r r I I Prograni !rnplernentation Guidance . Rich 1open, PIG Coordinator State Programs Rranch, (wH—563 ‘ PIG Addressees Attached is the latest issuance of program guidance and a listing of all PIGs to date. If you are missing any of these and wish a copy please contact Rich Hoperl at (202) 755—9145, FTS 8—755—9145. EPA Fofm 1320.6 3-76 ------- LISTI G CF ?RCC-R?2 >I?L iENTXTIC r C-D TCZ SYSTEM MEMOR CUM (?ICs) TITLE PIG—80—l Establishment of RCR.A .“Program tmpLernentatiort Guidance Systems (PIGs)” PIG— 0—2 nterir Authorization of Prc rams Based on Emergency State Regulations PIG—8 0—3 Requirement That State—Permitted Hazardous Waste Facilities Have “Interim Status” PIG—80—4 Short—Term Financial Assistance for States Expected to Receive Authorization Before January 1. 1981 PIG—8 1—1 The Use of State Permitting Systems During Phase I Interim Authorization Which Are ‘Tot Based on Explicit Regulatory Standards PIG—81—2 Federal Register flotice of Public Hearing and Comment Period on State Applications for Interim Authorization PIG—8 1—3 Effect of RCRA Regulation Changes on 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) PIG—8 1—6 State Regulation of Federal Agencies for Purposes of Interim Authorization ?IC—8 1—7 Final Determinations on State Ap Licaticns for Interim Authorization: Action Memorar.d and Federal Recister Totice P!G—9 1-8 Program Implementa:icr. Guidance on Issuance of Provisional EPA Identification umbers ? 6 cec of A’s Memorandur of eoa er* o rs o’ t’c 0 Act.’;.ties in States c i:h Cocperat ’;e ? range en:3 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460 / L PRO C OCT 3i 8 8ç) PIG-80- ]. MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Establishment of RCRA “Program Implementation Guidance System FROM: Steffen W. Deputy Assistant Adit4fjistrator for.Solid Waste (Wl L562) R. Sarah Compton Deputy Assistant A stra or for Water Enforcement (EN—336) James A. Rogers Ct,u Cc ‘6- _ . Associate General.) Counsel, Wat’e and Solid Waste Division (A—l’fl) TO: See “Distribution” Below PURPOSE : To aid in properly iniplei ienting the Federal and State hazardous waste management programs under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, this memorandum establishes a ,pystem to provide directives regarding program implementation. DISCUSSION : The RCRA regulations promulgated on May 19, 1980, to control hazardbus wastes are one of the most comprehensive sets of regulatio s published by EPA. As a result there is a needfor some means of documenting and disseminating infor- mation on implementation of these regulations and the national prpgram they put into effect. The “Program Implementation Guidance System (PIGS)” is intended to provide this means. Program Implementation Guidance Memorandum will be issued to answer questions and provide direction regarding the implemen- tation of the Federal program and to aid in management of the State programs. For example, PIGs 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 PIGS will be to provide national consistency in implementing Subtitle C of RCRA. This system differs from the recently established “Regulation Interpretation Memorandum System” (RIMS) which will consist of interpretive memoranda to explain how the Federal hazardous waste regulations will apply in particular sitj i&tions. w 4 1 inte pfet th —] gu1ats-4n respe e te quo -st ions - whpse--answe-re--reqii. c -aarlyet Lca1e4 t3%G=E ai-.-Regis-ter.-A noticeexplaining the RIMS was published in the Federal Register on August 1.9, 1980 (45 FR 55386). ------- IMPLEMENTATION : As national manager of the Federal program to control hazardous waste, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste will manage the PIGS. PIGs 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 F’f 1980, this memorandum establishing the PIGS is numbered PIG—80—1. PIGs will, be developed by the Office of Solid Waste or the Office of Water Enforcement. All PIGS will be signed by both the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement. Prior to issuance, the concurrence of the Associate General Counsel for Water and Solid Waste 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 PIGS will be reviewed by OSW Senior Staff. As appropriate, the Office of Water Enforcement will identify and sequentially number selected PIGS for inclusion in the Consolidated Permits Policy Guidance System. Following appropriate signature and concurrences, PIGS will be distributed by the State Programs Branch, Office of Solid Waste, as iridica.ted by “Distribution”, 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 — Deputy Assistant Administrator forSolid Waste Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement. Associate General Counsel, Water and Solid Waste Division Director, Enforcement Division Director, Permits Division Senior Staff, Office of Solid Waste States — Directors, State Solid Waste Agencies (See attached list) Attachment CC: Branch Chiefs, Office of Solid Waste Permits Branch Chiefs, Region I—X ------- E 1 1 TAL. PRaI’ rIc ?13EZ C TICE cff $LID WAS Jt1L 1980 A1ab A1fr S. Qiip].ey, Director Division of Solid % ‘ ste a Vector Control De rt rit of Public 1th t . cntgcnexy, Alabaria 36130 CIL (205) 832—6728 Arizona R. Br, ce Scott, ssistant Director Dep .r nt of Health Se ic s 1740 West ? axns Street Phoe!lix, Arizona 85007 Ft ’S 8—765—1130 c (602) 255—1130 Alaska Arkan s • ThQTaS R. EkrE a Air ar Solid % ste z nent Dept. of Envirorinarital Conservation Poixh 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Seattle F l ’S Cperator 399—0150 a’L (907) 465—2635 nerican San xxiy i , D uty Dir ec or e rt nent of Public rks Pago Pago, ? merican Saxtca 96799 Overseas Cperator (Catiner i 1 Call 633—4141) Pati .iai, cecutive Secretary Enviraznental Quality CQnssion ?Lneri n Sanca Goverr Tent Pago Pago, xrierican Samoa 96799 Overseas Operator (C nnerr’i l Call 633—413.6) Abe 1ae, Special Assistant M & 0 Constri . ction Division De rtt erxt of Public S1brks Pago Pago, Meric .n Samoa 96799 • Overseas Operator (CaTinercial Call 688—9167) H.J. Parr, ief Solid S ste nag nent Division D ,ax-trnerr of l1ution Control ard. Ecology P.O. Box 9583 8003. National. Drive Little Rock, Ar] n s 72219 C ’ (501) 371—1701 Alford Drir ater Solid ste Prcrani Deper nt of Energy 3000 t avana h Little Rock, Arkari.sas C’ L (501) 371—2234 ]iforr3ja Dr. rvey Collins, Q ief Departrient of Health Services .zardo.is t .teril nagenent Section 744 P Street Sacranento, Ca1i rnia 95814 Ft’S 8—552—2337 O L (916) 322—2337 State Solid ste Mariaganent Pt- rd 1020 9th Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, Cali rnia 95814 FL’S 8—552—3330 ac (916) 322 3330 S 72205 ------- Co1cra Connecticut ( cont. ) Mr. QrvilJ.e Stoddard De art ent of Health 4210 East ezenth Aver ie nver, Colorado 80220 CIL (303) 320—8333 CQnTonWealth of North Mariana Islands chsa Siren, Thcecutive Officer F.rivirorrne.r,tal Protection B rd do rti e.rit of Health Services ‘ ust Territory of the Pa .fic Islands • Sai .n, Mariana Islaz s 96950 O’ierseas O erat r (Ctrr rc1a 1l 6984 or 6114) .rl Goldstein Division of virorrnerrtai Quality De rtit nt of Public Health ax virorrnerital Seivices Car rDnw lth of the rth Mariana Islards Sai n, Mariana Islands 96950 .ble 4dress: GOJ. I Connecticut John J. bu an, Q ief Ha rdcus Materia].s Managa ent tkiit Derartnent of F vironuentaL Protecti State Office Building 165 pitoL Avexiie krt.&JLd, Connecticut 06115 F l ’S 8—641—5712 CIL (203) 566—5712 .issell L. 3re neran, President Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority 179 Allyn Street, Suite 603 Professional Building Hartford, Connecticut 06103 C L (203) 549—6390 De1a . re Kenneth R. Weiss, Autirig C ief Solid ste Manage ent arthtezxt of tura1 Resources arid vfrortt ntal Control Fd ard Th.tna.11 Building D ver, De].a are 1.9901 C’L (302) 736—4764 District of Col mbia Q arles (ur3 r, Director Solid ste .nagET ent t it De nerit of viorTnental Protection State Office 3uildi 165 tcL Avenue .rt rd, Connecticut 06115 Fl’S 8—641—3672 C ML (203) 566—3672 St hen Hitchcock, Director Eazaxdcus Materials Manaenerit Unit De .rtnent of Evirorruental Protection State Office Building .165 pitol Averiie Hart z , Com ticut 06115 Fl’S 8—641—5148 (203) 566—5148 Ma1co bpe Departxt ent of iviron enta1 Services 415 12th Street, N.W. shirigton, D.C. 20004 FrS 8—727 5701 C’L (202) 727—5701 Florida Rdert ‘t 1eti Solid ste Man nent Prozam De rthient of ivironnental R u1ati n in To rs Office Building 2600 1 r Stone ad Tallahassee, Florida 32301 CIL (904) 488-0300 ------- ‘age i Georgia bses N. 11, III , ief lard rotecticn an vjrorinenta]. Protection Division De r nerxt of I t ai. Reso xces Roan 822 270 b.shington SP.reet, S.W. Atlanta. Georgia 30334 •Clrd (404) 656—2233 Guam Janes Branch. Deputy ?dxttnist ator A, Goverrxnent of Guam P.O. Box 2999 Açana, Guam 9691.0 Overseas Cperator (C nn r .a1 .11 646—8863) Ha aii Ralph Yu)c ioto virorxnerita1 Health Division De r u it of Hea.]th P.O. Box 3378 no1ulu, Has .aii 96801 1i rnia FrS Cperator 8—556-0220 C 1L. (808) 548—6410 Melvin Koiztzni, Deouty Director ivironnental Health Division Dearthent of Health P.O. Box 3378 Hor 1ulu, Ha aii 96801 .1i rr ia FrS arator 8-556-0220 C 1 (808) 548—4139 IdaI- H rd Burkha.rdt, &i exvi3,r So1id/Ha .rdous teria1s Section Depar nent of Health az Welfare State ise Boise, Idak 83720 C L (208) 334-4108 I l linois John S. bore, r ger Divisia of tar ax Lbise Pol] tion CDntro viror T tal Protection ?qency 2200 tzthi1 Road Springfield, flJ.inois 62706 0L (217) 7 —9800 Ir iana avid tainm, Q ief Solid ste riage tent Section Division of Sanitary thgineeri State Board of Health 1330 West Michigan Street Indiara 1is, Indiana 4.6206 P’IS 8—3 36-0176 0L (317) 633—0176 Iaga - Criar].es C. Miller, Director Air an Land Quality Division De r nent of fl viron’nenta1 Quality Henry A. ? l1ace ii1ding 900 East Grath Street Des ines, I .a 50319 FTS 8—841—8853 C L (515) 281—8853 Kansas C ar1es H. Linn, C-iief Solid ste na.g r nt Section De rtnerit Of Health and virom ent ‘i pe]ca, Kansas 66620 C’L (913) 862—9360, Ext. 297 Kentucky Roger Blair, Director Division of Ha a.rd is teria1 and % ste r ag ent De r ent t zal Resot ces and Environnental Protection 112]. Louisville Pd. Pin ’iL1e P1a. . Frankfcrt, Kent ky 40601 FTS 8—351—6716 c (502) 564—6716 ------- ssathusetts (cxxit. ) Loiisia Jaxnes Hutchi.izon, D uty S etary De artine.nt of Nat a.L Resources P.O. Box 44396 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 C 4L (504) 342-4506 Ma Robert D icz Coordinator r Hazardous Waste Mgtnt. Bur u of Ci i and Hazardo.is ktls. Con ol De r ent of viroi nta1 Protection Hospital Street-Ray ii 1 ding Augusta, M .ine 04333 (207) 289—2591 Ron Ho’*es, C iief Division of Solid Waste nagei ent Control Bureau of Land Quality De .rtnent of vi rrner ta1 Protection State House—Station 17 Augusta, ine 04333 c (207) 289—2111 est C. Rebuc°k, Director Water and Waste rSanag enerxt Pr ram àter Resources ?