United States Office of
Environmental Protection Solid Waste and
Agency Emergency Response
P’EPA DIRECTIVENUMBER:
TITLE: GUID CE ON VARI CES FOR RETROFITTING INTERIM
STATUS SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
APPROVAL DATE: 1/2/86
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
FINAL
DRAFT
STATUS: C—-For Regional review and comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
Os
WER Os
WER
OSWER
DIRECTIVE
DIREC
TIVE
DI
-------
United States Erivronmertta Protection Agency
Wasririgtoi, DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Reauest
I riterrr irec ,e ufi’i er
19484.50—lA an
19484 .50—LA—a
Summ.r ef Directive
The draft guidance is written for owners and operators of existing
surface impoundments who are seeking exemptions under Section 3005 ( )
(2) , (3) , (4) , or (13) ; and for Federal and State officials who will
be processing these exemption requests. Each exemption is descrlbedb
in detail, and administrative policies are also discussed in the draft
guidance.
Attached are the transmittal memo requesting comments on the draft
guidance, and the draft guidance itself. The draft guidance was
distributed to the Regions on January 2, 1986, with a request that
comments be returned by January 24, 1986.
lype or Directive (Manuel. Policy Qircr,v . Announcam.nt, etC) Status
Draft New
Guidance - 0 Final 0
Does ms Directive Supers. e Pr,,,uus Oirsctive Yes No Does it Suppiement Previous Di,ectiveisi Yes
If Yes to Either Question What Directive (pPum r rifle)
Review Plan
0 &AOSWER 0 OUST OECM OtrieriS ec,Fyj OW
0 OERR OWPE 0CC
OSw Regions OPPE
Pequest Meets OSWER Directives System Format
r31u,e of Lead Office Oi ectives Officer Date
1- -8
‘ 6EPA
Name of Contact P,rgon Ma’i Cod.
Originator information
I tie
Teie noni Numoer
680
Guidance on Variances for Retrofitting Interim Status Surface
Impoundments
Signature of OSWER Directives Off cs ,
Dare
-------
t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
•/ WASHINGTON, O.C 204.6.0
JAN 2 1986
QFFICt OF
SOLIDWASTE ANiD EME ^ jE NCV RESP:;"SE
MEMORANDUM OSWER Policy Directive #9484 .00-lA-a(8t
SUBJECT: Request for Comments on Guidance Concerning RCRA
Section 3005(j) - Retrofitting Interim Status Surface
Impoundments \ y
_ V
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Addressees
I am soliciting your comments on the attached draft
guidance for the statutory requirements concerning retrofitting
of interim status surface impoundments under RCRA Section 3005(j).
This Section requires that each surface impoundment in existence
on the date of enactment of HSWA (November 8, 1984) and qualifying
for the authorization to operate under interim status shall not
receive, store, or treat hazardous wastes after November 8,
1988, unless such surface impoundment is in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements, or the impoundment seeks and
is granted an exemption request from retrofitting. Owners and
operators must apply for an exemption by November 8, 1986.
The draft guidance is written for owners and operators of
existing surface impoundments seeking exemptions under Section
3005(j)(2), (3), (4), or (13), and for Federal and State officials
who will be processing these exemption requests. The guidance
also contains a section on administrative policies.
Each exemption is described in detail in the draft guidance.
The exemptions are summarized below. The first ((j)(2)) allows
an exemption to an impoundment that has a liner, for which there
is no evidence of leakage, which is more than one-quarter mile from
an Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW), and which is in
technical compliance with Part 264, Subpart F. The second
exemption ((j)(3)) is limited to waste water treatment impoundments
conducting aggressive biological treatment that are in compliance
with a Clean Water Act permit, and in technical compliance with
Part 264, Subpart F. The third exemption opportunity ((j)(4))
applies to impoundments that are operated, designed, and located
so that there will be no migration of any hazardous constituents
into ground water or surface water at any future time. The
fourth exemption ((j)(13)) provides the opportunity of a variance
for cases where a corrective action agreement, order, or decree
that was signed prior to October 1, 1984 provides a degree of
protection equivalent to the minimum technological standards.
-------
2
I wish to call your attention to three issues that present
difficult interpretive issues on which we particularly seek
your comments.
The first issue concerns certain waste water treatment
impoundments under S3OO5(j)(3). Should a waste water treatment
impoundment, leaking at the time of the exemption application,
be considered eligible for the exemption? The draft states that
leaking waste water treatment impoundments are considered to be
eligible for the exemption. (The exemption would be granted
upon determining compliance with the specific requirements of
§3005(j)(3), which deal with the nature of the waste water treatment,
compliance with ground water monitoring requirements, and compliance
with the Clean Water Act).
We think that this approach accords with the plain Language
of the statute and the legislative history. However, §3005(j)(7)(C)
can be read to require that leaking waste water impoundments be
required to retrofit within three years of identification of the
leak. Consequently, this provision and public interests may
compel an alternative policy.
The statute ( 3OO5(j)(3)(B)) requires compliance with ground
water monitoring requirements, but does not require that an
impoundment not be leaking at the time of the exemption request.
Although 3OO5(j)(7)(B) may give us the authority to require a
leaking waste water treatment impoundment to retrofit, (j)(7)(B)
puts the burden on the Agency to show that such requirements
are necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Because the ground water monitoring and response standards in
Part 264 Subpart F are intended to protect human health and the
environment in the case of a leak, we have decided that leaking
waste water treatment impoundments should not be initially excluded
from the exemption. Instead, we think that the exemption decision
should be based, in part, on whether the owner or operator can
comply with the applicable monitoring and response provisions of
Part 264 Subpart F. This topic is found in Section 3.3 of the
draft.
The second issue concerns the phrase “in compliance with
generally applicable ground water monitoring requirements for
facilities with permits” in §3005(j)(2)(C) and (j)(3)(B). The
draft states that the facility must be in physical compliance
with the Part 264 Subpart F ground water monitoring requirements.
The statutory reference to “compliance” and the legislative
history support the view that applicants must comply
with the requirements of Part 264 which are not dependent on
permit issuance. Nothing prevents an applicant from carrying
out many of the Part 264 requirements without a permit. The
approach in the guidance concerning physical compliance is generally
consistent with the approach taken for certification of compliance
with ground water monitoring requirements under §3005(e)(2)(B),
where we decided that certification of compliance with a compliance
schedule did not consistute “compliance”.
-------
3
For purposes of this provision 1 the guidance indicates that
the applicable Part 264 monitorifl9 requirement only includes
those portions of the regulations concerned with assessing the
impact of the facility on ground water. It does not include
those corrective action requirements (i.e., §264.100) that
might be associated with a determination that contamination
has occurred. It would, however, include a determination of
the appropriate ground water protection standard for the facility
as part of a compliance monitoring program (see §264.99(a)).
It should be noted that those applying for an exemption under
§3005(j)(2) would have to be operating a detection monitoring
program as envisioned under §264.98. Any unit that was in need
of compliance monitoring program would, by definition, be
releasing hazardous constituents to the uppermost aquifer and
thus could not qualify for the “no leak” requirement in
§3005(j) (2)(A).
We are considering two other options for this second issue.
The first would expand the approach already described above to
require physical compliance with both the ground water monitoring
and response requirements (i.e., corrective action under §262.100)
of Subpart F. We have not selected this option to date, because
we believe that this could place a burden on interim status
facilities (i.e., physical operation of a corrective action
system) that is generally expected only for fully permitted
facilities. Permitted facilities may be given a schedule of
compliance to construct and operate a corrective action system.
The second option is to require full compliance with interim
status ground water monitoring requirements under Part 265,
plus submission of appropriate permit application information
under §270.14(c). Th option would not require compliance
with any Part 264 ground water monitoring or response standards.
The third issue concerns two aspects on the timing of closure.
The statute states that an owner or operator may not “receive,
store, or treat hazardous wastes” after November 8, 1988 (if an
exemption is not obtained or if the impoundment is not retrofitted).
The first aspect deals with when an owner or operator who does
not seek (or receive) an exemption or retrofit the impoundment
must commence closure. The second aspect applies to those
impoundments that have not been retrofitted nor exempted: can
these impoundments continue to operate by receiving only non-
hazardous waste after November 8, 1988?
The draft states that all surface impoundments must be
retrofitted or have been issued an exemption under §3005(j), or
they must commence closure by November 8, 1988. The approach in
the guidance construes §3005(j)(l) as generally prohibiting the
use of impoundments for hazardous waste management without
retrofitting. Consistent with the statutory definition, “storage”
is construed as a waste management method involving containment.
This approach is consistent with the legislative history, which
suggests that impoundments that cannot receive or store hazardous
waste after November 8, 1988 could avoid retrofitting by ceasing
to receive hazardous waste on November 8, 1988.
-------
4
Because the statutory language in §3005(j)(1) does not
3xplicitly refer to disposal impoundments, the draft guidance
would permit disposal impoundments to continue to receive hazardous
waste until November 8, 1988.
For owners or operators who elect to stop receiving hazardous
waste on November 8, 1988 and propose to receive non—hazardous
wastes after that date, the draft indicates that the closure
regulations in effect at that time (i.e, November 8, 1988) must
be followed. This topic is discussed in Section 1.4 of the
draft.
Close coordination between the RCRA and NPDES program offices
is needed to process applications under the waste water treatment
exemption. In order for exemption applications to be handled
in an efficient manner, we are preparing a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that will detail the responsibility of each
program office. I would appreciate receiving any views you
may have concerning this coordination effort. I will forward
a draft of the MOU at a later date.
I would like to receive your written comments on this draft
guidance by January 24, 1986. Please send them to Paul Cassidy,
Land Disposal Branch, OSW (Wl-I—565E), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20406. Mr. Cassidy
can be contacted at (FTS) 382—4682 for further information.
Attachment
Addressees: Regional RCRA Division Directors
Regional RA Branch Chiefs (five copies)
cc: Office of Solid Waste Division Directors
Gene A. Lucero, OWPE
Deborah Woitte, OECM
Martha Prothro, OW
Mark Greenwood, OGC
Sam Napolitano, OPPE
-------
INTERIM STATUS SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
RETROFITTINC VARIANCES
Draft Guidance Manual
for Regional Office Comment
December 31, 1985
-------
NOTICE
This docun ent is a preliminary draft. It has
not been formally released by EPA and ehould not
at this stage be construed to represent Agency
policy. It is being circulated for comment on
its technical accuracy and policy implications.
ii
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0035u
CONTENTS
Section
1. Introduction and Administrative Requirements 1—1
1.1 NationalPolicyGoals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—1
1.1.1 Minimum Technological Reqiiremente . . . . . . . . 1—1
1.1.2 The Extent of the Problem 1—2
1.1.3 The Requirement to Retrofit . . . . . . . . . . . 1—2
1.1.4 The Availaility of Exemptions 1—2
1.2 ThePurposeofthisManual .......... 1—3
1.2.1 Interaction of 3005(j) and Land Disposal
Prohibition 1—3
1.3 Procedures for Su1 nitting and Processing Applications
for Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—4
1.3.1 Integration of the Processing of Permits and
Exemptions 1—5
1.3.2 Determination of the Completeness of the
Application . . . 1—6
1.3.3 Public Notice and Opportunity to Comment 1—7
1.3.4 Final Determinations 1—8
1.3.5 Exemption Applications for Surface Impoundments
that Become Subject to RCR.A in the Future . . . . 1—9
1.4 TimIng of Closure 1—9
2. First Exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—1
2.1 Statutory Provisions 2—1
2.2 Guidance for the First Exemption . 2—1
2.2.1 Demonstrate That the Liner is Adequately
Designed, Constructed, Installed, and Operated . . 2—2
2.2.2 Demonstrate That the Liner is Not Leaking . . . . 2—4
2.2.3 Demonstrate Impoundment Location Relative to
Underground Source of Drinking Water . . . . . . . 2—7
2.2.4 Demonstrate Compliance with Generally Applicable
Ground Water Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . 2—9
2.3 Changes In Condition Causing the First Exemption
to be Revoked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—10
3. Second Exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—1
3.1 StatutoryProvisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—1
3.2 Guidance for 3005(j)(3)(A) . . . 3—2
3.2.1 Agreasive Biological Treatment Facility . . . . . 3—2
3.2.1.1 Description of Secondary Treatment
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—3
3.2.1.1.1 Activated Sludge Systems . . . 3—4
3.2.1.1.2 Fixed Film Systems 3—5
3.2.1.1.3 Waste Stabilization Ponds . . 3—5
3.2.1.2 Secondary Treatment Systems that Qualify
as Agressive Biological Treatment
Facilities .... ..... 3—6
iii
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 00351J
CONTENTS (continued)
Section
3. Second Exemption (continued)
3.2.2 Changes in Condition
3.3 Guidance for 3005(j)(3)(B)
3.3.1 Evidence Regarding Leakage
3.3.2 Changes in Condition .
3.4 Guidance for 3005(j)(3)(c) .
3.4.1 Definitions of NPDES Terms
3.4.2 Scope of ProvisionB
3.4.2.1 Facilities
3.4.2.2 Facilities
3.4.2.2.1
4. Third Exemption
4.1 Statutory Provisions . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Guidance for the Third Exemption •. . . .
4.2.1 Demonstration of “No Migration” Based on Test
and Model Data . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1.1 Meaning of “Ground Water or Surface
Water” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Meaning of “Hazardous Constituent”
Meaning of “No Migration”
Demonstration of “No Migration” . .
4.2.1.4.1 Waste Mobility in the
Unsaturated Zone . . . .
4.2.1.4.2 Waste Mobility in Surface
Water Runoff . .
4.2.1.5 Documentation Requirements . . . .
4.2.2 Demonstration of “No Migration” Based on Inward
HydraulieGradient . . . .
4.2.2.1 Pump Capacity and Reliability . . .
4.2.2.2 Flooding .
3.4.2. 2.2
• . . . . S • S S S • S
• S S • I I S S • • S 5
. S S • •
S S S • S • • S S S •
S • S • S S S • I S S S • I S
with BAT Permits . . . .
with BPT Permits . .
Standards Applicable to
Facilities With BPT Permits
for Which Effluent Guidelines
are inEffect . . .
Standards Applicable to
Facilities With BPT Permits
for Which No Effluent Guide-
lines are in Effect. . .
3.4.3 Meaning of “In Compliance” for 3005(j)(3)(C)
3.4.3.1 Initial Determination
3.4.3.2 Changes in Condition . . . . . . •
3.5 Procedure for Obtaining an Exemption . . . . • .
3.5.1 Sources of Information for the Regulatory
Authority . . . . . . . . , . . . .
3.5.2 Inter— and Intra—Agency Coordination in the
DecisionmakingProcess. . . . •...•
3—9
3—9
3—9
3—11
3—12
3—12
3—14
3—14
3—15
3—15
3—16
3—17
3—18
3—21
3—22
3—25
3—27
4—1
4—1
4—1
4—3
4—4
4—4
4—4
4—5
4—5
4—6
4—8
4—8
4—9
4—9
4.2.1.2
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.4
iv
-------
LAX DRAFT
12/31/85 0035U
C0WrEN’rs (continued)
Section
4. Third Exemption (continued)
4.2.2.3 Water—Table Fluctuations . . . . . . . . 4—9
4.2.2.4 Uniformity of Read in Impoundment . . . . 4—10
4.2.2.5 Fluid Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—li
4.2.2.6 Aquifer Nonuniformity 4—12
4.2.2.7 Cleanup at Closure . . . . . . . . . . . 4—12
4.2.2.8 Sites with Vulnerable Hydrogeology . . . 4—13
4.2.3 Changes in Conditions Causing the Third
Exemption to be Revoked . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—13
5. Fourth Exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—1
5.1 Statutory Provisions . 5—1
5.2 Guidance for the Fourth Exemption 5—1
References Ref—i
Appendices
A. Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 A—I
B. Potential Sources of Information on the Location of Aquifers
Identified as Underground Sources of Drinking Water B—i
Figure 1 Examples of underground sources of drinking water within
one—quarter mile of a hazardous waste surface impoundment . 2—12
V
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0019U
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
1.1 NATIONAL POLICY GOALS
In the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendme its of 1984 (HSWA), Congress
declared It to be the national policy of the United States that
wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be
reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste that is
nevertheless generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to
minimize the present and future threat to human health and the
environment.
To achieve this, the regulations implementing the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) now provide for a broad protective system that
is intended: (1) to prevent leachate from migrating from impoundments that
contain hazardous wastes; (2) to detect any migration that does occur; and (3)
to minimize such migration. This protective system encompasses the active
life of impoundments, the period while they are being closed, and the period
after they have been closed.
1.1.1 Minimum Technological Requirements
To achieve these goals, HSWA established Minimum Technological
Requirements for each new surface impoundment (including replacements and
expansions) that will be used to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
Section 3004(o)(l)(A) of RCRA, as amended by HSWA, now requires such surface
impoundments to have two or more liners, a leachate collection system between
the liners, and ground water monitoring. Section 3004(o)(5) gives EPA until
November 8, 1986, to promulgate regulations or to issue guidance implementing
the Minimum Technological Requirements. Current guidance on the Minimum
Technological Requirements may be found in EPA’a Guidance on Implementation
of the Minimum Technological Requirements of HSWA of 1984, Respecting Liners
and Leachate Collection Systems (EPA, 1985a) and in Draft Minimum Technology
Guidance on Double Liner Systems for Landfills and Surface Impoundments——
Design, Construction, and Operation” (EPA, 1985b).
1—1
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0019U
RCRA also provides for the possibility “that alternative design and
operating practices, together with location characteristics, will prevent the
migration of any hazardous constituents into the ground water or surface water
at least as effectively as liners and leachate collection systems’ (Section
30 0 4 (o)(l2)).
1.1.2 The Extent of the Problem
Some indication of the magnitude of the dangers to human health and the
environment that may be posed by existing surface impoundments is suggested by
the fact that more than 1,700 surface impoundments at 770 facilities were
being used for storage or disposal of hazardous waste at the time of passage
of HSWA. Of these more than 1,700 impoundments, 374 were said to have a
double—liner, 684 at least one liner, and 655 no liner (129 Cong. Rec. H8137
(daily ed., October 6, 1983)). According to EPA’s hazardous waste data base,
there were 1338 impoundments at 981 interim status facilities as of
September 10, 1985.
