OSWER Policy Directive 19484.00-1B
c,\
for
Land Disposal Branch
Office of Solid Waste . . ^ —' /
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - I"
•
"*~
Contract Number 68-01-7237 . ' '
Task 4
INTERIM STATUS SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
RETROFITTING VARIANCES
Interim Final Guidance Document
April 28, 1986
EPA Project Officer: EPA Task Manager:
Jon Perry Art Day
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street >'
Chicago, Illinois 60604 ,..
Prepared by
LA3AT-ANDERSO,N Incorporated
1111 19th Street North, Suite 600
Arlington, Virginia 22009
-------
U.S. Environmental Protect^
Agenc/
-------
OSWER Policy Directive 19484.00-1B
CONTENTS
Section
1. Introduction and Administrative Requirement* ......... 1-1
1.1 National Policy Goals 1-1
1.1.1 Minimum Technological Requirements 1-1
1.1.2 The Requirement to Retrofit 1-2
1.1.3 The Affected Community 1-2
1.1.4 The Availability of Exemptions 1-2
1.2 The Purpose of this Manual 1-3
1.2.1 Interaction of 3005(j) and Land Disposal
Prohibition 1-3
1.3 Procedures for Submitting and Processing Applications
for Exemptions 1-4
1.3.1 Integration of the Processing of Permits and
Exemptions ........... 1-5
1.3.2 Determination of the Completeness of the
Application 1-6
1.3.3 Public Notice and Opportunity to Comment 1-7
1.3.4 Final Determinations 1-8
1.3.5 Exemption Applications for Surface Impoundments
that Become Subject to RCRA in the Future .... 1-9
1.4 Timing of Closure ' . . . 1-9
2. First Exemption 2-1
2.1 Statutory Provisions 2-1
2.2 Guidance for the First Exemption 2-1
2.2.1 Demonstrate That the Liner is Adequately
Designed, Constructed, Installed, and Operated . . 2-2
2.2.2 Demonstrate That the Liner is Not Leaking .... 2-4
2.2.3 Demonstrate Impoundment Location Relative to
Underground Source of Drinking Water 2-7
2.2.4 Demonstrate Compliance with Generally Applicable
Ground Water Monitoring Programs 2-9
2.3 Changes in Condition Causing the First Exemption
to be Revoked 2-9
3. Second Exemption 3-1
3.1 Statutory Provisions 3-1
3.2 Guidance for 3005(jX3)(A) , 3-2
3.2.1 Aggressive Biological Treatment Facility 3-2
3.2.1.1 Description of Secondary Treatment
Systems 3-4
3.2.1.1,.! Activated Sludge Systems . . . 3-4
3.2.1.1.2 Fixed Film Systems 3-5
3.2.1.1.3 Waste Stabilization Ponds . . 3-5
3.2.1.2 Secondary Treatment Systems that Qualify
as Aggressive Biological Treatment
Facilities 3-6
ill
-------
OSWER Policy Directive #9484.00-18
Section
D •"--• A ^"7* ~
tv.i-^3 a
- • - JN
CONTENTS (continued)
3. Second Exemption (continued) - ..__
3.2.2 Changes in Condition . V . . . 3-9
3.3 Guidance for 3005(j)(3)(B) 3-9
3.3.1 Evidence Regarding Leakage 3-10
3.3.2 Changes in Condition . . . . . 3-14
3.4 Guidance for 3005(J)(3)(C) 3-14
3.4.1 Definitions of NPDES Tern 3-15
3.4.2 Scope of Provisions 3-16
3.4.2.1 Facilities with BAT Permits 3-17
3.4.2.2 Facilities with BPT Permits . * 3-18
3.4.2.2.1 Facilities With BPT Permits
for Which Effluent Guidelines
are in Effect 3-18
3.4.2.2.2 Facilities With BPT Permits
for Which No Effluent Guide-
lines are In Effect 3-18
3.4.3 Meaning of "In Compliance" for Purposes
of 3005(J)(3)(C) 3-20
3.4.3.1 Initial Determination 3-20
3.4.3.2 Change in Condition 3-24
3.5 Procedure for Obtaining an Exemption *. . . 3-24
3.5.1 Sources of Information for the Regulatory
Agency 3-27
3.5.2 Inter- and Intra-Agency Coordination in the
Decisionmaking Process 3-29
4. Third Exemption 4-1
4.1 Statutory Provisions 4-1
4.2 Guidance for the Third Exemption 4-1
4.2.1 Demonstration of "No Migration" Based on Test
and Model Data 4-3
4.2.1.1 Meaning of "Ground Water or Surface
Water" 4-4
4.2.1.2 Meaning of "Hazardous Constituent" . . . 4-4
4.2.1.3 Meaning of "No Migration" 4-4
4.2.1.4 Demonstration of "No Migration" ..... 4-5
4.2.1.5 Documentation Requirements . 4-6
4.2.2 Demonstration of "No Migration" Based on Inward
Hydraulic Gradient ...... . 4-7
4.2.2.1 Pump Capacity and Reliability 4-8
4.2.2.2 Flooding 4-8
4.2.2.3 Piping' 4-8
4.2.2.4 Water-Table Fluctuations 4-9
4.2.2.5 Uniformity of Head in Impoundment .... 4-10
4.2.2.6 Fluid Density 4-10
iv
-------
OSWER Policy Directive 19484.00-IB
CONTENTS (continuear
Section
4. Third Exeaption (continued) .
4.2.2.7 Aquifer Nonunlformity .......... 4-11
4.2.2.8 Cleanup at Closure .... 4-11
4.2.2.9 Sites with Vulnerable Hydrogeology ... 4-12
4.2.3 Changes In Conditions Causing an
Exemption to be Revoked 4-13
5. Fourth Exemption 5-1
5.1 Statutory Provisions 5-1
5.2 Guidance for the Fourth Exemption .* 5-1
References Ref-1
Appendices
A. Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 ......... A-l
B. Potential Sources of Information on the Location of Aquifers
Identified as Underground Sources of Drinking Water B-l
Figure 1 Examples of underground sources of drinking water within
one-quarter olle of a hazardous waste surface Impoundment . 2-11
-------
OSWER Policy Directive #9484.00-18
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
*•
1.1 NATIONAL POLICY GOALS
In the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment* of 1984 (HSUA), Congress
declared it to be the national policy of the United States that
. . . wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be
reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste that is
nevertheless generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to
minimize the present and future threat to human health *and the
environment.
To achieve this, the regulations implementing the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) now provide for a broad protective system that
is intended: (1) to prevent leachate from migrating from impoundments that
contain hazardous wastes; (2) to detect any migration that does occur; and (3)
to minimize such migration. This protective system encompasses the active
life of impoundments, the period while they are being closed, and the period
after they have been closed. •
1.1.1 Minimum Technological Requirements
To achieve these goals, HSWA established Minimum Technological
Requirements for each new surface Impoundment (including replacements and
expansions) that will be used to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
Section 3004(o)(l)(A) of RCRA, as amended by HSWA, now requires such surface
impoundments to have two or more liners, a leachate collection system between
the liners, and ground water monitoring. Section 3004(o)(5) gives EPA until
November 8, 1986, to promulgate regulations or to issue guidance implementing
the Minimum Technological Requirements. Current guidance on the Minimum
Technological Requirements nay be found in EPA's "Guidance on Implementation
of the Minimum Technological Requirements of HSWA of 1984, Respecting Liners
and Leachate Collection Systems" (ERA, 1985a) and in "Draft Minimum Technology
Guidance on Double Liner Systems for Landfills and Surface Impoundments—
Design, Construction, and Operation" (EPA, 1985b).
1-1
-------
OSWER Policy Directive I9484.00-1B
RCRA alto provides for the possibility "that alternative design and
operating practices, together with location characteristics, will prevent the
•igration of aay hazardous constituents into the ground water or surface water
at least as effectively as liners and leachate collection systems'* (Section
3004(o)(2)).
1.1.2 The Requirement to Retrofit
Section 215 of HSWA amended RCRA by adding subsection (j) to Section
3005. (The full text of this subsection Is included as Appendix A of this
guidance.) The owners or operators of existing surface impoundments that were
treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste when HSVA was enacted on
November 8, 1984, were given four years to retrofit these impoundments to meet
the Minimum technological Requirements. Section 3005(J)(1) states that an
existing surface Impoundment shall not:
. . . receive, store, or treat hazardous waste after the date 4 years
after such date of enactment [I.e., November 8, 1988] unless such surface
impoundment is in compliance with the requirements of Section
3004(o)(l)(A) which would apply to such impoundment if it were new.
1.1.3 The Affected Conaunity
According to EPA's hazardous waste data base, there were 1,338
Impoundments at 981 interim status facilities as of September 10, 1985. All
of these impoundments are subject to 3005C-J).
1«1«4 The Availability of Exemptions
The 1984 amendments to RCRA also provide means for the owners or
t
operators of existing surface Impoundments to obtain exemptions from or
modifications to those requirements. Section 3004(o)(2) provides for an
exemption if alternative design and operating practices, together with
location characteristics, will preveat the migration of hazardous constituents
into ground or surface water at least as effectively as would the double liner
and leachatje collection system. In addition, Sections 3005(J)(2), (3), (4),
and (13) provide for four different categories of exemptions.
1-2
-------
1.2 THE PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL " ~"
This aanuil it intended to provide guidance both for the owners or
operators of surface impoundments who will be applying for exemptions under
Section 3005CJ) of RCRA and for the Federal and State officials who will be
processing these applications.
Throughout this manual, emphasis Is placed on the information deemed
necessary to document compliance with the exemption requirements. Exemption
applications will consist of a report describing all design and operation
characteristics, taking Into account site-specific factors, that qualify the
•
applicant for the exemption. The applicant's report, in turn, will provide
the permit writer with a basis for evaluating the adequacy of the exemption
request.
Each of the four categories of exemptions established by Section 3005(j)
for existing surface impoundments is discussed in detail in separate sections
of this guidance. The four specific exemptions are:
o First exemption (Section 3005(j)(2»
o Second exemption (Section 3005(j)(3))
o Third exemption (Section 3005(j)(4))
o Fourth exemption (Section 3005(j)(13))
1.2.1 .Interaction of 3005CJ) and Land Disposal Prohibition
Section 3004(d) of RCRA prohibits the land disposal (which Includes
storage and treatment in nonretrofitted surface impoundments) of hazardous
wastes specified In 3004(d)(2) after July 8, 1987, unless EPA determines that
the prohibition is not necessary to protect human health and environment.
Section 3004(e) places similar restrictions on hazardous wastes specified in
3004(e)(2) after November 8, 19B6. In addition, Section 3004(g) requires EPA
to review all currently listed hazardous wastes to determine whether the waste
may be safely managed by a particular method of land disposal. Section
3004(a) requires that EPA specify treatment levels or methods, if any, that
minimize the threat to human health and the environment from wastes prohibited
1-3
-------
under 3004(d), («), or (g). If the watte has been treated to the level or by
the method specified, the waste or residue Is then not subject to the
prohibition. *" _
Sections 3005(j)(ll)(A) and (B) provide that none of the hazardous wastes
prohibited from land disposal under 3004(d),(e), or (g) Bay be treated in a
surface Impoundment that does not Beet the retrofitting requirements of
3004(o)(l), except under certain circumstances: only If a (nonretrofitted)
impoundment qualifies for an exemption to the retrofitting requirement under
3005^J)(2) or (4) nay it be used to treat those specified wastes, and then
only if no treatment residues that are hazardous are allowed to remain in the
impoundment more than one year after entry.
•
Sections 2 and 4 of this guidance address the exemptions under 3005(j)(2)
and (4), respectively. An Impoundment that receives one or the other of these
exemptions from the retrofitting requirement may therefore be used to treat •
wastes prohibited from land disposal under 3004(d),(e), or (g), provided the
residues are periodically removed as required.
Sections 3 and 5 of this guidance address the exemptions under 3005(j)(3)
and (13), respectively. Section 3005(j)(3) pertains to certain wastewater
treatment units and (j)(13) pertains to certain Impoundments subject to
corrective action requirements. These two exemptions are not referenced in
3005(j)(ll)(A) or (B). Accordingly, an impoundment that is otherwise exempt
from the minimum technological requirements under Section (j)(3) or (13) would
be prohibited from treating restricted wastes under section 3005Cj)(ll)(B).
1.3 PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING AND PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR EXEMPTIONS
/
Owners and operators of Interim status and permitted surface impoundments
*
that were in existence on November 8, 1984, and had interim status on that
date, may apply for exemptions to 300*5(j)(l)j they must submit applications to
the EPA Regional Administrator or the Director of the authorized State no
later than November 8, 1986. Applications for each exemption should contain
the information required for that exemption, as outlined in Sections 2 through
1-4
-------
5 of this guidance. The reviewing Agency Bust then make a final determination
w * .
on each application within twelve nonths of the date of receipt of the
application or*~by November 8, 1987, whichever !• earlier. ~*-
Subsection 3005(e)(2)(B) required all land disposal facilities that had
been granted interim status by November 8, 1984, to have certified by November
8, 1985, that the facility was in compliance with all applicable ground water
monitoring requirements. Although certification will not in Itself qualify an
impoundment for an exemption, the lack of this certification would disqualify
the impoundment from any of the exemptions inasmuch as failure to certify
causes the facility to lose its interim status.
The fourth exemption, found in 3005(j)(13), allows the Administrator to
modify the retrofitting requirements if an owner/operator, prior to October 1,
1984, has entered into and is in compliance with a consent order that provides
a degree of protection which is at least equivalent to the requirements of
3005(j)(l) (see Section 5 of this guidance). Section (j)(13) does not
specifically outline application deadlines or procedural requirements for this
exemption. However, EPA believes it is appropriate to require deadlines an'
procedures for (j)(l3), including public notice and comment procedures,
equivalent to the other exemptions. Therefore, owner/operators applying for
exemptions under (j)(13) oust submit applications for the exemptions to the
Regional Administrator or State Director by November 8, 1986.
1.3.1 .'Integration of the processing of Permits and Exemptions
Section 3005(e)(2) of RCRA requires all interim status land disposal
facilities to have applied for a final determination regarding issuance of a
RCRA permit by November 8, 1985. Therefore, owners and operators of all
surface impoundments subject to 3005Cj) that were 'in existence on November 8,
1985, should have submitted a Part B. application by that date. Whenever it is
possible, the processing of exemption requests will be completed in
conjunction with the processing of the facility's Part B application. This
will expedite the review of exemption applications and will reduce the amount
of information applicants must submit.
1-5
-------
For those surface impoundments that will be issued permits by November 8,
1986, the permit* should contain conditions requiring either a schedule for
retrofitting o»-aubmission of exemption requests if retrofitting mil not
occur. Upon determination that the facility is eligible for the exemption,
the EPA Regional Administrator or the Director of the authorized State will
institute a major modification of that permit in accordance with the
procedures outlined in 40 CFR 270.41.
In soae cases, it aay become apparent that the processing of an
applicant's Part B permit application by the EPA Regional Office may fall
behind the deadlines mandated by 3005(j). In these instances, the exemption
request would receive priority. The processing of the exemption application
would proceed separately from the review of the Part B permit application, and
the final determination on the exemption would be made by the 1987 deadline.
1.3.2 Determination of the Completeness of the Application
Upon receipt of an exemption request, EPA will perform a review to
determine whether a decision regarding the exemption can be made on the merits
of the Information submitted. As a courtesy to the owner/operator, the
determination will normally be completed within 30 days of receipt in order to
allow every opportun. / for the demonstration to be made that an impoundment
qualifies for an exemption. If the application does not contain adequate
information to allow the reviewing Agency to determine whether the applicant
meets the statutory requirements, additional Information will be requested in
a letter to .the owner/operator. The letter will describe the information
needed to complete the application and will request that the data be submitted
by a certain date. This date normally will be 30 days from receipt of the
letter or November 8, 1986, whichever is earlier. •.
/
Due to the requirement that final determinations be made by November B,
*
1987, additional information will not normally be requested for applications
received after October 8, 1986. In these cases, applications will be
considered complete on receipt, and initial determinations will be based on
the information in the original exemption application. Because applications
that lack adequate information are likely to have difficulty making the
1-6'
-------
required demonstrations, owner/operators who believe they aay be eligible for
an exemption should submit applications as early as possible so that requests
for additional information can be Bade prior to the 1986 submission"deadline.
1.3.3 Public Notice and Opportunity to Comment
Section 3005(j)(5) requires that applications for exemptions 1, 2, and 3
receive public notice and opportunity to comment. Neither 3005(j)(5) nor
(j)(13) include requirements regarding public notice and comment for
exemption 4; however, EPA will follow the same process for this exemption as
for the others. Normally, the public notice process for any of the four
exemptions will take place in concert with the public notice of the
applicant's draft permit. The process includes 45 days for receipt of written
comments. If information submitted during the initial comment period appears
to raise substantial new questions, the agency must re-open or extend the
comment period. A public hearing may also be held. At the close of the
public comment period, the reviewing Agency either prepares and issues a final
RCRA permit or denies the permit application. In either case, the applicant
and those submitting comments will be notified and given information regarding
appeal procedures. In those instances where the exemption application is
being processed separately from the Part B application, the full 40 CFR Part
124 public participation procedures would be required for the exemption
application.
The Regional Administrator's decision on the exemption application is
final Agency action for purposes of judicial review. Although Section 124.19
currently requires a petition to the Administrator as a prerequisite to
judicial review of a final permit decision, EPA has decided that this
requirement should not be applicable to the Regional Aministrater's decision
on an application for exemption under Section 3005(j), whether this decision
takes the form of a permit condition' or a letter to an interim status
facility. Because administrative review is time-consuming, providing for such
review would likely delay the Agency's decision past the statutory deadline.
