DONALD W. MOOS 

Governor 

JOHN SPELLMAN 

sTATE OF WASHINGTON [j)@@~UWJ~tQ) DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SEpe., 271984 

Mail Stop PV-l1 0 Olympia, Washington 98504 0 (206) 459-6000 N( SlCl\ON ~ROGRAM O[V[LOPMl . 

• _::..I"~--;;-.

September 24, 1984 

M01V~lS'N'wav lVNOJIE 

Ms. :10 3~:1:JO ' Ernesta B. Barnes 

Regional Administrator MiS 533 v8St lIDO 

u.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 

1200 Sixth Avenue
 U.. Seattletif{A._ ~~1~~ , 

Dear 

The purpose of this letter is to transmit changes to the state of Washington RCRA Final Authorization Application in response to your agency 

comments in your letter dated July 27, 1984. Amendments to the state 

application sections (program description, memorandum of agreement and 

attorney general's statement) have been drafted into those documents and 

are included as an attachment to this letter. Where actual amendment of 

the documents were not required, a state position, explanation or clarifi~

cation is a part of this letter. 

A.	 EPA comments on "Attorney General's (AG) Statement" comments 1 

through 5. 

See Attachment A - memo from C. Douthwaite to C. Roe, Assistant 

Attorney General, dated August 24, 1984. 

B.	 EPA Comments on "Program Description." 

1.	 The term "Department"" in the state's dangerous waste regulations 

refers to the Director of the WDOE in all matters requiring 

regulatory actions. The directors' authority is delegated within 

the agency through authority letters per ch. 173-06-030 WAC. The 

agency has not been challenged on delegation authority to date. 

t. 

2. Other reactive and ignitable wastes must be stored in accordance 

with the Uniforin Fire Code (UFC) or National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) Pamphlet Number 30. In many cases, UFC and 

NFPA require storage distances in excess of fifty' feet from the 

nearest property line. In other cases, a distance of less than 

fifty feet is allowed, but these reductions are frequently linked 

to certain conditions such as: one or two hour fire restrictive 

walls; sprinkler systems; availability of fire response teams; 

etc. Such conditions assure that, even with reduced storage 

distances, adequate protection of public safety and property is 

provided. In all cases, WDOE believes that: the knowledge and 

expertise of UFC and NFPA have been established over many years; 
• Ms. Ernesta B. Barnes 

September 24, 1984 

Page 2 

that their rules and guidance provide adequate protection for 

storage and handling of every day hazardous materials (which far 

exceed by many orders of magnitude the volumes of hazardous 

wastes produced) to which the public is exposed; that UFC and 

NFPA rules can be applied properly to the storage and handling of 

reactive and ignitable wastes; and that storage distances and 

buffer zones established in accordance with these national 

guidelines provide protection equivalent to, and at times, more 

stringent than EPA's fifty foot setback. (See page 11-6) 

3. Resource Assessment 

The	 following lists the WDOE position titles and number of 

personnel in those positions to implement RCRA. The adequacy of 

these will be addressed in the capability assessment. 

No. Positions in RCRA Tasks 

E Environmentalist	 8 

( 

,.'...•. EP Environmental Planner	 1 

~:;.;~.;. , .. AQE Air Quality Engineer 1
 

SE Sanitary Engineer 1
 

GO Geologist 1
 

A Attorney (Available) 

CE Chemist 1 

..:.....<...	 ."." 

(d)	 Existing FTE's will be trained (as necessary) to perform the 

necessary functions to implement RCRA in accordance with all 

agreements with EPA. 

(e)	 Any expertise needed for permit review or review of 

specialized documents during inspections will be available 

within the headquarters section. 

The following is a listing of areas of expertise that will be 

available to implement RCRA. 

WDOE Position Current Staffing 

Expertise Title Status 

1. Chemical Engineering AQE on staff 

2. Ground Water Quality GO/E/SE on staff 

•	 

3. Ground Water Geology GO on staff & training 

4. Geology	 GO on staff 

5. Industrial Processes E/SE on staff 

6. Data Management	 E/EP on staff 

7. Regulatory Development E/EP on staff 
• Ms. Ernesta B. Barnes 

September 24, 1984 

Page 3 

f.
 

~.
 

8. Public Participation E/EP on	 staff 

9. Financial Assurance EP on	 staff & training 

10. Policy/Management E on staff 

11.	 Legal A legal services 

available 

12. Enforcement	 E/A/SE on staff 

13.	 Budget Analyst E/EP budgeting services 

available 

14. Chemist	 CE on staff 

15. Permit Writing	 E/EP/AQE/SE on staff & training 

16. Notification/Tracking E/EP on staff 

17. Reporting	 E/EP on staff 

(See pages 11-18 & 19) 

4.	 A process is established between the inspectors and permit 

writers in the regional offices and the permit coordinator in the 

Dangerous Waste Section whereby all enforcement actions taken, 

compliance dates established and met, and permit milestones are 

reported and monitored by the agency ADP system for compliance 

monitoring and permit tracking. Monthly status reports are 

provided to managers and supervisors and compliance tickler 

reports. are provided to inspectors for compliance follow-up. 

(See page 11-44) 

5.	 The state inspection procedures have been submitted with the 

original authorization package as a checklist and a narrative on 

pages 11-35 & 36. The checklist is being updated to account for 

amendments to the administrative code through the end of July 

1984. The narrative is now on pages 11-37 & 38. 

Compliance with key facility requirements (i.e., closure/postcleanup plans) are evaluated by the regional inspector assigned 

to the site. Depending on the inspector's personal procedure, 

the plan may be requested prior to the inspection for pre-review 

or during the inspection for review back at the office. In this 

way	 inspectors are able to request assistance with review as 

needed, to ensure the quality of the review. 

6.	 What follows is a description of general definitions and procedures as presented in the current WDOE Enforcement Guidelines 

and Procedures Manual (September 1978). The current enforcement 

guidelines are presently in a process of revision to reflect a 

stronger and more definitive enforcement policy for the dangerous 

waste program. The new policy will be implemented immediately 

upon adoption. It should be recognized that during this period 

of transition from the current policy to the new enforcement 

policy a shift in the state's dangerous waste enforcement posture 
• Ms. Ernesta B. Barnes 

September 24, 1984 

Page 4 

is emerging. This shift is showing a trend toward more immediate 

stronger enforcement actions in the use of serious violations and 

accelerated levels of enforcement in other non-compliance situations. The new policy is targeted to be developed in draft by 

the end of September, 1984. 

The following is inserted starting at page 111-13) Provisions 

for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring 

Upon final authorization, the state has primary responsibility 

for compliance and enforcement actions within the approved state 

program and under state statutory and regulatory authority. EPA 

retains responsibility for ensuring fair and effective enforcement of federal requirements and a credible national deterrence 

to non-compliance through an effective state/federal partnership 

and an oversight role. The state and EPA agree that the following elements are mandatory for an effective enforcement and 

compliance monitoring program under final authorization; 1) clear 

oversight criteria specified in advance for program performance 

evaluation, 2) clear criteria for direct federal enforcement (- specified in advance with written procedures for advance consultation and notification, and 3) adequate state reporting, to 

ensure effective oversight. 

1. State 

• 

The state agrees to carry out a timely and effective program 

for monitoring the compliance of generators, transporters, 

and facilities with applicable program requirements. As 

part of this program, the state will conduct compliance 

inspections to assess compliance with generator and transporter standards (including manifest requirements), facility 

standards, permit requirements (including late or deficient 

Part B applications) compliance schedules, and all other 

program requirements, including violations detected by state 

or federal compliance inspections. A compliance and 

enforcement tracking system is operated by the state to 

insure timely and appropriate enforcement actions, adequate 

compliance followup, monitor compliance rates, assess categories of violations and report necessary, accruate and 

timely compliance and enforcement information to EPA for the 

purposes of oversight and program performance evaluation. 

Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, priorities 

and reporting requirements will be specified in the annual 

state work program and shall be consistent with applicable 

federal requirements and with the state's program description. 
• Ms. Ernesta B. Barnes 

September 24, 1984 

Page 5 

2.
 EPA 

EPA's primary role in enforcement and compliance monitoring 

under final authorization shall be that of oversight as 

described in Section II-A and in accordance with oversight 

criteria and measures and oversight procedures and protocols 

as set forth in this agreement. EPA has the right to 

inspect any hazardous waste generator, transporter or TSD 

facility or any enforcement action in accordance with 

Section 3008(a) (2) of RCRA. 

For the purposes of oversight of compliance inspections and 

enforcement EPA shall maintain a policy of "no surprises" to 

insure the productive use of limited state and federal 

resources and an effective "partnership" in achieving 

compliance. This principle should be applied to all aspects 

of compliance and enforcement program covering inspections, 

enforcement activities, press releases, public information, 

and management data summaries upon which state and national 

performance are assessed. 

In order to guarantee that there is ample advance notification, EPA agrees to confer with the state to establish 

agreement in writing and reach a clear, consistent understanding on the following matters: 

Advance notification of intended inspections and 

enforcement actions; 

Specific identification of who will be notified; 

How the notification will be done; 

When the notification will occur; 

Define the process for state/federal consultation and 

dispute resolution on enforcement actions and policy 

and regulatory interpretation. 

The written agreement to be established on the above matters 

is incorporated by reference in this memorandum of 

agreement. 

EPA also agrees to inform the state in writing of any 

national or regional policy changes or program direction 

changes and in all cases will allow the state a minimum of 

90 days to implement those changes. 

• 

At a minimum, the following will be adhered to by EPA. EPA 

shall attend a maximum of 10 percent of the state's 

compliance inspections to evaluate the state's techniques, 

followup activities, enforcement actions. 
• Ms. Ernesta B. Barnes 

September 24, 1984 

Page 6 

7.	 The agency permit processing timeframes provided on page 11-32 

represent an average based upon past experiences. 

8.	 The department is in the process of transferring EPA tapes (data 

base) to its own data base system. There is still some confusion 

over the EPA input of regulated vs. non-regulated notifiers. The 

selection criteria, data dictionary defining the criteria and 

input (i.e., in many cases no waste "quantity" was input) is 

unclear. 

We are attempting to clean up the data base to determine 1) 

RCRA/state regulated notifiers, 2) state only regulated notifiers, and 3) state and/or RCRA small quantity generators. Once 

that	 information is separated out, we will be able to define the 

size	 of the "regulated" community as defined by RCRA. Until 

then, the EPA regional office must provide that information. 

If you refer to the 1982 annual report (attached to our original 

application), information on generators and TSD' s reporting 

e\ regulated quantities of waste is summarized. ':. ..' 

9.	 WAC 173-303-9901 and 173-303-9902 provide a flowchart and narrative description of the designation process. However, these 

sections do not precisely describe the designation process 

because they were not amended (at the same time as the actual 

designation procedures of WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-103) 

due to time constraints. The flowchart and narrative will be 

amended at a future date to correspond to the designation procedures. In the meantime, WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-103 

supersede the appendices which are for illustrative purposes 

only. 

10.	 The waste handling codes found in WAC 173-303-380, Table 2, will 

be modified to represent the codes used for RCRA reporting. When 

the department submits reports to EPA, all information will be 

formatted in our ADP system to what is required in your report 

instructions. 

C.	 EPA Comments on "Memorandum of Agreement." 

1.	 The paragraph has been revised as requested. (See Page III-I) 

2.	 Your comment in reference to EPA oversight has been noted. No 

state response required.

-. 3. We are confused and concerned with your reference to "enforcement 

sensitive information." Are you developing a new requirement 

similar to those of "confidential reports submitted by industry?" 
• Ms. Ernesta B. Barnes 

September 24, 1984 

Page 7 

If we must respond to enforcement matters and should make our 

policy and methods consistent to those of EPA, how are we to do 

this	 if we do not know what data or information is driving an EPA 

decision in lieu of a state action? If we are to operate a 

program consistent with EPA and in a manner desired by EPA, then 

we must have available to us the same information upon which to 

base	 our decisions. We can understand your authority to withhold 

"confidential" information but would like you to cite your 

authority to withhold "enforcement sensitive information" from 

us,	 which may result in our program not being equivalent and 

consistent with RCRA. 

4.	 The department has recognized that program revisions must be made 

in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 271.21. Additionally, we have made the statement that we would inform the 

Regional Administrator of any proposed or adopted changes which 

would affect our ability to implement the authorized program. 

Therefore, there is no need to delete the reference to the SEA as 

requested. 

5.	 The requested change has been made (see document). (See page
 

111-5)
 

6.	 The requested change has been made. Annual reporting prOV1S10n 

has been deleted. We were referencing the state regulatory 

reporting requirement in error. (See page 111-7) 

7.	 The addition of "and sound management of the program" as you have 

requested is not in keeping with the need to have program review 

based upon measurable and tangible results. We feel that the 

existing sentence is satisfactory. 

8.	 Appropriate changes were made to the document. (See page 111-8) 

9.	 The requested change has been made (see document). (See Page
 

111-10)
 

10.	 Appropriate changes were made to the document. (See pages III-II 

& 12) 

11.	 Sentence was included in error. It has been deleted in the 

current document. (See page 111-13) 

12.	 The change has been made (see document). (See page 111-13) 

13.	 The no restrictions statement in the first paragraph provides 

adequate recognition to EPA rights of inspection. Since a 

maximum of 10% oversight inspections does not prevent the regions 
• Ms. Ernesta B. Barnes 

September 24, 1984 

Page 8 

from conducting "at least 10%" oversight inspections this is not 

a matter of concern. 

14.	 The requested change has been made (see document). (See new text 

on III-IS) 

15.	 See Attachment A "Comment 113." 

D.	 EPA comment on "Dangerous Waste Regulations: Applicability of Interim 

Status Standards." 

Under 40 CFR 265.1(b), EPA requires that facilities which failed to 

qualify for interim status must comply with interim status management 

standards (presumably until a final permit is issued). WDOE does not 

have a similar specification in one single place of its regulations, 

however, WDOE would also require compliance with at least interim 

status standards for facilities which failed to qualify for interim 

status (except that, new facilities must first obtain a permit before 

construction may commence, and would only be allowed to operate under 

a final facility permit -- see first sentence of WAC 173-303-806(2) 

and also 173-303-806(5)). 

The authority for requiring compliance with standards of at least 

interim status stringency resides in several places. First, the 

general facility standards (corresponding to Subparts A, B, C, D and E 

of Parts 264 and 265) are applicable to all facilities, regardless of 

status . (see WAC 173-303-280 (1)) • Second, the unit operational 

standards for facilities (e.g., tank requirements, closure, postclosure, etc.) are applicable as specified in WAC 173-303-400(2)(a) 

(for interim status) and WAC 173-303-600(2) and (3) (for final 

status). 

These two applicability sections essentially require that: 

1.	 All TSD facilities must comply with the interim status standards; 

2.	 All TSD facilities must comply with the final status standards, 

unless the facility complies with the interim status standards 

and qualifies for interim status. 

In addition, a final status permit will include all applicable final 

facility standards. Thus, anyone who operates a TSD facility which 

did not qualify for interim status would be subj ect to at least 

interim status standards, and possibly to the more stringent final 

facility standards. Since a permit is needed to specify the 

~. conditions for final facility compliance, WDOE concludes that interim

status standards would be applied to existing facilities which failed 

to qualify for interim status, while in the meantime a final permit 

specifying final status standards would be prepared. 
• Ms. Ernesta B. Barnes 

September 24, 1984 

Page 9 

If you have any questions concerning the final application, as amended by 

this letter and attachments, please feel free to contact Dave Saunders. 

1 

Director 

DWM/DS/sr 

cc: With Attachments: 

(1) EPA Comments Letter 

(2) Attorney Generals Memo 

(3) Program Description 

(4) Memorandum of Agreement (revised 9/84) 

Ken Feigner, EPA
 

Betty Wiese, EPA
 

•
 
\
 

u. s. ENVIRONMENTAL ,PROTECTION AGENCY ; . 

REGIO'N X 

1 2 0 0 S I X T H A V PJ:~E PJ rr:J 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101.. 

°84 AUG -1 Al0 :09 

",\1'" ECOLO""; '.' ;. Ut Ilj i
 

REPLY TO
 

AnN OF:
 UL.Yl'lPIA, \VA. 

MIS 533 

JUt 2 7 7984 

Donald W. Moos, Director 

Washington State Department of ,Ecology 

PV - 11 

Olympia, Washington 98504 

Dear Mr. Moos: 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed Washington1s 

application for final authorization under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, which was received on July 2, 1984. EPA concludes the 

application is complete for the purpose of conducting the formal review 

and decision process. Enclosed are comments concerning the information .presented. 

EPA will make a tentative determination late in September on whether to 

grant authorization to Washington. A notice of this determination will be 

published in the Federal Register along with a notice of a public hearing 

to be held by EPA. Wlthin 90 days of the notice, EPA will make a final 

decision regarding authorization to Washington. 

The State has presented a quality application reflecting the efforts of 

your staff and the Attorney General I s offi,ce to respond to concerns 

previously raised by EPA. The enclosed comments reflect the concerns 

which remain after our review of the application. They identify the need 

for clarification regarding aspects of the State1s program, particularly 

the enforcement program. Implementation of an approved State enforcement 

response policy is critical. 

We ask that the enclosed comments be addressed, supplementing the 

application as necessary; please document how each of the comments has 

been responded to. This information needs to be submitted by August 31, 

1984, so that it can be considered as we make our tentative determination. 

A key element of EPAls review of the State1s program is the capability 

assessment. The mid-year review of the State1s program, conducted last 

spring, in conjunction with an end-of-the-year review which has been 

scheduled, will provide the foundation for this evaluation. The 
--

• -2­

capability assessment will lead to agreements between the State and EPA 

identifying the actions to be taken to overcome problems identified. One 

of our primary objectives will be assuring the State will have an 

effective enforcement program. 

We look forward to working with your staff as we proceed with evaluation 

of the State's applfcation and program. 

S1 ncere1Y• 

&LA-C~"

Ernesta S. 8arnes
 

Regional Administrator
 

Enclosure 

cc:	 Lynda Brothers, WOOE
 

Don Dubois, WDOE
 

Charles Oouthwa1te t Wa~hington AG nffice
 

Al Ewing, EPA, WOO
 

• bcc~ve Saunders, WOOE
 . Geoff Lewis, OSWER
 

Ted Rogowski, ORC 

A. 

I 

i 

.\ .2­

'i. .-­ "-;'; ·r, 

v 
• 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Comments 

Washington Application for Final Authorization 

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S (AG) STATEMENT 

1. Include a statement that authorities relied upon in the application 

were legally adopted at the time of application and will be effective by the date of authorization. In addition, because of the phased adoption of 

the current dangerous waste regulations, the effective dates of these 

regulations needs to be specifically identified. 

2. While the AG statement discusses most of the issues which have been 

raised during various reviews, the following aspects need further 

clarification: 

a. Page 9, statutory authority for regulation of recycled wastes: 

For interim authorization, this issue was resolved through a June 16, 

1983 addendum to the AG statement. Although the statutory amendments 

referred 1n that addendum (EHB 3674 and SHB 712) have been integrated into the statute submitted with the application, a similar statement 

should be made for final authorization. 

b. Page 9, statutory definition of "disposal": Clarification 

regarding statutory authority to regulate disposal of dangerous 

wastes is needed since the definition of disposal at RCW 

70.l05.0l0(4} appears to restrict regulation to discarded and r. abandoned extremely hazardous wastes. 

c. Page 11, statutory authority to regulate generators: The basis 

of the State's authority to regulate waste generators needs to be 

described. 

d. Page 13, statutory authority to establish permit requirements: 

Describe the basis of authority to modify, revoke and re-issue, and 

terminate permits (see May 25, 1983 pre-application review comment 

{l #8) • 

e. Inc1~ded in the pre-application review of statutes was a comment 

(comment #6) concerning authorities of the State Patrol under RCW 

46.48 relative to the transport of dangerous waste, particularly the 

penalty provisions. The application should describe what, if any, effect this statute has on the dangerous waste program. 

• 

3. Page 17, public participation in enforcement: It appears that 

Superior Court Rule 24 plus State assurances not to oppose intervention 

satisfy this requirement. The Superior Court Rule needs to be submitted 

as part of the application to support this conclusion. However, unless 

the application clearly demonstrates that the Attorney General's Office 

has no role in developing the State's position with respect to potential 

intervention in civil court enforcement proceedings, the Attorney General 

or his representative must also make the appropriate assurance, through 

the Memorandum of Agreement with EPA, not to oppose intervention.
•	 

-2­

4. If the Attorney General, Mr. Eikenberry, does not sign the AG 

statement, the application will need to include a copy of the appropriate 

State law or delegation of authority that allows Assistant Attorneys to 

sign the Statement. 

5. EPA is continuing to review the statement regarding Indian lands and 

will provide comments on this issue as soon as possible. The matter is a 

subject of litigation in the Ninth Circuit; in the absence of any decision by the Court before final administrative action for final 

authorization, EPA will act in accordance with its position as stated in 

its brief. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

1. In the dangerous waste regulations, the term "Department ll is used when 

EPA's corresponding regulation specifies "Administrator" or "Director". 

WDOE must describe under what circumstances the term "Department ll refers 

to anyone other than the Director of the WDOE. The concern is that 

actions taken not be open to legal challenge because of the authority level of the individual taking the action. 

2. Pages 111-6 and 111-40: With respect to ignitable and reactive waste 

buffer zones, additional discussion needs to be provided to summarize how 

the State will apply its requirements and to support a conclusion that the 

State's provisions provide protection of human health and the environment 

equivalent to the Federal program. 

