by
which the'State must modify its program
to adopt today's rule is one year (or two
years if a State statutory amendment is
required) of the date of final
promulgation of this regulation. These
deadlines can be extended in
exceptional cases (40 CFR Part
271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves the
revision, the State requirements become
Subtitle C RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirement's similar to those in today's
rule. These State requirements have not,
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being promulgated today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to carry out these
requirements in lieu of the Agency until
the State requirements are approved. Of
course. States with existing standards
may continue to administer and enforce
their standards as a matter of State law.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date of these
standards are not required to include
standards equivalent to these standards
in their application. However, the State
must modify its program by the deadline
set forth in § 271.21(e). States that
submit official applications for final
authorization 12 months after the
effective date of those standards must
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. 40 CFR
271.3 sets forth the requirements a State
must meet when submitting its final
authorization application.
V. Regulatory Analysis
A. Executive Order 12291: Regulatory
Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, thus, subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. The notice published today is
not major because: the rule will not
result in an effect oh the economy of
$100 million or more, will not likely
result in net increased costs or prices,
will not have significant adverse effects
on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation,
and will not significantly disrupt
domestic or export markets. The
proposed amendment has been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in accordance with
Executive Order 12291.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 60 et seq., whenever the
Agency is required to publish a general
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or
final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comments a
regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small
businesses (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). The Administrator may
certify, however, that the rule will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This amendment will have no adverse
economic impact on small entities since
the rule will not cause a net change in
the amount of information required for
RCRA Part B permit applications.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This regulation does not require
a regulatory flexibility analysis. .
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3&1 et
seq.), the information collection
requirements contained in Part 264 have
previously been approved by OMB and
were assigned OMB control number
2050-0007. The changes being proposed
today have been submitted to OMB for
review and approval. Comments on the
information requirements should be sent
to EPA and OMB c/o Desk Officer for
RCRA. Office of Management and
Budget, Room 3019. 726 Jackson Place
NW., Washington, DC 20603.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 264
Hazardous waste. Reporting and
recordkeeping, Hazardous materials,
Ground-water monitoring.
Environmental monitoring.
40 CFR Part 270
Administrative practice and
procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Hazardous materials,
Waste treatment and disposal, Waste
pollution control. Water supply,
Confidential business information.
Dated: July 18,1988.
Le« M. Thomas,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. Parts 264 and 270 of Chapter I
of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are proposed to be amended
as follows.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. S3. No. 143 / Tuesday. July 26. 1988 / Proposed Rules
28167
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 1006, 2002(a), 3004. and
3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended, by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 42 U.S.C.
6705. 6912(a), 6724. and 6925.
2. In § 264.90 by revising paragraph
(b)(4) to read as follows:
§264.90 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) The Regional Administrator finds
that the owner or operator has
demonstrated that there is no potential
for migration of hazardous waste or
hazardous constituents from a regulated
unit to the uppermost aquifer during die
active life of the regulated unit
(including the closure period) and the
post-closure care period specified under
§ 264.117. This no migration
demonstration must be certified by a
qualified ground-water specialist and
based upon:
(i) Site-specific field measurement
sampling, and analysis of physical,
chemical and biological processes
affecting contaminant fate and
transport; or
(ii) An adequate margin of safety in
predicting contaminant fate and
transport, by basing predictions on
assumptions that maximize contaminant
migration and consider impacts on
human health and the environment.
*****
3. In § 264.91 by revising paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
§ 264.91 Required programs.
*****
(b) The Regional Administrator will
specify in the facility permit the specific
elements of the monitoring and response
program. The Regional Administrator
may require a combination of
monitoring programs (i.e., detection.
compliance, or corrective action) for a
given waste management area within
the facility. If a facility contains more
than one waste management area, the
Regional Administrator may require
different monitoring and response
programs or a different combination of
programs at the separate waste
management areas. The Regional
Administrator will specify the
circumstances under which each of the
programs will be required. In deciding
whether to require the owner or
operator to institute a particular
program, the Regional Administrator
will consider the potential adverse
effects on human health and the
environment that might occur before
final administrative action on a permit
modification application to incorporate
such a program could be taken.