àt .nistratiori De r zerit of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Building Mna xLis, M ry1and 21401 C24L (301) 269—3875 Ronald Nelson, ? ininistrator Catira iity Health Prngr ns Envirorznental F alth miriistration De artnent of Health and Mental Hygiene 201 Wast Preston Street Baltimore, _ry1and 21201 (301) 383 3123 Massachusetts William Gaughan, Director Bureau of Solid Waste Dis saJ. De r ent of viror nental .nagaI nt Rocn 1905 I everett Saitonstall Building 100 Caittbri. gc3 Street Boston, ‘a.ssact usetts 02202 C L (617) 727—4293 SoLid Waste Regulatory: Vartkas K. l araian, thief Solid Waste Brai i Division of Hazardous Wastes De rtment of vironnental Quality gineer g 600 Washington Street, Boan 320 Boston, Massachusetts 02111 QL (617) 727—2658 Hazardous Waste R ulatory: Glenn Gilmore, thief Hazardous Waste Section Division of Hazaxdous Waste 1 r ent of Enviromerital Quality Engineering 600 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02111 CL (617) 727—5431 Michigan — Dept. of Natural Resources 0.J. Scherschligt, Depity Director Enviror nental Protection Bureau Dej .r ent of tura]. Resources Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 C L (517) 373—26w Fral Ke11o , Division iief Resource Recovery Division De .rtnerit of Natural Resources General Office 3 . i1ding Secondary C Lex 7150 Harris Drive Lansing, Midiiga n 48909 C’ (517) 322—1313 Hazardous Waste Liquid: vid Dennis, Ciief Oil and Hazardous Materials Control Section Water Q ity Division De rtnent of Natural Resources Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 C ’L (517) 373—2794 ------- .1 Michigan (cont. ) M rta Hazardous ? ste, ‘Ibxic or iti J. teriaL5; Gary GuezTtber, Director Envirorit itai. Services Division t rt ent of Net aL Re urces Stevens T. son Building P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, Michi n 48909 CIL 1 (517) 373—3560 Michigan - Depar nent of Public E a1th Jthn L. Hesse, Q ief Q nicaLs ax Health Center ithigan De r i t of Public H .1th P.O. Box 30035 Lansing, Mi igan 48909 c’ (517) 373—8050 Minnesota .1e L. Wi]cre, ?cting Qiief Division of Solid ste t ’ nag ent Pollution Control ?igency 1843 West Co ity Boad C Rosevile, Minnesota 55113 Q L (612) 297—2734 S Mississippi Jack M. tMiiJ.an, Director Division of Solid ste nagenent arid Vector Control State Board of Health P.O. Box 1700 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 C’L (601) 982—6317 Missouri Robert M. Bobinson, Director S 1i4 %äste nag ient Program De rtnent of Nat xa.]. Resources State Office Building P.O. Box 1368 Jefferson .ty, Missouri 65102 C’L (314) 751—3241 Duane L. Robertson, C ief Solid ste nage’nant Bur .u De .rt nt of Health ai ivironnentaL Sciences 14 ) 11th Ave ue, Suite A Helena, Z b tana 59601 FTS 8—587—2822. cit 1 (406) 449—2821 Nebras] t4aurice W. (Bill) Sheil, Qiief Solid aste Division I artmerrt of ivi inental Control State .ise Station P.O. Box 94877 Lincoln, Nebrasks. 68509 F1’S 8—541—2186 C ’1L (402) 471—2186 Nevada Lec is H. dgin, ? inistrator Division of vironrenta1 Protection De artment of Consercration az è tura1 Resources Capital Complec Carson City, Nevada 89710 CM L (702) 885-4670 : ew Han shire Thonas L. 3 .’eeney, ief B eau of Solid ste De rtnent of Health ar Welfare H 1th and Welfare aii1dir Hazen Drive Concord, New HerniDshire 03301 c L (603) 271—4610 New Jersey Lino F. Pereira, 2 cting Director Soild ? ste drrinistratiori Division of vfrorxnenta1 Quality P.O. Box 27 ‘Drenton, New Jersey 08625 Frs 8—477—9120 a (609) 292—9120 ------- New Mexico Jon Thcxnp n, Qiie.f Cam unity &tpjxrt Services Section Health and wirorxnent r nent P.O. Box 968, ( o n iilding Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 FTS 8-476—5271, Ext. 272 Q L 1 (505) 827—5271, Ext. 272 •Dr. Ray Krehoff, Pro razn nager Solid and Hazardcus % ste Mgmt. Prc a. ns CaiTnunity Sup rt. Services Secticn Health and vironnent De rti nt P.O. Box 968, own Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 FTS 8-476—5271, Ext. 282 • (‘L (505) 827—527]. Ext. 282 New York bxiran H. N enchtxk, Director Division of Solid % ste Managerierit De rtTent of Envroz,mental Conservation 50 Wolf Boad A1 ny, New York 12233 FL’S 8—567—6603 C L (518) 457—6603 North Carolina 0.W. Strickland, Head’ Solid and Hazardous ste Menag nerit andi Division of Health Services De ar nt of H ran Resources P.O. Box 2091 Raleigh, L’brth .roLina 27602 C L (518) 457-6603 North Dakota Jay awford, Director Division of vironnenta]. te Managanent and R earth De rtnent of Health 1200 Missouri Avenue Bis arck, North Dakota 58505 Q L (701) 224—2382 Ohio na1d E. Day, iaf Office of Land Pollution Control flwiror]tental Protection Agencj P.O. Box 1049 Co1un is, Q io 43216 FL ’S 8—942—8934 CL (614) 466—8934 Okiahata H.A. C ves, ief Industrial and Solid S ste Service De .r n it of Health P.O. Box 53551 1000 N.E. 10th Str t 0kLai na City, Ok1ai re. 73152 (405) 271—5338 Oregon Exnest A. S±inidt, Administrator Solid ste Managet ent Division I .rth ent of Envi.ronnental Quality P.O. Box 1760 522 S.W. 5th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97207 FL’S 8—424—5913 c (503) 229—5913 Pen ylvania nald A. Lazarcthik Bureau of Solid ste Manag n it 1 r ne.nt of Environnental Resources Fulton 3 . ildin .. P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Frs 8—637—9870 CL (717) 787—9870 Puerto Rico Saritos Bohena, ssociac.e Director flwfrcr nenta1 Quality Board Of .ce of the Governor P.O. Box 11488 Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910 D.C. O ierseas Cperator and FL’S: 472—6620 C (809) 725—2062 Ext. 229 or 264 ------- Rhode Islax John S. Quinn, Jr., Qiief Solid Waste nag nt Program De r nent of wironnerxtaL nagetient 204 ( nrcn Building 75 E vis Street Providence, Rhode IsLand 02908 .cMr. 1 (401) 277-2808 Lou vid, Jr. cecutive Director Rhode Islath Solid Waste Cor xation 39 Pike Street Providence, R ode Islard 02903 CIt (401) 831—4440 South Carolira He.rtsill W. iesdale, Director Solid Waste n nent Division De rtment of Health and viromenta1 Cor*.rol J. rion Sizi ns Building 2600 Bull Street Colunbia, South Carolina 2 201 cc. (803) 758—5681 South Joel C. anith, Q ief Air Quality and Solid Waste Pr rains Departnent of Health Joe Foss Building Pierre, South Ca)cta 57501 C L (605) 773—3329 Tennessee Tan Tiesler, Director Division of Solid Waste naget nt Bureau of virorTnenta]. Services De r rent of Public Health Capitol Hill Building, &zite 326 • J shvile, Tennessee 37219 FT’S 8—853—3424 CIt (615) 741—3424 Texas Jack C. Ca nichael, Director Division of Solid Waste t .nag t Texas De artxnent of Health 11.00 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756 cite (512) 458—7271 Jay Sna’ ,, P.E. Head, Industrial Solid Waste thit artnent of Water Re urces 1700 brth Congress P.O. Sox 13087 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 CIt (512) 475—2041 Utah le Parker, Director Btzeau of Solid Waste naganent Division of vjronnenta1 Health, State Department of Health P.O. Box 2500 150 West brth T npLe Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 (801) 533—4145 V e ir t Richard A. Valeitinetti, iief Air and Solid Waste Pr raa s gency of ivir rme.nta1 Conservation State Office Building ‘bnt 1ier, Verrcrrt 05602 FrS 8—83f2—3395 C (802) 828—3395 Virgin Islands na1d Fran is DeçartzT rit of Culttzal Af .irs Goverrxnent of the Virgin Islands tura1 Resources .nagen it Building &ib-Ba se St. Tharas, Virgin Islands 00801 D. C. erseas Cperat r 472—6620 C (809) 774—6420 ------- ‘age t i V irgir ia William F. Gifley, Director Bureau of Solid az dous Weste Mar ganent De r x it of <h 109 Goverz or Street Ric1 cnd, Virgiuia 23219 F1’S 8—936—5271 C L (804) 786—5271 shington .r1 ‘I er, Supervisor Solid ? ste r age ent Divizion De .rt nt of Boology Olympia, Weshington 98504 FrS 8—434—6883 Q L (206) 753—6883 W t Virgiriia Wis z sin Robert Kril, Director Bureau of ste .nageua it ,rtx nt of L turaJ. Resources Box 792]. dison, Wieca,sin 53707 E’tS 8—366—1327 CL (608) 266—1327 iar1es Porter, Su vi r Solid ste nage nt Program state of ning p rti nt of vi mn taJ. Q .a.Lity Eqtality State 9ar c 3.iildimg 401 West 19th Street Qieyenne, nir g 82002 F l ’S 8—328—7752 ‘L (307) 777—7752 Dale Parsons, Director Solid ste Division De r nent of E ealth 1800 shington Street, E. arleston, West Virginia Fl’S 8—885—2987 CZ’L (304) 348—2987 Jthn brthei- er Division of We.ter Re urces De artn ent of t ätural Resources 1201 Greenbrier Street Ciarleston, West Virginia 25311 c (304) 348—0375 25305 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 OCT 3i j PIG—80—2 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Interim Authorization of Programs Based on Emergency State Regulations FROM: Steffen W. Plehn \&) f Q ft—_ Deputy Assistant mi strator for Solid Waste (WE! 62) R. Sarah Compton Deputy Assistant A nistra r for Water Enforcement (EN—335) TO: . PIGS Addressees I SSTJE 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 dx awback 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 could result in a void during which no State or Federal regulations would be in force in the State. ------- 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 (M0A) 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 ar met: 1) The State mus . show that under its normal administrative procedures it will be able to enact final regulations which wi ll 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. ------- ic s?,, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC’ ’ i , j P’ - WASHINGTON 0 C. 20460 pqo1 . OCT PIG—8O-3 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Requirement That State—Permitted Hazardous Waste Facilities Rave “Interim Status” FROM: Steffen W. Plehn J) Deputy Assistant A mi strator for Solid Waste (WH 62) R. Sarah Compton Deputy Assistant d inistr’ato for Water Enforcement (EN—335) TO: PIGS Addressees I SSTJ E If a State agency in a State with