3. Page 11-17: Discuss whether current staffing is sufficient to manage 

the final authorization workload. If not, what positions are lacking and 

what steps are being taken to fill those positions. Expertise of the 

hazardous waste staff should also be discussed, particularly with respect 

to specialized training or expertise needed and available to carry out the 

program--for example, hydrogeological support to compliance and permitting efforts.	 . 

4. The State should explain the mechanisms and processes by which the 

Dangerous Waste Regulatory Section coordinates and tracks the compliance monitoring, permitting and enforcement activities carried out in the 

Regi ons. 

5. Discussion of the State's compliance program should be expanded to 

address the following: 

a. Scope of inspection procedure refinements to be developed.

Available documentation of procedures that now exist should be 

submitted. 

b. How evaluations of compliance with key facility requirements are 

accomplished--c1osure/post-c1osure plans, groundwater monitoring 

systems and data, financial assurance instruments. Are inspectors 

responsible for these evaluations or does WDOE headquarters conduct. ~.	 certain ones. What specialized expertise is needed and available to 

support these evaluations. 
•• 

•
 -3­

6. The State needs to further describe the enforcement program. Include 

discussion and documentation (where it is available) of current policies and practices, particularly as they relate to distinctions between "major" and "minor" violations, enforcement remedies used, timelines applied and 

decision process for penalty assessments (under what circumstances 

penalties are assessed and how the amount is determined). 

The enforcement timeframes provided on page 111-40 need to be clarified. 

Do they represent elapsed time before initiating the next enforcement 

level or amount of time to prepare the action, once a decision to proceed is made. 

Development of a policy which provides for timely and appropriate 

enforcement response is a critical need. The program description should 

more fully discuss development of this policy and the expected 

implementation date. EPA Region 10 encourages the State to adopt more 

aggressive enforcement response timeframes than those presented in the

national program quality document since Region 10 will be applying shorter 

time1ines (those outlined in the April 3, 1984 position paper) as the 

criteria for triggering Federal enforcement. 

• 

7. The permit processing timeframe should be discussed to identify what 

kind of permit action (storage, land disposal) is represented and whether 

it depicts minimum or maximum times. The timeframe is generally consistent with EPA experience for storage permits, but it is optimistic 

for land disposal facilities where EPA estimates about 23 to 30 months 

from call-in to final determination. 

The time for step 12 (securing a complete application) is optimistic under 

most circumstances; on the other hand, 90 days to prepare an initial 

draft permit after the application is complete (step 13) appears unnecessarily long. 

8. On page 111-42, provide estimates of the size of the regulated 

community. 

9. EPA concludes the regulatory provisions for waste designation and 

delisting satisfy the earlier concerns on this issue. However, since 

appendices to the regulations (WAC 173-303-9901 and 9902) were not 

revised, the application needs to include an assurance that these 

appendices do not override the regulatory requirements. . 

10. With respect to waste handling codes (Part A form, Facility annual 

report and WAC 173-303-380 Table 2), the Department now specifies, in some 

cases, contradictory codes from those EPA uses. The Department should use 

the same codes as EPA does; otherwise it may be difficult for the WDOE to 

translate its data when submitting reports and permit applications and 

there is the possibility State information will be misrepresented . 
• -4-

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) 

The MOA will continue to be reviewed as evaluation of the Statels program proceeds; additional comments may be forthcoming. 

1. Page 111-1: Under section I (General), Revise the last paragraph to 

read IIThis agreement will take effect••• which shall be 14 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal Re,ister••• 11. (This is a new 

national policy regarding effectlve dates. 

2. Page 111-2, references to EPA Region lOis oversight policy: While the 

goal is to conduct oversight consistent with these principles, RCRA is a 

new program for which there will be more oversight, including focus on 

individual actions and technical decisions as a means to identify consistency with national objectives. 

3. Page 111-4: EPA will provide copies of inspection reports, except 

where enforcement sensitive information can not be shared. 

4. Page 111-5, first full paragraph: Since changes in resource levels 

outside the framework of the SEA could affect the program, the limitation 

to reporting only SEA resource changes should be deleted. 

5. Page 111-5, fourth full paragraph: Delete IIwherever possible ll in the 

• discussion regarding State variances. 

6. Page 111-7: To the reporting items to be submitted monthly, include 

Facility Status Sheets and Permitting Status Report. Item 3--Annual 

report-- needs to be clarified. What reporting is this. 

7. Page 111-7, Item 0.1: at the end of the first sentence, include lIand 

sound management of the program" as an additional parameter for State 

program assessment. 

8. Page 111-8, Conditions for State Program Review: 

-- In the second line at the top of page 111-8, delete reference to 

"annua111 review of State program activities. 

-- At least 15 days notice will be provided for the periodic review 

of Regional Office files (with longer notice where possible). There 

may be occasions where adhoc review of specific files will be 

necessary and 15 days notice may not be possible. 

• 

In the second paragraph of item 2, program reviews will focus not 

only on work plan commitments but on success in carrying out the 

authorized program and in meeting national program criteria. State 

participation in program reviews will be encouraged. However, the 

scope of review would not limited because of lack of agreement 

between EPA and the State on the format or content . 

-- Last sentence of the fourth paragraph of item 2, reduction in the 

amount of oversight will be based on consistent strong performance 

levels, not just the passage of time after authorization. 
• -5­

9. Page 111-11, EPA review of permit actions: Suggest rewording the 

introduction to indicate there will be three opportunities for EPA review, rather than "three reviews by EPA will occur". (EPA intends to take 

advantage of the opportunity for optional reviews, but in some cases may 

not be able to). 

10. Page 111-12: item c: At the end of the first paragraph, add "EPA 

will provide a copy of its comments to the applicant where a comment is 

made that the draft permit includes conditions inconsistent with the 

approved State program or lacks conditions necessary to be consistent with 

the approved program." In the next sentence, delete "Prior to EPA 

submitting any comments to the applicant". 

11. Page 111-13: Item F. The intent of the first sentence is unclear 

and appears to be inconsistent with other MOA statements regarding the 

status of permitting at the time of authorization. If the State intends 

to enforce Federal permit conditions, the application must address the 

source of State authority to enforce these permit conditions. 

12. Page 111-13:, Item F.1: In the first paragraph of this section, 

del ete reference to "generally" consi stent. 

• 

13. Pages 111-14 and 111-15, Item 2 (provisions for EPA compliance and 

enforcement) : 

--Revise the first paragraph to indicate that the provisions outlined 

in this section are standard procedures to be followed, with 

deviations only in unusual circumstances where warranted. Also 

include recognition that EPA is not required to provide notice prior 

to inspections and that Section 3008{a){2) of RCRA does not stipulate written notice. 

--In first sentence of the second paragraph, substitute "maximum of" 

with "approximately" since national guidance requires EPA Regions to 

conduct at least 10% oversight inspections. 

--EPA agrees to provide at least 10 calendar days notice prior to 

conducting inspections (written in most circumstances, but oral 

notice may be appropriate in some instances). Where possible, EPA 

will provide longer notice. 

14. Page 111-15: In discussion of site visits, delete reference to 

"written" notification to the State since the method of notification may 

not always be written. 

15. As noted in AG Statement comment 3, an addendum to the MOA is needed 

for the Attorney Genera1's assurance not to oppose intervention in civil 

court enforcement proceedings. 
• -6-


DANGEROUS WASTE REGULATIONS: Applicability of Interim Status Standards.
 

The State's application, through the program description and/or MOA and 

the AG statement, needs to address the following issue regarding interpretation of the State's regulations. 

On November 22, 1983, EPA clarified the scope of the interim status 

standards at 40 CFR Part 265.1 to stipulate the standards apply to 

facilities which failed to qualify for interim status (e.g., late 

notification) as well as those that met the requirements for achieving interim status. EPA's Federal Register notice is attached. By the time 

of authorization, the State will need to assure coverage of the same 

facilities. It appears the State may be able to conclude its current 

regulations provide for this coverage. If so, the application needs to 

include assurance that the regulations are so interpreted; the AG 

statement will need to include certification that the State can make such 

interpretation and assurance. If the State's regulations can not be 

interpreted to correspond to EPA's clarification, regulatory amendments 

may be necessary • 

• 
I 

" 52718 Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. "226 I Tuesday. November 22. 1983 I Rules and Regulations 

Response: EPA qrees with the above 

" commenL. Howev.er.duriJla tim" oflow •.. productioD. overall ~missiolU will be ­

limited to 36000 Jbs./day. Thus. during 

periods of low production. overall 

emissions will be 33% lower than during 

nonnaloperations. 

Comment: The PaDER has stated the 

actual three year emission average for \ 

'/ the plant was 0.568 lb./MJ.-ffitu. 

Therefore. there may be no decrease in 

S~ levels if the 0.6 Ib./MMBtu limit is 

adopted. 

Response: EPA agrees that the 

production based limit of 0.6 Ib./MMDtu 

is essentially equivalent to the three 

year average emission rate. However. 

by also imposing a daily pounds of S02 

limitation. this will result in a decrease 

in S~ compared to the fucility's 

maximum actual emissions. 

Comment: Emission reduction credit is 

uLJtained by burning 0.5% sulfur fuel in 

the power plant instead of 2.5% sulfur 

fuel. Since 0.5% sulfur oil is the emission 

standard. there should be no credit for 

burning such fuel. 2.5% sulfur oil is not 

permitted. 

Response: The 0.5% sulfur in fuel 

limitation contained in the existing 

Pennsylvania re~ulations does not apply 

to thp. power boilers. The boilers are 

exempt from thi~ rule because thpv fire 

non -commercial fuels such as cok~ oven 

•	 gas or bliJst furnace gas (in addition to 

oil) whose heat value exceeds 50% of the 

heat input. In thi!J case. 25 PA. Code 

Sl'ction 123.2~(e)(JI eBtabiisned a 

lirrlltation of 0.61u./MMBtu. Hi~torically.

the power boilers could burn a fuel oil of 

2.5% sulfur and comply with the 0.6 lb. 

SOz/MMBtu emission standard. 

Therefore. burnin~ 0.5% sulfur oil will 

result in reducing SOz emissions. 

Comment: Allowing the emission rate. 

to increase with reduced production 

levels without defining "permanent 

shutdown" which would make the 

bubble null and void appears to give 

bubble credit for shutdowns. 

Response: Pennsylvania defines 

"permanent shutdown" as a source 

which has been out of operation or 

production for a period of one year or 

more. Reactivation of such a source is 

prohibited unleRs the company receives 

approval by the PaDER and is issued a 

permit to operate. This reqUIrement is 

con~ained in 25 PA. Code Section 127.11. 

In addition. the bubble reJnjlation 

includes 8 sunset date of December. 

1985. At this time. the PaDER must 

review the bubble regulation to assess 

its effectiveness and impact on air 

quality. 

ePA ACtiOD	 . 

EPA is today approving this bubble 

plan a8 a SIP revision since it has met 

I" 

I. 

~r. t 

/. 

;, "' .. " 

. <-. .;". ("':' ." ;...... :.. ~."',

HazardOUS Waste Management" 'I 

&he _~.: t requirements of the April 7. 198Z 

Emissicma Tradins Policy ·(47 FR 15076). 

In addition. 40 crn 52.2020 ." " "J1 

(ldentificatK>n of Pk.n) is amended &0 ­ ~, ' 

reflect the inclusion of this bubble plan 

in the State Implementation plan for 

Pennsylvania. 

The Office of Mana~ementand Budget 

has exempted this role from 

requirements of Section 3 of Executive 

Order 12291. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) the 

Administrator has certified thut SIP 

approvals do not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. See 46 FR 8709 

(January 27. 1961). 

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act. 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in "the United Stat.es 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by (60 days from today). This 

action may not be challenged l~ ter in 

proceeqing to enforce its requirements. 

(See 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur 

oxides. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead. 

Particulate matter. Carbon monoxide. 

Hydrocarbons. Intergovernmental 

reiatillns. 

Authority: 4: U.S.C. 7401-7642. 

D<lled: Noveml.H!r 15. 1983. 

William D. Ruckelshau8. 

Administrator. 

Notfl.-Inc:orporation by referenc~ of the 

Slate Implementation Plan for the State of 

PennsylvRnia was approved by the Director' 

of the Federal Register on July 1. 1982. 

PART 52-APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION'OF 

IMPLEMENTATJON PLANS 

Title 40. Part 52. Subpart NN of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

Subpart NN-Pennsylvanla 

§ 52.2020 (Amended) 

In § 52.20Z0 IdentIfication ofplan. 

(c)(55) is added to read as follows: 

(c) The plan revision listed below was 

submitted on the date 5pecified * * • 

(55) Regulations and supporting 

documents implementing an SOz bubble 

plan for U.S. Steel Corporation's Fairless 

Works in Fairless Hills. PA was 

submi ttcd by the Secretary of the 

Pennsyh'ania Department of 

Environmental Resources on July 7. 

1983. 

IFR Doc. 83-31!38 HIed 11-21~; US liml 

BtWHG CODE 6~

. ,;... ".... 

I
 

System: Interim Status Standards for 

Owners and Operators of Hazardous 

Waste, Treatment. Storage and 

Disposal Facilities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection -­


Agency.
 

ACTION: Finul amendment
 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is today amending the 

regulations for hazardous waste 

management under the Resource 

Consr~rvation and Recovery Act to 

c1urify the scope and applicability of the 

interim status standards to hazardou~

waste munagement facilities. It i5 

amending the provision that cxpluins 

who is subject to the interim status 

regulations to clarify that these 

rcgulutions apply to all hazardous waste 

management facilities in existence on 

Novemoer 19. 1900. including those 

fucilities which have failed to qualify 

fully for interim status. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22.1903. 

FOR FURTHER .INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trot r:Cl~r\ lluUme at Ii;OUJ ';2~-9:;·1[j. ur 

in \,.Vusn:;lgton. D.C.. 382-JOOO; or 

Dr:borah \Vulpe. Office of Solid Waste. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

W<ishington. D.C. Z<HrtO, (ZO~J 3B2-z.:.:::. 

SUPPLEMENTMY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

EPA has promulgated regulations 

implementing Subtitle C of the Solid 

\Vaste Disp05ul Act. as amended by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976. a6 amended (ReRA). 42 

U.S.C. 6901 et seq.• establishing a 

comprehensive program for the handling 

and manngemf!nt of hazardous waste (~O

CFR PiJrts 26(}-265. 270. 271. 124). The 

regulations. among other things. require 

fEicilities which treat store. or dispose of 

hazardous waste to ootain a permit from 

EPA or an authorized state I and require 

that hazardous wastes be designated 

for. delivered to. and treated. stored. or 

disposed or only in these permitted 

fucilities. 

Recognizing that EPA would be able 

to issue permits to all hazardous waste 

management (HWM) faciiities at once. 

Section 3005(e) of RCRA pro\'ides that a 

hazardous waste management facility 

I Section 3006 or RCRA pro,.-tdes thaI the 

Administrator or EPA snail authonze !lIltle 

hlizilrdous wlisle manl'l!Zement programs which meet 

minimum EPA Jluidelines to operale in lheir sllite. 

in lieu of the federal program. See 40 CFR Part 271. 

Subpart A and B. 
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 226 I Tuesday. November 22. 1983 I Rules and RegUlatiOns' '52719 

that meets certain requirements will be 

treated as having been issued a permit 

until final administrative action is taken 

on its permit application. This statutory 

authorization to operate a HWM facility 

between the effective date of the 

Subtitle C program (November 19. 1980) 

and the issuance or denial of a final 

permit is known as "interim status". 

Facilities operating under interim status 

are subject only to the operating 

standards in 40 CFR Part 265. which are 

known as the "interim status 

standards". These standards do not 

contain the full set of technical design 

and operating standards contained in 40 

CFR Part 264. the standards to be used 

when issuing permits tosuch facilities. 

Interim status is conferred directly by 

Section 3005(e) upon a person who: 

(1) Owns or operates a facility which 

is required to have a permit under 

Section 3005 and is in existence on 

November 19. 1980: 

(2) Has complied with the 

requirements of Section 3010(a) of 

RCRA. regarding notification of 

hazardous waste activity: and, 

(3) Has made an applicatioll:. for a 

permit. under Section 3005 of RCRA. 

Interim status cannot be granted or 

conferred by EP!\. Therefore. if an 

owner or operator of a facility failed to 

meet one or more of the statutory 

'requirements for interim status. EPA 

cannot. under a literal construction of 

Section 3005(e) consider the facility as 

having achieved interim status. Any 

person treating, storing or disposing of 

hazardous waste without a permit or 

without having achieved interim status 

may be ordered by the Agency to cease 

that operation and may be subject to 

civil penalties and/or subject to fine and 

imprisonment. 

As EPA indicated in a Federal 

Register notice on November 19. 1980 (45 

FR 76630). such a literal construction of 

Section 3005(e) may have the effect of 

preventing owners or operators of 

certain well-managed facilities from 

qualifying for interim status and require 

that they cease operations until such 

time as they receive a RCRA permit. 

Accordingly. the Agency has adopted a 

policy that allows certain facilities in 

existence on November 19. 1980. that 

have failed to achieve interim status to 

continue operation if continued 

operation is in the public interest. and 

the facility owner or operator complies 

with the appropriate RCRA performance 

standards. See 45 FR 76630-36 

(November 19, 1980). Under this policy. 

EPA may, by compliance order issued 

under Section 3008 of RCRA, extend the 

date by which the oWller or operator of 

an existingJacility may 8ubmit Part A of 

its permit application. thereby allowing 

, ,i 

the facility to obtain interim status, if 

that is the only requirement for interim 

status that the facility fails to meet. See 

40 CFR 270.10(e)(3). An existing·facility 

which has failed to notify as required by 

Section 3010(a) of RCRA, however, can 

never achieve interim status but may be. 

allowed to continue operation through 

the issuance of either a compliance 

order under Section 3008 or an Interim 

Status Compliance Letter (ISCL). See 45 

FR 76630-36 (November 19, 1980). As a 

part of this enforcement policy EPA will 

require facilities operating under 

compliance orders or ISCL's to comply 

with appropriate management practices 

as a condition of continued operation. It 

has been EPA policy that existing 

facilities operating without interim 

status ur a permit should, at a minimum, 

comply with the Part 265 interim status 

standards. 

n. Amendment to and Clarification of 

Application of Interim Status 

Regulations 

Section 3004 of RCRA requires EPA to 

promulgate performance standards 

which apply to owners and operators of 

facilities that treat, store. or dispose of 

hazardous wastes. These Section 3004 

standards are independently 

enforceable national standards which 

are separable from the Section 3005 

permitting requirements. See 45 FR 

33158 (May 19. 1980). 

EPA promulgated both the Patt 264 

general permitting standards and the 

Part 265 interim status standards under 

the authority of Section 3004. EPA has. 

by regulation. limited the requirements 

for facilities with interim status to those 

found in 40 CFR Part 265. See 40 CFR 

270.71(b). The language of 40 CFR 

265.1(b), which defines the general 

application of the interim status 

standards provides that "(t]he standards 

in this Part apply to owners and 

operators of facilities which treat. store, 

or dispose of hazardous waste who have 

fully complied with the requirements for 

interim status ...". This regulatory 

language has created some uncertainty 

as to whether the Part 265 standards 

apply to existing facilities which have 

failed to qualify for interim status. EPA 

believes that this language does not 

preclude application of the interim 

status standards to non-interim status 

facilities given that I 265.1(b) does not 

expressly limit the application of the 

Part 265 standards to only interim status 

facilities, Therefore, EPA has both the 

statutory and regulatory authority to 

apply either the..Part 264 general 

permitting standards 01' the Part 265 

interim status standards to existing 

facilities which have failed to qualify for 

interim statu•. 

.As indicated above. EPA has ::::.;.,,:c;-,: 

announced its intent to exercise 

prosecutorial discretion where 

appropriate to allow continued 

operation of existing facilities that'did 

not qualify for interim status if such 

facilities complied with applicable EPA 

Part 265 regulations. 

The interim status regulations, for the 

most part. consist of general 

administrative and non-technical 

operating standards. These standards 

were designed to be self-implementing. 

without need for substantial 

interpretation by, or negotiation with. 

EPA. These same considerations suggest 

that the Part 265 regulations are the 

most appropriate standards to apply to 

all existing unpermitted facilities, 

including those facilities which have 

failed to qualify for interim status. EPA 

also believes that, in order to ensure 

consistent application of the ReRA 

regulations, the Agency should apply the 

same set of RCRA performance 

standards to all existing unpermitted 

facilities. 

As stated above, EPA believes that it 

has authority to apply the Part 265 

standards to these facilities that have 

not fully qualified for interim status. 

However. to avoid any possible 

confusion on this point. EPA is today 

amending 40 CFR 265.1(b) in order to 

provide clear notice to owners or 

operators of existing facilities without 

interim status or a permit that they must 

comply with the Part 265 regulations 

until such time as final administrative 

disposition oftheir permit appticatiun is 

made. 

III. Comments 

The Agency received five comments 

on the proposed amendment which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 19, 1983, at 48 FR 2514. Two of 

the comments favored the proposed 

amendment: two opposed the change 

and one suggested conditions for the 

change. 

The comments opposing the proposed 

amendment focussed on the language in 

the preamble that certain existing . 

facilities not meeting the technical 

requirements of interim status be 

allowed to continue operation "if 

continued operation is in the public 

interest". The commenters are objecting 

to the potential broad application of this 

policy. One comment suggested limiting 

the policy to facilities which could 

demonstrate certain findings. such as 

good cause for failure to provide timely 

notification. 