1-7
-------
1.3.4 Final Determinations
t- ' ~^
Approval or denial of exemption requests may take place through two
mechanisms: (1) Issuance of the final RCRA permit; or (2) written notice from
the EPA Regional Administrator or State Director, after appropriate public
notice (see Section 1.3.3 above). An application for an exemption may be
denied when an owner/operator does not demonstrate that the facility meets the
statutory exemption standards outlined in 3005CJ). It is clear that in order
to make such a demonstration, an applicant must provide adequate Information
for the reviewing Agency to make a decision on the exemption, and that
relevant facts in the application must be stated correctly. In the event that
an application for an exemption is denied, the impoundment must retrofit In
accordance with the Minimum Technological Requirements; make a demonstration
under 3004(o)(2) that alternative design and operating practices together with
location characteristics will prevent migration of hazardous constituents into
ground or surface water at least as well as a double liner and leachate
collection system; or initiate an approved closure plan. Retrofitting must be
completed or receipt of hazardous wastes must cease by November 8, 1988, as
required by 3005(j)(l). (See Section 1.4 of this guidance for further
discussion of the timing of closure.)
- Section 3005(J)(6)(8) requires that surface impoundments that have
received exemptions must comply with the requirements of 3005(j)(l)
(i.e., retrofit or cease receiving hazardous wastes) if the conditions on
which the exemption was based have changed. Coopliance with (j)(l) shall be
two or three years from the date of discovery, depending on the exemption.
All permits, permit modifications, or written notices containing exemption
approvals will, therefore, include a provision to this effect.
When a request for an exemption is approved prior to final permit
Issuance, owner/operaters are requested to place the letter from the Agency
granting the exemption in the facility's operating record. This will allow
the owner/operator to prove that an exemption has been granted.
1-8
-------
1.3.5 Exemption Applications for Surface Impoundments that Become Subject to
RCRA in the Future
Owners anS operators of surface inpoundaents Bay also become "subject to
3005(j)(l) after November 6, 1984, because of the listing of a.new hazardous
waste or characteristic under Section 3001. Section 3005(J)(6)(A)
requires that the owner or operator Bust then: (1) submit an exemption
request within 2 years of the promulgation date and receive a final
determination on that request within 3 years of the promulgation date; or (2)
comply with paragraph 1 (I.e., retrofit or cease receiving hazardous wastes)
within four years of the promulgation date of the new listing.
It should be noted that, according to Section 3006(g)(l), the
*
classification of a waste as hazardous pursuant to HSVA would take effect at
the same time in States with and without authorized RCRA programs. However,
if EPA lists a waste that is not required to be listed by HSVA, a State has
one year to modify its program (two years if a statutory amendment is
required). For these non-HSWA listings, the "promulgation date" .for purposes
of 3005(j)(6)(A) is the date the State adopts the final rule. Finally, if a
State classifies a waste as hazardous, even though it has not been listed in
the Federal rules under 3001, State regulations concerning treatment, storage,
and disposal of the waste in surface impoundments would be applicable.
1.4 TIMING OF CLOSURE
Congress did not clearly distinguish between storage and disposal
requirements in Section 3005(J). For that reason, EPA believes that no
distinction between the two should be made regarding the timing of closure.
Section 3005(j)(l) provides that existing surface impoundments shall not
,
"receive, store, or treat" hazardous waste after November 8, 1988, unless the
impoundment Is in compliance with the minimus technological requirements of
Section 3004(o). EPA construes the statutory language as* generally
prohibiting the use of existing Impoundments for the management of hazardous
waste without retrofitting. This interpretation is supported by the
1-9
-------
legislative^history, which suggests that storage and disposal "impoundments
should be treated the sane under Section 3005(J)(1).
t- •*-
Thus, by November 8, 1988, all surface Impoundments vlll 'have- to
retrofit, receive an exemption under 3D04(o)(2), receive an exemption under
3005CJ), or stop receiving hazardous wastes. The closure regulations In
effect at the time a surface impoundment initiates closure will be applicable
In determining whether the impoundment say continue to receive nonhazarious
wastes, even though It has ceased to receive hazardous wastes. Current
closure regulations under 40 CFR 264.112 and 265.112 require^owner/operators
to begin closure within 30 days after the last date on which hazardous wastes
are received. Current closure regulations also require owner/operators to
notify the Regional Administrator at least 180 days prior to the date on which
closure is expected to begin; notification should therefore have occurred by
June 8, 1988, unless an Impoundment will have retrofitted by November 8 (or is
In the process of retrofitting) or has received an exemption under 3005(j).
1-10
-------
OSWER Policy Directive I9484.00-1B
SECTION 2
FIRST EXEMPTION
2.1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS
According to Section 3005CJX2) of RCRA, in order to qualify for this
exemption, an interim status surface impoundment must:
o Have at least one liner for which there is no evidence that such
liner is leaking,
o Be located more than one-quarter mile from an underground source of
drinking water, and
o Be in compliance with generally applicable ground water monitoring
requirements for facilities with permits under subsection (c) of
Section 3005.
2.2 GUIDANCE FOR THE FIRST EXEMPTION
Section 3005(J)(5)(D)(i) requires the applicant to provide certification
that the liner is designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with
applicable requirements, that the surface impoundment is more than one-quarter
mile from an underground source of drinking water, and that there is no
evidence that the liner is leaking. The certification must be made by a
registered professional engineer with academic training and experience In
ground water hydrology. The owner/operator must include in the exemption
application evidence of the engineer's training and experience.
The nunber of surface impoundments eligible for this exemption is
expected to be limited by the requirement of being located more than
one-quarter mile from a USDW. It has been estimated that 95 percent of all
t
currently operated surface Impoundments are located within one-quarter mile of
a USDW (129 Cong. Rec. H8195 (dally ed., October 6, 1983)). For that reason,
EPA believes that this may be the most difficult demonstration to make; it may
be advisable for prospective applicants to examine this issue before any
others when considering their possible eligibility for the first exemption.
2-1
-------
OSWER Policy Directive 19484.00-IB
~2.-2.-l Demonstrate that The Liner Is Adequately Designed,
Constructed, Installed, and Operated
«- -v-
As provided In Section 3005(J)(2), a surface impoundment must have at
least one liner to qualify for the first exemption. Congress defined the term
"liner" in Section 3005(j)(12)(A) as:
o "A liner designed, constructed, Installed, and operated to prevent
hazardous waste froa passing into the liner at any time during the
active life of the facility"; or
o "A liner designed, constructed, Installed, and operated to prevent
hazardous waste from migrating beyond the liner to adjacent
subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time during
the active life of the facility."
In general, only facilities with "installed" liners will be eligible for
this exemption; no "in situ" liners will be considered. This reasoning is
based on the statutory language quoted above and on the legislative history of
Section 3005(j)(12)(A). Literal interpretation of (J)(12)(A) would preclude
naturally existing soil liners because such liners are neither Installed nor
constructed.
Section 3005(j)(5)(D)(i) requires certification that the liner of the
surface impoundment is designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with
applicable requirements. This certification must be made by a registered
professional engineer with academic training and experience in ground water
hydrology. The applicant must provide evidence of the engineer's training and
experience. The certification and supporting documentation must be included
in the application for the exemption.
With regard to the meaning of the phrase "applicable requirements" in
3005Cj)(5)(D)(i), the following statement made by Representative Forsythe (129
Cong. Rec. H8142 (daily ed. October 6, 1983)) is helpful:
*
... when making the determination regarding the exception of a
particular unit, EPA will apply similar standards to those they now use
in determining compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR Subpart K as
currently in effect.
2-2
-------
The legislative history chows that Congress intended that Installed
liners be able to »eet the performance standards for new units set forth in
*" -v-
40 CFR Part 264- Subpart X prior to enactment of the RCRA Amendments of 1984.
Other EPA guidance identifies specifications for liner designs that will
comply with the standards set forth In Part 264 (EPA, 1982a; EPA, 1984b).
However, if a surface impoundment does not comply with the design conditions
outlined in EPA's guidance but can demonstrate that the existing liner meets
the performance standards of Subpart K, it also will be eligible for this
exemption.
•
Design and operating requirements in 40 CFR 264.221(a) make a significant
distinction between liner requirements for disposal Impoundments 'and for
storage Impoundments. Liners in place at storage units must prevent wastes
from passing through the liner, while those at disposal units must prevent
wastes from passing into the liner. EPA guidance interprets this requirement
to mean that disposal impoundments must be equipped with a synthetic liner.
For storage Impoundments, EPA guidance Interprets the requirement to mean that
recompacted clay liners may be used as an alternative to synthetic liners.
These clay liners must be sufficiently thick to prevent waste from migrating
through the liner during the active life of the unit. Section 3005(j)(9)
requires that at the time of closure of storage impoundments, all wastes,
contaminated liner material, and contaminated soil be decontaminated or
removed.
Applications for the first exemption 'that are based, in part, on having
an acceptable clay liner must provide adequate documentation of liner
thickness. The Draft RCRA Guidance Document on surface Impoundments
recommends using the "transit time equation" to determine the necessary liner
thickness (EPA, 1982a). However, it is now believed that this equation tends
to underestimate the required liner thickness. Although further development
and documentation of the techniques are required, numerical simulation
techniques provided in EPA (1984a) aie currently recommended as a more
t
accurate modeling technique.
EPA expects requests for the first exemption to be accompanied by
compatibility testing reports for both clay and synthetic liners. If
2-3
-------
compatibility_test data are not coBpfete or not available, •anufacturers' data
alone will not provide adequate Information for demonstrating' compatibility.
It should be noted that this exemption does not require any new information;
rather, all the requirements have been addressed in the existing EPA guidance
documents cited below. The guidances cited were developed to implement the
July, 1982, 40 CFR Part 264 rules.
If compatibility test data are not complete, readers are referred to EPA
Method 9090, contained in EPA's 1982 Draft Guidance on surface impoundments
(EPA, 1982a) and in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes (EPA, 1982b).
The Permit Writers' Guidance Manual (EPA, 1983) and the Permit Applicants'
Guidance Manual (EPA, 1984b) also contain detailed discussions of synthetic
liner-testing guidance. Readers are also referred to EPA Method 9100,
contained in EPA's 1982 Draft Guidance on surface impoundments (EPA, 1982a)
and in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes (EPA, 1982b). Soil
Properties, Classification, and Hydraulic Conductivity (SW-925) is also
available for guidance on compatibility testing for clay liners. Equivalent
data from testing conducted for facilities with a similar design and similar
range of wastes may be adequate. In addition to thickness, strength, and
compatibility test information, the owner/operator should identify quality
assurance/quality control procedures used during liner installation and/or
construction and provide evidence that the completed liner meets the design
requirements.
2.2.2 -'Demonstrate that the Liner Is Not Peaking
As provided in Section 3005(j)(2), an application for the first exemption
must demonstrate that there is no evidence that the liner of the surface
Impoundment is leaking. As required under Section 3005(j)(5)(C), an owner or
operator oust provide all reasonably ascertainable evidence as to whether the
surface Impoundment is leaking. Finally, Section 3005Cj)(5)(D) requires that
the owner or operator aust provide certification by a professional engineer
that there is no evidence that the 2iner is leaking. The engineer must have
academic training and experience in ground water hydrology and applicants
should provide evidence of this training and experience.
2-4
-------
"Leaking" i» defined as a statistically significant Increase over
background concentrations (as defined In 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart £} that is
attributable to the surface impoundment. Other evidence of leaking, such as
visible leaks or sudden drops in liquid levels of the impoundment, also would
be sufficient. These definitions of "leaking" were adopted by the
House-Senate committee of conference (130 Cong. Rec. HI1131 (daily ed.,
October 3, 1984)).
In meeting this requirement, all relevant data available, including that
collected for both hazardous and nonhazardous constituents, should be
provided. Although EPA will not require collection of any data not already
required under RCRA regulations, EPA will consider any additional data
provided by the owner/operator.
The first source of reasonably ascertalnable evidence of leakage would be
Interim status monitoring data for facilities with 40 CFR Part 265 monitoring
systems or, for facilities that have received a Part B permit, monitoring data
collected under 40 CFR Part 264. The primary objective of the Part 265
Subpart F ground water monitoring requirements is to Identify the existence
and magnitude of ground water impacts from hazardous waste land disposal
facilities. As noted in the preamble to Part 264, monitoring that is
conducted "in accord with Part 265 interim status requirements" should provide
"a reliable base of Information that can be used to determine whether
hazardous constituents have entered the ground water." Comprehensive
instructions on conducting ground water monitoring in accordance with
Subpart F of Part 265 are provided in EPA publication SW-963 (EPA, 1983).
Applicants and permit writers should be familiar with the specific
requirements addressed in that document. Permit writers should also be
familiar with the draft Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document, which discusses compliance with 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart F (EPA,
1985). If a facility was exempt from Part 265 Subpart F ground water
monitoring requirements, the 265 waiver oust be found to have been valid in
order to qualify for this retrofitting exemption.
i
Interim status facilities will also have submitted applications for
Part B permits. Data provided in these applications will be examined by EPA
2-5
-------
In determining the possibility of leakage. Except as provided In 40 CFR .
264.90(b), facilities will have •ubmitted a summary of interim status ground
water »onitori«g data under 270.14(c)(l). Certain facilities will alio have
submitted Information under 270.14(c)(4) in their Part B applications. The
information required by (c)(4) includes a'descriptloo of any plume of
contamination that has entered the ground water from the surface Impoundment;
a summary of monitoring data obtained during the interim status period; and a
description of aquifers underneath the facility. Three categories of
facilities oust have submitted this information: facilities that should have
interim status monitoring but do not (e.g., a facility that wrongly claimed a
Part 265 ground water monitoring waiver); facilities whose interim status data
Indicate contamination has occurred; and facilities whose Part 265 monitoring
system was inadequate to determine whether a piuse of contamination exists.
IPA believes that information submitted in the Part B application under 40
CFR 270.14(c) should be of adequate quantity and quality to qualify the
facility for a permit; If it is not, the facility will not be eligible for
this exemption.
It should be noted that Part 265 monitoring data or data submitted under
270.14(c) from a multiple unit facility may not be sufficient to demonstrate
"full compliance" and "no leakage" from the particular unit under
consideration for the first exemption. Ground water monitoring data that
Indicates no contamination in downgradlent wells will be acceptable, provided
that a downgradlent hydrogeologlc report indicates that such wells would
intercept any leakage from the unit for which an exemption is sought. Where
contamination is indicated in certain downgradient wells, the application must
Include data that clearly demonstrate that the unit for which an exemption is
sought is not responsible for the contamination. Without conducting
additional sampling, and perhaps installing additional wells, such an
Indication would be difficult to demonstrate. '
*
Ground water monitoring data should be augmented by documentation that
there are no visible signs of leaks (such as stressed vegetation) and no
history of sudden drops in liquid level or overtopping (see general inspection
regulations in 40 CFR 264.226(a), (b), and (c), and in 265.226(a)).
Additional information would include site inspection reports, Including dike
2-6'
-------
certificatipn (i.e., so history of leakage through dike), data from periodic
waste removal at storage units, and leak detection system monitoring data, if
f •*-
available. At a minimum, it Is generally recommended that applicants submit
data for at least the preceding 12 Months.. However, it should be noted that
permit writers may review data submitted for previous periods.
An owner/operator may also submit unsaturated cone monitoring data,
although this is not required. Permit writers may find this information
valuable in determining leakage.
•
2.2.3 Demonstrate Impoundment Location Relative to Underground
Source of Drinking Water
To qualify for the first exemption, applicants must also demonstrate
compliance with Section 3005(j)(2)(B), which requires that the surface
Impoundment be located at least one-quarter mile from any underground source
of drinking water (USDV). EPA Interprets the one-quarter mile provision to
include the subsurface hemisphere encompassed by a one-quarter mile radius
from the regulated unit (see Figure 1 on page 2-11 for an Illustration of this
subsurface hemisphere). The number of surface Impoundments eligible for the
first exemption is expected to be limited by this requirement. As noted, it
has been estimated that 95 percent of all existing surface Impoundments are
located within one-quarter mile of a USDW (129 Cong. Rec. H8195 (daily ed.,
October 6, 1983)). For that reason, EPA believes that this may be the most
difficult demonstration to make; it may be prudent for prospective applicants
to examine this Issue before any others when considering their possible
eligibility for the first exemption.
Section 3005(j)(12)(C) states that the term "underground source of
drinking water" has the same meaning as provided in the Safe Drinking Water
Act regulations. These regulations (40 CFR 144.3) state that a USDW is an
aquifer or its portion:
2-7
-------
(•)(!>""Which supplies any public water systea; or
(2) Which contain* a sufficient quantity of ground water to
•vipply a public water system; and -~
(1) Currently supplies drinking water for huaan •
consumption; or • '
(11) Contains fewer than 10,000 ag/L TDS; and
(b) Which is not an exempted aquifer.
It should be noted that as used in these regulations, "aquifer" refers to
an entire hydrogeologlc unit, not only the points at which water is or could
be withdrawn. "Public water system" is defined in 40 CFR 142.2(k) as "a
•ystea for provision to the public of piped water for human consumption, if
such system has at least IS service connections or regularly serves an average
of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year." Per
capita water use varies greatly depending on geographical and seasonal
consumption, so the water volume necessary to qualify as a potential public
water system could be relatively small in some circumstances.
To qualify as a USDW, an aquifer need not be actively supplying public
water. Under 40 CFR 144.3, as noted above, the aquifer need only have a
sufficient capacity to supply a pr.blic water system, have less than 10,000
milligrams per liter (mg/L) total dissolved solids, and not be an exempted
aquifer (exemption criteria are provided in 40 CFR 146.4). To illustrate the
restrlctiveness of the 10,000 mg/L dissolved solids limitation, ground water
having.a total dissolved solids concentration greater than 500 ag/L is not
recommended for human consumption and any ground water having acre than 2,000
ag/L is generally unfit for long-term irrigation (Clark, 1977). If there is
any question whether the concentration of dissolved solids could disqualify an
aquifer froa being classified as a USDW, the concentration of solids
upgradlent of the facility should be used to make the determination.
«
*
The most complete sources of information concerning identified USDW's are
the State offices with jurisdiction over underground injection wells. State
offices dealing with drinking water may also be valuable sources of
information. Appendix B contains a list of EPA and State officials who aay be
helpful in identifying USDW's.
2-6
-------
7.2.4 Demonstrate Compliance with Generally Applicable -ground — ~
Water Monitoring Prograos
Finally, an applicant Bust demonstrate compliance vlth applicable
(40 CFR Part 264) ground water nonltoring requirement* in order to be eligible
for the flrct exemption. Specifically, Section 3005(j)(2)(C) requires
compliance with generally applicable ground water monitoring requirements for
facilities with permits under 3005(c).
