PROGRAM IMPUJ1ENTATION GUIEANQBilStSflffiM GflHlDRANDUM
EY/I
TITUS
PIG-80-1 Establishment of RCRA "Program Implementation Guidance Systems
(PIGs)"'
PIG-80-2 Interim Authorization of Programs Based on Emergency State
Regulations
PIG-80-3 Requirement That State-Permitted Hazardous Waste Facilities Have
"Interim Status"
PIG-80-4 Short-JIerm Financial Assistance for States Expected to Receive
Authorization Before January 1, 1981
PIG-81-1 The Use of State Permitting Systems During Phase I Interim Author-
ization Which Are Not Based on Explicit Regulatory Standards
PIG-81-2 Federal. Register Notice of Public Hearing and Comment Period on
State Applications- for Interim Authorization
PIG-81-3 .Effect of RCRA Regulation Changes'1**! Phase I Interim Authorization
Approval .
PIG-81-4 Delisting of Wastes by Authorized' States
PIG-81-5 Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-463)
f
PIG-81-6 State Regulation of Federal Agencies for Purposes of Interim
Authorization
PIG-81-7 Final Determinations on State Applications for Interim Author-
ization: Action Memorandum and Federal Register Notice
PIG-81-8 Program Implementation Guidance on Issuance of Provisional EPA
Identification Nunfcers
PIG-81-9 Effect of EPA's Memorandum of Understanding With the Department
of Transportation on Activities in States With Cooperative Arrange-
ments
PIG-81-10 Transfer of Notification and Permit Application Information to
States
PIG-81-11 Involvement of States Without Phase II Interim Authorization in
RCRA Permitting
PIG-81-12 States' Role in Assigning EPA Identification Numbers
PIG-82-1 Universe of Wastes for. EPA Permit Activities in States Author-
ized for Phase I Only
-------
ussy
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP 8 1981
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PIG-80-1, Amended
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Establishment of RCRA "Program Implementation
Guidance System" (PIGS)
PROM:
TO:
ipper
Acting^ Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (WH-562A)
See "Distribution" Below
i—-
PURPOSE: (This memorandum revises the "Program Implementation
Guidance System" (PIGS) established in PIG-80-1 issued on
October 3, 1980. This revision is necessary to reflect changes
in responsibilities due to the recent reorganization. The purpose
of the PIG system is to aid in properly implementing the Federal
and State hazardous waste management programs under Subtitle C
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/ by providing
directives regarding program implementation^?
DISCUSSION: The RCRA hazardous waste regulations are one of the
most comprehensive sets of regulations published by EPA. As
a result there is a need for some means of documenting and
disseminating information on implementation of these regulations
and the national program they put into effect. The "Program
Implementation Guidance System" (PIGS) is intended to provide
this means. Program Implementation Guidance Memoranda will be
issued to answer questions and provide direction regarding the
implementation of the Federal program and to aid in management
of the State programs. For example, PIG's may set forth internal
EPA reporting requirements and respond to questions regarding
program implementation at Headquarters and in the Regional offices,
A prime objective of the PIG's will be to provide national
consistency in implementing Subtitle C of RCRA.
-------
-2-
IMPLEMENTATION; PIG's will be issued as memoranda in standard
format and will be numbered to indicate the fiscal year and the
sequential number of each issuance. For example, as the first
PIG to be issued in FY 1980, this memorandum establishing the
PIGS is numbered PIG-80-1.
PIG's will be developed by the Office of Solid Waste or the
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement. All PIG's will be issued
(signed) by the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Prior to issuance, the concurrence of the
Associate General Counsel for Water and Solid Waste, the Director
for the Office of Solid Waste, and the Director for the Office
of Waste Programs Enforcement will be obtained. Thus, regardless
of originating office, each PIG will represent the joint guidance
of these three offices. Within the Office of Solid Waste, all
PIG's will be reviewed by OSW Senior Staff. PIG's on RCRA
permitting will be coordinated with the Permits Division, Office
of Water Enforcement. As appropriate, the Office of Water
Enforcement will include selected PIG's for inclusion in the
Consolidated Permits Policy Guidance System.
Day-to-day management of the PIG's system will be the
responsibility of the Office of Solid Waste. Following appropriate
signature and concurrences, PIG's will be distributed by the State
Programs Branch, Office of Solid Waste, as indicated, below.
DISTRIBUTION;
Regional Offices - Regional Administrators
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors
(Regions I, III - X)
Water Division Director (Region II)
Regional Counsels
Enforcement Division Directors
Headquarters - Director for Office of Solid Waste
Director for Office of Water Enforcement
" Director for Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement
Associate General Counsel for
Water and Solid Waste
Senior Staff, Office of Solid Waste
States - Directors, State Solid Waste Agencies
(See attached list)
Attachment
cc: Branch Chiefs, Office of Solid Waste
-------
STATE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE AGENCIES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
February 1981
ALABAMA
Alfred S. Chipley, Director
Division of Solid Waste and Vector Control
Department of Public Health
Union Bank Building, Rooa 1212
Montgomery, Alabama 36103
OIL (205) 832-6728
ALASKA
Thomas R. Hanna
Air & Solid Waste Management
Department of Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0
juneau, Alaska 99811
Seattle FTS Operator 399-0150
"»
-------
Hr. Orville Stoddard, P.E.
Sr. Public Health Engineer
Col o Department of Health
421t ^st llth Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80220
CML (303) 320-8333
COMMONWEMJH OF NORTH MARIANA ISLANDS
Carl Goldstein
Division of Environmental Quality
Department- of-Public -Health-and
Environmental- Services'
Ccnronwealth of the North Mariana Islands
Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950
Cable address: GGV. NMI Saipan
__ _ . • f" ~ " x '% •"'t/'
CONNECTICUT
Charles Kurker, Director
Solid Waste Management Chit
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
PIS- 641-3672
CML (203) 566-3672
Stephen Hitchcock, Director
Hazardous Materials Management Chit
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
FTS 8-641-4924
CML (203) 566-4924
Patrick Bowe,. Acting Chief
Hazardous Waste Section
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
FTS 8-641-5712
CML (203) 566-5712
Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority
179 lyn St. Suite 603
Pr- .sional Building
Harcrbrd, Connecticut 06103
DELAWARE
Kenneth R. Weiss, Supervisor/Resource Engineer
Solid Waste Management Section
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
Edward Tatnall Building
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
CML (302) 736-4781
DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA
James C. Lucore, Acting Administrator
Office of Environmental Planning and
Management
Department of Environmental Services
5000 Overlook Ave. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20032
PIS 8-724-4102
CML (202) 724-4102
Kenneth Laden
RCRA Coordinator
Department of Environmental Services
5000 Overlook Ave. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20032
•
CML (202) 767-8181
•
FLORIDA
Robert W. McVety
Solid Waste Management Program
Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building, Roon 421
2600 Blair Stone 3d.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
CML (904) 488-0300
GEBBGTJL
Moses N. McCall, III, Chief
Land Protection Branch
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources ROOD 822
270 Washington St. S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
CML (404) 656-2833
CML (203) 549-6390
-------
"M
ant ranch, Deputy Administrator
A, ,vernment of Guam
.O. Box 2999
gana, Guam 9691Q
erseas Operator
(ComercLal Call 646-8863)
JW&II
.elvin Kbizuai, Deputy Director
Environmental Health Division
Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
California FTS Operator
8-556-0220
CML (808) 548-4139
Ralph Yukunoto
Environmental Health Division
Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
Ca__ vtnia PIS Operator
8-556-0220
C1L (808) 548-6410
IDAHO
Howard Burkhardt, Supervisor
Solid/Hazardous Materials Section
Department of Health and Welfare
State House
Boise, Idaho 83720
CML (208) 334-4108
ILLINOIS
John S. Moore, Manager
Division of Land and Noise
pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Rd. Roan A104
Springfield, Illinois 62706
CML (217) 782-6760
INDIANA.
David Lanm, Chief
Solid Waste Management Section
Division of Sanitary Engineering
State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan St., Room A304
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
PPS 8-336-0176
CML (317) 633-0176
IOWA
Charles C. Miller, Director
Air and Land Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
Henry A. Wallace Building
'900 East Grand Street, 3rd floor
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
ETS 8-841-8853
CML (515) 281-8853
KANSAS
Charles H. Linn, Chief
Solid waste Management Section
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 321
Topeka, Kansas 66620
CML (913) 862-9390, Ext. 297
KEOTUQg
Roger Blair, Director
Division of Hazardous Material and
Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection
1121 Louisville Rd.
pineville Plaza
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
ETS 8-351-6716
CML (502) 564-6716
LOUISIANA
Janes Hutchinson, Deputy Secretary
Department of natural Resources
P.O. Box 44396
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
CML (504) 342-4506
-------
Serald D. Healy, Jr., Administrator
Haz us Waste Division
Dept ,ent of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 44066
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
ETS 8-687-0468
OIL (504) 342-1265
MAINE
Ronald C. Howes, Driector
Technical Services Division
Department of Environmental Protection
State House—Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
OIL (207) 289-2111
John Broohu, Director
Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Waste Materials
Department of Environmental Protection
State House—Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
C1L (203) 289-3355
Rdfc Demkowicz, Coordinator^
Hazardous Waste Management Unit
Bureau of Oil & Hazardous Waste Materials
Department of Environmental Protection
State House—Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333 .
CML (203) 289-2251
MARYLAND
Bernard Bigham
Waste Management Administration
Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
201 West Preston St. Room 212
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
OIL (301) 383-2771
Fred Sachs
Hazardous Waste Ptoytam
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
QT '301) 269-3823
Ronald Nelson, Director
Waste Management Administration
Office of Environmental Programs
Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
201 West Preston Street, Room 212
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Off. (301) 383-3123
MASSACHUSETTS
John Shortsleeve, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal
Department of Environmental Management
Rooa 1905
Leverett Saltonstall Building
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
CML (617) 727-4293
(Solid & Hazardous Waste Regulatory)
William Cass, Director
EiVision of Hazardous Waste
Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering
600 Washington St. Room 320
Boston, Massachusets 02111 -
CML (617) 727-2658
MICHIGAN
Gary Guenther, P.E., Deputy Director
Environmental Protection Bureau
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan '48909
CML (517) 373-7917 or 373-2347
Fred Kellow, Division Chief
Resource Recovery Division
Department of Natural Resources
Westland Plaza
Lansing, Michigan 48909*
CML (517) 373-0540
Allan Howard, Chief
Office of Hazardous Waste Mgmt..
Environmental Services Division
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
CML (517) 373-2867
-------
(Hazardous Waste, Liquid)
David Dennis, Chief
Oi: d Hazardous Materials Control Section
Wat Quality Division
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
CML (517) 373-2794
(Hazardous Waste, Tbxic or Critical
Materials)
Delbert Rector, Chief
Environmental Services Division
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
CML (517) 373-3560
(Michigan—Departnent of Public Health)
John L. Hesse, Chief
Chemicals and Health Center
Michigan Department of Public Helath
P.O. Box 30035
Lansing, Michigan 48909
C 517) 373-8050
MINNESOTA
Dale L. Wikre, Director
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Rd. 3-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
CML (612) 297-2735
MISSISSIPPI
jack M* McMillan, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
and Vector Control
State Board of Health
P.O. Box 1770
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
CML (601) 982-6317
MISSOURI
Robert M. Robinson, Director
Solid Waste Management Program
Departnent of Natural Resources
State Office Building
P.O. Box 1368
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
CML (314) 751-3241
MONTANA
Duane L. Robertson, Chief
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Departnent of Health and Environmental
Sciences
, Cogswell Bldg., Rocm A201
Helena, Montana 59601
PTS 8-587-2821
CML (406) 449-2821
•NEBRASKA
Robert Wall, Chief
Water and Waste Management Division
Departnent of Environmental Control
State House Station
P.O. Box 94877
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
PTS 8-541-2186
CML (402) 471-2186
NEVADA
Lewis H. Dodgion,-Administrator
Division of Environmental Protection
Departnent of Conservation and Natural
Resources
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89701
ETS 8-470-5911
CML (702) 885-4670
Verne Rosse
Waste Management Program Director
Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89701
CML (702) 885-4670
-------
HAMPSHIRE
NQKIH CAROLINA
Sweeney, Chief
reau of Solid Waste
aartment of Health and Welfare
-1th ard Welfare Building
zen Drive
cord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-4610
7 JERSEY
3 P. Pereira, Administrator
Lid Waste Administration
vision of Environmental Quality
0. Box Q1027
anton. New Jersey 08625
8-477-9120
(609) 292-9120
MEXICO
i Thompson, Chief
.jnity Support Services Section
al* t3 Environment Department
O.^ 968,* Crown Building ~~
ta Fe, New Mexico 87503
8-476-5271 Ext. 272
IL (505) 827-5271 Ext. 272
. Ray Krehoff, Program Manager
lid & Hazardous Waste Management Programs
.unity Support Services Section
alth and Environment Department
,0. Box 968, Crown Building
.ta Fe, New Mexico 87503
8-476-5271 Ext. 282
(505) 457-5271 Ext. 282
YORK
craan H. Nbsenchuck, P.E., Director
Lvision of Solid Waste
rtment of Environmental Conservation
0 Iblf Rd., Room 415
y, New York 12233
IL,
S7-6603
;) 457-6603
0. W. Strickland, Head
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management
Branch
Division of Health Services
Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
CML (919) 733-2178
NORIH DAKOTA.
Jay Crawford, Director
Division of Environmental Waste Management
and Research
Department of Health
1200 Missouri Ave., 3rd floor
Bismarch, North Dakota 58505
CML (701) 224-2382
OHIO
Donald E. Day, Chief
Office of Land Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43216
ETS 8-942-8934
CML (614) 466-8934
OKLAHOMA
H.A. Caves, Chief •
Industrial and Solid Waste Service
Department of Health
P.O. Box 53551
1000 N.E. 10th St., Roora 803
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152
CML (405) 271-5338 •
OREGON
Ernest A. Schmidt, Administrator
Solid Waste Management Division
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1760
522 S.W. Fifth Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97207
FTS 8-424-5913
CML (503) 229-5913
-------
ENNSYLVANIA
SOOTH DAKOTA.
\. LazarchiJc
ure*__ of Solid Waste Management
Department of Environmental Resources
"ulton Building 8th floor
.0. Box 2063
larrlsburg, Pennsylvania 17120
TS 8-637-9870
JL (717) 787-9870
JKKIU RICO
-itos Rohena, Associate Member
Tvironmental Quality Board
^fice of the Governor
.0. Box 11488
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910
D.C. PIS Operator 472-6620
21L (809) 725-2062
(809) 725-5140 Ext 229 or 264
RHODE ISLAND
John S. Quinn, Jr., Chief
Sol aste Management Program.
Dep _..ient of Environcmtnal Managment
204 Cannon Building
75 Davis St.
Providence/ Rhode Island 02908
CML (401) 831-4440
SOUTH CAROLINA
Sartsill W. Truesdale, Director
Solid Waste Management Division
S.C. Department of Health and Environmental
Control
J. Marion Sinms Building
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
CML (803) 758-5681
Robert E. Malpass, Chief
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous
Haste Management
S.C. Department of Health and Environmental
Control
j. on Simms Building
26r all St.