1.1.3 The Requirement to Retrofit
Section 215 of HSWA amended RCR.A by adding subsection (j) to Section
3005. (The full text of this Section is included as Appendix A of this
guidance.) The owners or operators of existing surface impoundments that were.
treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste when HSWA was enacted on
November 8, 1984, were given four years to retrofit these impoundments to meet
the Minimum technological Requirements. Section 30 05(j)(1) states that an
existing surface impoundment shall not:
receive, store, or treat hazardous waste after the date 4 years
after such date of enactment [ i.e., November 8, 1988] unless euch surface
impoundment is in compliance with the requirements of Section
3004(o)(1)(A) which would apply to such impoundment if it were new.
1.1.4 The Availability of Exemptions
The 1984 amendments to RCRA also provide a means for the owners or
operators of existing surface impoundments to obtain exemptions from or
1—2
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0019U
modifications to those requirements. Sections 3005(j)(2),(3),(4), and (13)
provide for four different categories of exemptions.
1.2 THE PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL
This manual is intended to provide guidance both (1) for the owners or
operators of surface impoundments who will be applying for exemptions under
Section 3005(j) of RCRA and (2) for the Federal and State officials who will
be processing these applications.
Throughout this manual, emphasis is placed on the information deemed
necessary to document compliance with the exemption requirements. Exemption
applications will consist of a report describing all design and operation
characteristics, taking into account site—specific factors, that qualify the
applicant for the exemption. The applicant’s report, in turn, will provide
the permit writer with a basis for evaluating the adequacy of theexemption
request.
Each of the four categories of exemptions established by Section 3005(j)
for existing surface impoundments is discussed in detail in separate sections
of this guidance. The four specific exemptions are:
o First exemption (Section 3005(j)(2))
o Second exemption (Section 3005(j)(3))
o Third exemption (Section 3005(j)(4))
o Fourth exemption (Section 3005(j)(13))
1.2.1 Interaction of 3005(j) and Land Disposal Prohibition
Section 3004(d) of RCRA prohibits the land disposal (which includes
storage and treatment in nonretrofitted surface impoundments) of hazardous
wastes specified in 3004(d)(2) after July 8, 1987, unless EPA determines that
the prohibition is not necessary to protect human health and environment.
Section 30 04 (e) places similar restrictions on hazardous wastes specified in
3004(e)(2) after November 8, 1986. In addition, Section 3004(g) requires EPA
1—3
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0019U
to review all currently listed hazardous wastes to determine the necessity for
prohibiting various methods of land disposal for each.
Section 3005(j)(ll) states that none of the hazardous wastes prohibited
from land disposal under 3004(d),(e), or (g) may be stored or treated in a
surface impoundment that does not meet the retrofitting requirements of
3004(o)(l), except under certain circumstances: only if a (nonretrofitted)
impoundment qualifies for an exemption to the retrofitting requirement under
3005(j)(2) or (4) may it be used to store or treat those specified wastes, and
then only if no treatment residues that are hazardous are allowed to remain in
the impoundment more than one year after entry.
Sections 2 and 4 of this guidance address the exemptions under 3005(JX2)
and (4), respectively. Disposal and storage impoundments that receive one or
the other of these exemptions from the retrofitting requirement may therefore
be used to store and treat wastes prohibited from land disposal under
3004(d),(e), or (g), provided the residues are periodically removed as
required.
Sections 3 and 5 of this guidance address the exemptions under 3005(j)(3)
and (13), respectively. Storage and disposal impoundments that receive one of
these two exemptions from the retrofitting requirements may not receive
hazardous wastes that are prohibited from land disposal under 3004(d),(e),
or (g).
1.3 PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING AND PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR EXEMPTIONS
Owners and operators of interim status and permitted surface impoundments
that were in existence on November 8, 1984, may apply for exemptions to
3005(j)(1); they must subnit applications to the EPA Regional Administrator or
the Director of the authorized State no later than November 8, 1986.
Applications for each exemption should contain the information required for
that exemption, as outlined in Sections 2 through 5 of this guidance. The
reviewing Agency must then make a final determination on each application
1—4
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0019U
within twelve months of the date of receipt of the application or by November
8, 1987, whichever is earlier.
Subsection 3005(e)(2)(B) required all land disposal facilities that had
been granted interim status by November 8, 1984, to have certified by November
8, 1985, that the facility was in compliance with all applicable ground water
monitoring requirements. Although certification will not in itself qualify an
impoundment for an exemption, the lack of this certification would disqualify
the impoundment from any of the exemptions.
The fourth exemption, found in 3005(j)(13), allows the Administrator to
modify the retrofitting requirements if an owner/operator, prior to October 1,
1984, has entered into and is in compliance with a consent order that provides
a degree of protection which is at least equivalent to the requirements of
3005(j)(1) (see Section 5 of this guidance). Section (j)(13) does not
specifically outline application deadlines or procedural requirements for this
exemption. However, EPA interprets that section as requiring deadlines and
procedures, including public notice and co ent procedures, equivalent to the
other exemptions. Therefore, owner/operators applying for exemptions under
(j)(13) must subnit applications for the exemptions to the Regional
Administrator or State Director by November 8, 1986.
1.3.1 Integration of the Processing of Permits and Exemptions
Section 3005(e)(2) of RCRA requires all interim status land disposal
facilities to have applied for a final determination regarding issuance of a
RCRA permit by November 8, 1985. Therefore, owners and operators of all
surface impoundments subject to 3005(j) that were in existence on November 8,
1985, should have eulxnitted a Part B application by that date. Whenever it is
possible, the processing of exemption reqi.iests will be completed in
conjunction with the processing of the facility’s Part B application. This
will expedite the review of exemption applications and will reduce the amount
of information applicants must suhait.
1—5
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0019U
For those surface impoundments that will be issued permits by November 8,
1986, the permits should contain conditions requiring either a schedule for
retrofitting or submission of exemption requests if retrofitting will not
occur. Upon determination that the facility is eligible for the exemption,
the EPA Regional Administrator or the Director of the authorized State will
institute a major modification of that permit in accordance with the
procedures outlined in 40 CFR 270.41.
In some cases, it may become apparent that the processing of an
applicant’s Part B permit application by the EPA Regional Office may fall
behind the deadlines mandated by 3005(j). In these instanceB, the exemption
request would receive priority. The processing of the exemption application
would proceed separately from the review of the Part B permit application, and
the final determination on the exemption would be made by the 1987 deadline.
1.3.2 Determination of the Completeness of the Application
Upon receipt of an exemption request, EPA will perform a review to
determine whether a decision regarding the exemption can be made on the merits
of the information submitted. As a courtesy to the owner/operator, the
determination will normally be completed within 30 days of receipt in order to
allow every opportunity for the demonstration to be made that an impoundment
qualifies for an exemption. If the application does not contain adequate
information to allow the reviewing Agency to determine whether the applicant
meets the statutory requirements, additional information will be requeBted in
a letter to the owner/operator. The letter will describe the information
needed to complete the application and will request that the data be submitted
by a certain date. This date normally will be 30 days from receipt of the
letter or November 8, 1986, whichever is earlier.
When all the needed information has been received, the reviewing Agency
will notify the applicant in writing that the application is complete. The
1—year “clock’ for review of the application will not begin until the
application has been determined to be complete. However, due to the
requirement that final determinations be made by November 8, 1987,
1—6
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0019U
completeness reviews will not normally be performed on applications received
after October 8, 1986. In these cases, applications will be considered
complete on receipt, and eligibility determinations will be based on the
information In the original exemption application. Because applications that
lack adequate information are likely to have difficulty making the required
demonstrations, owner/operators who believe they may be eligible for an
exemption st uld submit applications as early as possible so that a
completeness determination can be made prior to the 1986 submission deadline.
1.3.3 Public Notice and Opportunity to Comment
Section 3005(j)(5) requires that applications for exemptions 1, 2, and 3
receive public notice and opportunity to comment. Neither 3005(j)(5) nor
(J)(13) include requirements regarding public notice and comment for
exemption 4; however, EPA will follow the same process for this exemption as
for the others. Normally, the public notice process for any of the four
exemptions will take place in concert with the public notice of the
applicant’s draft permit. The process includes 45 days for receipt of written
cOmments. If information submitted during the initial comment period appears
to raise substantial new questions, the agency must re—open or extend the
coent period. A public hearing may also be held. At the close of the
public comment period, the reviewing Agency either prepares and issues a final
RCRA permit or denies the permit application. In either case, the applicant
and those submitting comments will be notified and given Information regarding
appeal procedures. In those instances where the exemption request is being
processed separately from the Part B application, the full 40 CFR Part 124
public participation procedures would be required.
Persons who submitted comments on a draft ECRA permit containing an
exemption determination, or participated in public hearings on that permit,
are allowed 30 days after the final permit decision to file a notice of appeal
and a petition for review . the EPA Administrator or the applicable State
iIL.rcccor. The Administrator will review and then grant or deny the petition
within a reasonable time. On review, the Administrator may suarily affirm
the decision, set aside, modify, or remand for further proceedings. The
1—7
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0019U
petition is a prerequisite for judicial review of the Administrator’s final
decision. The same appeal procedures would be applicable to those exemption
requests processed separately from Part B applications and those processed
through permit modifications.
1.3.4 Final Determinations
Approval or denial of exemption requests may take place through two
mechanisms; (1) issuance of the final RCRA permit; or (2) written notice from
the EPA Regional Administrator, after appropriate public notice (see Section
1.3.3 above). An application for an exemption may be denied when an
owner/operator does not demonstrate that the facility meets the statutory
exemption standards outlined in 3005(j). It is clear that in order to make
such a demonstration, an applicant must provide adequate information for the
reviewing Agency to make a decision on the exemption, and that relevant facts
in the application must be stated correctly. In the event that an application
for an exemption is denied, the impoundment must retrofit in accordance with
the Minimum Technological Requirements or initiate an approved closure plan.
Retrofitting must be completed or closure must be initiated by November 8,
1988, as required by 3005(j)(1). (See Section 1.4 of this guidance for
further discussion of the timing of closure.)
Section 3005(j)(6)(B) requires that surface impoundments that have
received exemptions must comply with the requirements of 3005(j)(l)
(i.e., retrofit) if the conditions on which the.exemption was based (including
the existence of a leak) have changed. Compliance with (j)(1) shall be two or
three years from the date of discovery, depending on the exemption. All
permits, permit modifications, or written notices containing exemption
approvals will, therefore, include a provision to this effect.
When a request for an exemption is approved prior to final permit
issuance, owner/operators are requested to place the letter from the Agency
granting the exemption in the facility’s operating record. This will allow
the owner/operator to prove that an exemption has been granted.
1—8
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0019U
1.3.5 Exemption Applications for Surface Impoundments that Become Subject to
RCRA in the Future
Owners and operators of surface impoundments may also become subject to
3005(j)(l) after November 8, 1984, because of the listing of a new hazardous
waste or characteristic under Section 3001. In these instances, 3005(j)(6)(A)
requires the owner or operator to: (1) submit an exemption request within
2 years of the promulgation date and receive a final determination on that
request within 3 years of the promulgation date; or (2) comply with paragraph 1
(i.e., retrofit or initiate closure) within four years of the promulgation
date of the new listing.
It should be noted that, according to Section 3006(g)(l), the
classification of a waste as hazardous pursuant to HSWA would take effect at
the same time in States with and without authorized RCRA programs. In the
event that a State classifies a waste as hazard9us, even though it has not
been classified in the Federal Rules under 3001, State regulations concerning
treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste in surface impoundments would be
applicable.
1.4 TIMING OF CLOSURE
Congress did not clearly distinguish between storage and disposal
requirements in Section 3005(j). For that reason, EPA believes that no
distinction between the two should be made regarding the timing of closure.
Section 3005(j)(1) provides that existing surface impoundments shall not
“receive, store, or treat” hazardous waste after November 8, 1988, unless the
impoundment is in compliance with the minimum technological requirements of
Section 300 4 (o). Because this language specifies that storage is prohibited
but does not mention impoundments in which wastes have been disposed, it
raises the question of whether the provision should be interpreted to treat
storage impoundments differently from disposal impoundments.
1—9
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 001913
“Disposal” is characterized as a discrete action: “discharge, deposit,
injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing” of a waste on the land
(40 CFR 260.10). This suggests that an impoundment lB “disposing” of
hazardous waste only when it is actually receiving those wastes. Therefore, a
surface impoundment that disposes of hazardous wastes will not have to
retrofit if it ceases receiving hazardous wastes after November 8, 1988.
Furthermore, wastes placed in an impoundment are not deemed to be “stored”
once hazardous wastes are no longer being received and closure has been
initiated, even if the impoundment had been operated as a storage
Impoundment. As noted, this is also consistent with the legislative history
of the section, which makes no clear distinction between storage and disposal
impoundment.
Thus, by November 8, 1988, all surface impoundments will have to
retrofit, receive an exemption under 3005(j), or coence closure. The
closure regulations in effect at the time a surface impoundment initiates
closure will be applicable In determining whether the impoundment may continue
to receive nonhazardous wastes, even though it has ceased to receive hazardous
wastes. It should be noted that current closure regulations under 40 CFR
264.112 and 265.112 require owner/operators to notify the Regional
Administrator at least 180 days prior to the date on which closure is expected
to begin; notification should therefore have occurred by May 8, 1988, unless
an impoundment will have retrofitted by November 8 or has received an
exemption under 3005(j).
1—10
-------
LAX DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
SECTION 2
FIRST EXEMPTION
2.1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS
According to Section 3005(j)(2) of RCR.A, In order to qualify for thi8
exemption, an interim status surface impoundment must:
o Have at least one liner for which there is no evidence that such
liner is leaking,
o Be located more than one—quarter mile from an underground source of
drinking water, and
o Be In compliance with generally applicable ground water monitoring
requirements for facilities with permits under subsection (c) of
Section 3005.
.2 GUIDANCE FOR THE FIRST EXEMPTION
Section 3005(j)(5)(D)(i) requires the applicant to provide certification
‘that the liner is designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with
applicable requirements, that the surface impoundment is more than one—quarter
mile from an underground source of drinking water, and that there is no
evidence that the liner is leaking. The certification must be made by a
registered professional engineer with academic training and experience in
ground water hydrology. The owner/operator must include in the application
evidence of the engineer’s training and experience.
The number of surface impoundments eligible for this exemption is
expected to be limited by the requirement of being located more than
one—quarter mile from a USDW. It has been estimated that 95 percent of all
currently operated surface impoundments are located within one—quarter mile of
a USDW (129 Cong. Rec. 118195 (daily ed., October 6, 1983)). For that reason,
EPA believes that this may be the most difficult demonstration to make; it may
be advisable for prospective applicants to examine this issue before any
ithers when considering their possible eligibility for the first exemption.
2—1
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
2.2.1 Demonstrate that the Liner is Adequately Designed,
Constructed, Installed, and Operated
As provided in Section 3005(j)(2), a surface impoundment must have at
least one liner to qualify for the first exemption. Congress defined the term
“liner” in Section 3005(j)(l2)(A) as:
o “A liner designed, constructed, installed, and operated to prevent
hazardous waste from passing into the liner at any time during the
active life of the facility”; or
o “A liner designed, constructed, installed, and operated to prevent
hazardous waste from migrating beyond the liner to adjacent
subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time during
the active life of the facility.”
In general, only facilities with “installed” liners will be eligible for
this exemption; no “in—situ” liners will be considered. This reasoning is
based on the statutory language and legislative history of Section
3005(j)(12)(A), which specifies the liner requirements for this exemption.
Literal interpretation of (j)(12)(A) would preclude naturally existing soil
liners because such a liner is neither installed nor constructed.
Section 3005(j)(5)(D)(i) requires certification that the liner of such
surface impoundment is designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with
applicable requirements. This certification must be made by a registered
professional engineer with academic training and experience in ground water
hydrology. The applicant must provide evidence of the engineer’s training and
experience. The certification and supporting documentation must be included
in the application for the exemption.
Witn regard to the meaning of the phrase “applicable requirements,” tne
following statement made by Representative Forsythe (129 Cong. Rec. H8142
(daily ed. October 6, 1983)) is helpful:
when making the determination regarding the exception of a
particular unit, EPA will apply similar standards to those they now use
in determining compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR Subpart K as
currently in effect.
2—2
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
The legislative history shows that Congress intended that installed
liners be able to meet the performance standards for new units set forth in
40 FR Part 264 Subpart K prior to enactment of the RCRA Amendments of 1984.
Other EPA guidance identifies specifications for liner designs that will
comply with the standards set forth in Part 264 (EPA, 1982a; EPA, 1984b).
However, if a surface impoundment does not comply with the design conditions
outlined in EPA’s guidance but can demonstrate that the existing liner meets
the performance standards of Subpart K, it also will be eligible for this
exemption.
Design and operating requirements in 40 CFR 26 4 .22l(a) make a significant
distinction between liner requirements for disposal impoundments and for
storage impoundments. Liners in place at storage units must prevent wastes
from passing through the liner, while disposal units must be designed to
prevent wastes from passing into the liner. EPA guidance interprets this
requirement to mean that disposal Impoundments must be equipped with a
synthetic liner. For storage impoundments, EPA guidance interprets the
requirement to mean that reconipacted clay liners may be used as an alternative
to synthetic liners. These clay liners must be sufficiently thick to prevent
waste from migrating through the liner during the active life of the unit.
Section 3005(j)(9) requires that at the time of closure of storage
impoundments, all wastes, contaminated liner material, and contaminated soil.
be decontaminated or removed.
Applications for the first exemption that are based, in part, on having
an acceptable clay liner must provide adequate documentation of liner
thickness. The Draft RCRA Guidance Document on surface impoundments
reco nends using the “transit time equation” to determine the necessary liner
thickness (EPA, 1982a). However, It is now believed that this equation tends
to underestimate the required liner thickness. Numerical simulation
techniques provided in EPA (1984a) are currently reconended as a more
accurate modeling technique, although further development and documentation of
the technique are required.
2—3
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
EPA expects requests for the first exemption to be accompanied by
compatibility testing reports for both clay and synthetic liners. If
compatibility test data are not complete or not available, manufacturers’ data
alone will not provide adequate Information for demonstrating compatibility.
