P. I


# I /o/(lo)FfR-7- / I Issue : Exemptio n fo r Federall yPermitte d Release s

Code : 50 0

Comment s Received : RQ-1S- G 37- B 40- C 41- C 56- D 99- D 112- E 116- 0



# J I i 1 I I 

# I I I Total : 8

Summaryo f Majo r Comments :

• Severa l commenter s pointe d ou t tha t permi t program s mayalread y requir e notificatio n o f th e appropriat e EP Aoffic e i n th e even t o f a releas e exceedin g permi t levels . Thes e commenter s aske d tha t suc h release s b e exempte d fro mCERCLAnotificatio n requirements .

• Severa l commenter s recommende d tha t release s b e considere d federall y permitte d release s (an d therefor e exemp t fro mCERCLAnotificatio n requirements ) i f theyar e exemp t fro mregulatio n b

yth e statute s liste d i n CERCLASectio n 101(10 ) o r i f suc hrelease s wer e considere d durin g th e permi t proces s an d wer e no t include d unde r th e term s o f th e permit .

500- 1P. 2


# •r - * T

500 . EXEMPTIONFOR FEDERALL Y PERMITTE D RELEASE S

BACKGROUN

D CERCL ASectio n 103(a ) require s the perso n in charg e o f a vesse l o r facilit yt o notif yimmediatel yth e Nationa l Respons e Cente r (NRC ) a s soo n a s h e ha s knowledg e o f an yrelease . Thi s notificatio n requiremen t doe s no t appl y t o "federall ypermitte d releases, " however , whic har e define d i n Sectio n 101(10 ) o f the statute . Congres s intende d tha t suc hreleases , whic hofte n ar e subjec t t o notificatio n requirement s unde r the condition s o f th e permits , no t b e subjec t t o additiona l reporting regulation s unde r CERCL Aa s lon

g a s they ar e i n complianc e wit hthe term s o f the permit .
DISCUSSIONO F MAJOR COMMENT S I n th e NPRM , EP

Adescribe d i n detai l th e scop e o f th e federall ypermitte d releas e exemptio n an d requeste d comment s o n severa l issues . Tw o generi c issue s wer e raise d b ycommenters : (1 ) Th e potentia l duplicatio n betwee n CERCLAreporting requirement s an d reporting requirement s unde r existing permi t program s fo r release s exceeding level s se t b yth e term s o f th e permit ; an d (2 ) Th e scop e o f th e federall ypermitte d releas e exemptio n wit h regar d to : (a ) Release s statutoril yexemp t fro mregulatio n unde r permi t program s liste d i n CERCLASectio n 101(10) ; an d (b ) Release s identifie d an d considere d during th e permi t process , bu t subsequentl yexclude d fro mth e term s o f th e permit . Thes e generi c issue s ar e discusse d below , along wit hothe r genera l issue s raise d b

yindividua l commenters . Comment s addresse d t o specifi c application s o f thes e genera l issue s t o th e exemption s liste d i n CERCLASectio n 101(10 ) ar e discusse d i n Issu e Area s 51 0 through57 0 below . Severa l commenter s pointe d ou t tha t permi t program s mayalread yrequir e notificatio n o f th e appropriat e EP Aoffic e i n th e even t o f a releas e exceeding permi t levels . Thes e commenter s aske d tha t suc h release s b e exempte d fro m CERCL Anotificatio n requirements . EPAdisagree s tha t suc hrelease s should , withou t qualification , b e exempt . Ther e ar e significan t difference s betwee n th e purpose s serve d b yCERCLAnotificatio n an d th e purpose s o f permi t programs . Th e permi t notificatio n requirement s an d th e informatio n tha t i s reporte d maydiffe r fro mon e permi t programt o another . I f permi t notificatio n requirement s wer e allowe d t o suffic e fo r CERCLAnotification , th e informatio n availabl e t o th e CERCLAprogramo n release s woul d b e inconsisten t