Phase I authorization issues a facility permit after November 19, 1980 but the State program h s riot been authorized for Phase II interim authorization: -. a) Does the . facility have interim status? b) If the facility does not have interim status, can it begin operation? DISCUSSION/DECISION a) For a facility to obtain interim status it must meet three requirements as stated in Section 3005(e) of RCRA. These are: o The facility must have been “in existence” on the date of enactment of RCRA (October 21, 1976), or on the date specified by any amendments passed by Congress; and o The facility must have complied with the notifica- tion requirements specified in Section 3010(a); and • The facility must have applied for a permit as required under Section 3005(a). ------- —2-- If a facility meets all three of these,requirements, it has interim status for the purposes of RCRA until a RCRA permit has been issued or denied by EPA or a State authorized for Phase II. b) Assuming that a facility does not qualify for interim status and has not been issued a RCRA permit, facility construction and operation are precluded until a RCRA permit is issued. Because EPA is not authorizing State permit programs during Phase I interim authorization, a facility permit issued by a State with Phase I authorization is not a RCPA permit. For the same reason, Phase I authorization of a State program does not suspend the RCRA Section 3005 require- ment that in order to operate lawfully a facility must have a RCRA permit or interim status. Because neither EPA nor any States will be issuing RCRA permits during Phase I, only facilities with interim status may operate during that period. ------- ST 4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 1 OCT 3128Q. PIG -80—4 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Short—Tezm Financial Assistance for States Expected to Receive Authorization Before January 1, 1981 FROM: Steffen W. P].ehn.. ,4 a.-. IQj_Q._. . Deputy Assistant Adniir trator for Solid Waste (wH-i 62) R. Sarah Compton g;ç 1frc4 Deputy Assistant A in .st ato for Water Enforcement (EN—335) TO: PIGS Addressees ISSUE : In order to provide financial assistance to those States, where he Region expects to issue interim authori- zation after November 19, 1980, but before January 1, 1981, is it necessary to exe ute 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 after 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 i 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- tion. ------- 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 jointly 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 agreements (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 intoda Cooperative Arrangement. ------- •• • ‘ çO sr 4 , UNITED STATES ENVIRONivIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 ‘P 4 L io OFFICE OF WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 17 PIG—Si—i MEMORANDTJ M SUBJECT: The Use of State Permitting Systems During Phase I Interim Authorization Which are not Based on Explicit Regulatory Standards. FROM: Steffen W. Plehn Deputy Assistant Admiz strator R. Deputy Assistant A ministrator for Water Enforcement (EN—335) TO: PIGS Addressees Issue : 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 until 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 may 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 arid 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 Oçiiv through a permitting system, the Agency is concerned with the s bszance of the permit conditions. These permit conditions (along with compliance monitoring) will be the key elements which dczerm ne 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 states 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 or or to making a decision on whether to grant interim authorization. Decision : A State program may be issued interim authorization for Phase I even if it controls hazardous waste facilities through a oermit— 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 State’s program description must delineate the cond t ons that will be used in all permits and must demonstrate that these conditions are substantially equivalent to the Federal interlm status standards. The State must have the legal authority to apply these permit conditions and to enforce compliance with the conditions. The State Attorney General must indicate in his or her state ’ ent (as part of the application) that such legal authority does exist. Furthermore, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) must provide that all permit conditions delineated in the program descriot on will, be incorporated into all permits prior to the date of interim authorization. The MQA 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 MOA must certify that the permits will be modified, if necessary, because of modifications in the Federal regulations, within one year of the date of promulgation of the new 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 permits will be modified within two years, as provided by 40 C.F.R. §123.13(e) (45 FR 33463). The MOA must also specify th t t all haz- ardous waste management, activities without a permit are orohihited. Authority for such prohibition must be indicated in the Attorney General’s Statement. ------- iO 5r 4 ,. •% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMLNTAL PROTECTIQN AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 P 4 ( OCT 2 3 O OFFICE O WATZ PIG—81 —2 AND WASTE M A.\AGZMCNT MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Federal Register Notice of Public Hearing and Comment Period on State Applications for Interim Authorization FROM: Steffen W. Plehn Deputy Assistant dAdmMistrator for Solid Waste ( 7 H—562 R. Sarah Cornpton ’j fa,UL4 4 Deputy Assistant ‘Iqdmini tra or for Water Enfor ement (EN-335) TO: PIGS Addressees ISSUE How should Federal Register notices regarding public hea:ing and comment on State applications for interim authorization be worded? Tñhat is the process for publishing such notices? DISCUSSION A number of Regional Offices recently have asked abo t the wording and publishing of Federal Register notlces required in 40 CFR 123.135(a). This guidance memorandum has been reoared to provide for national consistency and to expedite the aDproval 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 nvalu ble 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 egis er , and in accordance with §123.39(a)(l), of a public hearing on the State’s application for interim authorization. The Interin Authorization Guidance Manual suggests that this notice be published as soon as possible after the receipt of a cor ip1ete 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 days. ------- —2- Regional Offices should ensure that the application s complete before issuing the notice. The complete aool cat on should address all major issues raised by EPA during revzew 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 infor iation 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, .Lt may be necessary to issue a second Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the new information and extending the o bl c 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 COfl USiOfl, 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 Reqister notice is published. Expedited publication of the notice wi2T 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. 1so, 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 çl23.39(a)(l). 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.” ------- 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 stater-ient of the reasons for this determination and a response to significant ccn ments 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 Reglster 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 soecific 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 testirylng. The panel should recognize that its role is not one of defending a particular course of action (i.e. approval or disapproval), the State’s program, or the Federal regulations. The deciston to approve or disapprove interim authoriza’ 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 ecister hearing notice. Also, as a minimum, the hearing chair erson should identify the Agency’s preliminary conclusion in the opening remarks and should explain that the conclusion is only tentative, pending th 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 b present to testify first, including in the testimony a brief descriot on 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.) St ates 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 EPA’s 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 partici?ates on the hearing panel we must avoid any appearance o State involvement in EPA’s decision—making. The hearing chair erson can avoid such appearances by carefully and clearly explaini:-.g the situation in the opening remarks. State participation on the panel should be noted in the “Conduct of Hearing” oortion of the Federal Register hearing notice. Persons present ng 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 the State’s 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 HO Review Team Leader, for placement in the HQ Library with a copy of thern State application. (The notice should indicate that an application copy is available for public inspection at the EPA HO 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—a Attachment: Model Federal Register Notice U.S. ENVIROL 1MENTAL PROTECTIOt 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, 1980 (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]. —t- ------- PUBLIC HEARING: EPA will conduct a public hearing on the [ State] interim authorization application at [ Time] on Ca 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 c nments 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 INFORMATIObI: 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 imoroper 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 ! 