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. ------- |