United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
oEPA
DI He C T IV F !Ni U VI B F R 9010.1
TITLE: Follow-up to Orlando Quarterly Waste Management
Directors Meeting
APPROVAL DATE: n/25/85
t F F F C T i V E D A "IF
ORIGINATING OFFICE
® FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS
OS !/!/£/? OSWER OSWER
/£ DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
United States Environmentai Protection Agency
% A Washington. DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
Irnerim Directive Number
‘/C1O /
Originator Information
Name of Contact Person Ma j 1 de 552 A Telephone Numbe 3 82—571 4
RUSSELL, MARJORIE
Lead Office D OUST
0 OERR 0 OWPE
o OSW AA .OSWER
Approved for Review
Signature of Office Director
4 ffle6 J
Date
Z 8.T
Title
F 1low-up to Orlando Quarterly Waste Management Directo* Meeting
Summary of Directive
Responds to Items 3, 4, 5, 8, Ii, 13, 15 and 18 from the November 7,
1985 list of follow—up issues. (See attached)
Type of Directive (Manual. Policy Directive. Announcement. etc.) Status —
Memorandum/Policy Diredtive DOraft ONew
0 Finaf 0 Revision
Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s) Li Yes No Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)? Yes No
If Yes” to Either Question. What Directive (number. title)
Review Plan
&A.OSWER 0 OUST 0 OECM 0 Other (Specify)
0 OERR 0 OWPE 0 OGC
0 osw 0 Regions 0 OPPE
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Signature of Lead Office Directi es fficer TDate
)Z 1 / 5
SiQrtature f OS I ER Directives Officer Date
EPPi Ioiii 31b 7 (1O 85)
-------
,IO
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
.t pqO
‘ °‘ ‘ O FICEOF
U ’ SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: F 1 ow—u o Orlando Quarterly Waste Management
D’rec s’ Meeting
FROM: Jack • c w, 0 y Assistant Administrator
TO: Reg o al Waste Management Division Directors
On November 7, we provided you with a list of follow—up
issues resulting from our recent meeting in Orlando (attached)
Certain tasks have already been completed and are marked on
this version of the list.
Today’s memorandum encloses responses to Items 3, 4, 5,
8, 13, 11, 15 and 18. As soon as the remaining materials
are prepared, we will forward these to you as well.
If you have any questions regarding these tasks, please
contact Margie Russell on 382—5714.
Enclosures
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs
OSWEP. Office Directors
Thad Juszczak
-------
,cu
c l UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASH INGTON• D.C. 20460
‘ L PRc#
NOV — 7 1985 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Follow—up to Quarterly Waste Management
Directo s Meeting
FROM: 3. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Waste Management Directors
As a follow—up to our recent meeting in Orlando, I want
to provide you with a brief list of issues that require fur-
ther attention by Headauarters. We have included self—imposed
deadlines so that you will know approximately when to expect
final products.
I want to establish this form of follow—up as a regular oro—
vision of our Quarterly Meetings. This process should provide
all participants with a sense of commitment from 4eadauarters
that we will provide the necessary guidance, issue clarification,
policy resolution, etc., in a timely manner. Hopefully, it wi]l
also aid in the resolution of certain issues that continue to be
problems hut never seem to be fully addressed and brought to
closure.
I certainly enjoyed meeting with all of you and hope you
found these sessions meaningful and productive. I look forward
to continuing our dialogue of the many important PCR and CERCLA
implementation issues as I complete my round of visits to all
our Regions.
If you have any comments regarding our enclosed list of
follow—up issues, please contact Margie Russell on 382—5714.
Enclosure
cc: OSWER Office Directors
-------
FOLLOW—UP ITEMS
ORLANDO WASTE MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS CONFERENCE
October 21—23, 1985
Deadline, if
appropriate
1. OERR to provide special writing assistance to Region Done
VII in the region. (Walt Kovalick)
2. Send ASTSWMO list of OSWER policy and guidance 1/31/86
documents that have been issued. (Bob Herman)
3. Look into “FTE average” problem in Regions I and V 11/15/85
(Thad Juszczak)
4. Check on comment made t!iat “administrative staff 11/15/85
have stc pped all SF personnel processing”.
