v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9481.05(84)
TITLE: Combining Ground Water Protection Programs in
RCRA Permits '
APPROVAL DATE: 5-22-34
EFFECTIVE DATE: 5-22-34
ORIGINATING OFFICE Office of Solid Waste
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS
REFERENCE (other documents):
A-. Pending". OMB approval
Bl Pending AA-OSWER approval'
C7i F°rv review(&/or comment i-
D-lIn development or circulatii
t ->f •''-• - •-**- _,
neadquarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
-------
PARTS 264 AND 265 SUBPART F - GROUND-WATER PROTECTION DOC: 9481.05(84)
Key Words: Compliance MoniCoring, Corrective Action, Permit Modifications,
RCRA Permits
Regulations: 40 CFR 270.14(c)(1),(2),(4),(6),(7),(8); 270.41(a)(5)(w);
264.98(h)(2)
Subject: Combining Ground Water Protection Programs in RCRA Permits
Addressee: Alexandra Smith, Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Originator: John H. Skinner, Director, Office of solid Waste
Source Doc: #9481.05(84)
Date: 5-22-84
Summary:
40 CFR 264.9Kb) allows permit writers to include more than one ground-
water protection program (i.e., detection monitoring, compliance monitoring,
corrective action) in a facility permit. An advantage of combining programs is-
that compliance levels are established for key constituents prior to the time
when fast action is needed. Imminent hazardous conditions, or the need to
protect fragile aquifers, would strongly suggest that an accelerated response
is necessary.
I"n a combined detection/compliance monitoring permit ground-water protection
standards for certain hazardous constituents shall become applicable immediately
upon finding a statistically-significant increase in detection-monitoring
parameters. These standards may be established in the initial permit or the
permit may establish procedures for establishing concentration limits once a
significant increase has occurred. If standards are established in the initial
permit, permit writers should only identify a small number of key constituents
and should select these constituents based on their presence, mobility, adverse
effects and likelihood of appearing in the ground water at concentrations above
accepted health limits.
Combining corrective action provisions with detection and/or compliance
monitoring programs may be somewhat more difficult. It may not be possible to
include a full, comprehensive corrective action plan in a permit because of the
complexity of site-specific hydrogeological and engineering characteristics.
It may be possible, however, to develop an interim program that would include
general steps to be taken to protect human health and the environment and would
require the collection of additional information on the specific remedy needed.
If_ an applicant wishes to have proposed ACL limits considered in establishing
the ground-water protection standard, the supporting ACL demonstration should
be submitted along with the initial Part B application.
It may be-difficult to obtain the information necessary to design a complete
combined permit. If no hazardous constituents have been detected in the ground-
water at the time EPA issues the combined permit, the regulations do not require
the applicant to submit detailed information necessary to establish permit «.
conditions for compliance monitoring or corrective action programs.
-------
9481.05 (84)
Combining Ground-water Protection Programs
in RCRA Permits
John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565)
Alexandra Smith, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, M/S .529
In your memo of March 14, 1984, you requested advice
as to whether an integrated ground-water permitting approach
is feasible and if so, that we provide draft language imple-
menting the concept. The approach is feasible and may be
necessary in f>me situations. Model language will be drafted
this summer.
The advantage of combining programs in a permit is that
compliance levels are already established for key constituents
prior to the time when fast action is needed. The regulations,
with clear supporting language in the preamble, allow the
specification of more than one program in a facility permit
(§264 .91(b)). In deciding whether to invoke this authority,
the permit writer should consider the potential adverse
effects on human health and the environment which might
occur during the administrative period necessary to revise
the permit. Imminent hazardous conditions, for instance, or
the need tio protect fragile aquifers would strongly suggest
that an accelerated response is necessary.
The first step in designing appropriate permit conditions
for facilities "suspected" of having contaminated ground
water is to use the authorities of §270 .14(c ) ( 1) , (2) and
(4) to attempt to determine whether contamination has, in
fact, occurred. If it is established that contamination has
occurred, the permit writer should either (1) invoke'the appli-
cation requirements of §270 .14(c)(7) or (8) and establish
either compliance monitoring or corrective action conditions
in the facility's permit, as appropriate, or (2) consider
combining compliance monitoring and corrective action programs
in the permit. If it is not possible to determine whether
contamination has occurred, or if it is shown that contamination
has nou in fact occurred, the permit writer should either (1)
invoke the application requirements of §2,70 .14 ( c ) ( 6 ) and
establish only a detection monitoring program in the permit,
or (2) consider issuing a combined detection/compliance program
permit or a permit combining all three programs.