The stage in the permitting which a facility Is In will Influence EPA's
approach to assessing compliance with Part 264 ground water monitoring (GWM)
requirements. If a facility has been Issued a Part B permit, the facility
must be in compliance with all permit conditions pertaining to ground water
protection. If no final Part B permit has been Issued, all information
submitted under Part 265 Subpart F and 270.14(c) must be of adequate quantity
and quality to qualify the facility for a permit. This would demonstrate the
ability to establish whichever Part 264 ground water protection program is
appropriate to the facility (i.e., detection monitoring, compliance
monitoring, or correction action program).
It should be noted that if a permitted facility has a compliance
monitoring or corrective action program, or if an interim status facility has
(or should have) submitted plans to establish a compliance monitoring or
corrective action program under 270.14(c), the exemption application must
Include data .that clearly demonstrate that- the unit for which the exemption is
sought Is not responsible for the contamination (see Section 2.2.2 of this
guidance).
2.3 CHANCES IN CONDITION CAUSING THE FIRST EXEMPTION TO BE REVOKED
/
In providing exemptions from surface impoundment retrofitting
requirements, Congress has made a provision for situations in which a change
In condition, including a leak, develops after an exemption has been granted.
As stated in Section 3005(j)(6)(B), exempted surface Impoundments that develop
leaks are subject to the following:
2-9
-------
» I
In any-ease in which a surface impoundment is initially .determined to be
excluded from the requirements of paragraph (1) but due. to • change in
conditionXincluding the existence of a leak) no longer satisfies the
provisions of paragraph (2), (3), or (4) and therefore becomes subject to
paragraph (1), the period for compliance in paragraph (1) shall be
2 years after the date of discovery 6f such change of condition, or in
the case of a surface impoundment excluded under paragraph (3) 3 years
after such date of discovery.
In the above citation, paragraph (1) refers to the retrofit requirements
while paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) refer to the first, second, and third
exemptions, respectively. Thus, an Impoundment that initially qualifies for
the first exemption but for which a change in condition occurs would have 2
years after the change in condition is discovered in which to retrofit or to
cease receiving hazardous wastes (see Section 1.4 of this guidance for
information concerning the timing of closure).
The changes in condition that would make an exempted impoundment no
longer eligible for the first exemption include the following:
o There is a visible leak or visible evidence of a leak;
o There is a sudden, unexplained drop in liquid level at the unit;
o The authorized State adopts more stringent requirements than those
of the Federal program under which the exemption was first granted;
o New information becomes available;
o-' The facility goes Into compliance or corrective action monitoring,
unless the owner/operator demonstrates that the exempted unit is in
compliance (i.e., the exempted impoundment is not leaking);
o A leak is discovered through the ground water monitoring program
under 40 CFR Part 264, in which case the time of discovery is the
time that analysis confirms that constituents have entered the
ground water. ,
o The Impoundment no longer compiles with ground water monitoring
requirements.
2-10
-------
t I
» t
i A
Hazardous Waste
Surface Impoundment
I/A aile/
Public Water
System
USDW
Figure 1. Examples of underground sources of drinking water within
one-quarter mile of a hazardous vaster surface Impoundment.. (Note that USDW
does not have to be currently supplying water and that any portion of •
nonexempted USDW within a 1/4-alle radius disqualifies an impoundment from the
first exemption.)
2-11
-------
OSWER Policy Directive 19484.00-1B
SECTION-3 =
SECOND EXEMPTION
r .•--»-
3.1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS
A second exemption from the requirements of Section 3005(j)(l) of RCRA is
provided by 3005(J)(3). In order to quality for this exemption, • surface
impoundment must be one which:
(A) contains treated waste water during the secondary or
subsequent phases of an aggressive biological treatment facility
subject to a permit issued under section 402 of the Clean Water
Act (or which holds such treated waste water After treatment and
prior to discharge);
(B) Is in compliance with generally applicable ground water
monitoring requirements for facilities with permits under
subsection (c) of this section; and
(CXI) is part of a facility in compliance with section 301(b)(2)
of the Clean Water Act, or
(11) in the case of a facility for which no effluent guidelines
required under section 304(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act are in
effect and no perait under section 402(a)(l) of such Act
Implementing section 301(b)(2) of such Act has been issued, is
part of a facility in compliance with a permit under section 402
of such Act, which is achieving significant degradation of toxic
pollutants and hazardous constituents contained in the untreated
waste stream and which has identified those toxic pollutants and
hazardous constituents in the untreated waste stream to the
appropriate permitting authority.
Section 3005(J)(5)(D)(11) requires the owner/operator applying for this
exemption to provide certification that the impoundment meets the conditions
of the exemption, based on analysis of toxic pollutants and hazardous
constituents that are likely to be present in the untreated waste stream.
/
This certification must be made by a registered professional engineer with
academic training and experience In ground water hydrology. The
owner/operator must Include in the application evidence of the engineer's
training and experience.
3-1
-------
5.2 GUIDANCE FOR 3005(J)(3)(A>
The Intent" of Section 3005(J)(3)(A) Is to allow surface inpoundments that
contain treated vaste water during secondary or subsequent phases of an
"aggressive biological treatment facility" to qualify for the exemption
(provided the demonstrations required under 3005(j)(3)(B) and (C) are also
made). The facility must be subject to a permit Issued under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Because facilities that
discharge to publicly owned treatment works do not have NPDES permits, they
are not eligible for this exemption. •
3.2.1 Aggressive Biological Treatment Facility
Section 3005(J)(12)(B) provides the definition of "aggressive biological
treatment facility:"
(12)(B)For the purposes of this subsection, the term aggressive .biological
treatment facility means a system of surface Impoundments in which
the initial impoundment of the secondary treatment segment of the
facility utilizes intense mechanical aeration to enhance
biological activity to degrade waste water pollutants and
(1) the hydraulic retention time in such Initial impoundment is
no longer that 5 days under normal operating conditions, on an
annual average basis;
(11) the hydraulic retention time in such initial impoundment is
4Do longer than thirty days under no.roal operating conditions, on
'an annual average basis: PROVIDED, That the sludge In such
Impoundment does cot constitute a hazardous waste as identified by
the extraction procedure toxlclty characteristic in effect on the
date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984; or
(ill) such system utilizes activated sludge' treatment in the
first portion of secondary treatment. '
To qualify for an exemption udder this section, the applicant must
first demonstrate that the Initial impoundment for which the exemption is
sought is a component of a secondary treatment system. The primary
purpose of the secondary treatment system must be to provide intensive
mechanical aeration that assists in meeting the requirements of an NPDES
penult. EPA Intends to make the determination of whether an Impoundment
3-2
-------
r t
»
Is part of inch a secondary treatment system on a case-by-case basic,
baaed oa the fallowing factora: - "*"
o Evidence that the intense mechanical aeration in the impoundment
contributes to NPDES compliance;
o Operating data that demonstrates sufficient biological activity
to degrade pollutants (e.g., NPDES permit parameters such as
biological oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen in the influent
versus effluent; there must be evidence that aerobic bacteria are
active in the unit);
«
o Evidence that the mechanical aeration equipment is of an adequate
size to prevent settling of solids as well as providing oxygen
(except for trickling filters and rotating biological contactors);
o Other engineering and design characteristics of the impoundment,
Including the relative ages of the Impoundment and aeration
equipment.
•
For impoundments with NPDES permits, the exemption would cover only
the secondary treatment units and subsequent treatment units or holding
ponds that contain treated water. It vould not apply to any preliminary
treatment units that may exist, such as flow equalization basins or
primary sedimentation units. Any treatment facility for which the
exemption applies must be one which uses "aggressive biological
treatment."
In some industrial situations, waste water may not undergo primary
treatment prior to undergoing secondary treatment. Section 3005(j)(3)
specifies that the exemption is available to an Impoundment that
"contains treated waste water." In view of the language and legislative
history (see Cong. Rec. S9183 (dally ed., July 25, 1984)) of
3005(j)(12)(B), EPA does not Interpret this phrase to mean that the waste
stream must have undergone some prior treatment before reaching the
Impoundment in question; It is not necessary that an impoundment receive
treated waste water, only that it contain treated waste water.
3-3
-------
» I
3.2.1.1 Description of Secondary Treatment Systems
*- • • -
Secondary treatment Is a tern that means a level of treatment applied to
a waste stream to achieve a reduction In pollutants (usually BOD and suspended
solids) greater than that achieved by primary treatment. Because some fora of
an activated sludge process generally Is used to achieve this level of
treatment, activated sludge treatment and secondary treatment have become
synonymous. Other types of secondary treatment Include trickling filters,
bio-discs (rotating biological contactors—RBC's), and certain waste
stabilization ponds. •
The face of organic materials in secondary treatment systems includes
biodegradation, volatilization to the air, Incorporation In the solids, or
passage through In the effluent. Heavy metals have only two
fates—incorporation into the sludge or passage through in the effluent.
Volatilization is a major removal mechanism for many of the organic toxic
pollutants.
3.2.1.1.1 Activated Sludge Systeas
An activated sludge system Is a secondary treatment system that produces
and maintains an active mass of micro-organisms that are capable of
aeroblcally reducing the organic matter In a waste stream. Bacteria use the
organic content in the untreated waste watjer as food, thus producing more
bacteria. These waste streams generally have continuous flow and Include two
separate units—an aeration tank and a secondary settler. Waste water is
combined with the activated mass and mixed, or suspended, In the aeration tank
for 4 to 6 hours with a mechanically produced external supply of air to
provide mixing and to supply oxygen for the bacteria (detention times may be
/
longer, 4 to 6 days, during aeration modification of activated sludge). The
mixture then passes to the secondary settler (detention time, 2 to 4 hours)
where the active bioaass is removed /by settling. To maintain an equilibrium
of bioaass In the system, solids (waste sludge) must be removed in proportion
to the new oass being formed. A portion of the settled solids is then
t
returned to the aeration tank to maintain an active biomass and Increase the
rate of reduction of the organic matter. Because of the short detention
3-4
-------
DRAFT
tines, the tfeed for oxygen and mixing, and recycling requirements, activated
•ludge aystemSjOften use tanks (usually concrete). *: -•*-
3.2.1.1.2 fixed Film Systems - •
Trickling filters and RBC's are also secondary treatment systems; they
are referred to as "fixed film" systems. Like activated sludge systems, these
units use mechanical energy to increase or intensify the rate of biological
activity. Whereas activated sludge and waste stabilization ponds rely on the
•
biomass to be suspended in water, fixed film units operate with the biomass
attached to plastic or rock media as a biological slime.
In the case of trickling filters, waste water is mechanically distributed
over the top of the stationary media. As the liquid passes down through the
deep media, the organic materials in the waste water are consumed by the
attached biomass. The units are open at the bottom to allow air to pass up
through the media and supply oxygen to the bacteria. 'A secondary settler is
used to capture the biomass, which "sloughs off" the media. To increase the
efficiency of these units, effluent is recycled to the top of the trickling
filter. Solids from the secondary settler are not recycled but are removed
for disposal.
v
In RBC's, the biomass is attached to a series of large plastic discs that
are mechanically rotated slowly through the waste water. The water level is
located just below the centerline of the discs to provide for sufficient
oxygen transfer. The remainder of the operation is similar to that of a
trickling filter. Trickling filters and RBC's generally produce an effluent
of slightly lower quality than an activated sludge system in the same amount
of contact time. Like activated sludge, trickling filters and RBC's use tanks.
«
3.2.1.1.3 Waste Stabllzation Ponds
^MMWM**WHI^MH^ata«M«^B«M-Mrt^^«^aHI^*^M^MI^Mi^^M> ^
/
Stabilization ponds are another type of secondary treatment. Because of
their large.size, waste stabilization ponds normally are constructed using
earthen bottoms. A waste stabilization system normally consists of 3 or more
separate ponds or cells, which are operated in series.
3-5
-------
» I
DfUFT
For purposes of this discussion, waste stabilization ponds have been
divided into two categories: those with and those without Mechanical
aeration. The most common type of nonaerated ponds are called "facultative"
lagoons, which use both algae and bacteria for the reduction of organic
Blatter. In some cases, Mechanical stirring is employed to Biz the liquid but
not to supply dissolved oxygen. In facultative systems, oxygen is supplied by
the algae.. Detention times in facultative ponds generally ranges from 10 to
30 days.
Aerated ponds, such as oxidation ditches, rely only on the aerobic
bacteria to reduce organic matter. Mechanical aeration is supplied for mixing
as well as to provide dissolved oxygen for the bacteria. Normally only the
first cell of an aerated pond system uses mechanical aeration. Solids
produced in the first cell are carried in the effluent to the second cell,
where they are settled.
This process is essentially the same as an activated sludge process, with
one major exception: the process does not include the recycling of an active
mass of micro-organisms from the second cell to the aerated cell. As a
result, the detention time to provide a similar level of treatment ranges froa
3 to 10 days, compared to 4 to 6 hours for an activated sludge system. The
second cell and all subsequent cells of an aerated pond system function as
facultative lagoons Inasmuch as the decrease of the organic matter continues.
3.2.1.2 Secondary Treatment Systems that Qualify as Aggressive Biological
Treatment Facilities
Section 3005(j)(12)(B) defines "aggressive biological treatment" as,
inter alia, a facility using "intense mechanical aeration to enhance
biological activity." The use of the word "intense" was intended to imply the
primary purpose of the aeration equipment (to promote biological activity)
and, as such, can be associated with the "rate" of biological activity. Like
activated sludge, trickling filters and RBC's are a form of secondary
treatment that are designed to promote aerobic biological activity to reduce
pollutants* In all three systems, mechanical energy is used to provide
aeration to enhance the biological activity; in addition, raw waste water is
3-6
-------
in contact with the active biomass for similar amount* of time and similar
effluent qualities are attained. Thus, trickling filters and.RBC systems,
like activated'sludge systems, may be characterized as providing "intense
aechanical ceratlon." However, permit writers should ensure that systems
described as "activated sludge systems" do Indeed return a portion of the
solids to the aeration tank.
A number of other types of surface impoundments could also be eligible
for this exemption, such as aerated ponds, detention ponds, holding ponds, or
polishing ponds following secondary treatment. As noted, both facultative and
aerated ponds are Included under the broad definition of secondary treatment,
*
but only aerated ponds use "Intense mechanical aeration to enhance biological
activity." Because facultative ponds do not use intense mechanical aeration,
they are not eligible for the exemption.
Section 3005(j)(12)(B)(l) limits the detention time in the aerated cell
to an annual average of 5 days under normal operating conditions.. Section
12(B)(ii) allows the detention time to be as high as 30 days if the sludge Is
not a hazardous waste as determined by the extraction procedure. Because of
the structure of (12)(B), provisions (1), (11), and (111) are read as being
mutually exclusive alternatives. Read together, therefore, Sections. 12(B)(i)
and (11) would not require the sludge in an aerated cell with a annual average
detention time of 5 days or less to meet the extraction procedure toxicity
test, whereas if detention time is greater than 5 and less than or equal to 30
days an extraction procedure toxicity test on the sludge is required.
Although It is unlikely that the detention time in the aerated cell of an
aerated pond would exceed 30 days, the exemption could not be obtained if the
annual average detention time under normal operating conditions is 31 days or
more. Section 12(B)(iii) explicitly includes systems that utilize activated
sludge treatment in the first portion of secondary treatment in the definition
of "aggressive biological treatment."' Because 12(B)(1), (11), and (ill) are
read as being mutually exclusive, therefore, the requirements related to
retention time in (i) and (Jl) would not apply to activated sludge systems.
Holding ponds or polishing ponds that receive effluents from secondary
treatment systems (activated sludge, trickling filters, and RBC's) are defined
3-7
-------
•s tertiary'treatment, but rarely use "intense siechanical aeration" in the
ponds themselves to promote biological activity. Their major function is to
provide additional settling of the suspended solids and, in some eases,
nitrogen removal, but not "aggressive biological treatment,* which was already
provided in the secondary treatment facility.
Congressional Intent was that "... surface impoundments that contain
treated waste water during or after the secondary or tertiary phase of an
aggressive biological treatment facility" would be eligible^for the exemption
(130 Cong. Rec. S9182 (daily ed., July 25, 1984) (emphasis added)). EPA does
not read the words "initial surface impoundment" in 3005(J)(12)(B) ao as to
thwart the congressional intent to include surface impoundments that receive
waste water after it has undergone intense mechanical aeration. Therefore,
tertiary surface impoundments (e.g., surface Impoundments that receive treated
waste water after secondary treatment) would be eligible for the exemption as
long as "aggressive biological treatment" occurred in a prior unit.
Consistent with this Interpretation of congressional intent, ponds
following trickling filters and RBC's could be eligible for the exemption, as
well as those following activated sludge units. However, ponds that receive
sludge (e.g., for drying, storage, or disposal of the sludge), as opposed to
the treated waste water, are not eligible for the exemption; Section
3005(j)(3)(A) specifically requires that the aurface Impoundment contain
treated waste water.
In summary, any aurface impoundment that contains treated waste water
during or following aecondary treatment that is characterized by intense
mechanical aeration may be eligible for this exemption. The intense
mechanical aeration can occur in the initial aurfate impoundment for which an
exemption is sought or in a tank prior to reaching the initial surface
Impoundment. The following types of secondary treatment normally would be
considered as aggressive biological treatment facilities:
o Activated sludge systems;
o Trickling filter or RBC's;
o Aerated ponds. '
3-8
-------
As noted, EPA will make the determination of whether an' impoundment or
impoundments is/are qualified for the exemption on a case-by^ase.-tbasis. It
oust be detcrained that the primary purpose of intense mechanical-aeration is
to contribute to NPDES compliance; that there is sufficient biological
activity to degrade pollutants; that mechanical activity is sufficient to
prevent the settling of solids, except as provided by Section
3005(j)(12(B)(ii); and that other engineering and design characteristics of
the Initial Impoundment for which the exemption is sought are consistent with
the primary purpose.