Coltnitoia, South Carolina 29201
Joel C. Smith, Chief
Air Quality and Solid Haste Programs
Department of Health
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
CML (605) 773-3329
TENNESSEE
Tom Tiesler, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
Bureau of Environmental Services
Department of Public Health
Capitol Hill Building, Suite 326
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
ETS 8-853-3424
CML (615) 741-3424
TEXAS
Jack C. Garnichael P.E., Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street, T-602
Austin, Texas 78756
CML (512) 458-7271-
Jay Snow, P.E.
Head of Industrial Solid Waste Unit
Department of Water Resources
1700 North Congress, Room 237-1
P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
CML (512) 475-2041
UTAH
Dale Parker, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Division of Health
P.O. Box 2500
150 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
CML (801) 533-4145
CML (803) 758-5681
-------
VERMONT
Ric . A. Valentinetti, Chief
Air w.*3 Solid Waste Programs
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
PIS 8-832-3395 •
CML (802) 828-3395
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Donald Francois
Department of Cultural Affairs
Government of the Virgin Islands
Natural Resources Management Building
2nd floor, Sub Base
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
D.C. Overseas Operator 472-6620
CML (809) 774-6420
VIRGINIA
William F. Gilley, Director
BU-—~' of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
ent of_ Health
Building, Roan 927
109 Governor St.
Richmond, Virginia 23219
FTS 8-936-5271
OIL (804) 786-5271
WASHINGTON
Earl Tower, Supervisor
Solid Waste Management Divison
Department of Ecololgy
Olympia, Washington 98504
FTS 8-434-6883
CML (206) 753-6883
WEST VIRGINIA
Dale Parsons, Director
Solid Waste Division
Department of Health
1800 Washington St. E.
Roan 520
O iton, West Virginia 25305
John Northeimer
, Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier St., 2nd floor
Charleston, West Virginia 25311
CML (304) 348-0375
WISCONSIN
Robert Krill, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921 •
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
PIS 8-366-1327
CML (608) 266-1327
WYOMING
Charles Porter, Supervisor
Solid Waste Management Program
State of Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality
Equality Skate Bank Building
401 West 19th St., Roon 3011
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
FTS 8-328-7752
CML (307) 777-7752
FTS 8-885-2987
C1L (304) 348-2987
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCi
PIG-80-2
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Interim Authorization of Programs Based on
Emergency State Regulations
Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant "SermlMstrator
for Solid Waste (WHif62)
'J2^—
.R. Sarah Compton l
Deputy Assistant Adtministra-tr
for Water Enforcement (EN-335)
PIGS Addressees
ISSUE
Can States use emergency regulations to obtain interim
authorization?.
DISCUSSION
In order to Qualify for interim authorization a State
must have a hazardous waste statute and regulations that
meet minimum Federal requirements. In some cases when a
State promulgates final regulations they are subject to
State administrative review. Such a.review process may be
time-consuming and delay the State's receipt of Phase I
interim authorization. Many States have authority to enact
emergency regulations which postpone this State administrative
review.
A major drawback of authorizing State programs based
upon emergency regulations is the possibility that the regu-
lations may expire before final regulations are enacted. A
State hazardous waste program without regulations obviously
would not comply with minimum Federal requirements, and
interim authorization would be subject to withdrawal under
section 123.136. However, EPA could not administer a Federal
program in the State until the State voluntarily returned
the program to EPA or the extensive withdrawal procedures
under section 123.15(b) were completed. Theoretically, this
cquld result in a void during which no State or Federal
regulations would be in force in the State.
-------
-2-
In addition to the possibility that the emergency regulations
would expire prior to the effective date of the final regulations,
EPA is also concerned that the State's final regulations might be
inadequate. The withdrawal procedures of 40 CFR 123.15(b) would
apply in either case. However, the Agency wants to eliminate any
possible gap in regulatory control and address in advance questions
regarding reversion of the program in.both of these situations.
Therefore, it is necessary that the Memorandum .of Agreement
(MOA) describe the process whereby the State would immediately
and voluntarily return the program to EPA. The Federal regulations
provide for such a reversion process at-40 CFR 123.15(a):
"... or in such other manner as may be agreed upon with the
Administrator." The State must also agree to submit its final
regulations for review of adequacy at the time it applies for
Phase II authorization.
DECISION
Recognizing both the advantages and disadvantages of allowing
a State to use emergency regulations to qualify for interim
authorization, EPA has decided to allow a State to use emergency
regulations, provided the State meets certain conditions.
EPA will grant Phase I interim authorization to a State
whose program under emergency regulations is substantially
equivalent to the Federal program if, in addition, the following
conditions are, met:
1) The State must show that under its normal administrative
procedures it will be able to enact final regulations
which wall take effect before the emergency regulations
expire;
2) The MOA must provide that the State will submit its
final regulations to EPA for review at the time the
State applies for Phase II interim authorization; and
3) The MOA must describe the process by which the State will
immediately and voluntarily return the program to EPA in
the event that the emergency regulations expire prior to
the effective date of the final regulations.
Emergency regulations will not be an eligible basis for
issuance of final authorization.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
OCT 3,soy
TO:
Waste
Steffen w. Plehn
Deputy Assistant
PIG-80-3
State-Permitted Hazardous
Have "Interim Status"
Lstrator
ftu-
™ • — ^ ~" "~ •""•" » * &^**l«^ UA L O \m J_
for Solid Waste (WH*562)
R. Sarah Compton
Deputy Assistant 'c™*„.,.,,UiaTOj»
for Water Enforcement (EN-335)
PIGS Addressees
ISSUE
can it^i"
a) Does the» facility have interim status?
«* nave interim status,
DISCUSSION/DECISION
have been "in existence" on
the date of enactment of RCRA (October 21
pssed r
passed by Congress; and
and
have CQmPlied with the notifica- '
re<3ulrements specified in Section 3010 (a);
as retired
-------
- 2 -
sasa
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 31S8Q
PIG-80-4
MEMORANDUM
SU EJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Short-Term 'Financial Assistance for States
Expected to Receive Authorization Before
January 1, 1981
Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant Admi
for Solid Waste (WH
R. Sarah Compton
Deputy Assistant Aaininistrato
for Water Enforcement (EN-335)
PIGS Addressees
ISSUE:
In order to provide financial assistance to those
States where the Region expects to issue interim authori-
zation after November 19, 1980, but before January 1, 1981,
is it necessary to execute a complete Cooperative Arrangement?
DISCUSSION; *•
The situation is likely to arise where a State has
submitted a complete interim authorization application,
the Regional Office expects to issue authorization before
January 1, 1981, but authorization will not be issued until
ar?er November 19, 1980. Such a State could enter into a Cooper-
ative Arrangement with the Region in order to obtain Federal
funds and to aid in implementing the Federal program. (Note
that the FY'81 RCRA Guidance provides on page 7 that where
nonauthorized States desire financial assistance they must
enter into Cooperative Arrangements).
However, there would appear to be little, if any, benefit
in completing the documentation associated with a Cooperative
Arrangement in such a situation since: (1) the documentation
would be applicable for a relatively short period of time and
(2) some of the required documentation would be very similar
to that already submitted in the State's authorization applica-
tipn.
-------
- 2 -
DECISION;
Where a State desires financial assistance and the Region
expects to authorize the State's program after November 19, 1980,
but before January 1, 1981, it is desirable to reduce the
burden of documentation.
To this end, financial assistance can be provided without
entering into a Cooperative Arrangement provided that:
(1) The State and Regional Office jpintly execute
a document which delineates the respective roles,
responsibilities, and activities of the two entities
during the period between the date of execution and
the date on which interim authorization is issued.
The Region must be assured that the State has authority
to perform those activities which it would undertake
(e.g., a signed statement from the Attorney General).
(Note that implementation of the Federal program
will begin November 19, 1980, and there is no "grace
period" during which implementation is delayed
pending issuance of authorization to a State.) and
(2) The cooperative agreement (grant) expressly provides
that financial assistance" will automatically terminate
on January 1, 1981, unless the State has, by that
date, been issued interim authorization or entered
into^a Cooperative Arrangement.
,-/
-------
J-=t:
UNITE'D STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ..".~^jv*-0
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 ' ' A- REG.'C'M
GCF 17
OFFICE OF WATER
AND V/ASTE MANAGEMENT
PIG-81-1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM:
TO:
Issue:
The TJse of "State Permitting Systems Daring
Phase I Interim Authorization Which-are not
Based on Explicit Regulatory Standards.
Steffen W. Plehn &&$L>-- W""^«2*>—
Deputy Assistant Admirj:\strator
for Solid Waste (WS-562) . ^,
£S A _ _ /t\ * . ^—«,
R. Sarah- Compton
Deputy Assistant Administrator'
for Water Enforcement (EN-335)
PIGS Addressees
Can a State program be considered substantially equivalent
to the Federal Phase I hazardous waste program if the State con-
trols hazardous waste management facilities through a permitting
system which is not based on explicit regulatory standards?
Discussion;
This issue is not concerned with the authorization of
States to issue/revoke RCRA permits, as is provided in §3005.
Such authorization will not be available to States unril the
Phase II regulations are effective. During Phase I of interim
authorization, Federal interim status standards or their
State analogues apply to existing facilities. Some States
with Phase I interim authorization nay elect to apply their
version of Federal interim status standards by issuing per-
mits containing conditions analogous to the Federal interim
status standards. This approach is perfectly acceptable.
However, a permit containing those standards is not a RCRA
permit and does not relieve the facility owner/operator
holding it of the obligation to apply for and receive a RCRA
permit after the effective date of Phase II.
-------
-2-
In those States which deal with hazardous waste only through
a permitting system, the Agency is concerned with the substance
of the permit conditions. These permit conditions (along with
compliance monitoring) will be the key elements which determine
the success of a State program. The ideal situation exists when
permit conditions are based on explicit regulatory standards which
are substantially equivalent to the Federal interim status standards
This situation has the advantage of minimizing the potential for
litigation by permittees who disagree with the permit conditions
and provides a sound enforcement position. Some States, however,
base their hazardous waste permit conditions on policy or guidance
rather than on explicit standards established via regulation. Such
a State program may require additional scrutiny by EPA prior to
decision on whether to grant interim authorization.
Decision;
A State program may be issued interim authorization for Phase
I eveo if it controls hazardous waste facilities through a permit-
ting system which is not based on explicit regulatory standards. In
determining whether the State's facility controls are substantially
equivalent to the Federal program, the considerations discussed
below must be examined.
The State1 s program description nuist^deJ-i-QeAiig_t33-g_gQj3d-i_iiJ-Q3a^-
that will be used in all permits and must demonstrate that these
conditions are substantially equivalent to the Federal interim
status standards.
. i
The State must have the legal authority to apply these permit
conditions and to enforce compliance with the conditions. The
(as part of the application) that such legal am-VioT-i-t-y /g^oe av^ e+-
Furthermore, the Memo random nf ag-ro<=»Tna^->- rvtoa} ^.-.c.*. ^»-^rJri^
will be incorporated into all permits orjipr to the date of interim
The MCA must state that permits will not be re-
issued or modified unless as re-issued or modified they are sub-
stantially equivalent with the Federal interim status standards . The
HOA must certify that th«> r*>rmi +* wi IT V.Q morH ^ 0,3 if necessary,
Decause of modifications in the Federal regulations, within
of the date of promulgation of the ne// Federal regulation. In cases
where a State statutory amendment or enactment is required to reflect
changes in the Federal regulations, the MOA must provide that the
Qej3U^M^aUj^Hj2e^BQdjL£3nid^£^j2^^^£{Qa>. *i i v^^-
* ^ & ^ ^ /^
-------
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
OCT 2 : 1330
TO:
ISSUE
PIG-81-2
OFFICE OF WATER
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Federal Register Notice of Public Hearing and
Comment Period on State Applications for Interim
Authorization
'. r^Pf' V J
Steffen W. Plehn ^^-^
Deputy Assistant 'Administrator
for Solid Waste (WH-562
IM,
R. Sarah Compton
Deputy Assistant •Bdmini'Strator
for Water Enforcement (EN-335)
PIGS Addressees
How should Federal Register notices regarding public hearing
and comment on State applications for interim authorization
be worded? What is the process for publishing such notices?
DISCUSSION
A number of Regional Offices recently have asked about
the wording and publishing of Federal Register notices required
in 40 CFR 123.135(a). This guidance memorandum has been prepared
to provide for national consistency and to expedite the approval
process. This memorandum provides background information on
the regulatory requirements and presents suggested wording and
publication procedures for the notice. We wish to thank Laura Yoshii
of the Region IX Hazardous Materials Branch and Cheryl Koshuta
of the Office of Regional Counsel, Region X, for their invaluable
assistance in the preparation of the model notice.
Section 123.135 of 40 CFR describes the approval process
for complete State applications for interim authorization of hazardous
waste management programs. Section 123.135(a)(1) directs the
Regional Administrator to issue notice in the Federal Register,
and in accordance with §123.39(a)(1), of a public hearing on the
State's application for interim authorization. The Interim
Authorization Guidance Manual suggests that this notice be
published as soon as possible after the receipt of a complete
State application. (The regulation allows up to 30 days after
receipt before the notice must be issued.) The tighter schedule
found in the Manual is based on making a final decision on the
complete State application on an accelerated basis within 60 davs.
-------
-2-
Regional Offices should ensure that the application is
complete before issuing the notice. The complete application
should address all major issues raised by EPA during review
of the draft application, as well as contain all required
documents. When major issues have not been adequately addressed,
it may be desirable for the State to submit additional information
and application amendments before the application is considered
complete and before the Federal Register notice is published.
If, however, a notice is published and the State subsequently
submits significant new information or program changes, it may
be necessary to issue a second Federal Register notice announcing
the availability of the new information and extending the public
review and comment period. In some instances, it may become
necessary to postpone the hearing or schedule a second hearing
to provide adequate public consideration of the significant
new information. This is a decision the Region should
make on a case-by-case basis as the situation dictates.
Efforts made at the outset to ensure that the State's application
is complete before issuing the notice can avoid later confusion,
delays, or impediments to public participation.
Section 123.135(a) requires that the public hearing be held
by EPA no earlier than the 30th day after the Federal Register
notice is published. Expedited publication of the notice will
enable the hearing to take place close to the 30th day after
the complete application is received, thus keeping us on the schedule
toward timely approval of acceptable State programs.
The regulation also provides that where significant
public interest in a hearing is not expressed the hearing may be
cancelled if a statement to that effect was included in the public
notice. Also, State participation is required in any public
hearing held by EPA.
In addition to EPA's Federal Register notice, public notice
must be issued in accordance with 40 CFR §123 .39( a) ~(1) . This
section requires the notice to be:
"... circulated in a manner calculated to attract the attention of
interested persons including: (i) publication in enough
of the largest newspapers in the State to attract statewide
attention; and (ii) mailing to persons on the State agency
mailing list and to any other persons whom the agency has
reason to believe are interested."