4. In § 264.95 by revising existing
paragraph (a), adding paragraphs (a)(l),
and (a)(2) {consequently, paragraph (a)
is revised), revising paragraph (bj(2),
and adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
§ 264.95 Point of compliant*.
(a] The Regional Administrator will
specify in the facility permit the points
of compliance at which the ground-
water protection standard of § 284.92
applies and at which monitoring must be
conducted. The point of compliance is a
vertical surface located at the
hydraulically downgradient limit of the
waste management area that extends
down into ti-ie uppermost aquifer
underlying the regulated units.
(l)-For existing units, where existing
physical obstacles prevent the
installation of monitoring wells at the
point(s) of compliance, as defined in
paragraph (a), of this section, the
Regional Administrator may specify an
alternate points) of compliance that is
as close to the waste management area
as practical, as long as the performance
standard of early detection of
contamination is not compromised.
Lateral expansion, new. or replacement
units are among thoee units that are not
eligible for an alternate point of
compliance under this paragraph.
(2) Where complicated site conditions
caused by hydrogeology or contaminant
characteristics can allow contaminants
to move past or away from the point of
compliance as defined in 5 264-95(a)
without being detected, the Regional
Administrator can designate
supplemental monitoring wells to be
used in conjunction with the point of
compliance wells.
(b) * * *
(bj(2) If the facility contains more than
one regulated unit, the waste
management area(s) will be described
by the Regional Administrator as either:
(i) An imaginary line circumscribing a
number of units, or.
(ii) An imaginary line circumscribing
each individual unit.
(b){3) In determining whether
paragraph (b)(2) (i) or (ii) of this section
applies, the Regional Administrator will
select the waste management area(s),
thai is protective of human health and
the environment, based on the following
factors:
(i) Number, spacing, and orientation of
units;
(ii) Waste types handled: and
(iii) Hydrogeologic setting.
5. In § 264.96 by revising paragraphs
(a) and (c).
§ 264.96 Compliance period.
(a) The Regional Administrator will
specify in the facility permit the
compliance period during which the
ground-water protection standard of
§ 264.92 applies. The compliance period
is the number of years equal to the
active life of the waste management
area (including any waste management
activity prior to permitting and the
closure period). If a facility contains
more than one waste management area
as described by § 284.95(b)(2), the
individual waste management area will
have an individual compliance period.
*****
(c) If the owner or operator is engaged
in a corrective action program at the end
of the compliance period specified in
paragraph (a) of this section, the
compliance period is extended until the
owner or operator can demonstrate that
the ground-water protection standard of
§ 264.92 has not been exceeded for a
period of three consecutive years or
alternate time period based on r.He-
specific conditions.
6. In § 264.97 by revising paragraphs
(a)(2), (b), and (e) and by adding
•paragraphs (a){3). (c)(l) and (c)(2) to
read as follows:
§ 264.97 Ground-vwrtar monrtoring
requirements.
(2) Represent the quality of ground-
water passing the point of compliance.
The Regional Administrator shall
require ground-water monitoring in the
uppermost aquifer, which may include,
but is not limited to, low-yielding
saturated zones such as perched water
tables in order to detect early migration
of contaminants.
(3) The Regional Administrator can
require unsaturated zone monitoring
where monitoring of the unsarurated
zone would aid in detecting early
migration of contaminants into ground
•water.
(b) If approved by the Regional
Administrator, separate ground-water
monitoring systems are not required for
each regulated unit when the facility has
several regulated units and meets one or
both of the conditions under
§ 264.95(b)(2)(ii) concerning multi-unit
monitoring.
(c) ' * '
(•1) The design, installation,
development, and decommission of any
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 143 / Tuesday. July 26. 1988 / Proposed Rules
2816S
monitoring wells, piezometers and other
measurement, sampling, and analytical
devices must be documented in the
operating record;
(2) The monitoring wells, piezometers.
and other measurement, sampling, and
analytical devices must be operated and
maintained so that they perform to
design specifications throughout the life
of the monitoring program.
