Public Meeting
      on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976;
              Subtitle C,  Hazardous Waste Management
           October 11 and  12, 1977, Arlington,  Virginia
   These meetings were sponsored by EPA,  Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-25p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
      by the official  reporter, with handwritten corrections.
                      ->***   ,j  rt,       n'F  ***<-


                          Public Meeting
      on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976;

              Subtitle C, Hazardous Waste Management
           October 11 and 12, 1977, Arlington,  Virginia
   These meetings were sponsored by EPA,  Office of Solid  Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-25p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
      by the official  reporter,  with handwritten corrections.





4                                   Ramada Inn
                                    1900 Fort Myer Drive
5                                   Arlington, Virginia

6                                   Tuesday,
                                    Octob«r 11, 1977
               The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at
     8:30 a.m. o'clock.
               JOHN P. LEHMAN, Director
12              Hazardous Haste Management Division
               Office of Solid Haste, EPA
               HALTER H. KOVALICK, JR., Chief
14              Guidelines Branch
               Office of Solid Haste, EPA
               ALFRED H. LINDSEY, Chief
16              Implementation Branch
               Office of Solid Haste, EPA
               WILLIAM SANJOUR, Chief
18              Assessment and Technology Branch
               Office of Solid Haste, EPA
               Also participating were Alan S. Corson, Program
20    Manager, Hazardous Haste Guidelines, Guidelines Branch, Office
     of Solid Haste, EPA; Harry H. Trask, Program Manager, Pesticid i
21    Haste Management, Guidelines Branch, Office of Solid Haste,
     EPA; Michael Shannon, Program Manager Policy Analysis Program,
22    Implementation Branch, Office of Solid Haste, EPA; Sam Morekas
     Program Manager, Assistance Program, Implementation Branch,
23    Office of Solid Haste, EPA; Timothy Fields, Program Manager,
     Technology Program, Assessment and Technology Branch, Office
24    of Solid Haste, EPA; John Schaum, Chemical Engineer, Technolog^
     Program, Assessment and Technology Branch, Office of Solid
25    Haste, EPA; and Matt Straus, Environmental Engineer, Assistanc^
     Program, Implementation Branch, Office of Solid Haste, EPA.


 1              MR.  LEHMAN:   Good morning,  ladies and gentlemen.

 2    Before we  start,  I  think I  would like to just make a reference

 3    to the fact that  we have arranged for a smqking side of the

 4    room and a nonsmoking  side  of the room.  You can tell by where

 5    the ash trays  are-

 6              Welcome -to this publio meeting to discuss the

 7    hazardous  waste regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource

     Conservation and  Recovery Act (RCRA).  I am very glad you

 9    could attend and  hope  this  meeting will be productive for all

10    of us.  My name is  Jack Lehman.   I am the Director of the

     Hazardous  Waste Management  Division in the Office of Solid

12    Waste at EPA.

13              In addition, let  me introduce Mr. Walter Kovalick,

     Fred Lindsey,  and Bill Sanjour,  on my right, who are also here

15    available  to answer your questions and serve as a panel for

16    any future discussions.

               I would like to briefly discuss the history of these

18    regulations and guidelines  and then describe the procedure

     for this meeting.

               There has been extensive public participation in

     the development of these regulations since RCRA became law

     October 21, 1976.  Initially eleven public meetings were held

     in each EPA region and Washington to discuss the provisions of

     RCRA generally.  Throughout the spring and summer over 80

     invitational public meetings were held around the country with


   i   potentially affected parties including industry, environmental

   2   groups, state and local government and others to discuss

   3   various possible regulatory options.  Additionally, public

   4   comments were requested regarding regulatory options in the

       Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemafcing published in the
  >6   Federal Register on May 2, 1977.
— »>

   7             Recently, some early drafts of proposed regulations

   a   were sent outside the Agency for review and comment.  The

   n   external reviewers included affected industries, state and

       federal agencies , environmental and other public interest

       groups.  This series of 73 identical meetings is a continu-

       ation of that process of public involvement in the development

  13    of the regulations.  The main purpose of these meetings is to

       describe the probable content (section by section) of the

  .,    regulations as we see them at this time and to gather an

  . „    initial set of reactions and comments .   It is important to

   _    emphasize to you that the regulations as described can change

  .„    substantially both as a result of your response as well as due

       to further deliberations among the various program offices

       within the Agency .