-------
A combined detection monitoring/compliance monitoring
permit provides that ground-water protection scandards for
certain hazardous constituents shall become applicable
immediately upon finding a statistically-significant increase
in detection monitoring parameters. These ground-water
protection standards may be established in the permit at the
time of initial permitting or the permit may establish
procedures by which such limits are to be established once a
significant increase in detection monitoring parameters has
occurred. If ground-water protection standards are established
in the initial permit, it is suggested that only a small
number of key constituents be identified since establishment
of specific constituent limits may be time consuming. Moreover,
since the specification of an appropriate health-based limit
for any one of the constituents which do reach ground water
is sufficient to commence corrective action, exhaustive
lists are of little advantage. These constituents should be
selected in consideration of the following:
(1) presence in the waste;
(2) relative mobility, likelihood, of being among the first
constituents at point of compliance;
(3) known, documented adverse effects;
*
(4) likelihood of appearing in the ground water at
concentrations greater than the generally accepted
health limit.
At the same time that concentration limits (or procedures
for establishing such limits) become applicable, the permittee
should also be required to identify all hazardous constituents
from regulated units in ground water at the compliance point
i'n accordance with § 264 . 98 ( h) ( 2 ) . The Regional Administrator
should assess the appropriateness of the existing compliance
monitoring program in light of any new information resulting
from this analysis and, if necessary, initiate a permit
modification pursuant to §270 . 41(a)(2) to modify the compliance
monitoring program (e.g., to set standards for hazardous
constituents not previously identified or to adjust those
values or procedures previously established when necessary).
Combining corrective action provisions with detection
and/or compliance monitoring programs may be somewhat more
difficult. In many cases, it may not be possible to include
a full, comprehensive corrective action plan in a permit due to
the complexity of site-specific hydrogeological and engineering
characteristics. However, when the situation warrants, it
may be possible to develop an interim program which would
include general steps to be taken to protect human health
and the environment and would require the collection of
-------
additional information on the specific remedy needed. The
new information acquired pursuant to this interim program
would then provide the basis for a permit modification-
(pursuant to § 270 . 41(a)(2)) to establish a more detailed
corrective action program.
Some permit writers have encountered difficulties in
obtaining the information necessary to design a complete
combined permit. The permit application requirements of
§270.14(c) do not require the submission of detailed
information necessary to design a complete compliance or
comprehensive corrective action program. Section 270.14(c)
(7) provides that an applicant.can be required to submit
information necessary to establish a compliance monitoring
program only "if the presence of hazardous consitituents
has been detected in the ground water at the point of
compliance at the time of permit application. "Similarly,
§270.14(c)(3) provides that information in support of a
corrective action program is required only "if hazardous
constituents have been measured in the ground water which
exceed the concentration limits established under §264.94,
Table.1, or...(if such constituents have been measured]
over- background concentrations. "Thus, if no hazardous
constituents have been detected in ground water at the time
that EPA seeks to issue a combined permit, these regulations
do not require that the applicant submit information necessary
to establish permit conditions for compliance monitoring
or corrective' action programs. (In practice, of course,
applicants may find it desirable to submit the information
when they know the permit writer is drafting a combined
permit). .
There are possible problems that may arise when
distinguishing what will constitute "new information." in
order to initiate the permit modification process. In order
to justify application of this "new information" standard,
the information acquired after the time of permit issuance
(presumably through the "partial" compliance monitoring
program or the "interim" corrective action program) must
truly be information that was not available at the time of
initial permitting. It may be advisable to have your staff
identify the kinds of information, if any, that can be expected
to be acquired during the "partial" or "interim" compliance
monitoring and corrective action programs that would not
have been available at the time of initial permitting. It
is important to rememoer that any new permit conditions
arising from this new information must be imposed through a
formal permit modification allowing for public participation.
As noted earlier, the major basis for modification will be
§270 .41(a)(2) which allows permits to be modified to reflect
new information. However, permit writers may also be able
to rely upon § 270 . 41(a)(5)( iv) in making modifications to a
-------
corrective action program that has not brought the regulated
unit into compliance with the ground-water protection standard
within a reasonable period of time.
Finally, it is important to consider ACLs in the context
of a combined permit. The regulations contemplate that
ACLs will be considered during the time applicable to the
establishment of concentration limits based on background or
MCLs. See 47 Fed. Reg. 32298. In a combined permit, these
limits are estaolished at the time of initial permitting.
Accordingly, if an applicant wishes to have proposed ACL
limits considered in establishing the ground-ijater protection
standard, the supporting ACL demonstration should be submitted
along with the initial part B application. An owner/operator
may, of course, submit an ACL demonstration at any time
after the issuance of the combined permit, but such later
ACL request will not stay implementation of the intergated
permit conditions. See 47 Fed. Reg. 32307.
Your request for draft standard language in the form of a
model permit is being addressed in the redraft of the Permit
Writer's Guidance Manual. We will circulate drafts for your
comment this summer and keep you informed of the status of
its -development. Additionally, we are exploring the possibility
of changing the rules strengthening the combined permits
approach. There are obvious advantages to this approach,
including speeding up the process of initiating corrective
action, which may outweigh the up-front cost of additional
time and effort to produce the initial permits.
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. They help
us to focus our efforts where they will do the most good.
cc: Regional Division Directors, Regions I - IX
Sue Moreland-ASTSWMO •
------- |