It should be noted that this exemption does not require any new information;
rather, all the requirements have been addressed in the existing EPA guidance
documents that are cited below. The guidances cited were developed to
implement the July, 1982, 40 CYR Part 264 rules.
If compatibility test data are not complete, readers are referred to EPA
Method 9090, contained in EPA’s 1982 Draft Guidance on 8urface impoundments
(EPA, l982a) and in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes (EPA, 1982b).
The Permit Writers’ Guidance Manual (EPA, 1983) and the Permit Applicants’
Guidance Manual (EPA, l984b) also contain detailed discussions of synthetic
liner—testing guidance. Readers are also referred to EPA Method 9100,
contained in EPA’s 1982 Draft Guidance on surface impoundments (EPA, 1982a)
and in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes (EPA, 1982b). Soil
Properties, Classification, and Hydraulic Conductivity (SW—925) is also
available for guidance on compatibility testing for clay liners. Equivalent
data from testing conducted for facilities with a similar design and similar
range of wastes may be adequate. In addition to thickness, strength, and
compatibility test information, the owner/operator should Identify quality
assurance/quality control procedures used during liner Installation and/or
construction. This exemption does not require any new information; rather,
all the requirements are based on existing EPA guidance, contained in the
documents cited below. The guidances cited were developed in implementing the
July 1982 rules.
2.2.2 Demonstrate that the Liner Is Not Leaking
As provided In Section 3005(j)(2), an application for the first exemption
most demonstrate that there is no evidence that the liner of the surface
impoundment is leaking. As required under Section 3005(j)(5)(C), an owner or
operator must provide all reasonably ascertainable evidence as to whether the
surface impoundment is leaking. Finally, Section 3005(j)(5)(D) requires that
2—4
-------
LAI DRAPT
12/31/85 0033U
the owner or operator must provide certification by a professional engineer
that there is no evidence that the liner is leaking. The engineer must have
academic training and experience in ground water hydrology and applicants must
also provide evidence of this training and experience.
“Leaking” is defined as a statistically significant increase over
background concentrations that is attributable to the surface impoundment.
Other evidence of leaking, such as visible leaks or sudden drops in liquid
levels of the impoundment, also would be sufficient. These definitions of
“leaking” were adopted by the House—Senate coittee of conference (130 Cong.
Rec. H1l131 (daily ed. October 3, 1984)).
In meeting this requirement, all relevant data available, including that
collected for both hazardous and nonhazardous constituents, should be
provided. Although EPA will not require collection of any data not already
required under RCR.A regulations, EPA will consider any additional data
provided by the owner/operator.
The first source of reasonably ascertainable evidence of leakage would be
interim status monitoring data for facilities with 40 CPR Part 265 monitoring
systems, or monitoring data collected under 40 CFR Part 264 for facilities
that have received a Part B permit. The primary objective of the Part 265
Subpart F ground water monitoring requirements is to identify the existence
and magnitude of ground water impacts from hazardous waste land disposal
facilities. As noted in the preamble to Part 264, monitoring that is
conducted “in accord with Part 265 interim status requirements” should provide
“a reliable base of information that can be used to determine vbetber
hazardous constituents have entered the ground water.’ Comprehensive
instructions on conducting ground water monitoring in accordance with
Subpart F of Part 265 are provided in EPA publication SW—963 (EPA, 1983).
Applicants and permit writers should be familiar with the specific
requirements addressed in that document. Permit writers should also be
familiar with the draft Ground—Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document, which discusses compliance with 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart F (EPA,
1985).
2—5
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
Interim status facilities will also have su itted applications for Part
B permits. Data provided in these applications under 40 CFR 270.14 viii also
be examined by EPA in determining the possibility of leakage. Of particular
importance will be the information required by 40 CFR 270.l4(c)(4). This
section requires that any plume of contamination that has entered the ground
water from the surface impoundment be described; that monitoring data obtained
during the interim status period be sumearized; and that aquifers underneath
the facility be described. This information should provide adequate
information to allow a determination regarding leakage. EPA believes that the
data provided under 40 CFR 270.14 must be of adequate quantity and quality to
qualify the facility for a permit; if they are not, the facility will not be
eligible for this exemption.
It should be noted that monitoring data from a multiple unit facility may
not be sufficient to demonstrate “full compliance” and “no leakage” from the
particular unit under consideration for the first exemption. Ground water
monitoring data indicating no contamination in downgradient wells dl1 be
acceptable, provided that a downgradient hydrogeologic report indicates that
such wells would intercept any leakage from the unit for which an exemption is
requested. Where contamination is indicated in certain downgradient wells,
the application must include data that clearly demonstrate that the unit for
which an exemption is sought is not responsible for the contamination.
Without conducting additional sampling, and perhaps installing additional
wells, such an indication will be difficult to demonstrate.
Groundwater monitoring data should be augmented by documentation that
there are no visible signs of leaks (such as stressed vegetation) and no
history of sudden drops in liquid level or overtopping (see general inspection
regulations in 40 CFR 265.226(1) and (2)). Additional information would
include site inspection reports, including dike certification (i.e., no
history of leakage through dike), data from periodic waste removal at storage
units, and leak detection system monitoring data, if available. At a minimum,
it is generally recommended that applicants sulxnit data for at least the
preceding 12 months. However, it should be noted that permit writers may
review data su itted for previous periods.
2—6
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
The ground water monitoring requirement of Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 265
may have been waived at certain facilities that meet the requirement of 40 CFR
265.90(c):
All or part of the ground water monitoring requirements of this Subpart
may be waived if the owner or operator can demonstrate that there is a
low potential for migration of hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents from the facility via the uppermost aquifer to water supply
wells (domestic, industrial, or agricultural) or to surface water.
As expressed in the preamble, the intent of this waiver is to provide relief
from the monitoring requirements when certain conditions are met. An example
of a situation qualifying for a waiver would be a demonstration that geologic
conditions isolate all leachate from any point of aquifer use. For interim
status surface impoundments with a ground water monitoring variance under
40 CFR 265 (or for permanent facilities with a variance under 40 CFR 264), the
permit writer should evaluate the material submitted for the variance and
determine what additional information is required to show that the unit is not
leaking. It should also be recognized that the Part B ground water monitoring
data needs are independent of a Part 265 variance. Other reasonably
ascertainable evidence that would be available in this case would be evidence
of visible surface leaks, sudden drops in liquid level (see general inspection
regulations in 40 CFR 265.226(1) and (2)), or exposure information gathered
under Section 3019 requirements.
An owner/operator may also submit unsaturated zone monitoring data,
although this is not required. Permit writers may find this information
valuable in determining leakage.
2.2.3 Demonstrate Impoundment Location Relative to Underground
Source of Drinking Water
To qualify for the first exemption, applicants must also demonstrate
compliance with Section 3005(j)(2)(B), which requires that the surface
impoundment be located at least one—quarter mile from any underground source
of drinking water (USDW). EPA interprets the one—quarter mile provision to
include the subsurface hemisphere encompassed by a one—quarter mile radius
2—7
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
from the regulated unit (see Figure 1 for an illustration of this subsurface
hemisphere). The number of surface impoundments eligible for the first
exemption is expected to be limited by this requirement. As noted, it has
been estimated that 95 percent of all existing surface impoundments are
located within one—quarter mile of a USDW (129 Cong. Rec. H8195 (daily ed.,
October 6, 1983)). For that reason, EPA believes that this may be the most
difficult demonstration to make; it may be prudent for prospective applicants
to examine this issue before any others when considering their possible
eligibility for the first exemption.
Section 3005(j)(12)(c) states that the term “underground source of
drinking water” has the same meaning as provided in the Safe Drinking Water
Act regulations. These regulations (40 FR 144.3) state that a USDW is an
aquifer or its portion:
(a)(l) Which supplies any public water system;
(2) Which contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to
supply a public water system; and
(i) Currently supplies drinking water for human
consumption; or
(ii) Contains fewer than 10,000 mgfL TDS; and
(b) Which is not an exempted aquifer.
It should be nOted that as used in these regulations, aquifer” refers to
an entire hydrogeologic unit, not only the points at which water is or could
be withdrawn. “Public water 8ystem ” is defined in 40 CFR 1 4 2.2(e) as “a
system for provision to the public of piped water for human consumption, if
such system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves an average
of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year.” Per
capita water use varies greatly depending on geographical and seasonal
consumption, so the water volume necessary to qualify as a potential public
water system could be relatively small in some circumstances.
To qualify as a USDW, an aquifer need not be actively supplying public
water. Under 40 CFR 144.3, as noted above, the aquifer need only have a
sufficient capacity to supply a public water system, have less than 10,000
2—8
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
milligrams per liter (mg/L) total dissolved solids, and not be an exempted
aquifer (exemption criteria are provided in 40 CFR 146.04). To illustrate the
restrictiveness of the 10,000 mg/L dissolved solids limitation, ground water
having a total dissolved solids concentration greater than 500 ing/L is not
reco nended for human consumption and any ground water having more than 2,000
mg/L is generally unfit for long—term irrigation (Clark, 1977).
The most complete sources of information concerning identified USDW’s are
the State offices with jurisdiction over underground injection wells. State
offices dealing with drinking water may also be valuable sources of
information. Appendix B contains a list of EPA and State officials who may be
helpful in identifying TJSDW’s.
2.2.4 Demonstrate Compliance with Generally Applicable Ground
Water Monitoring Programs
Finally, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with applicable
(40 CFR Part 264) ground water monitoring requirements in order to be eligible
for the first exemption. Specifically, Section 3005(j)(2)(C) requires
compliance with generally applicable ground water monitoring requirements for
facilities with permits under 3005(c). EPA interprets this to mean physical
compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 264.97 and 264.98.
As noted in Section 2.2.2 of this guidance, a sampling and analysis
program conducted in accordance with 40 CPR Part 265 Subpart F and data
provided under 40 CPR 270.14 may be adequate for demonstrating that a liner is
not leaking. It should be noted, however, that the sampling and analysis
program alone will not satisfy the requirements of Section 3005(j)(2)(C).
EPA has tentatively adopted a three—tier approach to assessing compliance
with Part 264 ground water monitoring (GWM) requirements. First, if the
facility has been issued a Part B permit under 40 CFR Part 264, the
owner/operator must show that the unit is in physical compliance with the
groundwater monitoring requirements of the permit as described below. Second,
if no final Part B permit has been issued, but the facility has received a
2—9
-------
L&I DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
draft permit and has entered the public notice period, the facility must have
demonstrated the ability to be in compliance with Part 264 Subpart F ground
water monitoring requirements. However, to qualify for this exemption, the
monitoring program must be in place and operating. Third, if a draft permit
has not been issued, the professional judgment of the permit writer will
determine whether the facility has demonstrated an ability to comply with Part
264 Subpart F ground water monitoring requirements. Again, the monitoring
program must be in place and operating.
Subpart F of the Part 264 regulations consists of a three—stage ground
water monitoring program. The stage that must be implemented initially at a
permitted site depends on site—specific conditions pertaining to the extent of
ground water contamination. The three stages are as follows:
o Detection monitoring program——implemented at permitted facilities
where migration of hazardous constituents to the ground water has
not occurred.
o Compliance monitoring program-—implemented at permitted facilities
at which hazardous constituents are known to be migrating to the
ground water.
o Corrective action program——implemented at permitted facilities at
which the ground water protection standard has been violated.
If a facility is in detection monitoring, the program must be in place
and operating. If a facility is in compliance or corrective action
monitoring, the impoundment for which the exemption is sought must be shown
not to be responsible for the contamination that triggered the compliance or
corrective action monitoring.
2.3 CHANGES IN CONDITIONS CAUSING THE FIRST MPTION TO BE REVOKED
In providing exemptions from surface impoundment retrofitting
requirements, Congress has made a provision for situations in which a leak
develops after an exemption has been granted. As stated in
2—10
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
Section 3005(j)(6)(B), exempted surface impoundments that develop leaks are
subject to the following:
In any case in which a surface impoundment is initially determined to be
excluded from the requirements of paragraph (1) but due to a change in
condition (including the existence of a leak) no longer satisfies the
provisions of paragraph (2), (3), or (4) and therefore becomes subject to
paragraph (1), the period for compliance in paragraph (1) shall be
2 years after the date of discovery of such change of condition, or in
the case of a surface impoundment excluded under paragraph (3) 3 years
after such date of discovery.
In the above citation, paragraph (1) refers to the retrofit requirements
while paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) refer to the first, second, and third
exemptions, respectively. Thus, an impoundment that initially qualifies for
the first exemption but for which a change in condition occurs would have 2
years after the change in condition is discovered in which to retrofIt or to
close (see Section 1.4 of this guidance for information concerning the timing
of closure for storage and disposal impoundments). -
The changes in condition that would make an exempted impoundment no
longer eligible for the first exemption include the following:
o There is a visible leak or visible evidence of a leak;
o There is a sudden, unexplained drop in liquid level at the unit;
o The authorized State adopts more stringent requirements than those
of the Federal program under which the exemption was first granted;
o New information becomes available;
o The facility goes into compliance or corrective action monitoring,
unless the owner/operator demonstrates that the exempted unit is in
compliance (i.e., the exempted impoundment is not leaking);
o A leak is discovered through the ground water monitoring program
under 40 CFR Part 264, in which case the time of discovery is the
time that analysis confirms that constituents have entered the
ground water.
2—11
-------
IAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0033U
Figure 1. Examples of underground sources of drinking water within
one—quarter mile of a hazardous waste surface impoundment. (Note that USDW
does not have to be currently supplying water and that any portion of a
nonexempted USDW within l/! —m!1e radius disqualifies an impoundment from first
exer pt Ion.)
Hazardous Waste
Surface Impoundment
Public Water
Syst rn
2—12
-------
LAX DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
SECTION 3
SECOND EXEMPTION
3.1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS
A second exemption from the requirementB of Section 3005(j)(1) of RCRA is
provided by 3005(j)(3). In order to quality for thia exemption, a surface
impoundment must be one which:
(A) contains treated waste water during the secondary or
subsequent phases of an aggressive biological treatment facility
subject to a permit issued under section 402 of the Clean Water
Act (or which holds such treated waste water after treatment and
prior to discharge);
(B) is in compliance with generally applicable ground water
monitoring requirements for facilities with permits under
subsection (c) of this section; and
(C)(i) is part of a facility in compliance with section 301(b)(2)
of the Clean Water Act, or
(ii) in the case of a facility for which no effluent guidelines
required under section 3O4(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act are in
effect and no permit under section 402(a)(l) of such Act
implementing section 301(b)(2) of such Act has been issued, is
part of a facility in compliance with a permit under section 402
of such Act, which is achieving significant degradation of toxic
pollutants and hazardous constituents contained in the untreated
waste stream and which has identified those toxic pollutants and
hazardous constituents in the untreated waste stream to the
appropriate permitting authority.
Section 3005(j)(5)(D)(ii) requires the owner/operator applying for this
exemption to provide certification that the impoundment meetsthe conditio
of the exemption, based on analysis of toxic pollutants and hazardous
eonstituents that are likely to be present in the untreated waste stream.
This certification must be made by a registered professional engineer with
academic training and experience in ground water hydrology. The
owner/operator must include in the application evidence of the engineer’s
training and experience.
3—1
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
3.2 GUIDANCE FOR 3005(j)(3)(A)
The intent of Section 3005(j)(3)(A) is to allow surface impoundments that
contain treated waste water during secondary or subsequent phases of an
“aggressive biological treatment facility” to qualify for the exemption
(provided the demonstrations required under 3005(J)(3)(B) and (C) are also
made).
3.2.1 Aggressive Biological Treatment Facility
Section 3005(j)(12)(B) provides the definition of “aggressive biological
treatment facility:”
(12)(B)For the purposes of this subsection, the term aggressive biological
treatment facility means a system of surface impoundments in which
the initial impoundment of the secondary treatment segment of the
facility utilizes intense mechanical aeration to enhante
biological activity to degrade waste water pollutants and
(1) the hydraulic retention time in such initial impoundment is
no longer that 5 days under normal operating conditions, on an
annual average basis;
(Ii) the hydraulic retention time in such initial impoundment is
no longer than thirty days under normal operating conditions, on
an annual average basis: PROVIDED, That the sludge in such
impoundment does not constitute a hazardous waste as identified by
the extraction procedure toxicity characteristic in effect on the
date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984; or
(iii) such system utilizes activated sludge treatment in the
first portion of secondary treatment.
To qualify for an exemption under this section, the applicant must
first demonstrate that the initial impoundment for which the exemption is
sought Is a component of a secondary treatment system. The primary
purpose of the secondary treatment system must be to provide intensive
mechanical aeration that assists in meeting the requirements of an NPDES
permit. EPA intends to make the determination of whether an impoundment
is part of such a secondary treatment system on a case—by—case basis,
based on the following factors:
3—2
-------
UI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
o Evidence that the intense mechanical aeration in the impoundment
contributes to NPDES compliance;
o Operating data that demonstrates sufficient biological activity
to degrade pollutants (e.g., NPDES permit parameters such as
biological oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen in the influent
versus effluent; there must be evidence that aerobic bacteria are
active in the unit);
o Evidence that the mechanical aeration equipment is of an adequate
size to prevent settling of solids as veil as providing oxygen
(except for trickling filters and rotating biological contactora);
o Other engineering and design characteristics of the impoundment,
Including the relative ages of the impoundment and aeration
equipment.
For impoundments with NPDES permits, the exemption would cover only
the secondary treatment units and subsequent treatment units or holding
ponds that contain treated water. It would not apply to any preliminary
treatment units that may exist, such as flow equalization basins or
primary sedimentation units. Any treatment facility for which the
exemption applies must be one which uses “aggressive biological
treatment.•’
In some Industrial situations, waste water may not undergo primary
treatment prior to undergoing BecOndary treatment. The congressional
reference to “contains treated waste water” is not interpreted as meaning
that the waste stream must have undergone some prior treatment before
reaching the impoundment In question; therefore, it is not necessary that
an impoundment receive treated waste water, only that it contain treated
waste water. -
3.2.1.1 Description of Secondary Treatment Systems
Secondary treatment is a term that means a level of treatment applied to
a waste stream to achieve a reduction in pollutants (usually BOD and suspended
solids) greater than that achieved by primary treatment. Because some form of
an activated sludge process generally is used to achieve this level of
treatment, activated sludge treatment and secondary treatment have become
3—3
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
Synonymous. Other types of secondary treatment include trickling filters,
bio—disc (rotating biological contactors——RBC’s), and certain waste
stabilization ponds.
