oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9542.02-84
TITLE: Clarification of St-ate vs. Federal Role in Interim
Authorization " v
APPROVAL DATE: 12/17/34
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/17/84
ORIGINATING OFFICE: osw
Q FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other document*):
A- Pending OMB approval
j B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C- For review &/or comment
; i D- In development or circulating
headquarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
.PART 271 SUBPART B - INTERIM AUTHORIZATION.
DOC: 9542.02(84)
Key Words:
Regulations:
Subject:
Addressee:
Originator:
Source Doc:
Date:
Summary:
Enforcement, Authorized States, Interim Authorization
40 CFR 264
Clarification of State vs. Federal Role in Interim Authorization
Bruce Potoka, OWPE
Alexander Wolfe, Region V Liaison, OSW
#9542.02(84)
12-17-84
States with Phase I interim authorization have responsibility for iden-
tifying and listing hazardous wastes, regulating generators and transporters,
and administering and enforcing interim status standards for treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. EPA retains responsibility for permitting.
Regardless of a State's authorization status, EPA can take independent
enforcement actions in any State for any violation of a RCRA requirement. EPA
generally defers to the State where a State is pursuing enforcement actions in a
timely and appropriate manner. However, in situations where a violation may
pose an imminent and substantial threat to human health or the environment, EPA
may use RCRA 7003 authority to close down a disposal site, or it may deny a
facility a permit to operate.
-------
9542.02 (84)
.17 DK 1334
MEMORANDUM l • "*~ "™-'' T "*'
SUBJECTi : CECOS Facility"
FROM: Alexander Wolfe
Region V Liaison, OSW (WH-563-B)
.«»....-... r~.• • • . - .... ..-•--
TOt '"'- Bruce Pot ok a, OWPE
This memo is in response to your request for assistance
in drafting a response to Bill Gradison's letter pertaining
to CECOS's operation of a hazardous waste disposal facility ~ r
in the vicinity of Williamsburg, Ohio. " .-•--. r •• c
*•
'Specifically, you wanted a clarification of the State vs. •£
the Federal role in this case. RCRA provides for two stages *
of authorization: interim and final authorization. Ohio cur- v
rently is operating its hazardous waste program under Phase I *
of interim authorization. Interim authorization is a temporary \
•echanism that is intended to promote continued State participa-
tion in hazardous waste management while encouraging the State £
to develop a program that is fully equivalent, to the Federal *
program. Phase I of interim authorization encompasses the <•
identification and listing of hazardous wastes, the control \
of generators and transporters, and administration and enforce- t
nent of interim status standards for treatment, storage, and *
disposal facilities. It does not include permitting for such : <
facilities; EPA retains responsibility for permitting in Ohio.
Regardless of a State's authorization status, however, EPA
can take independent enforcement actions in any State for any
violation of a RCRA requirement. EPA generally defers to the
State where a State is pursuing enforcement actions in a timely
and appropriate manner. However, Section 7003 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act does provide EPA with the authority
to close down the disposal site if a determination is made that
the operation of the site presents an imminent and substantial
endangerroent to public health or the environment.
In addition to using $7003 authority to close a facility,
the Agency may also deny the facility a permit to operate. The
justification to terminate or deny a permit would be based on
-------
2s-
the following: 1) inability of the facility to »eet the $264
standards, 2) failure to submit the required information on its
Part A or B permit application, or 3) submission of unacceptable
information.
It is my understanding that the Region V recently conducted
a comprehensive ground-water monitoring inspection at this site
to determine if citizen complaints were justified. The Region
is currently evaluating the samples and is expected to make a
determination about the presence and concentration limits of any
hazardous wastes. In my conversation with Region V yesterday,
I was informed that they believe the State is correctly conducting
the Investigation of the CECOS operation and do not see the need
for U.S. EPA to take action at this tine. Should the results of
EPA's inspection indicate the presence of an imminent hazard, we
would proceed to take appropriate action.
Jim Nayka, the U.S. EPA, Ohio State Implementation Officer
is fully aware of the State investigation and would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have. Jim can be reached on
PTS 886-6189. If I can be of further assistance please do not
hesitate to call.
cc: Truett DeGeare
------- |