-------
- 3 -
The regulations also specify that EPA must afford the
public 30 days after the notice to comment on the State's
submission and must note the availability of the State's submis-
sion for inspection and copying by the public. The State
submission must, at a minimum, be available in the main office
of the lead State agency and in the EPA Regional Office.
The Guidance Manual's review procedure for complete
applications states that the Regional Workgroup and Headquarters
Review Team must complete their respective reviews prior to
the public hearing, in order to facilitate interpretation of
public comments received at the hearing. After the hearing
has been held and public comments have been submitted, the
State Delegation Coordinator will be responsible for preparing
responses to the comments. The responses are to be reviewed by
the Regional Workgroup and the Headquarters Review Team.
The §123.135(b) requirements for interim authorization approval
state that within 90 days after the initial notice in the Federal
Register, the Administrator must make a final determination whether
or not to approve the State's program, taking into account any
comments submitted. The Administrator must give notice of this final
determination in the Federal Register and in accordance with
§123.39(a)(1). The Administrator must include a concise statement
of the reasons for this determination and a response to significant
comments received. Pages 1.2-8 and 1.2-9 of the Guidance Manual
provide additional information concerning the content,
timing, and concurrences in the Regional Administrator's Action
Memorandum and official Federal Register notice of approval.
DECISION
We believe that consistent wording in the Federal Register
notices will promote public understanding of the program and
ensure that all regulatory requirements are satisfied. A
model Federal Register notice which meets the requirements of 40
CFR 123.135(a) has been developed and is attached. This model
has been reviewed and approved by Federal Register attorneys
and editors. We suggest that all Regional Offices use this
basic format and wording, with the addition of appropriate
details concerning names, places, times, etc.
-------
-4-
The Model Federal Register notice contains optional sections
on Conduct of Hearings and Preparation of Transcripts. A specific
format for the hearings is not set forth in the regulations. Thus,
the format which is suggested in this model can be changed to meet
specific situations which may arise regarding the various
States. Once the format is established, this section can be
used in conjunction with the background information section of
the notice as general opening remarks for the hearing.
The suggested format provides for a panel to receive testimony
and to pose questions, as appropriate, to persons testifying. The
panel should recognize that its role is jaofe one of defending a
particular course of action (i.e. approval or disapproval), the
State's program, or the Federal regulations. The decision to approve
or disapprove interim authorization can be made only after the
hearing; thus, the Agency will not have a final decision
to defend at the hearing. However, in some cases the Agency may
have developed a preliminary conclusion based on review of the
application prior to the hearing. In such cases the public
should be fully informed as to the Agency's "leanings". This can
be handled as a "Major Issue" identified in the Federal Register
hearing notice. Also, as a minimum, the hearing chairperson should
identify the Agency's preliminary conclusion in the opening remarks
and should explain that the conclusion is only tentative, pending
the review of public comments and the proceedings of the hearing.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive information from
and the opinions of the public, and the panel should be encouraged
to ask clarifying questions of the public as appropriate. The
panel is to consist of EPA personnel, especially those who
have personally reviewed the State's application in depth.
We suggest that a representative of the State be present to
testify first, including in the testimony a brief description
of the State program, and to participate in any question and answer
session which the panel might provide at the hearing's conclusion.
(Any general question and answer session should be off the record.)
States may desire to use the hearing to satisfy their own
legal requirements to hold public hearings. Regional Offices
should then determine whether a joint EPA - State hearing is
desirable, considering the purpose of the State's hearing and
its relationship to EPA1s hearing requirement. In some cases
joint hearings would be very cost-effective: States-would not
have to bear the cost of conducting separate hearing; and the
public could avoid the cost of appearing at multiple hearings.
-------
-5-
However, at joint hearings where the State participates
on the hearing panel we must avoid any appearance of State
involvement in EPA's decision-making. The hearing chairperson
can avoid such appearances by carefully and clearly explaining
the situation in the opening remarks. State participation on
the panel should be noted in the "Conduct of Hearing" portion
of the Federal Register hearing notice. Persons presenting
testimony should be asked to identify whether their comments
are for purposes of the State proceedings or the EPA proceedings.
The model also contains an optional section for listing
major issues of interest to EPA. This section is designed to
set out and briefly describe specific problems or issues which
have arisen during review of th« State'« application. The
listing of major issues may help to focus comments on particular
problems facing EPA in the decision whether to grant interim
authorization to the State.
The notice should be double-spaced. The original signed
notice and four copies should be sent to:
Federal Register Office (PM-223)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Attention: Carolyn Ward
A copy of the notice should also be sent to the HQ Review
Team Leader, for placement in the HQ Library with a copy of the-
State application. (The notice should indicate that an application
copy is available for public inspection at the EPA HQ Library).
The EPA Federal Register Office will add appropriate log
and billing numbers and transmit the notice for publication.
Generally, EPA's Federal Register Office can review and transmit
the notice within a day. The notice should be published within
an additional three days. If you need information or special
assistance concerning publication, call Carolyn Ward at
FTS 287-0778.
Attachment
-------
PIG-81-2. Attachment: Model Federal Register Notice
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 123 (Subpart F)
[State] Application for Interim Authorization, Phase I,
Hazardous Waste Management Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region .
ACTION: Notice of public hearing and public comment period.
SUMMARY: EPA has promulgated regulations under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (as amended) to
protect human health and the environment from the improper
management of hazardous waste. Phase I of the regulations
were published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1930
(45 FR 33063). These regulations include provisions for
authorization of State programs to operate in lieu of the
Federal program. Today EPA is announcing the availability for
public review of the [State] application for Phase I interim
authorization, inviting public comment, and giving notice of a
public hearing to be held on the application.
DATE: Comments on the [State] interim authorization
application must be received by [a date at least thirty
days from the date of publication of this notice].
-------
PUBLIC HEARING: EPA will conduct a public hearing on
the [State] interim authorization application at [Time] on
[a date no earlier than 30 days after the date of publication
of this notice]. EPA reserves the right to cancel the public
hearing if significant public interest in a hearing is not
expressed. The State of • will participate
in the public hearing.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held at:
[Room number, address, city, state].
Copies of the [State] interim authorization application
are available at the following addresses for inspection and
copying by the public:
•
[Address and phone number of the main office of the lead State
agency]?
[Address and phone number of EPA Regional Office];
EPA Headquarters Library, Room 2404, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C.
Written comments and requests to speak at the hearing should
be sent to:
[Name, address and phone number of person at EPA Regional Office]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[Name, address and phone number of EPA Regional Office
contact person].
-2-
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the May 19, 1980 Federal Register
(45 FR 33063) the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated
Phase I of its regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (as amended),
to protect human health and the environment from the improper
management of hazardous waste. EPA's Phase I regulations
establish, among other things: the initial identification and
listing of hazardous wastes; the standards applicable to generators
and transporters of hazardous wastes, including a manifest
system; and the "interim status" standards applicable to existing
hazardous waste management facilities before they receive permits.
The May 19 regulations also include provisions under which EPA
can authorize qualified State hazardous waste management programs
to operate in lieu of the Federal program. The regulations
provide for a transitional stage in which qualified State programs
can be granted interim authorization. The interim authorization
program is being implemented in two phases corresponding to
the two stages in which the underlying Federal program will take
effect. In order to qualify for interim authorization,
the State hazardous waste program must, among other things:
(1) have been in existence prior to August 17, 1980, and
(2) be "substantially equivalent" to the Federal program.
A full description of the requirements and procedures for State
interim authorization is included in 40 CFR Part 123 Subpart F,
(45 FR 33479).
-3-
-------
The State of has submitted a complete
application to EPA for Phase I interim authorization. Copies
of the State submittal are available for public inspection and
comment as noted above. A public hearing is to be held on the
submittal, unless significant public interest is not expressed,
as also noted above.
CONDUCT OF HEARING
(Note; Where joint hearings are held to satisfy State
as well as Federal hearing requirements, this section should
be reworded to reflect any changes in hearing format and conduct.
See discussion of joint hearings on page 4 of PIG - 81 -2..)
The hearing is intended to provide an opportunity for interested
pe-rsons to present their views and submit information for consid-
eration by EPA in the decision whether to grant [State] interim
authorization for Phase I of the RCRA program. A panel of EPA
employees involved in relevant aspects of the decision will be
present to receive the testimony.
The hearing will be informally structured. Individuals providing
oral comments will not be sworn in, nor will formal rules of evidence
apply. Questions may be posed by panel members to persons providing
oral comments; however, no cross-examination by other participants
will be allowed.
The State will testify first and present a short overview of the
State program. Other commenters will then be called in the order
in which their requests were received by EPA. As time allows,
persons who did not sign up in advance but who wish to comment
-------
on the State's application for Phase I interim authorization
will also be given an opportunity to testify.
Each organization or individual will be allowed as much time as
possible for oral presentation based on the number of requests
to participate and the time available for the hearing. As a
general rule, in order to ensure maximum participation and
allotment of adequate time for all speakers, participants
should limit the length of their statements to 10 minutes.
The public hearing will be followed, as time permits, by a
question and answer session during which participants may pose
questions to members of the panel.
PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPTS
A transcript of the comments received at the hearing will be prepared.
To ensure accurate transcription, participants should provide
written copies of their statements to the hearing chairperson.
Transcripts will be available from [person and address]
approximately [ ] days after the hearing at a cost of $[ ].
MAJOR ISSUES OF INTEREST TO EPA
In order for a State program to receive interim authorization,
it must be substantially equivalent to the Federal program. EPA
is soliciting comment on all aspects of the substantial equivalence
of the [State] program to the Federal hazardous waste management
program. The Agency is particularly interested in public comment
on the following issues:
-------
[List specific points Where questions exist as to substantial
equivalence.]
Dated: [date]
[Signature]
Regional Administrator
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
T 3 0
PIG-81-3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT;
FROM:
Effect of RCRA Regulations Changes on
Phase I Interim Authorization Approval
TO:
Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant A^miftfistrator
for Solid Waste (WH-362)
/}! **
R. Sarah Compton Ttf^jAJUf^-j
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Enforcement (EN-335)
PIGS Addressees
ISSUE
Can EPA issue Phase I Interim Authorization to a State
program that does not incorporate promulgated revisions to the
Federal regulations of May 19, 1980?
DISCUSSION
Questions have arisen as to the status of a State's
application for Phase I Interim Authorization where that
application is based on the Federal regulations promulgated
May 19, 1980, but is submitted subsequent to promulgation of
changes to those Federal regulations.
Specific concern centers around the Part 261 listed wastes.
On May 19, 1980, EPA categorized certain hazardous wastes and
specifically listed 85 process wastes and 361 commercial chemical
products as hazardous wastes. At the same time, EPA referenced
"Other Listed Wastes" (Preamble, 40 CFR Part 261,'45 FR 33087)
intended for listing as hazardous in June, 1980 and in Fall
1980 (Appendices A and B, respectively). Appendix A lists
25 additional wastes, and Appendix B adds 29 more wastes. By
including Appendices A and B in the May 19, 1980, regulation
EPA tried to ease the burden on the States of having to modify
their regulations in a piecemeal fashion. While there was no
indication that States would have to include these wastes in
their applications for Interim Authorization approval by
November 19, 1980, it was a notice to the States that they most
likely would eventually have to include such wastes.
-------
- 2 -
Clearly the Congress and EPA anticipate the need for periodic
expansion of regulations promulgated under §3001 of RCRA. Thus,
the Regions and States should prepare for revisions and be flexible
enough to include them wherever possible. The Agency also
recognizes that changes to State regulations may entail very
involved procedures, and States may not be able to produce
modifications as quickly as EPA, or they, might desire.
DECISION
EPA will continue to encourage States to incorporate
Federal regulatory revisions as quickly as possible. However,
with the exception of Authorization Plans, all complete applications
for Phase I Interim Authorization submitted prior to May 20, 1981,
will be evaluated against only those Federal regulations which
were promulgated on May 19, 1980. Authorization Plans included in
the States' applications must address Federal regulatory changes
which have been promulgated prior to submission of the Plan to
EPA for evaluation.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
PIG-81-4
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: "Delisting" of Wastes by Authorized States
FROM: Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant
for Solid Waste (WH
R. Sarah Compton \ .
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Enforcement (EN-335)
TO: PIGS Addressees
ISSUE;
Can a State with an authorized hazardous waste management
program be allowed to exempt ("delist") hazardous waste from
individual sites?
DISCUSSION:
EPA has provided certain standards and procedures for
"delisting" waste from a particular generating facility or storage,
treatment, or disposal facility at which a hazardous waste is
generated (see 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, 45 FR 33076, and preamble
discussion at 45 FR 33116). Persons seeking such a delisting
action may petition the Administrator of EPA for an amendment to
the Federal regulations which would provide the exemption. In the
petition, the person must show that the waste is fundamentally
different than that listed by demonstrating, as appropriate, that the
waste does not:
(1) exhibit the characteristic of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity,
(2) meet the criteria for listing the waste as acutely
hazardous (i.e., the oral or dermal LD50 or
inhalation LC50 specified in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2),
45 FR 33121) and also does not meet the toxicity
criterion,
-------
- 2 -
(3) contain the hazardous constituent of Appendix VIII
of 40 CFR 261 (45 FR 33312) for which it was listed,
or, if the waste does contain those constituents,
show that consideration of other factors argue against
the waste being considered a hazardous waste (see
40 CFR 261.11(a)(3), 45 FR 33121). This decision
is based on consideration of any of approximately ten
factors and is a discretionary one.
When a State program has been found to be substantially
equivalent to the Federal program, it receives interim
authorization to operate in lieu of the Federal program; i.e.,
Federal requirements generally no longer apply, and the "requirement(s)
of this subtitle" which are enforced under section 3008 of the
Act are those of the State program approved under section 3006.
Therefore, action by EPA to delist a waste from a particular
generating facility (or storage, treatment, or disposal facility
which generates hazardous waste) in a State with interim authorization
would not affect the State requirements unless the State took a
similar action.
Some concern exists regarding the potential incompatibility
inherent in allowing one State to delist, whereas another State
may desire not to delist. This problem is not unique to the
issue of delisting, since the latter State program may be viewed
as a "more stringent" one (because it regulates more wastes) and
is acceptable under section 3009 of RCRA. (See the preamble to
40 CFR Part 123, Subparts B and F, 45 FR 33385.)
The question here is whether a State program with interim
authorization can provide a delisting mechanism. If so, what shape
and form must that mechanism take if EPA is to authorize the State
program as "substantially equivalent" to the Federal program?
In the regulations under 40 CFR Part 123, EPA is silent on
the issue of State delisting mechanisms. A State without such
a mechanism is not precluded from receiving interim authorization.
The universe of wastes controlled by such a State would be subject
to change only through regulatory or statutory change.
For interim authorization, EPA requires the States to
control a universe of hazardous waste generated, treated,
stored, and disposed of in the State which is nearly identical
to that which would be controlled by the Federal program under
40 CFR Part 261 (see 40 CFR 123.128(a), 45 FR 33481). A State can
demonstrate that its program contains a delisting provision which,
nevertheless, leaves the State universe nearly identical to EPA's.