                 A second purpose of the meeting is to outline for

       you our plans to develop environmental and economic impact

       information on these regulations.  The meeting will also in-

       elude a case study discussion where we can "thread through"

       the various regulatory requirements using several example






















kinds of affected companies.

          The regulations that are being discussed will be

published as proposed in the Federal Register for formal

public comment over the next several months.  After this

comment period and public hearings, they will become final

regulations next summer, and go into effect six months after


          Before summarizing the regulations for you, let me

remind you of their overall purpose.  We are discussing today

the development of national standards for hazardous waste

management-that would be Federally enforced.  However,

Subtitle C contemplates programs to regulate hazardous waste

wherever possible.  If a state applies and is authorized to

conduct a program under the guidelines under Section 3006,

that state's regulations would apply as long as they were

no less stringent and equivalent to the Federal standards.

Thus, states are not assuming the^Tederal standards when

they are authorized, but creating equivalent programs in lieu

of thCLTederal program.

          Therefore, our discussion today revolves around

national standards that will apply in cases in which states

are not authorized.  Where states are authorized, their

regulations are primarily applicable.

          Let me begin by giving you an overview of the inter

relationship of the sections of the Act, and then briefly

     this waste problem, Congress intended that the states develop
















discuss the procedure for these meetings before beginning

individual consideration of the regulations.

          Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as

amended by R.C.R.A., creates a regulatory framework to control

hazardous wastes.  Congress has found such wastes present

"special dangers to health and requires a greater degree of
     regulation thaft does non-hazardous solid waste. "^Section 1002

     (b) (5) is the source of that.  Because of the seriousness of
programs to control it.  In the event that states do not

choose to operate this program, EPA is mandated to do so.

          Seven guidelines and regulations are being developed

and proposed under Subtitle C to implement the hazardous

waste management program, and they are the ones to be dis-

cussed at this meeting.  It is important to note that the

definition of solid waste which encompasses garbage, refuse,

sludges and other discarded materials including liquids , semi-

solids and contained gases , with few exceptions , from both

municipal and industrial sources.  Some solid waste is not

solid anymore.  It can be liquid, it can be sludge.  Hazardous

wastes, which are a sub-set of all solid wastes, and which

will be defined by regulations under Section 3001, are those

which have particularly significant impacts on public health

and environment.

          Subtitle C creates a management control system


























which, for those wastes defined as hazardous, requires cradle-

to-grave cognizance, including proper monitoring, recordkeep-

ing and reporting throughout the system.  Section 3001

requires EPA to define criteria and methods for identifying

and listing hazardous wastes.  Those wastes which are identi-

fied as hazardous by these means are then included in the
management control system constructed under Section 3002 ^thro

3006 and 3010.  Those that are excluded  will be subject to

the requirements for non-hazardous solid wastes being

carried out by states and Subtitle D under which open dumping

is prohibited and environmentally acceptable practices are


          Section 3002 addresses the standards applicable to

generators.  EPA's regulations under this section describe

the classes of generators for whom some requirements may

vary.  For example, the Agency does not interpret the intent

of Congress to include regulations of individual homeowners

due to the small quaitlties of hazardous wastes they may

generate.  Section 3002 also requires the creation of a

manifest system which will track wastes from the point of

generation to their ultimate disposition.

          Section 3003 addresses standards affecting trans-

porters of hazardous wastes to assure that wastes are care-

fully managed during the transportation phase.  Our damage

assessments indicate that over half of the problems associated


  1   with hazardous waste occur during the transport phase.  The

  2   Agency is exploring opportunities for meshing  closely with

  3   proposed and current DOT  regulations to  avoid  duplication in

  4   this area; and to this end,  let me call  your attention  to a

  5   joint public meeting with DOT planned for October  26 in

^ 6   surburban Chicago.  Copies of the Federal Register.notice of

  7   September 29 relating to  that meeting are on the registration

  8   table.

  9             Section 3004 addresses standards affecting owners

 10   and operators of hazardous waste storage, treatment and

 n    disposal facilities.  These  standards define the levels of

 12    environmental protection  to  be achieved  by these facilities

 13    and provide the criteria  against which E.P.A.  or state

      officials will measure applications for  permits.   Facilities

 15    on a generator's property as well as off-site  facilities are

 ](.    covered by these regulations and do require permits.  Genera-

 17    tors and transporters do  not otherwise need permits.

