v>EPA
              United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
            Office of
            Solid Waste and
            Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:  948i.o?(84)

TITLE:  Requirement for Appendix VIII Analysis
               APPROVAL DATE

               EFFECTIVE DATE;

               ORIGINATING OFFICE:

               0 FINAL
            6-18-84


            6-18-84


               Office of Solid Waste
               D DRAFT

                STATUS:
            [ ] -"A- Pending OMB approval ,
            [ ]  B- Pending1 AA-OSWER approval
            [ ]  C- For^ review &/or comment
            T 1 7,0-:. In development or circulating

REFERENCF(other documents):     Headquarters
  OSWER      OSWER      OSWER
/£    DIRECTIVE    DIRECTIVE   Di

-------
 PARTS  264  AND  265   SUBPART  F  - GROUND-WATER  PROTECTION
                                                DOC:   9481.07(84)
 Key  Words:

 Regulations:

 Subject:

 Addressee:


 Originator:

 Source  Doc:

 Date:

 Summary.'
Appendix VIII

40 CTR 270.14(c), 2.64 Subpart F

Requirement for Appendix VIII Analysis

Alexandra B. Smith, Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region X

John H. Skinner, Director, Office of Solid Waste

#9481.07(84)

6-18-84
     Owners/operators of regulated facilities where ground-water monitoring
indicates contamination must analyze the ground water for all Appendix VIII
constituents.

     Because owners/operators do not always know all of the hazardous wastes
and constituents that have been disposed at the facility, because some wastes
may leach-contaminants from the soil, and because there is the possibility of
waste decomposition and reaction forming new wastes, an Appendix VIII analysis
is the only way to determine with certainty what is leaking, how much is leaking
and what the possible hazard level may be.  With the completion of the Appendix
VIII analysis, the permit writer can set forth the ground water protection
standard, which consists of concentration limits for hazardous constituents, in
the compliance monitoring permit.

     The provision in the preamble to the Part 264 regulations that states,
"the constituent must be reasonably expected to be in or derived from the waste
contained in the regulated unit," applies to a facility that has already com-
pleted its Appendix VIII analysis and refers to the specification- of hazardous
constituents in the permit under §264.93.  The provision does not relieve the
owner/operator from conducting a full Appendix VIII analysis, but allows him/her
to prove to the Regional Administrator that certain hazardous constituents are
not from his/her facility and, therefore, should not be included in the facility's
ground-water monitoring standard.

-------
                                                             9^31.07 (SO
 Requirement  for  Appendix VIZI  Analysis
John H. Skinner,  Director
Office of Solid waste
                                              M I g 1984
Alexandra R. Smith,  Director
Air 6 Wasate Manage/went Division
EPA Region X
      In your nemo of  May 23,  1^94, you  requested guidance  in
 identifying the  rationale  for requiring  the  full Appendix VIII
 analyses from all facilities  exhibiting  ground-water contami-
 nation.  In particular, a  wood  treatment  facility operator  in
 your  region has  submitted  » Part  R permit  application at a
 site  where ground-water contamination has  been discovered.
 Pursuant to 40 CPP 270.14{c),  the permit  application must
 contain the results of a full  Appendix VTTT  analysis.  The
 operator is strongly  objecting  to this  requirement.  We also
 have 'a copy of the June 1  letters to E.  (Kika) de la Garza,
 and Honorable Denny Smith  from  Ernesta  P.  Barnes regarding
 this  issue.

      Analyzing for all Appendix VIII constituents is a f undancntal
 requirement of the ground-water monitoring program  and must bo
 performed after  a regulated unit  is believed to be  discharging
 hazardous constituents into the ground water based  on detection
 monitorinn results.   The regulations do  not  provide a mechanise
 for deleting any of the Appendix VIII constituents  from this
 analysis,  A facility operator  may not  know  all the wastes  and
 a 1 1 the hazardous constituents  from all  the  waste that has
 been  disposed in the  facility because of  lack of detailed
 controls, lack of records, or lack of analyses, especially
 from  past (pra PCP.A)  practices.  Also,  some  wastes  (e.g.,  very
 acidic or caustic wastes)  will  leach contaminants (e.g.,  lead,
 cadmium) from the soil.  Additionally,  there is often the
 possibility of waste  decomposition and  reactions forcing  new
 hazardous constituents.  For  these reasons,  an Appendix VIII
 analysis 1« the  only  way to determine, with  certainty, what  i«
 leaking, how much, and what the possible  hazard l«v»l n.ay  bo.

     Once the Appendix VIII analysis is  eorplote*,  the ground-
water protection standard  ig  e? t a^I i shpd  in  thf? COT-! i anc =
"onitorin;j permit ( s c r» <«264.92,  2^4.93  and  254. Q(^).  As  you
are aware, the? ground-water protection  standard sot."  forth
concentration limits  fcr hazardous constituents  («>254.Q1
and 264.9-1).   Thr- Pre/»"^]e languagn yep  c i t r<= to  the sp PC i f i cat i on  of  ha z? ri1ouc const i t ucf-^ .«.
 in the perr-it under «2^4.93.   At  that t i T ,  th
-------
concentration of all constituents  identifier!  frc~  Appendix
VTIT  (S264.98(h)(2)).  The provision that  'the constituent
must  be  reasonably  expected to be  in or derived  fror"  the  w?st&
contained  in the regulated unit,"  allows the  facility owner or
operator to prove to the Regional  Administrator  that  certain
hazardous  constituent? are not from his unit, and,  therefore, the
constituent should  not be included in his  facility's  ground-w?ter
monitoring standard.  This does not relieve the  owner or  operator
from  performing a full Appendix VIII analysis.

