Application of HSWA Sections to DOE's Oak Ridge Facility


i « ri
Uszz,3
\ e»Olt
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
OCT 2 9 a-3
OFFICE OF
SOLIO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Application of HSWA Sections to DOE's Oak Ridge Facility
Your July 25, 1985, letter asked several questions
regarding the applicability of HSWA requirements to the DOE Y-12
facility at Oak Ridge. The first provision you asked about is
§3004(u), which is invoked only when a facility is seeking a
RCRA permit. HWDMS indicates that the Y-12 facility is seeking
a permit, which triggers the corrective action authority to
address releases from solid waste management units (SWMUs).
However, Oak Ridge is a Federal facility. The applicability of
§3004(u) has been called into question for Federal facilities,
and EPA is involved in on-going negotiations with other Federal
agencies on this issue. Specifically, the final codification
rule states that:
The extent to which the above interpretation
applies to Federal facilities raises legal and
policy issues that the agency has not yet
resolved.... Permit applications for Federal
facilities will continue to be processed,
but recognizing that final Federal facility
permits may not be issued where these unresolved
issues exist, EPA will make its best efforts
to resolve these issues in the next 60 days.
50 IM' £££• 28712 (July 15, 1985).
If the facility is seeking a RCRA permit and it has no SWMUs
or if it has SWMUs that it agrees to address, the permitting
process can move forward and corrective action pursuant to
§3004(u) can progress accordingly. However, if the facility is
not willing to address SWMUs, the permitting process for this
facility becomes more complex. For further information on
§3004(u), please contact Dave Fagan of the Permits Branch at
FTS 382-4751.
FROM:
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO:
James H. Scarbrough
Chief, Residuals Management Branch
Waste Management Division, Region IV

-------
- 2 -
The final codification rule does not set standards for
implementation of §3004(v) and states that in the interim
decisions to issue orders for this section shall be done on
a case-by-case basis. This section of HSWA provides that:
As promptly as practicable after the date of
enactment... the Administrator shall amend the
standards... regarding corrective action required
at facilities for the treatment, storage, or
disposal, of hazardous waste...to require that
corrective action be taken beyond the facility
boundary where necessary to protect human health
and the environment....
If you are interested in pursuing such an order for this
facility, you should contact Ginny Steiner of the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement at FTS 475-9320.
We are as yet unsure what mechanism to use in applying
§3008(h) to Federal facilities due to our dispute resolution
policy for such facilities. Normally, however, if a facility
is operating under interim status, the authorities in
§3008(h) can be used to deal directly with on-going environ-
mental problems. The trigger for issuing such orders and
initiating civil referrals is the existence of a release.
However, because of the nature of the $300B(h) provision,
it is subject to limitations. Your question is not entirely
clear, however, in terms of what units are leaking and
their permitting status. You state that the pond is a RCRA
unit and then state that it has no ground-water monitoring
system. If the pond is operating pursuant to the interim
status requirements, it must have a ground-water monitoring
system. If you have specific questions on this process or
how it should be implemented, please call Ginny Steiner at
the number listed above.
In addition, you have asked whether it is significant in
determining the applicability of RCRA corrective action that
one or more contaminants being released through the NPDES
point are not specified in the permit. This factor is not
significant in determining RCRA's applicability to the
release. The key question is whether the release from an out-
fall addressed in the NPDES permits is within the exemption
for NPDES discharges found in §1004(27) of RCRA. We are
currently developing guidance covering RCRA jurisdiction and
NPDES discharges.
You have also asked whether a release which occurred prior
to the date of the NPDES permit could be addressed by correc-
tive action measures pursuant to §3004{u). Corrective measures
could apply to a release which occurred prior to the issuance
of a NPDES permit. As a matter of policy EPA has decided to

-------
- 3 -
rely on the NPDES program to address releases, otherwise within
the scope of §3004(u), that are addressed by that program.
See 50 Fed. Reg. 28714 (July 15, 1985). In keeping with that
policy it may become necessary to distinguish between releases
which occurred prior to the issuance of a NPDES permit and any
subsequent releases. As a practical matter this may be diffi-
cult if not impossible to do; therefore, EPA policy is that
where such a distinction cannot be made and the existence of a
prepermitted release is clear, the entire contaminated area is
subject to clean up.
Please feel free to contact Chaz Miller, our Federal
Facilities Coordinator, at FTS 382-2210 if you have any further
questions on these issues; we are developing the policies for
these new statutory authorities as quickly as possible.
cc: Thomas W. Devine, Director, Waste Management Division,
Region IV
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
State Programs Branch, OSW
Permits Branch, OSW

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUL 2 5 1985
Assistance Request - DOE, Oak Ridge, Eask Fork Poplar Creek Contamination
Chief, Residuals Management Branch
Waste Management Division, Region IV
John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Issue
Please provide guidance which determines whether contaminants from DOE Oak
Ridge's Y-12 Plant found within floodplain limits on East Fork Poplar Creek
and Poplar Creek and which migrated from their source(s) to, and beyond, the
DOE reservation boundry are subject to RCRA corrective action under 3004 (u) ,
3004(v), and/or 3008(h). Approximately 20 miles of creek water, sediment,
floodplain soil, and groundwater could be contaminated to varying degrees.
Background
° Up until 1965 + , y-12 discharged directly to the creek at points
upgradient of the reservation boundary.
9 From 1965 + to the present, Y-12 discharges have flowed into an
impoundment constructed on the creek some distance upgradient of the
reservation boundary. The pond is a RCRA unit.
• The impoundment discharge has been an NPDES monitoring point since 1974.
0 Significant quantities of elemental mercury used in weapons processing
were released to the environment from the processing system in the 1950's
to 1960's. Less significant amounts of mercury continue to be released
today to the creek, probably as a result of being leached from structures
or contaminated soils in the original process area or possibly from areas
to which mercury has since migrated.
0 Other metals and organics (listed RCRA wastes) are presently held within
the pond and small amounts are being released to the creek via the pond
discharge. These releases also occurred prior to 1980, but details are
unavailable.
' The pond does not yet have a groundwater monitoring system. Hence the
actual presence or extent of a groundwater plume is not known.
Other Considerations
Is it significant to determining the applicability of RCRA corrective
action that one or more contaminants being released through the NPDES
point is not specified in the permit?
EPA Form 1J20-4 (R«V. 1-76)

-------
-2-
• Is it significant that one or more contaminant discharge limits found in
the NPDES permit sometimes are exceeded?
Response Timing
We will appreciate a prompt reply. If a written response is not received in
30 days from the date of this memo, we will assume the indicated HSWA sections
apply.
If there are any questions, please contact Don Gibeaut of our Waste
Engineering Section at FTS 257-3433.
JamAs H. Scarbrough

-------