On the other hand, if the State's delisting mechanism lacked explicit
-------
- 3 -
standards and procedures analogous to those included in EPA's
delisting mechanism, it would be difficult for EPA to assure
that the State was providing the proper control of wastes.
It is possible that a State, as a result of its delisting,
may decrease its universe of wastes such that its coverage is no
longer nearly identical to the Federal universe. For example, a
question has arisen as to what would happen if an interim authorized
State abused its discretion in delisting wastes from individual
sites, but EPA, operating the Federal program in one or more
States into which those wastes were imported, refused to delist
the wastes from those sites. This would clearly be a situation
where the State would be subject to withdrawal of EPA's authorization
for failure to exercise control over activities required, to be
regulated (40 CFR 123.136 and 40 CFR 123.14(a)(2)(i)).
DECISION; State programs with delisting mechanisms may receive
interim authorization provided those delisting mechanisms are
substantially equivalent to EPA's. In order to be considered
substantially equivalent, the State must demonstrate that the
delisting methodology is consistent with its methodology for
listing. The Memorandum of Agreement must contain a provision
that the State will keep EPA fully informed of any State delisting
activities and should make clear the possibility of withdrawal
of authorization in the event that, due to delistings, the State's
universe of wastes is no longer nearly identical to EPA's.
-------
- *' z.: v j. i
(6087^,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 :
NOV i 4 I960 PIO-Si-5
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-U63)
FROM: Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant
for Solid Waste
TO:
R. Sarah Compton
Deputy Assistant
for Water Enforcement
PIGS Addressees
Issue
How will the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-U63)
affect the Subtitle D State solid waste management plans?
Discussion
On October 15, 1980, the "Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980"
(P.L. 96-U63) was enacted. This Act, which amends the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, includes provisions which:
• Define the terms "used oil;" "recycled oil;"
"lubricating oil;" and "re-refined oil."
* Direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to
remove and prevent any biased labeling require-
ments on re-refined oil.
• Provide for the establishment of discretionary
oil recycling programs within the existing State
solid waste management planning process under
Subtitle D of RCRA.
• Provide for technical assistance to the States
to address issues regarding oil recycling.
-------
-2-
0 Require the EPA to develop standards for the
recycling of used oil and to determine whether used
oil is subject to the hazardous vaste requirements
under Subtitle C of RCRA.
* Require the EPA, in cooperation with the Department
of Energy (DOE), Federal Trade Commission (FTC),
and the Department of Commerce (DOC), to study the
environmental concerns and the collection cycle of
used oil and to analyze the supply and demand in the
used oil industry. In addition, the comparison of
energy savings associated with the re-refining of oil
and the development of policies at the Federal, State
and local levels to encourage the recycling of used
oil are to be addressed.
Since the passage of the "Used Oil Recycling Act of 1930"
many questions have been raised concerning the impact of this
Act on the Subtitle C and Subtitle D programs. The majority of
these questions have been in regard to the discretionary plan
(Subtitle D) provisions relating to recycled oil. Section U003(b)
provides that any State plan submitted under Subtitle D may in-
clude, at the State's option, provisions to carry out each of
the following:
"(l) Encouragement to the maximum extent feasible and
consistent with the protection of the public health and
the environment, of the use of recycled oil in all appro-
priate areas of State and local government.
(2) Encouragement of persons contracting with the State
to use recycled oil to the maximum extent feasible, con-
sistent with protection of the public health and the en-
vironment.
(3) Informing the public of the uses of recycled oil.
(U) Establishment and Implementation of a program (includ-
ing any necessary licensing of persons and including the
use, where appropriate, of manifests) to assure that used
oil is collected, transported, treated, stored, reused
and disposed of, in a manner which does not present a
hazard to the public health or environment."
Section U008(f) further provides that the Administrator
may make grants to States, which have a State plan approved
under Section UOOT, or which have submitted a State plan
for approval under such section, where such plan includes
the discretionary provisions for recycled oil described above in
Section U003(b). These grants would be for the purpose of assist-
ing the States in carrying out the discretionary provisions but
could not be used for construction or for the acquisition of land
or equipment.
-------
-3-
Finally, there are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000
for fiscal year 1982 and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1983. No
funds are authorized for fiscal year 1981, and funds for fiscal
years 1982 and 1983 have not yet been appropriated.
Decision
To obtain approval under Section U007, State plans need not
include the discretionary provisions of Section U003 (b).
However, to be eligible for possible financial assistance in
carrying out the discretionary provisions, the State solid
vaste management plan, including the discretionary provisions,
must be approved under Section U007, or must have been submitted
for approval.
States considering the submission of a discretionary plan
for recycled oil must do so in accordance with Section U003(b).
The discretionary provisions must be incorporated into the State
solid vaste management plan which is to be developed pursuant to
Section U002(b). Subpart D of UO CPR Part 256, "Guidelines for
for Development and Implementation of State Solid Waste Management
Plans" sets forth additional requirements and recommendations for
developing and implementing resource conservation and recovery
programs. The deadline for submission of State plans for approval
under Section U007 is January 31, 1981. States may subsequently
amend their plans to include these discretionary provisions (See
UO CFR 256.03).
Should funds be appropriated for such grants in fiscal year 1982
or fiscal year 1983, States meeting the eligibility requirements may
apply for financial assistance to carry out the discretionary provisions.
We intend to address this program in the "Guidance for the Develop-
ment of State Work Programs for Fiscal Year 1982 under the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA).W
Further questions should be directed to: Mr. James Michael
(WH-563), State Programs Branch, State Programs and Resource Re-
covery Division, Office of Solid Waste; telephone (202) 755-911*5.
-------
MEMORANDA „„, j ^ «*v,-OJ.- fi
SUBJECT:
„.
ISSUE
PIGS Addressees
to
DlSCUSSTnKT
I• Introduction
S ^?f^^^ i ^" 1 /* * 1 1 • »^* WA *^J ^ * f^fi^j ^k ^^ 1 • ^ ^*4l^S 3 T^ l^ A ^* AM ^
^ ^*^*i A ^^ irf ^K v^ 4* J ** * ^^ ^^ €*i ^LCT^^ 1^? ^ ^& ^ t c^^*» vfl ^^ fiJC ^? 7 n ^ J ^» •
ion of the reguiated
Approximatelv ™« ^«*«eed
-
«ss^*a^a2fiss.
-------
-2-
<« *«P ? \ of this Program Implementation Guidance memorandum
•utSriS 5a T, whether a state must have statutory and regulatory
authority for hazardous waste management over Federal agencies in
order to qualify for Interim Authorization, pursuant to 40 ell
subpart P.
II. Definition of a Federal agency
ofin in?d?T?iAa9enCJ is defined in RCRA -§1004 (4) and in 40 CFR
260.10(a)(22). Federal agency means "any department, agency, or
other instrumentality of the Federal Government, any independent
agency or establishment of the Federal Government including any
Government Corporation, and the Government Printing Office".
As used in this memorandum, "Federal facilities" are any facilities
owned or operated by any "Federal agency". , "cmt^es
III. What Federal requirements exist over Federal agencies?
^ RCRA establishes Federal responsibilities for
hazardous waste management. RCRA §6001 states that each
agency snai1 be s^Dect to, and comply with, the same sub-
ET "X requirements for hazardous waste management
3^ on other persons by Federal, State, and local
When ^hat Federal agency is engaged in activities
£ 2if!aU i °r ? i<=h may result' ** the disposal or management
of solid or hazardous waste.
°rder 12°88 directa Executive agencies to comply
* WaStf DisP°aal Act' aa amended by RCRA (42 U.S.C.
J S6q); Secti°n 1"302 dire<=^ the EPA Administrator or his
to c0nduct inspections, as necessary, to monitor compliance
: agenciesT Section 1-601 establishes that the Admini-
strator or an appropriate State agency can notify an Executive
agency of its violation of an applicable pollution control standard,
a3^J?Pr°Ie a comPiiance Pl^ a*d schedule. This procedure is in
addition to the other applicable statutory enforcement procedures
ana sanctions .
IV. What controls must States have over Federal agencies to qualifv
for Interim Authorization? H Y
A. Universe of Wastes
The Federal regulation at 40 CFR 123.128(a) requires that a
State program control a universe of hazardous wastrgenlrateT
i5entS;i^°r^'/nd,diSP°Sed °f in the State which i3 near^ '
identical to that which would be controlled by the Federal orogram
under 40 CFR Part 261. The "nearly identical" test is discussld
£8S ennCR? ^f^1"*^ Authorization Guidance ManuL (IpA?
^ ?^PS:,, '}" ' 21 • Th! test f°r aubstantial equivalence is based
on the generic nature of the waste, not on the nature of ownership
(e.g. Federal) of the generating facility or the waste? CWnership
-------
-3-
B. Generators, Transporters and Facilities
The Federal regulation at 40
'
transporters, ««« owners/operators of facin +•<««, ««« 7 J~"'
wastes. p *ators or raciiities managing hazardous
C. State Controls
State ryr.rvr,.a~ ^ _.."_.T^iy e^ivalent to the Federal Droorara. »
DECISION
and Executive intent that Federal Lnate- C°ngressional
Progr» retirements.
-------
-4-
provide the State with Jurisdiction
te
its Program Description that it
in the manner descf " CPR
rte
in
-------
presidential documents
(3195-61-M]
Title 3— The President
Executive Order 12088 October 13, 1978
Federd Compliance With Pollution Control Standards
. • By die authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and
statutes of the United States of America, including Section 22 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2621), Section 313 of the Federal Water
Pollution" Control Act. as amended (33 U.S.C. 1323). Section 1447 of the
Public Health Service Act, as amended by the Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. SOOj-6), Section 118 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7418(b)), Section 4 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4903).
Section 6001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6961).
and Section 301 of Tide 3 of the United States Code, and to ensure Federal
compliance with applicable pollution control standards, it is hereby ordered as
follows: !
•
1-1. Applicability of Pollution Control Standards.
»
1-101. The head of each Executive agency is responsible for ensuring that
an necessary actions are taken for the prevention, control, and abatement of
environmental pollution with respect to Federal facilities and activities under
the control of die agency.
1-102. The head of each Executive agency is responsible for compliance
widi applicable pollution control standards, including those established pursu-
ant to. but not limited to, die following;
. (a) Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 */ «?.)-
(b) Federal Water Pollution Control Act. as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
stq.).
. (c) Public Healdi Service Act. as amended by die Safe Drinking Water Act
(42U.S.C.
47707
(d) Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et sea.).
(e) Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et j^.).
(I) Solid Waste Disposal Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et sea.).
(g) Radiation guidance pursuant to Section 274(h) of die Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021 (h); see also, the Radiation Protec-
tion Guidance to Federal Agencies for Diagnostic X Rays approved by the
President on January 26, 1978 and published at page 4377 of the FEDERAL
REGISTER on February 1. 1978).
(h) Marine Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended
(S3 U.S.C. 1401. 1402, 1411-1421. 1441-1444 and 16 U.S.C. 1431-1434).
(i) Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. as amended (7
1-103. "Applicable pollution control standards" means die same substan-
tive. procedural, and odier requirements dial would apply to a private person.
1-2. Agency Coordination.
1-201. Each Executive agency shall cooperate with die Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, hereinafter referred to as the Adminis-
»
KDOAl IEGISTO. VOL «. NO. SOI— TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1»7«
-------
47708 THE PRESIDENT
trator. and Slate, interstate, and local agencies in the prevention, control, and
abatement of environmental pollution.
1-202. Each Executive agency shall consult with the Administrator and
with State, mtc-rsiate. and local agencies concerning the best techniques and
methods available for ihe prevention, control, and abatement of environmen-
tal pollution.
1-3. Technical Advice and Oversight.
1-301. The Administrator shall provide technical advice and assistance to
Executive agencies in order to ensure their cost effective and timely compli-
ance with applicable pollution control standards.
1-302. The administrator shall conduct juch reviews and inspections as
may be necessary to monitor compliance with applicable pollution control
standards by Federal facilities and activities.
1-4. Pollution Control Plan,
1-401. Each Executive agency shall submit to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, through the Administrator, an annual plan for the
control of environmental pollution. The plan shall provide for any necessary
improvement in the design, construction, management, operation, and mainte-
nance of Federal facilities and activities, and shall include annual cost esti-
mates. The Administrator shall establish guidelines for developing such plans.
1-402. In preparing its plan, each Executive agency shall ensure that the
plan provides for compliance with all applicable pollution control standards.
1-403. The plan shall be submitted in accordance with any other instruc-
tions that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may issue.
1-5. Funding.
1-501. The head of each Executive agency shall ensure thai sufficient
funds for compliance with applicable pollution control standards are requested
in the agency budget.
1-502. The head of each Executive agency shall ensure dial funds appro-
priated and apportioned for the prevention, control and abatement of environ-
mental pollution arc not used for any other purpose unless permitted bv'law
and specifically approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
1-6. Complianff n~it/i Pollution Controls.
l-COl. Whenever the Administrator or the appropriate State, interstate.
or local agency notifies an Executive agency that it Is in violation of an
applicable pollution control standard (see Section 1-102 of this Order) the
Executive agency shall promptly consult with the notifying agency and provide
lor-us approval a plan to achieve and maintain compliance with the applicable
pollution control standard. This plan shall include an implementation sched-
ule Tor coming into compliance as soon as practicable.
1-402. The Administrator shall make every effort to resolve conflicts
regarding such violauon. between Executive agencies and. on request of any
party, such conflicts between an Executive agency and a State, interstate, or a
tool agency. If the Administrator cannot resolve a conflict, the Administrator
shall request the D.rector of the Office of Management and Budget to resolve
tne conflict.
I-G03. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
consider unresolved conflicts at the request of the Administrator. The Director
shall seek the Adniumiraior's technological judgment and determination with
regard to the applicability of statutes and regulations.
FEOEXAl BMISTM. VOU 43. NO. 701-TUESOAT, OCTO8S* 17. I97»
-------
THE PRESIDENT 47709
1-604. These conflict resolution procedures are in addition to. not in lieu
of. other procedures, including, sanctions, for the enforcement of applicable
pollution .control standards.
1-605. Except as expressly provided by a Presidential exemption under
this Order, nothing in this Order, nor any action or inaction under this Order,
shall be construed to revise or modify any applicable pollution control
standard.
1-7. Limitation on Exemptions.
1-701. Exemptions from applicable pollution control standards may only
be granted under statutes cited in Section l-I02(a) through 1-102(0 if the
President makes the required appropriate statutory determination: chat such
exemption is necessary (a) in the interest of national security, or (b) in the
paramount interest of the United States.
1-702. The head of an Executive agency may, from time to time, recom-
mend to the President through the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, that an activity or facility, or uses thereof, be exempt from an applica-
ble pollution control standard.
1-703. The Administrator shall advise the President, through the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, whether he agrees or disagrees with
a recommendation for exemption and his reasons therefor. .
1-704. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget must
advise the President within sixty days of receipt of the Administrator's views.
1-8. Central Provisions.