These comments are directed to EPA's . exercise of ita enforcement policy. and 

not at the regulatory changes 
52720 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 226 I. Tuesday, November 22, 1983 1 Rules and Regulations ..,..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

promulgated today. Today'. ;.: ... , . , 

amendments simply explain that those:-; 

facilities without interim status can be' • sued for violation of Part 264 or 265. EPA 

intend"s to exercise its enforcement 

policy of allowing facilities to continue 

if continued operation is in the public 

intf:rest very carefully. Although the 

policy appears to have broad . 

implications·, it will be administered 

quite narrowly. Certainly EPA will 

cunsider such factors as good cause for 

failure to notify in deciding whether to 

apply the policy to particular facilities. 

EPA proposed the amendment 

promulgated today to clarify that HWM 

facilities failing to achieve interim status 

do not thereby escape liability under 

Part 265. The Agency may still enforce 

against facilities which are operating 

improperly by ordering them either 

administratively or judicially. to cease 

uperations. 

IV. Regulatory Impacts 

A. Executive Order 12291 

Under Executive Order 12291. EPA 

must judge whether a regula lion is 

"major" and therefore subject to the 

requirement of a Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA). A major rule is one 

which results in (1) an annual effect on 

e economy of $100 milliun or more: (2) _ major increase in costs or prices to 

ndustry, consumers. Federal. State or 

locul government agencies or geographic 

regions: or (3) causes significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment. 

o	 investment. productivity, innovation. or 

the ability of the United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export 

markets. The Agency does not . 

anticipate that today's amendment will 

have any of the effects which 

characterize a rule as "major" under the 

Executive Order. It merely clarifies how 

the existing regulations apply to existing 

facilities which have failed to achieve 

intprim status. 

This amendment was submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget as 

required by Executive Order 12291. Any 

comments from OMB and any EPA 

response to those comments are 

available at the Office of Solid Waste 

Docket. Room 5-212, u.s. EPA. 

Washington. D.C. 20460. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.. Federal agencies 

must estimate the paperwork burden 

created by any information collection 

uests in a proposed or final rule. 

•	 ause there would be no information 

coll.ection activities created by this·. 

/ . 

amendment. the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act do not apply.~

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act' :~~::-~.{ S;'.::"~;. ::: • .'+ I ." •••. ..; _, \1. 

Pursuant to tlle Regulatory Flexibility:. 

Act. 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.• whenever an·· 

agency is required to publish general 

notice of rulemaking for any proposed or 

final rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

regulatory flexibility analysis which·. 

describes the impact of the proposed or 

final rule on small entities (Le.• small 

businesses. small organizations. and 

small governmental entities). The 

Administrator may certify. however. 

that the rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This amendment will generally have 

no economic impact on small entities. It 

merely clarifies already existing 

responsibilities. Accordingly. I hereby 

certify that this regulation would not 

have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This regulation therefore does not 

require a regulatory flexibility analysis. 

V. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 265 

Hazardous materials, Packaging and 

and containers. Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. Security 

measures. Surety bonds. Waste 

treatment and disposal. Water supply. 

Dated: November 15. 1983. 

William D. Ruckelshaus. 

Administrator. 

PART 265-(AMENDED] 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal . 

Regulations is amended as follows: :. 

1. The Authority for Part 265 reads as 

follows: 

Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002(a), and 3004 of 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act. 88 amended by 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

of 1976 (RCRA) • as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905. 

6912. and 6924). 

2. Section 26S.1(b) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 265.1 Purpose, scope and applicability. 

(1)) The standards in this Part apply to 

owners and operators of facilities which 

treat. store. or dispose of hazardous 

waste who have fully complied with the 

requirements for interim status undel' 

Section 3005(e) of RCRA and § 270.10 of 

this Chapter. until final administrative 

disposition of their permit application is 

made, and to those owners and 

operators of facilities in existence on 

November 19, 1980. who have failed to 

provide timely notification as required 

by Section 3010(a} of RCRA. and/or 

failed to file Part A of the Permit· 

, 

3··
 

Application as required by 40 CFR··, ,:.. 

1270.10 (e) and (g). These standard~·:;·-·':··

apply to all treatment. storage, or· .; ;,;:;,'- .. 

disposal of hazardous waste at these .:,' 

facilities after the effective date of these 

regulations. except as specifically 

provided otherwise in this Part or Part 

261 of this Chapter. [Comment: As 

stated in Section 3005(a) of RCRA. after 

the effective date of regulations under 

that Section. i.e., Parts 270 and 124 of 

this Chapter. the treatment. storage. or . 

disposal.of hazardous waste is 

prohibited except in accordance with a 

permit. Section 3005(e) of RCRA 

provides for the continued operation of 

an existing facility which meets certain 

conditions until final administrative 

disposition of the owner's and 

operator1J permit application is made.] 

IFR Doc. 83-31352 Filed 11-21-83: 8:45 ami 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-II 

40 CFR Part 271 

rSW-3-FRL 2475-2] 

District of Columbia; Phase I and II, 

Components A and S, Interim 

Authorization of the State Hazardous 

Waste Management program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Approval of Sta te Program. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

(RCRA) provisions. the District of 

Columbia h~s applied for Interim 

Authorization Phase I and Phase II. 

Components A and B. The . 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

has reviewed the District's application 

for Phases I and II. Components A and 

B. Interim Authorization. and has 

determined that the District's hazardous 

waste program is substantially 

equivalent to the Federal program 

covered by Phases I and II. Components 

A and B. 

The District of Columbia is hereby 

granted Interim Authorization for 

Phases I and II. Components A and B to 

operate the District's hazardous waste ­

program in lieu of the Federal program. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 22. 1963. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony J. Donatoni. Chief, State 

Programs Section, Waste Management 

Branch, U.S. EPA Region III. 6th and 

Walnut Streets. Philadelphia, PA 19106 

(215) 5~~-7937.	 ... 

f·. 

' .. .• "1.­
: . 

• OFFICEOFTHE 

ATTORNEYGENERAL 

Inter-office Correspondence	 D~~ August 24, 1984 

Th: Charlie Roe 

From: Charlie Dou~e

Subject: RCRA Final Authorization--Attorney General's Statement 

	 As ·you probably recall, a June 25, 19S4 letter to Mr. Donald W. 

MooS from you and I was submitted to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) as part of this state's application for 

final authorization under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. EPA has 

determined that the application submitted is-Complete for the 

purpose of EPA's formal review process. EPA will determine in 

late September, teptatively, whether to grant authorization to 

the State of Washington. 

• By letter dated July 27, 1984, the Regional Office of EPA submitted comments on Washington's application for final authorization. I am told that these comments reflect, in part, review 

by EPA'a Headquarters' Office. The comments include some items 

concerning the Attorney General's Statement. This memo is 

intended to list those items and to suggest a response. I do not 

now plan to make further formal response to EPA's comments, this 

is a matter which you and I should discuss. I am forwarding a 

copy of this memo, however, to the Department's hazardous ·waste 

program staff. 

Comment 1. Effective Dates. EPA requests that a statement be 

supplied to the effect that the authorities relied on in the 

Attorney General's Statement have been legally adopted, with the 

dates of adoption. All the authorities relied on in the Attorney 

General's Statement are presently effective. The Department of 

Ecology adopted amendments to its dangerous waste regulations, 

ch. 173-303 WAC, on two occasions this year. One batch of 

amendments was effective May 17, 1984, the second group of amendments was effective July 27, 1984. 

Comment 2a. Authority to Regulate Recyc1ers. EPA requests that 

a statement describing the Department's authority to regulate 

hazardous waste recycling be supplied. This statement is sup­

• 

plied in the Attorney General's Statement at pages 8 and 9. The 

statement there refers to RCW 70.105.130, 70.105.145, and 70­

.10SA.060(4). 
'.
 

I . 

•
 

•
 

lnter-office Correspondence 

Charlie Roe 

Page Two 

August 24, 1984 

Comment 2b. Authority to Regulate Dangerous Waste Disposal. EPA 

requests clarification of the Department's authority to regulate 

disposal of dangerous waste. I consider this matter to be 

resolved on page nine of the Attorney General's Statement as 

submitted. I refer you to paragraph three on page.nine. 

Comment 2c. Authority to Regulate Generators. EPA requests a 

statement of the state's basis to regulate hazardous waste 

generators. The state's basis to regulate hazardous waste 

generators is included in the Attorney General's Statement at 

page 10. The statement at that page identifies the state's 

authority as being located in RCW 70.105.130, 70.105.145, and 

7 0 • 1 05A. 06 0 (4) • 

Comment 2d. Authority to Establish Permit Requirements. EPA 

requests that the state's authority to establish requlations 

which have procedures to modify, revoke, reissue, and terminate 

permits be described. This authority is identified at page 13 of 

the Attorney General's Statement. The authority to adopt regulations identified there is in RCW 70.105.130, 70.105.145, and 

70 . 10SA • 0 6 0 (4) • 

Comment 2e. Authority of the Washington State Patrol. EPA 

requests that the effect of ch. 46.48 RCW, which authorizes the 

Washington State Patrol to adopt regulations concerning transportation of hazardous materials, be analyzed with respect to its 

effect on the state's RCRA program. 'The Washington State Patrol 

is an independent agency vested with its authority by statutes 

unrelated to the Department of Ecology. I do not expect the 

State Patrol's program of hazardous materials transport regulation 

to cause any conflict with the Department of Ecology's regulations. The Department of Ecology has independent authority to 

enforce its regulations. See RCW 70.105.080. This authority is 

unrelated to the enforcement authority included in ch. 46.48 RCW. 

Comment 3. Public Participation in Enforcement. The Department 

of Ecology, for interim authorization under RCRA, agreed not to 

oppose a request for intervention in civil enforcement proceedings 

brought under the dangerous waste statutes. This assurance was 

required by EPA regulations. The question EPA poses here is if 

the Attorney General's. Office has. independent authority to enforce 

the dangerous waste statutes, then will the Attorney General's 

Office also assure EPA that it will not oppose intervention in 

civil enforcement proceedings? My initial response is to suggest 

that the assurance of the Department, as the client and agency 

requesting. civil enforcement be conducted by;the Attorney General's 
Inter-office Correspondence 

• 

Charlie Roe 

Page Three 

August 24,1984 

Office, should be sufficient to satisfy EPA's regulatory requirements. In the event that this response is not adequate, 

then you and I should discuss further options. 

Comment 4. Signature of the Attorney General. EPA has requested 

a citation to the authority of Assistant Attorneys General to 

sign the statement on behalf of the Attorney General's Office. 

This was resolved once for interim authorization. I would refer 

EPA to RCW" 43.l0.060. 

Comment 5. Indian Lands. EPA intends to act in accordance with 

its previous position, unless some guidance from the Ninth 

Circuit of the Court of Appeals is forthcoming before final 

authorization is granted. 

CKD:pk 

cc: Lynda Brothers 

• 

•
 
• Memorandum of Agreement 

(State/EPA MOA) Outline 

for F. A. Application 

I. General 

II. Responsibilities of Parties 

A. Policy Statement 

B. Provision for Transfer of Information 

1. EPA Program Information Transfer 

2. State Program Information Transfer 

3. Emergency Situations and Information Transfer 

4. Confidentiality 

C. Frequency and Content of Reports 

1. Monthly 

• 

2. Biennial 

3. Other 

D. Conditions for State Program Reviews 

1. General 

2. Approach 

3. Identification of Major Hazardous Waste Handlers 

E. Permit Issuance 

1. EPA Permitting 

2. State Permitting 

3. EPA Overview of State Permit Actions 

F. Provisions for Compliance Monitoring and Enforcment 

1. State 

2. EPA 

•
 
• 3. Site Visits 

4. E~ergency Situations 

G. State DelistingAction 

H. Provisions for Modification of the MOA 

•
 

•
 
• Program Description Contents
 

Final Authorization·Application
 

WDOE Dangerous/Hazardous Waste Program
 

I.	 Background 

II.	 Scope, Coverage, Structure, and Processes 

.A. Scope 

B.	 Coverage of the Dangerous Waste Regulation Ch. 173-303 WAC 

1.	 Waste Designation 

2.	 Generators 

3.	 Transporters 

4.	 Transfer, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities 

5.	 Other requirements 

6.	 Revision of State Program 

•	 

7. Summary 

C.	 Lead Agency Identification, Agency Structure, Budget, and 

Resource Assessment 

1.	 Agency structure and organizational responsibility 

2.	 Sources of funding and restrictions 

3.	 Resour~e assessment - program plan 

III.	 Description of Permitting and Review Procedures 

A. Purpose 

·B. Permitting existingTSD facilities 

C.	 Permitting new TSD facilities 

D.	 Permit development administrative review, approval process 

for existing and new facilities 

E.	 Permits by rule 

F.	 Emergency permits 

•	 G. Judicial review of permits 

1I-i 
• IV. Description of Compliance and Enforcement Program 

A. Objective 

B~	 Facility definition and establishing priorities 

C.	 Inspection procedures 

b.	 Enforcement procedures 

E.	 Information Management 

V. Regulated Community Data - Estimates 

A.	 Number of noti£iers by activity reported 

B.	 Number·of generators and amount waste 

C.	 Number of transporters 

D.	 Number of TSD facilities and amount of waste treated, 

stored, and disposed 

E.Forms 

• 1 . Notification 

2. Permit 

3. Annual report 

4. Manifest 

5. Inspection 

F. Statutes and Regulations 

1. HeW (Revised Code of Washington) 

a.	 70.105 

b.	 70.105a 

c.	 80.50 

d.	 34.04 

2.	 WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 

a.	 173-303 

b.	 173~305

c.	 463-42 

•	 

d • 

G.	 Appendices 

1. .State 1982 Annual Report Summary 

2.	 PIG 82-5 

3.	 Lab Facilities and Capabilities 

II-ii 
• I. Background 

The Washington State Legislature designated iheDepartment of· Ecology 

as the state agency for implementing the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Since early 1978, the department has 

been designating, tracking,and regulating the disposal of extremely 

hazardous wastes through the Hazardous Waste Regulation, Chapter 

173-302 WAC. Recent promulgation of U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) hazardous waste regulations has. .resultediil a need to 

·modify existing state regulations to be "consistent and equivalent." 

The state Legislature recognized this n~ed i~ 1980 by giving the 

department increased authority in the area of permitting dangerous 

waste facilities. Additionally, in 1983 and 1984 the Legislature 

again increased WDOE authority to develop and implement a program 

consistent with RCRA. 

Prior to 1981, .the Department of Ecology identified·dangerous wastes 

according to the degree of haza.rd posed by a waste to the public 

health and the environment. ·The.waste classification system implemented by ·the department designated wastes by their level of toxicity, 

their persistence in nature, their potential carcinogenic risk, and 

their tendency to ignite, corrode, and explode. 

• 

This classification system depended in· a large part on established 

testing procedures, and on current scientific data regarding the 

toxicity, persistence, and carcinogenicity of·thousands of chemicals 

which could occur in a given waste. The department ·felt that a 

"degree of risk"approach to designating·wastes was the best method 

to use when the enormity of the dangerous waste universe was considered. 

The system for tracking dangerous wastes as they moved from the 

generator to the disposal site was based on the use of a manifest. 

This manifest was to· be .prepared by the generator, and stated the 

type, amount, origin, transporter, and final delivery point for 

a dangerous waste shipment. The manifest was signed by the operator of the disposal site and returned to the generator to signify 

acceptance of the waste shipment. If the generator did not receive 

a signed manifest copy from the disposal site within a specified 

time, he reported this to the Department of Ecology .. The department 

then initiated a search for the miSsing waste. 

Rules for the operation and maintenanCe of the extremely hazardous 

waste (EHW)rilanagement facility at Hanford (the only .facility in 

Washington which may dispose o·f EHW) were adopted late in 1977 under 

Chapter 173-302 WAC. Standards for the design and operation of 

other dangerous waste treatment,.storage,and disposal (TSD) facilities were developed to meet the substantial equivalence requirements 

under RCRA at that time. 

• The current set of dangerous waste regulations Ch. 173-303 WAC have 

been amended to meet the equivalent and consistent requirements of 

RCRA for final authorization. 

11-1
 
• II. Scope, Coverage, Structure~ and Process~s

A. Scope 

This	 document represents the core of the State .of Washington 

application for final authorization of the "Dangerous Waste 

Management Program" to be operated by the Department of Ecology 

(WDOE) . The regulatory prog·ram developed for dangerous waste 

management is comprehensive and is .equivalent and consistent 

with	 the federal RCRA program it is .intended to operate in lieu 

of.	 All persons who generate, transport, transfer, recycle, 

treat, s·tore or dispose of dangerous·wastes, defined in the 

recently amended April 17, 1984 Dangerous Waste Regulation, 

Chapter 173-303 Washingtbn Administrative Code (WAC), are 

affected. The primary purpose of the regulation is to protect 

the public health and environment from improper management of 

dangerous waste. The state program administered by the Department	 of Ecology (WDOE) has regulatory'authority over the following general areas of dangerous wa$te management; notification, 

inspection, monitoring ,permitting, compliance monitoring, 

manifest tracking, and ·enforcement. 

B.	 Coverage 

• 

WDOErecently ·amended its' regulations to be consistent and 

equivalent to RCRA. .Many of the concepts developed for the 

rules adopted in 1977 are essentially thesa~e, suth as the 

dangetous and extremely hazardous waste (DWjEHW) two-tier designation system. Additional methods have grown out of the work 

done by EPA, such as a listing approach for dangerous wastes 

and the standards for dangerous waste management (treat, store, 

dispos-e (TSD) facilities. The following descriptions provide a 

basic knowledge of the amended Washington State Dangerous Waste 

Regulation, Chapter 173-303 WAC. 

1.	 Waste Designation. The EPA procedures for designating 

wastes depend primarily on two lists: the Discarded Chemical Products List; 'and, the Dangerous Waste Sources List. 

Both of these lists were developed by EPA and adopted by 

WDOE (see WAC 173-303-9903 & 9904). The criteria for 

listing was based on the toxic'ity, persistence, carcinogenicity, ignitability, corrosiv:i,.ty, and reactivity of the 

waste. For the Discarded Chemical Products List, EPA 

considered many common commercial and 6ff "'specification 

manufacturing chemicals and listed those which met the 

criteria~ For the Sources List, gPA studied data on various 

industrial processes and their typical waste streams, then 

listed those sources of waste which met the criteria. 

•	 

WDOEaugmentsthese lists with its own c'riteria, developed 

for the 1977 regulations. WDOE's criteria have.beenapplied 

in three ways. First, WDOEassignsa DWjEHW designation 

11-2
 
• to each waste which appears on 'the lists. Second, the 

criteria applies to unlisted wastes about which the generator'knows the constituents of the waste and the constituent concentrations; irthis knowledge shows that the 

waste meets the c:riteria, then' it would be designated as 

dangerous or extremely hazardous waste. Third, the,criteria 

will be us'ed by generators of unlisted wastes who have 

been ordered by WDOE, or who choose voluntarily, to test 

their wastes against the criteria and designate their 

waste accordingly. 

• 

If a generator has a listed waste, he may al~o apply the 

state's criteria to his waste to see if it is so designated. If the generator determines that the criteria do 

not designate his listed' waste, he must obtainWDOE' s 

agreement that his waste is unregulated. Before making a 

decision, WDOE will review the ,generator's own criteria 

test, data, and additional factors , identical to 40CFR 

261.11(a)(3) (e.g., nature of toxicity,potential to 

degrade ,etc.), as they might' apply to the waste. If, 

after reviewing these factors, WDOE agrees that the waste 

should be undesignated, then the waste will not be subject 

to regulation . If WDOE disagrees, then the waste will 

remain li~ted and subj ett to the applicable regulations . 

'Unless and until WDOE notifies .thegeneratorof a listed 

waste that his waste is no longer designated , such waste 

will be subject to the regulations. In' addition, WDOE 

requires that any listed waste, even though it may be 

alternat'ively designated by the state's criteria, is,still 

subjett to all requirements applicable to listed wastes. 

In additioll to listing and' criteria a third mechanism is 

provided in designating dangerous wastes. 'These are the 

dangerous waste characteristics. Wastes with the following physical hazards ,would be designa'ted: Ignitablewastes which are highly flammable ; Corrosive - wastes 

which are highly acidic or alkaline; Reactive - wastes 

which are explosive, unstable, or would readily release 

toxic fumes ; and EP Toxic - wastes containing high con­

-centrations of various metals and pesticides. 

WDOE also provides procedures for exempting and excluding 

wastes from regulation if a generator can petition and 

make a successful demonstration that his waste 'should not 

be designated (in the case of categorical exclusions , a 

group of ,generators must petition/demonstrate for all 

wastes of a particular class). No wastes which demonstrate 

any of the characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, 

etc.) will ,be exempted or excluded, and no waste which is 

• 

listed or exhibits any characteristics will ,ever be 'included 

in a categorical exclus:ion. Wastes which are listed must 

pass the criteria and characteristic tests, and must be 

11-3
 
• determined, by wnOE, to meet the additional factors for 

delisting (these factors are identical to those of 40 eFR 

261.11(a)(3)). Wastes which are not listed and donbt 

exhibit any characteristics" but are designated by the 

state t s criteria only may he exempted if wnOE determines 

that they do not otherwise pose a threat to public health 

or the environment. An entire class of wastes may be 

excluded from regulation if 'all was"tes in that class : 

1) are not listed; 2) do not exhibit any characteristics; 

and, 3) are not designated by the state's criteria, arif 

designated, do not otherwise threaten public health or the 

environment. 

