United States
               Environmental Protection
            Office of
            Solid Waste and
            Emergency Response
                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

                                                DOC:  9481.03(82)
 Key  Words:





 Source Doc:


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


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.