500- 2P. 3 

# I I I I I I I I I I 

# 4 I I I I I I 1 I an

d incomplete . Permi t program s als o diffe r i n thei r reporting mechanism s an d do no t alway s requir e immediat e notification . I n some instances , release s tha t excee d permi t level s nee d onl yb e reporte d a t specifi c interval s (e.g. , monthly) . Moreover , release s exceeding permi t level s ar e reporte d t o differen t federa l an d stat e offices , dependin g upo n the permi t involved . CERCL Arequire s immediat e notificatio n t o a centra l federa l offic e s o tha t timel yrespons e mayb e initiate d i f EP Adetermine s tha t a releas e maypresen t substantia l dange r t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r the environment . I f an ypermitte d releas e exceeds , b yan R Q o r more , th e level s specifie d b yth e term s o f th e permit , th e releas e mus t b e reporte d immediatel yt o th e NRC t o be i n complianc e wit hCERCL Arequirements . EP Arecognize s tha t thi s interpretatio n mayresul t i n duplicativ e notificatio n requirement s i n some cases . Nevertheless , th e Agenc ybelieve s thi s interpretatio n i s essentia l t o ensur e adequat e protectio n o f publi c healt han d welfar e an

d th e environment . Moreover , EP

Ai s no t convince d tha t requiring releaser s t o mak e on e additiona l phon e cal l t o a toll-fre e numbe r constitute s an undu e burde n o n th e regulate d community . Th e purpos e o f CERCLA' s notificatio n requirement s i s sufficientl y differen t fro

mth e permi t program s t o justif yth e additiona l reporting . Th e benefit s o f promp t notificatio n o f release s tha t allow s fo r timel yrespons e action , i n th e Agency' s view , outweighan ymino r additiona l requirement s impose d o n releaser s o f hazardou s substances . Severa l commenter s recommende d tha t release s b e considere d federall y permitte d release s (an d therefor e exemp t fro mCERCL Anotificatio n requirements ) i f theyar e exemp t fro mregulatio n b

ythe statute s liste d i n CERCL ASectio n 101(10 ) o r i f suc hrelease s wer e considere d durin g th e permi t proces s an

d wer e no t include d unde r th e term s o f th e permit . EPArecognize s tha t some statute s deliberatel yexemp t certai n release s fro mregulation . Th e exemptio n o f a typ e o f releas e fro mregulatio n unde r a particula r statut e ha s littl e o r n o bearin g o n whethe r a federa l respons e actio n migh t b e neede d regarding a specifi c releas e o f th e typ e exempte d fro mregulation . Therefore , the Agenc yha s determine d tha t release s exempte d b yth e statute s liste d i n Sectio n 101(10 ) wil l no t b e considere d federall ypermitte d releases . Fo r example , discharge s exempte d fro mdredg e an

d fil l permi t requirement s unde r CW ASection s 404(f ) an d 404(r ) ar e no t "federall ypermitted " fo r purpose s o f CERCL Aan d mus t b e reporte d whe n theyequa l o r excee d an RQ . O n th e othe r hand , EPAha s determine d that , wher e a hazardou s substanc e releas e meet s th e following conditions , th e releas e shoul d b e considere d "i n complianc e wit ha permit " fo r CERCLApurpose s (i.e. , federall ypermitted ) eve n i f i t i s no t expressl yinclude d i n th e term s o f th e permit :

(1 ) Th e releas e ha s bee n specificall yidentified , reviewed , an d mad e par t o f th e publi c recor d wit hrespec t t o on e o f th e permit s liste d i n CERCL

ASectio n 101(10 ) (othe r tha n RCR Apermit s o r pretreatmen t standard s o r programs , i n whic hhazardou s substanc e release s mus t b e specifie d o r otherwis e subjec t t o contro l requiremen t t o b e exemp t fro mCERCLA) ; (2 ) Th e releas e i s no t exclude d fro mpermi t term s becaus e i t i s intende d t o b e prohibited ;
500- 3P. 4 