The designation approach described above assures thAt ~ll

federal wastes ate .properlydesignated and subject to the 

applicable requirements. The state's approach is more 

stringent than the federal approach in that more considerations are taken into account for waste designation (i.e., 

the st'ate' s criteria ,and lower quant'ity exclusion .limits). 

WDOE has also provided mechanisms to assure that any waste 

regulated at the federal level will be subject to the 

same, or more stringent considerations before it can be 

exempted from regulation. The state's approach todesignation'incorporates and complements all the elements of the 

• 

'federal approach,thus assuring equivalency with (or, in 

many cases exceeding) the requirements of EPA . 

2. . Generators. Persons generating dangerous waste wrill need 

to prepare a manifes·t, before sending the waste to a TSD 

facility. The manifest includes information on the generator, transporter, TSD facility, the type o'f waste,. and its 

quantity or volume. The manifest must be signed by the 

generator and the transporter before the waste leaves the 

generator'sproperty. The manif'est travels with the transporter to the TSD facility, where the facility ownerloperato.r 

signs the manifest and returns a copy to the generator. 

If the generator does riot receive a copy of the manifest, 

signed by the facility owner/operator, within 45 days of 

shipment, he must submit an Exception Report to WDOE. 

When WDOE receivesan Exception Report for wastesdesignated on the manifest for out-of-state shipment, thenWDOE 

will notify either EPA or the authorized state agency with 

jurisdiction in the state designated for receivi~g the 

waste. WDOE will then initiate a search for the waste to 

determine its fate. WDOE is requiring that after September 20, 1984,a11 dangerous' waste shipments shall utilize 

the Uniform National Manifest. 

Genera.tors will report annually to WDOE the quantities and 

• 

types of dangerous waste which were genera.ted in the past 

year,as well as any treatment, storage, recycling or 

disposal practices incorporated. 
• 'The manifest and annual repo'rtingsystem will provide WDOE 

with a mean:s to track the ,generation, movement, and ultimate dispositl.onof dangerous wastes in Washington. This 

system will reduce 'the amount' of uncontrolled dumping and 

illegal disposal of dangerous waste which historically has 

posed a national public health and environmental hazard. 

Generators involved with international shipments are subjectto ,state requirements that are identical to federal 

standards,except that copies of exception reports sent to 

EPA mu.st also 'be sent to WDOE. 

• 

WDOE'sregulations allow certaiQ, farmer's who manage their 

pesticide wastes on their own land to be exempt from the 

generator requirel,Dents. To qualify for this exemption, 

the farmer must either reuse his pesticide residues and 

rinsewaters (e.g., in his next' batch of pesticide), or 

else manage these wastes according to the pesticide label 

instructions. The label instructions ,vary for each pes'ticide, but 'almost always call for the, farmer to spray the 

pesticide residues ina manner which constitutes a useful 

purpose. For' example, the' farmer may be instructed to 

spray certain·herbicides or pesticides along fence rows to 

control weed orinsectgrowtb, or he may be instructed to 

apply his was'tes to certain fallow lands, which ate specifically targeted by the state Department of Agriculture, 

for controlling weeds and pests while the land is fallow. 

In some rare cases, a label may call for'disposal or burial. 

If. such disposal or burial is done on the farmer's own 

land, then WDOE will not regulate him as a generator. 

Disposal of pesticide wastes elsewhere is subject to WDOE's 

'generator and other requirements. 

3.	 T.ransporters . The regulation requires transporters to 

comply with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) rules 

under 49 CFR for hazardous materials arid substances transportation. Transporters are also responsible for notify­

'ing	 authorities and assisting in cleanup operations in the 

event of a spill. or discharge of dangerous wastes during 

transport. WDOE is requiring that after September, 20, 

1984, all dangerous waste shipments shall utilize the 

Uniform National Manifest (UNF). This will assure that 

interstate shipments are in ,accordance with DOT requirements. Until the UNF goes into -effect, WDOE does not 

expect (and so ,far has not encountered) any problems with 

the interstate transport of wastes. 

The requirements for transpo'rters who -import wastes from 

outside the United 'States are identical to ,federal require­

•	 

ments. Such transporter must act as the generator of the 

waste and comply with 'a,11 applicable generator requirements 

(e.g., manifesting, packaging, etc.). Transporters who 

export wastes must comply with state requirements that are 

11-5
 
• identical to federal standards: indicate on manifest the 

date the waste left the U.S.; sign and date the manifes·t; 

retain manifest for three years. 

4.	 Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD).Facilities. wnOE 

has :essentially adopted. EPA standards for the siting, 

design, performance, operation., and maintenance of TSn 

facilities. In general, these standards ensure that ·a 

facility is properly pe·rforming whatever dangerous waste 

storage, treatment, or disposal activities are occurring 

at the facility. 

Tsn fac·ilities must have adequate ·security, personnel 

training, inspection schedules, emergency plans and equipment, records of .operation, environmental monitoring, 

insurance, closure and post-closure plans, and reporting 

before WDOE will grant· a permit (or interim sta'tus) toa 

facility. . 

• 

Finally, TSD facilities must be sited and operated to 

comply with floodplain, fa.ult line, wetland, shoreline, 

explosion and fire buffer zones ,andmonitoringzone 

requirements. .Any facility managing regulated reactive 

wastes will, under state regulations,be handling·at least 

four hundred pounds. UFC Table 77-201, 1979 Edition, 

requir~s minimum distances for 400-500 pounds of: 320 feet 

from inhabited buildings; and 130 feet from railways and 

highways. Larger quantities of reactive wastes will require 

correspondingly larger setback distances. Facilities are 

also requir~d to satisfy all applicable local, state, and 

federal laws. (such as local comprehensive plans, air and 

·water pollution laws, endangered species, etc.)~

Other reactive and ignitable wastes must be stored in 

accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) or National 

Fire Protection ASSOCiation (NFPA) Pamphlet Number 30. In 

many cases, UFCand NFPA require storage distances in 

excess of 50 feet from the nearest property line. In other 

cases, a .distance of less than 50 feet is allowed, but 

these reductions are frequently linked to certain conditions such as: .one or two hour iirerestrictive walls; 

sprinkler systems ; availability of fire response teams; 

etc. Such conditions· assure that,even with reduced storage distances, adequate protection of public safety and 

property is provided. Ina11 cases WDOE believes that: 

the knowledge and expertise of liFC andNFPA have been established over many years; tQ.at their rules and guidance provide adequate protection for storage and handling of every 

day .hazardousmaterials(which far exceed by many orders 

of .magnitude the volumes of hazardous wastes produced) to 

•	 

which the public is exposed; that UFC and NFPA rules can 

be applied properly to the storage and handling of reactive 

and ignitable wastes; and that storage distances and buffer 

zones established in accordance with these national guidelines provide protection equivalent to, a.nd at times, more 

stringent than EPA's 50 foot setback. 

11-6 
• WDOE is adopting most of these regulations'directly from 

the EPA regulations. Others are modified to reflect the 

differences between dangerous and extremely hazardous 

waste management practices. The state rules achieve EPA's 

requirements for equivalency. 

In addition, WDOE has adopted stringent operating standards fot the extremely hazardous waste disposal site at 

Hanford .. The current status of Hanford is that the land 

has been purchased from the federal gove.rnment and is 

waiting for funds to be allocated from the state Legislature £or its development. 

The authority for requiring compliance with standatds of 

at least interim status stringency resides in several 

places. First, the general facility standards (corresponding ·to Subparts A, B, C, D, and Eaf Parts 264 and 265) 

are applicable to all facilities, re.gardless of status 

(see WAC 173-303-280(1)). Second, the unit operational 

standards for facilities (e.g., tank requirements, closure, 

post-closure, etc.) are applicable as specified in WAC 

173-303-400(2)(a) (for interim status) and WAC 173-303-600(2) 

and (3) (for final status). 

• These two applicability sections essentially require that: 

1. All TSD facilities must comply with the interim status 

standards; 

11-7
 
• 2. All TSD·facilities .must comply with the final status 

standards, unless the facility complies with the interim 

status standards and qualifies for interim status. 

6. 

• 

• 

In addition, a final status permit will include all applicable final facility standards. Thus, anyone who operates a 

TSDfacility which did not qualify for interim status would 

be subject to a.t 1east interim status standards, and possiblyto the more stringent final facility standards. 

Since a permit is needed to specify the conditions for final 

.facility compliance~. WDOE concludes that interim status 

standards would be applied to existing facilities which 

failed to qualify for interim status, while in the meantime 

a final permit specifying final status standards would be 

prepared. 

Revision of State Program. If WDOE revises its program, 

it \ViII contact EPA to determine what modifications are 

necessary in the memorandum of agreement, Attorney General's 

statement, or other documents. WDOE will modify the documents as appropriate, and submit them to EPA for approval. 

At this time, WDOE does not foresee any significant program 

revisions, and d()es not expect to transfer any of its 

authorized functions to any other state agencies. 

IfWDOE finds that it is .necessaryto amend state laws or
 

regulations due to EPA's promulgation of new regulations,
 

then the state will proceed as follows:
 

a.	 Statutory changes. wilOE will work with the state 

legislature and appropria·te committees to develop the 

necessary statutory language. The Washingt()n State 

legislature meets every year, so changes to state law 

should be accomplished within one year. If the statutory changes are controversial, two years may, in 

some rare cases, be necessary . WDOE believes that 

amendments to state laws can be provided in two.years 

or less in all cases. 

b.	 Regulatory changes. Amendments to state regulations 

will be made in accordance with Chapter 34.04 RCW, 

Administrative Procedure Act, and will be accomplished 

in ,one year or less. WDOE will prepare proposed 

regulatory language and confirm with EPA that it will 

properly address the changes at the federal level; 

this should require no more than two months. WDOE 

will then file the proposed language with the State 

Code Reviser for publication ihthe State Register; 

this will require about two weeks. The first public 

hearings will be held twenty days after the proposed 

amendments are published. The public comment period 

may range frbm thirty days to three months (but only 

this long if significant changes are made and reproposal is necessary). WDOE will then prepare final 

11-8
 
I

• amendatory language (less than one month) and file 

the ·final changes with the Code Reviser. The new 

regulation is effective thirty days after adop·tion. 

Thus, simple .amendments will take as few as three 

months from beginning to the actual effective date. 

More complicated changes may take as long as nine 

months until the new rules go ·into effect. 

7.	 Summary. As a summation, the amended Dangerous Waste 

Regulation Chapter 173-303 WAC: 

(1) D.esignates those solid wastes which are dangerous 

or extremely hazardous to public health and the environment; 

(2) Provides. for surveillance ·andmonitoring of 

dangerous wastes until they are detoxified, reclaimed, 

neutralized, or disposed of safely; 

(3) Provides a manifest system for tracking, reporting, monitoring, recordkeeping,sampling, and labeling of 

darigerous wastes; 

(4) Establishes requirements for. the .siting, design, 

operation, and monitoring of dangerouswast~ management 

facilities; 

• 

(5) Establishes design, operation, and monitoring 

requirements for managing the state's extremely hazardous 

waste disposal facility; 

(6) Establishes and administers a program for permitting dangerous waste management .facilities;and 

(7)	 Provides for enforcement against persons who 

violate the requirements of the act and the Dangerous 

Waste Regulations. 

C.	 Lead Agency Identification, Agency Structure, Budget, and 

Resource Assessment 

1.	 Agency Structure and Organizational Responsibility 

The Department of Ecology (WDOE)is .thestate agency mandated by the Legislature to administer the federally 

approved RCRAprogram. As shown in Figure 1, WDOE is 

essentially organized along program lines ~ith the Office 

of Operations and Enforcement functionally set up to act 

as the operating arm of the agency. Each programfunctioIis under an appointed assistant director who reports to 

. the deputy director and the director ·of·the department. 

There are also several exceptibnal program responsibilities 

. which for management reasons report .directly to the deputy 

director outside of the program office's structure of the 

organization. For purposes of the Dangerous/Hazardous 

Waste Program within WDOE there are three ·organizational 

•	 

groups which havep.rogram responsibilities. These are the 

Office of ·Ha.zardous Substances and Air Quality Control, 

Office of Operations and Enforcement and the Industrial 

and Technical Affairs Division. 

11-9
 
,

,

• The Office of Hazardous Substances and Air Quality Control 

has authority and primary responsibility for program plan­

,ning, development, and'management,of the state dangerous/ 

hazardous waste program. This is done through the Waste 

Management Division (Figure 2) and the Dangerous Waste 

Regulatory Section ,(Figure '3) of this office. This group is 

responsible forestablishing'all program gUidance and policy 

including enforcement policy'as well as regulations. This 

group also provides technical assistance to inspectors and 

permit writers in the Regional Offices and Industrial Section as well as coordinating permit and compliance monitoring 

activities an:d ensuring statewide cons'istency in theapplication of the regulations. All public involvement aspects 

of the program are carried out in this office. Anyneces'" 

sarytrac'king andreporting£unctions, including the annual 

report, are also the responsibility of this group. 

The Office of Operations and Enforcement has the authority 

and responsibility for all (except' as specified for the 

industrial Division below) operational, aspects of the 

Dangerous/Hazardous Waste Program. The office is divided 

into four geographical regions of the state with an officer 

and staff located in each region. The regions cover southwest Washington, northwest Washington,central Washington, 

and eastern Washington (Figure 5).' Each Regional Office 

has a desl.gnated hazardous waste group within their Environmental QualitY,Section. This group is responsible for carrying out 'compliance inspections and permit writing. They 

are the primary agency contact: with all generators; transporters, and TSD facilities. They also implement the, agency 

enforcement policy by documenting and making recommendations 

for enforcement actions to their assistant' director who 

has signatory authority for all enforcement ac.tions within 

their jurisdiction. this group maintains a close working 

,relationship with the Dangerous Waste Regulatory Section. 

They use the guidance and ,policy provided by this section 

and, are responsible for completing 'the work plan commitments negotiated by the Dangerous Waste Section. 

The third group is the Industrial and Technical Affairs Division (Figure 6). This group, for purposes ,of the Dangerous/ 

Hazardous Waste Program, functions like the Office of Operations and Enforcement with t,heir special area of responsibility being specific major industries in the state. The 

one exception that should be noted here is that for permit 

issuance and 'enforcement actions the assistant director of 

the Office of Hazard'ous SubstanceS and Air Quality Control 

has signatory authority for this group. For program management purposes this group functions like a fifth ,Regional 

• 

Office . 

2. Sources of Funding and Restrictions 

Estimated funding levels for hazardous waste (RCRA) activities from federal and state resources are pre~ented in 

11-10 
• • 

-----------------------------------

...... "'.

Figure 1. 

GOVERNOR 

John Spr.llm.1n 

DIRECTOR 0100 

Donald W. Moos, '0001 

Ginger Oath, AdmIn. Asst., '0006 

NUClEAR WASTE POlICY AND REVIEW BOARD 

AND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NUCLEAR WASTE ADVISORY COUNCIL 

Sue Gould, Chdlr 

D[PUTY DIRECTOR 0110 

John r. Spencer - '0013 

Renee Pdcdnd, Admin. Asst., '0007 

ECOlOGICAl COMMISSION 

Janet Ch~lupnlck, Ch~Ir

FACILITY SITING OFFICE 0120 LEGAl. S(RVICES 0150 

Fred O. H~hn, Spec. Asst., '0010 Chdrles B. Roe, Jr., Sr. Asst. A.G. 

Oorls Turner, Sec 2, '0802 Bev Jolley, Legal Sec. 2, '0065 

INDUSTRIAL' TECH. AFFAIRS DIVISION OHO HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE OFFICE 0160 

Oon~ld O. Provost, Spec. Asst., '0227 David Stevens, Spec. Asst., '1165 

Barb Wood, Clerk Typist 3, '0356 Vacant, Sec. 2, '0115 

PUBlIC INFORMATION OFFICE 0140 INTERGOVERNI£NTAL AFFAIRS LlAISON 

Ats KluchI, Pub. Aff. Mmln., '0024 Vacant, [nv. Pl. 3, 'P060 Linda Vinson, Sec. 2, '0045 

" YAKIMA RIVER ADJUDICATION COLUHAJA BASIN DEVELOPH£NT PROJECT 

Vdcant, Adjudication Referee Chdn B~lJ ey, Project DI rector, '0766 

OFF ICE OF HAZARDOUS lOOO 3000 4000 5000 OFFICE OF 1000 OFF IC[ OF WATER OFFICE OF OFFICE or OP(RATIONS SUBSTANCES AND MANAG(H[NT AND RUDGET AND LAND RESOuncrS WATER QUAlITY AND ENFORCEH£NT AIR QUAllTY CONTROL 

Stephen L. Hunter Lynd~ I.. Brothers Glen H. FIedler Don~ld P. Dubois Bruce A. Cameron 

Asst. Dlr., "086 Asst. Dlr., D0014 Asst. Dlr., '0016 Asst. DIr., '0011 Asst. DIr., '0015 

VIck I B~ltl.er, ..-PO 2, tJ09ll. L' ndd Aylsworth, Sec. 2, 110650 N~ncy DeBoer, Sec. 2, '0069 Judy l~mm, Sec. 2, '0165 Veronica Tracy, Sec. 2, '0637 

AV/£X6(A6-8) 
• • • 

Figure 2 

Ron Holcomb - Public Officer 

. Office of Hazardous Sl,lbstances 

and Air Quality Control Linda 'Aylsworth - Secretary 

Lynda L. Brothers, Assistant Director Linda Pettit - Receptionist 

Air Resources Management. Waste Management Contract.ed Remedial Action ,Programs 

Henry F. Droege, Div.Supv. Earl Tower, Division Supervisor Marc Horton, Di~ision Suvv. 

Section Chiefs Section Chiefs Section Chiefs· 

Mike Landon - Regulatory *Tom Cook - Dangerous .Waste Regulatory John Littler - Hazardous Wastes 

Section Remedial Action 

Dan Johnson - Evaluation and Avery Wells - Solid Waste Disposal John Raymond - I/M.Program Man.agement 

Investigation Section 

Stu .Clark - Monitoring Vacant - Low Level Nuclear Waste 

Mana'gement 
• Waste Management 

•

Figure 3 

Division. • 

Assistant Director 

Division ~Superv{sor, Tower Secretary, Singer 

Solid Waste 

Disposal 

Dangerous Waste 

.Regulatory Section 

'Avery Wells 

(Sec.tion Chief) 

. Tom Cook 

(Section Chief) 

Jon Pace .Dave Saunders 

Brad Everson Jim Knudson 

Pete Haskin Ross'Potter 

Kathy Seel 

Marc Crooks 

Jail Whitworth 

Mike Aarhaus 

Ca'rol Kraege 

Project/temporary tI It 

" " 

Dan Kruger 

Jerry Boese 

Marie Zuroske 

Guy Moellendorf 

Leslie Sacha 

Denis Erickson 

Develops the state solid waste management 

plan and administers the state solid waste 

management program. 

Develops state hazardous waste program plans 

and integrates this with the annual federal 

program grant and RCRArequirements. 

·Administers Ref. 26/39 solid waste grants 

and local solid waste management planning 

. Develops hazardous waste regulations, policies, procedures, and law revisions. 

program. 

Prepares, tracks, and coordinates federal 

and state program, and the EPA grant 

assistance program. 

Responsible for program development and 

technical assistance for resource 

conservation, recycling, resoutce 

recovery, and public participation. 

Provides technical assistance to agencies 

and regions. 

Administers extremely .hazardous waste site 

acquisition. 

.Develops .standards, methods, and procedures 

for sampling, testing, ana analyzing hazardous 

waste. 

Develops regulations, guidelines and 

policies. 

Coordinates statewide manifesting of hazardous 

waste shipments. 
• • • gure3 

Waste Management Division 

Assistant Director
 

Division Supervisor, Tower Secretary, Singer
 

Solid Waste 

Disposal 

Dangerous Waste 

Regulatory Section 

Avery Wells 

(Section Chief) 

Tom Cook 

(Section Chief) 

Jon Pace 

Brad Everson 

Dave Saunders 

Jim Knudson 

Pete Haskin Ross Potter 

Kathy Seel 

Marc Crooks 

Jan Whitworth 

Mike Aarhaus 

Carol Kraege 

Project/temporary 

" " 

" " 

Dan Kruger 

Jerry Boese 

Marie Zuroske 

Guy Moellendorf 

Leslie Sacha 

Denis Erickson 

Develops the state solid waste management 

plan and administers the state solid waste 

management program. 

Develops state hazardous waste program plans 

and integrates this with the annual federal 

program grant and RCRA requirements. 

Administers Ref. 26/39 solid waste grants 

and local solid waste management planning 

Develops hazardous waste regulations, policies, procedures, and law revisions. 

program. 

Prepares, tracks, and coordinates federal 

and state program, and the EPA grant 

assistance program. 

Responsible for program development and 

technical assistance for resource 

conservation, recycling, resource 

recovery, and public participation. 

Provides technical assistance to agencies 

and regions. 

Administers extremely hazardous waste site 

acquisition. 

Develops standards, methods, and procedures 

for sampling, testing, and analyzing hazardou 

waste. 

Develops regulations, guidelines and 

policies. 

Coordinates statewide manifesting of.hazardou 

waste shipments. 
• • ". 