•
3.2.2 Change in Condition
Surface impoundments would no longer be eligible for the second exception
If they no longer met the requirements of 3005(j)(3)(A). Changes In
conditions that could cause revocation of the exemption would Include, but are
not limited to, a change to a waste water treatment system that used means of
degradation other than mechanical aeration; a change in the purpose of the
impoundment (e.g., from storing treated waste water to receiving sludge); or a
change in aeration efficiency that caused a change in the characteristics of
the sludge for purposes of 3005(j)(12)(B)(ii).
3.3 GUIDANCE FOR 3005(j)(3)(B)
To be eligible for the second exemption, an applicant must also
demonstrate compliance with applicable 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F ground water
monitoring requirements. This demonstration is the same as that required for
the first exemption; it is discussed in Section 2.2.4 of this guidance.
t
Readers are referred to that section for EPA guidance regarding ground water
monitoring requirements for this exemption. As noted below, however,
*
Impoundments that are found to be leaking will not automatically be
disqualified from receiving this exemption. Thus, applicants who have
received permits most be in compliance with all ground water monitoring
requirements of the permit. Other applicants must have submitted applications
for Part B permits; these applications must be adequate to qualify the
facility for a permit.
3-9
-------
r i
t i
3.3.1 Evidence Regarding Leakage • . -*-
*~ r
As required under Section 3005(J)(5).(C), an owner or operator must
provide all reasonably ascertalnable evidence as to whether the surface
Impoundment is leaking. "Leaking" Is defined as a statistically significant
increase over background concentrations (as defined In 40 CFR Part 264
Subpart F) that is attributable to the surface impoundment. Other evidence of
leaking, such as visible leaks or sudden drops in liquid levels of the
impoundment, also would be sufficient. These definitions o5 "leaking" were
adopted by the House-Senate committee of conference (130 Cong. Rec. H11131
(dally ed.t October 3, 1984)).
In meeting this requirement, all relevant data available, Including that
collected for both hazardous and nonhazardous constituents, should be
provided. Although EPA will not require collection of any data not already
required under RCRA regulations, EPA will consider any additional data
provided by the owner/operator.
The first source of reasonably ascertainable evidence of leakage would be
Interim status monitoring data for facilities with 40 CFR Part 265 monitoring
systems, or monitoring data collected under 40 CFR Part 264 for facilities
that have received a Part B permit. The primary objective of the Part 265
Subpart F ground water monitoring requirements is to identify the existence
and magnitude of ground water Impacts from hazardous waste land disposal
facilities. ' As noted in the preamble to Part 264, monitoring that is
conducted "In accord with Part 265 interim status requirements" should provide
"a reliable base of Information that can be used to determine whether
hazardous constituents have entered the ground water." Comprehensive
/
instructions on conducting ground water monitoring in accordance with
Subpart F of Part 265 are provided in* EPA publication SW-963 (EPA, 1983).
Applicants and permit writers should,be familiar with the'specific
requirements addressed in that document. Permit writers should also be
familiar with the draft Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document, which discussed compliance with 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart F
(EPA, 1985).
3-10
-------
Interim status facilities will also have submitted applications for Part
B permits. Data provided in these applications under 40 CFR 270.14 will also
be examined by EPA in determining the possibility of leakage. - Of particular
importance vill be the information required of certain facilities by 40 CFR
270.14(c)(4). This section requires that any plume of contamination that has
entered the ground water from the surface Impoundment be described; that
monitoring data obtained during the Interim status period be summarized; and
that aquifers underneath the facility be described. This information should
provide adequate information to allow a determination regarding leakage. EPA
believes that the data provided under 40 CFR 270.14 must be of adequate
quantity and quality to qualify the facility for a permit; If they are not,
the facility will not be eligible for this exemption.
Section 3005(j)(3) does not contain any express limitations on
eligibility for wastewater treatment Impoundments that are leaking. A
separate provision, Section 3005(j)(7)(C), provides that if a qualified
wastewater treatment Impoundment is found to be leaking, it must comply with
Section 3005(j)(l) unless EPA determines that compliance is not necessary to
protect human health and the environment. In effect, (j)(7)(C) gives the
owner or operator of a leaking wastewater treatment impoundment the
opportunity to show that retrofitting is not necessary. EPA Interprets this
provision as applying to impoundments that are leaking at the time the owner
or operator initially applies for the wastewater treatment exemption, as well
as to impoundments that begin to leak afterwards.
Additionally, Section 3005(J)(7)(B) provides that when constituents are
"likely to migrate" into ground water, EPA may impose such requirements as are
necessary to protect human health and the environment, Including the minimum
i
technology requirements. The plain language of this provision Indicates that
it is intended to apply to situations in which EPA determines that an
f
Impoundment is likely to leak but is not currently leaking. In contrast to
(j)(7)(C), (J)(7)(B) does not establish a presumption that an Impoundment must
comply with the minimus technological requirements. Rather, (J)(7)(B) puts
the burden .on EPA to determine what response is necessary.
3-11
-------
» I
• I
Section 3005(J)(7)(C) by its terms applies to any surface impoundment
excluded froa Section d005(j)(l) which it '•ubsequently determined to be
leaking." This language could be read to refer only to impoundments that
develop a leak after they have qualified for an exemption under Section
3005(j)(3). However, EPA does not believe that the language of the provision
can be read this narrowly. The reference to a subsequent determination
suggests that EPA has authority to -make a determination on leakage for an
impoundment (including those that are leaking when the initial application is
submitted) after determining that an Impoundment otherwise qualifies under
Section 3005CJK3).
•
Moreover, a contrary reading would lead to inconsistent treatment of
leaking Impoundments. If Section 3005(j)(7)(C) did not apply. Section
3005(j)(7)(B) would be the only provision that could limit the eligibility of
an otherwise qualified wastevater treatment Impoundment that Is leaking when
the owner or operator submits the exemption request. As noted a.bove, however,
Section (J)(7XB) puts the burden on EPA to show that retrofitting is
necessary to protect human health and the environment. This showing would be
difficult, because the statutory and regulatory provisions designed to deal
with leaks (Section 3008(h) of RCRA and Subpart F of 40 CFR part 264) do not
presume that double liners (or equivalent) will be needed to respond to a
leak. Furthermore, because EPA may withdraw an exemption only for a "change
In condition" (Section 3005(j)(6)(B)) • leaking impoundment that obtained an
exemption could retain it even if the Impoundment continued to leak. In
contrast, any impoundment that began to leak after obtaining an exemption
would have a "change in condition" and would have to retrofit under
(J)(7)(C). Thus, impoundments with similar leaks could be treated differently
•
depending upon when the leak was detected.
•
EPA does not believe that the worfling of Section 3005(J)(7)(C) clearly
indicates that Congress intended this, result. Nothing in the language or
legislative history suggests that a different standard should apply depending
on when the leak was detected. Therefore, when EPA Is considering an initial
application for an exemption, if the Impoundment initially appears to qualify
under Section 3005(j)(3) but shows evidence of leakage, EPA will also consider
whether retrofitting should be required under (j)(7)(C). If EPA determines
3-12
-------
that hazardous constituents are likely to migrate to fround. Water from an
Inpoundaent that i> not leaking, additional requirement* say be Imposed under
Thus, owners and operators of impoundments that are leaking at the time
of the exemption application, or that develop a leak after being granted an
exemption, Bust retrofit unless retrofitting is not necessary to protect human
health and the environment. As noted in section 3.3 of this guidance,
applicants for the exemption must demonstrate compliance v^th applicable 40
CFR Part 264 Subpart F ground water monitoring requirements. Applicants who
have received permits oust be in compliance with all ground water monitoring
requirements of the permit; applicants who have not yet received permits must
have submitted information under 270.14(c) that is adequate to qualify for a
permit.
If such Information shows that the impoundment is leaking, the statute
presumes that retrofitting is necessary. In order to rebut this presumption,
EPA believes that the owner or operator should submit information showing that
this form of source control is not needed for the particular unit. A number
of factors may be relevant, Including whether the size of the plume or the
constituent concentrations in ground water may Increase due to continued
leakage, or whether other uncertainties exist as to the future progress of the
leak.
For example, the Agency believes (hat a facility would be able to rebut
the presumption that retrofitting is needed If ground water monitoring data
show that the ground water protection standard established under 264.94 has
not been exceeded, and If the owner or operator can show that the conditions
at the site (e.g., operating practices, nature of leak) are such that
conditions would not be expected to^ change and retrofitting will not aid in
preventing further contamination. This analysis should Include examination of
potential leachate seepage patbways'that nay not be monitored in the ground
water monitoring program; tuch pathways might exist in shallow sand lenses or
fracture tones located above the uppermost aquifer. Permitted facilities that
are required to have a corrective action program, as well as other facilities
whose 270. 14 (c) Information would require the owner or operator to establish a
3-13
-------
corrective "action program, say also be able to rebut the pre'sumption if they
can show that *the source control provided by retrofitting would not be
needed. For example, the owner or operator might be able to show that a
corrective action program would achieve compliance with the (round water
protection standard prior to the time that retrofitting could be completed.
On the other hand, the Agency would probably require retrofitting for an
Impoundment If constituent concentrations In ground water (either the
uppermost aquifer or a shallow zone which Is not considered an aquifer) were
likely to Increase due to uncontrolled leakage from the Impoundment.
*
3.3.2 Changes in Condition
Section 3005(j)(6)(8) requires an impoundment that has a change in
condition (including a leak) to comply with 3005(j)(l) (i.e., retrofit or stop
receiving hazardous wastes) within 3 years after the leak is discovered (see
section 1.4 of this guidance for Information regarding the timing of closure).
As noted above, Section 3005(j)(7)(C) requires an impoundment that
develops a leak after obtaining an exemption to comply with the minimum
technological requirements, unless it is not necessary in order to protect
human health and the environment. A leaking impoundment may be Initially
granted an exemption; however, If the nature or magnitude of the leak changes,
retrofitting may be required under 3005(j)(7)(C) unless it Is not necessary to
protect human health and the environment.. This may Include noncompllance with
applicable ground water monitoring standards.
3.4 GUIDANCE FOR 3005(J)(3)(C)
In addition to utilizing aggressive biological treatment and meeting
applicable ground water monitoring requirements as discussed above, an NPDES
facility seeking an exemption from RCRA retrofitting requirements must also
demonstrate that its surface impoundment
(C)(i), is part of a facility In compliance with section 30l(b)(2) of the
Clean Water Act, or
3-14
-------
(11) "in the case of • facility for which no effluent'guidelines
required'under aection 304(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act are Tn effect and
no peralt under section 402(a)(l) of «uch Act implementing aection
301(b(2) of auch Act has been issued, is part of a facility in compliance
with a permit under section 402 of such Act, which is achieving
significant degradation of toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents
contained in the untreated waste stream and which has identified those
toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents in the untreated waste stream
to the appropriate permitting authority.
This portion of the guidance will discuss (1) the coverage of these two
provisions; (2) what is meant by "in compliance"; and (3) the procedure for
obtaining an exemption, Including a description of what the applicant needs to
submit with the application, and a list of sources of information for the
permit writer.
3.4.1 Definitions of NPDES Terms
o NPDES; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; Section 402
of the Clean Water Act requires that an NPDES permit be obtained for all point
source discharges of pollutants Into the waters of the United States. NPDES
permits require specific control technologies for various industries and for
various classes of wastes and sets technology-based effluent limitations.
o Pollutant. Any waste discharged to waters of the United States.
This term is very broadly interpreted, and includes characteristics such as
heat and pH.
Conventional Pollutant. Pollutants identified under CWA Section
304(a)(4). The conventional pollutants are BOD (biological oxygen demand),
TSS (Total Suspended Solids), pH, fecal coliform, and oil and grease.
Toxic Pollutant. Any pollutant listed as toxic in the 1977 Senate
Report on CWA Section 307(a). These pollutants (113 organ!cs and 13 metals)
are listed in Appendix D of the NPDES regulations.
*
Nonconventional Pollutants. Any pollutant which Is not formally
listed as a toxic or a conventional pollutant. Many nonconventional
pollutants exhibit toxic effects.
•
o Effluent Limitation Guideline. Regulations adopted under CWA Section
304(a) to establish effluent limitations for a category of discharges.
3-15
-------
DRAFT
•» . «
o Effluent Limitation. Any restriction on the discharge of pollutants
from point sources. " .-•'
o BPTt Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available. These
treatment technologies, defined by EPA for categories of discharges, focussed
primarily on conventional pollutants. Under CWA Section 301(b)(l)(A),
Industries with NPDES permits were required to install BPT by July 1, 1977.
o BCT; Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology. These
treatment technologies are defined by EPA for categories of*discharges of
conventional pollutants under CWA Section 301(b)(2)(E). Compliance,
through NPDES permits, was required by July 1, 1984.
o BAT; Best Available Technology Economically Achievable. These
treatment technologies are defined by EPA for categories of discharges of
toxic and nonconventlonal pollutants under CWA Section 30l(b)(2).
Compliance, through NPDES permits, is required by July 1, 1984, for toxic
pollutants and within three years of promulgation (no later than July 1,
1987) for nonconventional pollutants.
o BPJ; Best Professional Judgment. Limitations established on a
case-by-case basis under CWA Section 402(a)(l) to control pollutant
discharges where effluent limitation guidelines do not cover the pollutant
or discharge. The majority of Initially-issued NPDES permits were issued
using BPJ. Also known as BEJ (Best Engineering Judgment).
3.4.2 Scope of Provisions
With respect to the provisions of 3005(J)(3)(C), there are three
categories into which a facility could fall: (1) the facility has a BAT
permit; (2) the facility has a BPT permit and there are applicable BAT
effluent guidelines in effect; or (3) the facility has a BPT permit and there
are no BAT effluent guidelines in effect. Facilities in categories 1 and 2
are eligible for the 3005(j)(3) exemption upon satisfying the requirements of
subparagraph (C)(l). Facilities in category 3 must satisfy the requirements
of subparagraph (C)(ii). '
3-16
-------
3.4.2.1 Facilities with BAT Permit*
f ~ . ' ' .
Section 3005(J)(3)(C)(i) require* the owner or operator to" show that the
Impoundment for which an exemption it requested !• "part of • facility in
compliance with Section 301(b)(2) o/ the Clean Water Act." Section 30l(b)(2)
refer* to BAT and BCT effluent limitations, established either la accordance
with effluent limitations guidelines or on a case-by-case basis by the permit
writer using best professional judgment (BPJ). The Agency Interprets the
language of 3005(j)(3)(C)(i) as requiring an owner/operator to show only that
the facility is in compliance with BAT effluent limitations*. Although Section
301(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) references BAT and BCT, RCRA Section
3005(j)(3)(C)(ll) refers to effluent guidelines In CWA Section 304(b)(2),
which are BAT only. Therefore, to make 3005Cj)(3)(C)(i) and (C)(li) parallel,
a reasonable construction of (C)(l) Is that it requires compliance only with
BAT effluent limitations as contained in the NPDES permit. This
Interpretation is consistent with the legislative history, which specifies
that this provision applies to a facility that is in compliance with "best
available technology effluent guidelines issued under the Clean Water Act"
(130 Cong. Rec. S9182 (daily ed., July 25, 1984}).
Thus, if a facility has a BAT permit (i.e., there are effluent
limitations that are based either on a guideline or on a BPJ/BAT
determination), compliance with the BAT limitation* in that permit will
constitute compliance with CWA Section 301(b)(2) for purposes of this
exemption. However, honcompllance with the BAT permit does not necessarily
aean that the facility is ineligible for the exemption, because effluent
limitations in a BAT permit (i.e., one that has effluent limits that are at
least equal to BAT) may be based on either technology-based or water
quality-based requirements. A permittee applying for an exemption under
3005(J)(3)(C)(1) may be in violation of water quality-based requirements and
•till be eligible for the exemption if he is able to demonstrate compliance
with all the less stringent technology-based requirements. The standard for
determining "In compliance" is discussed below in Section 3.4.3 of this
guidance.
3-17
-------
3.4.2.2 Facilities with BPT Permits
r1 '.-••*-
3.4.2.2.1 Facilities vlth BPT Permits for Vhlch Effluent Guidelines
• re in Effect "" "
Facilities with BPT permits for which there are applicable BAT guidelines
in effect »ust meet the requirements of Section 3005(.j)(3)(C)(l). Compliance
vlth (c)(ii) would not qualify them for the exemption. The owner or operator
of such a facility must demonstrate that, although the facility does not have
a BAT permit, the facility is nevertheless la compliance with the applicable
•
BAT guidelines.. If BAT guidelines are equal to BPT, a demonstration of
compliance with the permit is sufficient to meet 3005(j)(3)(C)(i). If BAT is
more stringent than BPT, the owner or operator must show that his discharge is
in compliance with the applicable BAT Holt.
If a facility has a BPT permit that covers multiple waste streams and BAT
guidelines are in effect for some but not all of the waste streams, the
facility is eligible for an exemption under paragraph (C)(l). The permittee
oust demonstrate that the facility is in compliance with Section 30l(b}(2) for
those waste streams covered by guidelines, and with BPJ (Best Professional
Judgaent) calculations of BAT limits for the remaining waste streams. Section
3005(j)(3)(C)(il) would not apply to an Impoundment in such a facility
becfuse, as noted in section 3.4.2.2.2 below, (C)(ii) applies only to
facilities for which no effluent guidelines are in effect.
3.4.2.2.2 Facilities with BPT Permits for Which Ko Effluent Guidelines
are in Effect ~~~~"
Any facility for which no effluent guidelines required under Section
304(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act are in effect and no BAT permit has been
f
Issued oust oeet the requirements of Section 3005(J)(3)(C)(il). The first
requirement of CcXll) is that the impoundment for which the exemption is
/
sought be part of a facility in compliance with its existing permit under
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
3-18'
-------
Unlike--(C)(i), applicants seeking an exemption under this section must
•how that the facility is In compliance with all perait conditions^ not Just
the effluent limitations. This is consistent with the plain language of
Section (CXii) which requires compliance, with the permit. However, what is
required la not absolute compliance with all permit limits. -Rather, the
facility will be evaluated for general compliance, taking Into account a
number of factora which are discussed In section 3.4.3 below.
