6EPA
United States
Environment*! Protection
Agency
Office of
Sot»d Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9432.01(84)
TITLE: Determination of Operator at the DOE Oak Ridge
Facility
»
APPROVAL DATE: 1-27-84
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1-27-34
ORIGINATING OFFICE: osw
ED FINAL
D DRAFT
LEVEL OF DRAFT
DA — Signed by AA or OAA
D B — Signed by Office Director
DC — Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
OS WE Ft OSWER OSWER
ME DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
PART 260 SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
DOC: 9432.01(84)
Key Words:
Regulations:
Subject:
Addressee:
Originator:
v
N
Source Doc:
Date:
Summary:
Federal Facilities
40 CFR 260.10
Determination of Operator at the DOE Oak Ridge Facility
James H. Scarbrough, Chief, Residuals Management Branch, Region IV
Bruce R. Weddle, Acting Director, Permits and State Programs
Division
#9432.01(84)
1-27-84
A Regional office should decide who should be considered the operator of
a facility, based on application of the definition of "operator" in §260.10.
In making this decision, the Region should consider the role of the contractor
in making major decisions. If the contractor has considerable autonomy to make
major decisions without DOE involvement, then the contractor could be considered
the operator. If DOE retains responsibility for major decisions, then DOE
could be considered the operator.
-------
9432.01 (84)
JAM 2 7 19?--'
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT* Detanaination of Operator at-the DOE Oak Ridge Facility
FROMi Bruce ft. Weddle, Acting Director
Permits ana State Programs Division (WH-563)
TOi Jamea R. Searbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Rayion IV
I am writing in response to your latter of December 30
regarding who should be the operator in the pending permit for~_
the DOB facility at Oak Hinge, Tennessee. My staff has been in
contact with your staff and other UQ offices concerning the issues
in this case* It is my understanding that the Office of General
Counsel has requested copies of the permit and related documents
and has asked your Office of Regional Counsel to delay any decisions
in this matter until OGC has reviewed these documents. You should
also be advised that the generic issue of contractors serving as
RCRA permittees has been raised in the negotiations between EPA
and DOB .Headquarters* Ws will let you know of any developments
in tnese negotiations ano we urge you to keep us advised of
developments in the Oak Ridge.case.
I have two general comments at this time regarding the Oak
Ridge operator issue.
First, the decision aa to which party should be the
operator in the permit should be wade by the Regional Office,
baaed on application of the definition of "operator* in 5260.10.
As general guidance in such determinations, I suggest that you
consider the role of the contractor in .making major decisions at
the facility. If the contractor has considerable autonomy to
ioake such decisions without DC2 involvement, then the contractor
could be considered the operator. If on the other hand, DOC
retains responsibility for major decisions, then coti could be
considered the operator, obviously, there will be cases where
the contractor's raaponsioility is less precisely defined! in
those cases, tno Region should exercise judgement given tne
factual situation. (CGC nay have additional guidances in this
area following their review of the oak Ridge situation. In par-
ticular, OGC will examine tne contract lan-jua.jo and «its manage-
ment practices at Oak Ridge in respect to the 5260.10 definition.)
-------
th*t you
is the "op*r*to
application
Permit
•ure whether
that such «n act
(Again, QGC
Please let
this issue.
cc»
Luce to
ll
*lth h^*^ tne R«9i°n "ay d'eny the 'DOB
x" is not resolved. I suggest
eroination as to who ••
. (This assumes that the
vith RCRA and is si.gnei by
"^y «ppe«l M kfa« permittee objects to
^"Unda t *^««« conditions. But I'M not
1*1 »iai,, *° deny the perait and I doubt
the larger questions.
--\*si«a\iona ln this ragar< provide additional assistance •
PBTGCMA
------- |