/ (Thad Juszczak)
5. What is the relationship between removals, remedials 11/15/85
and contract vehicles in context of new NCP? (OERR)
6. Send regions copy of letter from Administrator to Week of
Governors on air toxics acute hazards list. kdc]itionally, 11/11/85
Regions asked to be “catalysts” to get appropriate
management attention to these issues. (Makris)
7. If any Regions wish to have State—directed training ‘Jo #IC*I
funds diverted to air toxic needs, please contact A Sf’O, iS&
Walt Kovalick, OERR.
8. Look at resource distribution model for ESD in proportion 11/30/85
to services rendered. (Thad Juszczak)
9. Follow—up on policy where there is no place to take certain 11/30/85
waste (e.g., di.c n ’. Wh .t should our enforcement position
be? (OWPE)
10. What is the “RCRA—CERCLA” data base interface issue raised 11/30/85
by regions —— (Mike McNeill)
11. Send draft copy of Win’s transmittal letter on Groundwater ASAP
Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance out ASAP. (OWPE)
12. Need guidance on “used tanks” for UST. (OUST) 12/15/85
-------
13. when is advice of allowance coming for UST. Statutory
requirements go on. What are our options?
(Thad Juszczak) 11/30/85
14. ‘egions need guidance paper on characteristic waste 11/30/85
vs. listed waste issue. Concern was expressed regarding
impoundments that receive characteristic waste. The
option under §265.228(b) is to remove all impoundment
materials (including ground water) until the remaining
material passes the demonstration under §261.3(c). The
problem is that the characteristic waste test is 100 times
the drinking water MCLs. Contaminated ground water could
he left at 100 times the drinking water levels, and no
further monitoring or post—closure care would he required.
For listed waste, closure requires going to background
levels or delisting the waste. (OSW)
15. What is status of delegation package on RCRA? (Thad) 11/15/85
16. Re—examine policy on joint issuance of permits
(OSW) 12/15/85
17. CERCLA Reauthorization —— briefly after passage write both
RA’S and Waste Directors. Send recent side—by—side ASAP.
(Russell)
18. Clarify regional concerns over why are we requesting
regions to put groundwater information in Storet?
(Tony Montrone) 11/15/85
19. Groundwater strategy giving RCRA/SF concerns. (Note: Done
Marcia Williams provided comments to Marian Mlay and
requested that she contact Regions III and IV)
20. Send slides of corrective action briefing to Regions ASAP. Done
(Russell) —
21. Superfund Analytical Services — We must get on top of
numbers and where samples are going — QA/OC. This
issue will be addressed by OERR durin j the RCRA—CERCLA
Regional Reviews scheduled for each Region.
-------
5 Nov 85
Hire Freeze FTE Problem
Issue: Regions I and V indicated that they could not live with the
hours per pay period ceiling established by the Comptroller
as part of the hire freeze portion of the Superfund slowdown.
Background: When the Administrator announced the Superfund Slowdown in
mid—August, he included a hire freeze in the Slowdown. The
hire freeze had two components. First, a ceiling was estab-
lished for on—board personnel with a Superfund fixed account
number (FAN) based on the 14 Aug 85 on—board count and firm
EODs as of that date. Second, a ceiling was established on
the total number of hours which could be charged to Superfund
each pay period. That ceiling was based on the actual hours
charged in Fl 85 for pay periods 17 through 23 (25 May—17 Aug).
