United States Office
Environmental Protection Solid Waste end
Agency Emergency Response
6E PA DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9010.1
TITLE: Fol1 -up to Orlando Quarterly Waste Manageuent
Directors Meeting
APPROVAL DATE: 11/25/85
EFFECTIVE DATE: 11/25/85
ORIGINATING OFFICE: osw -
1 FINAL
0 DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
‘E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DI

-------
‘ E * Washington. DC 20460
United States Environmentat Protection Agency Interim Directive Num r
OSWER Directive Initiation ReQuest
Originator Information
RUSSELL, MARJORIE
Name of Contact Psrson Mag de 62 A Telephone NumbeG 82—571 4
Lead Office 0 OUST Approved for Review
o OERR o Signatur, of Office Dsr.ctor I Date
o OSW AA.O5W R ‘ 1?7d 72e ) II- Z B
Title
Follow—up to Orlando Quarterly Waste Management Directok Meeting
Summery of Dirsctive
Responds to Items 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 15 and 18 from the November 7,
1985 list of fo11ow—u issues. (See attached)
Type of Directive (ManuaL Policy Or e t,v Announc.men, etc )
Memorandum/pol icy Diredtive
Does thiS Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s [ J Yes
If “Yes to Eithsr Ouestioit, Whet Directive (nwnb.,. tale)
No
Status
0 Dr
0 Final
Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
0
0

New
Røvi ion
Yes
No
Riyi ,* Plan
AA.OSW(R 0 OUST 0 OECM 0 Other(Sp ,c,fp )
0 OERR 0 OWPE 0
OGC
0 OSW 0 Regions 0 OPPE
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
Signature of Lead Office Directi es fficer
r - & (k
Date
)2/
/ T
Signature f OS ER Directives Officer

Date
I
EPA Foim 1315.17(10.85)

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINcTON D C. 20460
NOV25 19
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
F 1 ow—u o Orlando Quarterly Waste Management
Drec s’ Meeting
Jack • c w, y Assistant Administrator
Reg o al Waste Management Division Directors
On November 7, we provided you with a list of follow—up
issues resulting from our recent meeting in Orlando (attached).
Certain tasks have already been completed and are marked on
this version of the list.
Today’s memorandum enclos s responses to Items 3, 4, 5,
8, 13, 11, 15 and 18. As soon as the remaininQ materials
are prepared, we will forward these to you as well.
If you have any questions regarding these tasks, please
contact Margie Russell on 382—5714.
Enclosures
- cc: RCRk Branch Chiefs
OSWEP. Office Directors
Thad Juszczak

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
t DV — 7 5 OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Follow—up to Quarterly Waste Management
Directo s Meeting
FROM: J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator
TO: Regiona] Waste Management Directors
As a follow—up to our recent meeting in Orlando, I want
to provide you with a brief list of issues that reauire fur-
ther attention by Headcuarters. We have Included self—imposed
deadlines so that you will know approximately when to expect
final products.
I want to establish this form of follow—up as a regular oro—
vision of our Ouarterly Meetings. This process should provide
all participants with a sense of commitment from Readauarters
that we will provide the necessary guidance, issue clarification,
policy resolution, etc., in a timely manner. Hopefully, it will
also aid in the resolution of certain issues that continue to be
problems but never seem to be fully addressed and brought to
closure.
I certainly enjoyed meeting with all of you and hope you
found these sessions meaningful and productive. I look forward
to continuing our dialogue of the many important RCRA and CERCLA
implementation issues as I complete my round of visits to all
our Regions.
If you have any comments regarding our enclosed list of
follow—up Issues, please contact Margie Russell on 382—5714.
Enclosure
CC: OSWER Office Directors