The fate of organic materials in secondary treatment System includes
biodegradation, volatilization to the air, incorporation in the solids, or
passage through in the effluent. Heavy metals have only two
fates——incorporation into the sludge or passage through in the effluent.
Volatilization is a major removal mechanism for many of the organic toxic
pollutants.
3.2.1.1.1 Activated Sludge Systems
An activated sludge system is a secondary treatment system that produces
and maintains an active mass of micro—organisln8 that are capable of
aerobically reducing the organic matter in a waste stream. Bacteria use the
organic content in the untreated waste water as food, thus producing more
bacteria. Waste streams generally have continuous flow and include two
separate units——an aeration tank and a secondary settler. Waste water is
combined with the activated mass and mixed, or suspended, in the aeration tank
for 4 to 6 hours with a mechanically produced external supply of air to
provide mixing and to supply oxygen for the bacteria (detention times may be
longer, 4 to 6 days, during aeration modification of activated sludge). The
mixture then passes to the secondary settler (detention time, 2 to 4 hours)
where the active bioinass is removed by settling. To maintain an equilibrium
of biomass in the system, solids (waste sludge) must be removed in proportion
to the new mass being formed. A portion of the settled solids is then
returned to the aeration tank to maintain an active biomass and increase the
rate of reduction of the organic matter. Because of the short detention
times, the need for oxygen and mixing, and recycling requirements, activated
sludge systems often use tanks (usually concrete).
3—4
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 002413
3.2.1.1.2 Fixed Film Systems
Trickling filters and RBC’s are also secondary treatment systems; they
are referred to as “fixed film” systems. Like activated sludge systems, these
units use mechanical energy to increase or intensify the rate of biological
activity. Whereas activated sludge and waste stabilization ponds rely on the
biomass to be suspended in water, fixed film units operate with the biomass
attached to plastic or rock media as a biological slime.
In the case of trickling filters, waste water is mechanically distributed
over the top of the stationary media. As the liquid passes down through the
deep media, the organic materials in the waste water are consumed by the
attached biomass. The units are open at the bottom to allow air to pass up
through the media and supply oxygen to the bacteria. A secondary settler is
used to capture the biomass, which “aloughs off” the media. To increase the
efficiency of these units, effluent is recycled to the top of the trickling
filter. Solids from the secondary settler are not recyeled but are removed
for disposal.
In RBC’s, the biomass is attached to a series of large plastic discs thai.
are mechanically rotated slowly through the waste water. The water level is
located just below the centerline of the discs to provide for sufficient
oxygen transfer. The remainder of the operation is similar to that of a
trickling filter. Trickling filters and RBC’s generally produce an effluent
of slightly lower quality than art activated sludge system in the same amount
of contact time. Like activated sludge, trickling filters and RBC’s use tanks.
3.2.1.1.3 Waste Stablization Ponds
Stabilization ponds are another type of secondary treatment. Because of
their large size, waste stabilization ponds normally are constructed using
earthen bottoms. A waste stabilization system normally consists of 3 or more
separate ponds or cells, which are operated in series.
3—5
-------
LA! DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
For purposes of this discussion, waste stabilization ponds have been
divided into two categories: those with and those without mechanical
aeration. The most co=on type of nonaerated ponds are called “facultative”
lagoons, which use both algae and bacteria for the reduction of organic
matter. In some cases, mechanical stirring is employed to mix the liquid but
not to supply dissolved oxygen. In facultative systems, oxygen is supplied by
the algae. Detention times in facultative ponds generally ranges from 10 to
30 days.
Aerated ponds, such as oxidation ditches, rely only on the aerobic
bacteria to reduce organic matter. Mechanical aeration is supplied for mixing
as well as to provide dissolved oxygen for the bacteria. Normally only the
first cell of an aerated pond system uses mechanical aeration. Solids
produced in the first cell are carried in the effluent to the second cell,
where they are settled.
This process is essentially the same as an activated sludge process, with
one major exception: the process does not include the recycling of an active
mass of micro—organisms from the second cell to the aerated cell. As a
result, the detention time to provide a similar level of treatment ranges from
3 to 10 days, compared to 4 to 6 hours for an activated sludge system. The
second cell and all subsequent cells of an aerated pond system function as
facultative lagoons inasmuch as the decrease of the organic matter continues.
3.2.1.2 Secondary Treatment Systems that Qualify as Aggressive Biological
Treatment Facilities
Section 3005(j)(l2)(B) defines “aggressive biological treatment” as,
inter alia , a facility using “intense mechanical aeration to enhance
biological activity.” The use of the word “intense” was intended to imply the
primary purpose of the aeration equipment (to pr ote biological activity)
and, as such, can be associated with the “rate” of biological activity. Like
activated sludge, trickling filters and RBC’s are a form of secondary
treatment that are designed to promote aerobic biological activity to reduce
pollutants. In all three systems, mechanical energy is used to provide
aeration to enhance the biological activity; in addition, raw waste water is
3—6
-------
UI DRAFT
12/31/85 002413
in Contact with the active biomass for similar amounts of time and similar
effluent qualities are attained. Thus, trickling filters and RBC systems,
like activated sludge systems, may be characterized as providing “intense
mechanical aeration.” However, permit writers should ensure that systems
described as “activated sludge systems” do indeed return a portion of the
solids to the aeration tank.
A number of other types of surface impoundments could also be eligible
for this exemption, such as aerated ponds, detention ponds, holding ponds, or
polishing ponds following secondary treatment. As noted, both facultative and
aerated ponds are included under the broad definition of secondary treatment,
but only aerated ponds use “intense mechanical aeration to enhance biological
activity.” Because facultative ponds do not use intense mechanical aeration,
they are not eligible for the exemption.
Section 3005(j)(12)(B)(j) limits the detention time in the aerated cell
to an annual average of 5 days under normal operating conditions. Section
12(B)(ii) allows the detention time to be as high as 30 days if the sludge is
not a hazardous waste as determined by the extraction procedure. Read
together, Sections 12(B)(i) and (ii) would not require the sludge in an
aerated cell with a annual average detention time of 5 days or less to meet
the extraction procedure toxicity test, whereas if detention time is greater
than 5 and less than or equal to 30 days an extraction procedure toxicity test
on the sludge is required. Although it is unlikely that the detention time in
the aerated cell of an aerated pond would exceed 30 days, the exemption could
not be obtained if the annual average detention time under normal operating
conditions is 31 days or more.
Holding ponds or polishing ponds that receive effluents from secondary
treatment systems (activated sludge, trickling filters and RBC’s) are defined
as tertiary treatment, but rarely use “intense mechanical aeration” in the
ponds themselves to promote biological activity. Their major function is to
provide additional settling of the suspended solids and, in some cases,
nitrogen removal, but not “aggressive biological treatment,” which was already
provided in the secondary treatment facility.
3—7
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
Congressional intent was that “... surface impoundments that contain
treated waste water during or after the secondary or tertiary phase of an
aggressive biological treatment facility” would be eligible for the exemption
(130 Cong. Rec. S9l82 (daily ed., July 25, 1984) (emphasis added)). EPA does
not read the words “initial surface impoundment” in 3005(j)(12)(B) so as to
thwart the congressional intent to include surface impoundments that receive
waste water after it has undergone intense mechanical aeration. Therefore,
tertiary surface impoundments (e.g., surface impoundments that receive treated
waste water after secondary treatment) would be eligible for the exemption as
long as “aggressive biological treatment” occurred in a prior unit.
Consistent with this interpretation of congressional intent, ponds
following trickling filters and RBC’s could be eligible for the exemption, as
well as those following activated sludge units. However, ponds that receive
sludge, as opposed to the treated waste water, are not eligible for the
exemption. Section 3005(j)(3)(A) Bpecifically requires that the surface
impoundment contain treated waste water.
In suumary, any surface impoundment that contains treated waste water
during or following secondary treatment that is characterized by intense
mechanical aeration may be eligible for this exemption. The intense
mechanical aeration can occur in the initial surface impoundment for which an
exemption is sought or in a tank prior to reaching the Initial surface
Impoundment. The following types of secondary treatment normally would be
considered as aggressive biological treatment facilities:
o Activated sludge systems;
o Trickling filter or RBC’s;
o Aerated ponds.
As noted, EPA will make the determination of whether an impoundment or
impoundments is/are qualified for the exemption on a case—by—case basis. It
must be determined that the primary purpose of intense mechanical aeration is
to contribute to NPDES compliance; that there is sufficient biological
activity to degrade pollutants; that mechanical activity is sufficient to
3—8
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
prevent the settling of solids; and that other engineering and design
characteristics of the initial impoundment for which the exemption is sought
are consistent with the primary purpose.
3.2.2 Change In Conditon
Surface impoundments would no longer be eligible for the second exemption
if they no longer met the requirements of 3005(j)(3)(A). A change in
conditions that could cause revocation of the exemption would include a change
to a waste water treatment system that used means of degradation other than
mechanical aeration. A change in the purpose of the impoundment (e.g., from
storing treated waste water to receiving sludge) could also cause revocation.
3.3 CIJIDANCE FOR 3005(j)(3)(B)
To be eligible for the second exemption, an applicant must also
demonstrate physical compliance with applicable 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F
ground water monitoring requirements. This demonstration is the same as that
required for the first exemption; it is discussed in Section 2.2.4 of this
guidance. Readers are referred to that section for EPA guidance regarding
ground water monitoring requirements for this exemption.
3.3.1 Evidence Regarding Leakage
As required under Section 3005(j)(5)(C), an owner or operator must
provide all reasonably ascertainable evidence as to whether the surface
impoundment is leaking. “Leaking” is defined as a statistically significant
increase over background concentrations that is attributable to the surface
impoundment. Other evidence of leaking, such as visible leaks or sudden drops
in liquid levels of the impoundment, also would be sufficient. These
definitions of “leaking” were adopted by the Rouse—Senate co nIttee of
conference (130 Cong. Rec. R1113l (daily ed., October 3, 1984)).
3—9
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
EPA will not disqualify a wastewater impoundment from receiving this
exemption because the impoundment is leaking. Section 3005(j)(7)(B)
authorizes EPA to “impose such requirements as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment” on impoundments if hazardous constituents
are likely to migrate into ground water. In promulgating Subpart F (ground
water monitoring) regulations, EPA determined that the requirements imposed by
those regulations protect human health and the environment. To qualify for
this exemption, physical compliance
requirements of 40 CFR 264.97 and 264.98 is necessa !y; ti s q 1 rement should
therefore protect human health and the environment.
Owner/operators of leaking waste water treatment impoundments who apply for
this exemption must meet or have met the requirements of 40 CFR 2 7 0.14(c)(7)
or (8). These sections require the submission, in the Part B permit
application, of information adequate to develop a compliance monitoring
program or a corrective action plan. If the exemption request is handled
separately from the Part B application, the permit writer should ensure that
the information provided meets the requirements of 270.14(c)(7) or (8); if the
request is handled concurrently, the adequacy of the information will be
judged during the permit review process.
The information regarding leakage will be used in identifying exempted
impoundments that subsequently develop leaks (see Section 3.4.2.2 of this
guidance.) In meeting this requirement, all relevant data available,
including that collected for both hazardous and nonhazardous constituents,
should be provided. Although EPA will not require collection of any data not
already required under RCR.A regulations, EPA will consider any additional data
provided by the owner/operator.
The first source of reasonably ascertainable evidence of leakage would be
interim statue monitoring data for facilities with 40 CPR Part 265 monitoring
systems, or monitoring data collected under 40 CYR Part 264 for facilities
that have received a Part B permit. The primary objective of the Part 265
Subpart F ground water monitoring requirements is to identify the existence
and magnitude of ground water impacts from hazardous waste land disposal
3—10
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
facilities. As noted in the preamble to Part 264, monitoring that is
conducted “in accord with Part 265 interim status requirements” should provide
“a reliable base of information that can be used to determine whether
hazardous constituents have entered the ground water.” Comprehensive
instructions on conducting ground water monitoring in accordance with
Subpart F of Part 265 are provided in EPA publication SW—963 (EPA, 1983).
Applicants and permit writers should be familiar with the specific
requirements addressed in that document. Permit writers should also be
familiar with the draft Ground—Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document, which discussed compliance with 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart F
(EPA, 1985).
Interim status facilities will also have su itted applications for Part
B permits. Data provided in these applications under 40 CFR 270.14 will also
be examined by EPA in determining the possibility of leakage. Of particular
importance will be the information required by 40 CFR 27 0.14(c)(4). This
section requires that any plume of contamination that has entered the ground
water from the surface impoundment be described; that monitoring data obtained
during the interim status period be summarized; and that aquifers underneath
the facility be described.. This information should provide adequate
Information to allow a determination regarding leakage. EPA believes that the
data provided under 40 CFR 270.14 must be of adequate quantity and quality to
qualify the facility for a permit; if they are not, the facility will not be
eligible for this exemption.
3.3.2 Changes in Condition
Although an impoundment may be granted an exemption even If it is leaking
(see Section 3.3.1 of this guidance), Sections 3005(j)(6)(B) and (j)(7)(C)
allows the exemption to the revoked by EPA or an authorized State if an
impoundment subsequently develops a leak. Unless it is not necessary to
protect human health and the environment, an impoundment whose exemption is
revoked because it developed a leak must comply with 3005(j)(l) (i.e.,
retrofit or coence closure) within 3 years after the leak Is discovered.
3—11
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
3.4 GUIDANCE FOR 3005(j)(3)(c)
In addition to utilizing aggressive biological treatment and meeting
applicable ground water monitoring requirements as discussed above, an NPDES
facility seeking an exemption from RCRA retrofitting requirements must also
demonstrate that its surface impoundment
(C)(i) is part of a facility in compliance with section 30l(b)(2) of the
Clean Water Act, or
(ii) in the case of a facility for which no effluent guidelines
required under section 3O4(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act are in effect and
no permit under section 402(a)(l) of such Act implementing section
301(b(2) of such Act has been issued, is part of a facility in compliance
with a permit under section 402 of such Act, which is achieving
significant degradation of toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents
contained in the untreated waste stream and which has identified those
toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents in the untreated waste stream
to the appropriate permitting authority.
This nortion of the guidance will discuss (1) the coverage of these two
provisions; (2) what is meant by “in compliance”; and (3) the procedure for
obtaining an exemption, including a description of what the applicant needs to
su1 it with the application, and a list of sources of information for the
permit writer.
3.4.1 Definitions of NPDES Terms
o NPDES: National Pollutant Dischage Elimination System . Section 402
of the Clean Water Act requires an NPDES permit be obtained for all point
source discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. NPDES
permits require specific control technologies for various industries and for
various classes of wastes and sets technology—based effluent limitations.
o Pollutant . Any waste discharged to waters of the United States.
This term is very broadly interpreted, and includes characteristics such as
heat and pH.
3—12
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
Conventional Pollutant . Pollutants identified under CWA Section
304(a)(4). The conventional pollutants are BOD (biological oxygen demand),
TSS (Total Suspended Solids), pH, fecal colifonn, and oil and grease.
Toxic Pollutant . Any pollutant listed as toxic in the 1977 Senate
Report on CWA Section 30 7 (a). These pollutants (113 organics and 13 metals)
are listed in Appendix D of the NPDES regulations.
Unconventional Pollutants . Any pollutant which is not formally
listed as a toxic or a conventional pollutant. Many nonconventional
pollutants exhibit toxic effects.
o Effluent Limitation Guideline . Regulations adopted under CWA Section
304(a) to establish effluent limitations for a category of discharges.
o Effluent Limitation . Any restriction on the discharge of pollutants
fron point sources.
o BPT: Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available . These
treatment technologies, defined by EPA for categories of discharges, focussed
primarily on conventional pollutants. Under CWA Section 301(b)(1)(A),
industries with NPDES permits were required to install BPT by July 1, 1977.
o 3cr: Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology . These
treatment technologies are defined by EPA for categories of discharges of
conventional pollutant under CWA Section 30l(b)(2)(E). Compliance, through
NPDES permits, is required by July 1, 1984.
o BAT: Best Available Technology Economically Achievable . These
treatment technologies are defined by EPA for categories of discharges of
toxic and nonconventional pollutant under CWA Section 301(b)(2).
Compliance, through NPDES permits, is required by July 1, 1984, for toxic
pollutants and within three years of promulgation (no later than July 1,
1987) for nonconventional pollutants.
o BPJ: Best Professional Judgment . Limitations established on a
case—by—case basis under CWA Section 4 O2(a)(l) to control pollutant
3—13
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
discharges where effluent limitation guidelines do not cover the pollutant
or discharge. The majority of initially—issued NPDES permits were issued
using BPJ. Also known as BEJ (Best Engineering Judgment).
3.4.2 Scorpe of Provisions
With respect to the provisions of 3005(j)(3)(c), there are three
categories into which a facility could fall: (1) the facility has a BAT
permit; (2) the facility has a BPT permit and there are applicable BAT
effluent guidelines in effect; or (3) the facility has a BPT permit and there
are no BAT effluent guidelines in effect. Facilities in categories 1 and 2
are eligible for the 3005(j)(3) exemption upon satisfying the requirements of
subparagraph (C)(i). Facilities in category 3 must satisfy the requirements
of subparagraph (C)(ii).
3.4.2.1 Facilities with BAT Permits
Section 3005(j)(3)(C)(i) requires the owner or operator to show that the
impoundment for which an exemption is requested is “part of a facility in
compliance with Section 301(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act.” Section 301(b)(2)
refers to BAT and BCT effluent limitations, established either in accordance
with effluent limitations guidelines or on a case—by—case basis by the permit
writer using best professional judgment (BPJ). The Agency interprets the
language of 3005(j)(3)(C)(i) as requiring an owner/operator to show only that
the facility is in compliance with BAT effluent limitations. Although Section
30l(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) references B.A1 and BCT, RCRA Section
3005(j)(3)(C)(ij) refers to effluent guidelines in CWA Section 304(b)(2),
which are BAT onlj. Therefore, to make 3005(j)(3)(C)(i) and (C)(ii) parallel,
a reasonable construction of (C)(i) is that it requires compliance only with
BX1 effluent limitations as contained in the NPDES permit. This
interpretation is consistent with the legislative history, which specifies
that this provision applies to a facility that is in compliance with “best
available technology effluent guidelines issued under the Clean Water Act
(130 Cong. Rec. S9l82 (daily ed., July 25, 1984)).