Discussion: Analysis of this situation requires some data not available
to us. However, we can make assumptions. In Region I, we
know that they had 72 people as of 28 Sep 85 with Superfund
FANs in OSWER accounts. We also know that the hours per pay
period ceiling they have would allow them to charge the equi-
valent of 84 people to Superfund. What we do not know is the
number of people with Superfund FANs in Regional Counsel and
Management or the amount of partial charging (having a person
with a non—Superfund FAN charge some hours to Superfund) that
occurs. By factoring national totals, we can assume about 12
more people In the Region with Superfund FANs. By talking to
the Deputy Director of the Waste Divison In Region I, we know
that “a lot” of partial charging occurs. Thus, Region I has
a problem. However, they convinced the Comptroller to raise
their ceiling to the equivalent of 91 people and, according to
the Region, can now manage the situation. The reason Region I
has this problem relates to an aggressive hiring program this
summer and the large amount of partial charging by other divi-
sions, especially Water.
The data on Region V would not indicate a problem. They can
charge the equivalent of 220 people and there are only 160
with Superfund FANs in the OSWER accounts; Even assuming 32
more people in the Region with Superfund FANs, there is still
room for partial charging. Region V confirmed that they do not
have a problem and, in fact, are continuing to hire.
After analysts of available data, it appeared that Regions
II and VII would have problems. These Regions have requested
assistance from the Comptroller and they will receive a higher
ceiling. Region IV also talked to the Comptroller, but they
appear to be okay for now.
Summary: Three Regions appear to have problems and all will get relief
from the Comptroller. No other Regions appear currently to be
having a problem living with the hours per pay period ceiling
that is part of the Superfund hire freeze.
-------
4 Nov 85
Issue: There is concern that during the Superfund hire freeze, the Regional
personnel offices are not continuing to process actions to the point
of selection.
Discussion: Kym Davis (personnel) recently had a conference call with Regional
Personnel Officers. She s explicit in her reiteration of what
can be done during the SF Hiring Freeze — i.e., backfilling vacant
positions up to ceiling and proceeding to hire up to the point of
makin the job offer for others.
No Region indicated that they re doing things any differently.
There re a few Regions missing fran the conference call. Kym is
today (11/4) going to fol1 z up ir ividually with them.
-------
c
Flexibility of SCA.P
Issue: Do the Regions have the flexibility to r ove funds bet en r nova1
and r dial projets identified on their SCPP?
The purpose of the SCAP is to lay out, site by site, the Enforcenent,
Response, and support activities each Region will undertake in a fiscal
year. Based on the SCAP, the conptroller issues one allowance to each
Region for all Superfund activities in that Region. The alla.i,ance includes
one program element for the renoval, remedial, and support activities and
another for the enforcenent activities. After the SCAP and the allc iances
are issued, the SCP P may be amended at any time. In general, changes to
the SCAP which alter the established SR4S targets or exceed the Regional
allowance require prior Heack uarters’ approval. However, the Regions
have sane flexibility to s stitute projects and, therefore, funding with-
in the remedial program. Also, in an emergency situation, the Regions
can initiate a r oval and borrow renedial funds, with the understanding
that the remedial funds will be paid back, in order to meet SRIS ca mitnents.
Alternately, the Region can reqi.est 1ditional funding.
-------
-..tt-8
Resource Distrilxition
Issue: Does the workload nodel allocate resources for the ESD lats in
prcport ion to the services rendered?
Each year, the total Regional F E are established through the budget
process. Then, the distrit jtion nodel allocates these resourcesto each
Region based on the workload estinates in the SCAP. Even though the
workload nodel has various categories that canpute individual Fit
requirenents for RI/FS, RDs, sample analysis etc., provide the Fit as
one lump sun and the Regional Administrator has the discretion to
allocate the resources as he/she sees fit. For example, if the nDdel
estimates that a particular Region needs 20 FrE for sample analysis,
there is no guarantee that the RA will allocate 20 FIt for that activity.
Also, the workload node 1 addresses functions not organizations. For
example, workload nodel does not indicate that sample analysis FTE should
go to the ESD. A work group has been established to work with the OI
work group to develop options to distritxite sample analysis and related
resources. This work group’s recaiuiendations will be presented to the
Hazardous Spill and Site Response workload nodel workgroup by mid—December.
