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. ------- |