Figure 4 

DANGEROUS WASTE SECTION - Tom Cook, E V 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

Dan Kruger, E III 

Dave Saunders, E III 

Program Plans Dan 

Budget Dan 

State/EPA Agreement Dan 

Final Authorization Dave 

Annual Reports Dave
 

Fee Collection Dave
 

Notification Dave 

ADP	 Dan 

Tracking/Reporting Dan
 

Distribution Dave
 

Record Keeping Dave 

H.W.	 Classification 

Ref. Personnel Dan & Dave 

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 

Ross Potter, E III 

Jerry Boese, "EP III 

Denis Erickson, EP II Temporary 

Guy Moellendorf, EP IITemporary 

Regulations Ross 

Legislation Ross 

Procedures &Guidelines Dan &Dave 

TIMs JIm 

Non-Notifiers	 Dan &Dave 

Waste Exchanqe 

Studies 

Special Projects 

Mike 

Select Staff 

__ ~~~ ~~!Jer9_

__ f.a.£._N~e~s Ie.!.r~ _ 

Tech. Assist. 

Public Participation 

Ross 

Mike 

Intergovern. Activ. All Staff 

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 

Jim Knudsen, AQE III 

(Vacant) GO III 

Mike Aarhaus, E III 

Jan Whitworth, EP III 

Permits	 Jan, Mike, GO III 

Petitions	 GO III, Ross, Jim 

Certifications	 Jan, GO III 

Tech. Assist. GO III, Jim 

Enforcement Assist. Jan 

Public Participation Mike 

Responsiveness Summary Mike 

Coord./Comun. with Regional 

Offices, Ind. Sec. Jan 

Training Mike, Jim 

How Clean is Clean Proj. Jim 

Intergovern. Activities JA~J Mike 

AV /W53(B24-27) 

E - Environmentalist
 

EP - Environmental Planner
 

AQE - Air Quality Engineer 

Sf - Sanitary Engineer 

GO - Geologist 
• • • 

Figure 5 

Regional Office Staff Performing RCRA ActIvities 

OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS 

Bruce Cameron 

Assistant Director 

I 

, 

Eldon Sanborn 

Chemist V 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Larry Ashley * 

Chemist III 

INorthwest Regional Officel 

I Bob McCormick I 

I Regional Manager I 

I 

I I 

I I 

I 

I Stew Messman 

I Supervisor 

I 

I I 

I I 

I 

I John Conroy * 

I Environmentalist IV 

I 

I 

Greg Gregory * 

Environmentalist II 

I 

I 

ISouthwest Regional Officel 

I Cene Asselstine I 

I Regional Manager I 

I 

I 

Howard Steeley I 

District Supervisor I 

I 

I 

Vacant * I 

Environmentalist III I 

I 

I 

Erick Egbers * I 

Environmentalist II I 

I 

I 

Will Abercrombe * 

Environmentalist II 

I 

I 

IEastern Regional Officel 

I John Arnquist I 

I Regional Manager I 

I 

I 

I Claude Sappington I Supervisor

I 

I 

I Jim MaIm * 

I Environmentalist IV 

I 

I 

I Doug Dunster * 

I Environmentalist II 

ICentral Regional Officel 

I Russ Taylor I 

I Regional Manager I 

I 

I 

Clar Pratt 

Supervisor 

Dennis Bowhay * 

Environmentalist IV 

I 

I 

(Vacant) * 

Environmentalist II 

Julie Sellick * 

Environmentalist II 

* Individuals involved in the dangerous waste management program. AV/W53(A24) 
• Figure 6. Industrial Section Staff Performing RCRA Activities 

INDUSTRIAL & TECHNICAL AFFAIRS DIVISION
 

Donald O~ Provost
 

Special Assistant
 

INDUSTRIAL SECTION
 

Dick Burkhalter
 

Section Head
 

• Roger Stanley * 

Environmentalist IV 

Tim Nord *
 

Environmentalist III
 

'i'r1nvolved in the dangerous waste management program. 

• 

11-.16 
•• 

• Table 1. TheFY 84 figures are actual allocations from 

the federal grant whereas FY 85 and FY 86 estimates are 

exactly that (estimates) based upon .past allocations. 

The Legislature passed a bill in 1983 establishing a fe~

for generators and TSD facilities. WDOE has developed an 

adminis'trative rule Ch. 173-305 WAC to implement that bill. 

The level of funding to be generated is.still under analysis 

and development. .Actual collection of fees will begin in 

July 1984 'for the last half of 1983 and.subsequent yearly 

collections will occur each July for the previous calendar 

year. At this time WDOE's policy is to guarantee a 

25 percent match of federal funds alloc'ated for RCRA implementation. RCRAactivities will continue to be prioritized 

according to physical· and monetary resources cOlDDll.tted 

through the EPA/stateagreement. 

Table 1 - Budget E~timates for Dangerous 

Waste Program 

Federal State 

Total Portion Match 

Year '85 $715,212 $581,409 $193,803 

• Year '86 $800,000 $600,000 $200,000 

3. Resource Assessment -Program Plan 

As noted. in the previous section on budget ·estimates, WDOE 

will be limited .in the resources .available for RCRA program implementation. Tasks have been defined that reflect 

the mandated duties of WDOE (Table 2) . Under each task 

are listed a numbe:r 6f work elements. Each work element 

then describes in greater detail specific.staff responsibilities. The FTE's allocated to each task will determine 

what effort can be made to address' that each work element 

is completed. 

Table 2 .presents the current distribution of 'FTE's for 

each task. In general, the more resources (FTE's), the 

higher the priority. From the t'able, it is evident that 

the majority of the FTE' sare in. enforcement, complianc'e 

monitoring, permitting, and technical assistance (existing 

FTEs). 

Implementing a complete dangerous waste management program will require highly trained staff. Certain assumptions were made in planning for program implementation for 

. the first two year~, 1985 and 1986. 

11-17
 
• The following lists the WDOE position titles-and number of 

personnel in- those positions to implement RCRA. The-adequacy of these will be addressed in the capability assessment. 

No. Positions inRCRA Tasks 

E 

EP 

AQE 

SE 

GO 

A 

CE 

Environmentalist 8 

Environmental Planner 1 

Air Quality Engineer 1 

Sanitary Engineer 1 

Geologist- 1 

Attorney (Available) 

Chemist 1 

•
 

•
 

(a)	 Existing FTE'smust be maintained. 

(b)	 Permitting will be emphasized with the Regional 

Offices writing permits. 

(c)	 Compliance monitoring will be prioritized within 

. each Regional Office acc~rding to resources available. 

(d)	 Existing FTE's will be trained (as necessary) to perform the necessary functions to imlement RCRA in 

accordance with all agreements with EPA . 

(e)	 Any expertise needed for permit review or review of 

specialized documents during inspections will be available within the headquarters section. 

The following is a listing of areas of expertise that will 

be available to implement RCRA. 

WDOE	 Position Current Staffing 

Expertise 

1. Chemical Engineering 

2. Ground Water Quality 

3.	 Ground Water Geology 

4.	 Geology 

5.	 Industrial Processes 

6.	 Data Management 

7.	 Regulatory Development 

8. Public Participation 

9.	 Financial Assurance 

10. Policy/Management 

11. Legal 

12. Enforcement 

13. Budget Analyst 

14. Chemist 

15. Permit Writing 

16. Notification/Tracking 

Title 

AQE
 

GO/E/SE
 

GO
 

GO
 

E/SE
 

E/EP
 

E/EP
 

E/EP
 

EP
 

E
 

A 

E/A/SE
 

EjEP
 

CE 

E/EP/AQE/SE 

E/EP 

Status 

on staff 

on staff 

on staff & training 

on staff 

on staff 

"On staff 

on staff 

on staff 

on staff & training 

on staff 

legal services 

available 

on staff 

budgeting services 

available 

on staff 

on staff & training 

on staff 

17. Reporting E/EP on staff 

11-18 
• Implementing a complete program is a labor intensive 

effort. The department estimated in its interim authorization application that a total of approximately 92 "FTE's 

would he necessary to complete all RCRA program tasks as 

outlined in Table 2 . Since this level of funding and 

staffing is impractical during the current state and federal 

budget situations, the current plan as discussed previously 

is to maintain current staffing levels "for January 85 

through January 87. The current staffing, budget, and 

outputs are outlined in Table 3. Table 3 indicates combined 

federal and state FTE' s committed to RCRA tasks. The 

source of funding, also covered previously, will be the 

federal program grants and the state match generated "by 

the Dangerolls Waste Fee Regulation Ch. 173-305 WAC . 

• 

• 

11-19
 
TABLE 2
 

•
 

-.
 

•
 

Program Activity or Task 

I.	 HAZARDOUS WASTE 

A.	 Program Development and Procedures 

1.	 Develop and receive internal revision amendments to 

the State Dangerous Waste regulations and to the 

State Law. 

2.	 Develop an ADP system for establishing permit, 

notification, inspections, and annual report 

records. 

3.	 Review and comment on draft federal regulations and 

guidelines. 

B.	 Public Participation and Service 

1.	 Respond to information requests from the public, 

industry, state and local agencies, and the media. 

"2.	 Coordinate public hearings on draft permits. 

3.	 Prepare responsiveness summaries and notices on 

ac"t ions taken by the hazardous waste program. 

4.	 On the annual program plan to EPA, participate in 

public information hearings on the draft plan. 

C.	 Compliance Monitoring 

1.	 Perform inspections on high priority generators and 

transporters, and inspections on storage treatment 

and disposal facilities to ensure compliance with 

regulations. 

2.	 Perform ground water monitoring inspections. 

3.	 Complaint inspectins. 

4.	 Review and evaluate exception manifest reports and 

conduct follow-up and appropriate enforcement 

actions. 

5.	 Assign I.D. numbers for generators, transporters, 

and treatment, storage and disposal facilities • 

AV/l-,T45(B2,4) 
TABLE 2 (Continued) 

•
 

--.
 

•
 

Program Activity or Task 

6.	 Provide review and comments on draft petitions 

for delisting. 

7.	 Follow-up on non~notifiers.

D.	 Permitting 

1.	 Process Storage Perm~ts

a.	 New facility application (Parts A &B). 

b.	 Call for and review Part E. 

c.	 Complete issuance. 

2.	 Process Incinerator Permits 

a.	 New facility application (Parts A & B). 

b.	 Call for and review Part E. 

c.	 Complete issuance. 

3.	 Process Land Treatment Pennits 

a.	 New facility application (Parts A & E). 

b.	 Call for and review Part B. 

c.	 Complete -issuance. 

4.	 Process Land Disposal Permits 

a.	 New facility application (Parts A & E). 

b.	 Call for and review Part B. 

c.	 Complete issuance. 

5.	 Provide headquarters support to the Regional 

Offices on reviewing dangerous waste storage, 

treatment and disposal permit applications . 
TABLE 2 (Continued) 

•
 

. -.
 

•
 

Program Activity or Task	 ,

, 

E.	 Enforcement 

1.	 Ensure compliance schedule with generators and TSD 

facilities are met to correct deficiencies under 

the dangerous waste regulations. 

2.	 Issue letters of warning, notice of violation, and 

compliance orders to yiolators of the law and 

regu1at ions .. 

3.	 Perform follow-up inspections to ensure that all 

requirements are met. 

4.	 Provide expert testimony at hearings or in court. 

F.	 Hazardous Material Spills 

1.	 Respond to hazardous material spills to the ground. 

2.	 Provide technical assistance to the regional offices 

on hazardous material spills • 

G.	 Technical Assistance 

1.	 Respond to technical requests from industry on 

general and complex issues. 

2.	 Respond to technical requests from municipalities, 

State and Federal agencies on general and complex 

technical issues. 

3.	 Respond to technical assistance requests from the 

public on resolving problems on dangerous waste. 

4.	 Coordinate with local governments on. siting
 

dangerous waste facilities.
 

H.	 Training 

1.	 Attend internal training workshops on dangerous 

waste. 

2.	 Attend tralnlng workshops put on by EPA on the 

Federal hazardous waste programs. 

3.	 Attend targeted training courses put on by experts 

in hazardous waste transportation, toxicology, 

safety, and environmental monitoring. 
TABLE 2 (Continued) 

• Program Activity or Task 

I. Program Coordination 

1.	 Coordinate program activities with EPA including 

inspections, enforcement actions, and spill 

response. 

2.	 Coordinate program actlvlties with EPA including 

monthly, quarterly, ·and semiannual reporting.* 

3.	 Interprogram coordination with the alr, water, and 

water resources programs on matters pertaining to 

dangerous wastes. 

J.	 Program Administration and Support 

1.	 Prepare annual program plan with the regional 

offices and the industrial section. 

2.	 Supervision of staff. 

'. 3. Staff meetings and tracking on program tasks and 

out,puts . 

. K.	 Final Authorization 

1.	 Modify application after reivew by EPA and hold.· 

public hearing on second draft of application and 

modify as appropriate. 

2.	 Submit formal application to EPA for review and 

comment by June 1984. Modify as appropriate based 

on EPA review. 

3.	 Review of draft application by the regional offices 

and the industrial section. 

4.	 Carry out changes identified in Authorization Plan. 

AV/~145(A23,27)

• 

*Any additional reporting require~ents than currently 

reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding will be 

jointly agreed upon and reflected in an addendum to the 

program plan. 
TABLE 2 (Continued) 

•
 Program Activity or Task 

L.	 Laboratory Support 

1.	 Apply testing and analytical procedures for 

designating waste simply as dangerous or extremely 

hazardous wastes in accordance with state 

regulations. 

4.	 Conduct preliminary assessments. 

5.	 Prepare quarterly and final reports. 

,--4IIt
 

•
 

AV/W4S(A23,28)
 
• • • 

tlAlAllOOUS WAS JC ~O( n 1965 ANNUAL PIIOCflAH PLAN 

Program ~ct!v!ty or Task 

I I. ItAlAflDOUS WAS rE 

A.	 Program Development dnd Proceduru 

1.	 Develop and review lllBolldme"h to tho State Dangerous Wa~te regulation. 

l.	 State statc wll1 devolop 11 IIN1U-ycclr pormlt strdte9), tor ReRA permU tlo\lelopmont lind !Clliuanoe. 

, I 

I 3. Thc state wiil devclop a RCRA/Dangerous Waste
 

I enforcement policy that addre:.:.es the catC90ri­


1 l~tion or violations dnd timely and appropriate
 

,
 

enforcement actions under state lalW.
 

8.	 Publ Jc Participation 

I 1. Respond to inform.:.ttlon requests (rOlll the publiC,


I industry, state, and local agencies, and the media.
 

1
 

I 2. Coordin.:.tte pulllic hearings and public review on
 

1 draft pel'lllits dnd closure plans.
 

•1
 

I l. Prepare responsiveness slfIlllaries and notices on
 

I actions taken by the h,uardous waste program


I.
 including pCI"lQitting.
 

Responsible 

UnU(s) 

til) 

t1Q 

ItO 

HO 

HO 

NW 

Sill' 

fR. 

en 

Outputs Uf R05ult5 and Schedulo 

Amend tho OW regulations (W~C 17l.l0). 

PuyolQP U~f4t.fQr ~n~ m~k,u .~ AV4.Ialli. to ~p~ no lo~o

th~n ~O dd)'6 ~f 'af tho fJndl appr~VDa FY 8~ N~tlo"~l

Pijfwlt Sttdtt~~ 1s MJd8 ~vdl1Jbl~ t~ the ~lJt~.

The 

~O( Stdftlng dnd funding Prugr<!lll I 

I 1.lldClt , flCa fund:; Source LC~~_ I I I 

,25: 159;051 I I reder.l I 

I 

III state enforcement pol.1cy w111 be completed by 

Septc:anller 30, 1984. I I I I I I	 .11 rS1mr1 Federal I ! Re~pond to information requests.	 1 I I I I 

I I I I I 

Coordi/l"laC pulll1c hearillgs on 11 draft storage treatment I 

.:and disposal permlls alid closul'c plotn:;• 

Prepare respon:t1veness 5\fi1ln.\des. 

I 

It. ,Participate in public inforllldtion hcarings 

dratt dllnual progr~ plan to EPA. 

on the I 

I 

ttQ I P.artlcipato in three public hCoirings

t plan. 

on the annual 

1 . 

f 

I 

. I

I 

,

I 

I 

I

I 

I

I 

• 

C.' 

S. Public hearings 00 dlIlcndments to rcgulations. 

,6 •. Public hearings 00 f!o.al Authorization. . 

·1 

7. Prepare environmental impact statement or decl aroltlons ot IIonsigll1tic.:.toco as .appropriate on drdrt reljulations. perm! ts, and petitions. 

Compliaoce Monitoring 

1. Perrorm inspections 00 high priority generaton 

and transporters including follow-up inspections, to ensure compliancc with regulations. 

I; IlQ 

I 

l.I 1i0' 

I 

f HO 

I I 

I NW 

I sw 

I Ell I ell 

INO I.. 

I 

Puticip.lto in- three publ1c hcarings on the rcgulatlon 

41nendlllents. 

P.:lrUcipate io three public hC.ld/lgs 011 final Authod.lolt1o,,~ . 

Prepare (ISs or negative declarations as appropriate. 

Pedorm 28 inspections on ,lQaJ~l' generators and 

tran:;porteu and 66 inspections on minor geneutors/ transporter~.

_ 

] .25 

.42 

I 

I

I 

I

I 

1

I 

$117,666 I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

I 

I 

I,

I 

I

I 

I 

,

I 

I

I

I 

I 

redcrd 

Stottc· 

I

I 

I 

I ' I 

I

I 

I

I 

I 

I 'I I I I 

AV /W62 (68.10-12) 

.. 

.. .. 
I 

•
 

tlAZAflOOUS WASl[


\Woe f\' 198~ ANNUAL PflOCRAM 'IL~ (Continued)
 

I IMlO( St.. "i,uJ dlld fUlldj')l) 

•	 • 

funds 

Progrdm Responsible Pr09r~ ~ctlvlty or Task Outpuh lit ,i05U' h and Schedule Inde" J, Unite Ii) fJes Source Code , I

, , 

NW 

SW 

CIt 

ell 

HID 

tlQ 

, 

I

NW 

sw 

(It 

Cil 

lHO 

110 

UW 

SW 

ER 

CH 

IND 

t10 

HONW 

SW . ER 

CR 

SW 

NW 

SW 

.[R 

CR 

lID 

NW 

sw 

en 

cn 

, 

PClr'orm 1.7 m.,jor lSf> 11lliV6ottonlt including QI'Ol.illdwiH:er 

nllmHul'lll1l ,",,' 1/$ mlnur aD lnltpoctlunll. Rovlew for 

'l'hlflolal dOCWllillltli lind "loGuro plano illi apprupr14to. 

Revlew rlnJIlClcll a5:iU~ilncCl documClnt:; and ovaluate
 

qfoulldwoltet 1I10llltorlflg plan$.


I 

(ilvesUgate cOOlpl.:alilts. 

Review excepUon reports and conduct tollow-up:l. 

Heview and provide rinal determination on sh requests tor petition. 

Review an e~timated ~OO annual report~, conduct 

I'ollollrup on nOl\re:.pundent~. and prepare annucll wa~te

$UlMlar)/ report. 

Dratt and iS$uC ~tora9c permits or clo~ure plans. 

Call tor ilnd review 1 incinerator perlllit,' 

Process two land treatment permit applications on a schedule to be developed with EPA. Cail tor 1 Pilrt 8 

land treatment pet'mit appllcatiun. 

Draft and lsiiue , land dhpo5al permits or clo:.ure plall~. dnd call ful" 6 P.trt Uland dhpo:Soll permit 

appl1cat~on~. Cunt1I.lu~ prugressive development ot 4 lalld dupos41 perllllLs. 

I 

Z.	 Per'orm illspec::ttomi on high priority fSO 

(ilcllitic:l including rolll.lW-UP in:.pcct!on3, tu 

ensure compliance with reljulatlon5. 

).	 Provide technical revlew to the regional 

o(UCC:i aniJ l/1du:itrhl 5cctton on 'inanclal assurance ilnd ground.olter plan5. 

4.	 Complaint inspections. 

5.	 Review and evaluate exception manifest reports and 

initiate .tpproprliltc follow-up .tetions. 

6.	 Provide review and cooments on dratt petitions tor dellsUng. 

7.	 Review and ev.aluiltc petition reque~ts.

8.	 Revie. generator and fSO tacUity annual 

including rollo.up on nonre:spondents. 