3—14
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
Thus, if a facility has a BAT permit (i.e., there are effluent
limitations that are based either on a guideline or on a BPJ/BAT
determination), compliance with the BAT limitations in that permit will
constitute compliance with CWA Section 301(b)(2) for purposes of this
exemption. flowever, noncompliance with the BAT permit does not neceBsarily
mean that the facility is ineligible for the exemption, because effluent
limitations in a BAT permit (i.e., one that has eUluent limits that are at
least equal to BAT) may be based on either technology—based or water
quality—based requirements. A permittee applying for an exemption under
3005(j)(3)(c)(i) may be in violation of water quality—based requirements and
still be eligible for the exemption if he is able to demonstrate compliance
with all the less stringent technology—based requirements. The standard for
determining in compliance” is discussed below in Section 3.4.3 of this
guidance.
3.4.2.2 Facilities with BPT Permits
3.4.2.2.1 Facilities with BPT Permits for Which Effluent Guidelines
are in Effect
Facilities with BPT permits for which there are applicable BAT guidelines
in effect must meet the requirements of Section 3005(j)(3)(C)(j). Compliance
with (c)(ii) would not qualify them for the exemption. The owner or operator
of such a facility must demonstrate that, although the facility does not have
a BAT permit, the facility is nevertheless in compliance with the applicable
BAT guidelines. If BAT guidelines are equal to BPT, a demonstration of
compliance with the permit is sufficient to meet 3005(j)(3)(c)(1). If BAT is
more stringent than BPT, the owner or operator must show that his discharge is
in compliance with the applicable BAT limit.
If a facility has a BPT permit that covers multiple waste streams and BAT
guidelines are in effect for some but not all of the waste streams, the
facility is eligible for an exemption under paragraph (C)(i). The permittee
must demonstrate that the facility is in compliance with Section 301(b)(2) for
those waste streams covered by guidelines, and with BPJ (Best Professional
- 3—15
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
Judgment) calculations of BAT limits for the remaining waste streams. Section
3005(j)(3)(C)(ii) would not apply to an impoundment in such a facility
because, as noted Section 3.4.2.2.2 below, (C)(ii) applies only to facilities
for which no effluent guidelines are in effect.
3.4.2.2.2 Facilities with BPT Permits for Which no Effluent Guidelines
are in Effect
Any facility for which no effluent guidelines required under Section
304(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act are in effect and no BAT permit has been
issued must meet the requirements of Section 3005(J)(3)(C)(ii). The first
requirement of (c)(ii) is that the impoundment for which the exemption is
sought be part of a facility in compliance with its existing permit under
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
Unlike (C)(i), applicants seeking an exemption under, this section must
show that the fa:i1 ty is in compliance with all permit conditions, not just
the effluent limitations. This is consistent with the plain language of
Section (C)(ii) which requires compliance with the permit . (This contrasts
with section (c)(i) which requires compliance only with section 30l(b)(2)
(i.e., effluent limitations).) However, what is required is not absolute
compliance with all permit limits. Rather, the facility will be evaluated for
general compliance, taking into account a number of factors which are
discussed in Section 3.4.3 below.
The second part of 3005(j)(3)(C)(ii) requires BPT permittees for which no
effluent guidelines are in effect to demonstrate that they are achieving
“significant degradation of toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents
contained in the untreated waste stream. . . . A direct reading of the
amendment and a review of the legislative history support application of the
significant degradation” requirement only to BPT permits.
EPA believes that Congress wanted to ensure that BPT perinittees were
removing the toxic and hazardous constituents in the effluent to the extent
feasible for the particular industry. Thus it seems reasonable to construe
3—16
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 002413
“significant degradation” as requiring BPJ calculations of BAT limits foi the
permittee’s toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents. “Hazardous
constituents” are constituents identified in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR
Part 261. “Toxic pollutants” are those identified pursuant to CWA Section
3 0 7 (a) and listed in 40 CFR 401.15. How the regulatory agency makes this BPJ
determination of BAT is discussed, in Section 3.4.3 of this guidance
(“Procedure for Obtaining an Exemption). If these calculated limits equal
the limits in the BP’r permit, a demonstration of compliance with the permit
will satisfy this requirement. If the calculated limits are greater than the
permit limits, the applicant will have to show the calculated limits are met
at the time the application is suheitted.
The legislative history indicates that the intent of this provision was
to consider the entire waste stream operation at a facility, rather than at
each impoundment (130 Cong. Rec. S9183 (daily ed., July 25, 1984)). The
following colloquy illustrates this:
MR. BENTSEN.
[ “Significant degradation of toxic pollutants and hazardous
constituents”] is intended to apply to the waste water treatment
facilities as a whole. It does not require that each impoundment of a
multi—impoundment system must achieve a significant degradation. It does
not require that the impoundment system taken as a whole must achieve a
significant degradation where other components of the waste water
treatment system have significantly degraded the toxic pollutants or
hazardous constituents in the untreated waste stream. For example, in
some instances it is more effective and appropriate to remove
contaminants from waste streams prior to sending them to the biological
waste water treatment system. Thus, the test required in this amendment
is intended to look at the entire waste water treatment operations at a
facility. Is this the Senator from Rhode Island’s understanding of the
terms in this amendment?”
MR. CHAFFEE. The Senator from Texas has accurately described the intent
of this phrase.
3.4.3 Meaning of “in Compliance” for Purposes of 3005(j)(3)(c )
3—17
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 00241.1
3.4.3.1 Initial Determination
Section 3005(j)(3)(C) requires the owner or operator to show that the
surface impoundment for which an exemption is being sought is part of a
facility which is either in compliance with BAT guidelines or is in compliance
with a BPT permit issued under Section 402 of the CWA. The legislative
history indicates that for the purpose of obtaining an exemption, absolute
compliance with BAT guidelines or a BF permit (which is the standard for
noncompliance for purposes of determining violations under CWA) is not to be
required. Rather, it appears that by this provision Congress intended to
ensure that a facility seeking an exemption is well—run and generally meets
the terms and conditions of its permit or BAT guidelines. (See 130 Cong. Rec.
S9l83—84 (daily ed., July 25, 1984)).
In light of this, EPA has determined that “compliance” for the purpose of
Section 3005(j)(3)(C) can only be evaluated on a case—by—case basis, by
analyzlnp the nature, cause, and extent of any violations. Although the
legislative history makes reference to statistical assessments as part of
guideline and permit development under the Clean Water Act, EPA believes that
this was merely illustrative of congressional intent not to require absolute
compliance, and should not be read to require a determination of compliance
based upon a statistical demonstration. Instead, the applicant’s compliance
history for 1 year prior to the date of the exemption request should be
ev3luated, as a year’s data should be sufficient for any patterns of
violations to become apparent.
As stated above, when evaluating a facility for an exemption under
3005(j)(3)(C)(i), the only relevant factors are those relating to compliance
with the effluent limitations. For a facility to which 3005(j)(3)(C)(ii)
applies, violations of all permit limits are to be taken into account,
although the permitting authority may consider the relative significance of
the violations in determining if an exemption is appropriate.
Listed below are factors that may be taken into account in making the
compliance determination. This is a general list; the factors may vary in
3—18
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
significance in the judgment of the NPDES or RCRA permitting authority when
applied to particular circumstances.
o The parameter of limitation violation . A violation of a BAT permit
effluent limitation for toxic or nonconventional pollutants should generally
be of greatest concern. However, BAT limitations for conventional pollutants
may be indicators of toxic pollutants or of hazardous constituents.
Therefore, the intent of the parameterB limited should be considered by
reviewing the permit fact sheet.
Where compliance with a BPT permit is being evaluated (for which
compliance with permit limits for conventional, nonconventional, and toxic
pollutants is required, as veil as other permit requirements), violations of
toxic or nonconventional pollutant limits generally should again be of greater
concern than the limits for conventional pollutants, unless the conventional
pollutant is an indicator for toxics and nonconventionals.
o The duration of any violations . Other things being equal, a
violation of long duration should be of greater concern than a violation which
occurred for only a short period of time or was an isolated instance. (For
example, if only the daily maximum was exceeded, as opposed to the daily
maximum and the monthly average, then the violation was of short duration.)
o The magnitude of any violation . An exceedance slightly over the
permit limit is generally of less concern than an exceedance substantially
over the permit limit (e.g., 20 percent or greater exceedance would be
substantial for some industries).
o The frequency and/or pattern of violations during the compliance
period . Violations of the same parameters or pollutants which occur regularly
over a period of several months are indicative of a recurring pattern of
noncompliance which should be of greater concern that irregular and
nonrepeated violations for different parameters or pollutants.
3—19
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
o Actions the owner or operator has taken to correct any
noncompliance . An ongoing violation should generally be given greater
scrutiny than a past violation which has been corrected. A past violation,
however, may have been of such a nature as to preclude eligibility for the
exemption.
o Enforcement actions . The Agency will take into account any pending
administrative or judicial actions by a citizen group or other party relating
to the applicant’s discharge of pollutants, as well as any administrative or
judicial actions pending against the applicant for permit noncompliance.
Formal EPA or State enforcement actions may lead to a judicial
determination that the facility has not complied with its permit, or a consent
agreement requiring that the permittee take all necessary steps to achieve
compliance with the permit. The facility would not be eligible for the
exemption in Section 3005(j)(3)(C)(i) if the subject of the action was a
violation of a technology—based effluent limitation or compliance schedule
implementing such requirements and the facility cannot demonstrate compliance
for 1 year after the enforcement action or judicial determination. Generally,
the facility should have met the requirements of the technology—based effluent
limitation or compliance schedule. Compliance should be evaluated on the
performance for at least 1 year prior to the application for an exemption, or
the facility should have made significant improvements in its treatment system
within the preceding year. However, the permitting authority may determine
that mitigating circumstances warrant consideration of a shorter period of
time in judging compliance.
A determination of noncompliance in such an enforcement action is,
Se, a determination that the facility is not in compliance with the effluent
limitation. As noted above, 3005(j)(3)(C)(i) requires a showing of compliance
with BAT effluent limitations. Thus, if the underlying violation was, for
instance, a water quality—based effluent violation or a reporting violation
unrelated to compliance with BAT, the applicant may still be eligible for the
exemption if he can demonstrate compliance with the applicable
technology—based requirement.
3—20
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
A final determination in a formal action against a facility with a BPT
permit for permit noncompliance that is made less than 1 year prior to the
date of the application for the exemption would disqualify the unit for the
exemption under 3005(j)(3)(C)(ii), which requires that the facility be in
compliance with a BPT permit. As noted above, where BPT permittees under
(C)(ii) are concerned, this would apply to violations of permit
requirement, not just the effluent limitations. The decision in an
enforcement action may be considered to be an Agency determination that the
facility is not in compliance with its permit.
o Compliance with existing administrative or judicial orders . If the
underlying violation is relevant to the exemption decision, EPA will consider
whether the applicant has fulfilled all the requirements of the order, and
whether the permittee has supplied to the Agency any information required by
the order (to the extent that such reports are necessary to verify compliance
status).
o Any other factors . Any other factors which would tend to show
whether a facility is meeting the terms of its permit or BAT effluent
limitations should also be considered.
The Clean Water Act requires absolute compliance with permit conditions
and other applicable requirements. violation, no matter how minor, may be
the subject of an enforcement action; there is no acceptance level of
violation. The discussion in this guidance is strictly for purposes of
determining the eligibility for an exemption for retrofitting requirements and
was devised to meet the, requirements and objectives of Section 3005(j)(3) of
RCRA. A determination of such eligibility does not insulate a facility from
an enforcement action under CWA for any permit violation.
3.4.3.2 Change in Condition
The requirement to be “in compliance” with CWA Section 30l(b)(2) or a BPT
permit is an ongoing obligation. Section 3005(j)(6)(B) requires the
retrofitting of exempted facilities which, due to changed circumstances, no
3-21
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
longer satisfy the exemption requirements. Retrofitting is required within 3
years of the date of the changed.circumstances. Thus, once a facility is
deemed to be no longer in compliance, it must be retrofitted. In evaluating
whether the facility is no longer in compliance, the same standard of overall
compliance set forth earlier in this guidance will be utilized. As a
condition to receiving the exemption, an applicant may need to submit
additional reports so that continued compliance can be monitored.
The eligibility of a facility with a BPT permit which qualifies for an
exemption under 3005(j)(3)(C)(ii) should be reexamined under the (C)(i)
exemption on the effective date of the BAT guidelines applicable to that
facility. Inasmuch as the BPT facility has already made a demonstration of
compliance with the permit and significant degradation under (C)(ii), it may
not always be necessary to automatically require such facilitiee to make a
demonstration under (C)(i). Such a demonstration may only be required if
there is reason to believe that the facility may not meet the (C)(i) -
requirements.
3.5 PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING AN EXEMPTION
Section 3005(j)(5) sets forth the requirements for applying for a
3005(j)(3) exemption. Section 3005(j)(5) requires that an applicant for the
exemption must apply to the EPA Administrator (or the State, where the State
has an authorized RCRA program) by November 8, 1986. With this application,
the applicant must submit (A) its RCRA permit application; (B) evidence of
compliance with applicable ground water monitoring requirements; (C) all
reasonably ascertainable evidence as to whether the surface impoundment is
leaking; and (D) a certification by a registered professional engineer with
academic training and experience in ground water hydrology that, based on
analysis of those toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents that are likely
to be present in the untreated waste stream, such impoundment satisfies the
conditions of Section 3005(j)(3).
The application requirements in Section 3005(j)(S)(A) through (C) also
apply to other exemptions under Section 3005(j). Application requirements
3—22
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
under 3005(j)(3) are consistent with the requirements described in this
guidance for applications for the other exemptions. Subsection CD) only
applies to facilities with BPT permits under 3005(j)(3)(c)(ii) (i.e., BPT
permittees where there are no applicable guidelines), as those are the only
facilities that have to demonstrate significant degradation of toxic
pollutants and hazardous constituents contained in the untreated waste stream.
Applicants should verify that the Agency has the information it needs to
make the exemption determination, including: discharge monitoring reports;
compliance inspection reports; DMRQA sample performance, permittee
noncompliance reports; and any other data that may be relevant to the
determination. The Agency will be reviewing information for the period 1 year
prior to the date of the exemption request, so applicants should verify that
the information is complete for that time period.
Applicants who must demonstrate compliance with applicable effluent
guidelines and who must show significant degradation should ascertain the
appropriate BAT limits and verify compliance with the limits from plant
operating data and suheitted data already available to EPA in Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMR’s). The NPDES permitting authority will review the
permittee’s information and confirm whether or not the permittee qualifies for
the retrofitting exclusion. With regard to a BPT permittee for whom there are
existing effluent guidelines in effect, if the BAT guidelines would require
the development of limits for additional pollutants which are not currently
required to be monitored by the BPT permittee, the permittee should provide
influent and effluent mass and/or concentration data for the daily maximum and
monthly average limitations for those pollutants for a minimum of 30
consecutive days of monitoring. The application should also include average
daily production figures for the period monitored (in the same units required
in the guideline) and specify whether the pollutant monitored is an
intermediate or final product or byproduct of the process. If a facility
falls under one of the industrial categories listed in Table 2C—2 of
49 Federal Register 38059 (Testing Requirements for Organic Toxic Pollutants
3—23
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
Industry Category), the monitoring data should include testing for all
applicable parameters listed in Table 2C—2, unless previously su1 nitted to the
Agency.
The BPT permittee making a demonstration under 3005(j)(3)(C)(ii) also
should identify in an application for an exemption those toxic pollutants and
hazardous constituents in the untreated waste stream. As the legislative
history (130 Cong. Rec. S9l83 (daily ed. July 25, 1984)) indicates, this
requirement is intended to apply to the waste water treatment facility as a
whole, rather than to each impoundment. Thus, the applicant should identify
the toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents entering the facility , not the
individual impoundment(s) for which the exemption is being sought.
The legislative history to this provision suggests that the BPT permittee
need not sample, internally monitor, or make a determination regarding the
absence of every toxic pollutant and hazardous constituent. However, the
permittee must identify those toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents that
are known to be, or that there is reason to believe are, in the untreated
waste stream, based on the hazardous wastes in the waste streams. To the
extent the permittee knows of the presence of these pollutants and
constituents in the waste water entering the facility, be must communicate
that information to the permitting agency. (See 130 Cong. Rec. S9l83 (daily
ed., July 15, 1984).
The determination under 3005(j)(3)(C)(i) as to whether a facility with a
BPT permit is in compliance with BAT guidelines is part of the process of BAT
permitting. (The BAT permitting process also considers water quality issues,,
which are not relevant to paragraph (C)(i)). In the BAT permitting process,
permit limits are not set by an automatic application of the guidelines, but
rather take into account variables such as disparate waste streams,
production, and flow. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort,
EPA Regions and States with authorized programs would be strongly encouraged
to act simultaneously upon the facility’s BAT permit application and the
retrofitting exemption request.
3—24
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
3.5.1 Sources of Information for the Regulatory Agency
The regulatory agency must make the determination that the applicant for
the exemption is “in compliance” as that teru is defined in Section 3.4.2 of
this guidance. In addition to the data and other information submitted by the
applicant, there are other information source 1 s that may prove helpful in
making a compliance
determination.
o The NPDES Quarterly Noncompliance R port (QNCR) . The QNCR is a
reporting tool used by the EPA Regions and NP ES States to record instances of
noncompliance by major diachargers. The QNCR includes information on
noncompliance with permit effluent limitations, enforcement orders, and
reporting requirements. The purpose of the QNCR is to provide information to
the Agency by which it can assess the effectiveness of State and EPA Regional
compliance activities and thereby best determine how to manage or oversee
program activities. (See 40 Federal Register 34648). It does not establish
criteria for selecting enforcement actions nor does it codify enforcement
policy. The QNCR may be useful in the context of the exemption from
retrofitting requirementB in that the listing of a facility on the QNCR should
be a signal to the regulatory authority that the facility’s application for an
exemption warrants close scrutiny.
o Discharge monitoring reports . These are the self—monitoring data
from the applicant. If the data are incomplete, EPA should consider the
missing measurements to be violations for tbe purposes of the 3005(j)(3)(C(ii)
exemption.
o Compliance inspection reports . TheBe should be reviewed whenever
available in order to determine if special op ration and maintenance problems
were encountered or if the permittee has faile d to control hazardous materials
or spills. The inspection reports also could include an evaluation of
construction activities and progress toward achieving compliance with final
effluent limits. In some cases, inspections may be needed to support the
determination for the exemption.