1-601. The head of each Executive agency that is responsible for the
construction or operation of Federal facilities outside the United States shall
ensure that such construction or operation complies with the environmental
pollution control standards of general applicability in the host country or
jurisdiction.
1-802. Executive Order No. 11752 of December 17, 197S, is revoked.
THE WHITE HOUSE.
October 13. 1978.
- (PR Doe, 78-29406 Piled 10-13-78; 3:40 pra]
EorrouAL Son: The President's statement or Oct. IS. 1978. on signing Executive Order
12088 and his memorandum Tor the heads of departments and agencies, diced Oct. 13. 1978. on
Federal compliance with pollution control standards are pnnted in the Weekly Compilation of
Presidential Documents (vol. 14. no. 41).
lEoara. vou «, NO. 201—TUESDAY. OCTOBER ir.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460 - J
DEC 1 1330 PIG - 31 -7
MEMORANDUM -
SUBJECT: Final Determinations on State Applications for
Interim Authorization: Action Memorandum and
Federal Register Notic«
FROM: /^teffen W. Plehn^^^
' Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste (W.5-562),
R. Sarah Compton
Deputy Assistant
for Water Enfo
TO: PIGS AddressA
ISSUE
What subjects should be addressed in the Action Memorandum and
Federal Register notice of final determination on State applications
for interim authorization? What is the process for development,
review and dissemination of these documents?
DISCUSSION
The basic requirements and procedures for final decision-making
on State applications for interim authorization are listed in UO CFR
123.135(b), EPA Delegation 8-T (as amended), and pages 1.2-8 and
1.2-9 of the RCRA State Interim Authorization Guidance Manual. This
guidance memorandum presents these requirements and provides ad-
ditional information on this subject, including examples of the
Federal Register notice and Action Memorandum.
UO CFR 123.135(b) provides that:
"Within 90 days of the notice in the Federal Register required
by paragraph (a)(l) of this section, the Administrator shall
make a final determination whether or not to approve the State's
program taking into account any comments submitted. The Admin-
istrator vill give notice of this final determination in the
Federal Register and in accordance with §123»39(a)(1). The no-
tification shall include a concise statement of the reasons for
this determination, and a response to significant comments re-
ceived."
EPA Delegation 8-T, as amended, delegates this decision-making
authority to the Regional Administrator. It also provides that:
"Before issuing, denying or withdrawing interim or final au-
thorization for a State hazardous waste program under Section
-------
-5-
The EPA Federal Register office will add appropriate log and
billing numbers and transmit the notice for publication. Generally,
this office can review and transmit the notice within a day after
receipt. The notice should be published within an additional three
working days. If you need information or expedited treatment, call
Carolyn Ward at PTS 287-0778.
In addition to the Federal Register notice, the final
determination must be announced in accordance with Uo CFR
123.39(a)(l). This section requires that a notice be:
"...circulated in a manner calculated to attract the
attention of interested persons including: (i) publi-
cation in enough of the largest newspapers in the State
to attract statewide attention; and (ii) mailing to
persons on the State agency mailing list and to any other
persons whom the Agency has reason to believe are
interested."
Finally, we wish to call attention to the requirement in Uo
CFR 123.135(b) that the final determination be made within 90 days
of the initial Federal Register notice of public comment. We will
define "final determination" as the date on which the Federal Reg-
later notice of final determination is signed by the RA following
the completion of the HQ concurrence process. The preparation,
review and final approval of the Action Memorandum and Federal
Register notice must be accomplished within this 90 day period.
Attachment
-------
DATE
SUBJECT
FROM-
TO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
October 30, 1980
Phase I Interim Authorization of Arkansas' Hazardous
Management Program -- ACTION MEMORANDUM
lene Harrison
Regional Administrator
Eckhardt C. Beck
Assistant Administrator for
Water and Waste Management (WH-563)
Michele Beige! Corash
General Counsel (A-130)
Jeffrey G. Miller
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement (EN-329)
ISSUE
In the attached Federal Register notice, I grant Phase I interim
authorization of the State of Arkansas' hazardous waste management
program according to section 3006 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and 40 CFR Part 123. Your concurrence
is required before we can publish the notice in the Federal Register.
DISCUSSION
The State of Arkansas submitted its draft application for Phase I
interim authorization on July 30, 1980. In our comments to the State,
we identified four major problem areas, namely (1) deficiencies re-
garding the right of citizens to intervene in enforcement actions; (2)
restrictions on availability to EPA of State program information with-
out restriction; (3) lack of detail in the Authorization Plan; and (4)
limitations in the Memorandum of Agreement concerning EPA's oversight
responsibilities.
The State submitted its final application on September 11, 1980. The
application remedied most problems In the first area. However, EPA
desired additional assurances that departmental policy on public partici-
pation in enforcement actions would be endorsed by the Commission on
Pollution Control and Ecology. Therefore, on September 26, 1980, the
Commission adopted a resolution endorsing the Federal requirements for
public participation in enforcement actions.
In a letter dated September 29, 1980, the attorney authorized to sign
the Attorney General's statement stated that "upon request from the EPA,
any information obtained or used by this Department in the administra-
tion of the RCRA program may be made available to EPA upon its request
without any restrictions except those which are placed upon the EPA by
any applicable laws or regulations." This letter clarified all stated
reservations to possible restrictions on EPA's access to State program
information.
EPA Form 1320-4 (Ra». 3-76)
-------
The Authorization Plan submitted with the final application specifies
with sufficient detail the actions the State will take to seek and
obtain Phase II Interim Authorization and Final Authorization.
The Memorandum of Agreement was also revised to include EPA's comments.
In addition, the State submitted additional information about the
Arkansas Transportation Commission's portion of the State hazardous
waste program, including an elaboration of the Commission's respon-
sibilities, enforcement authority, and coordination procedures*
EPA gave the public sufficient time to comment on the State's applica-
tion. We held a public hearing on October 20, 1980. We also held open
the public comment period until October 27, 1980. The three comments
we received were presented at the public hearing..
An industry representative requested that the procedures for handling
confidential information be revised so that EPA would request such
information directly from the firm. The commenter was concerned that
adequate protection of such Information be provided.
In our opinion confidential Information will be adequately protected by
the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. As discussed in the Attorney
General's statement, there Is adequate protection for information
transmitted between EPA and the State through procedures that allow
claims of confidentiality to be asserted and evaluated when such
transfer of information occurs. Any information for which confi-
dentiality 1s requested must be treated as such by both the State and
EPA once a claim of confidentiality has been reviewed and its. validity
has been accepted.
The second commenter remarked that there were no guidelines or specifi-
cations for equipment to be used by transporters of hazardous wastes*
The standards for transporters can be found in 40 CFR Part 263*
Packaging requirements may also be found in 40 CFR Part 262.
The other comment related to whether the State would have an adequate
well-trained staff and proper funding to operate the program. We have
concluded in accordance with national guidelines on state resources that
the State currently has adequate resources to operate Phase I of the
program. The Department of Pollution Control and Ecology has submitted
a budget to the State Legislature that should provide adequate resources
to meet EPA's requirements for Phase II- Interim Authorization. This
budget request, of course, Is subject to approval by the State Legis-
lature.
RECOMMENDATION
In your memorandum of October 6, 1980, you expected "to concur in
granting authorization to this program" realizing, of course, that "a
final determination to approve the State program cannot be made until
comments submitted by the public have been taken Into account". I
therefore recommend that you concur in my action and publish the
attached notice in the Federal Register.
Attachment
-------
.Concur Eckhardt C. Beck Date
Assistant Administrator
_Non-concur for Water and Waste Management
jConcur Michele Belgel Corash Date
General Counsel
Non-concur
.Concur Jeffrey G. Miller Date
Acting Assistant Administrator
Non-concur for Enforcement
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 123
Arkansas: Interim Authorization, Phase I, Hazardous Waste
Management Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
ACTION: Approval of State program
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to grant Phase I Interim
authorization to the State of Arkansas for its hazardous waste manage-
ment program.
In the May 19, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 33063), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), to protect human
health and the environment from the improper management of hazardous
wastes. Included in these regulations, which become effective 6 months
after promulgation, were provisions fora transitional stage in which
states could be granted interim program authorization. The interim
authorization program will be implemented in two phases corresponding to
the two stages in which an underlying Federal program will take effect.
-1-
-------
On September 11, 1980, the State of Arkansas applied to EPA for Phase I
Interim authorization of its hazardous waste management program. On
September 18, 1980, EPA issued in the Federal Register (45 FR 62170) a
notice of the public comment period on the State's applcation. All
comments received during this period have been noted and considered, as
discussed below.
The State of Arkansas is hereby granted interim authorization to operate
the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management program in accordance
with section 3006 (c) of RCRA and implementing regulations found in 40
CFR 123 Subpart F.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 1980
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas D. Clark, Solid Waste Branch,
U.S. EPA* Region 6* 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75270 (214) 767-
2645.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The State of Arkansas submitted its draft
application for Phase I interim authorization on July 30, 1980. After
reviewing the document, EPA identified four areas of major concern,.
namely: (1) deficiencies regarding the right of citizens to intervene in
enforcement actions; (2) restrictions on availability to EPA of State
program information without restriction; (3) lack of detail in the
Authorization Plan; and (4) deficiencies in the Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA and the State.
-2-
-------
On September 11, 1980, the State of Arkansas submitted its final appli-
cation for Phase I Interim Authorization. Because the application did
not adequately address the first two areas, the State submitted supple-
mental information that satisfied EPA's concerns.
On September 26, 1980, the Arkansas Commission on Pollution Control and
Ecology adopted a resolution endorsing the Federal requirements for
public participation in enforcement actions.
In a letter dated September 29, 1980, the attorney authorized to sign
the Attorney General's statement stated that "upon request from the EPA,
any information obtained or used by this Department in the adminis-
tration of the RCRA program may be available to EPA upon its request
without any restrictions except those which are placed upon the EPA by
any application laws or regulations." This letter clarified all stated
reservations to possible restrictions on EPA's access to State program
information..
The Authorization Plan submitted with the final application specifies
with sufficient detail the actions the State will take to seek and
obtain Phase II Interim Authorization and Final Authorization.
EPA's comments were satisfied in the Memorandum of Agreement submitted
with the final application. In addition, the State submitted additional
information about the Arkansas-Transportation Commission's portion of
the State hazardous waste program, including an elaboration of the
Commission's responsibilities, enforcement authority, and coordination
procedures.
-3-
-------
•. As noticed in the Federal Register on
September 18, 1980 (45 FR 62170), EPA gave the public until October 27,
1980, to comment on the State's application. EPA also held a public
hearing in Little Rock, Arkansas, on October 20, 1980. The only
comments received were presented at the public hearing.
An industry representative requested that the procedures for handling
confidential information be revised so that EPA would request such
information directly from the firm. The commenter was concerned that
adequate protection of such information be provided.
EPA believes that confidential information will be adequately protected
by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. As discussed in the
Attorney General's statement, there is adequate protection for infor-
mation transmitted between EPA and the State through procedures that
allow claims of confidentiality to be asserted and evaluated when such
transfer of information occurs* Any information for which confiden-
tiality is requested must be treated as such by both the State and EPA
once the claim of confidentiality has been reviewed and its validity has
been accepted.
The other comment related to whether the State would have an adequate
well-trained staff and proper funding to operate the program. EPA
believes the State has adequate resources to operate Phase I of the
program under interim authorization. The Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology has submitted a budget to the State Legislature
-4-
-------
that should provide adequate resources to meet EPA's requirements
for Phase II Interim Authorization. This budget request, of course,
is subject to approval by the State Legislature.
Dated: November 10, 1980
Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator
-5-
-------
-2-
3006 of RCRA, the Regional Administrator must obtain the con-
currences of the Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste
Management, the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
the General Counsel. If these Headquarters offices do not
respond in writing within ten working days from receipt of
the action memorandum and draft Federal Register notice, the
RA may assume these offices' concurrence."
The RCRA State Interim Authorization Guidance Manual provides
a discussion of the Action Memorandum preparation and review process:
"After the Headquarters Review Team comments on the responses
to the public comments, an Action Memorandum for the Regional
Administrator will be prepared by the State Delegation Coordina-
tor and the Regional Counsel. This Action Memorandum should con-
tain a specific recommendation with respect to the approval of
the application.
The Action Memorandum should highlight specific questions or pro-
blem areas and provide some insight into key agreements reached
during the drafting stage. The Action Memorandum should provide
space for Headquarters and Regional Office concurrence sign-offs.
An additional item to be included in the package which goes to
the Regional Administrator is a Federal Register Official flotice
of the Approval.
It is important that the Action Memorandum represent the
recommendations of the Regional Workgroup members and the Head-
quarters Review Team in order to expedite the concurrence sign-
off process..
Each Regional Workgroup member and Headquarters Review Team mem-
ber has the responsibility of briefing his/her respective Div-
ision Director or Office Director on the final recommendation
in advance of the transmittal of the Action Memorandum to ensure
that there will not be any unnecessary delays in the concurrence
process. Coordination of the concurrence sign-off in Washington
remains with the Headquarters Review Team Leader and the State
Delegation Coordinator in the Region.
In the event the concurring offices cannot agree on the
final determination, it is the Regional Administrator's
responsibility to resolve the problem with the Administrator."
Several questions have been raised concerning implementa-
tion --of these requirements, such as: What information should be
in the Action Memorandum? How should the Federal Register notice
be worded? Who sends the Action Memorandum and who receives it?
How are HQ officials involved in the review and concurrence process?
The remainder of this memorandum provides answers to these questions.
-------
-3-
DECISIOK
The Action Memorandum should contain the following items
noted 'in the Manual:
* Highlights of specific questions or problem areas,
raised in EPA reviev or significant public comments;
0 Discussion of key agreements reached during the
drafting of the State's application (e.g., how the
State responded to EPA comments);
0 A specific recommendation with respect to approval
of the application; and
• Spaces for the concurrences of the Assistant
Administrators and General Counsel and for the
signature of the RA.
A draft Federal Register notice of final determination on the
application should be attached to the Action Memorandum. The Fed-
eral Register notice must contain a concise statement of the reasons
for the Agency's determination on the State application and concise
responses to significant comments received from the public. The
discussion of reasons for the decision should indicate that the
State does or does not satisfy the Uo CFR 123 Subpart P require-
ments for Phase I of interim authorization. The response to public
comments should especially note any comments received in regard to
"Major Issues of Interest to EPA" listed in the earlier- Federal
Register notice of public comment and public hearing. The effective
date of the authorization can be the date of the notice's publica-
tion or a later date and should be specified in the Federal Register
notice. The notice should be double-spaced, as required by Federal
Register procedures.
Attached are copies of the Action Memorandum and
Federal Register notice on Arkansas' complete application.
These documents provide an example of how to cover the topics
discussed in this memorandum. It should be noted, however,
that the Arkansas application and public hearing were relatively
non-controversial. In States where a larger number of critical
issues have been raised or where the authorization decision is
less straightforward, it may be necessary to expand the discussion
of specific questions, comments, and agreements reached during
earlier stages of the process. (We wish to thank Region VI
for the competent preparation of the Arkansas documents.)