However, nothir we do will affect the Regional Administrator’s aut rity
to allocate F E within the Region.
-------
I L
IOSP4 p 1 / J
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
*
4 t 0 e’
SEP I 3 S5
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
M IORAN11JM
SUBJECT: Try 7 yal 7 g A G ur&Mater r.t ni tx)ring Enfo rc nt Guidance
FRCM: J 7Winston rter
Assistant Mministrator
tO: ste Manag ent Division Directors
1 gionS I-X
As ou krow, oDrrect ion of g ourd-water nonitoring npliance ptoblei
at RCRA lard disgosal facilities is one of the Agency’s highest priorities.
I am t ersona1ly nitted to seeing that our capabilities are enhancai in
this iTtp rtant area ard that ampliance within the regulated nmunity is
imp ved. The Office of S’ lid Waste ard ergency Respnse has begun
several initiatives in the past year incluiing the formation of the Hazardous
Waste Gtourd—Water Task brce. Another major p ject we have initiated is
the developr ent of gzourd—water nonitoring enforcet ent guidance. Attached
are tw documents: “RCRA Gzourd—Water .bnitoring Technical Enforc nent
Guidance flcunent (draft),” ard °RCRA G ourd—Water bnitoring ODmpliance
Order Guidance (final).”
The Cbmpliance Order Guidance sets Out a cxnceptual f .-ame rk for
developing irninistrative enforcement actions against interim status
facilities with in equate gtrurd—water nonitoring syst rs. It describes
generally the types of technical renedies that such facilities stould be
required to urdertake ard then discusses the various enforcement auttorities
ard ambinations of auttorities that may be drawn upn to oznpel tiose
remedies. In particular, the document focuses on t w to rrect interim status
violations in a manner that is cx)nsistent with the needs of the RCRA
permitting proCess.
The Technical Enforcement Guidance Ebci ent is interded to help
enforcenent officials decide whether specific elements of an owner/operator’s
grourd-water nonitoring system satisfy the RCRA Subpart F requirements. It
aidresses Issues such as low rrany wells are erough, what slould be in a
sa pling ard analysis plan, what are acceptable cxnstruct ion materials for
wells, etc. I reamnerd that sour staff real the CDmpliance Order Guidance
first as it sets out the frane ork in which technical evaluations ard
decisions will be male.
-------
—2—
have tried to involve as many Regions and pLogram offices as pssible
in the fr,Luulation of the technical and legal decisions represented in
these enforCe!tent docunents. I ould like to per nally extend my thanks
to eveLy per )fl w o participated in the ievelo iient of this guidance. t
ould als like to e çress my appreciation to Regions 3, 5, 6, 8 aril 9 wiD
cx,ntrituted valuable staff time and aivice to this ptoject.
As vu k ow OS €R has, in the past, distril,jted a number of draft
guidance documents which fir various rea ns have r t been finalized. I
understand sour reluctance to rely on draft guidance. It is my irttention
that the draft Technical nforc rent Guidance DOnnent (T D) be finalized
by winter. In the interim, I reamnerxl that u rely on the oncepts and
ideas in the draft T D in the for njlation of pDsitions in sour on-going
enfi rcenent actions. You slould rot, Powever, specifically reference the
draft TEED in a,nplaints and otders ou issue. In fornulatir gr sitiorts I
enaurage u to bear in inird the circunstances of the individual facility.
You sPould be flexible in reguiring mnitorir syst a e that meet the draft
guidance a ncepts and ideas or an acceptable alternative. Fbr example,
existir wells nst .icted of materials other than teflon or stainless
steel 316 may be acceptable given the circu tances of an individual facility.
We plan bD seek input r1 the draft T D thLough several rechanL ns.