D.	 Permitting 

1.	 Proce:lS Storage Per-its 

2.	 ~rocess Incineutor Permits 

l.	 Proceu Land Trutment Permits 

4.	 Proces~ land Disposal Pe~lt~.

I I 

I

I I,
 

reports;­

, I I , , ,

I I I
 

I , I 

I I I 

I
 

I 

,

I

I 

I 

AV/W62(69,ll-1S) 
• • 

HAZAnoous WASTE 

MJOC FY 1965 ANtlUAl. PROGRAM PLAtt (Continued) 

MJ()( Staffing dnd rundlng , Progfcfm Responsible Program Activity or Task Outputs or nesults and Schedule Unlt(s)	 I JndelC " rT[s Funds I Source Code

,-- I I-I 

S.	 Provide headquarters support to the regional offices tiQ Provide headquarters support on revle.lng storage, on reviewing dangerous waste storage, treatment, tre~tmcnt, and disposal draft permita dnd permit I I I 

and disposal permit applic~tions, and draft 15su~nc6. I I f pCrtll1ts. I 

1.1I I $40,188 I Feder,,' I I 

E.	 Enforcement .36 I I I Stelte- j I 

1.	 Ensure compliance schedule, with generators and TSO NW Ensure eompllance schedules arc met.
 facilities are met to correct deficiencies under "

I sw
 I 

the dangerous waste regulations.	 [R 

I

CR 

INO I 

I	 ,

I 

I

2.	 Issue letters ot warning, notice of violation, and , NW Appropriate and timely enforcement actions to I
 

compliance orders, penalties, civil and or crIminal SW correct noncompliance. I


,

I 

actions as appropriate to violators or the law (R I
 

and regulations. I CR
 

I WO
 

I
 

l.	 Pertorll tollow-up Inspections to ensure that all NW roll~. up Inspections.
 

requirements are met. I SW
 

I ER 

CR 

I INO 

I 

It. Provide elCpert testimony at hearings or in court.	 110 Provide e~pert testimony at hearings.
 I	 NW


1 sw I

I [Il 

I cn	 

INO I

, , ,.	 . , 

s.	 Provide enforcement assistance to regional office. f HO Provide assistance to regions on enforcement. , " , , 'I 

I	 I 

r.	 Training t I .2l I $8,)28 I Federal , 

1.	 Attend internal trainin9 workshops on 'dangerous I flO Attend two workshops.
 

_aste.
 NW	 ,, II I	 I 

z. ~~tend tra1nl"9 _9rk~hop~ p~~ Qn by EPA and th~

fedcf41 h~lardQu' wa,to pro9~~"

SI I I ER 

(:n I 

110 ~tte"~ thr~e workshppo. I I

I 

mw I

sw 

"

£It 

CH I I 'II ,	 , °1 I	 I I I I 

I "	 I I I I ,	 ,AV /W6Z (09, lii-18) 
• • • 

I 

IIMAfIOOUS WAST[


\\oOE FY 1985 AUUUAL P/IOGRAH PLAN (Continued)
 

b I 'tOOL StarrIng dnd fundIng IProlJr.vn 

Progrdlll Activity or Task Re~r.~~(~) Ie Outputs 0." Results and Schedule . I I Indel( 

fTEs funds Source Code 

J. Provide internal training workshops on lmplementa­ tlun elements or the dangerous waste regulations 

and pro.r... ClImjlOnent., I.e., .pllll, .tc. 

tlO Develop dn estImated 2 workshops. 

!

I . 

! ,I 

C. Proqtdm Coordln.,tlon 

1. Coordinate program activities with EPA including 

inspections, enforcement actions, and spill 

response. 

I 

I 

I

I 

eR 

INn 

tfQ 

tlW 

SWER 

,I At'end coordination mee'lng and dlocu.. 1s5ue~ by telephone. . 

" 

I I ,. 

..o~~ Federal I 

I' I 

I 

I 

Ii. 

I. 

Prepare clnnual program plan with regional oftlces 

and the industrial section. 

1. 

Program Administration and Support 

final Authorization 

HQ 

HW 

SW 

t::R 

cn 

Prepare one program plan/agreement. 

progr.vn plan/agreement. 

Review one 

I 

I .24 

I 

I

I 

I

! .4S 

I 

II $8,690 

I

I 

I

I 516,292 I, 

Federal 

Federal. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

,II 

I

! 

l. 

1. 

2. Negotiate with EPA to reach agreement to correct or improve any dericiencies that 

may be dIscovered during assessment. 

Submit formal application to EPA tor review and comment by July 1984. HodHy as appropriate based on EPA review. 

Participate with EPA In cl state capability assessment tor tinal aulhorhdtlon. Provide 

necessary information tor assessment and 

extensIve review ot resul~s and tinal report. 

HO 

HO Suhmit tormal appllcatlon and mod tty subsequent to [PA review. 

Participate In capability assessment. 

Perrorm any necessary tallow-up actIon in 

order to achieve tinal authorIzation. 

f 

I 

I 

I 

I 

II 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I /

I 

I!I I 

I 

I 

I 

' I. 

. 

/.

I 

J. '. 

Conduct chemical. biological and physical tests ror design.,Ung waste as dc1r1gerOU!J or extremely hd~drdous wastes in accorddnce with state 

1. 

laborator~ S~ppo~t

lab Waste samples tested clnd designated In 

aCCQrddllCe with Chapter 1H,) ) W~C and 

results report~d.

I-..-...---r-.....,..,.....,nno---r-........-T-..--t---.,---t I 

I-.;..:;~~_--r-~~--t----t

I 

regulations. Issuance or reorts 15 01160 

2. ProvIde te~hnical assistance to stafr on tation or laboratory tests. 

t~c..uded,

interpre­ I L,b IToebnlea! a.,h"..,e provided; 

I

I II I I 

I . I f

I , 

I

I , 

f

I 

" 

I 

I 

I 

I 

AV/W61(09,19.21) 
• • 

ttAIARDOUS WASTE
 

WDO£ rv 196~ ANIUAl PROGRAM PLAN (Continued)
 

I '", ,R bi' "	 I M)()[ StdfHng and funding I Progrdlll , Program Activity or Task I e~r.~~(~) e , Outputs or Results and Schedule " f ' ,Index 

I I I I FTES Funds I Source Code 

1 

, 1,' prov,ide exp.ert t,est,'imony I In~olvlng laboratory support. I, n oontested C, cl~e,', La,b, Ih P,6tt" te5t!tnl.lny provided. I I

4.	 Assist in updating and maintaining technIcal lab Ongoing. I
 

te:;ting and analytical prOCedures for dangerous I I
 

and eKttemely hazardous wastes. I I
 

I	 I 

I 1 TOTAL 10.S $l80,lS9..... Fedetdl 

I 2.6 1 State· ,	 n:T 

I	 I 

I 

I I	 I 

I I PLUSa (1) Indirect $151,177' 

I I I (2) Computer time for tracking, monthly reporting, $ 1,000 I 

I , bienniai reports. I 

I I I 

I

,	

0 

I (3) Printing dnd mailing costs assoCiated with • $ 1,000 I 

I final authorization, permitting, and draft ' I 

' I regulations. 

I (4) Cost for Public Notice In newspapers, radio S 1,000

,

,	 I '1 

I. 

I spots, etc. for publlc participation.	 I , I	 ' l	 I (5) TrdVel and Goods &Services. $ 47,073 I 

I 1	 I ! I	 TOTAL $561,409**1 

,I	 1 I I	 1 

: I ·NOTEa State match of 25~ or 2.6 FTE's is reflected in " 

, f ' I the plan.' Only ,the rTE's are shown. I I 

; ··NOTEa The above federal program plan is based I I , , upon the ass~ptiol\ that suffJ.cient funding I I 

, I 

I 

'increased 

will be prpvided. 

or decreased. 

If federal 

the program 

funding 

plan 

is I' I 'I ' I	 .111 be amended accordlngly. I '	 I , '···NOTEa Total federal funds include the $32,000 " 

, I " old carryover. If this $32,000 Is not I ' I , , ' , provided land dispusal call in outputs I I f	 I	 under permitting .11 I be reduced by 3. I I 

I I	 I I I , "' 

I 

I

I I' 

I' I 

t	 , I 'I I 

I	 '	 I, I

, " '~ AV/W62(89,22-24) 
III. PERMITTING PROCEDURES • A. ,Purpose, 

The purpose ,of permitting 'treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) 

facilities (on-site, and off-site) is to ensure 'that all facilities are built and operated in accordance with the Dangerous 

Waste Regulations to protec't the ,public health and the environment. 

In the ,first ,several years, WDOE will be concentrating' on permitting those facilities that are considered high priority by 

both EPA 'and WDOE. Permitting priorities will be determ1ned 

using the procedures described iIi the compliance monitoring 

section of this document considering national permitting priorities. In general, permits will fall into, two major categories, 

existing TSD'facilities, and new TSD facilities. Completion of 

permit a'ctions in progress and dispo'sition of EPA issued permits 

• 

'after final authorization will generally be in accordance with 

EPA Program Implementation Guidance (PIG) 82-5. It is expected 

that at the time of final authorization only condi,tion 5 in PIG 

82-5 will apply to Washington. Any permit actions taken prior 

to final authorizc;ftion will be joint actions by the state and 

EPA. The following elements describe in general how the mCijor 

categories of 'permits will be handled and a discussion of the 

permit development"review, and approval process as it will be 

implemented by WDOE. 

B. Existing TSD' Facilities 

All existing facilities granted Interim Status under Section 

3005 ofRCRAare deemed to have an interim status permit (Part A) 

in the stat,e program. .The state t s regulation directly references 

qualified facilities with interim status gained under Section 3005 

of RCRA~Hence,any facility granted interim 'status by EPA 

tegulations adoptedpursuaIit to Section 3005 would qualify for 

state interim status. 

WDOE also allows existing facilities which do not' currently 

'handle regulated dangerous waste to qualify 'for interim status 

if theit wasfes'become newly designated by amendments to state 

regulations. To qualify, the owner/operator must submit a 

Part A permit application within six months of the date the new 

amendments are adopted (equivalent to 40CFR 270.10(e)(I)(i)). 

WDOE does not provide (as 'specified in 40 CFR 270.10 (.e)(l)(ii)) 

int,erimstatus on the basis of becoming subject to the interim 

status standards (e. g., they begin ac.cepting dangerous waste),. 

The state is 'more stringent iil this area. 

Those facilities wishing to receive or ordered byWDOE to 

• 

.receive a final status permit must submit a completed Part B 

application as defined in WAC 17'3-303-806 ,to WDOE within six: 

months of its request. Late or incomplete Part B applications 

will be p,rocessedinaccordance with the state t s enforcement 

policy. This is equivalent 'to 40 CFR Part 270 subpart B. 

11-30
 
. 

• C. NewTSD Facilities 

New facilities must submit both Parts A and B of the permit 

application to WDOE six months before physical construction can 

begin. This is covered in WAG 173-303-805 and 806. 

D.	 Permit Development Review, Approval Process for Existing and 

New TSD Facilities. 

WDOE, through its permitting process will ensure that all 

requirements and conditions described in WAC 173-303-800 through 

845 are followed. During the permitting process WDOE will: 

Provide assistance to applicants. 

Receive and review applications, including financial 

assurance review. 

Conduct site evaluations. 

Assure analysis of air, water, and/or soil samples as 

necessary. 

Call	 for Part B permit applications. 

Review and make completeness determinations on Part 'B permit
 

applications.
 

Review and approve closure/post closure plans.
 

Review and approve financial assurance documents.
 

Issue draf·t permits and fact sheets (if necessary) or
 

statement of basis of permit determination . 

. Coordinate w.ith EPA during the review process. 

Open comment period , issue public' notice, hold public 

hearings .when necessary, and establish administrative 

record. 

12.	 Take necessary enforcement actions to ensure application 

completeness, closure/post closure and financial requirements are met prior to permit issuance and in accordance 

with state enforcement policies. 

13.	 Ensure compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act. 

(See attachment) 

•	 

14. Issue final permit actions . 

15.	 Process changes to permits including: 

11-31
 
• a. transfers 

b. modifications 

c.	 revocations 

d.	 reissuance 

e.	 terminations 

16.	 Ensure prope'r judicial rev:lew of permits in cases of 

applicant appeals. 

In reviewing applications and writl.ngpermits WDOE will ensure 

that	 all appropriate information and conditions are provided. 

This	 will be done by appropriate engineering and hydrogeologic 

judgments and technical expertise as well -as using the checklist	 and gUidance provided by EPA or equivalent plus any addi~

tionalchecklists necessary to include additional state requirements. The attached flow chart (see Figure 7) describes the 

order	 of events, lines of responsibility, and intra-and interagency relationships that will Occur in the permit process. 

Internal operating procedures and policies will be developed to 

ensure adequate review and compliance with state and federal 

•
 

regulations .
 

For purposes of timing on the activities outlined in Figure 7 

the following time frames represent an average based upon past 

experience. The state expects 

in some cases take longer. 

Activity No 

o 

1, 2, 11,12
 

3, 4, 5
 

13
 

14, 15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 

6" 7, 8
 

19, 9, 10
 

20
 

21
 

Permits By Rule (PBR) 

that	 land disposal permits may 

Timing 

6 months 

120 days 

10-90 days 

10-90 days 

14 days 

7 days 

14 days 

45-75 days 

170 days 

30 days 

1 day 

30 days 

•	 

E. WDOE allows PBR for: 

1.	 Ocean disposal barges or vessels. The PBR requirements 

of the state are identical to federal standards. 

11-32
 
• 2. Underground injection wells. The PBR requirements prohibit 

underground inj ection ·of extremely hazardous waste. They 

require compliance with 40 crn 144.14 and all applicable 

state waste discharge permits and conditions. 

3.	 Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) .potw a·re subj ect 

to state PBR requirements that are identical to .federal 

standards, except thatPOTW may not accept extremely 

hazardous waste for disposal. 

4.	 Totally enclosed treatment facilities and elementary 

neutralization and wastewater treatment units. These 

facilities and units are exempted under federal .requirements. The state, instead, requires a PBR, which includes 

conditions for complying with: security; contingency plan 

and emergency procedures; the manifest system (when applicable); records; reporting;' and general performance' 

standards. If the facilities or units .pose a threat or 

fail to comply with the ~BR conditions, WDOE may require 

compliance with ·al1 the facility standards and require a 

full permit. 

F.	 Emergency Permit 

• 

WDOE may'issuean ·emergency permit to allow for treating,storing, or disposing wastes at faciiities which either are not 

permitted (including interim status), or, if permitted, are not 

authorized at the time to manage the particular waste. Emergency permits will only be issued if doing so will alleviate 

imminent and substantial threats to public health and the 

environment. The requirements .for state issued emergency permitsare identical to the'federal re·quirements. 

G.	 Judicial Review of Permits 

WAC 173':'303-845 states that any person who .is adversely 'affected 

by a decision of WDOE under WAC 173-303 may appeal the decision 

to the Pollution Control Hearings Board pursuant to' Chapter 

43.21B RCW. The Pollution Control Hearings Board at WAC 371­

08-255 has' stated that· in the event that the board determines 

that a permit issued by WIlOE under Chapter 173-303 WAC is 

invalid in any respect, the board shall issue an order remandingthe permit to WDOE for reconsideration and appropriate 

action consistent with the provisions of said o.rder and federal 

and state law. Any further appeals shall be appealed to the 

superior court of the State of Washington and shall follow 

p.rocedures per Chapters 43. 21B and 34.04 RCW . 

•
 

11-33
 
• •• • 

\. figure 7 

OCPARTKHT OF' U·(l.OCY 

'lAlAllOOUS tASt[ 

FACILITY P£RHIT PR()((SS IF IHAl P£RHHS' flOW CHARI 

1-11-84 

Attac~nt

r":- . ll.f---.----.~-.-----.-.-.-..-.-- .. -L l Reolon "·H H.Q.-Ops. 10'H H.O.-Ops. Prepare. Appro\lu DlsI r Ibul u final . and SIO'" SIO'N'd Per_' P....lt ., Pflrelt , 1o All P.rl I 

__ 

I

lead Aoency 10., "wes II 

.1 lead Agency,., Prepare, 'II 

I lead Aqenr.y . '--'--_.'--~ Re\lle.s C~"lI

I on Draft [IS 7.' 

I Public Review 1.1 and C_nt. I ' on Dratt [IS 

to lead Agency I 

• Conlad .Ith Applle.nt •• "'Jou Oflly 

AY/'~71~~·16)
• IV. COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT 

A. Objective: 

The objective of the compliance monitoring program is to ensure 

the protection of public healthandtheenvironmentthrough 

active enforcement of the state approved Dange.rous Waste Regulations . 

.B. Facility Definition and Establishing Priorities: . 

The compliancemonit·oring strategy is based upon performing 

the greatest number of facility inspections with available 

resources. Number ofinspectiolls completed each year will be 

dependent upon WDOE t..s resources. Industries will be classified 

.into two categories; major or nonmajor. In general, those 

facilities which are the largest, and pose the great·est potential for pollution will be classified as major. The criteria 

for developing a numerical ranking ·of facilities is presented 

in Table ·4. Major facilities will have a high numerical ranking. Minor facilities will, of course, have a lower numerical 

assignment. The basic purpose of using criteria ·is to develop 

consistent permitting and compliance monitoring priorities. 

•
 

The criteria were derived from an EPA model ·for.ranking Superfund
 

candidates. The criteria consider five factors in establish­


ing human and environmental risks:
 

1.	 Major Hazard of· Materials· - gives information on 

the types of waste being treated, stored, or disposed 

of at the facility. 

2.	 Volume of Materials - gives data 6n the size of poten~

tial environmental problem. 

3.	 .Routes for Pollution .- ptovides information on how 

the waste may enter the environment. 

4.	 Location of .Facility indicates the.size of populationnear the facility and proximity to it. 

5.	 Observed Releases or Violations - gives data on 

history of the facilitytsoperations. 

The decision line or break-point for what is a major or nonmajor 

is variable and· may change depending on national guidance for 

defining major/nonmajor priorities.. This line will be negotiated during the annual program plan. 

•	 

bnce the major and nonmajor facilities have been identified in 

the annual program plan then the number of annual compliance 

inspections to be completed by the state under final authorization 

will	 be negotiated based on the list of major and nonmajor facilities. The EPA national inspection scheme, including 100 percent 

of major handlers inspected each year, will be addressed during 

11-35 
• TABLE '4. CRITERIA FORD~TERMINING THE PRIORITY OF MAJOR AND 

NON-MAJOR FACILITIES. 

·BASIS OF 'SITE SITE 'MAX1MUM 

RATING FACTOR INFORMATION RATING MULTIPLIER SCORE, POSSIBLE 

SCORE 

1 , MAJOR HAZARD OFMATERIALS* 

EHW 3 6 18 

DW 2 5 10 

Low Risk 1 3 3 

Subtotal '31 

2 VOLUME OF MATERIALS 

10 Tons 4 3 12 

1 - 10 Tons 3 3 9 

400 Ibs -' 1 Ton ' 3 ,6 

400 Ibs. ' '1 3 

I. 3 ROUTE(S) .FOR POLLUTION*
 

Ground Water' 3 3 9
 

Surface Water 3 9 

Land 3 3 9 

Air 2 3 

Subtot-al 33 

4 LOCATION OF FACILITY (check only one) 

100,000 3 3 9 

10,000-100,000 2 2 4 

1 'I 1 

OBSERVED ~LEASESOR VIOLATIQNS* 

Major 10 3 30 

Moderate 6 3 18 

Minor 3 3 9 

Subtotal ,57 

6 GRAND TOTAL 

142 

*May have more than one entry . 

• 

11-36
 
• the annual program plan negotiations. In addition to the requirements in the EPA national inspection .schemeeach of the state's 

four Regional Offices and Industrial Section will identify 

those facilities/handlers in their area that represent a high 

priority need based on environmental risk. These pr10rities 

will be taken into account in developing ·the final inspection 

commitment in the annual program plan. Through this process 

EPA concerns and state needs and staffing levels can be 

addressed. Overall development and review of priorities will 

be done by WDOE headquarters Dangerous/Hazardous Waste group to 

ensure statewide priorities are being maintained. 

In addition to those planned facility inspections, response to 

citizen or local government complaints of hazardous waste 

spills and abandoned/inactive hazardous waste sites may require 

further field investigation and the dedication of resources. 

This may result in a lower than anticipated nilinber of planned 

facility inspections. Again, the final number of industries 

to be inspected will be dependent upon adequacy of resources and 

the manag·ement of those resources. 

c. Inspection Procedures: 

Dangerous waste handler/facility inspections are conducted and 

docum.ented by the hazardous waste inspectors in each of the four 

WDOE Regional Offices and the Industrial Section. These inspectors are assigned to the dangerous/hazardous waste program to 

allow them to develop expertise in this area and become the 

primary agency ·contact with the pertinent facilities and handlers. 

In most instances the inspectors also have the responsibility 

for writing any final status permits that may be called and/or 

issued by the state. 

The inspectors are trained to be .knowledgeable on regulatory 

~equitements and interpretation as well as inspection procedures 

a.nd protocol. Because . inspections· and documentation of these 

activities are triticaltoa successful enforcement program it 

is the intent of the state to develop specific guidance for 

field use for hazardous ~asteinspections~ There is also review 

of inspection reports and compliance monitoring performed by 

the dangerous/hazardous waste headquarters staff at WDOE to 

help assure statewide consistency in documentation and enforcement. 

In general the following procedures are followed. WDOE conducts 

both announced and unannounced inspections depending on the 

given situation. In addition to our own knowledge of what is 

happening in each region we also use the eyes and ears of local 

citizens or groups , such as the local health department and 

• 

citizen complaints to alert us of any possible environmental 

or health tisk. Inspections may fall into one of several categories depending on the concern. Inspectors may do a compliance 

inspection on general facility operations, record review, sampling inspection, or a follow-up inspection on a particular compliance issue including proper closure and/or post closure tare. 

11-37 
• Field inspectors' are given basic training, and when possible, 

followup training for facility inspec·tion, record review, and 

safety. In general, inspections are conducted according to 

the following protocol: 

1.	 Conduct a .prior research of the file·s of that facility. 

If there is any unusual or important inforiIlation, 

they will incorporate that into their inspection. 

2.	 Conduct personnel interviews, if necessary. 

·3. Talk with owners/supervisors of the facility. 

4.	 Conduct a .tour of the plant site, taking photos, 

drawing maps and any other field notes that might 

be pertinent. 

5.	 If applicable,review m~nifest and recordkeeping to 

ensure regulatory compliance. 