As the Guidance Manual indicates, the State Delegation
Coordinator and Regional Counsel should prepare the Action
Memorandum package. These papers should reflect the recommen-
dations of both the Regional Workgroup and Headquarters Review
-------
-u-
Team If possible. Such a consensus will expedite the concurrence pro-
cess. The package should receive the concurrences of the Regional
Workgroup on the yellow file copy before being transmitted to the
RA.
We suggest that the Action Memorandum be addressed from
the RA to the two Assistant Administrators and the General Counsel,
since the concurrences of these HQ offices are being solicited. After
the RA has reviewed and signed the Memorandum, it should be transmitted
along with the draft Federal Register notice to the HQ Review Team
Leader. This person will provide copies to the two Assistant Admini-
strators, the General Counsel and HQ Review Team members- on the day
the package is received. The 10-day HQ review period will take
place concurrently in all three offices. Because of the brevity of
the review period, HQ offices should promptly identify any remain-
ing major problems and immediately raise them with their AA/GC and
Regional counterparts. This will expedite attempts to resolve the
problem and develop approaches agreeable to all parties. The HQ
Review Team Leader will collect the three HQ offices' responses
and return them to the Region*
If any of the HQ offices do not respond within the 10 working days,
the- RA may assume the office's concurrence with the Region's recommen-
dation. (The HQ Review Team Leader will magnafax HQ responses to the
RA if necessary to meet the 10-day deadline.) If one or more of
the HQ offices nonconcurs with the recommendation, and no resolution
can be reached, it is the RA's responsibility to resolve the problem
with the Administrator. It is our hope, however, that through the
review process discussed above, disagreements can be resolved and for-
mal non-concurrences and appeals to the Administrator can be avoided
in most cases*
After obtaining HQ concurrences, the- Region's State Delegation
Coordinator- should send an original signed Federal Register
notice and four copies to:
Federal Register Office (PM-223)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U01 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20U60
Attention: Carolyn Ward
A copy of the signed Federal Register notice should be sent
at the same time to the HQ Review Team Leader.
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^B*£ $ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
?*^T^
%*fl^
"25 I9SO PIG 81-8
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Issue:
Program Implementation Guidance On Issuance of
Provisional EPA Identification Numbers
Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant
for Solid Waste
R. Sarah Compton*
Deputy Assistant 'Administrator
for Water Enforcement (EN-335)
PIGS Addressees
and Regional Notification Contacts
•
Should the Agency establish a new procedure to facilitate
rapid issuance of EPA identification numbers to generators or
transporters during spills or other unanticipated events?
Discussion;
The final RCHA Subtitle C regulations effective November 19,
1980 include requirements for hazardous waste generators and
-transporters to obtain EPA identification numbers. Generators and
transporters who did not obtain an EPA identification number
during the notification period may obtain one by applying on
EPA Form 8700-12. concern has been expressed by some EPA
Regional Offices and some members of the regulated community
that the regulations do not provide for rapid issuance of
identification numbers during spills and other unanticipated
incidents where a person may become a hazardous waste generator
or transporter. The following scenario illustrates this
type of situation.
A spill of gasoline, which met the ignitable characteristic
of hazardous waste, occurred at a gasoline filling station.
The station did not have an EPA identification number. Once
the spilled material was contained in barrels, the station
operator judged that keeping the barrels on-site for several
weeks while waiting for an identification number could be
-------
dangerous. The transporters he contacted would not pick up
the waste to take it to a facility unless the station operator
produced a manifest bearing the generator's identification number.
The operator called his EPA Regional Office to obtain a
number but was told that the regulations do not provide for
their issuance over the phone, and that application would
have to be made on Form 8700-12. Obviously, that solution
was unworkable, for it prevented timely and safe handling of
the waste. Later that day it was* resolved that the Regional
Office would issue a special identification number over the
phone to the operator, thus enabling him to have the waste
transferred to another location without delay. This is one
of several examples brought to our attention, indicating a
need for rapid identification number issuance.
In response to this need, the Agency will publish a
Notice in the Federal Register as soon as possible announcing
that EPA Regional Offices may in certain instances and at
their discretion issue provisional EPA identification numbers.
The Regional Notification Contacts will be listed as contact
points. I urge those individuals to pian for implementation
of this new procedure.
At this time, we have identified a general set of circumstances
where issuance of a provisional identification number would be
appropriate. As the hazardous waste program matures, other
applications will probably become apparent. Officials may waive
the EPA identification number requirements for generators
and transporters engaged in immediate hazardous waste removal
following a discharge incident. (See 40 CPR 263.30(b) and
EPA Headquarters guidance memo to Regional Offices on emergency
response, 11/19/80.) For a variety of reasons a waiver may
not be authorized, or if a waiver is authorized, the generator
or transporter may still identify a practical need for obtaining
an identification number before transporting the waste. In
such a case, an oral or written provisional identification number
may be issued by a Regional Office.
Decision t jy
Regional Office p^-jp^noi a>iould>be prepared to issue
provisional numbers on fj -day, 24-hour baaia^ Preparations
should also be made to issue Liu.se uuudaci'o orally either over
the phone or in person, as well as in writing.
Recommended procedures for issuing a provisional "identi-
fication number are as follows:
a) Ascertain the need for a provisional number from the
applicant.
b) If a decision is made to issue the number, collect
as much of the information required for Form 8700-12
as possible.
-------
-
nine SSt coda fer each subsequent "-**.1""*;
eTg! . -VAP000000428 . » ( These number 9 ^J"J*^J
Lit of the Dun and Bradstreet system and will not
Centered into the national computer data base.)
e) Document all proceedings and follow through as appropriate,
persons who receive PSTaffbrt by the Agency
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC 1 Q 1980
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
'PIG-81-9
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTr
PROM:
Effect of- EFA's Memorandum of Understanding with the
Department of Transportation on Activities in States
with Cooperative Arrangements
Steffen W. Plehn,
Deputy Assistant
for Solid Waste (
R. Sarah Compton'
Deputy* Assistant'Administrator
Water Enforcement (EN-335)
istrato
562)
TO:
FIG.'s Addressees'
ISSUE t
How does EPA's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Department of Transportation. (DOT) affect activities conducted
by States- with Cooperative Arrangements?
DISCUSSION;
The- EPA-DOT Memorandum of Understanding (45 PR 51645, see
attachment) on hazardous wastes, transportation enforcement was
signed on June 24, 1980» The purpose of the MOU is to clarify
the responsibilities each Agency has in enforcing regulations
concerning hazardous waste transportation- The MOU*, in essence,
assigns to DOT the primary enforcement responsibility regarding
transporters, of. hazardous waste and assigns to EPA the primary
enforcement responsibility regarding generators and TSD facilities
It also calls for the exchange of information between the Agencies
and cooperation in inspecting and bringing enforcement actions
against violators of regulations under both RCRA and the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA).
-------
The EPA-DOT MOO was executed by and operates solely
between the two Federal agencies. Authorization, pursuant
to §3006 of RCRA, of State programs does not bring the States
within the purview of the MOO. EPA. encourages authorized7 States
to execute similar agreements with either the U.S. DOT .or''their
State DOT counterparts to enable them to obtain maximum use of
available resources and expertise.
•x.
The responsibilities and conditions of the EPA-DOT MOU must
be considered where States are conducting inspections and other*
enforcement activities* '--ider Cooperative Arrangements with EPA*
If the Cooperative Arre . ment calls for State personnel to
inspect transporters under the- State's authority, as a. matter
of policy such activity falls under the auspices of the EPA-DOT
MOU, and the U.S. DOT should be notified* Where State personnel
are acting as. representatives of EPA. under §3007 of RCRA, the
inspections clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the EPA-DOT
MOU and the U~.S» DOT must: be notified- The EPA, Regional Office
or the State should, be able, to provide the U.S. DOT Regional
Office with information, oa the extent of the anticipated inspec-
tion program,, the targeted areas r and the results; of- completed.
inspections where violations of the HMTA. are detected. EPA
and/or the State can expect similar information: from- DOT.
DECISIONr
In preparing the Cooperative Arrangement where -the State is
performing inspections of hazardous waste transporters,- either
the EPA Regional Office or the State must inform the appropriate
U.S. DOT Regional Office of such Arrangement. Under the EPA-DOT
MOU, the EPA Regional Office remains obliged to notify DOT.
However, 3s part, of the Cooperative Arrangement, the State may
fulfill this obligation.. . ., .
• To address the responsibilities assigned in the MOU, EPA
Headquarters is preparing an Implementation Plan. This Plan will
describe exact procedures EPA. and DOT will use in carrying out
the MOU. In the near future, we will transmit a draft of the
plan to the Regional Offices for review and comment.
Attachment: EPA-DOT MOU
-------
Federal Register / VoL 45. No. 151 •/ Monday. Augnat 4. I98Q./ Notices , 5164S
waster programs are encouraged to
develop their own, agreements between
the appropriate State transportation. .
agency and Slam environmental agency
to ensure the unifocsi an<* consistent
enforcement of the hazardous waste •
transportation regulations.
The MOU. which delineates the areas
and ^
Enforcement erf Standards AppUcacte :
to Strippers and. Transporters ot
Hazardous Waste; Memorandum of
Understanding Between trie
Department of Transportation and the
OS. Environmental Protecfisn Agency
Pursuant to the Hazardous Materials
•TransportationAct(KMTA).49U&C. '
1801-1812. the Secretary of
Transportation promulgated regulations'- .
governing the> transport of hazardous
wasteland hazardoos substances. 45 Fit
•""BO (May 22. ISaO^Porsuantto the
wree Conservation and Recovery
.. (RCRA), 42.OS.C. 6S01-638L the-
Adnxmstratorof theU-S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
regulations which ev^biiih standards
applicable- to transoorters of the-
hazardous waste. 4S FR 33120 (May 19.
1380). The regulations establishing
standards applicable to transporters of
hazardous waste were promulgated by
the Administrator after consultation.
with the Secretary of Transportation -...
and are-consistent with me.-"--. . .
ents of HMTA and the-. :*
s<» material trajuportatfon-Iie
DOT regulations require shippers of
hazardous waste*, as defined by EPA. to.
cafflpiy with bodi HMTA and RdA
reguiaoons; This jroop includes wastes
ere pravioosiy designated hazardous
materials. These wastes must canoiy with
tha- new DOT standards for hazardous waste
^
responsibilities wio." ' .
respect to hazardous waste shipments*
reads as follows: "
^
TH«iminiifiim of Gtodosaodiag Bctweas t£r
Emuuumaatai Prot^caon Aggacyaa±ta» j-
' '
_ - . •
LParpoa* • • ..
The porpOM of this Memorandum of
UndMStandica(MOU)i3todelineatath»-
areas aiioBoasifaiiity of tha Oepvtnwnt o*
TranaportadoafDOTT and tha £asrtranm«n«j
Prelection Agency (EPA) for tha eaforceoetu.
of standards applicable to du ihipasar and
.transportatioa of hazardou* waste, This-
MOU will alsa sat forth, thaw areas of joint
respaofibiiity aodeaoacntiaa betiveaa th»-
two Agendas.
ILSlatataer Bast*
regulations promulgated pursaanl to. that.
- addition. me Administrator of— — .
the Secretary of Transportation' ~ ~~"v
resoecang tfae-regalations'of hazardous'- •*
waste materials subject to H&OA and '
for the addition of materials to be'-' •-*•
coveredbytnatAct."' "4'. V-'-v^t .:•""•
In: order to integrate the> -/T ;;*•:*?%., •
a^hnrmstration »p** enforcement of the* •'—
provisions of TiMTS and RCR/tand to*-'^
extant practicable, the- Secretary of •<—*
T"r"*pqrtatJQ'T3B'l
EPA have executed a Memorandum of
ierstanduig (MOU) regarding the -: """
jrcement of standards applicable to
-snippers and transporters of hazardous •
waste.. • • •":"••'' ' ~.*~
The Secretary of Transportation and ""
the Administrator of "EPA do not intend
the MOU to establish standards
applicable to stac&hazardous waste
programs which* are authorized under
Cottsarvattoa andBecavecjr Act of 1378
(RCSA) (42 O&C 8901 et seq.) in Soetton
3002 and SecttoaJOOlnqaiees EPA to
regulatff generators aodtransporteraoT'
luzardoua woatas to protect hmnaa. health.
apA ths sfrvfranflnaL Tbis aathontjr covers-
bach inter* and iatra-stata traowortatton. The
• Acs req
P8 reeotolceepisz, rejortn^
^ with the
manifest system, and tha transportation of* -*
waste onfy to permitted"lacilltfes.'
Section-3OW also require* the •• -----
Admmistntor of EPA to ensure that * -» • -
hazardous waste-transportadott regulations •
promulgated under SCSfnte consistent withr
AosepRjauOgatedhy DOT under that- ... . .
-
. 3. Areost ofZtufiyfefuai Regulation. Tiers-
are. however, area* over watch only one or
the other Agency has. jurisdiction; OIWSOCB:
area is the EPA requirement that transporters
dean up any discharges of, hazardous waste
which (hey are carryias. DOT cannot .
incorporate-sodi a requirement into it*.- —
reguiationshecauM it is beyond DOT> .
aathontys ~ " • "™ '
DOC on the other hand, requiiea, thar
certain safety features be installed on all
motor vehicles. EPA's authority does nor
extend to such safety requirements, and they
would not be included, in EPA's regulations.
/V. Tatms.cf Agreement.
A. ThfEavinnnnatalPrsieeson Agency
WOL U Conduct aa on-soing program to-
monitor compiiance of generators of
hazardous, waste and hazardous waste-
maoagement facilities with tha RCXA.
regulations. • •
" 2.3rmgenforeement actions, at timeaw.
lavohrtes hazardous- waste transporters*
where the transportation is>anellary to-
UeaonenC storage or disposal of hazardou*
waste or other activities normally under the
primary Jurisdf etioo of EPA as discussed is-
this MOIL (Por example,* "midnighS:
dumper" will be considered an illegal
disposer. The fact that the-Tdusper" I* -
eanspomng the waste is ancillary to the*
disposal of the- waste and EPA will bra?
appropriate enforcement action against hint)
(H&ffAtfnrihennnre,itprovides tha -.—-
. . ..-. .^_
recommendations to the Secretary of. .". .
Traasnoftatimt respecting HMTA regafatfonsV •
and for eo^fion of materials to b»(aJce*aveilafaie tr> BMCS f?fWX IXTT
any reports, doemnents or other evidenea .
oecessary to support an enforcement artnn
under HMTA which. Evolves hazardous. .
' waste materials.