-------
FOLLOW-Up ITEMS
ORLANDO WASTE MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS CONFERENCE
October 21—23, 1985
Deadline, If
appropriate
1. OERR to provide special writing assistance to Region Done
VII in the region. (Walt Kovalick)
2. Send ASTSWMO list of OSWER policy and guidance 1/31/86
documents that have been issued. (Bob Herman)
3. Look Into “FTE average” problem in Regions I and V 11/15/85
(Thad Juszczak)
4. Check on comment made that “administrative staff 11/15/85
I ave stcpped all SF personnel processing”.
1 (Thad Juszczak)
5. What is the relationship between removals, remedials 11/15/85
and contract vehicles in context of new NC ?? (OERR)
6. Send regions copy of letter from Administrator to Week of
Governors on air toxics acute hazards list. dditionally, 11/11/85
Regions asked to be “catalysts” to get appropriate
management attention to these issues. (Makris)
7. If any Regions wish to have State—directed training i ° MC.
funds diverted to air toxic needs, please contact
Walt Kovalick, OERR.
8. Look at resource distribution model for ESD in proportion 11/30/85
to services rendered. (Thad Juszczak)
9. Follow—up on policy where there is no place to take certain 11/30/85
waste (e.g., diy .n,. tJIi t shou).d our enforcement position
be? (OWPE)
10. What is the RCRA—CERCLA” data base interface issue raised l1,’30/85
by regions —— (Mike McNei]l)
11. Send draft copy of Win’s transmittal letter on Groundwater ASAP
Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance out ASAP. (OWPE)
12. Need guidance on “used tanks” for UST. (OUST) 12/15/85

-------
13. When is advice of allowance coming for UST. Statutory
requirements go on. What are our options?
(Thad Juszczak) 11/30/85
14. Regions need guidance paper on characteristic waste 11/30/85
vs. listed waste issue. Concern was expressed regarding
impoundments that receive characteristic waste. The
option under S265.228(b) is to remove all impoundment
materials (including ground water) until the remaining
material passes the demonstration under S261.3(c). The
problem is that the characteristic waste test is 100 times
the drinking water MCLs. Contaminated ground water could
be left at 100 times the drinking watc r levels, and no
further monitoring or post—closure care would be required.
For listed waste, closure requires going to background
levels or dGlisting the waste. (OSW)
15. What is status of delegation package on RCRA? (Thad) 11/15/85
le. Re—examine policy on joint issuance of permits
(OSW) 12/15/85
17. CERCLA Reauthorization —— briefly after passage write both
RA’s and Waste Directors. Send recent side—by—side ASAP.
(Russell)
18. Clarify regional concerns over why are we requesting
regions to put groundwater information in Storet?
(Tony Montrone) 11/15/85
19. Groundwater strategy giving RCRA/SF concerns. (Note: Done
Marcia Williams provided comments to Marian Mlay and
requested that she contact Regions III and IV)
20. Send slides of corrective action briefing to Regions ASAP. Done
(Russell)
21. Superfund Analytical Services — We must get on top of
numbers and where samples are going — QA/QC. This
issue will be addressed by OERR during the RCRA-CERCLA
Regional Reviews scheduled for each Region.