### M'



# I I I (3 ) Th e releas e i s no t exclude d fro mpermi t term s becaus e i t i s statutoril yexemp t fro mregulation ; and ; (4 ) Th e releas e doe s no t violat e an ypermi t term s o r conditions . Thi s polic yconcerning federall ypermitte d release s i s consisten t wit hth e positio n state d i n th e NPRM , bu t i s mor e explicit . Th e Agenc ybelieve s tha t a substanc e nee d no t b e liste d i n a permi t fo r th e rational e o f th e federall y permitte d releas e exemptio n t o apply . Onc e th e Agenc yissuing th e permi t ha s examine d the characteristic s o f a releas e o f a hazardou s substanc e an d determine d tha t the releas e nee d no t b e restricte d unde r the term s o f th e permit , th e pape r record o f th e permi t issuanc e indicate s thi s determination , an d the othe r condition s note d abov e ar e satisfied , notificatio n o f th e releas e unde r CERCL Awoul d provid e n o significan t benefi t t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r th e enviromnent . Therefore , a s lon g a s hazardou s substanc e release s mee t the abov e conditions , notificatio n o f suc hrelease s unde r CERCLA i s unnecessary . Not e tha t thi s polic ywil l no t appl yt o certai n permi t program s (e.g . RCR

Apermit s o r CW

Apretreatmen t standards ) becaus e o f th e additiona l requirement s impose d b ySectio n 101(10 ) concerning suc hprograms .
DISCUSSIO

NO F MISCELLANEOU S COMMENT S Tw o commenter s recommende d tha t al l release s authorize d b ypermi t programs , whethe r o r no t theyar e liste d i n CERCLASectio n 101(10) , b e treate d a s federall ypermitte d release s unde r CERCLA , despit e th e loophole s an d oversight s o f the existing permi t programs . Th e Agenc yinterpret s th e statut e an d th e legislativ e historyt o mea n tha t onl yrelease s specificall yliste d i n Sectio n 101(10 ) ar e exemp t fro m CERCL Areporting requirements . EPAbelieve s tha t Congressiona l inten t i n establishin g th e federall ypermitte d releas e exemptio n wa s clearl yno t t o allowsuc hloophole s t o remai n a sourc e o f threat s t o publi c healt ho r welfar e o r th e environment . Th e Senat e Repor t o n S . 148 0 state s clearly :

Th e federall ypermitte d releas e exception s ar e no t directe d a t avoiding notice , bu t rathe r t o mak e i t clea r whic hprovision s appl yt o discharging sources . (S . Rep . 96-848 , 96t hCong. , 2n d Sess. , 50 ) On e commente r requeste d that , a t a minimum , CERCLAnotificatio n requirement s b e waive d whe n ther e i s onl ya technica l violatio n o f permi t conditions , i.e. , wher e th e violatio n relate s t o operatin g procedure s an d doe s no t affec t th e characte r o r quantit yo f th e discharge . EPAagree s tha t notificatio n o f th e NR C woul d b e unnecessaryi n suc ha cas e an d tha t th e violatio n shoul d b e addresse d b yth e permi t program s solel ya s a permi t violation . I f th e characteristic s o f a releas e (bot hquantit yo r concentratio n an

d substance ) ar e i n accor d wit ha permi t describe d i n Sectio n 101(10 ) an

d issue d b

ya federa l agenc yo r federall yauthorize d stat e program , CERCLAnotificatio n i s no t required .

500- 4P. 5

^L-4

-

Finally , a t leas t thre e commenter s suggeste d tha t EP Aconside r al l "routine " release s a s "federall ypermitte d releases " an d thu s exemp t fro

m notificatio n requirements . Th e commenters ' definitio n o f "routine " i s no t clear , however , an

d the Agenc ybelieve s i t woul d b e inappropriat e t o exemp t suc ha potentiall ybroad clas s o f release s fro mCERCL Areporting requirements . I n an ycase , the CERCLAstatutorylanguag e woul d no t permi t "routine " release s t o b e classifie d a s federall ypermitte d releases .



# I

500- 5