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OSWER Directive Initiation Reauest I riterrr irec ,e ufi’i er 19484.50—lA an 19484 .50—LA—a Summ.r ef Directive The draft guidance is written for owners and operators of existing surface impoundments who are seeking exemptions under Section 3005 ( ) (2) , (3) , (4) , or (13) ; and for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 Each exemption is descrlbedb in detail, and administrative policies are also discussed in the draft guidance. Attached are the transmittal memo requesting comments on the draft guidance, and the draft guidance itself. The draft guidance was distributed to the Regions on January 2, 1986, with a request that comments be returned by January 24, 1986.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E. Williams, Director Office of Solid Waste (WH-562) TO: Addressees I am soliciting your comments on the attached draft guidance for the statutory requirements concerning retrofitting of interim status surface impoundments under RCRA Section 3005(j).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 ------- |