-------
5 Nov 85
Hire Freeze Fit Problem
Issue: Regions I and V indicated that they could not live with the
hours per pay period ceiling established by the Comptroller
as part of the hire freeze portion of the Superfund slowdown.
Background: When the Ad nistrator announced the Superfund Slowdown in
mEd—August, he included a hire freeze in the Slowdown. The
hire freeze had two components. First, a ceiling was estab-
lished for on—board personnel with a Superfund fixed account
number (FAN) based on the 14 Aug 85 on—board count and firm
EODs as of that date. Second, a ceiling was established on
the total number of hours which could be charged to Superfund
each pay period. That ceiling was based on the actual hours
charged in FY 85 for pay periods 17 through 23 (25 May—17 Aug).
Discussion: Analysis of this situation requires some data not available
to us. However, we can make assumptions. In Region I, we
know that they had 72 people as of 28 Sep 85 with Superfund
FANs in OSWER accounts. We also know that the hours per pay
period ceiling they have would allow them to charge the equi-
valent of 84 people to Superfund. What we do not know is the
number of people with Superfund FANs in Regional Counsel and
Management or the amount of partial charging (having a person
with a non—Superfund FAN charge some hours to Superfund) that
occurs. By factoring national totals, we can assume about 12
more people in the Region with Superfund FANs. By talking to
the Deputy Director of the Waste Divison in Region I, we know
that “a lot” of partial charging occurs. Thus, Region I has
a problem. However, they convinced the Comptroller to raise
their ceiling to the equivalent of 91 people and, according to
the Region, can now manage the situation. The reason Region I
has this problem relates to an aggressive hiring program this
Bummer and the large amount of partial charging by other divi-
sions, especially Water.
The data on Region V would not indicate a problem. They can
charge the equivalent of 220 people and there are only 160
with Superfund FANs in the OSWER accounts; Even assuming 32
more people in the Region with Superfund FANs, there is still
room for partial charging. Region V confirmed that they do not
have a problem and, in fact, are continuing to hire.
After analysis of available data, it appeared that Regions
II and VII would have problems. These Regions have requested
assistance from the Comptroller and they will receive a higher
ceiling. Region IV also talked to the Comptroller, but they
appear to be okay for now.
Summary: Three Regions appear to have problems and all will get relief
from the Comptroller. No other Regions appear currently to be
having a problem living with the hours D’ r pay period ceiling
that part of t1 e St .und hire ftae

-------
4 Nov 85
Issue: There Is concern that during the Superfund hire freeze, the Regional
personnel offices are not continuing to process actions to the point
of selection.
Discussion: Kyrn Davis (personnel) recently h a conference call with Regional
Personnel Officers. She s explicit in her reiteration of what
can be done during the SF Hiring Freeze — i.e., backfilling vacant
positions up to ceiling and proceeding to hire up to the point of
making the job offer for others.
No Region indicated that they re doing things any differently.
There re a few Regions missing fran the conference call. Kym is
today (11/4) going to follQ, up individually with then.

-------
-Thç
Flexibility of S( .P
Issue: Do the Regions ha e the flexibility to nove funth bet en r ncr al
and raiedial projets identified on their SCAP?
The purp e of the SCAP is to lay out, site t ’ site, the Enforcement,
Response, and support activities each Region will undertake in a fiscal
year. Based on the SCAP, the cc ptroller issues one allowance to each
Region for all Superfund activities in that Region. The allcwance includes
one prograti element for the renoval, remedial, and support activities and
another for the enforcen nt activities. After the SCAP and the all ances
are issued, the SCr¼P may be an nded at any time. In general, changes to
the SCAP which alter the established SRIS targets or exceed the Regional
allowance require prior Headquarters’ approval. Hc ,ever, the Regions
have sane flexibility to s .bstitute projects and, therefore, funding with-
in the remedial program. Also, in an emergency situation, the Regions
can initiate a renoval and borr reniedial funds, with the understanding
that the remedial funds will be paid back, in order to meet SR4S cc]TinitiTents.
Alternately, the Region can request ditional funding.

-------
H-g
Resource Distri jtjon
Issue: E es the workload ntdej. allocate resources for the ESD la in
prqortion to the services rendered?
Each year, the total Regional F’rE are established through the budget
process. Then, the distritutjon ntdel allocates these resources to each
Region sed on the workload estin tes in the SCAP. Even though the
workload Irodel has various categories that canpute individual F’rE
requirerrents for RI/FS, RDs, sample analysis etc., provide the Fit as
one lump sun and the Regional Administrator has the discretion to
allocate the resources as he/she sees fit. For example, if the ncdel
estimates that a particular Region needs 20 FrE for sanpie analysis,
there is no guarantee that the RA will allocate 20 F It for that activity.
Also, the workload nodel addresses functions not organizations. For
example, workload rrodel does not indicate that sample analysis E’rE should
go to the ESD. A work group has been established to work with the O1
work group to develop options to distrib. te sample analysis and related
resources. This work group’s recarurerdations will be presented to the
Hazardous Spill and Site Resçonse workload rtodel workgroup by mid—1 cer er.
Hc ’iever, nothing we do will affect the Regional Administrator’s autFority
to allocate Fit within the Region.