 18              Section 3005 regulations describe the scope and

 lg    coverage of the actual permit-granting process for facility

 20    owners and operators.  Requirements for  the permit applicatioi

 21    as well as for the issuance  and revocation process are  to be

      defined by these regulations.  Section 3005(c)  provides  for

      interim permits during the time period that the agency  or

      the states are reviewing  the pending permit applications.
 24                                          /

                Section 3006 requires EPA to issue guidelines for


 l    state programs and procedures,  by which states may seek both

 2    full and interim authorization  to carry out the hazardous

 3    waste program in lieu of the EPA-administered program.

 4              Section 3010 regulations define procedures by

 5    which any person generating, transporting, owning or operatin

 6    a facility for storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous

 7    waste must notify EAP or the state of this activity within

 8    90 days of promulgation of regulations defining a hazardous

 9    waste in Section 3001.  EPA intends to make provision in

10    these regulations for states to be delegated this function

11    upon application to the Administrator.  It is significant to

12    note that no hazardous wastes subject to Subtitle C regula-

13    tion may be legally transported, treated, stored or disposed

14    of unless this timely notification is given to EPA or a

15    designated state.

16              The Agency intends to promulgate final regulations

17    by mid-1978 under all sections  of Subtitle C.  However, it

18    is important for the regulated  communities to understand

19    that the regulations do not take effect until six months

20    after promulgation in late 1978.  Thus, there will be a time

21    period after final promulgation during which public under-

22    standing of the regulations can be increased.  During this

23    same period notifications required under Section 3010 are

24     to be submitted and facility permit applications required

25    under Section 3005 will be distributed for completion by


  1    applicants.

  2              Let me now discuss the procedural aspects of our

  3    meeting.   This morning's session will run from about 8:30

  4    to 12:00  o'clock, with a break about 10:15 for 15 minutes.

  5              Each section of the regulations will be discussed

  6    for about an hour and a quarter, including a 20-minute intro-

  7    duction and  about an hour for questions and comments from

  8    the floor.  Due to the time  limitations the Chairman reserves

  9    the right to limit lengthy questions, discussions or state-

 10    ments.  After each presentation we will take prepared state-

^11    ments on  the section^ that is under discussion.   During this

 12    time blank cards will be available and passed out.   Please

 13    list your questions on these cards and the panel will respond.

 14     If sufficient time remains,  questions will be taken directly

 15    from the  floor.   Any statements that relate to all  of the

 16    regulations  as opposed to the one under discussion  at that

 17     moment  will  be taken at the  end of each day,  and we have

 18    already some indication of these more general statements

 19    that will be given at the end of the day.

 20               A  court reporter is present today.   The questions aid

 2i     comments  will become part of the public record.   This record

 22     will be available for public inspection by November 18,  1977,

 23     in the  docket section.  Room  2111 of Waterside Mall,  Hazardous

 24     Waste Management Division, Office of Solid Waste, U.S.  EPA.

 25               Let me now introduce Mr.  Alan Corson,  who is  the


 1    Program  Manager for  Hazardous  Waste  Guidelines  in the

 2    Hazardous  Waste Management Division,  who will discuss the

 3    first  set  of  regulations  under Section 3001.

 4              MR.  CORSON:   Thank you,  Jack.

 5              In  reviewing our work on Section 3001,  I will,

 6    in  general,  follow the handout material  which was made avail-

 7    able.  At  least that is what I wrote down.  It  turns out we

 8    forgot to  bring the  handout material with us.  It will come

 9    over sometime  around the  break time.

10              To  summarize what that material tells you, first

11    I will briefly review the authority  of the Act, the mandate

12    under  which we are developing  these  regulations.   Then a

13    short  discussion of  our present thinking on the definition

14     of  a hazardous waste.   That is the content of the draft

15    regulation.

16              And, finally, we will brief you on some of the key

17    issues remaining within that regulation.

18              Section 3001 of RCRA contains  three sections,

19    3001(a)  and  (b), applied  to actions  which must  be initiated

20    by  the Agency; 3001(c), one which is initiated  by the Governo]

2i    responded  to  by the  Agency.

