vvEPA
              United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
            Office of
            Solid Waste and
            Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 56o.o2r85

TITLE: Delegation of Authority to Issue Permits



APPROVAL DATE: 04/29/85'

EFFECTIVE DATF  04/29/85

ORIGINATING OFFICE: osw

0 FINAL

D DRAFT

 STATUS:

           Kfr] D--In-develoompnf iJT^circulafinf"

REFERENCE (other documents)-
                          -** •* ^
                             . ^&-,»; r^,  	

                             A-y Pend ing* OMB." app r oval "C";?^

                             B'-JPen^ing AA-OSWER approval
  OS !/!/£/?      OS WER      OS WER
/£    DIRECTIVE    DIRECTIVE    Di

-------
MISCELLANEOUS                                                  DOC:   9560.02(85)
                                                         <

Key Words:    HSWA, Delegation of Authority, RCRA Permits

Regulations:

Subject:      Delegation of Authority to Issue Permits

Addressee:    Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I-X

Originator:   Michael B. Cook, Deputy Director, Office of Solid Waste

Source Doc:   See Miscellaneous ^9560.05(85)]

Date:         4-29-85

Summary:

     The memo clarifies the Regional Administrator's role in issuing permits  in
accordance with the new permitting authorities under HSWA.

-------
,,, 5^
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                              WASHINGTON. O.C. 20-160
                              JANUARY  25,  1935
                                                                     0"'C£ D
                                                           SOLiO WASTE AND iVi
  MEMORANDUM
  SUBJECT:   RCRA/Superfund Hotline Monthly Status Report — December 1984

  FPCM:      Carolyn  Barley, Project C'fficer
SJ               xT
           Office  of  Solid Waste  (382-2117)

           Barbara Hostage, Project Officer
           Office  of  Emergency and Remedial Response  ( 382-2186 r

  TO :       Addressees


   I.  ACTIVITIES

      The  Hotline responded to 2£88 questions and requests  for  documents
      in December.

  II.  SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND P£SOLVED  ISSUES

   A.  RCSA

      1.   The  financial  requirement regulations  (40 CFR  §264  and  §265, Subpart H)
          require that cwners and operators of all hazardous  waste management
          facilities establish financial  assurance to  cover the cost  of closing
          their respective facilities.  The regulations  provide six methods for
          establishing financial assurance.  One method  is  a  financial test and
          corporate guarantee for closure (§264. 143 ( f) ( 10)  and  §265.143(e) ( 10) ) .
          Using this method, a parent corporation (guarantor) can provide  the
          financial assurance for an owner/operator of a subsidiary company.   If  a
          facility  becomes a separate company, completely autonomous  from  the  parent
          company,  may the ex-parent company provide financial  assurance for the
          owner/operator of the newly independent company?

              No; the ex-parent company may not provide  financial assurance for  the
              newly independent company.   Sections 264.143(f ) (10) and 265.143(e) (10)
              state that "The guarantor must be  the  parent  corporation of  the  owner
              or operator."  Therefore, the newly  independent company must establish
              its own  financial assurance since  its  ex-parent company can  no  longer
              function as  its guarantor.   This  financial assurance must  be in  place
              upon  independence.

              Source:    Joe Freedman   (202)  382-7700
              Research:  Gordon Davidson

-------
                                -2-

2.  If a facility's interim status is terminated,  nust -£he cwr.er/ccer-icor  of  tr.e
    facility still T^eet trie §265 interim status standards cor closure,  pcsc-closur^,
    and.financial responsibility?

        Yes; a facility which has had its interim status terminated ^tust .nee::  5255
        standards, including those for closure, pest-closure, and financial
        responsibility.  A technical amendment to the interun status standards
        which was published in the November 21, 1984 Federal Register (49  FR  46094)
        clarified that interim status standards are applicable to facilities  whose"
        interim status is terminated until their closure and post-closure  require-
        ments are fulfilled.

        Source:    Libby Scopi.no (202)  475-8731
        Research:  Hilary Sotmer

3.  A treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) has agreed to accept "empty
    containers" per §261.7.  Upon receiving the containers (55 gallon drums),  the
    TSDF found that although the containers held less than one inch, the  containers
    could be and were emptied further by inverting the container and pouring  out
    additional hazardous waste.  According to §261.7(b)(1)(i), a container that.
    has held hazardous waste is empty if all wastes have been removed that can be
  •••  removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from that
    type of container, e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating.  If the TSDF further
    empties the container by pouring, was the container "empty" -when received even
    though it held under one inch of material?