The second part of 3005(J)(3)(C)(il) requires BPT permittees for which no
effluent guidelines are In effect to demonstrate that they a%re achieving
"significant degradation of toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents
contained In the untreated waste stream. ..." A direct reading of the
amendment and a review of the legislative history support application of the
"significant degradation" requirement only to BPT permits.
EPA believes that Congress wanted to ensure that BPT permittees were
removing the toxic and hazardous constituents In the effluent to the extent
feasible for the particular industry. Thus it seems reasonable to construe a-
"significant degradation" as requiring BPJ calculations of BAT Halts for the i
permittee's toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents. "Hazardous
constituents" are constituents identified in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR
Part 261. "Toxic pollutants" are those identified pursuant to CKA Section :
307(a) and listed In 40 CFR 401.15. How the regulatory agency makes this BPJ
determination of BAT is discussed in section 3.4.3 of this guidance I
("Procedure for Obtaining an Exemption"). If these calculated limits equal
the limits In the BPT permit, a demonstration of compliance with the permit
will satisfy this requirement. If the calculated limits are greater than the
permit Halts, the applicant will have to show the calculated limits are met
at the time the application is submitted.
The legislative history indicates that the Intent of this provision was I
to consider the entire waste stream operation at a facility, rather than at |
each impoundment (130 Cong. Rec. S9183 (daily ed., July 25, 1984)). The -V
following colloquy illustrates this: ;V ^
3-19.
-------
MR. BDTTSEN.
• « * «~ •. -
["Significant degradation of toxic pollutant* and haeardous constituents"]
is Intended to apply to the waste water treatment facilities as a whole.
It does not require that each Impoundment of a multi-impoundment system
aust achieve a significant degradation. It does not require that the
impoundment system taken as a whole must achieve a significant degradation
where other components of the waste water treatment system have signifi-
cantly degraded the toxic pollutants or hazardous constituents In the
untreated waste stream. For example, in some instances it is more
effective and appropriate to remove contaminants from waste streams prior
to sending them to the biological waste water treatment .system. Thus, the
test required in this amendment is Intended to look at*the entire waste
water treatment operations at a facility. Is this the Senator from Rhode
Island's understanding of the terms in this amendment?"
MR. CHAFFEE. The Senator from Texas has accurately described the Intent
of this phrase.
3.4.3 Meaning of "In Compliance" for Purposes of 3005Cj)(3)(C)
3.4.3.1 Initial Determination
Section 3005(j)(3)(C) requires the owner or operator to show that the
surface impoundment for which an exemption is being sought is part of a
facility which is either in compliance with BAT guidelines or is in compliance
with a BPT permit Issued under Section 402 of the CWA. The legislative
history indicates that for the purpose of obtaining an exemption, absolute
compliance with BAT guidelines or a BPT pe'rmit .(which Iji the standard for
noncompliance for purposes of determining violations under CWA) is not to be
required. Rather, it appears that by this provision Congress Intended to
ensure that a facility seeking an exemption is well-run and generally meets
the terms and conditions of its permit or BAT guidelines. (See 130 Cong. Rec.
,59183-84 (dally ed.t July 25, 1984,)).
In light of this, EPA has determined that "compliance" for the purpose of
Section 3005(j)(3)(C) can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, by
analyzing the nature, cause, and extent of any violations. Although the
legislative history makes reference to statistical assessments as part of
3-20
-------
guideline aihd" permit development under the Clean Water Act, EPA believes that
this vas merely illustrative of congressional Intent not to require absolute
compliance, and should not be read to require a determination of "compliance
based upon a statistical demonstration. Instead, the applicant's compliance
history for 1 year prior to the date of the exemption request should be
evaluated, as a year's data should be sufficient for any patterns of
violations to become apparent.
As stated above, when evaluating a facility for an exemption under
3005(j)(3)(C)(i), the only relevant factors are those relating to compliance
vith the BAT effluent limitations. However, for a facility to which
3005(J)(3)(C)(ii) applies, violations of all permit limits are to be taken
into account, although the permitting authority nay consider the relative
significance of the violations in determining if an exemption is appropriate.
Listed below are factors that may be taken into account in making the
compliance determination. This is a general list; the factors may vary in
significance in the judgment of the NPDES or RCRA permitting authority when
applied to particular circus stances.
o The paraneter of limitation violation. A violation of a BAT penit
effluent limitation for toxic or nonconventional pollutants should generally
be of greatest concern. However, BAT limitations for conventional pollutants
nay be Indicators of toxic pollutants or of hazardous constituents.
Therefore, the Intent of the parameters limited should be considered by
reviewing the permit fact sheet.
Where compliance with a BPT permit is being evaluated (for which
compliance with permit limits for conventional, nonconventional, and toxic
pollutants is required, as well as other permit requirements), violations of
*
toxic or nonconventional pollutant limits generally should again be of greater
concern than the limits for conventional pollutants, unless the conventional
pollutant is an Indicator for toxics and nonconventlonals.
o The duration of any violations. Other things being equal, a
violation of long duration should be of greater concern than a violation which
3-21
-------
_._ -._
occurred for .only a short period of time or was an isolated Instance. (For
example, if only the dally •azloum was exceeded, as opposed "to tfce dally
•axlnum and the aonthly average, then the violation was of short-duration.)
o The magnitude of any violation. An exceedance slightly over the
permit limit is generally of less concern than an exceedance substantially
over the permit Halt (e.g., 20 percent or greater exceedance would be
substantial for some Industries).
o The frequency snd/or pattern of violations during the compliance
period. Violations of the same parameters or pollutants which occur regularly
over a period of several months are indicative of a recurring pattern of
noncoapllance which should be of greater concern that irregular and
nonrepeated violations for different parameters or pollutants.
o Actions the owner or operator has taken to correct any
noncoapllance. An ongoing violation should generally be given greater
scrutiny than a past violation which has been corrected. A past violation,
however, may have been of such a nature as to preclude eligibility for the
exception.
o Enforcement actions. The Agency will take Into account any pending
administrative or judicial actions by a citizen group or other party relating
to the applicant's discharge of pollutants, as well as any administrative or
Judicial actions pending against the applicant .for permit noncoapliance.
Formal EPA or State enforcement actions nay lead to a judicial
determination that the facility has not complied with its permit, or a consent
agreement requiring that the permittee take all necessary steps to achieve
compliance with the permit.' The facility would no; be eligible for the
exemption in Section 3005(J)(3XC)(1) if the subject of the action was a
violation ef a technology-based effluent limitation or compliance schedule
Implementing such requirements and the facility cannot demonstrate compliance
for 1 year after the enforcement action or judicial determination. Generally,
the facility should have met the requirements of the technology-based effluent
limitation or compliance schedule. Compliance should be evaluated on the
3-22
-------
performance*for at least 1 year prior to the application for,an exemption, or
the facility ahould have made significant improvements in its treatment system
within the preceding year. However, the permitting authority Bay-determine
that mitigating circumstances warrant consideration of a shorter period of
time in judging compliance.
A determination of noncompliance in such an enforcement action is, per
se, « determination that the facility is not in compliance with the effluent
limitation. As noted above, 3005(J)(3)(C)(i) requires a shoving of compliance
with BAT effluent limitations. Thus, if the underlying violation was, for
instance, a water quality-based effluent violation or a reporting violation
unrelated to compliance with BAT, the applicant nay still be eligible for the
exemption if he can demonstrate compliance with the applicable
technology-based requirement.
A final determination in a formal action against a facility with a BPT
permit for permit noncompliance that is made less than 1 year prior to the
date of the application for the exemption should disqualify the unit for the
exemption under 3005(j)(3)(C)(ll), which requires that the facility be in
compliance with a BPT permit, unless the permit writer considers that a
shorter period is appropriate. As noted above, where BPT permittees under
(C)(li) are concerned, this would apply to violations of any permit
requirement, not just the effluent limitations. The decision in an
enforcement action may be considered to be an Agency determination that the
facility was not in compliance with its permit.'
o Compliance with existing administrative or judicial orders. If the
underlying violation is relevant to the exemption decision, EPA will consider
whether the applicant has fulfilled all the requirements of the order, and
whether the permittee has supplied to the Agency any information required by
f
the order (to the extent that such reports are necessary to verify compliance
status). '
o Any other factors. Any other factors which would tend to show
whether a facility is meeting the terms of its permit or BAT effluent
limitations should also be considered.
3-23
-------
The Clean Water Act requires absolute compliance with permit conditions
and other applicable requirements. Any violation, no matter how-ainor, nay be
the subject of an enforcement action; there Is no acceptance level of
violation. The discussion In this guidance Is strictly for purposes of
determining the eligibility for an exemption for retrofitting requirements and
vas devised to aeet the requirements and objectives of Section 3005(j)(3) of
RCRA. A determination of such eligibility does not insulate a facility from
an enforcement action under CWA for any permit violation.
*
3.4.3.2 Change in Condition
- - L "• •' " *
The requirement to be "In compliance" with CWA Section 301(b)(2) or a BPT
permit is an ongoing obligation. Section 3005(j)(6)(B) requires exempted
facilities which no longer satisfy the exemption requirements due to changed
circumstances to comply with (j)(l) (i.e., retrofit or stop receiving
hazardous wastes) within 3 years of the date of the changed circumstances. In
evaluating whether the facility is no longer In compliance, the same standard
of overall compliance set forth earlier in this guidance will be utilized. As
a condition to receiving the exemption, an applicant may need to submit
additional reports so that continued compliance can be monitored.
The eligibility of a facility with a BPT permit which qualifies for an
exemption under 3005(j)(3)(C)(ii) should be reexamined under the (C)(l)
exemption on the effective date of the BAT guidelines applicable to that
facility. Inasmuch as the BPT facility has already aade a demonstration of
compliance with the permit and significant degradation under (C)(ii), it may
not always be necessary to automatically require such facilities to make a
demonstration tinder (C)(l). Such a demonstration would only be required if
there is reason to believe that the facility may not meet the (C)(i)
requirements.
v
3.5 PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING AN EXEMPTION ' '
Section 3005(j)(5) sets forth the requirements for applying for a
3005CJX3).exemption. Section 3005(j)(5) requires that an applicant for the
exemption must apply to the EPA Administrator (or the State, where the State
3-24~
-------
has an Authorized RCRA*program) by November ~8r~1986r~ With this-application, —
the applicant must aubmlt (A) Its RCRA permit application; (B) evidence of
compliance witff applicable ground water monitoring requirements; XC) *11
reasonably ascertainable evidence as to whether the surface impoundment is
leaking; and CD) a certification by a registered professional engineer with
academic training and experience in ground water hydrology that, based on
analysis of those toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents that are likely
to be present in the untreated waste stream, the impoundment satisfies the
conditions of Section 3005(J)(3).
The application requirements in Section 3005(j)(5)(A) through (C) also
apply to other exemptions under Section 30D5CJ). Application requirements
under 3005(J)(3) are consistent with the requirements described in this
guidance for applications for the other exemptions. Subsection (D) only
applies to facilities with BPT permits under 3005(j)(3)(C)(ii) (i.e., BPT
permittees where there are no applicable guidelines), as those are the only
facilities that have to demonstrate significant degradation of toxic
pollutants and hazardous constituents contained in the untreated waste stream.
Applicants should ensure that the reviewing agency has the information it
needs to make the exemption determination, Including: discharge monitoring
reports; compliance Inspection reports; DMRQA sample performance, permittee
noncompllance reports; and any other data that may be relevant to the
determination. Information for the period 1 year prior to the date of the
exemption request will be reviewed, so applicants should verify that the
information is complete for that time period.
Applicants who must demonstrate compliance with applicable effluent
guidelines and who must show significant degradation should ascertain the
appropriate BAT limits and verify compliance with the limits from plant
operating data and submitted data already available to EPA in Discharge
*
Monitoring Reports (WE**). The NPDES permitting authority will review the
permittee's information and confirm \rtiether or not the permittee qualifies for
the retrofitting exclusion. With regard to a BPT permittee for whom there are
existing effluent guidelines in effect, if the BAT guidelines would require
the development of limits for additional pollutants that are not currently
3-25
-------
required to'be Monitored by the BPT permittee, the permittee should provide
influent and effluent «ass and/or concentration data for the" dally maximum and
*~ .
•onthly average limitations for those pollutants for a minimum of.- 30
consecutive days of monitoring. The application should also Include average
daily production figures for the period monitored (In the same units required
In the guideline) and specify whether the pollutant monitored is an
intermediate or final product or byproduct of the process. If a facility
falls under one of the industrial categories listed In Table 2C-2 of
49 Federal Register 38059 (Testing Requirements for Organic Toxic Pollutants
Industry Category), the monitoring data should include testing for all
•
applicable parameters listed in Table 2C-2, unless previously submitted to the
Agency.
A BPT permittee making a demonstration under 3005(J)(3)(C)(li) also
should Identify in an application for an exemption those toxic pollutants and
hazardous constituents in the untreated waste stream. As the legislative
history (130 Cong. Rec. S9183 (daily ed., July 25, 1984)) Indicates, this
requirement is intended to apply to the waste water treatment facility as a
whole, rather than to each'impoundment. Thus, the applicant should Identify
the toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents entering the facility, not the
individual Impoundment(s) for which the exemption Is being sought.
The legislative history to this provision suggests that the BPT permittee
need not sample, Internally monitor, or make a determination regarding the
absence of every toxic pollutant and hazardous constituent. However, the
permittee must identify those toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents
that, based on the hazardous wastes in the waste streams, are known to be, or
that there is reason to believe are, In the untreated waste stream. To the
extent the permittee knows of the presence of these pollutants and
constituents in the waste water entering the facility, he must communicate
that Information to the agency considering the exemption application. (See
130 Cong. Rec. 59183 (daily ed., July, 15, 1984).
The determination under 3005(J)(3)(C)(i) as to whether a facility with a
BPT permit ,is in compliance with BAT guidelines is part of the process of BAT
permitting. (The BAT permitting process also considers water quality issues,
3-26
-------
_
which are not'relevant to paragraph (C)(D). In the BAT pe rait ting process,
permit limits are not set by an automatic application of the guidelines, but
rather take into account variables such as disparate waste streams,
production, and flow. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort,
EPA Regions and States with authorized programs would be strongly encouraged
to act simultaneously upon the facility's BAT permit application and the
retrofitting exemption request.
3.5.1 Sources of Information for the Regulatory Agency
•
The regulatory agency must make the determination that the applicant for
the exemption Is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 3.4.2 of
»
this guidance. In addition to the data and other Information submitted by the
applicant, there are other Information sources that nay prove helpful in
making a compliance determination.
o The NTDES Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR). The QNCR is a
reporting tool used by the EPA Regions and NPDES States to record instances of
noncompllance by major dischargers. The QNCR includes information on
noncompliance with permit effluent limitations, enforcement orders, and
reporting requirements. The purpose of the QNCR is to provide information to
the Agency by which it can assess the effectiveness of State and EPA Regional
compliance activities and thereby best determine how to manage or oversee
program, activities. (See 40 Federal Register 34648). It does not establish
criteria for selecting enforcement actions nor does it codify enforcement
policy. The QNCR may be useful In the context of the exemption from
retrofitting requirements in that the listing of a facility on the QNCR should
be a signal to the regulatory authority that the facility's application for an
exemption warrants close scrutiny.
/
o Discharge monitoring reports. These are the self-monitoring data
from the applicant. If the data are incomplete, EPA should consider the
missing measurements to be violations for the purposes of the 3005(j)(3)(C(li)
exemption.
3-27
-------
_ _ DRAFT _
o Compliance inspection reports. These should be reviewed whenever
available in order to determine If special operation and maintenance problems
*- • .- ~*~
were encountered or if the permittee has failed to control hazardous materials
or spills. The inspection reports also could include an evaluation of
construction activities and progress toward achieving compliance vith final
effluent limits. In some cases, inspections may be needed to support the
determination for the exemption.
o PMRQA sample performance. This is an Indicator of the overall
quality of the self-monitoring data. Past performance on the DMRQA would be
especially important if the compliance record is inconsistent or if the
pollutant loadings are very close to the limit. If the quality of the
effluent data appears to be poor, EPA may require additional testing by the
applicant to ensure that it has accurate information on which to make a
judgment.
o Peraittee noncompliance reports. These must be submitted as
required by 40 CFR 122.41 for each violation of a limit. In addition, the
regulatory agency may require additional information and an explanation of how
the permittee resolves the violations. For each violation, EPA should review
the circumstances, the permittee's responses, any corrective action, and the
results. During this review, EPA should note in particular any recurring
problems that the permittee has reported but not addressed adequately, any
failure to submit a report, other patterns of violations, and the
circumstances of any violations.
o Permit applications. NPDES and RCRA permit applications may be
helpful to the regulating agency in obtaining background information about the
facility and how it operates.
/
o Citizen Cooplaints.
»
o Any other sources of relevant data. To make a determination under
Section 3005(J)(3)(C)(11) that significant degradation of toxics and hazardous
constituents has been achieved, the regulatory agency will have to make a BPJ
determination of what the BAT limits for toxics and hazardous constituents
3-28
-------
would be. --The support documents for the effluent guideline* that have not yet
been promulgated Bay be helpful for thia. Alao, support documenta for
effluent guidelines for an industrial category which Is similar tff that of the
applicant »ay be uaed. Where the BPJ determination of BAT equals'the BPT
limits in the permit, compliance with the permit is all that will be
necessary. Where the calculated limit is above that in the permit, the
applicant will have to provide data showing that he achieves the higher limit.
3.5.2 Inter- and Intra-Agency Coordination in the Pecisionmaking Process
The determination required under 3005(j)(3)(C)(i) and (ii) goes beyond
the administrative and technical boundaries of the RCRA permit writer. The
review of applications filed for this exemption will require close
coordination between RCRA Programs personnel, as it is they who will be making
the exemption determination, and Water Programs personnel at both the Federal
and State level, as they have the Information on the NPDES permittee and
experience with the requirements. (Where the State has been approved to
administer the NPDES program, it will have the records of the permittee.)
Thus, the RCRA programs will be relying heavily on the NPDES permitting
authorities' decisions. The scope of interagency coordination will be
detailed In a Memorandum of Understanding.