3 ’ )• - .3 -. ------- The State of __________________ has submitted a complete application to EPA for Phase I interim authorization. Coples 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. CO!WUCT 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 The hearing is intended to provide an opportunity for interested persons to present their views and submit information for consid- eration by EPA in the decision whether to grant EState] interim authorization for Phase I of the RCRA program. A panel of E?A 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 •cornmenters 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 —Sf - ------- 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. PREPARATT.ON 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 chairoerson. Transcripts will be available from [ person and addressJ approximately [ ] days after the hearing at a cost of $ [ 1. M 3OR 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: -5- ------- [ List specific points where questions exist as to substar’.zial equivalence.] Dated: [ date] [ Signature] Regional Administrator ------- i O Sr 4 , UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON 0 C 20460 ‘P 4 ( ocT 3 0 PIG—8 1--3 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Effect of RCRA Regulations Changes on Phase I Interim Authorization Approval FROM: Steffen W. Plebri QQJL’ Deputy Assistant Mi strator for Solid Waste (wH— 62) R. Sarah Compton ‘ Deputy Assistant flministrat r for Water Enforcement (EN—335) TO: 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 P 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 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. ------- —.,— 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. ------- ‘I ,,.,.t . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 4 Lpqo ?IG—31—4 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: “Delisting” of Wastes by Authorized States FROM: Steffen W. Plehn Deputy Assistant ‘A thTi1 trator for Solid Waste (WH-I 62) R. Sarah Cornpton Deputy Assistant AdrtTinistrator for Water Enforcement (ELq—335) TO: PIGS Addressees IS 513 E : Can a State with an authorized hazardous waste management program be allowed to exempt (“delist”) hazardous waste from individual sites? DISCUSSIO I : 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 LD5O or inhalation LC5O 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 arid 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 ay desire not to delist. This problem is riot unique to the ssue 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. the other hand, if the State’s delisting mechanism lacked explicit ------- —3— standards and procedures analogous to those included in EPA’s clelistirig 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 E?A’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. ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 4 L PRO NOV ! 1960 PIG—81—5 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: rJsed Oil Recycling Act of 1980 (P.L. 96 1 63) FROM: Steffen W. JL — Deputy Assistant 1mi Jistrato for Solid Waste R. Sarah Coxnpton Deputy Assistant mini rato for Water Enforcement TO: PIGS Addressees Issue How will the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980 (P.LS 96..L 63) affect the Subtitle D State solid waste management plans? Discussion On October 15, 1980, the “Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980” (P.L. 96 1+63) 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. it& c ------- —2— • Require the EPA to develop standards for the recycling of used oil and to determine whether used oil is subject to the hazardous waste 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 o 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 1980” 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 4003(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: “(i) 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. (4) Establishment and implementation of a program (tnclud— 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 4008(f) further provides that the Administrator may make grants to States, which have a State plan approved under Section 4007, or.vhich have submitted a State plan for approval under such section, where such plan Includes the discretionary provisions for recycled oil described above in Section 4003(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. ? o 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 4001, State plans need not include the discretionary provisions of Section 4003 (b). However, to be eligible for possible financial assistance in carrying out the discretionary provisions, the State solid waste management plan, including the discretionary provisions, must be approved under Section 4007, or must have been subnitted for approval. tates considering the submission of a discretionary plan for recycled oil must do so in accordance with Section 4003(b). The discretionary provisions must be incorporated into the State solid waste management plan which is to be developed pursuant to Section 4002(b). Subpart D of 40 CFR 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 4007 is January 31, 1981. States may subsequently amend their plans to include these discretionary provisions (See 4o CFR 256.03). Should funds be appropriated for such grants in fiscal year 1982 or fiscal year 1983, States meeting the eligibility requirexaents 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).” 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—9145. ------- U UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON CC. 20460 PIG—81— 6 1 4 I 8Q MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: State Regulation of Federal Agencies for Purposes of Interim Authorization FROM: Steffen W. Plehn a_ %/ Deputy Assistant Admi 4strator for Solid Waste (wH—562) R. Sarah Comptori Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement (EN—335) TO: PIGS Addressees ISSUE Must States have independent statutory and regulatory con-. trol over Federal facilities and Federal agencies in order to qualify for interim atithorization? DISCUSSIO T I. Introduction Some States appear to exclude Federal agencies from their regulated community, thereby not requiring Federal agencies to comply with State requirements placed on generators and transporters of hazardous waste and on owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities. Generally, the apparent exclusion is not explicit. Rather, Federal agencies are, as a group, not specifically identified in the State’s definition of the regulated community. Approximately 700 Federal installations have notified EPA that they are engaged in hazardous waste activities. Ground—water contamination from two Federal facilities was cited by the U.S. House of Representatives (House of Respresentatives Report #94—1491, 1976) as part.of the hazardous waste management problem which required Federal action through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. ------- —2— The purpose of this Program Implementation Guidance memorandum is to indicate 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 CFR 123 Subpart F. II. Definition of a Federal agency Federal agency 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 tile Government Printing Office”. As used in this memorandum, “Federal facilities” are any facilities owned or operated by any “Federal agency”. III. What Federal requirements exist over Federal agencies? Subtitle F of RCRA establishes Federal responsibilities for solid and hazardous waste management. RCRA §6001 states that each Federal agency shall be subject to, and comply with, the same sub- stantive and procedural requirements for hazardous waste management that are imposed on other persons by Federal, State, and local governments, when that Federal agency is engaged in activities which result, or which may result, in the disposal or management of solid or hazardous waste. Executive Order 12088 directs Executive agencies to comply with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq). Section 1—302 directs the EPA Administrator or his agent to conduct inspections, as necessary, to monitor compliance by Executive agencies. 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, and approve a compliance plan and schedule. This procedure is in addition to the other applicable statutory enforcement procedures and sanctions. IV. What controls must States have over Federal agencies to qualify for Interim Authorization? A. Universe of Wastes The Federal regulation at 40 CFR 123.128(a) requires that a State program 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. The “nearly identical” test is discussed in the RCRA State Interim Authorization Guidance Manual (EPA, 1980, pp. 3.1—1,2). The test for substantial 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. ------- —3— B. Generators, Transporters and Facilities The Federal regulation at 40 CFR 123.128(b) (2) requires that a State program regulate all generators located in the State. The regulations at 40 CFR 123.128(b)(3) through (8) require that the State regulate generators in a manner substantially equivalent to the procedural and substantive requirements of 40 CFR 262. Parallel requirements for State programs concerning transporters of hazardous waste are established in 40 CFR 123.12a(c). The Federal regulation at 40 CFR 123.128(e) requires that State programs enforce facility standards which are substantially equivalent to 40 CFR 265, and that State law prohibit the operation of facilities not in compliance with such standards. 