v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9481.03(82)
TITLE: Waiving.GroundjWater Monitoring.Requirements^in-an
Authorized State
APPROVAL DATE: ii-u-82
EFFECTIVE DATE: ii-u-82
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
Office of Solid Waste
STATUS: [ ]
A- Pending OMB approval
B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
I J .c~ For review &/or comment ;
[•' ]„ D- In development or circulating
REFERENCElofher documents): Quarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
fE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Di
-------
PARTS 264 AND 265 SUBPART F - GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
DOC: 9481.03(82)
Key Words:
Regulations:
Subject:
Addressee:
Originator:
Source Doc:
Date:
Summary:
Authorized States, Ground-Water Monitoring
40 CFR 265.92(b)(l), (2) and (3)
Waiving Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements in an
Authorized State
James Scarbrough, Chief, Residuals Management Branch,
Region IV
John H. Skinner, Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste
#9481.03(82)
11-14-82 .
The objectives of the parameter list contained in §265.92(b)(1) do not
hinge on waste type received at the facility. Therefore, these parameters
should not be waived or substituted. The purpose of the initial sampling for
drinking water parameters is to identify aquifers that are already or are
becoming unsuitable as a drinking water source. Monitoring for these parameters
is essential, and may be waived only if the state already has equivalent infor-
mation or has an alternative approach to gathering the information.
The purpose of sampling for the parameters specified in §265.92(b)(2) and
(3) is oriented more to a particular facility and its impact. Thus, a State
can tailor the monitoring program in place of the Federal regulations if it can
still achieve the basic purpose and demonstrate "substantially equivalent"
environmental protection. It is inappropriate, however, for the Region to
issue a waiver for any of the parameters where it is implementing the program
since there is no waiver provision written into the Federal rules.
-------
9481.03 (82)
NOV JC| 1982
GBBS4nQ>wa te r *onitorin;} Requirements in an Authorized
John H. Skinner, Acting Diractor
office of Solid waste
Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch, Region IV
We ha V9,~ reviewed your draft le-ttar to Mr. . Al-Sred .CM p ley ;.. .
on the issue of waiving ground-water monitoring parameters for
facilities in Alabama. This memo responds to your request for
••juidance ori\ the issue. Your draft letter specified certain
conditions fn which it may be appropriate for waiving the
rsquirer-en t to monitor for some of tha parameters listed in
40 CPR 265.92(b) ( 1) , (2) and (3). «*e assures that the procedure
you propose would he implemented by the State and thus that
the crux of your request for guidance involves whether the
proposed procedure for "waiving" certain requirements would >>»
"substantially equivalent."
Two points are offered in response to your request. First,
we advise tnat the objectives of the parameter list contained in
$265.91(b) ( 1) , as expressed in the preamble and . background
documents, do not hinge on waste type received at the facility.
These parameters should not bo waived or substituted. Second,
while the faderal interim status program does not provide for
review of quality and indicator parameters on a f ac ility-by-f ac il i ty
basis. States willing to commit the resources may do so, providing
they show "substantially equivalent" environmental protection.
The purpose of the initial sampling for the drinking water
parameters required by 5255. 92( b) ( 1 ) is to identify "aquifers
associated with facilities that are already or are becoming
unsuitable as a drinking water source (45 PR 33194). This
information will serve to alert EPA and the States to i' problems
or potential problems in the aquifer which <*»ay not have previously
been known. The infojrmation also is lively to prove useful r.n
SPA and th« State when setting priorities for permit action.
•*on itorimj for these parameters is essential and ;nay be waived
only if th« State already has equivalent information on potentially
affected aquifers or has an alternate approach to gath«_'ing the
information in the same time frame.
The purpose of sampling for the parameters specified in
?265.92(b) (2) and (3) is oriented more to the particular facility
and its impact:
-------
* to[ pro vide data useful in any as-sessrierit of ground-water
contaiainattion after it has been fleterninert tnat a
- facility la leaking (5265.9 2(b ) ( 2) ) ; and
• to serve as indicators th^t the facility is
*nd that hazardous waste constituents are entering
the aquifer ( S265.92 (b) ( 3) ) .
If the State can achieve this basic purpose through a
tailored monitoring program, that would he acceptable in
place of the federal regulations as written. It is inappropriate,
however, for the Rag.ion to issue a waiver whore- it is
implementing the program since. :there- is no. waiver provision
written into the federal rules.
With regard to the approach you suggest for Alabama, we
it has soree aerit with rorjard to the objectives «->f
) ( 2) anrt (b)(3). we who lo hearted ly support your
position that any deviation from the tha indicator list (b)(3)
should require approval r>y the authorized State in order to
assure the capability of the nonitoring systca. It is important
that pluras developing during interim status be detected and
th« careful selection of parameters is crucial to that end.
with regard to the sn«cif ic scheme you suggest for Alabama,
the fact- that a particular parareter is absent in one sample is
not sufficient justification for a waiver. Sample error,
seasonal variation, and delayed arrival at the sampling point
:nust also be ruled out before the waiver could be justified.
In sua, we see no reason why a State with inter in
authorization should not be allowed, to exercise discretion in
adapting the requirements of «2f>5.92( b) { 1) and (b)(3) to
their own program. The 5265. 92( b) ( I ) requirements should
not be vaived however.
------- |