' 8,\teke available to the Office af ' •
Hazardous Materials Reguiaoon. .Materials
Transportaltea Bureau. Researea and Special
Programs Administration. DOT. aey reports,
documents or other evidence necessary to
-------
5164S Federal Register / VoL 45, No. -151 / Monday. August' 4. 1980 / Notices •
9. Bring enforcement actions to address. j on be handled mara-efBaentiy. and .
hazardous waste activities which may -..- • • •. expeditionsly by such speoal agreement : •
pi-»««m an "htmimatit aru^ anhiftnnrigl •• (7. TT»<« Memafamhm nf UnA>>gtaq<^ awy i«imi)«1^ ~v' rHtia
Headquarters contact point to whom .-
i-nmfntir»<~»y(>jfl regarding >t"" agreement or
matters affected thereby may be referred foe • •
attention. - . ;
5.Asngn regional liaisons between the
Agencies, and provide a nwhgm-M.. by which-
regional contacts will be made and
maintained for the period of this agreement. .
8. Issue and exchange with theother.
instructions and guideline* implementing this
Memorandum of Understanding identifying' -•
interageney contacts and liaison „ . .,.-**. -^r
representatives, and setting forth other" -" !
pertinent operational procedures to-be- .-;«-.^ •'
followed relative to Una agreement. --»-.—. .--D
" '
.
A. This Memorandum of Understanding is.-
act intended to limit in any way the statutory '
authority or jurisdiction of either Agency.
3. Nothing in this Memorandum of
Understanding modifies other »*««*<««
agreements.- or precludes either Agency from
entering into separate agreements setting • :.
forth procedures for special programs which -
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JUL23 1980
OFFICE OP ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of
Transportation on the Enforcement of Hazardous Waste
Transportation Regulations
TO: See Below
PROM: Jeffrey
Act ingzJCsi
-------
Memorandum of Understanding
between the
Environmental Protection Agency
and the
Department of Transportation
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to
delineate thf areas of responsibility of the Department of
Transoortation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency
IEPA? for the enforcement of standards applicable to the snipment
and transportation of hazardous waste. This MOU will also set
Srth "Sole areas "of joint responsibility and cooperation between
the two Agencies.
II. STATUTORY BASIS
A. EPA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
inter and intra-state transportation. The Act requires ««
^^nta^^^^
transportation of waste only to permitted facilities.
3003 also requires the Administrator of EPA to ensure
- .
?rVthe"e="etarv orTrlnortatlon respecting UMTA regulations^
tor addition of' materials' to be covered under chose regulations.
(40 CFR Parts 260-265.)
S. nor and the Hazardous Materials Tr.™s=ort3tion Act
.«
shipping papers and placarding. (49 CFR Parts 170 LI?.}
-------
II.. BACKGROUND
A. Regulatory Overlap
DOT and EPA are both promulgating regulations concerning
azardous waste material transportation. The DOT regulations
squire shippers of hazardous wastes, .as defined by EPA, to comply
ith both HMTA and RCRA regulations. This group includes wastes
hich wore previously designated hazardous materials. These
astes must comply with the new DOT standards for hazardous waste
aterials.
B. Areas of Individual Regulation
There are, however, areas over which only one or the other
gency has jurisdiction. One such area is the EPA requirement
hat transporters clean up any discharges of hazardous wasie which
"ley are carrying.' DOT cannot incorporate such a requirement into
ts regulations because it is beyond DOT's authority.
DOT, on the other hand, requires- that certain safety features
e installed on all motor vehicles. EPA's authority does not
xtend to such safety requirements, and they would not be included
n'ET"~'s regulations.
'ERMS OF AGREEMENT
A. The Environmental Protection Agency Will;
1. Conduct an on-going program to monitor compliance of
snerators of hazardous waste and hazardous waste management
acilities with the RCRA regulations.
2. Bring enforcement actions, at times, involving hac^rdous
aste transporters where the transportation is ancillary zo
tment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste or other
t^vities norr.ally under the primary jurisdiction of EPA as
scussed in this MOU. (For example, a "midnight dumper" will be
nsidered an illegal disposer. The fact that"the "dumper" is
-ansporting the was«» is ancillary to the disposal of the waste
.d EPA will bring appropriate enforcement action againsz him.)
3. Provide to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (3MCS),
deral Highway Administration's (FHT.
-------
,:,™ -^'^iately notify the BMCS, FUIlA's Washington office, DOT
lltlcrV? whi^-r? a"°n °f H"TA °r ^"1'tions adontod t.h"e-
" 3""6 "* rC°"ide th" °£fi« wif-h a"
to
«gulatoryor enforct action
The Department of Trancoortation will
any
suspect .? PA WhlCh SlV9 DOT oause to
actioa
-------
•X;. Each Agency
1. Presume that when information reveals a violation of both
RCRA Jain3. IlIITA, if DOT takc-G an enforcement action under KMTA, EP;[
will not normally take such action. Conversely, if EPA takes-an
enforcement action under RCRA, DOT will not normally take such
action. This does not, however, preclude either Agency from
initiating other legal sanctions in regard to that violation.
2. Coordinate investigations and enforcement actions
involving violations of both RCRA and KiMTA to avoid duplication of
effort.
3. Maintain a close working relationship with the other, both
in Headquarters as well as in the field, including an exchange of
information relative to the Agencies' planned hazardous waste
material compliance monitoring and enforcement activities.
4. Designate for the other Agency a Headquarters contact
point to whom communication regarding chis agreement or matters
affected thereby may be referred for attention.
•
5. Assign regional liaisons between the Agencies, and provide
a mechanism by which regional contacts will be made and maintained
for the period of this agreement.
6. Issue and exchange with the other instructions and
delines implementing this Memorandum of Understanding
,nti£ying interager.cy contacts and liaison representatives, and
tting forth other pertinent operational procedures to be
followed relative to this agreement.
V. EFFECT
A. This Memorandum of Understanding is not intended to limit in
any way the statutory authority or jurisdiction of either Agency.
B. Nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding modifies other
existing agreements,_ or precludes either Agency from entering into
separate agreements setting forth procedures for special.programs
which can be handled more efficiently and expeditiously by such
special agreement.
-------
. This Memorandum of Understanding when accepted by both
Agonc^s shall continue in effect unless modified by mutual
written consent of both AgencJos or terminated by either Acency
n " chxrty day written notice. • " *
^ * conflict arising as a result of this Memorandum of
errand ing ^will be resolved by EPA's Deputy Assistant
f******!:?* ':0r Water Enforcement and DOT's Associate Director
£L2Sh*™SnS«afU? ?n^orcoraent' Materials Transportation Bureau,
Research and Special Programs Administration.
For the Environmental Protection Agency
Approved:
i. Costle
[iniskrator
Dated:
t *
Fo- the Department of Transportation
Approved:
Ne£l Goldschnidt
Secretary
V
.
This Memorandum of Understanding becomes effective on the date of
tae cinal signature.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM
PIG- 81 -10
SUBJECT: Transfer of Notification and Permit Application
Information to- States
PROM: ^Steffen W. Plehn
I Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste (WH-562)
R. Sarah Compton
Deputy Assistant X&ministratoi
for Water Enforcement and Permits (EN-335)
TO: PIGS Addressees
ISSUE:
When should EPA transfer information from both the notification
forms and the Part A's of the RCRA permit applications to the
States? In what format should EPA transfer this information?
How can the States assist EPA to review and process this
information?
DECISION:
(1) Until EPA authorizes a State for Phase II Interim Authori-
zation to carry out a permit program in lieu of the Federal
permit program (or authorizes a component of Phase II), EPA
is responsible for reviewing and acknowledging RCRA permit
applications in that State, including determining who appears
to meet the statutory requirements for interim status and
acknowledging the processes they may use and the wastes they
may handle during interim status*. EPA is also responsible
for these activities for those facilities not covered in a
State's authorization for a Phase II component. However,
EPA encourages States to assist the Agency in reviewing
permit applications until such time as the State receives
its Phase II authorization and will be receiving its own
permit applications.
*Note that this acknowledgment of the processes a facility may
use and the wastes they may handle is based only on the owner/
operator's Part A application. EPA merely copies on to the
acknowledgment the wastes and processes the owner/operator
included on the application? the acknowledgment is not a
determination by EPA that a facility is an environmentally
acceptable facility for particular wastes.
-------
(2) EPA Headquarters is providing State solid and hazardous
waste management agencies with copies of the Agency's notifi-
cation report which presents a compilation of information that
was received and processed between May 19, 1980 and November 19,
1980. The report includes the names and addresses of notifiers
in each State and a listing of the hazardous waste(s) they handle.
EPA will provide supplements of this report to State agencies
as new notification information is received and processed'
(3) Subject to confidentiality constraints, EPA will also share
all Part A permit application information with the States.
Because there is a large volume of information, EPA Regional
Offices and States should work together to sort out exactly
which information items each State needs and when the State
needs it. The Regional Offices and States should set mutually
agreeable time frames for transferring the information. The
following items should be considered when transferring infor-
mation: (a) Transfer of information to States should not impede
or delay issuance of the first round interim status acknowledg-
ments (except in cases of special information needs, issuing
these acknowledgments is the higher priority). (b) If infor-
mation is transferred prior to completion of the verification
of all items on the Part A application, the Regional Office
should carefully identify the unverified information.
(4) EPA Regional Offices should initially use computer printouts
for transferring data to the States before copying notification
and Part A permit application forms. This may satisfy a State's
initial information needs and will save EPA a considerable amount
of time in copying forms.
DISCUSSION;
Status of EPA review and processing of notification and
Part A permit application information
EPA has received approximately 60,000 notifications and
14,000 Part A permit applications. Except for recent submittals,
the Agency has reviewed and processed all of the information from
the notification forms and has the information available on the
Agency's ADP computer files. EPA Regional Offices are presently
reviewing and processing the Part A permit applications.
The Part A applications will be processed initially in two*
rounds. Round one of the review process consists only of deter-
mining that: (1) the applicant filed the correct permit applica-
tion forms on time; (2) the application indicates the facility
was in existence on November 19, 1980; and (3) a notification
was filed for the'facility on or before August 18, 1980. EPA
-2-
-------
win send an initial acknowledgment, to applicants when they
meet all of these three conditions. The purpose of this
acknowledgment is to inform the applicant that a preliminary
review of the information he provided indicates that he
appears to satisfy the statutory requirements for interim
status. EPA will not. load any data into the computer data
base during this initial review except to "flag" the data
base to indicate those facilities for which EPA has sent an
acknowledgment.
During round two of the review process EPA will conduct
a more detailed review of the permit application. The purposes
of this round are (1) to attempt to verify that the facility
needs a RCRA permit; (2) to acknowledge the processes which
the facility is allowed to use and the wastes which the
facility is allowed to handle during interim status; and (3)
to check that the remainder of the information items required
in Part A of the application, such as the map, photographs.
and sketch have been provided. In the round two review, EPA
(using State assistance wherever possible) will resolve
errors and inconsistencies in information items by communicating
with the applicant. When EPA has verified that certain key
items are correct, the data on the application will be loaded
into the computer data base, and a second acknowledgment
will be sent to the applicant. This acknowledgment will
include a list of the wastes which may be handled during
interim status and the processes to which the interim status
applies (based on the owner/operator's Part A application).
EPA and State responsibilities
There has been some confusion as to what role the States
can play in reviewing and acknowledging permit applications.
Until a State receives Phase II Interim Authorization to carry
out a permit program in lieu of the Federal permit program
(or part of a program, i.e., a component of Phase II)*, EPA
is responsible for reviewing and acknowledging all permit
applications, including determining who appears to qualify
for interim status, and acknowledging the processes they may
use and the wastes they may handle during the interim status
period. States with only Phase I Interim Authorization are
not authorized to carry out a RCSA permit program and cannot
assume responsibility for these functions (although they
can assist EPA in this area). EPA is also responsible for
these activities for those facilities not covered in a State's
authorization for a component of Phase II**.
*Do not confuse Phase I and Phase II of Interim Authorization
with the two rounds of Part A permit application processing.
**When a State receives interim authorization for one or more
components of Phase II, the issue of whether a facility (covered
by a component handled by the State) qualifies for interim status
is moot because State, rather than Federal requirements, then apply
«
-3-
-------
Therefore, SPA is responsible for completing the review of
Part A of the permit applications and for sending out acknow-
ledgments. EPA must therefore retain the originals of all
notification forms and Part A's of the permit applications
which the Agency has received*.
EPA encourages and welcomes States to assist the Agency in
reviewing and acknowledging applications/ particularly for the
round two reviews. This State involvement has a number of
advantages: (1) it will give the States an opportunity to
become familiar with the information which applicants have
submitted; (2) the extra resources will help EPA expedite the
review and acknowledgment of applications; and (3) the States can
provide useful, and sometimes crucial information about certain
facilities of which EPA may not be aware.
State information needs and specific provisions for EPA to
provide States with information
The information EPA received in the notification forms
and in the Part A's of the applications can be useful to the
States in various ways. Some examples are:
(1) to evaluate the scope of State regulatory coverage
and to determine if State control of hazardous waste is
"substantially equivalent" to Federal control,
(2) to calculate resource needs for conducting a State
hazardous waste permit program, for conducting surveillance
and enforcement activities, and for providing technical
assistance,
(3) as a potential source of data for revisions to grant
regulations,
(4) to assist States with interim authorization in preparing
reports to EPA,
(5) as input for developing a strategy for siting hazardous
waste facilities,
(6) to assist States with hazardous waste permit programs
to identify facilities which may need a Stats permit but have
not applied for one. (Likewise, State permit files will also
be useful to EPA).
*Note that this continues to be important even after a State
receives interim authorization for one or more components of
Phase II, because if a State program reverts to EPA during
Phase II or at the end of the interira authorization period,
facilities without RCRA permits will again need interim status
in order to be able to operate lawfully.
-4-
-------
(7) to assist States with notification requirements to
identify non-notifiers.
(8) to assist State inspectors in conducting facility
inspections. J
Both the "RCRA State Interim Authorization Guidance Manual"
issued June 25, 1980, and the "Additional Guidance for Coooerative
Arrangements under Subtitle C of RCRA", issued August 5, 1980,
provide that States may obtain notification and permit application
information. Specifically, the guidance for interim authorization
indicates that EPA will furnish to States with interim authoriza-
tion copies of notification forms and permit applications within
30 days after the Memorandum of Agreement is signed. The guidance
for cooperative arrangements does not specify that EPA will
furnish notification and permit application information to the
States. However, under cooperative arrangements, the States
are encouraged to assist EPA in identifying and contacting non-
notifiers and to make recommendations to EPA concerning the
review of applications. In order to make this process work,
the Agency will have to provide the States with some notification
and Part A information, consistent, of course, with the confident-
iality provisions in 40 CPR Part 2.
Assessing individual State'information needs and formats
for transferring information
EPA Headquarters will send each State solid and hazardous
waste management office copies of EPA's summary report contain-
ing notification information received during the period of
May 19, 1980, to November 19, 1980. The report contains the
following items of information on hazardous waste facilities:
the name and location of the facility; the type of activity(ies)
(i.e., generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste); a listing of the hazardous waate(s) which the facility
handles; the name of the owner of the facility; whether or not
the facility is Federally or privately owned; and whether or
not there is an underground injection well located at the
facility. The report has ten volumes; one volume for each of
EPA's ten regions. Each volume contains a State-by-State list-
ing of notifiers. The Agency will routinely send State Agencies
supplements to this report as new notification information is
received and processed.