-------
‘ I —
zO S’a, . / /
UNITED STA TES EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECT ION AGENCY
4) WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20460
4’ 4L —
SEP I 3 9SE
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
M OR
StJP .JEcr: Trar al 2 Grour&4’ ter It nitoring En5 rca ent Guidance
F1 ll: J ’Winston rter
Assistant Mministrator
10: Waste Manageient Division Directors
Regions I-X
As iou krow, rrection of grourd-water ITonitoring rp1lance prob1
at RA lard dlspsal facilities is one of the Agency’s highest priorities.
i t ersonafly amittei to seeing that our capabilities are enhancsi in
this it pDrtant area ard that ornpliance within the regulatei nmiinity is
improved. The Office of Solid Waste ard Dnergency Res onse has begun
several Initiatives in the past year lncl .dlng the rmation of the Hazax ous
Waste Grourd—Water Task Fbrce. Amther major project we have initiated is
the deve]op ent of gro .r -water nonitorlng en rcerent guidance. Attached
are t o dooinents: “RCRA Grourd—Water Itnitoring Technical En rce nt
Guidance T cunent (draft), ard RA Grourd—Water Itnitoring ripliance
Order Guidance (final)
The mpliance Order Guidance sets out a nceptual fr e ork r
developing aiministrative enftrcemant actions against interim status
facilities with inaiequate grourd—water rtonitoring system. It describes
generally the types of technical rei iies that such facilities sPould be
ra uirei to urxiertake ard then discusses the various en5 rcanent autlDrities
ard aDmbinations of autForitles that may be drawn u n to anipel tPose
r nedies. In part iojlar, the d o.m nt bo.ises on t w to arrect interim status
violations in a manner that is ansistent with the needs of the RCRA
permitting process.
The Technical Enforce ent Guidance I cui ent is interded to help
enthrcenent officials decide whether specific elenents of an owner/operator’s
grourd-water nonitoring systen satisfy the RCRA Subpart F reuiremants. It
aidresses issues such as Pow many wells are erough, what stould be in a
sai ling ard analysis plan, what are acceptable onstruction materials r
wells, etc. I rewrwTerxI that sour staff reai the rTpllance Order Guidance
first as it sets out the fr lec oLt in which technical evaluations ard
decisions will be ina e.

-------
—2—
have tries to in’.o].ve as many Regions ard program offices as pssible
in the 1atjon of the technical and legal decisions representel in
these enñ rceient docunents. I u1 like to persnally exterd i thanjç
to e ’ery per n w)o participats in the develo nent of this guidance. t
ould als like to e ress my appreciation to Regions 3, 5, 6, 8 aid 9 wPo
ntribatei valuable staff time aid aivice to this project.
As u krow OS €R has, in the past, dlstrib t j a ntm ber of draft
guidance doa.mients which br various reaans have rot been finalizei. I
urderstard o a reluctance to rely on draft guidance. it is my intentior
that the draft Technical Enforc tent Guidance Do ient (T D) be final iz i
by winter. In the interim, I recxmnerd that u rely on the oDncepts aid
ideas in the draft TE1 D in the rni.1lation of psitions in pur on-ging
enbrce ent actions. You stould rot, lowever, specifically reference the
draft T D in n’plaints aid orders ou issue. In LTTUlating psitions I
en urage u to bear in mird the circun tances of the individual, facility.
You slould be flexible in r uiring nonitoring syst that meet the draft
guidance ncepts aid ideas or an acceptable alternative. RDr exanpie,
existing wells nsthictei of materials other than teflon or stainless
steel 316 may be acceptable given the circur tances of an individual facility.
We plan to seek input on the draft T D through several rechani s.
The ? ency Science Mvi3ry 3 ar i will eet in early October to review
technical issues relatci to the TFXO. The Hazardous Waste Grurd—Water
Task Rrce will irr iiately begin field testing of the T D at the RCR
i uierclal facilities it is visiting. Ftnally, we plan to take rvrents
f om the Regions, the States and EL m ecternal groups. You may submit yur
written axrurents by October 31st b lichael arclay of the RCRA Enforcement
Division, Office of Waste P grams Enforcement (W’ri —527); PIS 4759315).
CC: Ourtriey Price, Assistant Mministr tor, OEQI
Thm Gallager, NEIC
Hazardous Waste Ground—Water Steering Qmittee
EnvironiTental Services Division Directors, Regions I—X
Regional unsel, Regions I—X
RA Branch thief s, Regions I—X
RCRA D fr)rce1ent Section Chiefs, Regions I—X
HO Staff