3-29
-------
OSWER Policy Directive 19484.00-lB
' " SECTION 4
r THIRD EXEMPTION
4.1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS
As provided in Section 3005(j)(4), certain surface impoundments may be
eligible for an exemption from, or a modification of, the minimum
technological requirements based on a demonstration of "no migration." The
statute states that:
The Administrator (or the State, in the case of a State with an
authorized program), after notice and opportunity for comment, may modify
the requirements of paragraph (1) for any surface Impoundment if the
owner or operator demonstrates that such surface impoundment is located,
designed and operated so as to assure that there will be no migration of
any hazardous constituent into ground water or surface water at any
future time. The Administrator or the State shall take into account
locatlonal criteria established under Section 3004(o)(7).
4.2 GUIDANCE FOR THE THIRD EXEMPTION
Unlike the first exemption, retrofit requirements under the third
exemption may be waived even If the surface Impoundment does not have a liner
and/or is located within one-quarter mile of an underground source of drinking
water.
Rather than making specific requirements, Congress Intended the third
exemption to be a performance-based variance that requires the owner or
operator to demonstrate compliance based on location, design, and waste
characteristics particular to the facility. The exemption is provided in
f
recognition of the fact that certain site-specific and waste-specific
characteristics may prevent the movement of hazardous waste and constituents
into ground and surface water. Consistent with other performance standards,
this exemption serves *s a mechanism by which owners and operators nay
identify and describe factors such as waste attenuation, degradation, and
migration rates that will assure no migration of hazardous constituents.
Applicants for this exemption are required to submit a report documenting
-------
procedures,-result», and conclusions, thereby providing the permit
a basis for evaluating the adequacy of the exemption request; ^
Owner/operator* of any surface Impoundment may apply for this exception.
However, EPA believe* that the only type of unit that could meet the
requirements under this exemption under normal circumstances would be a
storage surface Impoundment (at which wastes, liner(c), and contaminated soil
are removed or decontaminated at closure) having at least a thick constructed
coil liner of extremely low permeability. The reasons for this belief are
described below. It should be noted that EPA does not believe Congress was
referring to industrial point source discharges subject to NPDES permits when
prohibiting migration to surface water; auch discharges are not solid wastes
according to RCRA Section 1004(27) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(2), and thus are exeapt
from RCRA regulation. For that reason, facilities with NPDES permits are
eligible for the exemption, provided the demonstrations described below are
made.
The primary issue to be addressed under this exemption is that there will
be no migration of any hazardous constituent into ground water or surface
water at any future time. Although the owner/operator of any impoundment can
apply for this exemption, it is EPA policy that design information based on
manmade liner systems is not by Itself adequate to prove that no migration
will occur. The owner/operator of either a storage or disposal facility will
be required to make a clear demonstration that hazardous constituents will not
migrate to ground water or surface water during the unit's active life as veil
as during and following closure.
In some situations, the nature of the waste could facilitate the
demonstration. Such a case would be one in which a corrosive waste exhibiting
*
low pH passes into a neutralization pond that contains no hazardous
constituents or other wastes whose characteristics could classify it as a
hazardous waste. In this case, there may be no hazardous-constituent to
migrate beyond the unit. More often, however, the applicant will have to make
the demonstration of no migration as outlined In Section 4.2.1 or in Section
4.2.2 of this guidance.
4-2
-------
4.2.1 Demonstration of "No Migration* Based on Test and Model Data
r ' T
At a minimum, the reviewing agency will require: (1) liner/.leachate
coopatlbillty test data similar to thoae -required for the flrat exemption (see
Section 2.2.1 of this guidance); (2) wetting front calculation! from the first
day the unit went into service documenting the extent of current and potential
future leachate migration; and (3) documentation of hazardous constituent
attenuation in the unsaturated cone. In addition, the applicant should detail
closure and postclosure plans that ensure that there will be no contaminant
migration to ground or surface water during or after closure. For storage and
treatment impoundments (whose wastes, liners, contaminated soil, and saturated
•oil are to be removed), the applicant should also set a firm closure date.
This closure date should be before the time that leachate is expected to
migrate through the liner into adjacent soil.
Congressional requirements for double liner systems and EPA regulations
Imply that manmade systems (e.g., single flexible membrane liners-) will leak
at some future time. EPA emphasizes that it will be very difficult for any
surface impoundment with a single synthetic liner to qualify for this
exemption because It will be difficult to prove for those units that no
migration of any hazardous constituent will occur at any future time.
It will be extremely difficult to prove that no migration of any
hazardous constituent will occur after closure for any type of disposal
impoundment. As noted above, the only type of units that EPA believes will
normally be able to meet the requirements under this exemption are certain
storage surface impoundments (at which wastes, liners, and contaminated soil
are removed or decontaminated at closure) having at least a thick constructed
soil liner of extremely low permeability. The legislative history indicates
that "any future time" should be read literally (see 130 Cong. Rec. £4455,
(daily ed., Oct. 10, 1984)). Congress was concerned about leakage at any
time, even after closure. For all disposal units, regardless of whether they
have a synthetic or clay liner, EPA will require a rigorous showing that there
will be no migration of hazardous constituent* to ground or surface water at
any future 'time.
4-3
-------
_ DRAFT L_.
4.2.1.1 Meaning of "Ground Water or Surface Water"
*- ".-->-•
The provisions of the third exemption do not specify the condition of the
ground water or surface water. Therefore., EPA interprets this provision as
referring to the closest source of ground water or surface water, whether
contaminated or noncontaminated, usable or nonusable, as the point to which
there must be no migration of any hazardous waste or constituents. As used in
this provision, "ground water" includes, but is not limited to, all USDW's and
all aquifers; it encompasses "all water below the land surface in a zone of
saturation" (40 CFR 260.10). A demonstration of no migration in saturated
soil would not be appropriate for this exemption because waste migration into
the saturated zone Is interpreted as ground water contamination. Because
Section 3005(j) is concerned with migration that could be prevented through
the installation of a double liner and leachate collection system and because
the escape of hazardous wastes or constituents through overtopping, surface
water runon and runoff, and/or erosion are addressed Independently in various
sections of 40 CFR Part 264, the d-rsonstration of no migration to surface
waters for this exemption should address migration in subsurface soils. The
demonstration of "no migration" to both ground water and surface water must
therefore be made for the unsaturated soil beneath the facility.
4.2.1.2 Meaning of "Hazardous Constituent"
For the purposes of this exemption, "[hazardous constituent" means a
constituent that is listed in Appendix VIII of'40 CFR Part 261.
4.2.1.3 Meaning of "No Migration"
The extent of migration refers to quantifiable limits applicable to waste
releases. Such limits could be quantified by expression as either a
concentration or a mass loading. From a practical standpoint, it would be
extremely difficult to document (by measurement) any releases to ground water
or surface water unless the releases result in local concentrations that are
above background levels. Consequently, applicants for this exemption are
advised to demonstrate that the concentration of hazardous constituents in the
saturated zone beneath the surface Impoundment liner and in surface waters to
4-4
-------
which constituents could Migrate is and will remain equal to or below
background concentrations. . . - -,_
4.2.1.4 Demonstration of "No Migration"- ~
The "no migration" demonstration submitted by the applicant should be
comprehensive and detailed and should cover every aspect of waste migration in
the unsaturated zone.
The persistence and degradation potential of the waste.in the environment
should be explained and fully documented with appropriate sampling and
analysis data. The prediction of no migration at the compliance point should
be supported by a modeling study using site-specific data. All modeling
results and procedures should be provided to document all conclusions.
Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) measures taken during the no
migration analysis should also be documented by identifying QA/QC procedures
used and estimates of the reliability of the conclusions.
The applicant should demonstrate no migration to a level of certainty
that will ensure that results and conclusions are accurate and reliable. This
level of certainty must account for conditions that may occur as a consequence
of future natural events or uncontrolled human intrusion. To attain an
adequate level of certainty, the applicant should provide an estimate of error
that is based on a sensitivity analysis that accounts for all parameters
included in the no migration analysis. All data should be demonstrated to be
accurate. Field data (such as hydraulic conductivity developed using Test
Method 9100) should be used to calibrate and verify modeling calculations.
The unsaturated zone is the transport medium of primary concern in the
demonstration of no migration. Any migration of waste that should occur is
most likely to occur in .the unsaturated soil beneath or adjacent to the unit
in question. Therefore, results froy this demonstration should indicate the
ability of the unsaturated zone to attenuate the waste and the likelihood of
the waste migrating through the unsaturated zone to the closest ground water
or su rface'wa te r.
4-5
-------
The Application should therefore contain a detailed evaluation of site
hydrogeology and estimated contaminant fate and transport. To demonstrate
•oblllty in the unsaturated cone, the following general information should be
presented in the application and confirmed by the permit writer:
o Hydraulic conductivity as a function of water content or pressure
potential;
o Porosity of the medium, particle and bulk densities, water capacity,
and diffusivlty;
o Soil-water retention curves;
*
o Infiltration, drainage, evaporation and transpiration rates and
volumes;
o Nydrogeologic maps and cross sections;
o Parametric values for the dispersion and adsorption and Ion exchange
properties;
o Effects of peraeant on soil;
o Location and strengths of contaminant sources;
o Basic physical and chemical properties of the contaminants;
o Estimation of degradation potential (for given constituents) within
the unsaturated zone; and
o Estimation of adsorption potential (for given constituents) within the
unsaturated zone.
o* Constituent loading rates
Appendix C of the forthcoming location Guidance for Section 3004(o)(7)
will contain methods for modeling migration in the unsaturated zone.
Applicants nay find this valuable for analytical support.
/
4.2.1.5 Documentation Requirements
Any modeling procedures and results used by the owner/operator to
evaluate the potential fot migration should be Included in the application for
this exemption. Documentation of all parameter values used, all assumptions
4
associated with the model, and the error associated with the model predictions
4-6
-------
Bust be included In this demonstration. The conceptual model developed for
the untaturated cone should be fully described. Finally, the modeling
*~ f
approach to the particular problem should be described in detail and it should
be demonstrated that the model is appropriate for use in the specific
problem.
4.2.2 Demonstration of "No Migration'' Based on Inward Hydraulic Gradient
Another way to meet the "no migration" standard is to design the
impoundment so that pumping will hold the hydraulic head in .the Impoundment
below that in surrounding geologic units (Ross. 1985). An inward hydraulic
gradient is thus established, preventing outward movement of ground water.
The impoundment must be in a pit below the water table; the inward gradient
will cause a constant flow of ground water into the Impoundment. A mixture of
ground water and waste water will be pumped out; all of this water must be
treated in an appropriate way before being discharged.
To prevent migration, the gradient in such an impoundment must be directed
Inward at all times and from all directions. The application should state a
maximum permissible water level in the impoundment, or present the method by
which the naxlmua permissible level (which might vary over time) will be
calculated. The allowable difference between ground water head and impoundment
head should be set on a case-by-case basis to reflect the variability and
uncertainty of the heads, but in no case should be less than one foot. (Tills
is a minimum value, based on the accuracy of good head measurements. It may
be revised upward as appropriate.)
When the facility is closed, pumping will cease and the facility will no
longer have the inward gradient that is responsible for preventing migration.
The applicant will therefore have to remove all hazardous contamination from
the site at the time of closure. It should be realized that such closure
below the ground water could be quite* difficult to accomplish in the field due
to the constant Influx of water while the contaminated liner (if any) and/or
soil is proceeding.
4-7
-------
The Information required to evaluate an application for an exemption in
the case where inward gradients are being relied upon Is quite different from
that required for the "no migration" demonstration based on testing and
modeling data. Most of the technical Analyses described In Section 4.2.1 of
this guidance are unnecessary. Specifically, there is no need for an
unsaturated-zone analysis, an attenuation analysis, or any kind of
mathematical model of subsurface migration. The technical issues on which
permit writers should focus are surface runoff, adequacy and reliability of
measurements (historic and ongoing) of heads, and adequacy and reliability of
punps. There may be complex hydrologlcal factors that make, an inward gradient
inappropriate for some sites; EPA will make the determination on a
case-by-case basis.
The applicant must address all considerations involved In ensuring that
inward gradients are reliably maintained. Among the considerations to be
addressed are those discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1 to 4.2.2.9 of this guidance.
4.2.2.1 Puap Capacity and Reliability
Pumps must be able to hold the water level in the impoundment below the
required level at all times. At a minimum, this requires backup punps an3
power supplies. Pumps will have to be large enough to deal with inflows of
surface water from precipitation and runoff during storms.
* .
4.2.2.2 Flooding
Ordinarily, pumping equipment would not be able to deal with the Inflows
to impoundments during floods. The Impoundments should therefore not be
located in areas subject to. flooding in a 100-year flood.
/
4.2.2.3 Piping
/
Although It is recognized that a mlnimua bead below the ground water must
be maintained, It is just as Important not to allow the head difference to be
high enough to reach critical gradients through the soil liner and foundation.
4-R
-------
Piping and.-lo** of floes that Affect the integrity of the liner/foundation
would occur if the critical gradient is reached or exceeded.
** " " t
4.2.2.4 Water-Table Fluctuations
The applicant oust demonstrate that water-table fluctuations, whether
year-to-year, seasonal, or irregular, will not bring the ground water head
below the head maintained in the Impoundment. In general, it will be
necessary to monitor water levels outside the impoundment at least monthly,
and usually at least weekly. The number of monitoring points aust be decided
on a case-by-case basis, but in a low-permeability medium more than one will
usually be required. In some cases, it nay be possible to determine a minimum
head for the hydrogeologic units near the impoundment, either from frequently
measured hydrographs extending over many years or from aquifer geometry. Such
a minimum head could be used to determine Impoundment water levels; however, a
minimum of one piezometer should always be monitored.
Real-time monitoring of water levels in the Impoundment and in one or
more wells could be used to operate pumps automatically whenever the
difference falls below a preset level. This Is an acceptable approach, but
the applicant would have to demonstrate the reliability of the equipment.
*
However it is controlled, pumping cannot bring water levels below the
bottom of the Impoundment. The applicant should show that the Impoundment Is
deep enough so that the base of the impoundment is below the minimum
potentlometric level of the ground water in the vicinity. Alternatively, a
contingency plan could be provided by which the impoundment will be pumped dry
and cleaned of contamination if potentiometric levels approach the bottom of
the Impoundment.
/
The water table near an Impoundment could be greatly lowered by pumping
in new water wells or devaterlng for nearby construction projects. The
applicant should show that this will not occur.
4-9
-------
— 4.2.2.5 Uniformity of Head In Impoundment
Head* in«ny sludge or solids in the impoundment could differ from the
measured water level. The applicant should ensure that they do hot exceed the
allowable value* In general, this can be* done by ensuring that solids will
not stand above the permissible water level at any time.
A further precaution is required for compressible solids such as clayey
sludges, which could be consolidated by the weight of any additional solids
placed above them. When the total stress applied to a compressible porous
medium is increased, the additional stress is initially transferred to the
water in the pores as an Increase in pressure. The increase in water pressure
cannot exceed the Increase in total stress applied to the porous medium
because if the two are equal, the effective stress on the porous medium is
unchanged. If the porous medium has a low permeability, the Increased
pressure can take a long time to drain out (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).
Solids to be placed In an impoundment depending on Inward gradients
should be tested for compressibility. The allowable thickness of compressible
low-permeability solids in the impoundment should be set equal to the allowable
height of standing water (less the depth of any water that will stand above
the sludge), divided by the density ratio of wet sludge to water.
4.2.2.6 Fluid Density
The water in Impoundments may have a considerable content of dissolved
solids that cause its density to exceed that of pure water, or impoundments
may hold dense, Immiscible fluids such as chlorinated hydrocarbons. Even if
an inward gradient is successfully aaiatalned, it still can be possible for
dense fluids to migrate out of the Impoundment due to rotational circulation
induced by density-driven instabilities. When this happens, a finger of dense
*
water descends from the impoundment, displacing the lighter aquifer water.
/
It is not acceptable to place water or other fluids with a density
significantly greater than that of the surrounding ground water in
«
impoundments with inward gradients. Density effects can be Ignored if water
4-10
-------
In an Impouadsent will contain leas than 1000 milligrams per liter of total
dissolved aolid*. (The value of 1000 »g/L la only a very rough estimate and
night be too high or too low; a careful analysis would be required to set a
proper value.) Otherwise, the density difference that would be considered
significant Bust be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. One way for the
applicant to demonstrate that a density difference is not significant is by a
mathematical analysis of the hydrodynamlc stability of the system.
4.2.2.7 Aquifer Nonunlformlty
•
Head variability within the geologic units around the impoundment can
cause migration away from it. In porous sedimentary media, permeable layers
or lenses within otherwise low-permeability units can gave different heads.
If such units are present In the vicinity of an impoundment, small cracks
night connect them with the impoundment. It oust therefore by verified that
heads in the impoundment are kept below the heads in any nearby permeable beds
or lenses. This will, in some cases, require measurements of heads in specific
packed-off Intervals rather than only in open wells.
In fractured rocks, different fractures, even very close to each other,
nay be poorly connected and have a considerable difference in head. If two
fractures with different heads contact an impoundment or a liner close to each
other, cross-circulation through the Impoundment can occur even if both beads
are above the head in the Impoundment. Applicants for impoundments located in
fractured rock should therefore show that either (a) the rock matrix is of
such high permeability (as in the case of a fractured sandstone) that
significant head differences cannot be maintained between nearby fractures, or
(b) there are no significant head differences among any of the fractures in
the vicinity of the impoundment. The latter discussion would be very
difficult, requiring heads to be measured in a large number of individually
packed-off fractures.
t
4.2.2.8 Cleanup at Closure
Operation of the facility in a way that guarantees "no migration" requires
pumping, and the pumping cannot be relied upon to continue after active
4-11
-------
operation ceaaes. A complete cleanup of contamination"!* therefore required
at closure. Because auch procesaea aa molecular diffusion,-capillarity, and
r
osnosis can move contamination againat the gradient into clay argund an
Impoundment, the cleanup must Include sampling and any necessary, removal of
liners and surrounding natural materials. Aa noted, closure below the ground
water may be quite difficult to accomplish due to the constant influx of water
while removal or decontamination is proceeding. Reviewers should ensure that
site closure plans take account of the special nature of the required cleanup
and that they provide necessary funding.