40 CFR Part 123, Subpart F indicates that States are to exercise regulatory control over all generators, transporters, and owners/operators of facilities managing hazardous wastes. C. State Controls There is no provision in 40 CFR Part 123, Subpart F that States may exempt from their regulated community those wastes or waste management activities involving Federal agencies. Consequently, in order to be substantially equivalent to the Federal program, a State program must exercise authority over Federal agencies involved in hazardous waste management. DECI SI0! T For purposes of interim authorization, a State must demonstrate, through its Attorney General’s Statement and Program Description, that it controls Federal agencies in the manner required by 40 CFR §123.128. When State law and regulations explicity include Federal agencies in the State’s regulated community, the issue is not in controversy, and the Attorney General’s demonstration would be straightforward. This would be the case where a State’s definition of “person” (i.e., those who are subject to the regulatory requirements for hazardous waste management established in the State Program) explicitly includes Federal agencies. When Federal agencies are not explicitly included in (or excluded from) the State’s regulated community (i.e., State statutes and regulations are silent on whether Federal agencies are regulated), the Attorney General’s Statement must explain the basis for the State’s assertion of jurisdiction over them. This explanation must be based on the State’s overall statutory and regulatory framework. The State Attorney General can cite RCRA §6001 and Executive Order 12088 to demonstrate Congressional and Executive intent that Federal agencies comply with State Program requirements. However, these citations do not independently ------- provide the State with jurisdiction over Federal agencies. In addition, when Federal agencies are not explicity included in the regulated community, the State must also indicate in its Program Description that it will regulate Federal agencies in the manner described by 40 CFR l23.l28. If a State Attorney General’s Statement indicates that the State cannot control Federal agencies, interim authorization cannot be granted. In defining their regulated community, States should be encouraged to explicitly include Federal agencies, in order to qualify for final authorization. Attachment — Executive Order 12088 ------- I 47707 presidential documents (3195—01—MI Title 3—The President Executive Order 12088 • October 13, 1978 Federal Compliance With Pollution Control Standards By the 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. 300j —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 th Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6961). and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and to ensure Federal compliance with applicable pollution control standards, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1-i. Applicability of Pollution Control Siandards. 1—101. The head Of each Executive agency is responsible for ensuring that all necessary actions arc taken for the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution with respect to Federal facilities and activities under the control of the agency. 1—102. The head of each Executive agency is responsible for compliance with applicable pollution control standards, including those established pursu- ant to, but not limited to, the following: (a) Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 ci seq.). (b) Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 a seq.). (c) Public Health Service Act, as amended by the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f ci seq.). (d) Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 ci seq.). (e) Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 a seq.). (f) Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 ci seq.). (g) Radiation guidance pursuant to Section 274(h) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021(h); see also, the Radiation Protec. lion 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 (33 U.S.C. 1401, 1402, 1411—1421, 1441—1444 and 16 U.S.C. 1431—1434). (i) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rocienticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 ci seq.). 1—103. “Applicable pollution control standards” means the same substan- tive. procedural, and other requirements that would apply to a private person. 1-2. Agency CaordinaAon. 1—201. Each Executive agency shall cooperate with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, hereinafter referred to as the Adminis. FWERAX. REGISflR,, VOL 43, P lO. 201—TUEsDAY, OCTOBER 17, 978 ------- 4T108 THE PRESIDENT crziior. and State. interstate, and local agencies in the prevention, control, and abatement of en ironmentjl poIlut on. 1—202. E iJi Executive agency shall consult with the Adimn strator and with State. interstate, and local agencies concerning the best techniques and mcthods available for the pre cnuon. control, and abatement of cnvironmea- tal pollution. 1—3. Technical .Idtnce and Orersiglil. 1—301. The Administrator shall pro ide technical advice and assistance to Exccutive agencies in order to ensure their cost effective and timely compli- ance with applicable pollution control standards. 1—302. The administrator shall conduct such reviews and inspections as may be necessary to monitor compliance with applicable pollution control standards by Federal facilities and activiues. - 1—4. PoLlution Con trot P!an. 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 rnainte nance of Federal fadlities 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 poIlLztion control standards. 1—403. The plan shall be submitted in accordance with any other instruc- Lions that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may issue. 1-5. Funding. . - 1—50!. ilic head of each Executive agency shall ensure that 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 that funds appro- priated and apportioned for the prevention, control and abatement of ezv. iron- mental pollution arc not used for any other purpose unless permitted bylaw and 5pcclficalIy approved by the Office of Management and Budget. 1—6. Compliance it iiii Polluiwn Controls. 1—601. Whenever the Administrator or the appropriate State, interstate, or local agency notifies an Executive agency that it is in violation of art applicable pollution control standard (see Section 1—102 of this Order), the Executive agency shall promptly consult with the notifying agency and provide for its approval a plan to achieve and maintain compliance with the applicable pollution control standard. This plan shall include an implementation sthed. ule for coming into compliance as soon as practicable. 1—002. The Administrator shall make every effort to resolve conflicts regarding such iolacion. between Executive agencies and, on request of any party, such conflicts between an Executive agency and a State. interstate, or a local agency. If the Administrator cannot resolve a conulkt, the Administrator shall request the Director of the 0 (11cc of Management and Budget to resolve the conflict. 1—003. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall consider unresolved conflicts at the request of the Administrator. The Director shall seek the Adni&nistrators technological judgment and detcnninauon with regard to the applicability of statutes and regulations. FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 4 , NO. 201—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1978 ------- THE P*ESIOENT 47709 1—604. These conflict resolution procedures are in addition to. not in lieu of. other procedures, including sanctions, fur the enforccmcnt 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. L.unzlagion on £cemptiosu. 1—701. Exemptions from applicable pollution control standards may only be granted under statutes cited in Section 1—102(a) through 1—102(0 if the President makes the required appropnzite statutory deterrninauon: that 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 sith 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. General Prouzilons. 1—801. The head of each Executive agency that is responsible for the construction or operation of Federal (àcilities outside the United States shall ensure that such construction or operation complies with the environmental pollution control standards of general applicability in the host courury or jurisdiction. 1—802. Executive Order No. 11752 of December 17, 1973., is revoked. THE WHm HOUSE, October 13, 1973. (FR Doe. 78-29406 FIled 10—13—78; 3:40 pm] EonORIAL. Norz: The President’s statement of Oct. IS. 1973. on signing Kxecutive Order 12058 and his memorandum for the heads of departments and agencies. thied Oct 13. 1978. on Federal compliance with pollution control sunclarris are printed in the Wccklv Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 14. no. 41). FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 201—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1978 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ____ WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 I ‘ k DEC 1 PIG — 81 —7 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Final Determinations on State ApplIcations for Interim Authorization: Action Memorandum arid Federal Register Notice FROM: e f f en W • Pie h ri Deputy Assistant AdminIstrator for Solid Wastej 3 /_562 R. Sarah Compton 4 / Deputy AssIstant 1 dmini2 ra or for Water Entor ement (EN—335) TO: FIGS Address ISSUE What subjects should be addressed in the Action Memorandum arid Federal Register notice of final determination on State applications for interim authorization? What is the process for development, revievand dissemination of these documents? DISCUSSION The basic requirements and procedures for final decision—making on State applications for interim authorization are listed in 2 Q CFR 123.135(b), EPA Delegation 8—7 (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 arid provides ad- ditional information on this subject, including examples of the Federal Register notice and Action Memorandum. 140 CFR 123.135(b) provides that: “Within 90 days of the notice in the Federal Register required by paragraph (a)(i) of this section, the Administrator shall make a final determinatIon vhether or riot to approve the State’s program taking into account any comments submitted. The Admin- istrator vill give riot ce of this final determination in the Federal Register and in accordance Ith §l23.39(a) l). 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—7, as amended, delegates this decisIon—making authority to the Regional Admtnistrator. It also provIdes that: “Before issuing, denying or ‘ ithdraving interim or final a — thorization for a State hazardous vas:e program under Sec Icn ------- 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 Genera]. 