UniTM $<)(
PA
-
Solid
tno
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9541.04-84
ITLE: Det- ite Hazardous Waste
Requn '^ader in Scope or More
Stringent than the Federal RCRA Program PI
APPROVAL DATE: 05/21/84
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05/21/84
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
Z FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
Pending OMB approval
B~ pen. A-OSWKR approval
C- For (,/or comnent
In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other document*): headquarters
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
PART 271 SUBPART A - FINAL AUTHORIZATION DOC: 9541.04(84)
Key Words: Authorized 'States, More Stringent, Broader in Scope
Regulations: 40 CFR 271.1(1), 271.121(1)
Subject: Determining Whether State Hazardous Waste Requirements Are Broader
in Scope or More Stringent Than the Federal RCRA Program PIG 84-1
Addressee: PIG Addressees
Originator: Lee M. Thomas, Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Source Doc: #9541.04(84)
Date: 5-21-84
Summary:
The following questions should be addressed sequentially in determining
whether a particular requirement or provision of a State program is "broader
in scope" (and therefore not a part of the authorized program) or more stringent
(and therefore a part of the authorized program):
1) Does imposition of the State requirement increase the size of the
regulated community beyond that of the Federal program?
A State requirement that does increase the size of the regulated
community is more "extensive," not more stringent, and is an aspect of
the State program which goes beyond the scope of the Federally-approved
program.
If the requirement does not increase the size of the regulated community:
2) Does the requirement in question have a direct counterpart in the
Federal regulatory program?
If the State requirement does not have a direct Federal counterpart,
the requirement is also beyond the scope of the Federal 'regulatory
program.
If the State requirement does have a direct Federal counterpart, the
State requirement is either equivalent to or more stringent than the
corresponding Federal regulation.
-------
V UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 954104(84)
rWASHINGTON, D C 30460
MAY 2 I 1984
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE A.MO EVIEflGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM PIG-84-
SUBJECT: Determining Whether State Hazardous Waste
Management Requirements are Broader in Scope
More Stringent than the Federal RCRA Program
FROM
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (WH-562-A)
TO: PIGS Addresses
Issue
How does EPA determine whether a requirement of an authorized
State hazardous waste program is broader in scope or more stringent
than the Federal RCRA program? "
Discuss ion
The March 15, 1QR2 Program Implementation Guidance memorandum
from William Sullivan entitled "EPA Enforcement of RCRA-Author i zed
State Hazardous Waste Laws and Regulations" (PIG-R2-3) outlined EPA
policy on enforcement of Federal and State Hazardous waste manage-'
ment requirements in States with cooperative arrangements or
authorized RCRA programs.
The Guidance concluded that State-imposed requirements which
are beyond the scope of coverage of the Federal program are not
part of the Federally approved program ( 4D CFR 271.1(i) and
271.121(1)). Consequently, such requirements are not enforceable
by EPA. PIG R2-3 also concluded that "provisions in State programs
which are more stringent than their federal counterparts are,
nevertheless, a part of the approved State program and are
enforceable by EPA." [Emphasis added.] -
Attempts to distinguish between those State requirements that
are broader in scope and those that are more stringent than the
Federal RCRA program have led to some confusion. The confusion is
partly a result of conflicting information in past PlG's on this
issue. PIG 81-4, discussing delisting of wastes, indicates that
State regulation of more wastes than are regulated by the Federal
program would be viewed as a nore stringent aspect of the
-------
- 2 -
authorized State program. Similarly, page 7 of PIG 82-3 indicates
that "a lesser amount of waste exempted [by the State] from regula-
tion under the small quantity generator exemption" is an example
of a more stringent State program requirement. In contrast,
page 6 of PIG 82-3 states that the listing" by a State of wastes
which are not included in the Federal universe is an example of a
provision that is broader in scope.
Decision
To determine whether a particular requirement or provision
of a State program is "broader in scope" (and therefore not a part
of the authorized program) or more stringent (and therefor? a part
of the authorized program) the questions discussed below should be
answered sequentially.
(1) Does imposition of the State requirement
increase the size of the regulated community
beyond that of the Federal program?
A State requirement that does increase the size of the
regulated community is more "extensive", not more stringent, and
is an aspect of the State program which goes beyond the scope of
the Federally-approved program. Examples of requirements that are
broader in scope include:
0 a lesser amount of waste exempted :rom regulation
under the small quantity generation exemption;
0 listing of wastes which are not in the Federal
universe of wastes.
Thus, the examples discussed in PIG 81-4 and on page 7 of PIG 82-3
should have been interpreted as requirements that were broader in
scope and not more stringent. (While this guidance corrects these
two examples, it does not change the policies and other examples
of PIGs 81-4 and 82-3).
If the requirement doe's -not increase t'~ğe size of the
regulated community, the following question should be asked.
(2) Does the requirement in question have a
direct counterpart in the Federal regulatory
program?
-------
If the State requirement does not have a direct Federal
counterpart, the requirement is also beyond the scope of the
Federal regulatory program. Examples of such State requirements
are:
0 controls on traffic outside of a hazardous waste
facility or specification of transport routes to
the facility;
0 requirements fo^.the preparation of an environmental
impact statement or the approval of a siting board
as part of the permit issuance process;
0 licensing of transporters.
However, if the requirement of the authorized State program
does have a direct Federal counterpart, the State requirement
is either equivalent to or more stringent than the corresponding
Federal regulation. Examples of more stringent State requirements
are:
9 limited financial assurance options for facility
closure;
0 submittal' of an annual rather than a biennial report
for generators;
0 expiration of permits after five years instead of ten.
This guidance supports those enforcement policies outlined
in PIG 82-3, and should resolve many of the questions concerning
the scope of the Federal and RCRA authorized State regulatory
programs. We also anticipate that this guidance will be useful
in focusing the scope of EPA oversight of State programs. As
PIG 82-3 states, EPA enforces the more stringent provisions of
RCRA authorized programs; therefore, EPA has a corresponding
responsibility to overview implementation or those aspects of
State programs which are more stringent.
------- |