3-2-5
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
o DMRQA sample performance . This is an indicator of the overall
quality of the self—monitoring data. Past performance on the DMRQA would be
especially important if the compliance record is inconsistent or if the
pollutant loadings are very close to the limit. If the quality of the
effluent data appears to be poor, EPA may require additional testing by the
applicant to ensure accurate information on which to make a judgment.
o Permittee noncompliance reports . These must be submitted as
required by 40 CFR 122.41 for each violation of a limit. In addition, the
regulatory agency may require additional information and an explanation of how
the permittee resolves the violations. For each violation, EPA should review
the circumstances, the permittee’B responses, any corrective action, and the
results. During this review, EPA should note in particular any recurring
problems which the permittee has reported but not addressed adequately, any
failure to submit a report, other patterns of violations, and the
circumstances of any violations.
o Permit applications . NPDES and RCRA permit applications may be
helpful to the regulating agency in obtaining background information about the
facility and how it operates.
o Citizen Complaints .
o Any other sources of relevant data . To make a determination under
Section 3005(j)(3)(C)(ii) that significant degradation of toxics and hazardous
constituents has been achieved, the regulatory agency will have to make a BPJ
determination of what the BAT limits for toxics and hazardous constituents
would be. The support documents for the effluent guidelines that have not yet
been promulgated may be helpful for this. Also, support documents for
effluent guidelines for an industrial category which is similar to that of the
applicant may be used. Where the BPJ determination of BAT equals the BPT
limits in the permit, compliance with the permit is all that will be
necessary. Where the calculated limit is above that in the permit, the
applicant will have to provide data showing that he achieves the higher limit.
3—26
-------
UI DRAFT
12/31/85 0024U
3.5.2 Inter— and Intra—Agency Coordination in the Decislonmaking Process
The determination required under 3005(J)(3)(C)(j) and (ii) goes beyond
the administrative and technical boundaries of the RCRA permit writer. The
review of applications f lied for this exemption will require close
coordination between RCRA Programs personnel, as it is they who are required
under the statute to make the exemption determination, and Water Programs
personnel at both the Federal and State level, as they have the information on
the NPDES permittee and experience with the requirements. (Where the State
has been approved to administer the NPDES program, it will have the records of
the permittee.) Thus, the RCRA progrems will be relying heavily on the NPDES
permitting authorities’ decisions. The scope of interagency coordination will
be detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding.
3—27
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0031U
SECTION 4
THIRD EXEMPTION
4.1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS
As pro’ ided in Section 3005(j)(4), certain uniquely designed surface
impoundments that handle selected wastes may be eligible for an exemption
from, or a modification of, the minimum technological requirements based on a
demonstration of “no migration.” The statute states that:
The Administrator (or the State, in the case of a State with an
authorized program), after notice and opportunity for comment, may modify
the requirements of paragraph (1) for any surface impoundment if the
owner or operator demonstrates that such surface impoundment is located,
designed and operated so as to assure that there will be no migration of
any hazardous constituent into ground water or surface water at any
future time. The Administrator or the State shall take into account
locational criteria established under Section 3004(o)(7).
4.2 GUIDANCE FOR THE THIRD EXEMPTION
Unlike the first exemption, retrofit requirements under the third
exemption may be waived even if the surface impoundment:
o Does not have at least one liner, and
o Is located within one—quarter mile of an underground source of
drinking water.
Rather than making specific requirements, Congress intended the third
exemption to be a performance—based variance that requires the owner or
operator to demonstrate compliance based on location, design, and waste
characteristics particular to the facility. The exemption is provided in
recognition of the fact that certain site—specific and waste—specific
characteristics may prevent the movement of hazardous waste and constituents
in ground and surface water. ConBistent with other performance standards,
this exemption serves as a mechanism by which owners and operators may
identify and describe factors such as waste attentuation, degradation, and
4— 1.
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 OO3ITJ
migration rates that will prevent any threat to human health and the
environment. Applicants for this exemption are required to submit a report
documenting procedures, results, and conclusions, thereby providing the permit
writer with a basis for evaluating the adequacy of the exemption request.
Owner/operators of any surface impoundment may apply for this exemption.
However, EPA believes that the only type of unit that could meet the
requiremants under this exemption under normal circumstances would be a
storage surface impoundment (at which wastes, liner(s), and contaminated soil
are removed or decontaminated at closure) having a thick soil liner of
extremely low permeability. The reasons for this belief are described below.
The primary issue to be addressed under this exemption is that there will
be no migration of any hazardous constituent into ground water or surface
water at any future time. Although the owner/operator of any impoundment can
apply for this exemption, it is EPA policy that design information based on
manmade liner systems is not by itself adequate to prove that no migration
will occur. The owner/operator of either a storage or disposal facility viii
be required to make a clear demonstration that hazardous constituents will not
migrate to ground water or surface water during the unit’s active life as well
as during and following closure. It should be noted that EPA does not believe
Congress was referring to permitted discharges when prohibiting migration to
surface water. For that reason, facilities with NPDES permits are eligible
for the exemption, provided the demonstrations described below are made.
In some situations, the nature of the waste will facilitate the
demonstration. Such a case would be one in which a corrosive waste exhibiting
low p11 passes into a neutralization pond. In this case, there may be no
hazardous constituent to migrate beyond the unit. More often, however, the
applicant will have to make the demonstration of no migration as outlined in
Section 4.2.1 or in Section 4.2.2 of this guidance.
4—2
-------
UI DRAFT
12/31/85 0031U
4.2.1 Demonstration of “No Migration” Based on Test and Model Data
At a minimum, the reviewing agency will require: (1) liner/leachate
compatibility test data similar to those required for the first exemption (see
Section 2.2.1 of this guidance); (2) wetting front calculations from the first
day the unit went into service documenting the extent of current and potential
future leachate migration; and (3) documentation of hazardous constituent
attenuation in the unsaturated zone. In addition, the applicant should detail
closure and postclosure plans that will ensure that there will be no
contaminant migration during closure, and that following closure the
underlying substrate will be as clean as background levels. For storage
impoundments (whose wastes, liners, contaminated soil, and saturated soil are
to be removed), the applicant should also set a firm closure date.
Congressional requirements for double liner systems and EPA regulations
imply that manmade systems (e.g., single flexible membrane liners) will leak
at some future time. EPA emphasizes that it will be very difficult for any
surface impoundment with a single synthetic liner to qualify for this
exemption because it will be difficult to prove for those units that no
migration of any hazardous constituent will occur at any future time.
It will be extremely difficult to prove that no migration of any
hazardous constituent will occur after closure for any type of disposal
impoundment. As noted above, the only type of units that EPA believes will
normally be able to meet the requirements under this exemption are certain
storage surface impoundments (at which wastes, liners, and contaminated soil
are removed or decontaminated at closure) having thick soil liners of
extremely low permeability. The legislative history indicates that “any
future time” should be read literally (see 130 Cong. Rec. E4455, (daily ed.,
Oct. 10, 1984)). Congress was concerned about leakage at any point in time,
even after closure. For all disposal units, regardless of whether they have a
synthetic or clay liner, EPA will require a rigorous showing that there will
be no migration of hazardous constituents to ground or surface water at any
future time.
4—3
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0031U
4.2.1.1 Meaning of “Ground Water or Surface Water ”
The provisions of the third exemption do not specify the condition of the
ground water or surface water. Therefore, EPA interprets this provision as
referring to the closest source of ground water or surface water, whether
contaminated or noncontaininated, usable or nonusable, as the point to which
there must be no migration of any hazardous waste or constituents. Using this
interpretation, the “no migration” demonstration must be made for two
transport media: surface water runoff (not including permitted effluent) and
the unsaturated soil beneath the facility. An used in this provision, “ground
water” includes, but is not limited to, all USDW’s and all aquifers; it
encompasses “all water below the land surface in a zone of saturation” (40 CFR
260.10). For that reason, a demonstration of no migration in saturated soil
would not be appropriate for this exemption because waste migration into the
saturated zone is interpreted as ground water contamination.
4.2.1.2 Meaning of “Hazardous Constituent ”
For the purposes of this exemption, “hazardous constituent” means a
constituent that is listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261.
4.2.1.3 Meaning of “No Migration ’
The extent of migration refers to quantifiable limits applicable to waste
releases. Such limits could be quantified by expression as a concentration or
as a mass loading. From a practical standpoint, it would be extremely
difficult to document (by measurement) any releases to ground water unless
such releases result in local concentrations that are above background
levels. Consequently, applicants for this exemption are advised to
demonstrate that the concentration of hazardous constituents in the saturated
zone beneath the surface impoundment liner is and will remain equal to or
below background concentrations.
4—4
-------
UI DRAFT
12/31/85 003113
4.2.1.4 Demonstration of “No Migration ”
The ‘no migration” demonstration suhnitted by the applicant should be
comprehensive and detailed and should cover every aspect of waste migration in
each transport medium in question (i.e., in the unsaturated zone and in
surface water runoff and effluent).
The persistence and degradation potential of the waste in the environment
should be explained and fully documented with appropriate sampling and
analysis data. The prediction of no migration at the compliance point should
be supported by a modeling study using site—specific data. All modeling
results and procedures should be provided to document all conclusions.
Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) measures taken during the no
migration analysis should also be documented by identifying QA/QC procedures
used and estimates of the reliability of the conclusions.
The applicant should emonstrate “no migration” to a level of certainty
that will ensure that results and conclusions are accurate and reliable. This
level of certainty must account for conditions that may occur as a consequence
of future natural events or uncontrolled human intrusion. To attain an
adequate level of certainty, the applicant should provide an estimate of error
that is based on a sensitivity analysis that accounts for all parameters
included in the no migration analysis. All data should be demonstrated to be
accurate. Field data (such as hydraulic conductivity developed using Test
Method 9100) should be used to calibrate and verify modeling calculations.
4.2.1.4.1 Waste Mobility in the Unsaturated Zone
The unsaturated zone is the transport medium of primary concern in the
demonstration of no migration. Any migration of waste that should occur is
most likely to occur in the unsaturated soil beneath or adjacent to the unit
in question. Therefore, results from this demonstration should indicate the
ability of the unsaturated zone to attenuate the waste and the likelihood of
the waste migrating through the unsaturated zone to the closest ground water
or surface water.
4—5
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0031U
This section of the application should contain a detailed evaluation of
site hydrogeology and estimated contaminant fate and transport. To
demonstrate mobility in the unsaturated zone, the following general
information should be presented in the application and confirmed by the permit
writer:
o Hydraulic conductivity as a function of water content or pressure
potential;
o Porosity of the medium, particle and bulk densities, water capacity,
and diffusivity;
o Soil—water retention curveB;
o Infiltration, drainage, evaporation and transpiration rates and
volumes;
o Hydrogeologic maps and cross sections;
o Parametric values for the dispersion and adsorption and ion exchange
properties;
o Effects of permeant on soil;
o Location and strengths of contaminant sources;
o Basic physical and chemical properties of the contaminants;
o Estimation of degradation potential within the unsaturated zone; and
o Estimation of adsorption potential within the unsaturated zone.
Appendix C of the forthcoming Location Guidance for Section 3004(o)(7)
will contain methods for modeling migration in tne unsaturated zone.
Applicants may find this valuable for analytical support.
4.2.1.4.2 Waste Mobility in Surface Water Runoff
Waste migration in surface water runoff must also be considered by the
applicant in a “no migration” demonstration. Erosion of waste or contaminated
soil or seepage of waste leachate tarough a cover system could occur, causing
subsequent migration In runoff. The applicant could base the demonstration in
part on the potential of the waste to dissolve in water. Such demonstrations
4—6
-------
LU DRAFT
12/31/85 003113
could be supported by trie ability of the waste to adsorb onto soil particles.
The applicant would have to demonstrate minimal sediment yields in runoff
(erosion) because adsorbed wastes could be transported as suspended
particulate matter. In any case, the prediction of waste migration in runoff
should be based on a modeling effort that takes all transport mechanisms into
account. As noted, permitted discharges are not considered to be “migration,”
80 modeling efforts snould focus on nonpermitted runoff.
To evaluate waste mobility in surface water runoff, the permit writer
should confirm that the following information is presented by the applicant:
o Solubility of waste;
o Adsorptivity data (including distribution coefficient);
o Estimate of waste degradation rate in surface water runoff;
o Volatilization rates;
o Runoff potential;
o Erosion potential;
o A diagram of the area showing vegetation, contouring, and areas of
permeable soils; and
o Maintenance procedures that will be used during the operating life,
the post—closure care period, and following post—closure care.
Wherever practical, the demonstration should include documented test data
(for adsorptlvity, solubility, and degradation rates) simulating in situ
conditions. Literature data sources can be used during the review process to
provide a quick check of consistency and credibility.
The prediction of the extent of waste migration in surface water will
generally rely on the results of a modeling effort. The applicant must
document such modeling efforts and predictions.
4—7
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0031U
4.2.1.5 Documentation Requirements
Any modeling procedures and results used by the owner/operator to
evaluate the potential for migration should be included in the application for
this exemption. Documentation of all parameter values used, all assumptions
associated with the model, and the error associated vith the model predictions
must be included in this demonstration. The conceptual model developed for
the unsaturated zone should be fully described. Finally, the modeling
approach to the particular problem should be described in detail and it should
be demonstrated that the model Is appropriate for use in the specific
problem.
4.2.2 emonstration of “No Migration” Based on Inward Hydraulic Gradient
Anotner way to meet the “no migration” standard is to design the
Impoundment so that pumping will nold the hydraulic head in the impoundment
below that in Burrounding geologic units. An inward hydraulic gradient is
thus established, preventing outward movement of ground water. Tne
Impoundment must be In a pit below the water table; the inward gradient will
cause a constant flow of ground water into the Impoundment. A mixture of
ground water and waste water will be pumped out; all of this water must be
treated in an appropriate way before being discharged.
To prevent migration, the gradient in such an impoundment must be directed
inward at all times and from all directions. The application should state a
maximum permissible water level in the impoundment, or present the method by
which the maximum permissible level (which might vary over time) will be
calculated. The allowable difference between ground water head and impoundment
head should be set on a case—by—case basis to reflect the variability and
uncertainty of the heads, but In no case should be less than one foot. (This
is a minimum value, based on the accuracy of good head measurements. It may
be revised upward as appropriate.)
When the facility is closed, pumping will cease and the facility will no
longer have the inward gradient which is responsible for preventing migration.
4—8
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0031U
The applicant will therefore have to remove all hazardous contamination from
the site at the time of closure.
The information required to evaluate an application for an exemption in
the case where inward gradients are being relied upon is quite different from
that required for the ‘no migration” variance based on testing and modeling
data. Most of the technical analyses described in Section 4.2.1 of this
guidance are unnecessary. Specifically, there is no need for an
unsaturated—zone analysis, an attenuation analysis, or any kind of
mathematical model of subsurface migration. The technical issues on which
permit writers should focus are surface runoff, adequacy and reliability of
measurements (historic and ongoing) of heads, and adequacy and reliability of
pumps.
The applicant must address all considerations involved in ensuring that
inward gradients are reliably maintained. Among the considerations to be
addressed are those discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1 to 4.2.2.8 of this guidance.
4.2.2.1 Pump Capacity and Reliability
Pumps must be able to hold the water level in the impoundment below the
required level at all times. At a minimum, this requires backup pumps and
power supplies. Pumps will nave to be large enough to deal with inflows of
surface water from precipitation and runoff during storms.
4.2.2.2 Flooding
Ordinarily, pumping equipment would not be able to deal with the inflows
to impoundments during floods. The impoundments should therefore not be
located in areas subject to flooding in a 100—year flood.
4.2.2.3 Water—Table Fluctuations
Tne applicant must demonstrate that water—table fluctuations, whether
year—to—year, seasonal, or irregular, will not bring the ground water head
below the head maintained in the impoundment. In general, it will be
4—9
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0031U
necessary to monitor water levels outside the impoundment at least monthly,
and usually at least weekly. The number of monitoring points must be decided
on a case—by—case basis, but in a low—permeability medium more than one will
usually be required. In some cases, it may be possible to determine a minimum
head for the hydrogeologic units near the impoundment, either from frequently
measured hydrograpris extending over many years or from aquifer geometry. Such
a minimum head could be used to determine impoundment water levels; but a
minimum of one piezometer should always be monitored.
Real—time monitoring of water levels in the impoundment and in one or
more wefls could be used to operate pumps automatically whenever the
difference falls below a preset level. This is an acceptable approach, but
the applicant would have to demonstrate the reliability of the equipment.
However it is controlled, pumping cannot bring water levels below the
bottom of the impoundment. The applicant should show that the impoundment is
deep enough so that the base of the impoundment is below the minimum
potentiometric level of the ground water in the vicinity. Alternatively, a
contingency pian could be provided by which the impoundment will be pumped dry
and cleaned of contamination if potentiometric levels approach the bottom of
the impoundment.
The water table near an impoundment could be greatly lowered by pumping
in new water wells or dewatering for nearby construction projects. The
applicant should show that this will not occur.
4.2.2.4 Uniformity of Head in Impoundment
Heads in any sludge or solids in the impoundment could differ from the
measured water level. The applicant should ensure that they do not exceed the
allowable value. In general, this can be done by ensuring that solids will
not stand above the permissible water level at any time.
A further precaution is required for compressible solids such as clayey
sludges, wriich could be consolidated by the weight of any additional solids
placed above them. When the total stress applied to a compressible porous
4—10
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0031U
medium is increased, the additional stress is initially transferred to the
water in the pores as an increase in pressure. The increase in water pressure
cannot exceed the increase in total stress applied to the porous medium
because If the two are equal, the effective stress on the porous medium is
unchanged. If the porous medium has a low permeability, the Increased
pressure can take a long time to drain out (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).