4.2.2.9 Sites with Vulnerable Hydrogeology *
^•^•••^^•^•^•^•^••^•^•^^^•^^•^^^•••••••^^^^^••••"••^••l^^&^MI^^^^^Bl** v
Because the safe operation of impoundments that depend upon inward
gradients to meet the "no migration" standard depends on active management,
they are more vulnerable to failure because of poor compliance with the permit
than are impoundments that rely only upon passive barriers. In order to
provide an additional margin of safety, exemptions should only -be granted
where the site hydrogeology provides some elements of passive protection
against ground water contamination in the event of failure. For this reason,
EPA will not grant exemptions to Impoundments with inward gradients that are
located in areas of "vulnerable hydrogeology," as defined for disposal
facilities in the forthcoming Location Guidance being developed under
Section 3004(o)(7).
Note that the relevant definition of "vulnerable hydrogeology" is that
applying to disposal facilities rather than storage and treatment facilities.
This definition is used because an impoundment with an Inward gradient may not
be subject to the same active attention by the operator as a storage or
treatment facility. The ground water travel times to be calculated under this
definition are those which would occur in the Impoundment in the absence of
pumping, taking into account natural gradients and other pumping as provided
in the Guidance Manual.
4-12
-------
4'2'3 Q""^ 1° Conditions c.n.^r .- r^r^n^
«
>"y1""1*- ""«• '.Pounds.
b«co« .,kj.et to th. t.troflttlnj «qi)lr..Mt.
.„ long,r ..tl.fl,. th. prevl.10M
in conation. ,ta« £.ula c.UM r.TOe.tloo muli lnclud. ,„
f.ct. tM« »u!d i«llte. My of th, .KMptJOU „„, „ the Mde
.n.ly.U. pound «t.r .oaltorln, «.„!» Indiatl^ cont..ln.tlon. .nd .„
information on hydrogeology.
'
-------
OSWER Policy Directive 19484.00-1B
SECTIONS
FOURTH EXEMPTION
5.1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS
A fourth exemption to the cur/ace impoundment retrofitting requirements of
Section 3005(j)(l) is found in 3005CJX13):
The Administrator may modify the requirements of paragraph (1) in the case
of a surface Impoundment for which the owner or operator* prior to
October 1, 1984, has entered into, and is in compliance with, a consent
order, decree, or agreement with the Administrator or a State with an
authorized program mandating corrective action with respect to such
surface impoundment that provides a degree of protection of human health
and the environment which is at a minimum equivalent to that provided by
paragraph (1).
5.2 GUIDANCE FOR THE FOURTH EXEMPTION
To qualify for the fourth exemption, an owner or operator must have
entered into an enforceable agreement with EPA or the State (as appropriate).
Each of the following steps toward reaching the agreement should have been
completed before October 1, 1984, in order for EPA to consider that the
owner/operator had entered into It prior to that date:
o Oral understanding between the owner/operator and the regulatory
authority;
o Reduction of the understanding to written fora;
o Signature of the owner/operator; and
o Signature of the appropriate government official.
Although EPA 1» act aware of any unsigned agreements, it is conceivable that
auch an agreement would not have been signed by the -parties even though it had
been Implemented. In order to be eligible for this exemption in such a case,
«
the agreement should be written rather than verbal, it should be independently
verified, and it should be confirmed by all parties.
The steps above should also have been completed by October 1, 1984, in
cases where court orders, decrees, or consent judgments are Involved.
5-1
-------
However, two.additional steps are necessary in cases thst Involve court •
jurisdiction, although the steps do not necessarily have to have been
coapleted by October 1, 1984. The two additional steps arc: -
o Submission to a court with jurisdiction; and
o Approval and entry by the court.
In order to be eligible for this exemption, an owner/operator should be in
compliance with an agreement that meets all the criteria outlined in this
guidance at the time the exemption is granted. EPA must be-able to Judge the
compliance status at the time of the application and thereafter; for that
reason, the agreement should contain performance criteria that are measurable
and that oust be net on a specified schedule. Finally, the agreement should
be mandatory and enforceable under applicable lav: the court or responsible
government official must be able to invoke specified penalties and/or
renegotiate the agreement in the case of noncoopliance. If the agreement Is
renegotiated after October 1, 1984, however, a facility is not eligible for
this exemption because EPA considers that a renegotiated agreement was
"entered into" when it was renegotiated.
The agreement oust require corrective action that protects human health
and the environment to a degree equivalent to the Minimum Technological
Requirements of Section 3004(o)(l)(A) of RCRA. For surface Impoundments, the
Minimum Technological Requirements require a double liner system, a leachate
collection system between the liners, and ground water monitoring. The
primary goal of these requirements is to prevent migration of hazardous
constituents from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) units
and to detect the Inception of leaching and migration if it occurs.
It is EPA's position that in order to provide equivalent protection, an
agreement should be intended to contro*! leachate movement for a period of time
equivalent to that of the Minimum Technological Requirements. Site conditions
at the end of the agreement should be at least equivalent to those of a normal
closure plan. EPA expects that either the agreement will provide for closure
or that the closure requirements in current regulations will apply. For
storage impoundments, clean closure should be required: all hazardous wastes,
5-2
-------
•11 liner naterlals, and all contaminated soil (including saturated coils)
must be decontaminated or removed. For diapoaal impoundmenta, contaminant
levela In the ground water plume at the point of compliance should have been
reduced to levela that do not exceed any ground water protection standards
under 40 CFR 264.92; In addition, a cover of EPA-recommended design must be
required at closure. Finally, in order to allow the success of the corrective
action program to be assessed, a ground water monitoring program that is
functionally equivalent to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F
should have been Installed at the time of permitting.
•
In the case of an agreement between the owner/operator and a State, the
State should have been at least a Phase I authorized State with the authority
to enter into and enforce such agreements.
5-3
-------
REFERENCES
Clark, J. V., et al. Water Supply and Pollution Control. Harper and Row
Publishers, New York. 1977.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Inglewood Cliffs, N.J. 604pp.
Ross, Benjamin. Can Inward Gradients Guarantee "No Migration" from a Surface
Impoundment. Report prepared by Disposal Safety, Inc., for U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid Waste, Land Disposal Branch, under contract number
68-01-7237. 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft RCRA Guidance Document: Surface
Impoundments, Liner Systems, Final Cover, and Freeboard Control.
July 1982a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
SW-846. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Stock no.
055-002-81001-2. Second edition, July 1982b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Ground Water Monitoring Guidance for Owners and Operators of
Interim Status Facilities. SW-963. March 1983.
U.S. Envlronoental Protection Agency. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for
Subpart F, Ground Water Protection. Washington, D.C. 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Modeling Flow Through
Clay Liners to Determine Liner Thickness. EPA-530/SW-84-001. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. April, 1984a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Permit Applicants Guidance Manual for
Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities. EPA
530/SW-84-004. Washington, D.C. 198Ab.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft RCRA Ground Water Monitoring
Enforcement Guidance Document. Available from U.S. EPA Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, Washington, D.C. (202) 475-9320. 1985 (August).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on Implementation of the
Minimum Technological Requirements of HSWA of 1984, Respecting Liners and
Leachate Collection Systems. EPA/530-Sy-85-012. U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste, 401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 200031 1985a (May 24).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Minimum Technology Guidance
on Double Liner Systems for Landfills and Surface Impoundments—Design,
Construction, and Operation. EPA/530-SW-85-014. U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste, 401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20003. 1985b (May 24).
Ref-1
-------
D»S. Envlroaoent
Hydraulic
,nd
K
Ref-2
-------
APPENDIX A
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 198A (PL 98-616)
SECTION 215
-------
Sec. 215. Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Is amended by
adding the following nev subsection after subsection (1):
"(J) INTERIM STATUS SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS.-(1) Except as provided In
paragraph (2), (3), or (4), each surface impoundment in existence on the date
of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and
qualifying for the authorization to operate under subsection (e) of this
section shall not receive, store, or treat hazardous waste after the date four
years after such date of enactment unless such surface Impoundment Is in
compliance with the requirements of section 3004(o)(l)(A) which would apply to
such impoundment If it were new.
"(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any surface
Impoundment which (A) has at least one liner, for which there is no evidence
that such liner is leaking; (B) Is located more than one-quarter Bile from an
underground source of drinking water; and CO Is In compliance with generally
applicable ground water monitoring requirements for facilities with permits
under subsection (c) of this section.
"(3) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any surface
impoundment which (A) contains treated waste water during the secondary or
subsequent phases of an aggressive biological treatment facility subject to a
permit issued under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (or which holds such
treated waste water after treatment and prior to discharge); (B) Is In
compliance with generally applicable ground water monitoring requirements for
facilities with permits under subsection (c) of this section; and (C)(i) is
part of a facility In compliance with section 301(b)C2) of the Clean Water
Act, or (11) in the case of a facility for which no effluent guidelines
required under section 304(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act are in effect and no
permit under section 402(a)(l) of such Act implementing section 30l(b)(2) of
such Act has been Issued, is part of a facility in compliance with a pemit
under section 402 of such Act, which Is achieving significant degradation of
toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents contained in the untreated waste
stream and which has Identified those toxic pollutants and hazardous
constituents to the appropriate permitting authority.
"(4) The Administrator (or the State, in the case of a State with an
authorized program), after notice and opportunity for comment, may modify the
requirements of paragraph (1) for any surface Impoundment if the owner or
operator demonstrates that such Is located, designed and operated so as to
assure that there will be no migration of any hazardous constituent Into
ground water or surface water at any future time. The Administrator or the
State shall take into account locational criteria established under section
3004(o)(7).
"(5) The owner or operator of any surface Impoundment potentially
subject to paragraph (1) who has reason to believe that on the basis of
paragraph (2), (3), or (4) such surface impoundment Is ..:t required to comply
with the requirements of paragraph (1), shall apply to the Administrator (or
the State, In the case of a State with as authorized program) not later than
twenty-four months after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 for a determination of the applicability of paragraph
(1) (in the case of paragraph (2) or (3)) or for a modification of the
A-l
-------
requirements of paragraph (1) (in the case of paragraph (OX, with respect to
•uch surface iapoundmeot. Such owner or operator shall provide,.with such
application, evidence pertinent to such decision, including: 7
"(A),- an application for a final determination regarding the
issuance of a permit under subsection (c) of this section for auch
facility, if not previously submitted;
"(B) evidence as to compliance with all applicable ground water
monitoring requirements and the Information and analysis from such
monitoring;
"(C) all reasonably ascertalnable evidence as to whether such
surface impoundment is leaking; and
"(D) in the case of applications under paragraph (2) or (3), a
certification by a registered professional engineer with academic
training and experience in ground water hydrology that*
"(1) under paragraph (2), the liner of such surface
impoundment is designed, constructed, and operated in accordance
with applicable requirements, auch surface impoundment is Bore than
one-quarter mile from an underground source of drinking water and
there is no evidence such liner is leaking; or
"(11) under paragraph (3), based on analysis of those toxic
pollutants and hazardous constituents that are likely to be present
In the untreated waste stream, such impoundment satisfies the
conditions of paragraph (3).
In the case of any surface impoundment for which the owner or operator fails
to apply under this paragraph within the time provided by this paragraph or
paragraph (6), such surface Impoundment shall comply with paragraph (1) not
withstanding paragraph (2), (3), or (4). Within twelve months after receipt
of such application and evidence and not later than thirty-six months after
such date of enactment, and after notice and opportunity to comment, the
Administrator (or, if appropriate, the State) shall advise such owner or
operator on the applicability of paragraph (1) to such surface impoundnent or
as to whether and how the requirements of paragraph (1) shall be modified and
applied to such surface Impoundment.
"(6)(A) In any case in which a surface impoundment becomes subject to
paragraph (1) after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Anendments of 1984 due to the promulgation of additional listings or
characteristics for the identification of -hazardous waste under section 3001,
the period for compliance in paragraph (1) shall be four years after the date
of such promulgation, the period for demonstrations under paragraph (4) and
for submission of evidence under paragraph (5) shall be not later than
twenty-four months after the date of such promulgation and the period for the
Administrator (or, if appropriate, the State) to advise such owners or
operators under paragraph (5) shall be not later than thirty-six months after
the date of promulgation. '
"(B) In any case in which a surface Impoundment is initially determined
to be excluded from the requirements 'of paragraph (1) but due to a change in
condition (including the existence of a leak) no longer satisfies the
provisions of paragraph (2), (3), or^(4) and therefore becomes subject to
paragraph (1), the period for compliance in paragraph (1) shall be two years
after the date of discovery of such change of condition, or in the case of a
surface impoundment excluded under paragraph (3) three years after such date
of discovery.
A-2
-------
*C7)CA) The Administrator Khali study and report to the Congress on the
number, range of alee, construction, likelihood of hazardous constituents
•igrating into ground water, and potential threat to human bealtfir and the
envlronaent of,-exist ing surface impoundments excluded by paragraph (3) from
the requirements of paragraph (1). Such report shall address the need,
feasibility, and estimated costs of subjecting such existing surface
impoundments to the requirements of paragraph (1).
"(B) In the case of soy existing surface impoundment or class of surface
impoundments from which the Administrator Cor the State in, the case of a
State with an authorized program) determines hazardous constituents are likely
to migrate into ground water, the Administrator Cor; if appropriate, the
State) is authorized to impose such requirements as Bay be necessary to
protect human health and the environment, Including the requirements of
section 3004(o) which would apply to such Impoundments if tbey were new.
"CO In the case of any surface impoundment excluded by paragraph (3)
from the requirements of paragraph CD which is subsequently determined to be
leaking, the Administrator Cor, if appropriate, the State) shall.require
compliance with paragraph CD, unless the Administrator Cor, if appropriate,
the State) determines that such compliance is not necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
"(8) In the case of any surface impoundment in which the liners and leak
detection system have been installed pursuant to the requirements of paragraph
CD and in good faith compliance with section 3004(o) and the Administrator's
regulations and guidance documents governing liners and leak detection
systems, no liner or leak detection system which is different from that which
was so installed pursuant to paragraph CD shall be required for such unit by
the Administrator when Issuing the first permit under this section to such
facility. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the Administrator froa
requiring installation of a new liner when the Administrator has reason to
believe that any liner Installed pursuant to the requirements of this
subsection is leaking.
"(9) In the case of any surface Impoundment which has been excluded by
paragraph C2) on the basis of a liner meeting the definition under paragraph
Cl2)CA)Cil), at the closure of such impoundment the Administrator shall
require the owner or operator of such impoundment to remove or decontaminate
all waste residues, all contaminated liner material, and contaminated soil to
the extent practicable. If all contaminated soil is not removed or
decontaminated, the owner or operator of such Impoundment shall be required to
comply with appropriate post-closure requirements, including but not limited
to ground water monitoring and corrective action.
"CIO) Any Incremental cost attributable to the requirements of this
subsection or section 3004(o) shall not be considered by the Administrator Cor
the State, In the case of a State with an authorize^ program under section 402
of the Clean Water Act)-
"CA) in establishing effluent limitations and standards under
section 301, 304, 306, 307, or 402 of the Clean Water Act based on
effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated any time before
twelve months after the date of'enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Aaendoents of 1984; or
A-3
-------
"(B) In establishing any other effluent limitations to C^/ry out
the provisions of section 301, 307, or 402 of the Clean'Water Act on or
before October 1, 1986. * ^
"(11)(A) ,lf the Administrator allows a hazardous waste whlcfTla
prohibited from one or more methods of land disposal under subsection (d),
(e), or (f) of section 3004 (or under regulations promulgated by the
Administrator under such subsections) to be placed In a surface impoundment
(which Is operating pursuant to interim status) for storage or treatment, such
Impoundment shall meet the requirements that are applicable to new surface
impoundments under section 3004(o)(l), unless such impoundment meets the
requirements of paragraph (2) or (4).
"(B) In the case of any hazardous waste which is prohibited from one or
more methods of land disposal under subsection (d), (e), or (g) of section
3004 (or under regulations promulgated by the Administrator under such
subsection) the placement or maintenance of such hazardous waste in a surface
impoundment for treatment is prohibited as of the effective date of such
prohibition unless the treatment residues which are hazardous are, at a
minimum, removed for subsequent management within one year of the entry of the
waste into the surface impoundment.
"(12)(A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection, the
term 'liner* means-
"(1) a liner designed, constructed, Installed, and operated to
prevent hazardous waste from passing into the liner at any time during
the active life of the facility; or
"(11) a liner designed, constructed, installed, and operated to
prevent hazardous waste from migrating beyond the liner to adjacent
subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time during the
active life of the facility.
"(B) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'aggressive
biological treatment facility* means a system of surface impoundments In which
the Initial impoundment of the secondary treatment segment of the facility
utilizes Intense mechanical aeration to enhance biological activity to degrade
waste water pollutants and
"(1) the hydraulic retention time in such initial Impoundment is no
longer than S days under normal operating conditions, on an annual
average basis;
"(11) the hydraulic retention time in such initial Impoundment is no
longer than thirty days under normal operating conditions, on an annual
average basis: Provided* That the sludge in such Impoundment does not
constitute a hazardous waste aa identified by the extraction procedure
toxicity characteristic in effect on the date of enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid waste Amendments of 1984; or
"(ill) such system utilizes activated sludge treatment In the first
portion of secondary treatment. ,
"(C) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'underground source
of drinking water* has the same meaning as provided In regulations under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (title XIV of the Public Health Service Act).
A-4
-------
the
October 1, 1984. has entered
decree, or agreement with the n
program .andating corrective action
9^'? • ^8«e of P^UcS
a BinlBun, equivalent to that
of paragraph (i) ln
operator-, prior to
« conaent order
authorized '
by ^ragrph .