22              Very briefly, within 18 months, the Agency will

23     develop  and  promulgate criteria for  identification of hazard-

24     ous wastes and listing particular hazardous wastes.  That is

25    basically  what they  tell  you.


 1               In Short,  we roust establish criteria for and pro-

 2     vide  a  list of hazardous  wastes.   We will deal more with this

 3     problem of lists later on.

 4               The third  paragraph,  as  I  mentioned, allows a

 5     Governor of a state  to petition EPA  to list or identify a

 6     particular material  he feels should  be considered as a

 7     hazardous waste.  The Administrator  then has 90 days within

 8     which to act.  So much for  the  authority.

 9               On to our  prospective content.  The first item I

10     would like to review within our content are the exceptions —

11     those wastes which,  although they  might meet the criteria

12     we  are  developing, those  wastes which will not be included

13     in  the  regulatory program.   At  the outset I should point out

14     our approach has been to  provide a minimum of exceptions,

15     since once excepted  there are basically no controls for

16     these wastes.  RCRA  provides for two types of wastes, those

17     which may be disposed of  in accordance with Subtitle D and

18     those which require  the special management provided in the

19     regulatory program of Subtitle  C.

20               Therefore,  these  exceptions only are we consider-

21     ing.

22               First, we will  except all  household derived waste.

23     As  Jack indicated, these  are generally small quantities.  We

24     feel  it is just an unmanageable problem to try to regulate

25     70  million households.


 1              Second, small waste generators will be excepted.

 2    The definition of small waste generators I leave to the dis-

 3    cussion on the standards for hazardous waste generators

 4    following this one.

 5              Third, we are temporarily for a time not to exceed

 6    a six-month period excepting mining and milling wastes.  A

 7    study is required in the 8002 series of mining and milling

 8    wastes.

 g              Within the office we feel we have a good handle

10    on the metals mining industry.  We are not quite so confident

n    on our knowledge of the mineral mining industry.  Simply

12    because of the extensiveness of those waste streams we

13    feel it is important to look at the other regulatory options

)4    which might be available to us which might different from

15    those being considered for routine industrial wastes.

K;              Emphasis during that study will be given to those

]7    regulatory options.  X think you  should note that the

18    approach we are taking puts the burden on EPA.  The exception

19    goes for six months after the other regulations — so differ-

20    ent regulations are promulgated for the mining and milling

21    wastes.

               It thus  forces us to do something.  As I indi-

     cated, these are the only exceptions that we are not  consider


                On the  key definitions,  there is just one I want


 1    to deal with this  morning.   That is  the touchy definition

 2    of when is a waste a waste.   The approach we have taken so

 3    far has been one to promote  resource recovery which at the

 4    same time  still  providing for protection of public health

 5    and the environment.

 6              Let me read some of the key features of that

 7    definition.   Basically,  all  discarded urban materials or

 8    abandoned  materials will be  regarded as waste.  But, in order

 9    to promote resource recovery, any waste which a generator can

10    substantiate has immediate utility as a by-product or will

11    go to a resource recovery facility within three months,

12    will be be excluded from the definition of a waste.

13              We will  get more into some of the key issues of

14    this particular  definition a little  bit later.  The key points

15    though,  are  that a material  which is used as a by-product

16    rather immediately, which is going to a permitted resource

17    recovery facility  within three months is not considered a

18    waste and,  therefore,  is exempt from all the regulatory prog-

19    rams in Subtitle C.

20              Now, on  the definition of  a hazardous waste.

21    Based on the legislation itself and  a file of damage cases,

22    we are suggesting  a set  of criteria  for hazardous wastes

23    consisting of flammability,  corrosiveness, infectious wastes,

24    reactive wastes, radioactive and toxic wastes.  Within our

25    broad definition of toxic we include those characteristics of


  1    a tendency to bioaccumulate and a potential to cause genetic

  2    change, the book is of Genesis.

  3              For each criterion we will have a definition  and
               *U> QfOtAt^
  4    a te*t — .maybe some of the criteria  for which a test  is

  5    not available and for these we will provide a list of

  6    those things which are being considered.  Carcinogens are

  7    one which may follow this approach.