Solids to be placed in an impoundment depending on inward gradients
should be tested for compressibility. The allowable thickness of compressible
low—permeability solids in the impoundment should be set equal to the allowable
height of standing water (less the depth of any water that will stand above
the sludge), divided by the density ration of wet sludge to water.
4.2.2.5 Fluid Density
The water in impoundments may have a considerable content of dissolved
solids, causing its density to exceed that of pure water. Even If an Inward
gradient Is successfully maintained, It still can be possible for dense fluids
to migrate out of the impoundment due to rotational circulation induced by
density—driven instabilIties. When this happens, a finger of dense water
descends from the impoundment, displacing the lighter aquifer water.
It is not acceptable to place waters with a density significantly greater
than that of the surrounding ground water in Impoundments with inward
gradients. Density effects can be ignored If the water In the impoundment
will contain less than 1000 milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids.
(The value of 1000 ing/L is only a very rough estimate and might be too high or
too low; a careful analysis would be required to set a proper value.)
Otherwise, how large a density difference would be considered Bignificant must
be evaluated on a case—by—case basis. One way for the applicant to
demonstrate that a density difference is not significant is by a mathematical
analysis of the hydrodynam.Ic stability of the system.
4—11
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0031U
4.2.2.6 Aquifer Nonuniformity
Head variability w-itrkin the geologic units around the impoundment can
cause migration away from it. In porous sedimentary media, permeable layers
or lenses within otherwise low—permeability units can gave different heads.
If such units are present in the vicinity of an impoundment, small cracks
might connect them with the impoundment. It must therefore by verified that
heads in the impoundment are kept below the heads in any nearby permeable beds
or lenses. This will, in some cases, require measurements of heads in specific
packed—off intervals rather than only in open wells.
In fractured rocks, different fractures, even very close to each other,
may be poorly connected and have a considerable difference in head. If two
fractures with different. heads contact an impoundment or a liner close to each
other, cross—circulation through the impoundment can occur even if both heads
are above the head in the impoundment. Applicants for impoundments located in
fractured rock should therefore show that either (a) the rock matrix is of
such high permeability (as in the case of a fractured sandstone) that
significant head differences cannot be maintained between nearby fractures, or
(b) there are no significant head differences among any of the fractures in
the vicinity of the impoundment. The latter discussion would be very
difficult, requiring heads to be measured in a large number of individually
packed—off fractures.
4.2.2.7 Cleanup at Closure
Operation of the facility in a way that guarantees “no migration” requires
pumping, and the pumping cannot be relied upon to continue after active
operation ceases. A complete cleanup of contamination is therefore required
at closure. Because such processes as molecular diffusion, capillarity, and
osmosis can move contamination against the gradient into clay around an
impoundment, the cleanup must include sampling and any necessary removal of
liners and surrounding natural materials. Reviewers should ensure that site
closure plans take account of the special nature of the required cleanup and
that they provide necessary funding.
4—12
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0031U
4.2.2.8 Sites with Vulnerable Hydrogeology
Because the safe operation of impoundments tnat depend upon inward
gradients to meet the “no migration” standard depends on active management,
they are more vulnerable to failure because of poor compliance with the permit
than are impoundments that rely only upon passive barriers. In order to
provide an additional margin of safety, exemptions should only be granted
where the site riydrogeology provides some elements of passive protection
against ground water contamination in the event of failure. For this reason,
EPA will not grant exemptions to impoundments witn inward gradients which are
located In areas of “vulnerable tkydrogeology,” as defined for disposal
facilities in the forthcoming Location Guidance being developed under
Section 3004(o)(7).
Note that the relevant definition of “vulnerable hydrogeology” is that
applying to disposal facilities rather ttlan storage and treatment facilities.
This definition is used because an impoundment with an inward gradient may not
be subject to the same active attention by the operator as a storage or
treatment facility. The ground water travel times to be calculated under this
definition are those which would occur In the absence of the impoundment,
taking into account natural gradients and other pumping as provided in the
Guidance Manual.
4.2.3 Changes in Conditions Causing an Exemption to be Revoked
As described previously, surface impoundments exempted under Section
3005(j)(4) will become subject to retrofit requirements of paragraph 1 if the
impoundment no longer satisfies the provisions for the exemption. Changes in
conditions that could cause revocation would include the identification of
facts that would invalidate any of the assumptions used in the modeling
analysis, ground water monitoring results indicating contamination, and new
information on riydrogeology.
4—13
-------
lAX DRAFT
12/31/85 0025U
SECTION 5
FOURTH EXEMPTION
5.1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS
A fourth exemption to the surface impoundment retrofit requirements of
Section 3005(j)(1) may be found in Section 3005(j)(13):
The Administrator may modify the requirements of paragraph (1) in the case
of a surface Impoundment for which the owner or operator, prior to
October 1, 1984, has entered into, and Is in compliance with, a consent
order, decree, or agreement with the Administrator or a State with an
authorized program mandating corrective action with respect to such
surface impoundment that provides a degree of protection of human health
and the environment which is at a minimum equivalent to that provided by
paragraph (1).
5.2 GUIDANCE FOR THE FOURTH EXEMPTION
To qualify for the fourth exemption, an owner or operator must have
entered into an enforceable agreement with EPA or the State (as appropriate).
Each of the following steps toward reaching the agreement should have been
completed before October 1, 1984, in order for EPA to consider that the
owner/operator had entered into it prior to that date:
o Oral understanding between the owner/operator and the regulatory
authority;
o Reduction of the understanding to written form;
o Signature of the owner/operator; and
o Signature of the appropriate government official.
Although EPA Is not aware of any unsigned agreements, it is conceivable that
such an agreement would not have been signed by the parties even though it had
been implemented. In such a case, the agreement must be Independently verified
and be confirmed by all parties in order to be eligible for this exemption.
The steps above should have been completed by October 1, 1984, in cases
where court orders, decrees, or consent judgments are involved as well.
5—1
-------
LA.I DRAFT
12/31/85 0025U
However, two additional steps are necessary in cases involving court
jurisdiction, although the steps do not necessarily have to have been
completed by October 1, 1984. The two additional steps are:
o Submission to a court with jurisdiction; and
o Approval and issuance by the court.
In order to be eligible for this exemption, an owner/operator must be in
compliance with an agreement that meets all the criteria outlined in this
guidance at the time the exemption is granted. EPA must be able to judge the
compliance status at the time of the application and thereafter; for that
reason, the agreement must contain performance criteria that are measurable
and that must be met on a specified schedule. Finally, the agreement must be
mandatory and enforceable under applicable law: the court or responsible
government official must be able to invoke specified penalties and/or
renegotiate the agreement in the case of noncompliance. If the agreement is
renegotiated after October 1, 1984, however, a facility is not eligible for
this exemption.
The agreement must require corrective action that protects human healtn
and the environment to a degree equivalent to the Minimum Technological
Requirements of Section 3004(o)(l)(A) of RCRA. For surface impoundments, the
Minimum Technological Requirements require a double liner system, a leachate
collection system between the lines, and ground water monitoring. The primary
goal of these requirements is-to prevent migration of hazardous constituents
from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) units and to
detect the inception of leaching and migration if it occurs.
It is EPA’s position that in order to provide equivalent protection, an
agreement should be intended to control leachate movement for a period of time
equivalent to that of the Minimum Technological Requirements (i.e., throughout
the active life, closure period, and any post—closure care period). An
agreement should also require that site conditions at the end of the agreement
will be at least equivalent to those of a normal closure plan. For storage
impoundments, the agreement should require clean closure: all hazardous
wastes must be removed and all liner materials and contaminated soil
5—2
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0025U
(including saturated soils) must be decontaminated to background
concentrations or removed. For disposal impoundments, contaminant levels in
the ground water plume at the point of compliance should have been reduced to
levels that do not exceed any ground water protection standards under 40 CFR
264.92; in addition, a cover of EPA—recommended design must be required at
closure, and a ground water monitoring program that meets the requirements of
40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F should have been installed at the time of permitting.
In the case of an agreement between the owner/operator and a State, the
State should be at least a Phase I authorized State with order—writing
authority.
5—3
-------
LkI DRAFT
12/31/85 0034U
REFERENCES
Clark, J. W., et al. Water Supply and Pollution Control. Harper and Row,
Publishers, New York. 1977.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. Groundwater . Prentice—Hall, Inc.,
Inglewood Cliffs, N.J. 6O 4 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft RCRA Guidance Document: Surface
Impoundments, Liner Systems, Final Cover, and Freeboard Control.
July 1982a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
SW—846. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Stock no.
055—002—81001—2. Second edition, July l982b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Ground Water Monitoring Guidance for Owners and Operators of
Interim Status Facilities. SW—963. March 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Permit Writer’s Guidance Manual for
Subpart F, Ground Water Protection. Washington, D.C. 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Modeling Flow Through
Clay Liners to Determine Liner Thickness . EPA—530/SW—84—00l. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. April, 1984a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Permit Applicants Guidance Manual for
Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities. EPA
530/SW—84—004. Washington, D.C. 1984b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft RCRA Ground Water Monitoring
Enforcement Guidance Document. Available from U.S. EPA Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, Washington, D.C. (202) 475—9320. 1985 (August).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on Implementation of the
Minimum Technological Requirements of HSWA of 1984, Respecting Liners and
Leachate Collection Systems. EPA/530—SW—85—012. U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste, 401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20003. 1985a (May 24).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Minimum Technology Guidance
on Double Liner Systems for Landfills and Surface Impoundments—Design,
Construction, and Operation. EPA/530—SW—85—014. U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste, 401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20003. 1985b (May 24).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Soil Properties, Classification, and
Hydraulic Conductivity. SW—925. Available from Docket Desk; U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste; 401 M Street S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20003.
Ref—l
-------
LkI DRAFT
12/31/85 0032U
APPENDIX A
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 (PL 98—616)
SECTION 215
-------
L.kI DRAFT
12/31/55 0032U
Sec. 215. Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by
adding the following new subsection after subsection (1):
“(j) INTERIM STATUS SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS.—(l) Except as provided in
paragraph (2), (3), or (4), each surface impoundment in existence on the date
of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and
qualifying for the authorization to operate under subsection (e) of this
section shall not receive, store, or treat hazardous waste after the date four
years after such date of enactment unless such surface impoundment is in
compliance with the requirements of section 3004(o)(l)(A) which would apply to
such impoundment if it were new.
“(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any surface
impoundment which (A) has at least one liner, for which there is no evidence
that such liner is leaking; (B) is located more than one—quarter mile from an
underground source of drinking water; and (C) is In compliance with generally
applicable ground water monitoring requirements for facilities with permits
under subsection (c) of this section.
“(3) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any surface
impoundment which (A) contains treated waste water during the secondary or
subsequent phases of an aggressive biological treatment facility subject to a
permit Issued under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (or which holds such
treated waste water after treatment and prior to discharge); (B) is in
compliance with generally applicable ground water monitoring requirements for
facilities with permits under subsection Cc) of this section; and (C)(i) Is
part of a facility in compliance with section 301(b)(2) of the Clean Water
Act, or (ii) in the case of a facility for which no effluent guidelines
required under section 304(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act are in effect and no
permit under section 402(a)(l) of such Act implementing section 301(b)(2) of
such Act has been issued, Is part of a facility in compliance with a permit
under section 402 of such Act, which is achieving significant degradation of
toxic pollutants and hazardous constituents contained In the untreated waste
stream and which has Identified those toxic pollutants and hazardous
constituents to the appropriate permitting authority.
“(4) The Administrator (or the State, in the case of a State with an
authorized program), after notice and opportunity for comment, may modify the
requirements of paragraph (1) for any surface Impoundment if the owner or
operator demonstrates that Buch is located, designed and operated so as to
assure that there will be no migration of any hazardous constitutant into
ground water or surface water at any future time. The Administrator or the
State shall take into account locational criteria established under section
3004(o)(7).
‘(5) The owner or operator of any surface impoundment potentially
subject to paragraph (1) who has reason to believe that on the basis of
paragraph (2), (3), or (4) such Burface impoundment is not required to comply
with the requirements of paragraph Cl), shall apply to the Administrator (or
the State, in the case of a State with an authorized program) not later than
twenty—four months after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 for a determination of the applicability of paragraph
(1) (in the case of paragraph (2) or (3)) or for a modification of the
A-2
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0032U
requirements of paragraph (1) (In the case of paragraph (4)), with respect to
such surface impoundment. Such owner or operator shall provide, with such
application, evidence pertinent to such decision, including:
“(A) an application for a final determination regarding the
issuance of a permit under subsection Cc) of this section for such
facility, if not previously submitted;
u(B) evidence as to compliance with all applicable ground water
monitoring requirements and the information and analysis from such
monitoring;
“(C) all reasonably ascertainable evidence as to whether such
surface impoundment is leaking; and
“CD) in the case of applications under paragraph (2) or (3), a
certification by a registered professional engineer with academic
training and experience in ground water hydrology that—
“(i) under paragraph (2), the liner of such surface
impoundment is designed, constructed, and operated in accordance
with applicable requirements, such surface impoundment is more than
one—quarter mile from an underground source of drinking water and
there is no evidence such liner is leaking; or
“(ii) under paragraph (3), based on analysis of those toxic
pollutants and hazardous constituents that are likely to be present
in the untreated waste stream, such impoundment satisfies the
conditions of paragraph (3).
In the case of any surface impoundment for which the owner or operator fails
to apply under this paragraph within the time provided by this paragraph or
paragraph (6), such surface impoundment shall comply with paragraph (1) not
withstanding paragraph (2), (3), or (4). WIthin twelve months after receipt
of such application and evidence and not later than thirty—six months after
such date of enactment, and after notice and opportunity to comment, tne
Administrator (or, if appropriate, the State) shall advise such owner or
operator on the applicability of paragraph (1) to such surface impoundment or
as to whether and how the requirements of paragraph (1) shall be modified and
applied to such surface impoundment.
“(6)(A) In any case in which a surface impoundment becomes subject to
paragraph (1) after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 due to the promulgation of additional listings or
characteristics for the identification of hazardous waBte under section 3001,
the period for compliance in paragraph (1) shall be four years after the date
of such promulgation, the period for demonstrations under paragraph (4) and
for submission of evidence under paragraph (5) shall be not later than
twenty—four months after the date of such promulgation and the period for the
Administrator (or, if appropriate, the State) to advise such owners or
operators under paragraph (5) shall be not later than thirty—six months after
the date of promulgation.
“(B) In any case in which a surface impoundment is initially determined
to be excluded from the requirements of paragraph (1) but due to a change in
condition (including the existence of a leak) no longer satisfies the
provisions of paragraph (2), (3), or (4) and therefore becomes subject to
paragraph (1), the period for compliance in paragraph (1) shall be two years
after the date of discovery of such change of condition, or in the case of a
surface impoundment excluded under paragraph (3) three years after such date
of discovery.
A-3
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0032U
“(7)(A) The Administrator shall study and report to the Congress on the
number, range of size, construction, likelihood of hazardous constituents
migrating into ground water, and potential threat to human health and the
environment of existing surface impoundments excluded by paragraph (3) from
the requirements of paragraph (1). Such report shall address the need,
feasibility, and estimated costs of subjecting auch existing surface
impoundments to the requirements of paragraph (1).
“(B) In the case of any existing surface impoundment or class of surface
impoundments from which the Administrator (or the State in, the case of a
State with an authorized program) determines hazardous constituents are likely
to migrate into ground water, the Administrator (or, if appropriate, the
State) is authorized to impose such requirements as may be necessary to
protect human health and the environment, including the requirements of
section 3004(o) which would apply to such impoundments if they were new.
“(C) In the case of any surface impoundment excluded by paragraph (3)
from the requirements of paragraph (1) which is subsequently determined to be
leaking, the Administrator (or, If appropriate, the State) shall require
compliance with paragraph (1), unless the Administrator (or, if appropriate,
the State) determines that such compliance is not necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
“(8) In the case of any surface impoundment in which the liners and leak
detection system have been installed pursuant to the requirements of paragraph
(1) and in good faith compliance with section 3004(o) and the Administrator’s
regulations and guidance documents governing liners and leak detection
systems, no liner or leak detection system which is different from that which
was so Installed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be required for such unit by
the Administrator when Issuing the first permit under this section to such
facility. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the Administrator from
requiring installation of a new liner when the Administrator has reason to
believe that any liner installed pursuant to the requirements of this
subsection is leaking.
“(9) In the case of any surface Impoundment which baa been excluded by
paragrapn (2) on the basis of a liner meeting the definition under paragraph
(12)(A)(ii), at the closure of such impoundment the Administrator shall
require the owner or operator of such Impoundment to remove or decontaminate
all waste residues, all contaminated liner material, and contaminated soil to
the extent practicable. If all contaminated soil is not removed or
decontaminated, the owner or operator of such impoundment shall be required to
comply with appropriate post—closure requirements, Including but not limited
to ground water monitoring and corrective action.
“(10) Any incremental cost attributable to the requirements of this
subsection or section 3004(o) shall not be considered by the Administrator (or
the State, In the case of a State with an authorized program under section 402
of the Clean Water Act)—
“(A) in establishing effluent limitations and standards under
section 301, 304, 306, 307, or 402 of the Clean Water Act based on
effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated any time before
twelve months after the date of enactment of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984; or
A-4
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0032u
“(B) in establishing any other effluent limitations to carry out
the provisions of section 301, 307, or 402 of the Clean Water Act on or
before October 1, 1986.
“(ll)(A) If the Administrator allows a hazardous waste which is
prohibited from one or more methods of land disposal under subsection (d),
(e), or (g) of section 3004 (or under regulations promulgated by the
Administrator under such subsections) to be placed in a surface impoundment
(which is operating pursuant to interim status) for storage or treatment, such
impoundment shall meet the requirements that are applicable to new surface
impoundments under section 3004(o)(l), unless such impoundment meets the
requirements of paragraph (2) or (4).