. . • * •
(e] The ground-water monitoring
program must include measurement.
sampling, and analytical methods that
accurately, assess ground-water quality
and provide early detection of
hazardous constitutents entering the
uppermost aquifer. The methods must be
documented in the operating record and
include quality assurance and quality
control procedures.
< • « » •
7. In 5 254.98 by revising paragraphs
(e). (h)(5) introductory text, (i)(2), and
(i)(3) to read as follows:
§ 264.98 Detection monitoring program.
. . . • •
(e) The owner or operator must
determine the ground-water flow rate
and direction in the uppermost aquifer if
any well exhibits a significant change in
water level.
« • « • •
(hi * * *
(5) Within 180 days, or within an
alternate time period approved by the
Regional Administrator, submit to the
Regional Administrator:
« • * •
HI * * *
(2) Submit, within 90 days or an
alternate time period approved by the
Regional Administrator, a report to the
Regional Administrator which
demonstrates that a source other than a
regulated unit caused the increase or
that the increase resulted from an error
in sampling, analysis, or evaluation:
(3) Within 90 days, or within an
alternate time period approved by the
Regional Administrator, submit to the
Regional Administrator an application
for a permit modification, to make any
appropriate changes to the detection
monitoring program at the facility; and
, • * • "
8. In § 264.99 by revising paragraphs
(e), and (f), revising paragraphs (j)(2)
and (j)(3), and redesignating existing
paragraphs (k) and (1) as (1) and (m), and
adding new paragraph (k) as follows:
§ 264.99 Compliant* monitoring program.
. . • * *
(e) The owner or operator must
determine the ground-water flow rate
and direction in the uppermost aquifer if
any well exhibits a significant change in
water level.
(f] The owner or operator must
analyze samples from all monitoring
wells at the compliance point for
constituents identified in Appendix IX of
Part 264 of this chapter, unless the
Regional Administrator has excluded
them under paragraph (b) of § 264.93.
Samples must be analyzed at least
annually to determine whether
additional hazardous constituents are
present in the uppermost aquifer. If the
owner or operator finds Appendix IX
constituents in the ground water that are
not identified in the permit as hazardous
constituents, the owner or operator must
report the concentrations of these
constituents to the Regional
Administrator within seven days after
completion of analysis.
• • • * *
(i) * * *
(2) Submit a report to the Regional
Administrator which demonstrates that
a source other than a regulated unit
caused the standard to be exceeded or
that the apparent noncompliance with
the standard resulted from error in
sampling, analysis, or evaluation;
(3) Within 90 days, or within an
alternate time period approved by the
Regional Administrator, submit to the
Regional Administrator an application
for a permit modification to make any
appropriate changes to the compliance
monitoring program at the facility; and
. * * « *
(k) If at any time during the course of
a compliance monitoring program, the
owner or operator can demonstrate th*t
concentrations of hazardous
constituents no longer exceed
background values, using the statistical
procedure in § 264.97(h), for a period of
time based on site-specific conditions,
the Regional Administrator may
determine that an unregulated source or
an error in sampling, analysis, or
evaluation made it appear that the
applicable standard had been exceeded.
Upon such a demonstration, the
Regional Administrator may specify that
the owner or operator may return to a
detection monitoring program under
S 264.98.
, • « « *
PAHT 270--EPA-ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
9. The authority citation for Part 270
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 1006, 2002, 3005. 3O07,
and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6925, 8827.
6974), unless otherwise noted.
10. In § 270.14 by revising paragraph
(c](4) to read as follows:
§270.14 Cont«nt» of Part B: Cknmal
requirement*,
. * * * •
(c) * * *
(4) A description of all contamination
that has entered the ground water from
a regulated unit at the time the
application was submitted that:
(i) Delineates the extent of
contamination on the topographic map
required under paragraph (b)(19) of this
section; . f
" (ii) Identifies the concentration of
each Appendix IX constituent, of Part
264 of this chapter, throughout the zone
of contamination or identifies the
maximum concentrations of each
Appendix IX constituent within the zone
of contamination.
. « « • *
[FR Doc. 86-16639 Filed 7-25-88: 8:45 am]
BIUJNO CODE 4590-50-M
------- |