  8              Wherever possible we have selected standard test

  9    methods such as using the ASTM.  Let me go through the  criter

 10    Flammability.  For that we are considering for liquids  a
 11    flash point of^140 degrees.

 12              For solids, we at the moment have a prose

 13    definition, but we are looking for a test mode which will

 14    then enable us to give a definition similar to that for

 15    flammable liquids.
 16              For corrosive wastes, two tests, one a «t less

 17    titan two or greater than 12; the second a corrosion rate

 18    greater than a quarter of an inch a year on steel.

 19              Infectious wastes, by the very nature of the

 20    characteristic being measured, bacteria or other micro-

2i    organisms, we felt it inappropriate if not impossible to

 22    define a level corresponding to the other criteria.  One

23    of the problems with bacteria is if you want a count, now

24    wait a little while and there will be  more.

25              Looking at the damage cases  which had a potential


  1    for problems our studies indicated that there are several

  2    resources which are more likely than others to be problem

  3    areas with regard to infectious wastes.

  4              Therefore, our draft regulations propose to cover

  5    certain key sources within sources unless the waste does

  6    not contain the organisms of concern.

  7              We propose to cover certain  sources within health

  g    care facilities and laboratories, and  sewage treatment

  9    plant sludge, unless it has been stabilized.

 10              Reactive wastes.  Currently we are using pros*

 11    definitions, but again working toward  a set of definite

 12    tests.  The definitions cover oxidizing agents, pyrophorics,

 13    explosives, and materials which autopolymerize.

 14              RCRA, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act,

 15    excludes special nuclear and by-product material covered by

 K;    the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.  We aer proposing to regulate

 17    wastes with a radium 2226 concentration, a 3 picuries per

 18    gram or greater.

 19              EPA's Office of Radiation Programs is providing

 20    the input into this part of the definition.  We are inter-

 2i    facing with the appropriate offices within the Department of

 22    Energy.

 23              Toxicity.  I should have stated at the outset that

 9,    our concerns in the definition relate to the waste itself and
, 25    not to the feed stocks of the process, although these feed


 1   stocks will certainly provide useful  information with  regard

 2   to  some  of the waste characteristics.

 3             Further, we are obviously concerned with  the means

 4   by  which contaminants or pollutants may be  released and

 5   enter the environment.  Our  interests lie in the portions

 6   which volatilize or enter the area or leach or  run  off into

 7   the surface waters.  Since runoff is  primarily  a matter of

 8   design and operation of a disposal site, leachability  is more

 9   a characteristic of the waste and describes the materials

10   being released.

11             We will  shortly define a standard leaching test,

12   a meaning by which a solid waste, again —  the  definition

13   that Jack described earlier, means by which a solid waste  may

14   release  some of these pollutants to enter the water.

15             Toxicity evaluations  will be made on  the  leach

16   itself if a liquid or the leachate resulting  from the

17   application of the SLT.

18             We propose that wastes may  be tested  either through

19   an  analytical procedure or via  a bioassay method.   In  either

20   case, the liquid waste will  be  tested first for genetic

21   change potential and a partition coefficiency test  to  assess

22   tendency for bioaccumulation.

23             In both  cases a threshold  level will  be  defined

24   which makes a waste hazardous.  Where a generator has full

25   knowledge of the waste, the  waste is  relatively simple, it


 1    only contains simple compounds.   The analytical approach

 2    would probably be preferable.  For those substances for

 3    which a drinking water standard  exists,  we have tentatively

 4    set a limit of 10 times that standard contained in the liquid

 5    or the leaching from the waste

 6              Further, we have set a toxicity concentration rela-

 7    tionship,  again to be done on  a  liquid.   The number is — the

      number we  are proposing is .35 times the oral mammalian rat.

 9    As a frequency, if there were  a  waste which contained —

10    which had  substances with an oral LO50 of 500 minigrams per

      kilogram of body weight, that  whole weight load would be

12    hazardous  if that substance were present in a concentration

13    of 175 milligrams per liter.  Whether or not it exceeds the

14    small waste generator limit is the standard by which it is

15    considered.

16              We have not for the  moment set an upper limit on

17    the toxicity.values we-are considering,  although we may set

18    one before we go through a proposed regulation.