      V!e are currently evaluating an analysis  approach which
can show the absence of classes of Appendix-VIIT constituents.
The technique will  substantially reduce the economic  burden
placed en  a facility which must analyze for all  Appendix  VIII
constituents under  *«270 . 14(c)(4 )  and 264 .98(h)(2).   we hope
to issue a proposal describing such an approach  by  the end of
the sururer.
WH-565R:PSbar:as: nr.2106 :W?M:6/5/84
OSW-047

-------
                a.  Smith
     Requirement  for Appendix VIII analysis
    Prepare  for Skinner.1-s  signature
EPA Form 619Q- » («-72)
«H>cis r*»c* »O«M ?i AHO
•1W-71WMCM •*! «OT l( WHO.
(Xmovt Ait copy onfy, do not ttparatt rmaindir.)     MAIL CONTNOL SCHf OUtC
                                                                                            /

-------
                                    -3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       for  Appendix VIII Analysis

           Alexandra  B  Smith,  Director  r.i+i^r-^*^
           Afr 4  Waste  Management Division

       TO  John H.  Skinner, Director
           Office of  Solid  Waste (WH-562)

           Region X would like to request headquarters guidance In identifying the
           rationale  1n requiring full Appendix VIII analyses from all facilities
           exhibiting ground water contamination, regardless of the number of types
           of waste streams generated.  We recently received a letter (enclosed) to
           EPA from Senator Mark 0.  Hatfield (R/Or) regarding an Oregon wood treating
           facility.  The facility operator is currently in the process of applying
           for a RCRA permit pursuant to a Part B request.  Groundwater contamination
           has been discovered at the site and as a result, per 40 CFR 270.1* (c),
           the facility application  will have to contain the results of a ^;1
           Appendix VIII analysis.   The operator is strongly objecting to this
           requirement as the process producing this waste contains only three of the
           387 constituents listed in Appendix VIII.  He feels that the requirement
           for this analysis places  an unreasonable and unnecessary economic burden
          on the facility.   The letter from Senator Hatfield requests an answer to
          the need for this requirement in this instance.

           In attempting to respond  to this letter, the responsible permit writer for
          the facility consulted the preamble to the Part 264 regulations 1n an
          attempt to determine the  Intent in making this requirement a part of the
          Subpart F regulations, as well  as an element of the permit application
          under 40 CFR Part 270.  The language found in the preamble (see pages
          32295 and 32296)  indicates that the regulations would provide some
          provision for not requiring the full  analysis at all  facilities.
          Specifically (see page 32295, second column), the preamble states that "
          the Regional  Administrator makes three findings when identifying a
          constituent as  a  hazardous constituent under [40 CFR Part] 264.93.  First,
          the constituent must be  listed  in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261.
          Second, the constituent must have been detected in the ground water below
          a regulated unit.  Third, the constituent must be reasonably expected to
          be in or derived  from the waste contained in the regulated unit.Tn
          addition, page  32296 contains the following language: "The monitoring
          burden  associated with the use  of Appendix VIII depends in the first
          instance on the nature of the wastes placed in a regulated uni t.  bP~A does
          not believe that it is unreasonable to place a more extensive monitoring
          burden  on owners  and operators  who handle wastes that contain many
          potentially dangerous  constituents.   As will be discussed later in thi's
          preamble, the owner or operator will  be allowed to demonstrate that some
          Appendix  VIII constituents  cannot be in a regulated unit because of the
          nature  of the waste."
None of the other references in the preamble to the requirement  for
Appendix VIII analysis provide the rationale for the requirement  fo
facilities.  The preamble, therefore, appears to indicate  that the
Appendix VIII analysis would not be required of all faciliti
                                                                              an
                                                                           for all
                                                                              full
                                                                      es and  seems
EPA F*m 1320-4 (H... 3-74)

-------
   Contradict the language appearing in the actual regulations.

The facility in question is the first facility in Region X to be applying
for a RCRA permit that has evidence of groundwater contamination at the
time of application.  We do expect, however, that the issue will come up
with greater frequency as other land disposal facilities in the Region
that generate known and limited waste streams have Part 8 permit
applications called in.

He are responding to Senator Hatfield with a letter that explains that the
requirement for the Appendix VIII analysis is clearly identified in the
regulations.  We also intend to respond, per the guidance in the preamble,
that we will be willing to consider a demonstration from the facility
owner that analysis for some of the Appendix VIII constituents  (to be
identified by the facility owner) may be unreasonable due to the nature of
the waste stream generated by the facility wood treating process.


cc;RCRA Branch  Chiefs

-------