-------
J±Lj3
Stat ent of Issue
Can UST State Grants be funded under the Continuing Resolution and if not
what are interii fundir reasur s that would minimize the inpacts of
delayed a rqriation on State program developTient?
Background
o The Continuing Resolution provides that no funding be made available
for new activities (not funded during FY 1985) (Sec. lO1—a—6).
o LIST grants are a new activity in F? 1986, to encourage States to develop
and in 1enent their c n underground storage tank programs.
— While saie States have LIST prcgrars already, Federal requir ents
under H3’Th do not start until F? 1986.
— EPA will provide grant ucnies for LIST activities for the first tiitie
in F? 1986, and has established a new program elenent for these
grants.
o Because LIST grants are a new activity, they cannot be funded under the
Continuing Resolution.
Impacts
o The irviediate in acts of delayed funding could be on the notification
process.
— ners of underground storage tanks iiust notify State officials of
the existence of their tanks and provide certain data on th by
May 1986 (irrespective of whether States receive grants).
— EPA has prepared a notification form to be used (statutory deadline
is v.l985).
—— States will distribute these forn to mers of USTs soon, an activity
whlth is eligible for grant funding.
o Longer delays in funding—uncertain at this point—could reduce incentives
to initiate state prograns and delay their developrient and inplerTentation.
H ever, a direct effect on statutory deadlines (other than the notif i-
cation process) cannot be discerned. These deadlines are 1l into the
future, and major technical and legal issues have a direct bearing on
whether or not EPA and the States n et these deadlines.

-------
Interim Funding tions
o Until the a a riatjon is passed, the UST grant guidance can be used
to provide assurance to State officials concerning the anticipated levels
of funding (SlOO K/State plus discretionary funds).
o States can rr intain and initiate activities—-especially the distribu-
tion of notification forms— using State nvnies.
— These nonies will be eligible for State rT tch under UST grants. In
sa States, chargebacks might occur to cre1it State accounts once
grant i cnies are received.
— Note that it is unlikely that the nodest grant arrounts would cover
all program c ts. Many States will likely over, tch anyway, and
i y be willing to obligate their mnies up front.
o A grant nonies could be used for overhead and support services that
are C T5TOnhindistinguishable for the entire hazardous waste management
program, as an interim zreasure. Other use of RCRA grant r cney is
unauthorized.

-------
Status of RCRA Delegations Project
The RCRA Delegations Workgroup is in the process of
preparing final Paperwork f’ r all but two of the twenty—six
proposed delegations. The two delegations which are taking
additional time to finalize are Delegation 8—4 (Addition of
Wastes to Hazardous Waste List) and Delegation 8—35 (Individual
Determinations to Ban Specific Wastes from Land Disposal).
The issues to be re r lved concerning these de’egations have
to do with the extent to which these deci ions would benefit
frc n intra—Agency review and comment and the e c.tent to which
these decisions are or will become routine. Thre remaining
twenty—four delegations have been concurred on by the work-
group and the package should be final shortly. Issues raised
by the Office of Water concerning its responsibilties under
RCRA were resolved by inserting appropriate language into
the delegations and by deciding to prepare a memorandum to
the Regional Administrators clarifying the issues.

-------