The ?çency Science dvi3Dry 3 ar will et in early October to review
technical issues relat i to the TFflD. The Haza ous Waste Gcurd—Water
Task rce will i nrt iately begin field testing of the T D at the RCR
o ninercial facilities it i visiting. Finally, .— _ jlan to take rinents
f.om the Regions, the States and €LOm ectecnal groups. You may submit SOUL
iritt n mrtents by October 31st t 4ichael i3a clay of the RCRA Enforcement
Division, Office of Waste PtograxTs Enfo cerrent (WH—527); rrs 475—9315).
cc: O)urtney Price, Assistant dministrat)c, OECM
ibm Gallager, NEIC
Hazar. ious Waste GLourd—Water Steering Comittee
Environmental Services Division Directors, Regions I—X
Regional Counsel, Regions I—X
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
RCRA frrceient Section Chiefs, Regions I—X
HQ Staff
-------
tE;3
Statement of Issue
Can UST State Grants be funded under the Continuing Resolution and if not
what are interim funding asures that would minimize the inpacts of
delayed appropriation on State program develoçment?
Background
o The Continuing Resolution provides that no funding be made available
for new activities (not funded during FY 1985) (Sec. lO1-a—6).
o UST grants are a n activity in Fl 1986, to encourage States to develop
and implement their n underground storage tank programs.
— While sane States have UST programs already, Federal requirements
under H A do not start until F? 1986.
—— EPA will provide grant n nies for UST activities for the first time
in F? 1986, and has established a new program element for these
grants.
o Because UST grants are a new activity, they cannot be funded under the
Continuing Resolution.
Impacts
o The immediate impacts of delayed funding could be on the notification
process.
—— Owners of underground storage tanks must notify State officials of
the existence of their tanks and provide certain data on them by
May 1986 (irrespective of whether States receive grants).
—— EPA has prepared a notification foriii to be used (statutory deadline
is Nov.1985).
—— States will distribute these forms to amers of USTs soon, an activity
which is eligible for grant funding.
o Longer delays in funding——uncertain at this point—could reduce incentives
to initiate state programs and delay their deve1oç nent and implementation.
Ha, ever, a direct effect on statutory deadlines (other than the notif i-
cation process) cannot be discerned. These deadlines are well into the
future, and major technical and legal issues have a direct bearing on
whether or not EPA and the States meet these deadlines.
-------
Interm nding Options
o Until the a ropriation is passed, the UST grant guidance can be used
to provide assurance to State officials concerning the anticipated levels
of funding ($100 K/State plus discretionary funds).
o States can maintain and initiate activities—-especially the distribu-
tion of notification forms—— using State monies.
— These monies will be eligible for State match under tJST grants. In
sane States, chargebacks might occur to credit State accounts once
grant monies are received.
— Note that it is unlikely that the n c1est grant amounts would cover
all program costs. Many States will likely overmatch anyway, and
may be willing to obligate their monies up front.
o A grant monies could be used for overhead and support services that
are c n/indistinguishable for the entire hazardous waste management
program, as an interim measure. Other use of RCRA grant money is
unauthorized.
-------
Status of RCRA Delegations Project
The RCRA Delegations Workgroup is in the process of
preparing final paperwork f r all but two of the twenty—six
proposed delegations. The two delegations which are taking
additional time to finalize are Delegation 8—4 (Addition of
Wastes to Hazardous Waste List) and Delegation 8—35 (Individual
Determinations to Ban Specific Wastes from Land Disposal).
The issues to be rp r4ved concerning these delegations have
to do with the extent to which these deci ions would benefit
from intra—Agency review and comment and the e,ç ent to which
these decisions are or will become routine. ThTe remaining
twenty—four delegations have been concurred on by the work-
group and the package should be final shortly. Issues raised
by the Office of Water concerning its responsibilties under
RCRA were resolved by inserting appropriate language into
the delegations and by deciding to prepare a memorandum to
the Regional Administrators clarifying the issues.
------- |