While EPA intends to share fully with the States all permit
application information, transferring this information requires
a significant resource commitment, and if not done carefully
can result in the States being inundated with information which
has not been verified and therefore raav be of little use to the
State. We recommend that Regional Offices and States work
together and carefully assess what- specific pieces of Part A
-------
application data the individual States need to run their program
and to assist EPA, and when that data is needed. For example/
a State with Phase I interim authorization may need to know
early on who has applied for a Federal permit and who has receive-4.
a round one acknowledgement. The State may have no immediate use
for information about the processes or wastes described in the
application, except on a case by case basis. In this example,
it would make little sense for EPA to spend time copying Part A
forms in order to provide the State with the information.
Instead, as EPA completes the round one reviews for facilities
in the State, it would be better for the Agency to provide the
State with computer printouts containing the names and addresses
of all facilities EPA considers to have interim status. This
approach would provide the State with much of the information
it needs, save EPA a considerable amount of time in copying forms,
and eliminate the possibility of the State clogging its files
with superfluous information which may be inaccurate since it
has not been reviewed by the Agency.
A number of notifiers and applicants have submitted claims
of confidentiality for their information. EPA will transfer
to the States information covered by these claims only in
accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 2.
-6-
-------
X
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C 204SO
OFFICE OF WATER
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
PIG-81-11
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Involvement of States without Phase II
Interim Authorization in RCRA Permitting
FROM: Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant Admir
for Solid Waste (WH-
R. Sarah Compton
Deputy Assistant X4lhinistat6r
for Water Enforcement (EN-335)
TO: PIGs Addressees
ISSUE
How should States without interim authorization for
Phase II be involved in RCRA permitting?
DISCUSSION
As you know, the recent promulgations of Phase II
facility standards under Part 264 and permitting requirements
under Part 122 enable States to receive Phase II interim
authorization for issuing RCRA permits to the following
categories of facilities:
* use and management of containers;
0 storage and treatment of hazardous wastes in tanks,
surface impoundments, and waste piles; and
0 treatment of waste in incinerators.
-------
-2-
In addition, EPA has published interim final regulations
(Part 267) which, for a period of 18 months, will allow EPA
to issue permits to new land disposal facilities pending
promulgation of the final land disposal regulations. States
may not receive interim authorization for permitting land
disposal facilities at this time, since the Part 267 regulations
only provide temporary standards which will not suffice for
determinations of substantial equivalence.
Although States may now apply for Phase II interim
authorization for permitting certain facilities, some
States may not choose to do so in 1981. Some States may
postpone their Phase II application until the final Federal
land disposal regulations are promulgated later this year or
in 1982. Also, State preparation of Phase II applications
may take longer than Phase I applications, due to the complexity
of the technical facility standards and the financial responsi-
bility requirements. Some States may need to adopt or amend
legislation and regulations to obtain substantially equivalent
authority in these areas and may need to add additional
personnel to administer the permitting program.
Given this situation, the Federal permit process
must be implemented in a way which maximizes the use of State
resources and technical capabilities and avoids inefficient
and confusing duplication with State programs. Therefore,
EPA must work closely with State permitting programs/ especially
those programs which appear to be moving in a timely manner
toward Phase II interim authorization.
DECISION
EPA Regional Offices must, seek the active involvement
of State programs in the conduct of RCRA permitting during
the period before a State receives Phase II interim authori-
zation. This policy will provide for the most efficient use
of EPA and State permitting resources and technical expertise,
reduce confusion and paperwork burdens for the regulated
community and the public, and ease the transition toward
State administration of the RCRA permit program in lieu of
EPA. While EPA retains authority and responsibility for
RCRA permitting until a State receives Phase II authorization,
EPA must cooperate with the States as closely as possible in
the implementation of this responsibility.
State involvement prior to Phase II interim authorization
should take several forms:
0 States should assist Regional Offices in the development
of permitting priorities and in initial contacts with potential
permittees, based on their own priorities and their knowledge of
local conditions.
-------
-3-
0 States should review permit applications, share
information from their files, assist EPA in obtaining
additional information (including site visits) and help
prepare technical analyses and support documents.
0 States should assist in developing permit conditions
and should comment on draft and final permits.
0 Where unauthorized States must issue permits under
State lav, they should participate with EPA in joint permit
issuance procedures (e.g., joint public notice, public
hearings, response to comments).
These and other Federal-State working relationships should
be formalized in writing through an amendment to a Cooperative
Arrangement, a Phase I Memorandum of Agreement, or a Subtitle C
grant work program. Through these mechanisms, the State can
agree to perform specified tasks for which it has legal authority
and can be funded by EPA to perform those tasks.
EPA can also support State involvement in the permit
process through funding of State travel by the Peer Matching
program, State access to EPA contractors, and participation
of State personnel in RCRA training. We encourage Regional
Offices to be aggressive in securing State involvement as we
move toward the issuance of the first RCRA.permits.
-------
J*
* ^^ \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
r j? WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
Np
SEP 29 1981 SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PE - 81 - 12
MEMORANDUM
signing EPA Identification Numbers
Acting Assistant «bninistrator (WH-562A)
TO: PES Addressees
Issuet
EPA .requires all hazardous waste I/ generators and transporters and owners
and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to
receive an EPA identification number (ID number) before they handle hazardous
waste.2/ identification nunbers are issued by the EPA Regional Offices. What
role should the States.play in assisting the EPA Regional Offices to assign
identification'numbers?
Decision;
(1) States with interim authorization and States under Cooperative Arrangements
are encouraged to assist EPA in assigning EPA identification numbers. Specifi-
cally, EPA would" like State assistance in distributing and reviewing RCRA Notifi-
cation and Part A-Permit Application Forms. The responsibility_ for assigning
EPA ID numbers will remain in the Regional Offices.
(2) States with their own system of assigning ID numbers are encouraged to use
the EPA ID number as the State ID number.
I/ tezardous waste means hazardous waste as defined by EPA except where specifi-
cally noted in this memorandum.
2/ Sections 262.12, 263.11, 264.11 and 265.11 establish this requirement for persons
handling hazardous waste in States where EPA is running the hazardous waste program.
Sections 1-23,34 - 36 require-for final authorization that States mandate that persons
handling hazardous waste within their borders obtain EPA ID numbers. There is no
comparable requirement for interim authorization but to date all States have accept-
ed the use of EPA ID numbers.
-------
Discussion;
EPA assigns an identification number to each generator and transporter of
hazardous waste and to owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities who notify the Agency. Generators must not offer their
hazardous waste for transportation; transporters must not transport hazardous
waste; and owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities must
not treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste without first receiving an EPA
identification number.!/ EPA assigns a unique identification number to each
single site where hazardous waste is generated, treated, stored, or disposed;
or, in the case of a transporter, to his principal place of business. The
identification number is used on all manifests, reports, and records that EPA
requires. The EPA identification number also serves as the "password" for
entering and retrieving data from EPA's Hazardous Waste Data Management ADP
System (HWEMS). HWDMS is the Agency's major source of information on hazardous
waste handlers across the country and is a critical element in implementing
Subtitle C of RCRA. EPA is also in the process of tying together HWDMS with
other EPA data management systems using the EPA ID number as the common link.
The scheme EPA uses to assign identification numbers is based on the Data
Universal Numbering System (DUNS number) that Dun and Bradstreet Incorporated
(D & B) has developed. D & B has assigned.approximately three million DUNS
numbers to all types of businesses across the nation. EPA also assigned tem-
porary "T" numbers to persons who did not have an existing DUNS number.*/
All persons who have registered with EPA have been assigned an ID number that
is their DUNS number, a "T" number, or for some Federal activities, their GSA
Real Property Number.
Seven general steps are involved in assigning an EPA ID number. They are
(1) answer requests for blank forms (hazardous waste generators and transporters
must submit standard EPA form 8700-12, the EPA Notification Form; owners and
operators of new hazardous waste management facilities must submit standard EPA
forms 3510-1 and 3510-3, the RCRA Part A Permit Application), (2) review the
submitted information for completeness and obtain any missing information, (3)
review the D & B microfiche list to determine if the site has an existing DUNS
number, (4) if the site is not listed on the DsB microfiche, check other files
within the Region to determine if EPA has assigned an alternate DUNS number to
the site under another program which also can be used as the EPA ID number for
the RCRA program, (5) if the site does not have a number under another program,
assign one of the numbers from the Region's D & B user block, (6) enter informa-
tion about the activity into. HWDMS, and .(7) generate an acknowledgment from
HWDMS and issue it to the requestor to inform him of his EPA ID number.
3/ See footnote 2.
4/ EPA is no longer issuing "T" numbers as of August 1, 1981. Instead, EPA
purchased from D & B a block of unassigned DUNS numbers and will assign numbers
from this block to persons who do not already have a DUNS number. EPA has be-
gun converting existing "T" numbers to DUNS numbers for facilities requiring
RCRA permits and for generators and transporters with activities regulated under
other EPA programs.
(2)
-------
•mere has been confusion as to what responsibilities the States can_ assume
in assisting EPA to carry out these steps. In order to obtain final authorization
a State must require new hazardous waste generators and transporters and owners
and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to
obtain EPA ID numbers before conducting hazardous waste activity ("Jf3'3* W'
123 35 (a), and 123.37 (b)). Both the "RCRA State Interim Authorization Guidance
Manual- (June25, 1980) and the -Additional Guidance for Cooperative Arrangements
under Subtitle C of RCRA" (August 5, 1980) provide for States to assist EPA in
assigning identification numbers prior to final authorization .
States with interim authorization and States under Cooperative Arrangements
are encouraged to assist EPA in steps number 1 and 2 .listed above. For now,
EPA will retain full responsibility for steps _3-through 7. ^^* f^ff^
!Tave~expressed~a^iSt:eres€~in~^s^is"ting~EPA in steps 3, 4, and 5, ana rurrner
have requested that EPA provide them with blocks of unassigned ID numbers which
the State could assign directly and eliminate delays in getting new numbers
ore atatSTfrom EPA. EPA prefers not to relinquish the responsibility for
steps 3, 4, and 5. The Agency must maintain tight control over the assign-
raentof all new numbers since the EPA identification number is the toy.me ans
of identifying the activity in the Agency's data management systems (EPA
will continue to enter into the Agency's ADP data, base the name, address and
type of activity for all sites that are assigned an EPA ID number).
Recognizing the need for rapid issuance of new identification numbers,
EPA haTassigned contractor (Computer Sciences Corporation) personnel in each
Regional OfficTto perform steps 3, 4, and 5. The plan is for the contractor to
coUete these stepTwithin ore day. Steps 6 and 7 involve interacting with
EPVsADP systemrsince there is presently no capability for States to enter
information into HKDMS, no State can perform these steps.
EPA is aware that several States have systems for assigning State
identification numbers to hazardous waste (as defined by the State) handlers.
Since the federal regulations require the use of EPA identification nuabers,
EPA^trongly encourages States that issue their own identification numbers to
adopt thVEPA^iumbering scheme. State use of the EPA scheme should benefit the
State programs and the regulated community by:
•eliminating duplication of effort;
•eliminating confusion from the issuance of multiple numbers;
•providing for rapid issuance of numbers directly from the Regional
Offices, and
.= •reducing costs.
Furthermore, States employing the EPA numbering scheme will be better pre-
pared to use the proposed uniform national manifest form 2/ which win accommodate
only EPA issued identification numbers.
5/ EPA plans to publish the uniform national manifest form for public review and
nt in October 1981.
(3)
-------
In cases where a State has adopted a definition of hazardous waste that is
broader than the Federal definition", it nay not always be clear if the person
requesting an identification number in that State handles "Federally defined"
hazardous waste or hazardous waste covered under the broader portion of the
State definition. These handlers may be issued an EPA identification number
since it is not critical that only "bona fide" handlers of Federally defined
hazardous waste receive an EPA identificaion number. However, it would
be helpful if states participating in Step 2, above* would point out these
cases so that we can make a note in our files that the activity has been
issued an EPA ID number but may not be handling Federally defined hazardous
waste.
(4)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
<£CEIVED
A REGION S>
20 IS8I
utC H d ?i
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PIG-82-1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Universe of Wastes for EPA Permit Activities
in,States Authorized for Phase I Only
FRCM : ^hris;fopfc>r J^OCapper
Acting Assistant Administrator (WH-562-A)
TO: PIG Addressees
Issue
What is the universe of wastes which EPA will use to carry
out permit activities in a State which has been granted interim
authorization for Phase I, but has not yet obtained authorization
for Phase II of the Federal program?
Discussion
Since May 19, 1980, regulations promulgated under the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act (as amended) have provided
a Federal program of hazardous waste management using the universe
of wastes delineated in 40 CFR Part 261.
The decision to grant interim authorization to a State pro-
gram is contingent, in part, on a State's ability to control a
universe of wastes which is "nearly identical- (40 CFR 123. 128(a))
to that in the Federal regulations. The nearly identical universe
delineated by a State may (during interim authorization) ex-
clude some of the wastes in the Federal universe if those
wastes.are not handled in that State. Conversely, the universe
of wastes as defined by a State may be more inclusive than the
Federal universe (40 CFR 123. 121(g)(1)). EPA's authorization
of a State program covers only that portion of the State's
universe which overlaps with the Federal universe (40 CFR
-------
-2-
123.121(g)(2) ). Any additional wastes which the State controls
(or which are controlled by EPA but not the State) are not
considered part of that State's authorized program.
Subsequent to a State's authorization, EPA may add new
wastes to 40 CFR Part 261. During the period between EPA's
addition of the wastes to its universe and the State's addition
of the wastes to its universe those wastes would not be consider-
ed hazardous wastes in that State; i.e., EPA's universe of waste
would be larger than the State'a authorized•universe-
DECISION
The universe of hazardous wastes considered part of a
State's authorized RCRA program are those wastes identified
or listed by both EPA and the Stated This is the universe of
hazardous wastes for purposes of Federal activities in that
State. EPA's permitting authority 'in those States with Phase
I interim authorization is bound by the State's authorized
universe. The underlying principle is that the authorized
State program (including the State's waste universe which is
considered part of Phase I authorization) operates in lieu of
the Federal program.
Therefore, in a State authorized for Phase I only (or
for some, but not all of Phase II), EPA may issue permits only
to those facilities handling wastes defined as hazardous by
the State's authorized program. A facility handling wastes
defined as hazardous only by the State is outside the scope of
the RCRA program, and does not require a RCRA permit or interim
status to operate. The State/ of course, may issue whatever
permit or license is appropriate under State law. Such State
permit actions would not be part of the RCRA permit issuance
process but would be handled solely under State law.
A facility handling a waste which is defined as hazardous
by EP.A but not by the authorized State (where, for example,
EPA lists a new waste and the State has not yet incorporated
it into its regulations), will not require a RCRA permit or
interim status to handle that particular waste until the State
has listed that waste. At the time the waste became part of
the authorized State hazardous waste program, a facility handling
that waste would be required to comply with all applicable State
(and Federal, if the State had only Phase I authorization)
statutory and regulatory requirements.
------- |