• 

6. Ask questions about -complying wl.th the. regulations 

such as: Are the standards being complied with? 

Do you have a clo~ure plan, a facility plan, contingencyplan, post closure plan if' applicable, correct 

financial assurance, .etc. In cases where these 

records have not been reviewed by WDOE or are nonexistent or inaccurate, the inspector will require a submittalto WDOEfor review and also to ensure WDOE' s 

files contain an up-to-date copy of the appropriate 

records. 

7. Collect samples if necessary. 

An inspection form 'will be used by our field inspectors and 

is included with this application. 

D.	 Enforcement Authority and Procedures: 

WDOE	 has the enforcement authority for the Dangerous/Hazardous 

Waste Program as given in Chapter 70.105 RCW specifically cit~d

in RCW 70.105.080, -090, -095, -097. What follows isadescription	 of general definitions and procedures as presented in the 

current WDOEEnforcement Guidelines and Procedures Manual 

(September 1978). The current enforcement guidelines are presently ina process of revision to reflect a. stronger and more 

definitive enforce~ent policy for the dangerous ~aste program. 

The new policy will be implemented immediately upon adoption. 

It should be ~ecognized that during this period of transition 

from	 the current policy to the new enforcement policy a shift 

in the state's dangerous waste enforcement posture is emerging.

•	 

This shift is showing a trend toward more immediate stronger 

enforcement actions in the use bf serious violations and accelerated levels of enforcement in other noncompliance situations. 

The new policy is targeted to be developed by the end of·September, 

1984. 

11-3'8 
• 1. General Definitions 

Warning Letter - This letter is issued as soon as you 

•
 

•
 

know	 the circumstances ofa violation or environmental 

abuse.· The letter does five things: 

a.	 Establishes an official record of the situation. 

b.	 Lets the violator know there is a problem and 

the problem needs to be corrected in a ptescribed 

manner. 

c.	 Requires the violator to let WDOE .know what 

correctl.ve action will betaken. 

d.	 Informs the violator that failure .to correct 

.the problem voluntarily may .result in more 

stringent action. 

e.	 Establishes B basis for more st~ingent action 

if it is required. 

Warning letters· may be approved and signed by the dan&erous 

waste .supervisor in the Regional Office and Industrial 

Section ~nd the inspector. 

Noticeo! Violation - This is the next, more serious action 

taken after a warning letter. This notice defines the 

problem and specifically describes what actions are required 

to .correct· the problem. 

A notice 'is a quasi-legal "document and must be signed and 

approved by an assistant director. 

A notice of violation requires .a response from the violator. 

Administrative Order - This is a quasi-legal document. 

1t must be signed ·,by an assistant director or higher 

authority. It will be issued 30 or more days after a 

Notice of Violation except in an air quality enforcement 

action, or a dangerous waste enforcement action. 

In the case of a dangerous waste violation an administrative	 order can be issued whenever WDOE det,ermines a person 

has violated or is 'about to violate ,the. provi'sions of RCW 

70.105. These situations occur when there is a threat to 

public health and welfare requiring immediate action. 

,No Action Order - After a Notice of Violation is issued, 

an order must follow. A No Action Order is issued when 

the violator has solved the problem prior to iSsuance of 

an Administrative Order. 

11-39
 
• Civil Penalty- This can be used as an enforcement action 

where it is provided for by statute. It is a monetary or 

amount of resource damage. In the case of a. dangerous 

waste violation it can be in the amount up to $10,000 per 

day pe·r violation. It. usually Occurs where there isa 

well-identified, specific violation or there have .been 

continuing or repeated violations. 

The statutory ·authority for issuing a civil penalty also 

provides fo,r the reduction or dismissal ofa 'penalty in 

some'cases of extenuating or.mitigating circumstances. 

All civil penalty assessments must be signed and approved 

by an assistant director. 

Restraining Order - Injunction -Under RCW 70.105.120 WDOE 

may,	 request the attorney general to bring injunction, 

declaratory or o'ther actions to enforce any requirement of 

the Hazardous Waste Disposal Act, Chapter 70. 105 RCW. 

Prior	 ,no'tification is not required for such action and 

such	 action may be taken for threatened as well as actual 

violations. The Attorney General's statement provided 

with	 this document further clarifies this authority. 

• 

Criminal·Proceedip.gs - This is the most severe enforcement 

action available to WDOE. It maybe used 'only when statutory provisions allow. Conviction ofa crime means penalties of a fine, prosecution cost~, and/or imprisonment. 

General Procedures 

The following procedures do not necessarily in all instances 

occur	 in the sequence outlined below. This information is 

intended 'to represent a general process and may vary according to the severity of the violation or the immediate threat 

to public health and the environment. 

a.	 Someone is not in compliance with the law. 

b .	 Make a telephone call and/or. a personal vis'it to 

assess the situation and get the facts on the ~ituation. 

(i)	 This will begin the foundation of 'any 

needed enforcement action; or 

(ii)	 It can eliminate or correct any problem 

with noncompliance; 

• 

(iii) A memo to the files should be completed to 

document the situation and any discussions 

with the violator. 
• c. If the problem is not solved informally, the next step 

is to send a warning letter to -the violator-. This 

must be signed by the section head or district supervisor. 

d.	 If the warning is not heeded and the violation continues, the next step -is to issue a Notice of Violation. All the information is sent to the enforcement 

officer. He prepares the Notice of Violation and 

the appropriate assistant director approves and signs 

it. 

e.	 -The violator has an opportunity to respond within 

. 30 days. 

f.	 After Notice of Violation, an Administrative Order 

is issued by the enforcement officer under the 

assistant director's _signature. This requires an 

appropriate response from the violator. 

g.	 If corrective action is being t~ken by the violator, 

the initiating program staff member can decide that 

no further action·is necessary. 

•
 

h. If corrective action is not being taken, the enforce­


ment officer and the initiating staff member should
 

decide one of the following courses of action:
 

(i)	 Send a reminder letter. This should come 

from the section head of the init1.3ting 

off1ce. 

(ii)	 Enforcement officer -recommends to the appropriateassistant director that the matter 

should be referred to the assistant attorney 

general for ~ction.

i .If option i. is chosen and the situation is not 

corrected,-the next step is optionii. 

j.	 The matter is referred to the assistant attorney 

general and the en£orce~ent bfficer prepares a memorandum from the assistant director to the assistant 

attorney -general, including the following: 

(i)	 A chronology of circumstances andconditions causing the original enforcement 

respons-e, description of conditions, nature 

of the violations, and corrective action 

•	 

required . 

(ii)	 Copies of correspondence, memorandum of 

record, inspection reports, monitoring 

reports, and any other documentation relating to the situation. 

11-41 
• (iii) A request that the assistant attorney 

general take appropriate action' to record 

penalties .and/or to gain compliance with 

•
 

•
 

the notice or order. 

(iv)	 Attorney general contacts violator. There 

is an opportunity to settle without court 

action. If unsettled, the case is filed 

in the.court of the county where the violationoccurred, or in Thurston County Court. 

k.	 Waivers or variances. With the exception of one a'rea, 

any waivers or variances grantedby'WDOE are essentially identical. to :federal waiver/variance procedures. The areas in' which waiversfva'riancescould 

be' granted and the conditions or circumstances for 

granting them are based completely on those specified 

in EPA's regulations or federal statute. For example: 

1) ground water .monitoring waiver based on use of 

double liners; 2) waiver from landfill liner requirements,based onhydrbgeology, waste nature, alternate 

design and operations, etc.; and, 3) waste exemptions, 

based on conditions described in Section' II.B.l. of 

this program description. 

WDOE may, under its statutory enforcement authority, 

issue a. compliance order which includes a .schedule 

for complying with the regulations. .This would 

amount to a temporary variance from the state requirements. Such'a variance/ compliance schedule would 

only be provided if requiring immediate compliance: 

l)could result in further violations of state regulations; 2) could pose -a threat to public health or the 

environment; or,3) if the violation is minor (e.g., 

recordkeeping error, procedural problems), could. 

resolve the violation in a short period of time without. having to resort to penalties.· A variancel 

compliance. schedule would not be issued if it would 

result in a threat to. public health or theen:vironment.	 . 

WDOE	 does vary one requirement which EPA does not. 

This	 is the fifty-foot setback for containers .storing 

ignitable waste at final status facilities. WDOE 

allows compliance with the Uniform 'Fire Code or NFPA 

pamp'hlet #30 in lieu of the fifty-foot setback. This 

is discussed in detail in SectionII.B.4. 

The following is a general estimate of the process time required 

for the various enforcement measures described in the preceding 

procedures . 

11-42
 
• Activity Timing 

a,b 0-15 days 

c 0-.15 days 

d 15 days 

f,h 30 days 

j 90 days 

It is the intent of \tIDOE to further refine the general defin'itions and procedures stated above to pr6videguidance and ensure 

s.tatewideconsistency in dangerous waste enforcement situations. 

This refinement will iricludea definition of high priority 

environmental/health risk situations and lessor violations. 

Associated with this resolution of significance will be specific guidance on level of enforcement actions, including penalty 

assessment, and timing o'f those actions. 

Dangerous waste program compliance and enforcement are recognized 

as critical state as ,well as national importance. It is recognized that a strong regulatory position is critical to environmental· protection and public health. 

E. Information Management 

• 

WDOE recognizes that information and data mangementare critical 

to good program planning and management. Several areas have 

been identified as high priority. These include compliance 

monitoring and enforcement actions, permittracking,.notification data, annual waste generation data, . program reporting 

including monthly workload statistics, and output commitments 

as defined in the annual program plan. 

An ADP system is under development 'to satisfy the state's information management needs as well as any reporting requirements 

identified by EPA under final authorization . Due to the complexity 0'£ the DangerousjHazardousWaste Program, rapid information retrieval will be critical in responding to the needs of 

all parties. The system, at this time, is divided into three 

areas: notification,permitsjcompliance monitoring and enforcement tracking, and reporting data (Table 5). 

Notification data has already been collected by EPA on generators, transporters, and TSD facilities. This data will be 

incorporated into'WDOE's data base~ Notification information 

can. then be .recalled to assist£ield and headquarters staff in 

obtaining rapid notification information ,i.e. who has valid 

identification .numbers, what types of hazardous waste activities are conducted, e-tc. Periodic updates of the notification 

data·base are planned. 

• Permit compliance monitoring and enforcement tracking will also 

be performed by the ADP system. The data base will contain 

Part A, and Part B permit information (when available), as well 

as all handlers/facilities subject to compliance under RCW 

11-43
 
• 70.105 and .WAC 173-303. The data base will include compliance 

dates, 'enforcement actions, 'permit expiration dates, permit 

target dates, and other.types of information, such as facility 

location, permit violations including the stat~s of financial 

assurance, closure, post closure, SEPA, etc. 

The ADP system will be instrumental .in highlighting facility 

'status ,permit violations, enforcement actions, biennial waste 

reports, and other actions'WDOE makes for the annual report to 

EPA. A process is established between the inspectors and permit 

wr.j.ters in the regional offices and the permit coordinator in 

the Dangerous Waste Section whereby all enforcement actions 

taken, compliance dates established and met, and permit milestones are reported and monitored by the agency ADP syst'em for 

compliance monitoring and permit tracking. Monthly status reports 

are provided to managers and supervisors and compliance tickler 

reports are provided to inspectors for compliance follow-up . 

•
 

•
 

11-44
 
• v. Regulated Community Data - Estimates 

A. Number of Notifiers by Activity Reported 

Data estimating the' numbers of regulated companies was 

derived from EPA's notification data base and submitted 

Part A	 permit forms . The following information depicts the 

status	 of Washington State: 

Activity	 Number 

*Generation----------~ The exact numbers are not' 

*Transportation------- available at ihis time for 

TSD-------------·---- breakdown, due to confusion 

over data base definitions 

of RCRA, RCRA/state and state 

only regulated. 

B. Amount Waste 

•
 

WaShington's 1982 Annual Report return resulted in an account­


ing of 303 active generators (those which reported stateregu­


lated quantities of waste generation during calendar year 1982).
 

The amount of waste generated during 1982 was 515,839 tons.
 

(See the 1982 Annual Report Sununary attached as Appendix A to
 

this document)
 

c. Amount of Was,te Treated, Stored, 'and Disposed 

The state received facility annual reports from 76. Those 

facilities reported TSD activities on 501,434 tons of dangerous 

waste during calendar year 1982. (See the 1982 Annual Report 

Summary attached as Appendix A to this document). 

*During notification process some genera'tors and transporters marked 

both activities. Actual number of total entities ,is unknown. 

Note:	 The EPA notificati9n (RCRA) data base tape has been loaded 

into the state system (9/20/84). The data bas'e will be analyzed 

and an attempt made to clarify the "regulated" status of all 

notifiers made . 

•
 

,11-45
 
e' 

FUTURE 

CAPABILITIES 

REPORTING 

DATA 

PERMIT 

DATA 

\mOE 

DATA BASE 

NOTIFICATION 

DATA 

• 

EPA 

DATA BASE 

H\IDMS 

* Monthly Reporting 

Hazardous Waste Program ADP System 

Figure 8 AV/W57(A2.2) 
MEMoRAN1J~ OF AGREEMENT
 

BETWEEN
 

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
 

AND
 

THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION X FOR FINAL DANGEROUS WASTE PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION
 

I. GENERAL 

This Memorandum of Agreement (hereafter "Agreementtt ) establishes 

policies,responsibilities,andprocedures pursuant to 40 CFR 271.8 

for operation of the State of Washington's Dangerous· Waste Mana·gement Program (hereafter tfStateProgram") authorized under Section 

3006 . of the' Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (hereafter 

"RCRA" or "the Ac.t') of 1976 (Pub. Law 94-580, 42 U. S. C. 6901, et 

~) and the .United States Environmental Protection Agency­

(hereafter EPA) Regional Office for .Region X. This Agreement 

further sets forth the manner in which the ·State will coordinate 

with EPA in administering the State Program. 

This Agreement is entered into by the Director of' the Washington 

State·DepartmentofEcology (hereafter "Director" or "the State'), 

the lead agency for the' State Program (as designated by the State 

pursuant to 40 CFR271.6(b) and the Region.al Administrator, EPA, 

Region X (hereafter "Regional Administrator" or "EPAtt). 

Nothing in this Agreement restricts EPA's authority to fulfill its 

oversight and enforcement responsibilities under· RCRA. Nothing in 

this Agreement shall be construed to contravene 40 CFR Part 271. 

The parties will review this Agreement jointly at least once a year 

during preparation of. the. annual State Grant Work. Program 

(hereafter "State Work Program"), in conjunction with grant funding 

under section 3011 of RCRA. 

This Agreement will remain in effect until the State withdraws from 

authoriza.tion or until such time as State Program authorization is 

withdrawn by EPA, atcordl.ng to the provisions of 40 CFR271. 22, or 

reVerts to EPA according to the provisions of 40 CFR 271.23. 

This Agreement will take'effect at the time the State's authorization takes effect, which shall he 14 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of EPA's decision to grant authorization 

to the State. 

II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES 

A. Policy Statement 

Ea'ch of the parties to this Agreement is responsible for 

ensuring that its obligations under RCRA are met. The 

.~ Dir.ector and the Regional Administrator agree to maintain a

IIi-1 
• high level of cooperation and coordination between State and 

EPA staffs in a partnership to assure successful and effective 

administration of the State authorized program. 

The State has primary authority and responsibility for all 

aspects of the hazardous waste program within its boundaries. 

EPA's primary responsibility under this agreement is the oversight of the fully authorized state.program. The purpose of 

oversight is to ensure that pro~ress on environmental objectives 

is being made and environmental laws are being implemented in a 

consistent .manner. EPA retains its responsibility to ensure 

full and faithful execution 'of the requirements of ReRA including direct implementation in the event the State is (mabIe to 

act. Under final authorization, Washington will have responsibility for coordination of the program with other authorized 

s.tates and with EPA instates without authorization. The State 

expects to have minimum resources for implementing this program 

and will prioritize activities and accomplish them in order of 

priority. 

EPA assumes an oversight role upon granting final 

authorization to the State. EPA agrees to conduct its 

oversight of the State Program in a manner consistent with the 

.following principles outlined in the official Region X 

•
 

Oversight Policy:
 

Focus on Overall Performance EPA will be concerned with the 

overall performance and environmental results achieved by 

state programs . The oversight process will focus on 

individual procedures or actions only as indicators of overall 

program performance, or where actions' involve significant 

national issues. 

Respect State Technical Judgments EPA will respect the 

judgments of state technical staff, unless statutory 

requirements call for direct EPA involvement in project 

decisions or the technical issue has significant policy 

implications. 

Use Specific Performance Criteria EPA will specify the 

criteria after consultation with the states that will be used 

to assess State Program performance 'and include these annually 

in the SEA or negotiated work plans as appropriate. The 

criteria will address major program outputs and legally 

required procedures. Useful oversight can occur only if 

states and EPA understand in advance·about specific standards 

of performance to bernet and how success in meeting them 

should be measured. 

• 

Tailor Amount of Oversight The level and amount of oversight 

will be geared to the maturity and performance of the State 

Program. A program which has been completely delegated for 

more than .a year and demonstrates consistently strong 

111...2
 
• performance .levels, requires less oversight. Specifically, 

there shQuld be less need for real time reviews. Conversely, 

poor performance should result in increased oversight by EPA. 

A new delegation· should include a specified transition 

period. In general, the agency's oversight should reflect 

changing state needs and program priorities. 

Emphasis on Strong, Informal EPA/State Relationships. EPA 

Region 10 has a unique ability, because of its Ope·rations 

Offices, to rely on informal working relationships as an 

oversight mechanism. The use of formal written reports will 

be. kept to the minimum necessary for the timely assessment and 

resolution of environmental problems and progress. The states 

will also be encouraged to participate in the oversight of 

their own programs through joint audits and to evaluate EPA's 

performance in providing assistance and meeting commitments. 

EPA will Retain Responsibility. EPA is responsible under 

sfatute for ensuring the consistent application and 

enforcement of national standards. If direct EPA action is 

necessary to ensure that environmental laws are carried out, 

such action will betaken, with appropriate consultation with 

the State. 

• 

Oversight will be'accomplished by EPA through written reporting 

requirements, permit overview, compliance and enforcement overview, and joint review with the State of its program. EPA will 

keep the State informed of the content and meaning of federal 

statutes, regulations, guidelines, standards, policy decisions, 

directives, and any other factors that affect the State Program. 

EPA will also provide general technical guidance to the State. 

EPA will share w'ith the State any national reports developed by 

EPA from the data 'submitted through State reporting requirements. 

B. , Provisions for Transfer of Information 

1. EPA Program Information Transfer 

EPA agrees to provide copies of State notification form 

(ECY 030-5) in lieu of EPA Form (8700-12) to generators, 

transporters, and TSDfacilities who request assistance 

with obtaining an EPA/State ID number. 

EPA will also provide, within ten (10) working days of 

receipt, originals of EPA Notification Forms (8700~12) or 

State Notification Forms (ECY 030-5), including EPA 

identification number, submitted by persons located in the 

State after the date of this Agreement. EPA further 

agrees to inform each requestor, by mail, ,of 'the new ID 

number assigned within thirty (30) days of receipt . 

• 

111-3
 
• EPA agrees to tranSfer to the Director or his designee 

any remaining originals of Part A and Part B hazardous 

waste management facility permit applications, including 

that information pertaining to land disposal facilities 

submitted to EPA under 40 CFR270 .10 by facilities 

located in the State before the date of this Agreement, 

together with all pertinent file information (which 

includes narratives, plans ,maps , etc.) draft permits, 

public notices, administrative notices, fact sheets, and 

correspondence. Permit applicat10ns and file information, 

not already transferred to the State, will be provided 

to the Director or his designee within no more than thirty 

(30) days of the date of final authorization. 

EPA will also provide , within £ive (5) working days of 

receipt, originals of Par.t A and Part B permit applications 

or revisions submitted directly to EPA after the date of 

final authorization. 

EPA will keep the department informed of all proposed or 

adopted federal regulations as promulgated in.the Federal 

Register adopted pursuant to RCRA or required 0'£ another 

federal agency to implement the full scope of the State 

approved dangerous waste management program. 

• EPA will assist thed~partment in obtaining publications 

of any environmental impact or assessment statement, 

technical support document, gUidance document, or any 

other publication developed by EPA, EPA contractor, ot 

other federal agency related to the development or opeTation of a State approved hazardous waste management program . 

.EPA agrees to make. available to the State copies of any 

reports and data resulting from compliance inspections 

within sixty (60) days of completion of the inspection. 

EPA agrees to provide the State, upon request, any data 

or information necessary for the development and 

maintenance of the State t s automated data processing 

files and compliance monitoring and permit tracking 

system. 

2. State Program·lnformation Transfer 

The State agrees to require newgenerators,transporters, 

and hazardous waste management Jacilities to obtain 

identification numbers consistent with the Dunn and 

Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering (DUN) system for 

• 

businesses and General Service Administration Real 

Property Number, or equivalent, for governmental 

agencies. EPA and the state will participate in a joint 

effort to assign DUN identification numbers to all new 

generators, transporters, and TSD facilities who notify 

111-4
 
• the State. The State ,will then inform ,the requestor of 

the new identification number. Both E,PA and the State 

will wo~k as rapidly as possible to provide identification 

numbers to new notifiers. The State will also submit any 

updates or changes in previously submitted notification 

and Part A permit application information. This information will be provided to the Regional Administrator within 

twenty (20) working days of receipt. 

