vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9504.oi(84>
Enforcing Ground -Water Monitoring Requirements in
RCRA Part B Permit Applications
APPROVAL DATE:: 8'16-84
EFFECTIVE DATE:: 8-16'84
ORIGINATING OFFICE:: "office of solid waste
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
j
STATUS::
I ^ ] _;">- Pending OMB approval '
[ ] ;_B-"Pending ^AA-OSWER approval
[ ] * / C-;t For review &/or comment
['" ]' .D-, In rdevelopaent or circulatln
REFERENCr(6thVrd6cumehtsr: '• ,headquarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
fE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
DOC: 9504.01(84)
Key Words:
Regulations:
Subject:
Addressee:
Originator:
Source Doc:
Dace:
Summary:
Ground-Water Monitoring
40 CFR 270.14(c)(4), (6) and (7); 264.98(h)(2) and 264.99(f)
Part 261 Appendix VIII
Enforcing Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements in RCRA Part B
Permit Applications
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X, and Air and Hazardous Materials
Division Directors, Regions I-X
Courtney M. Price, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring, and Lee M. Thomas, Assistant Administrator,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
#9504.01(84)
8-16-84
In response to Regional requests to waive or selectively enforce ground-
water monitoring requirements for every Appendix VIII constituent, OSW has
proposed regulatory changes (FR, October 1, 1984) that it expects to promulgate
as a final rule in early 1985.
Until the proposed change becomes final', Regional enforcement personnel
would be permitted to assign low priority to the following monitoring violations:
1) failure to monitor for 11 Appendix VIII constituents which, because
they are unstable in water, are not detectable in ground water using
generally accepted analytical techniques; and
2) failure to monitor for 10 Appendix VIII constituents for which
there are no EPA-approved test methods.
Current Agency policy requires the analysis of all Appendix VIII chemicals
except for the 21 substances noted above. Owners/operators must continue to
monitor for certain Appendix VIII constituents that cannot be analyzed through
scan methodology because accepted test procedures do exist for these consti-
tuents. Regions should ordinarily take enforcement action when an owner/
operator fails to monitor for these constituents.
-------
9504.01
UNITED SI. TtJ ENVI^C'-MTNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
AUG 1G 1S34
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Enforcing Groundwacer Moni'toring Requirements in
RCRA Part B Permit Applications ^
FROM: Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Mcnitori:
Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
TO: Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors
Regions I-X
Existing regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) require owners and operators of hazardous
waste land disposal facilities to conduct groundwater monitoring
in order co obtain a Part B RCRA perait. (40 CFR 270.14(c) (4) ,
(6), and (7); 40 CFR 264.98(h)(2) and 264.99(f)). To satisfy
these requirements, owners and operators must, under certain
circumstances, monitor for each constituent listed at 40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix VIII.
Recently a number of Regional Offices, in response to
inquiries from the regulated community, have questioned whether
certain, gro_undwater_monitorLng Requirements .might, be waived in
appropriate circumstances". Specif ic'ially questioned is the
need to monitor for each and every constituent listed in
Appendix VIII.
There are essentially three arguments advanced to support
selective waiver of the regulatory requirements :
1) certain constituents^ listed in Appendix VIII are
un_s_t ab Lg.-Ch~war c r and-±heraiflrjB^-jtiLJL_ noc' Jb'e _d. ecected in
groundwater using generally accepted analytical techniques;
-------
- 2 -
\r 2) EPA-accepced, standardized eesc procedures do noc exist-
^for some Appendix VIII constituents.Uncil such procedures are '
specified. LfA shouldnot te^uitc facility owners Co monitor
for chese constituents; and J
3) certain constituent* are not analyzable by acan
oe_thodologyTTesting for these constituents is difficu 11, and
the~~Iridtviaual cheoical methods used, are very expensive and
should not be required unless there is some reason to believe
that such constituents are actually present in the groundvacer.
DISCUSSION
Any request to waive or selectively enforce groundwater
monitoring requirements runs counter Co the high enforcement
prioricy che Agency has assigned co groundwater monitoring
violations and must be viewed carefully. Nevertheless,' the
Agency recognizes that there is technical merit to gome of the •
eoneenelona set forth above and is~aevelopin^ regulacory
changes Co correct these problems. Proposal of ches'e changes
by the Office of Solid Waste is expected in Auguae 1984. and
chac Office plans to promulgate the changes as a final rule by
early 1985. "
fci^a^^^™"^^""^^^"^™™^^^ r
Recognizing the problems created by existing regulations
vwe believe that it is permissible for Regional enforcement
personnel to assign low priority to certain technical regula-
tory violations in appropriate circumstances. The first situa-
Cion concerns the regulation which currently requires permit
applicants to monitor for constituents which, because of their
chemical properties, are not detectable in groundwater using
generally accepted analytical techniques. The constituents
that fall into this group are set forth at Attachment I to
this memorandum. Because these constituents cannot be detected
in groundwater, there is no conceivable environmental benefit
Co be gained by requiring formal laboratory analysis.
The second situation which we believe merits low
enforcement priority involves the failure to monitor for those
constituent* for which there are no EPA-approved test methods.
These constituents are set forth at Attachment II to this
memorandum. We believe that low enforcement priority is
warranted in these cases because the absence of any approved
test method makes meaningful analysis of any reported data
difficult.
-------
Unlike the firsc two situations, the last situation
presented by permit applicants does not warrant any change,in
our enforcement priorities. This situation concerns the need
to monitor for those constituents that are not analyzable by
scan methodology. These constituents are listed in Attachaent
III to this memorandum. Applicants have argued that absent
some indication that such constituents are present in the
groundwater, no monitoring should be required.
This argument is not persuasive. The regulations clearly
require analysis for these constituents. Unlike those constit-
uents listed in Attachment II. accepted test orocedures_jio
exist for Attachment III constituents.The fact that such
test procedures are expensive is legally irrelevant. Moreover.
EPA has previously rejected the notion that facility owners
can determine the hazardous constituents emerging from a land
disposal unit from records detailing the wastes previously
disposed of at the facility. Therefore, a facility owner's
failure to monitor for these Attachment III constituents should
ordiharily reTult in enforcement action. "
Attachments
-------
ATTACHMENT I
Acecyl chloride
Aluminum phosphide
Carbon oxyfluoride
Dimechylcarbaaoyl chloride
Fluorine
Methyl chloroctrbonace
Machyl isocyanaee
Nicrogen dioxide
Phosgene
Toluene diisocyanace
Zinc phosphide
-------
ATTACHMENT II
Cacasin
Echylenebisdithiocarbamic acid
2-Fluoroacecanide
Iron dextran
Lasiocarpine
Mustard gas
Nlcrogen mustard, N-oxide and HCl sales
Nitrogen mustard and HCl sales
Nitric oxide
Phosphine
-------
ATTACHMENT III
Cyclophosphamide
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
HexachlorohexahydrodinechanonaphChalene
Hydroxydiaechylarsine oxide
7-Oxabicyclo[2-2.1]hepcane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid
Selenourea
«Serepcozococin
Scrychine
------- |