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— ‘Diem 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 ‘eam in rder 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— isi.on Director or Office Director on the final recommendation in advance of the transmittal of the Action Memorandum to ensure that there wIll riot be any unnecessary delays In the concurrence process. Coordination of the concurrence sign—off n 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— t on f 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 arid who receives it? How are HQ officIals involved in the revIew and concurrence process? The remaInder of this memorandum provides answers to these uestions. ------- —3— DECISION The Action Memorandum should contain the followtng items noted in he Manual: Highlights of specific questions or problem areas, raised in EPA review or significant public comments; Discussion of key agreements reached during the drafting of the State’s application (e.g., how the State responded to EPA comments); 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 arid 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 O CFR 123 Subpart F requIre- ments for Phase I of interim uthortzation. The response to pub lIc 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 exam le of how to cover tbe topics discussed in this memorandum. It should be noted, however, that the Arkansas application and public hearing were relatiieiy non—controversial. In States where a larger number of critical issues have been raised or where the authorization decisIon is less stra ghtforvard, 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 ‘11 for the competent preparation of the Arkansas documents. As the Guidance 4anual indicates, the State DelegatIon CoordInator and Regional Counsel should prepare the Action Memorandum package. These aDers should re 1ect the recommen- dations of both the Regional Workgroup and Headauar ers Revlev ------- 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 HA. We suggest that the Action Memorandum be addressed from the HA to the two Assistant Administrators and the General Counsel, since the concurrences of these EQ offices are being solicited. After the HA has reviewed and signed the Memorandum, it should be transmitt along with the draft Federal Register notice to the EQ Review Team Leader. This person will provide copies to the two Assistant Admini- strators, the General Counsel and EQ Review Team members on the day the package is received. The 10—day EQ review period will take place concurrently in all three offices. Because of the brevity of the review period, EQ 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 EQ Review Team Leader will collect the three EQ offices’ responses and return them to the Region. If any of the EQ offices do not respond within the 10 working days the HA may assume the offIce’s concurrence with the Region’s recommen- dation. (The EQ Review Team Leader vii ]. magnafax EQ responses to the HA if iecessary to meet the 10—day deadline. ) If one or more of the EQ cfflces noriconcurs with the recommendation, and no resolution can be’reached, it is the HA’s res onsibility to resolve the r blem With the Adrninistrator. :t our hope, however, that :hrough the - review process discussed above, dIsagreements can be resolved acd fcr— mal non—concurrences and appeals to the Administrator can be avoided in most cases. After obtaining EQ concurrences, the Region’s State Delegation Coordinator should send an original signed Federal Register notice and four copies to: Federal Register Office (P 4—223) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 0l M Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 2OI 60 Attention: Carolyn Ward A copy of the signed Federal Register notice should be sent at the same time to the EQ Review Team Leader. ------- —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 ork ng days. If you need information or expedited treatment, call Carolyn Ward at FTS 287—0778. In addition to the Federal Register notice, the final determination must be announced in accordance with I o C l23.39(a)(l). This section requires that a notice be: “...cjrcu].ated in a manner calculated to attract the attention of interested persons i;cluding: Ci) 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 .nterested.” Finally, we wish to call attention to the requirement in !4Q CFR 123.135(b) that the final determination be made vith n 90 days of the initial Federal Register notice of public comment. We will define “fInal determination” as the date on which the Federal Reg- ister notice of final determination is signed by the HA following the cornpletion of the HQ concurrence process. The preparation, review and final approval of the Action Memorandurn and Federal Register notice must be accomplished wIthIn this 90 lay period. Attachment ------- - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DATE October 30, 1980 sue jECT Phase I Interim. Authorization of Arkansas’ Hazardous W te Management Program -— ACTION MEMORANDUM PROM A lene Harrison Regional Administrator ° Eckhardt C. Beck Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management (WH—563) Michele Beigel 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 0 f citizens to intervene in enforcement actions; (2) restrictions on availability to EPA of State program information with- out restriction; (3) lack 0 f 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 U, 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 1320.6 (Re... 3 ------- 2 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 Comission’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 is 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. RECOMMENDATI ON 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 ------- 3 Concur Non—concur Concur Non-concur Concur Eckhardt C. Beck Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management Michele Beigel Corash General Counsel Jeffrey G. Miller Acting Assistant Administrator for Enforcement Date Date Date Non—concur ------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 123 Arkansas: Lnterim Authorization, Phase I, HazardousWaste Management Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 ACTION: Approval of State program SUMM.ARY: 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 5 months after promulgation, were provisions for a 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. —l — ------- 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 applica on 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 Inverim 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 0 f 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 U Interim Authorization. This budget request, of course, is subject to approval by the State Legislature. sated: November 10, 1980 Adlene Harrison Regional Admi ni strator —5— ------- S? 4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 I( 2 5 O PIG 81 —8 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Program Implementation Guidance On Issuance of Provisional EPA Identification Numbers FROM: Deputy Assistant ra ‘ ‘ for Solid Waste (w 2) R. Sarah Compton’ ’1k1t ,L 7 , 9 t ) Deputy Assistant A’ inistratør for Water Enforcement (EN —335) TO: PIGS Addressees and Regional Notification Contacts Issue : 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 RCRA Subtitle C regulations effective Noventher 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 rm 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. Thefollowingscenario 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 plan for implementation of this new procedure. At this time, we have identified a general set of circumstances where issuance of a provisional identification nuntber 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 CFR 263.30(b) and EPA Headquarters guidance memo to Regional Offices on emergerhcy 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 ; - Regional Office personnel should be prepared to issue provisional numbers on a 7—day, 24—hour basis. Preparations —shc uld-also --be--made to issue these numbers 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. 2 ------- c) Issue the nuinber. We suggest this be done by siig a system devised internally in each Region. A recommended format, similar to the standard EPA. identification number format, would have the two Letter state abbreviation, followed by the letter II U for “Provisional”, followed by a serially increasing nine digit code for each subsequent number issued, e.g., “VAP000000428.” (These numbers will not be part of the Dun and Eradstreet system and will not be entered into the national computer data base.) d) Explain what. conditions, if any, apply to the use or duration of the number. Inform the applicant of requirements for submission of completed For:n 8700—12 within 10 days of receipt of a blank form from EPA. A final identification number may then be issued. e) Document all proceedings and follow through as appropriate. We intend that the provisional identification number be a practical alternative in situations where the standard procedure for issuing EPA identification numbers would be unreasonably time—consuming. A regulation change is not necessary in order to implement this procedure, however, future amendments to the generator and transporter regulations will clarify and discuss other requirements which may apply to persons who receive provisional numbers. The establisbment of this procedure is part of a larger effort by the Agency to address the- application of the Subtitle C regulations to hazardous waste discharges and other circumstances requiring rapid response. Your conunents and suggestions are welcome. 3 ------- UNIT STATES’ \V!RONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY ASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 CEC 10 IS8Q OFfl OF ENFORCZMc14T / - PIG—81—9 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Effect of EPA’S Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Transportation on Activities in States with Cooperative rangements FROM: Steffen W. Plehn t jj Deputy Assistant m istrato for Solid Wa te 562) R.. Sarah Compton’ Z4 Deputy Ass istant’ dmini.stra or for Water Enforcement (EN—335) TO: PIG’s. Addressees ISSUE : - Eow does EPA’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOD) with the Department of Transportation (DOT) affect activities conducted by States with Cooperative Arrangements? DISCUSS ION : The EPA—DOT Memorandum of Understanding (45 FR 51645, see attachment) on hazardous wastes transportation enforcement was signed on June 24, 1980. The purpose of the MOD is to clarify the responsihilities 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 RCBA and the Eazardous Materials Transportation Act (KMTA). ------- The EPA—DOT MOD was executed by and operates solely between the two ?ederal agencies. 