“(B) In the case of any hazardous waste which is prohibited from one or
more methods of land disposal under subsection (d), (e), or (g) of section
3004 (or under regulations promulgated by the Administrator under such
subsection) the placement or maintenance of such hazardous waste in a surface
impoundment for treatment is prohibited as of the effective date of such
prohibition unless the treatment residues which are hazardous are, at a
minimum, removed for subsequent management within one year of the entry of the
waste into the surface Impoundment.
“(12)(A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection, the
term ‘liner’ means—
“(I) a liner designed, constructed, installed, and operated to
prevent hazardous waste from passing into the liner at any time during
the active life of the facility; or
“(ii) a liner designed, constructed, installed, and operated to
prevent hazardous waste from migrating beyond the liner to adjacent
subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time during the
active life of the facility.
“(B) For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘aggressive
biological treatment facility’ means a system of surface Impoundments in which
the initial impoundment of the secondary treatment segment of the facility
utilizes intense mechanical aeration to enhance biological activity to degrade
waste water pollutants and
“(i) the hydraulic retention time In such initial impoundment is no
longer than 5 days under normal operating conditions, on an annual
average basis;
“(ii) the hydraulic retention time in such initial impoundment is no
longer than thirty days under normal operating conditions, on an annual
average basis: Provided . That the sludge in such impoundment does not
constitute a hazardous waste as identified by the extraction procedure
toxicity characteristic in effect on the date of enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid waste Amendments of 1984; or
“(iii) such system utilizes activated sludge treatment in the first
portion of secondary treatment.
“(C) For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘underground source
of drinking water’ has the same meaning as provided in regulations under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (title XIV of the Public Health Service Act).
A-S
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0032u
“(13) The Administrator may modify the requirements of paragraph (1) in
the case of a surface impoundment for which the owner or operator, prior to
October 1, 1984, has entered into, and Is in compliance with, a consent order,
decree, or agreement with the Administrator or a State with an authorized
program mandating corrective action with respect to such surface impoundment
that provides a degree of protection of human health and the environment which
is at a minimum equivalent to that provided by paragraph (1).”
A—6
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0046U
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON THE LOCATION OF
AQUIFERS IDENTIFIED AS UNDERGROUND SOURCES
OF DRINKINC WATER
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85
ALARAM
0046U
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. John Poole
UIC Coordinator
Department of Environmental
Management
Water Quality Program
c/o State Capitol
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205) 277—3630
Mr. David Bolin
UIC Coordinator
State Oil and Gas Board
of Alabama
Drawer “0”
University, AL 35486
(205) 349—2852
ALASKA
State Agency Contact :
C. V. Chatterton, Chairman
Chairman, 011 & Gas Conservation
Commission
3001 Porcupine Drive
Anchorage, AK 99501
(208) 334—4440
Mr. Richard Neve
Commissioner, Department of
Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, AX 99811
(907) 456—2600
ARIZONA
State Agency contacts :
Mr. Chuck Anders
Department of Health Services
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 255—1177
Mr. Rudy Ybarra
Oil and Gas Conservation Coission
1645 West Jefferson, Suite 420
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 255—5161
EPA contact :
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
FTS 257—3866 (404) 881—3866
EPA Contact :
Mr. Jerry Opatz
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399—4092 (206) 442—1225
EPA Contact :
Mr. Nathan Lau
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
YTS 454—8267 (415) 974—7284
8—2
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85
ARKANSAS
004 6U
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. A. L. Spark
Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology
Water Division
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
(501) 562—7444
Mr. David Morrow
Oil and Gas Commission
314 East Oak Street
El Dorado, AR 71720
(501) 862—4965
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Mike Cainpos
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
(916) 322—3133 -
Mr. N. C. Mefferd
Division of Oil and Gas
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1310
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445—9686
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. William Smith
Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission
Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street — 7th Floor
Denver, CO
(303) 866—3531
Mr. Rick Karlin
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
(303) 320—8333 Ext. 3453
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Honker
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
PTS 729—2774 (214) 767—2600
Contact :
Nathan Lau
Representative
EPA, Region IX
Fremont Street
Francisco, CA 94105
454—8267 (41.5) 974—7284
EPA Contact :
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
FTS 564—1542 (303) 837—2731
CALIFORNIA
EPA
Mr.
UIC
U.S.
215
San
FTS
COLORADO
5—3
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0046U
CONNECTICUT
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Wesley Winterbottom
Water Compliance Unit
Department of Environmental
Protection
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 556—5903
DElAWARE
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Philip Cherry
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1402
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736—5741
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Local Agency Contact :
Mr. William B. Johnson
Director, Department of
Environmental Services
5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20032
(202) 629—3415
FLORIDA
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Rodney Dellan
Administrator, GWS/Department of
Environmental Regulation
Twin Tovers Office Bldg.
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904) 488—3601
Mr. David Curry
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Geology
903 W. Tennessee
Tallahassee, FL 32304
(904) 488—2219
EPA Contact :
Mr. Greg Charest
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223—5529 (617) 223—6486
EPA Contact :
Mr. George Hoessel
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
PTS 597—9000 (215) 597—9800
EPA Contact :
Mr. George Roessel
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
FTS 597—9000 (215) 597—9800
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
FTS 257—3866 (404) 881—3866
B—4
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85
GEORGIA
004613
State Agency Contact :
Mr. William H. Mctemore, Ph.D
State Geologist
UIC Program Manager
Georgia Geologic Survey
19 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656—3214
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Jim Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, Guam 96910
0—11—671—646—8863
HAWAII
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Mel Koizumi
Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 548—6767
State Agency Contact :
Mr. A. Kenneth Dunn, Director
Director, Department of Water
Resources
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 554—4479
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Bill Radlinski
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Division of Land/Noise
Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782—9898
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
FTS 257—3866 (404) 881—3866
EPA Contact :
Mr. Nathan Lau
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 454—8267 (415) 974—7284
Contact :
Nathan Lau
Representative
EPA, Region IX
Fremont Street
Francisco, CA 94105
454—8267 (415) 974—7284
EPA Contact :
Mr. Jerry Opatz
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
PTS 399—4092 (206) 442—1225
EPA Contact :
Mr. John Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886—1502 (312) 353—2151
GUAM
IDAHO
EPA
Mr.
UIC
U.S.
215
San
FTS
ILLINOIS
B—5
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85
004611
rir. George R. Lane
Department of Mining and Minerals
Oil and Gas Division
William C. Stratton Office Building
400 South Spring Street
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782—7756
INDIANA
IOWA
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Earl Bohoer
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
(317) 633—0735
Mr. Gary Fricke
Division of Oil and Gas
911 State Office Building
Indianapolis, IN 46206
(217) 232—4055
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Darrell McAllister
Director, Program Development
Divison
Iowa Department of Water, Air &
Waste Management
Henry A. Wallace State Office Bldg.
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281—8692
EPA Contact :
Mr. John Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886—1502 (312) 353—2151
EPA Contact :
Harold Ovens, Chief
Ground Water Section
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, MO 66101
(913) 236—2808
Mr. Morris Presto 11
Chief, Water Resource Development
Branch
Iova Department of Water, Air &
Waste Management
Henry A. Wallace State Office Bldg.
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281—8877
B—6
-------
UI DRAFT
12/31/85
KANSAS
0046U
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. William R. Bryson
Manager, Bureau of Oil Field
& Environmental Geology
Kansas Department of Health &
Environment
Forbes Field, Bldg. 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 862—9360 Ext. 219
Mr. Jim Schoof
Oil and Gas Conservation Division
KansaB Corporation Commission
200 Colorado/Derby Bldg.
212 West First Street
Wichita, KS 67202
(316) 263—2027
UCKY
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Donald S. Harker, Jr.
Director
Water Management Division
KY Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet
Fort Boone Plaza
18 Reill Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564—3410
Mr. Henry Morgan
Director
Oil and Gas Division
Dept. of Mines and Minerals
P.O. Box 680
Lexington, KY 40586
(606) 254—0367
LOUISIANA
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Jim Welsh
Director, UIC and Mining Division
Office of Conservation
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 44275
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
EPA Contact :
Mr. Harold iezis
Chief, Ground Water Section
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, MO 66101
FTS 757—2812 (913) 236—2808
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
PTS 257—3866 (404) 881—3866
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Honker
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
PTS 729—2774 (214) 767—2600
B—7
-------
LAT DRAFT
12/31/85 0046U
Mr. Fritz Spencer
Department of Natural Resources
Office of Conservation
P.O. Boi 44275
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(504) 342—5515
MAINE
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Robert Nunan
Division of Environmental Evaluation
and Lake Standards
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
Statehouse, Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289—2437
MARYLAND
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Larry Leasner
Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
Office of Environmental Programs
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
FTS 932—5740 (301) 383—5740
MASSACBUSETTS
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Mark Pare
Division of Water Pollution Control
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292—5698
MIcHIGAN
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Tom Segall
Michigan Department of
Natural Resources
Geological Survey Division
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, MI 48926
(517) 373—8014
EPA Contact :
Mr. Greg Charest
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
YTS 223—5529 (617) 223—6486
EPA Contact :
Mr. George Hoessel
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
YTS 597—9000 (215) 597—9800
EPA Contact :
Mr. Greg Charest
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223—5529 (617) 223—6486
EPA Contact :
Mr. John Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886—1502 (312) 353—2151
B—8
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0046U
MINNESOTA
State Agency Contact :
Mr. John Hoick
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. Country Road B—2
Roseville, )N 55113
(612) 296—7787
MISSISSIPPI
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Fred Rule
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39205
(601) 961—5171
MONTANA
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Charles Maio
Montana Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission
2535 St. Johns Avenue
Billings, MT 59101
(406) 656—0040
Mr. Steve Pileher
Water Quality Bureau
Dept. of Health & Environmental
Sciences
Cogavell Bldg.
Billings, MT
(406) 499—2406
NEBRASKA
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Jay Ringenberg
Chief (1422), Permits/Licenses
Section
Nebraska Dept. of Environmental
Control
P.O. Box 94877, Statehouse Stn.
Lincoln, NE 65809
(402) 471—2186
EPA Contact :
Mr. John Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
YTS 886—1502 (312) 353—2151
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
FTS 257—3866 (404) 881—3866
EPA Contact :
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
FTS 564—1542 (303) 837—2731
EPA Contact :
Harold Owens
Chief, Ground Water Section
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, MO 66101
PTS 757—2812 (913) 236—2808
B—9
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85
0046 13
Mr. Paul Roberts
Director (1425), oil & Gas
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 399
Sidney, NE
(308) 254—4595
NEW EANPSRIRE
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Michael A. Sills, P.E.
Ground Water Protection Division
Ground Water Supply and Pollution
Control Co nission
P.O. Box 95, Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271—2755
NEW JERSEY
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Wayne Hutchinson
Program Manager
New Jersey Geological Survey
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
P.O. Box CN—029
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292—0668
NEW MEXICO
State Agency Contacts :
Paige Morgan
Environmental Improvement Division
P.O. Box 968
Sante Fe, NM 87503
(505) 984—0020 Ex 281
Prentiss Morgan
Oil Conservation Division
P.O. Box 2088
Sante Fe, NM 87501
(505) 827—2434
EPA Contact :
Mr. Greg Charest
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223—5529 (617) 223—6486
EPA Contact :
Mr. Peter Acker
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region II
Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York City, NY 10278
FTS 264—1800 (212) 264—1800
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Honker
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
TTS 729—2774 (214) 767—2600
B—i 0
-------
IAI DRAFT
12/31/85
NEW YORK
004 6U
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Daniel Barolo
Director, Division of Water
Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457—6674
Mr. Gregory Sovas
Director, Division of Mineral
Resources
Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457—9337
NORTH CAROLINA
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Perry Nelson
Groundwater Section
Division of Environmental
Manaement
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733—5083
NORTH DAKOTA
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Wesley Norton
Chief Enforcement Official
Oil and Gas Division
North Dakota Industrial Coission
900 EaBt Boulevard
Bismarck, ND 58505
(701) 224—2969
Mr. Francis Schwindet
Director, Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control
North Dakota Division of Health
1200 Missouri Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58501
(701) 224—4538
EPA Contact :
Mr. Peter Acker
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region II
Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York City, NY 10278
PTS 264—1800 (212) 264—1800
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Coürtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
FTS 257—3866 (404) 881—3866
EPA Contact :
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
FTS 564—1542 (303) 837—2731
B—li
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85
OHIO
004 6U
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Steve White
Ohio EPA
Hazardous Waste Division
Box 1049
361 E. Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43216
(614) 466—7220
Mr. Dennis Crist
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Oil and Gas Division
Fountain Square, Building A
Columbus, OH 43224
(614) 265—6926
0KLAH A
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Donald Hensch
Department of Health
Industry and Solid Waste Service
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 271—5338
Mr. Tal Oden
Corporation Commission
UIC
Jim Thorpe Office Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 521—2500
OREGON
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Frederick .1. Hansen
Director, Department of Environment i
Quality
P.O. Box 1760
522 S. W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97207
(503) 229—5395
Mr. Donald Hull
State Geologist
Oregon Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries
1005 State Office Building
1440 S. W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 229—5580
EPA Contact :
Mr. John Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886—1502 (312) 353—2151
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Honker
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 729—2774 (214) 767—2600
EPA Contact :
Mr. Jerry Opatz
TJIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399—4092 (206) 442—1225
B-i 2
-------
LAX DRAFT
12/31/85 0046U
PENNSYLVANIA
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Lewis Berchini
Department of Environmental
Resources
P.O. Box 2060
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787—2666
I’U KTO RICO
Agency Contact:
Mr. Carl Axel P. Soderberg
Vice Chairman
Environmental Quality Board
Box 11488
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910—1488
RHODE ISLAND
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Michael Annaru io
Industrial Facilities and Monitoring
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental
Management
75 Davis Street, Health Building
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 277—2234
SOUTH CAROLINA
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Don Duncan
Groundwater Program
Water Supply Division
Environmental Quality Control
Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 758—5213
SOUTH DAKOTA
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Mark Steichen
Director, Office of Drinking Water
Joe Foss Bldg.
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 773—3754
EPA Contact :
Mr. George bessel
UIC RepreBentative
U.S. EPA, Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philideiphia, PA 19106
FTS 597—9000 (215) 597—9800
EPA Contact :
Mr. Peter Acker
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region II
Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York City, NY 10278
FTS 264—1800 (212) 264—1800
EPA Contact :
Mr. Greg Charest
DXC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223—5529 (617) 223—6486
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Taylor
DXC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, CA 30308
FTS 257—3866 (404) 881—3866
EPA Contact :
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
FTS 564—1542 (303) 837—2731
B-i 3
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0046U
Mr. Jim Nelson
Director, Division of Water and
Natural Resources
Joe Foss Bldg.
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 344—2229
TENNESSEE
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. D. Elmo Lunn
Director, Division of Water Quality
Control
Department of Public Health
Terra Building
150 Ninth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37203
(615) 741—2275
Mr. Robert Miller, Supervisor
State Oil and Gas Board
701 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37203
(615) 742—6693
TEXAS
UTAH
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. William Klemt
UIC Section
Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 13087 — Capital Station
1700 North Congress Ave.
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 475—7098
Mr. Jerry Mullican
UIC Section
Railroad Co ission
P.O. Box Drawer 12967
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 445—1373
State Agency Contacts :
Ms. Dianne R. Nielson
Director, Division of Oil, Gas
and Mining
Utah Dept. of Natural Resources
& Energy
4241 State Office Bldg.
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
(801) 533—5771
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Taylor
DIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
PTS 257—3866 (404) 881—3866
EPA Contact :
Mr. Bill Honker
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
PTS 729—2774 (214) 767—2600
EPA Contact :
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
FTS 564—1542 (303) 837—2731
B—i 4
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85 0046U
Mr. Calvin Sudweeks
Director, Bureau of Water Pollution
Control
Utah Department of Health
150 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
(801) 533—6146
VERMONT
State Agency Contact :
Mr. David Butterfield
Chief, Ground Water Management
Section
Department of Water Resources and
Environmental Engineering
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpeiier, V I 05602
(802) 828—2761
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Agency Contact:
Ms. Angel LeDron
Commissioner, Department of
Conservation and Cultural Affairs
P.O. Box 4340
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas 00801
(809) 774—3320
VIRGINIA
State Agency Contacts :
Dr. James B. Kenley, M.D.
State Department of Health
State Health Commission
James Madison Bldg.
109 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786—5569
Mr. Tom Puiner
Assistant Commissioner
Department of Labor and Industry
205 North Fourth Street
Richmond, VA 23241
(703) 628—8115
EPA Contact :
Mr. Greg Charest
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223—5529 (617) 223—6486
EPA Contact :
Mr. Peter Acker
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region II
Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York City, NY 10278
FTS 264—1800 (212) 264—1800
EPA Contact :
Mr. George bessel
VIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
FTS 597—9000 (215) 597—9800
B—iS
-------
UI DRAFT
12 /31/85
0046U
Mr. Robert Taylor
State Department of Health
State Health Commission
James Madison Bldg.
109 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786—5569
WASHINGTON
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Brian Boyle
Commissioner, Public Lands (M/S QW—21)
Public Lands Building
Department of Natural Resources
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 753—5317
Mr. Ray Lasmanis
State Geologist
Division of Geology & Earth Resources
Department of Natural Resources
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 459—6375
Ms. Karen Rahm
Secretary, Department of Social and
Health Services
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 753—3395
Mr. Donald V. Moos
Director, Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV—ll
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 459—6169
WEST VIRGINIA
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Rick Melvin
Department of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbriar Street, East
Charleston, WV 25311
(304) 348—5935
EPA Contact :
Mr. Jerry Opatz
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399—4092 (206) 442—1225
EPA Contact :
Mr. George Hoessel
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
FTS 597—9000 (215) 597—9800
B- 16
-------
LAI DRAFT
12/31/85
WISCONSIN
0046U
State Agency Contact :
Mr. Greg Becker
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Bureau of Water Supply
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267—7652
WYOMING
State Agency Contacts :
Mr. Donald Basko
Director, Oil & Gas Commission
P.O. Box 2640
Casper, WY 82602
(307) 234—7147
Mr. William Garland
Director, Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
ill]. E. Lincoln Way
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777—7781
EPA Contact :
Mr. John Taylor
UIC Representative
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886—1502 (312) 353—2151
EPA Contact :
Mr. Patrick Crotty
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
FTS 564—1542 (303) 837—2731
B—]. 7
------- |