        No; the container was not empty.  Preamble language  to the August 13, 1982
        Federal Register (47 F3 36093)  states that "it should be clear that one
        inch of waste material is an overriding constraint and may remain in an
        empty container only if it cannot bje_ removed by normal means."  This
        indicates that a container must be emptied by pouring, pumping, and
        aspirating.   Then, if the container holds less than one inch, the container
        is empty per §261.7.

        Source:    Alan Corson (202)  382-4776
        Research:  3ill Rusin

    An interim status facility has a surface impoundment  for storing a hazardous
    waste.   This facility wants to build another storage surface impoundment for
    a new product line which will produce a hazardous waste  that was not designated-
    on the facility's 'Part A application.  Would building such a storage surface
    impoundment for accepting a generated hazardous waste new  to the facility be
    considered an increase in design capacity (§270.72(b)) or a process change
    (§270.72(c»?

        Adding a new storage surface impoundment would be an increase  in  design
        capacity.  This would not be considered a process change since the process
        is not changing; the new unit is also a storage  surface  impoundment
        (designated S04 on a Part A).  An increase  in design capacity  requires the
        owner/operator to submit a revised Part A application, which includes a
        justification for the change, and to obtain  approval from  the  Regional
        Administrator or State Director  (§270.72(b)).  Also, the owner/operator
        must comply with §270.72(e) concerning reconstruction of the facility.

        Source: '   Debbie Wblpe (202) 382-4754
        Research:  Tom Gainer

-------
                                    -3-

    5.  A private laboratory ^er.erates a variety of  hazar-ct:s -.vast^.   The  lab has
        about 200 Lab technicians who may handle the wastes.  Must  these  lab
        technicians be trained to handle hazardous waste,  and,  if  so,  .-oust  there
        be dccunentation of their training?
                                                       .  ~ i ">
            The lab technicians .Trust have training to the extent necessary  to ensure
            safe handling of the wastes.  Per §262.34(a) (4), the generator  Trust
            comply with §265.16 on training  of personnel  handling  hazardous
            waste.  Section 265.16(d) requires that  training records  be kept at
            the facility.  The generator could categorize positions (i.e.,  super-
            visors, lab technicians, etc..) and list  the individuals names in those
            categories with a description of the training for  that group.

            Source:    Tony 3aney (202) 475-3728
            Research:  Denise Wright

    5.  A company owns several facilities which generate  waste  solvents.   The
        company is considering using an outside contractor with a  mobile  recycling
        unit to go to each facility on a regular basis to recycle  the waste solvents
        on-site.  The contractor would generate from the  recycling process  a useable
        solvent product and sdill-bottom wastes. The contractor would leave both
        the product solvent and still-bottom waste at the facility in which the
        recycling took place.  Under RCRA,  who is considered the generator of  the
        still-bottom wastes; the facility or the contractor with  the mobile unit?
        Also, would the generator be allowed 90-day  accumulation  of the still-bottom
        wastes per §262.34?

             This situation where one person owns and operates a  manufacturing unit
             and another person is used to reclaim spenc  solvents  and spent catalysts
             is addressed" "in the October 30, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 72024).  The
             definition of generator in §260.10 is  "... any person, by site, whose act:
             or process produces hazardous waste..." Thus, both the owner/operator of
             the facility and the operator of the mobile, recycling unit could be
             considered generators of the still-bottom hazardous wastes.  However
             "the Agency ... recommends that -where two or more parties are involved,
             they should mutually agree to have one ?ar"ty perform,  the generator
             responsibilities.  Where this is done,  the Agency will look to that
             designated party to perform the generator duties.  If EPA does not know
             -which party by mutual agreement is appointed to carry out the generator
             duties, the Agency will   ... initially lock to the operator of the unit
             to fulfill the generator duties..." (45 FR 72020).  The  90-day accumu-
             lation period would apply  in this case per  §262.34.

             Source:    Carolyn Barley  (202) 382-2217            ^1 ^5 3-CM
             Research:  Gordon Davidson
B.  CERCLA
        .Monitoring wells have been placed at a CERCLA site.  Cnce the wells are
        evacuated, it takes one to one and a half weeks  for  the  wells to recharge.
        EPA guidance on well sampling has indicated  that before  taking a sample
        the well should be evacuated 4 to 10 casing  volumes  prior to sampling.   If
        this procedure were to be followed at  this site, however, it could take
        two to four weeks to get a sample.  Does  the Agency  provide any guidance
        on groundwater sampling in areas with  slow recharge?

-------