4uthorization, pur uant to S3006 of RCRA, of State programs does not bring the States within the purview of the MOU. EPA encourages authorized 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. The responsibilities and conditions of the EPA—DOT MOD must be considered where States are conducting inspections and other enforcement activities under Cooperative Arrangements with EPA . If the Cooperative ArrE merit 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 MOD,, and the U.S. DOT should. be notified. Where State personnel are acting as representatives of EPA under S3007 of RCRA, the inspections clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the EPA—DOT MOD and the ].S. DOT must be notified. The EPA. Regional. Office or the State should, be abI to provide the U.S. DOT Regional Office with information on the extent of the anticipated inspec- tion program, the targeted areas, and the results. of completed. inspections where violations of the SMTA. are detected. EPA and/or the State can expect similar information, from DOT... DECISION:- In preparing the Cooperative Arrangement where the. State is performing inspections of hazardous waste transporters, either the EPA Regional Office or the State nust inform the appropriate U.S.. DOT Regional Office of such Arrangement.. Under the EPA—DOT MOD, the EPA Regional Office remains obliged to notify DOT. Eowever, as- part of the Cooperative Arrangement, the State may fulfill this obligation. To address the responsibilities assigned in the MOD, EPA Readquarters is preparing an Implementation Plan. This. Plan will describe exact procedures EPA. and DOT will use in carrying out the MOD. In the near future, we will transmit a draft of the plan to the Regional Offices for review and comment. Attachment: EPA-DOT MOD ------- Notices FedexaZRe ater / VoL 4L No. 15 1 - I Monday, - 5154S • waster proçiz are enc z J to • -. bwldou, i e.(. aierfai upa s an ..Th. - develop their ow a ants betwea DOT e!ULiU0nS ii ,, I eIi of the appapnats state trsnzporra a bauruua west.i. as denied by A. in agency and Sta ronmentai agency. cov with both F 4TA and R to ensure the un Io and ‘ ‘i isLi en ie VSiCOCL Thia p Indedan -.v • e Iózcecient of the haazdo wa which wei pieviai y deat aced bainadous These wince, must czo y with ansportation reguiaticna. the sew COT s andazdn for bawdnus waste The LL wb th delineates the areas maia& ai&. itoring and.. . - 3.Azaes ThdMth.ral R uIatibiz. That. enf rr’ i”ø ”f resp esihil4hil1 a w4 . -. . it.. .i . arias O ver ‘Which oily oce or respect tO b* 51d0U$ WUL5 V” -”L: . the other AgInCT baa jutfsdk a Onso n reads as to ow - . wa s the A eq ire it that Oaaaoctere deenapeaydLschaz e.oihaaaado*a ta of ‘ ‘ -rlhi 3an .. . . t s - which they are catry . OCT “e t L1 - T Lu iuiiaa l ieferthi i A iaq aièib. .- U e - a q u t . - - O,n ofT.-. •: .‘ ri doas because it Is b. d DCI _____________ -— . Eafurceinent of S tthrds AppfIethl : L - . -•• .• - • — - - - —. to S?tfppee a IdTz2nnper r oL. ____ -. - - -. OCT. oo th. other bind. re wren thr H ous Wcat Memarantha at Thi IP Y Of thIs MaaDT rti1n aufety fee le r s betnilalisd a. nil Uode nq Satweeti e Is ICI ‘lIddl0. AS isthutity dais eer Cepar ant of T rtsliQn and oLzcaousibthtl of the Oepatsnt ___to sua eate r y reqwremess. an they ____ Tansportadan (OOT and the U.SJ.nviroew eit l Prot .c Agency Pritasdon Agency ( A1 far the enfateeent not he indudad a As rigiladain.. of eianda s applicable ‘a the shipieer and IV Tisnc cf.4* eet • T aoartadorz Act ( vfEA). 4 TJ,5 . usoortaaen of banczdaua .waatL This- MCU will usa sit istik thou US$201 tOist WILL an acp o na ;rca gain ‘a. iani—iai . the S etaxy of Treiporredo 1 iinigatad t ula o i. . biaael goverinog the uspoxt of ba sdoiu ___ -. wantee and hausrdoue substances. 4$ PR oun.qUSuet faC .s with 45 2 (May 22. 1SaO .P rsuant to the aid the Resent. Caour’eier - ____ SOWt. V dO and 4 2 . 3rIsg enfescamus it a at Act (RCA), 42 U.S.C. GOi- the- Cainsivedos and R var A of 1375 IsSOtVü b.rdovtwissi eunspotiat. M . tratoriof the U.S. avu un ental ( A1 (42 U.S.C. i at. aeq.j t ivb.ri the tiunsoottadni s a lbi P ot Agency (EPA) pr.imil tad 5•’ ” ’ . hescaist. sta.te or poaof of hasusdaus is andera reguiaw genm and oimpatto or • waste or other aadvides ooc aI1y usder the hUSzdnus ‘ Wutes h v ie hesith 01 J¾ as dw” ’— m plicabte tO O2nsVOrte!5 of the - and eis” - This auchotity • this h(OU . (Far - - - --- 1 -LL.e idnlbi nosurdaus waste. 45 Fi ( fay1& both inter. and igni -seste a sicrta don. The - th*pef wIlt be eneedeved as illegal 1380J. The règuladons establishing Mt riquiUS -4Je ace eiae4aads disposer. The fact that th dzcapot is standards applicable to a cortern of caiOUSIA5 reosrdkaipis4. ripordag. Uin the waste is sondlarytatha. hardaus waste were procau igated by Lahe . iv th the dlep 1 .I of the weete and A wiLl bre the Adii ist ato, after r nsuitadnn aianifest iyst . and a n isporrado . or approç wteenlorc snenta against bus.) with the Sece4a of Transoartatina . 3 P ovde in the Bureau at Motor Canter 3 3 . • - - • . - . Safety (E .M Fedatal HIghway and are eirw .stentwith • -‘ torof A to USt. - - Adtond , idone ( WA Washingusr of } .lTA and the-. : - - • h - Of&e. DOT on. Unulng heals. at all • relations PI MJgated ta that. aQ r basurdons waste non ri who I ad on. theA - atur at.-.-. those pzUSilgaIeLb - . - 30 5d2d A Pit.siCt to ai t . U)OL - the EPA has *A, .. R A and their idencBondon w” the Sececasy c durta don — - - ( ) ‘ Z”i. t pravtde tha .. . .. *te1T t0 ?th, BM . P1IWAS the reguIat ons of basaniuiiar . .• M atoa the aiitbcrfl to inks. - - Wasamitos C c& OCT af 7 pI3ble - waste toaceefalo sub1 . . in the sonraf. - IO 1SdOO O11*dTA 0ti0iSid fur the adrff oa of materials to b.- Trade rU U , • of which it Is swat. cad psaulda _____ and r Sddldoe of inteoth to that o ce with iii nilevint tofocandia.. - by .i . :. . thee, .w.lzIfJwI 3 - S. lewidVite fI9Uta 5 DO2 Whiá YO o de . -t let at :i4 , • __ -. - A ease taevi ct that a-violadaaaL .. 2th , 1 .(fl ad0fl and cafur en I ‘ 9 7 ___ -. - R A has u. l and. where need. .! ourofl !MTA andRC.’ A . and T ztu A The H aunMa la - ‘PP °P’ ” i1 II 5tot7 or esr ave4 i’vH to the - - • -‘--- pattatiseA ( 4 J (4g J t - acto. usder RCtA. . - . — - - - - AInIIZ p t1 ble . the Secetary of -‘- .: at Seq.) tS 2te, Senitary of , • - - & Provide flOTwith an j - . Transpcrtatio and the AdImisOeICr of Trunspcrcananta prucazigats standazds far -. ‘• A EPA have e ted a Meorsndit. of. the onmpons of anaatat le in ’ IsVevOgeO GU which A bthuvu, y Ucd tondrng (MOU) regarding the - — 1 5 hailLh .a ‘avofre a vtolatiae of 1TA -• or piosperty. asaiacca er .nAii ‘a all.. - - 7. Mak..wiilabl. 8M FHWF DOT enfoecamant of standards ac Iicable to . aenvtiaa which ailact ag , e . : - any . y .” . do sein or other uvideeca shippers and nnsportère of bisardcan - aaepcrcatiad. Tha 4TA egula.dcae cover. at an y to waste... • • - • ...: - . - . - ,jj of anspor’atioa (h4owly. . 1 TA waich v9lven tasevilous The Secetary of T - rtadon and - tvI roiid. air and ‘water) end reqáe. . manj • wiSIC evateetsis. ‘ e M”ti ”s itor ofEPA intend other - . - L 1ehe e,tilabI, t the O ee . f -. .te MOU to establish standards ‘ a Oeea J1O1ISL n pp HUSZSOU3 Materials egeiartar . Materiel. appticabLe - and p as’liog . RP rc . - - - Tansportanoc Binesu. Reveench and 5pe aI pru es wbic are author ed under - . - . Propsevs Adiilsuotzon. DOT, any eoorts, 3C O(R A. S totes whi&eve . doints or other e’ dence n.ca rp ‘0 are support a rege at ry acuos uneer iC iITA authcaizeJ to iz kadaca -- both prinilgeang negeladans osain g - which Lavelves hawdoizs waste anterals. ------- 31646 Fed aL Rigi3ter I VoL 45. No. . 1.51 I Moxiday. Aa v’:: 4. i950 / No c I Er ng fu eu ent ac oea to sd eu. be bandiad end t sad d ui wa ac vtoes wiikh ay e ed ously by .oc apecal açee anL eient an “ “ “ t and iubszsaoaL C. This Memcrsnd of Undanthng endangeioisni to health and the wben ancepted by both Agon ea shall as those words aze s.d th the nce noe In effect aniets modified by nnze1 s*amtoi sbi,i.tered by A (snch en 4 1O wn an nsont of both Agen u or . ‘1 of RC A and 4 5O of the Cain Water Ac2 . t’— ”’.tad by mthor ’Mency upon. T. . 3. Th.D epcrtment of Tincsporta an. Wi .Lfr: day an•nonce . .. - i . .Cmductanoe .gooigpro emof inapeceons of enaporsereoo4 ahippem of - - Maenorandum. lndL.,r1.fl4ItI’ will be ._ ‘ .. ‘ hazardous waite to momtnc theu co .I yll vlr r olved by GA’s Deputy Assistant with 1 A regaladonc.. .. - ‘ “UatOT for WatazEnfarncment and ‘ - • 24nen,.dfately a&se the ippro nats DOIS AsenCateD ector for Opora ona and. regtoaal o ce of any ouible vtola cn of ,... . Eofrc*miat.Matarthii Trensportanoo RC. A or te ladoos adopted theneundàr J UL 3eSea OahS9eCaL9gre - • - wbj ltji ewareand ovi4..thai o os . ç; - : c. . ailielevont mk — Z For the Enrz sl Pro IM Agency t1O’UU *ti ,ffo Awb1th P Doagles ?.L hI DOT onoseto -. w. .i 4’ ‘ }O4Tkbia-occrad sow _ *t it’-• au pp at. I--_ - - ‘neD a 2 . 19 k . .a on under 1*fZA. Tcethe Depa ë dTrp aooe Zi . &aI g h . .At.• . : .::: • .• -‘- - - ! obtamad during the mee of a DOT ‘. — — in.. - - ia onwuth .DOTbslfeves utay •. Involves violad oLRC.7.A. .:‘ :- J a na &,1 5. Make available -ta anv1wwe -M uad. r-.ding -- - diloi,.5 or osherevtdnc ne .ary to”-. effa v.au the data -altb. nnI — JILppor enfoz ent and egolatory ‘ -‘ ‘ - . — - . ..— - - - under ft A.whrá mvojv. haiaidaui weem. - ____ —— C. Lath a4gen y Wi /k t.hesa that when-: .-— _ - ‘ ‘ L Informa on reveals a vieladon of both R A - - . . • and (TA. If DOT takes an ecfE ent . . . .. .. sc on.undarI’r4. t will not unratally. - .take-snch acdan. Cunversely, f A takes an enforcement . 4 ’ under R A. DOT will. nor noraally take such ac an.ThLs does not. Ii . .. ever. prednda ezthwAgeeey from - en anng other legal ‘ ‘ inregeM tad- - thatvioIatlau - •— - - . - -. 2. CøordInatt tavesoganons and-- enforcement acoons involving vtelanons of both R A and 1*4TA to avoid dopilcancu -ofeffart. :.. .. - - 3. Maintain, dose world g rela ooahips with the other, both Headquarters u well. as in the field. including an exchange of foformaton r,ianve to the Aganmes r,’innd . hazardous waste material compliance monnonng soc enforcement acevtnea. 4. Desigaste for the other Agency-a Headquarters contact point tO whou “ “caton regarding this agreement or matters affected thetehy may be roferied far- a(ten °n. 5.Mazgo regional liaisons between the Agenmes. and provide a mechantem by which.’. regional contacts will be made and maintained for the period of this agreement. liaise and er’ 4 ’ e with the-other insouc cns and guidelines implemenung this Mesuoreodma of Understanding idymg .