The State agrees to inform the Regional Administrator of 

any proposed or adopted program chan~es which would 

affect the State's ability to implement the authorized 

program. Program changes of concern include modification 

of the State's legal authorities (i.e. statutes, 'regulations, and judicial or legislative actions affecting those 

authorities), modifications or memoranda of agreement or 

understanding with other agencies, and modifications of 

resource levels (i.e., available or budgeted personnel and 

funds within the framework of the SEA). The State recognizes that program revisions must be made,in accordance 

with the provisions of 40 CFR271.21. 

• 

The State will provide compliance monitoring and enforcement 'information to the Regional Administrator ona routine 

basis as specified in the State Work Program and the 

reporting section of this Agreement . 

As specified in the State Work Program and the reporting 

,section of this Agreement, the State will provide the 

Regional Administrator with information indicating the 

status of the State's facility permitting activities. 

Where the State Program involves the,granting of variances 

or waivers, less stringent requirements than comparable 

federal requirements or Variances will not be imposed. 

The State agrees to provide EPA with a copy of each State 

RCRA variance or waiver at the time it is granted. 

Any request for a variance or waiver concerning a RCRA 

regulated waste will be sent to the Region 10 EPA office 

in Seattle for written comment before issuance. The 

department will respond in writing to any comments or 

concerns raised in the EPA review. All written responses 

shall be provided to EPA before a variance or waiver is 

issued. 

For the purposes of permit overview the State will 

provide EPA with the following information on the 

major treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as 

identified and agreed to in the annual p~ogram plan . 

• 

111-5
 
•	 ITEM DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY OF SUBMISSION 

Copies of facility permit 

.application. 

Copies of draft permits, 

proposed permit modificationfact sheets 

Copies of final permit 

or permit modifications 

Within 15 working days 

of receipt 

Within 10 working days· 

of completion 

Within 10 working days 

of . completion . 

3.	 Emergency Situations and Information Transfer 

Upon receipt of any information that the handling, 

storage, .t·reatment, transportation, or disposal of 

.hazardous waste is endangering human health or the 

environment, the party in receipt of suchinformation 

shall immediately notify by telephone the other 

.party(ies) to .thisagreement of the existence of such 

situation. A .list of appropriate contacts will be 

maintained and updated as a part of the· annual .program 

plan. 

•	 4. Confidentiality 

a..	 Any information o1?tained or used in the 

administration of the State Program shall be 

available to EPA upon request without restriction. 

If the information has been submitted to the State 

under a claim of confidentiality, the State must 

submit that claim to EPA when providing 

information. Any information obtained· from a state 

and subject to a claim of confidentiality will be 

treated in accordance with the regulations in 40 CFR 

Part	 2. 

b.	 EPA agrees to furnish to the State info·rmation in 

its files which is not submitted under a claim of 

confidentiality and which the State needs to 

implement its program. Subject to the conditions 

of 40 CFR ·Part 2, EPA will furnish the State 

information submitted to EPA under a claim of 

confidentiality which the State needs to implement 

its program. All confidential information EPA 

agrees to transfer to the State will be transferred 

in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 

Part 2 . 

•
 

111-6
 
• C. Frequency and Content of Reports 

The State agrees .to submit to Region X, EPA the following 

documents, reports, and other information. 

1.	 Monthly (on the 15th of the month for the month previous) 

compliance monitoring and enforcement report andperniit 

statusieports. 

•
 

2.	 Biennial 

Biennial report summa rl.Zl.ng the quantities and types 

of hazardous waste generated~ transported, treated, 

stored, c;lnd' disposed in the State as specified in 

the RCRA guidance,' by October 1 of each evennumbered year. 

3.	 Other 

Additional reports a's negotiated in the State Work 

Program, and updated facility status information as 

necessary. 

D.	 Conditions for State Program Review 

1.	 The Regional Administrator will ~ssess the Director's 

administration and enforcement of the State Program on a 

continuing basis fot equivalence and consistency with 

RCRA, with thisAgreem~nt,andwith all applicable federal 

requirements. This program evaluation will generally be 

accomplished by an EPA review of the information submitted 

by the Director in accordance with this Agreement and the 

State Work Plan, permit overview, compliance and enforcementoverview, and review' of State Program activities. 

The Regional Administrator may also consider, as part of 

this regular assessment, written comments about the State's 

program adm1nistration and enforcement that are received 

from regulated persons, the public, and federal, state, 

and local agencies.' Copies of any such comments received 

by the Regional Administrator will be provided to the 

Director 

2.	 The following approach to state program review will ·be 

• 

followed by EPA and the State. All significant concerns 

raised during EPA review of the information submitted by 

the state in accordance with this agreement and the work 

plan will be submitted in writing to the State Hazardous 

Waste.Program Assistant Director. All EPA concerns raised 

111-7
 
• as a result of permit overview, compliance and enforcement 

overview, and annual review of State Program activities 

will be submitted by EPA to the State Hazardous Waste 

Program Assistant Director. 

The review of State Program activities shall be conducted 

as a joint review by EPA and the State Hazardous Waste 

Program. Joint reviews, including any associated audits 

of the State regional office operations, shall be scheduled 

with written notice at least 30 days prior to the audit. 

Reviews shall be no more frequent than quarterly and shall 

become less frequent as the state program matures. The 

scheduling shall include a jointly agreed to State/EPA 

format and content of the review which reflects goals and 

commitments outlined in the annual State Program plan. 

EPA will provide written notice to the State at least IS 

days prior to conducting any other review of State files. 

Under emergency situations the IS-day notice may be waived, 

however, prior notice is still required. 

• 

To ensure effective program review, the Director agrees 

to allow EPA access to all RCRA files and other RCRA information requested by the Regional Administrator and deemed 

necessary for evaluating State Program administration and 

enforcement. During the first year of final authorization 

EPA may conduct RCRA file reviews at quarterly intervals. 

In the spirit of EPA's oversight policy these reviews will 

generally be reduced to annual or in some cases semi-annual 

frequency after adequate performance levels have been demonstrated. 

Program review meetings between the Director and the 

Regional Administrator or their assignees will be scheduled 

at reasonable intervals not less than annually to review 

specific operating procedures and schedules, to resolve 

problems, and to discuss mutual program concerns. These 

meetings must be scheduled at least thirty (30) days in 

advance of the meeting, with a final agenda prepared by 

EPA and submitted to the Director for comment at least one 

week before the meeting date, unless otherwise agreed 

upon. 

3. Identification of Major Hazardous Waste Handlers 

The State agrees to develop with EPA a list of hazardous 

waste facilities, generators, and transporters in the 

State designated as "major" hazardous waste handlers. 

This designation is intended to identify, for administrative purposes, environmentally significant hazardous waste 

•
 

handlers, and to be used in concentrating inspection,
 

permitting and reporting resources on those handlers. The 

list shall be submitted as a part of this agreement. It 

shall be reviewed and updated annually and more often as 

111-8 
• necessary. Changes to the list do not require a formal 

amendment to this agreement so long as bo·th the state and 

EPA agree in writing to any. changes. 

From the list of "maj or" handlers the State agrees to 

develop and annually review with the Regional Administrator 

a list of facili·ties whose permit applications and draft 

permits will be reviewed by EPA. This smaller list constitutes "major" facilities for purposes of EPA permit 

overview. To ensure effective program management this 

"smaller list" shall be agreed to in the annual State Work 

Frogram and shall be adhe~ed to for the period covered by 

that State Work Program. 

E. Permit Issuance 

1. EPA Permitting 

Upon approval of the State Program (final authorization), 

EPA will suspend issuance of federal permits for hazardous 

waste treatment ,storage, and disposal facilities in the 

State. 

• 

EPA intends to add permitting standards for processe not 

currently covered by the Part 264 standards. For example, 

the Part 264 standards do not currently cover treatment 

and storage of hazardous waste in certain types of underground tanks. When EPA does promulgate standards for 

additional processes, EPA will process and enforce RCRA 

permits ·in the State in the new areas until the State 

receives final authorization of equivalent and consistent 

State standards. Every attempt will be made to coordinate 

with the State in processing these permits. At the time 

the State Program is approved 'in the new areas, EPA will 

suspend issuance of federal permits in the State. EPA 

will also transfer any pending permit applications, completed permits or pertinent file information to the State 

within thirty days of the approval of the State Program in 

conformance with the conditions of this Agreement. 

Completion of permit actions in progress and disposition 

of EPA issued pe.rmits will generally be in accordance 

with EPA Program Implementation Guidance (PIG) 82-5. It 

is expected that at the time of final authorization only 

Condition 5 in PIG 82-5 will apply to Washington. Any 

permit actions taken up to the time of finalauthorization will be joint actions by the State and EPA. 

2. State Permitting 

• 

The State agrees to carryoutpermitting procedures 

consistent and equivalent to those in 40 CFR Parts 270 and 

124. Upon final authorization the State will continue 

111-9
 
• timely permit issuance activity initiated prior to final 

authorization, including completion of permit issuance 

activity initiated jointly with EPA. 

The State is responsible for expeditiously drafting, 

circulating for public review and comment, issuing, 

modifying, reissuing, and terminating ReRA permits for 

all hazardous waste TSD facilities in the State, and 

shall do so ina manner consistent with RCRA, this 

Memorandum of Agreement, all applicable federal 

requirements, and with the State's program description. 

Annual commitments for the call in and issuance of 

permits will be reflected in the approved annual 

'Work plan. 

The State agrees to consider all timely comments EPA 

makes on maj or TSD facilities as identified in the 

approved State Work Program regarding draft major TSD 

facility permits and major permit modifications during 

the required 45-day public comment· period. The State 

will satisfy or refute the concern in writing before 

issuing the permit or making the modification. 

• 

The State agrees to issue, modify, and reissue permits in 

accordance with all applicable State permitting 

regulations and applicable statutes, and to include as 

permit conditions all applicable provisions of WAC 

173-303. This agreement also applies to permits issued 

after final authorization but for which the processing may 

have begun before final authorization. 

The State agrees that any compliance schedules contained 

in permits will require compliance with the Dangerous 

Waste Regulations. 

3. EPA Overview of State Permit Actions 

EPA's overview function for permit actions, including 

closure of interim status and final status facilities, 

will focus on those facilities identified as major TSD 

facilities in the approved annual work program. EPA's 

ov~rview will be in keeping with the six principles of 

EPA's Oversight Policy as stated in Section II.A. of this 

agreement. EPA shall provide, in a timely fashion, clear 

and consistent guidance to the State in performing their 

review and overview function regarding State issued RCRA 

permits and permit actions. 

For all RCRA permit actions written and issued on major 

TSD facilities by the State of Washington, there will be 

•
 

three opportunities for EPA review .
 

111-10
 
• a. The first review will be of the draft appli~ation

submitted by the major TSD facility prior to completeness determination by the State. EPA will review the 

draft application to aid in determining if all appropriate technical information has been provided. The 

purpose of this .review is to avoid a situation where 

a permit is drafted and then cannot be issued due to 

a lack of information or inadequate information in an 

application. EPA' sreview comments shall include 

the following: 1) a justification, based on guidance 

or regulation, why additional or different information 

is necessary, and 2)a specific description of what 

changes need to be made in order to determ1nethe 

application complete. These comments must be submitted 

in writing to the state in accordance with the application review schedule established by the State. 

• 

b. The second review will be of the initial draft of 

the permit prior .to the public notice process. This 

is an informal review, the primary purpose of which 

is to identify any areas where the intent of RCRA is 

not being met and any significant issues between the 

department and EPA related to· the facility and the 

permit which sh,ould be resolved prior to the permit 

going to public comment. The philosophy here is that 

EPA and the dep'artment should resolve their differences at this point in the permit process to present 

a more consistent and unified approach to the regulated community. EPA shall include in their comments 

the following: 1) a statement of the reasons for the 

comment (including the section of RCRA and the State 

regulations·that support the comment); 2) the action 

that should be taken by the state in order to address 

the comments (including the conditions which the 

vermitwould include if it were.issued by EPA). 

EPA shall respond during this review period in 

accordance with the review schedule set by the 

State. If for some rE~ason EPA cannot respond in that 

time or does not wish to comment on this draft 

permit review opportunity, they will so indicate in 

writing to the' State that they will not be 

commenting or they may request an extended review 

time in writing. 

• 

c. the third review is the formal review of the draft 

permit following public notice. During this review 

EPA may comment in writing on any draft permit action 

or proposed permit modification, (this review includes 

nonmajor facilities), whether or not EPA commented on 

the permit application, within 45 days of public 

notice. For all comments including those where EPA 

indicates that issuance of the permit or the permit 

action would be inconsistertt with the approved State 

III-II
 
• Program, EPA shall include in the comment; 1) a statement of the reasons for the comment (including the 

section of the State regulations and RCRA that support 

•
 

the comment); and 2) the actions that should be taken 

by the State in order to address the comments (including the conditions which the permit would include if 

it were issued by EPA). EPA may provide a copy of its 

comments to the applicant where a comment is made that 

the draft permit includes conditions inconsistent with 

the approved state program or lacks conditions necessary to be consistent with the approved program. 

When EPA submits any comments to the applicant, such 

comments shall also be provided verbatim to the state 

at the same time. The State shall provide a written 

explanation for addressing the formal comments submitted by EPA during the public review period. Based 

on this response, EPA shall withdraw such comments, 

in writing, when satisfied that the State has met or 

refuted its concerns. This withdrawal statement 

shall also include a statement of EPA's proposed 

course of action, including timing, for any concerns 

which are not being withdrawn. A copy of this statement and any comments made by EPA which have not been 

resolved shall be sent to the applicant at the same 

time it is submitted to the State. This withdrawal 

statement shall be submitted within 10 days prior to 

the scheduled permit issuance date. 

The Regional Administrator and the Director shall agree 

to meet at the request of the State in circumstances 

where comments by EPA on a draft or proposed permit are 

not sufficiently resolved by staff to allow issuance of 

the permit. If the State believes that the terms imposed 

by EPA staff comments are not justified because of 

specific conditions or circumstances, the request for 

meeting may be initiated by the Director. The Regional 

Administrator shall respond to such request with recommended meeting date(s) or shall concur with the Director's 

suggested date within ten (10) working days of receiving 

the Director's request. The Regional Administrator and 

the Director will make maximum effort to meet within 

twenty (20) days of the Regional Administrator receiving 

the Director's request. An agenda and briefing paper 

covering the issues needing resolution shall be prepared 

by EPA and the State and both shall be provided to the 

Regional Administrator and Director at least five (5) 

working days before the scheduled meeting. 

Under Section 3008 (a) (3) of RCRA, EPA may terminate a 

• 

state-issued permit in accordance with the procedures of 

Part 124, Subpart E, or bring an enforcement action in 

accordance with the procedures of 40 CFR Part 22 in the 

111-12
 
• case of a violation of a State Program requirement. In 

exercising these authorities, EPA will observe the 

conditions established in 40 CFR 271.19(e). 

Upon a request by the State, EPA will provide technical 

assistance for permit actions within EPA resource and 

expertise constraints. This assistance could be in the 

form of using the "permit assistance team," Region 10 

staff, or EPA contractor. 

F. Provisions for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring 

Upon final authorization, the state has primary responsibility 

for compliance and enforcement actions within the approved state 

program and under state statutory and regulatory authority. EPA 

retains responsibility for ensuring fair and effective enforcement of federal requirements and a credible national deterrence 

to noncompliance through an effective state/federal partnership 

and an oversight role. The state and EPA agree that the following elements are mandatory for an effective enforcement and compliance monitoring program under final authorization; 1) clear 

oversight criteria sp'ecified in advance for program performance 

evaluation, 2) clear criteria for direct federal enforcement 

specified in advance with written procedures for advance con­

• 

sultation and notification, and 3) adequate state reporting to 

ensure effective oversight • 

1. State 

The state agrees to carry out a timely and effective program for monitoring the compliance of generators, transporters, and facilities with applicable program requirements. As part of this program, the state will conduct 

compliance inspections to assess compliance with generator 

and transporter standards (including manifest requirements), 

facility standards, permit requirements (including late or 

deficient Part B applications) compliance schedules, and all 

other program requirements, including violations detected 

by state or federal compliance inspections. A compliance 

and enforcement tracking system is operated by the state to 

ensure timely and appropriate enforcement actions, adequate 

compliance follow-up, monitor compliance rates, assess categories and violations and report necessary, accurate, and 

timely compliance and enforcement information to EPA for 

the purposes of oversight and program performance evaluation. Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, 

priorities and reporting requirements will be specified 

in the annual state work program and shall be consistent 

with applicable federal requirements and with the state's 

• 

program description • 

111-13
 
• Timely and appropriate State enforcement response will be 

based on a department approved enforcement policy for 

dangerous waste program violation. This policy will be 

consistent with State requirements for ensuring that all 

major threats to the environment and public health are 

treated effectively. 

In civil enforcement proceedings, the department agrees 

not to oppose intervention allowed under Civil Rule for 

Superior Court 24, on the grounds that the applicant's 

interest is adequately represented by the State. 

The State agrees to retain all records for at least three 

years unless there is an enforcement action pending. In 

that case all records will be retained for at least three 

years after such action is resolved. 

2. EPA 

EPA's primary role in enforcement and compliance monitoring under final authorization shall be that of oversight 

as described in Section II.A. and in accordance with oversight criteria and measures and oversight procedures and 

protocols as set forth in this agreement. EPA has the 

• 

right to inspect any hazardous waste generator, transporter 

or TSD facility or any enforcement action in accordance 

with Section 3008(a)(2) of RCRA. 

For the purposes of oversight of compliance inspections 

and enforcement EPA shall maintain a policy of "no surprises" 

to ensure the productive use of limited state and federal 

resources and an effective "partnership" in achieving compliance. This principle should be applied to all aspects of 

the compliance and enforcement program; covering inspections, enforcement activities, press releases, and public 

information, and management data summaries upon which state 

an? national performance are assessed. 

In order to guarantee that there is ample advance notification, EPA agrees to confer with the state to establish 

agreement in writing and reach a clear, consistent understanding on the following matters: 

Advance notification of intended inspections and
 

enforcement actions;
 

Specific identification of who will be notified;
 

How the notification will be done;
 

When the notification will occur;
 

Define the process for state/federal consultation and
 

• 

dispute resolution on enforcement actions and policy 

and regulatory interpretation. 

111-14
 
'. The written agreement to be established on the above matters 

is incorporated by reference in this memorandum of agreement. 

EPA also agrees to inform the state in writing of any 

national or regional policy changes or program direction 

changes and in all cases will allow the state a minimum of 

90 days to implement those changes. 

At a minimum, the following will be adhered to by EPA, 

EPA shall attend a maximum of 10 percent of the state's 

compliance inspections to evaluate the state's techniques, 

follow-up activities, and enforcement action~. EPA shall 

notify the State in writing which inspections they plan 

to attend. EPA shall only conduct independent oversight 

inspections after giving a minimum of ten working days 

written notice to a WDOE representative of their intent 

to do so and giving WDOE an opportunity to attend. If EPA 

has a concern about a particular facility or compliance 

situation, they shall request in writing that the department perform an inspection within 15 working days. If the 

State performs a compliance inspection and submits a report 

and data relevant thereto within that time to EPA, no EPA 

inspections will be made, unless the Regional Administrator 

• 

deems the State report and data to be inadequate. The 

Regional Administrator may shorten or waive notice periods 

in emergency situations, but in all cases will inform the 

State before going on-site. 

The Regional Administrator may take enforcement action 

against any person determined to be in violation of the 

authorized program in accordance with Section 3008(a)(2). 

After written prior notice to the State, EPA may take 

action under Section 3008 of RCRA against a holder of a 

state issued permit on the ground that the permittee is 

not complying with a condition of that permit. 

This Agreement will be modified to reflect approved state 

and national enforcement policies. 

In addition, EPA may take action under Section 3008 of 

RCRA against a holder of a State issued permit. This 

action will be based on any unresolved formal comments 

that were made by EPA during the public review and 

issuance of that permit. EPA shall give advance written 

notice of such action to the State • 

•
 

111-15
 
3.,17 Site Visits 

EPA is responsible for maintaining reliable national data 

on hazardous waste management. This data is used to 

report to the President and Congress on the achievements 

of the hazardous waste program and to support EPA IS 

regulatory development e,fforts. Whenever EPA determines 

that it needs to obtain certain information, EPA will 

first seek to gain this information from the State. The 

State agrees to reply in a reasonable time to the Regional 

Administrator with this information if readily available 

and as resources allow. If the State is unable to 

provide the information or if it is necessary to 

supplement the State information, EPA may conduct a 

special survey or perform information collection site 

visits after prior notification to the State. EPA will 

share with the State in a timely fashion any national or 

regional reports developed by EPA as a result of such 

information collection. 

G. State Delisting Action 

Ifa state delisting action causes the authorized program to 

be no lon'ger equivalent to EPA IS, then EPA shall provide written 

notification of this position to the State within 20 working 

days of t4e action. The State shall have 20 working days to 

refute Or demonstrate equivalency before EPA may begin proceedings to withdraw program approval. 

H. Provisions for Modification of the MOA 

This Agreement may be modified upon the initiative of either 

party to ensure consistency with State Program modifications 

or for any other purpose mutually agreed upon. Any revisions 

or modifications must be in writing and must be signed by both 

the Director and the Regional Administratot. 

For the Stat~:

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 

, By: 

Title: 

Date: 

For th~ Federal Government: 

u.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY, REGION X 

By: 

Title: 

Date: 

111-16