«Tlro— «
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON THE LOCATION OF
AQUIFERS IDENTIFIED AS UNDERGROUND SOURCES
OF DRINKING WATER
-------
ALABAMA
State Agency Contacts;
Hr. John Peole, Chief
Ground-Water Section
Department of Environmental
Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205) 271-7832
Mr. David Bolln
UIC Coordinator
State Oil and Gas Board
of Alabama
Drawer "0"
University, AL 35486
(205) 349-2852
IPA Contact; . >-
Mr. Bill Taylor ;
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-3866 (404) 347-3866
ALASKA
Sta te Agency Contac11
C. V. Chatterton, Chairman
Chairman, Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission
3001 Porcupine Drive
Anchorage, AK 99501
(208) 334-4440
Mr. Richard Neve
Commissioner, Department of
Environmental Conservation
Touch 0
Juneau, AK 99811
(907) 456-2600
EPA Contact:
Mr. Jerry Opatz
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, VA 98101
FIS 399-4092 (206) 442-1225
ARIZONA
State Agency Contaeta;
Mr. Chuck Anders
Department of Health Services
1740 Vest Adams Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 255-1177
Mr. Rudy Ybarra
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
1645 Vest Jefferson, Suite 420
Phoenix, AZ 65007
(602) 255-5161
EPA Contact;
Mr. Nathan Lau
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Fraxiciaco, CA 94105
FTS 454-8267 (415) 974-7284
B-2
-------
ARKANSAS
State Agency Contacts;
Mr. A. L. £park
Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology
Water Division
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
(501) 562-7444
Mr. David Morrow
Oil and Gas Commission
314 East Oak Street
£1 Dorado, AR 71720
(501) 862-4965
EPA Contact: . ^
Mr. Bill Honker
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1201 Hn Street
Dallas, TX 75270
FIS 729-2774 (214) 767-2600
CALIFORNIA
State Agency Cootactit
Mr. Mike Campos
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
(916) 322-3133
Mr. M. C. Mefferd
Division of Oil and Gas
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1310
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-9686
EPA Contact:
Mr. Nathan Lau
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 454-8267 (415)'974-7284
COLORADO
State Agency Contacts;
Mr, William Smith
Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission
Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street - 7th Floor
Denver, CO
(303) 866-3531
Mr. Rick Karlin
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue ,
Denver, CO 80220
(303) 320-8333 £*t. 3453
EPA Contact:
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
FXS 564-1542 (303) 837-2731
B-3
-------
CONNECTICUT.. .
State Agency Contact;
Mr. WesleyrWlnterbottoa
Water Compliance Unit
Department of Environmental
Protection
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 556-5903
DELAWARE
State Agency Contact;
Mr. Philip Cherry
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1402
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736-5741
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Local Agency Contact;
Mr. Wllliaa B. Johnson
Director, Department of
Environmental Services
5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20032
(202) 629-3415
FLORIDA
State Agency Contacts;
Dr. Rodney DeHan
Assistant Bureau Chief
Department of Environmental
Regulation
Twin Towers Office Bldg.
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301-8241
(904) 483-3601
Mr. David Curry
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Geology
903 W. Tennessee
Tallahassee, Fl 32304
(904) 488-2219
EPA Contact:
Mr. Greg Charest
UIC Repreaentatlye
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223-5529 (617) 223-6486
EPA Contact;
Mr. George Hoessel
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19106
FTS 597-9800 (215) 597-9800
EPA Contact;
Mr. George Hoessel
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19106
FTS 597-9800 (215) 597-9800
EPA Contact;
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S.. EPA. Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-3866 (404) 347-3866
B-4
-------
GEORGIA
State Agency Contact;
Mr. Willlaa H. McLemore, Ph.D
State Geologist
UIC Program Manager
Georgia Geologic Survey
19 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-3214
GUAM
State Agency Contact;
Mr. Jin Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, Guam 96910
0-11-671-646-8863
HAWAII
State Agency Contact;
Mr. Mel Koizumi
Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 548-6767
IDAHO
State Agency Contact;
Mr. A. Kenneth Dunn, Director
Director, Department of Water
Resources
Statehouse
Boise, ID 63720
(208) 554-4479
ILLINOIS
State Agency Contact*;
Mr. Bill Radlinski
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Division of Land/Noise
Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-9898
EPA Contact; - -
Mr. Bill Taylor ;
VIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
FIS 257-3866 (404) 347-3866
EPA Contact;
Mr. Nathan Lau
DIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 454-8267 (415) 974-7284
EPA Contact;
Mr. Nathan Lau
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 454-8267 (415) 974-7284
EPA Contact;
Mr. Jerry Opatz
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-4092 (206) 442-1225
EPA Contact;
Mr. John Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region V .
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-1502 (312) 353-2151
B-5
-------
Mr. George R. Lane
Departaent of Mining and Minerals
Oil and Gas Division
Vllllaa C.,.Stratton Office Building
400 South Spring Street
Springfield, It 62706
(217) 782-7756
INDIANA
State Agency Contact*;
Mr. Earl Bohner
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 V. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IK 46206
(317) 633-0735
Mr. Gary Frlcke
Division of Oil and Gas
911 State Office Building
Indianapolis, IN 46206
(217) 232-4055
IfA Contact:
Mr. John Taylor
DIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-1502 (312) 353-2151
IOWA
State Agency Contacts:
Mr. Darrell McAllister
Director, Program Development
Dlvlson
Iowa Department of Water, Air &
Waste .Management
Henry A. Wallace State Office Bldg.
900 East Grand
Des Molnes, IA 50319
(515) 281-8692
* .
Mr. Morris Preston
Chief, Water Resource Development
Branch
Iowa Department of Water, Air &
Waste Management
Henry A. Wallace State Office Bldg.
900 East Grand
Des Molnes, IA 50319
(515) 281-8877
EPA Contac_t»
Harold Owens, Chief
Ground Water Section
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, MO 66101
(913) 236-2608
B-6
-------
KANSAS
State Agency Contacts;
Mr. William R. Bryaon
Manager, Bureau of Oil Field
& Environmental Geology
Kansas Department of Health 6
Environment
Forbes Field, Bldg. 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 862-9360 Ext. 219
Mr. Jim Schoof
Oil and Gas Conservation Division
Kansas Corporation Commission
200 Colorado/Derby Bldg.
212 Vest First Street
Wichita, KS 67202
(316) 263-2027
KENTUCKY
State Agency Contacts:
Mr. Donald S. Harker, Jr.
Director
Water Management Division
KY Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet
Fort Boone Plaza
18 Relll Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3410
Mr. Henry Morgan
Director
Oil and Gas Division
Dept. of Mines and Minerals
P.O. Box 680
Lexington, KY 40586
(606) 254-0367
LOUISIANA
State Agency Contacts;
Mr. Jim Welsh
Director, UIC and Mining Division,
Office of Conservation
Department of Natural Resources ,
P.O. Box 44275
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
EPA Contact: .. ._
Mr. Harold Owens
Chief, Ground Water Section
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, MO 66101
FTS 757-2812 (913) 236-2808
EPA Contact:
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV •
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, CA 30365
FTS 257-3866 (404) 347-3866
EPA Contact;
Mr. Bill Honker
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 729-2774 (214) 767-2600
B-7
-------
Mr. Fritz. Spencer
Department of Natural Resources
Office of Conservation
P.O. Box 44275
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(504) 342-5515
MAINE
State Agency Contact:
Mr. Robert Nunan
Division of Environmental Evaluation
and Lake Standards
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
Statehouse, Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-2437
MARYLAND
State Agency Contact;
Mr. Larry Leasner
Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
Office of Environmental Programs
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
FTS 932-5740 (301) 383-5740
MASSACHUSETTS
"State Agency Contact:
Mr. Mark Pare
Division of Water Pollution Control
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5698
MICHIGAN
State Agency Contact:•
Mr. Too Segall
Michigan Department of
Natural Resources
Geological Survey Division '
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, MI 48926
(517) 373-8014
EPA Contact;
Mr. Greg Chare at
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223-5529 (617) 223-6486
EPA Contact;
Mr. George Hoessel
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19106
FTS 597-9800 (215) 597-9800
EPA Contact;
Mr. Greg Charest
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223-5529 (617) 223-6486
EPA Contact;
Mr. John Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region V -
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-1502 (312) 353-2151
B-8
-------
MINNESOTA
State Agency Contact:
Mr. John Helck
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. Country Road B-2
Rosevllle, MN 55113
(612) 296-7787
MISSISSIPPI
State Agency Contact;
Mr. Fred Hilie
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209
(601) 961-5171
MISSOURI
State Agency Contacts;
Mr. Kenneth Deason
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Geology and Land Survey
111 Fairgrounds Road
Rolla, MO 65401
(314) 364-1752
Mr. Gordon Ackley
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
2010 Missouri Boulevard
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-3241
• .
MONTANA
State Agency Contacts;
Mr. Charles Malo
Montana Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission
2535 St. Johns Avenue
Billings, MT 59101
(406) 656-0040
Mr. Steve Pilcher /
Water Quality Bureau
Dept. of Health & Environmental
Sciences
Cogswell Bldg.
Billings, MT
(406) 499-2406
ZPA Contactt " ^
Mr. John Taylor
UIC Representative "
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
PIS 886-1502 (312) 353-2151
EPA Contact:
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-3866 (404) 347-2'
EPA Contact:
Mr. Harold Ovens
Chief, Ground Water Section
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, MO 66101
FTS 757-2812 (913) 236-2808
EPA Contact:
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
FTS 564-1542 (303) 837-2731
B-9
-------
NEBRASKA
State Agency Contact!:
Mr. Jay Rlngenberg
Chief (1422), Pernits/ticenses
Section
Nebraska Dept. of Environmental
Control
P.O. Box 94877, Statehouse Stn.
Lincoln, N£ 65809
(402) .471-2186
Mr. Paul Roberts
Director (1425), Oil & Gas
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 399
Sidney, NE
(308) 254-4595
NEW HAMPSHIRE
State Agency Contact;
Mr. Michael A. Sills, P.E.
Ground Water Protection Division
Ground Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission
P.O. Box 95, Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-2755
NEW JERSEY
State Agency Contact:
Mr. Wayne Nutchlnson
Program Manager
New Jersey Geological Survey
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
P.O. Box CN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-0668
NEW MEXICO
State Agency Contacts;
Paige Morgan
Environmental Improvement Division
P.O. Box 966
Sante Fe, KM 87503
(505) 984-0020 Ex 281
EPA Contactt : •
Harold Owens •
Chief, Ground Water Section
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, MO 66101
PIS 757-2812 (913) 236-2808
EPA Contact?
Mr. Greg Charest
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223-5529 (617) 223-6486
EPA Contact:
Mr. Peter Acker
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region II
Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York City, NY 10278
FIS 264-1800 (212) 264-1800
EPA Contact:
Mr. Bill Honker
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1201 Eln Street
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 729-2774 (214) 767-2600
B-10
-------
Prenti«,s Morgan
Oil Conservation Division
P.O. Box 2088
Sante Fe, 1TM 87501
(505) 827-2434
NEW YCRJC
State Agency Contact*:
Mr. Daniel fiarolo
Director, Division of Water
Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-6674
Mr. Gregory Sovas
Director, Division of Mineral
Resources
Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-9337
NORTH CAROLINA
State Agency Contact;
Mr. Perry Nelson
Groundwater Section
Division of Environmental
Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-5083
NORTH DAKOTA
State Agency Contacts;
Mr. Wesley Norton
Chief Enforcement Official
Oil and Gas Division
North Dakota Industrial Commission
900 East Boulevard
Bismarck, ND 58505
(701) 224-2969
EPA Contact:
Mr. Peter Acker
VIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region II
Federal Building
26 Federal Plazi
New York City, NY 10278
FTS 264-1800 (212) 264-1800
EPA Contact:
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-3866 (404) 347-3866
EPA Contact:
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
I860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
FTS 564-1542 (303) 837-2731
B-ll
-------
Mr. Francis Schvindet
Director,' Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control
North Dakota Division of Health
1200 Mlaaourl Ave.
Bismarck, KD 58501
(701) 224-4538
OHIO
State Agency Contact*;
Mr. Steve White
Ohio EPA
Hazardous Waste Division
Box 1049
361 E. Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43216
(614) 466-7220
Mr. Dennis Crist
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Oil and Gas Division
Fountain Square, Building A
Columbus, OH 43224
(614) 265-6926
EPA Contact:
Mr. John Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Regloa V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, II 60604
FTS 886-1502 (312) 353-2151
OKLAHOMA
State Agency Contacts:
Mr. Donald Hensch
Department of Health
Industry and Solid Waste Service
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 271-5338
Mr-.' Tal Oden
Corporation Commission
DIC
Jim Thorpe Office Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 521-2500
EPA Contact:
Mr. Bill Honker
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 729-2774 (214) 767-2600
OREGON
State Agency Contact;
Mr. Frederick J. Hansen
Director, Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 1760
522 S. W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97207
(503) 229-5395
EPA Contact;
Mr. Jerry Opatz
UIC Representative"
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-4092 (206) 442-1225
B-12
-------
Mr. Donal.d Hull
State'Ceologist
Oregon Department of Geology and
Minerali-Industries
1005 SUte Office Building
1440 S. V. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 229-5580
PENNSYLVANIA
State Agency Contact:
Mr. Lewie Berchlnl
Department of Environmental
Resources
P.O. Box 2060
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-2666
PUERTO RICO
Agency Contact:
Mr. Carl Axel P. Soderberg
Vice Chairman
Environmental Quality Board
Box 11488
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910-1488
RHODE ISLAND
State Agency Contact:
Mr. Michael Annarummo
Industrial Facilities and Monitoring
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental
Management
75 Davis Street, Health Building
Providence, Rl 02908
(401) 277-2234
SOUTH CAROLINA
State Agency Contact;
.Mr. Don Duncan
Groundwater Program .
Water Supply Division ,
Environmental Quality Control
Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 758-5213
EPA Contact:
Mr. George Hoessel
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19106
FTS 597-9800 (215) 597-9800
EPA Contact;
Mr. Peter Acker
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region II
Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York City, NY 10278
FTS 264-1800 (212) 264-1800
EPA Contact:
Mr. Greg Charest
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223-5529 (617) 223-6486
EPA Contact;
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-3866 (404) 347-3866
fl-13
-------
SOUTH DAKOXA_
State Agency Contact*;
Mr. Mark Steichen
Director, Office of Drinking Water
Joe Foss Bldg.
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 773-3754
Mr. Jim Nelson
Director, Division of Water and
Natural Resources
Joe Foss Bldg.
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 344-2229
TENNESSEE
State Agency Contacts;
Mr. Terry K. Cothron
Director, Division of Ground-Water
Protection
Office of Water Management
Department of Health and Environment
T.E.R.R.A. Building, 7th Floor
150 Ninth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37219-5404
(615) 741-7206
TEXAS
State Agency Contacts:
'Mr. William Xleffit
UIC Section
Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 13087 - Capital Station
1700 North Congress Ave.
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 475-7098
Mr. Jerry Mulllean
UIC Section
Railroad Conoisslon
P.O. Box Drawer 12967
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 445-1373
IPA Contact; . " ^
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region Till
I860 Lincoln Street ~~
Denver, CO 80295
FTS 564-1542 (303) 037-2731
EPA Contact:
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-3866 (404) 347-3866
EPA Contact;
Mr. Bill Honker
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 729-2774 (214) 767-2600
B-14
-------
UTAH
State Agency Contacts*
Ms. Dlann*-R. Nielson
Director, Division of Oil, Gas
and Mining
Utah Dept. of Natural Resources
& Energy
4241 State Office Bldg.
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
(801) 533-5771
Mr. Calvin Sudweeks
Director, Bureau of Water Pollution
Control
Utah Department of Health
150 Vest North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
(801) 533-6146
VERMONT
State Agency Contact;
Mr. David Butterfleld
Chief, Ground Water Management
Section
Department of Water Resources and
Environmental Engineering
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpeller, VT 05602
(802) 828-2761
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Agency Contact:
Ms-. Angel LeDron
Commissioner, Department of
Conservation and Cultural Affairs
P.O. Box 4340
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas 00801
(809) 774-3320
EPA Contactt -
Mr. Patrick Crotty •
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1660 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
PTS 564-1542 (303) 837-2731
EPA Contact?
Mr. Greg Charest
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223-5529 (617) 223-6486
EPA Contact:
Mr. Peter Acker
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region II
federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York City, NY 10278
FTS 264-1800 (212) 264-1800
B-15
-------
VIRGINIA ...
State Agency Contact*t
Dr. James*. Kenley, M.D.
State Department of Health
State Health Commission
Jaaet Madison Bldg.
109 Governor Street
Richmond* VA 23219
(804) 786-5569
Mr. Ton Fulner
Assistant Commissioner
Department of Labor and Industry
205 North Fourth Street
Richmond, VA 23241
(703) 626-8115
Mr. Robert Taylor
State Department of Health
State Health Commission
James Madison Bldg.
109 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786-5569
WASHINGTON
State Agency Contacts
Mr. Brian Boyle
Commissioner, Public Lands (M/S QW-21)
Public Lands Building
Department of Natural Resources
Olympla, VA 98504
(206) 753-5317
Mr. Ray Lasmanls
State Geologist
Division of Geology & Earth Resources
Department of Natural Resources
Olympla, VA 98504
(206) 459-6375
Ms. Karen Rahm
Secretary, Department of Social and
Health Services
Olympia, VA 98504
(206) 753-3395 t
Mr. Donald V. Moos
Director, Department of Ecology
Mall Stop PV-11
Olympla, VA 98504
(206) 459-6169
EPA Contact: . •' . -
Mr. George Hoessel
DIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19106
FTS 597-9800 (215) 597-9800
EPA Contact?
Mr. Jerry Opatz
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, VA 98101
FTS 399-4092 (206) 442-1225
B-16
-------
VEST VIRGINIA
State Agency Contact:
Mr. Rick Helvin
Department of Natural Resources
1201 Creenbriar Street, Eaat
Charleston, W 25311
(304) 348-5935
WISCONSIN
State Agency Contact;
Mr. Greg Becker
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Bureau of Water Supply
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-7652
WYOMING
State Agency Contacts:
Mr. Donald Basko
Director, Oil & Gas Commission
P.O. Box 2640
Casper, WY 82602
(307) 234-7147
Mr. William Garland
Director, Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1111 E. Lincoln Way
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7781
IPA Contact: •
Mr. George Hoessel
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19106
FTS 597-9800 (215) 597-9800
EPA Contact:
Mr. John Taylor*
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, II 60604
FTS 886-1502 (312) 353-2151
EPA Contact;
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
FIS 564-1542 (303) 837-2731
B-17
------- |