- interagency contacts and liaison - •. -. representanves. and setnsg forth other -. poronetu opeta al . ouras in be’ : - :- - followed rel uv. to this agreement. . . . . - — v. . A. This Memorandum of Undeng a.. sot intended to limit in any way e scansary authority or junsdicuoo of either Agency. 3. Nothing in tins Iemar” ” of - Uuderaaomng modifies other exasong agreemerns or precludes either Agency Item entering into separate agreements settng - forth procedures for apecal programs wiuch ------- L TZ sT C: AL cTZC ”: ’. Z.’ C’( 4ENOR .A ’TDUM PIG—al-la StJBJZCr: Transfer of Totificatian and Permit Application Information ta States FROM: /“Steffen W. Plehn Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste (W —562) R. Sarah Conm ton / AAJ1 Deputy Assistant ministrato for Water Enforcement and Permits (E —335) TO: PIGS Addressees IS SUE : When should EPA transfer information from both the notification forms and the Part. A’s of theRCRA permit applications to the States? In what format should—EPA transfer this information? aow can the States assist EPA to review and process this info rmation? 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 U com onent. owever, EPA encourages States to assist the Agency in reviewing permit applications until such tine as the State receives its Phase I I authorization and will be recei’zing its own permit applications. Tote that this acknowled ent of the processes a facility may se and the wastes they may handle is based only or. the owner! operator’s Part A application. EPA merely copies or. to the acknowLedgment the wastes and processes the owner/operator included on the aooLica ior the by Z?. . :h : a aci :-_-; : fc: :c .a: was . ------- (2) m : eadcuarters i Sta:e soLid and za:±cus daste anacement agencies with ccoies of the Acencv’g notifi- cation r ort which presents a c pilatiori of information that was recei ved and processed between May 19, 1980 and Tovember 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) I.E infor- mation is transferred prior to completion of the verification of all items on the Part A ppLication, 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 P c puter files. EPA Regional Offices are presently reviewing and oroc’essing the Part A oermit a o1ications. 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 a plication indicates the facility was in existence on Tcvember 19, 1980; and (3) a notification was filed for the facility on or before August 18, 1980. EPA ------- •. .: Ll er.d ar. _ .:iai ac :wledg e’.z : a L: ari:s .‘ -.en :-‘ev meet all of these three condit. .ons. The purpose of this - acknowLedgr e t is :o inform the aooLicant that a preliminary review of t te information he rovided 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 afl acknow]. edgment. 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 appiicatioh, such as the mao, 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 o 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 res ensibilities 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 RCP permit program and canr.ot 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 11*?. ‘Do not ccnf se ?hase 1 and Phase 11 f :nzerim Authorization with the two rounds of Part A permit application processing. ‘‘W’nen a State recei,es interim au:horiza:: . fc: :r.e or — ::, :: e :ss.e :f ther a fa:: .:; ‘: a c:c .e-: an . ± te State aL:fies —. — — —— —— — ------- Therefore, :s sonsibLe for zorr .o1et: c the review Df ?ar -_ A of the eriit oU.ca:ior s and for send:nc .ou: ac ’znow- Ledctients. IPA lust therefore retain the or cinals of all nctificatio’n forns arid ?art A’s of the oer it aoolications which the ?4ericy has received*. EPA encourages arid welcomes States to assist the Agency in reviewing arid 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 arid acknowledgment of applications; and (3) the States can provide useful, and sometimes crucial information about certain facilities of which EPA may riot be aware. State information needs arid specific rovisions for EPA to rovLde 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 scopeof 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 arid enforcement activities, and for providing technical assistance, (3) as a potential source of data for revisions to grant regulations, (4) to assist States with interizv’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 ermit rocra .s to identify facilities which may need a State permit but have not aoplied for one. (Likewise, State ermit files will also be useful to EPA). Note tha: this continues to be im ortant even after a State receives interim authorization fcr one or cre comoonents cf ?hase t, because if a State orocr reverts to zP; .urinc Phase :: r at the end of the n:eri au:hc zetion cer:c , fc..:.::es CPA oer ::s iL a a . .n ee± :n:er:- s:e: order :e ab1.e :oe:a:e ------- (7) to assist States i:h c:i ica o c” - -s o i ent. ..fy 1on— oti!iers. (8) t g assist State inspectors in conducting facility inspections. 3oth the “RC A State Interim Authorization Guidance 4anual”, issued June 25, 1980, arid the °Additional Guidance for Cooperative Arrangements under Subtitle C of RC A”, 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 arid permit applications within 30 days after the Mer randuxn of Agreement is signed. The guidance for cooperative arrangements does not specify that EPA will furnish notification and permit application information to the States. owever, 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 rk, the Agency will have to provide the States with some notification and Part A information, coneistent, of course, with the confident- iality provisions in 40 C?R_Part 2. Assessing individual State information needs and formats for transferring information EPA Eeadquarters 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 Toveruber 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 waste(s) which the facility handles; the name of the owner of the facility; whether or riot the facility is Federally or privately owned; and whether or riot there is an underground injection well located at the facility. The report has ten volumes: one volume for each of EPAg 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 ri notification information is received and processed. While EPA intends to share fully with the States all cermit application informaticn, transferring this information requires a significant resource commitment, and if not done carefully can result in the States being inundated with information which has riot been verified and therefore may be of Little use to the State. We reccmmenf that ec:onal ffi es and States c:c together and carafu1 v assess .na: s;ec f : ieces of ?a:t ------- aoo1 ca:jon a:a the indi;idual States aed to run t:ie : rocra arid to assist ?A, arid wher tha: data is needed. For exa le , a S:a:e with Phase iteri.- authorization .ay :ieed to ‘ncw early on ho has a p1ied for a Federal permit and who has receive a round one acknowledgement. The State may have no immediate use for information about the processes or wastes described in the application, e ce t on a case by case basis 1 In this example, it would make Little sense for EPA to spend time copying Pare A for ns in order to provide the State with the information. Instead, as EPA ccm Letes 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 arid 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 f confidentiality for their information. EPA will transfer to the States information covered by these claims only in accordance with the provisipns of 40 CPR Part 2. —e — ------- O 3’ ,. f - I LN!T T i ’5 ‘IVIRCN I N AL CT T T CN AG NCV —— ,— .— a I I —, — — — - — :— I , —— I — OF’FICE oF’ WA1 R AND WASTE MANAGEMENT P IG—8 1—11 1EMO A 1DU SUBJECT: Involvement of States without Phase II Interim Authorization in RCRA Permitting FROM: Steffen W. Plehn j) Q.. Deputy Assistant Admi trator R. Deputy Assistant nista r for Water Enforcement (EN-335) TO: PIGs Addressees I S SUE Row should States without interim authorization for Phase II be involved in RCPA permitting? DISCUSSION As you cnow, 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 contajners; storage and treatment of hazardous wastes in tanks. surface ipoundnients, and waste piles; and treatment of waste in incinerators. ------- —2— :n addition, PA has oubL .shed in er :m final cula:.cns (?a: 267) wn:ch , for a period of 3 cn:hs, WLII allow to issue permi;s o new land disposal facilities pendinc orcmulgat on 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 Thase 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 res onsi— 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 Pederal 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 Recional Offices rnust seek the active involvement of State Dro rams in the conduct of RCRA oermittirtg durinc the Deriod before a State receives P ase TI interim authori- zation . This policy will provide for the most efficient use of EPA and State permitting resources and technical expertise, reduce confusion and pape ork burdens for the regulated community and the public, and ease the transition toward State administration of the RC A permit program in lieu of EPA. While EPA retains authority and resoonsibilitv for CRA ermit:inc until a State receives Phase 1 authorization, EPA. iust ccooerate with the States as closely as oss:bLe in the : e en:ation of th s resocnsibi.li v . State involvement prior to Phase 11 interim authorization should take several forms: States should assist egicnal Offices in the developmer.t of permitting priorities and in initial contacts i:h potentiaL per—...:tees. based on their r:c: ::ies anf the:: c. ..ef: cf ------- —3— Sta:es should :a’iiew er: it plicat.cns, share ormatior1 f;om their files, assist EPA in obtaining additional i formatiori (including site visits) and helo prepare technical analyses and support documents. • States should assist in developing permit conditions arid should comment on draft arid final permits. • Where unauthorized States must issue permits under state Law, 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 Memorandu i 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 ocritractors, arid participation of State personnel in RCRA training. We encourage Regional Of fices to be aggressive in securing State involvement as we move toward the issuance of the first RCRA permits. ------- |