)9              In essence, for the  very mildly toxic things there

2()    is a concentration which would make a waste load hazardous.

      We will establish similar relationships  for phyto and

      •quatic toxicity.
                Bioassay  approach.   For those wastes  which may be
     more  complex,  the bioassay method  is  appropriate.   Again,  we

2    start with the liquid or  leachate  and,  after  testing  for

      genetic  effects  and bioaccumulation,  the  waste  will be tested
 2    with LD50  and phyto toxicity,  probably using soybean.  Thresh-
 3    old levels and dilutions  remain  to  be defined.
 4              Our objective  remains  to  develop an adequate
 5    bioassay method.
                I would like to review some of  the key issues still
      remaining  within this  draft regulation.-  The first was our
      definition of a  waste.   When is  a waste a waste?
                Two points there that  I think present a problem.
      One,  the time element.   As mentioned, we  suggested immediate
n    for by-product and three months  for resource recovery.  The
12    intent there  again is  to keep wastes, those wastes which
13    have the characteristics or those substances and materials
      which have the characteristic of a  hazardous waste into a
15    control  system.
16              The three months prior to going into  resource
17    recovery as a maximum  is consistent with  the standards that
18    will be  proposed in Section 3004 for storage facilities.
„    Recognizing the  need for interim storage  up to  90 days will
      be considered as not requiring a permit.   The 90-day period
      is appropriate for allowing wastes  to go  to resource recovery
      without  a  permit.  If  there should  be an  occasion where
      someone  feels the waste  needs to be stored for  a longer time,
      we feel  it is appropriate that standards  be set, and reports
25    come in.


               The second problem is that we are suggesting that

 2    the resource recovery facility to which it goes must have a

 3    permit.  Here we are talking about a special permit, the

 4    type where the application would essentially be itself grant-


               Can we set a permanent standard for a resource

     recovery facility or, using the authorities of the Act, we


     really have to declare a resource recovery facility a subset

     of a treatment plant.

               The other question is, should we really be exempt-

     ing those wastes from the manifest?  Essentially, that

     exclusion says it is not a waste, and therefore we are left

13    with the manifest control.

               A second issue relates to the implementation and

     strategy.  Should we phase the definition — that is, do all

     but the toxicity now and add later — or should we perhaps

     define all the criteria now as suggested, and implement at

     phase levels?

               This is similar to things which have been done

     under the water program.  Set one standard now, another set

     perhaps three years later.  The direction the draft is now

     going is that of all regulations now, all implemented now.

               The bioassay test methods, a third issue area.

     What test species should be used?  We suggested some.  We

     have run these through some of the people in the Agency that


 1    deal with that.  They seem to be appropriate.  We would

 2    solicit input there.

 3              What are the threshold limits we should set  for

 4    each of these species?  How do we equate the bioassay  method

 5    to get data equivalent essentMly duplicating that which is

 6    available through the NIOSH Registry?  How applicable  are

 7    these test methods which were developed for similar  sub-

 8    stances when applied to mixtures, and are there  any  peculiari-

 9    ties of waste which should further restrict their use?

10              Last and certainly not the least of the issue

11    areas, is that which relates to the use of hazardous waste

12    lists.  How should the lists be used?  The Act requires we

13    have both criteria and lists.  We will have both.  One

,4    option is to publish criteria and advisory lists.  Such lists

!5    would provide guidance and the listed process could  produce

16    a hazardous waste or the listed substance could  make the

17    waste hazardous.  That is the position at one end.

18              There are advocates, however,  for  the  other extreme

]9    position.  Again, criteria would be developed, but the

20    lis-ts would be definitive.  That is, if your process is on

2|    the list makes your waste hazardous.

22              The  same would hold true with  substances.   The

2g    burden of proof would be on the generator to provide tests

24    using EPA's criteria to show the wastes  are  not  hazardous.

25    Of course, there  are in-between positions where  one  list or

























the other, that is, substances or processes, would be

definitive and the other hazardous.

          The thrust is with a definitive list you must test

to get off the list.  With advisory lists, the criteria are

the only trigger.  This would put a bigger burden on EPA.

There is also the question of the extensiveness of the lists

It is easier if they are advisory, but the justification and

confidence level is a little bit tougher if the lists are

to be definitive.

          We .briefly reviewed the contents of the draft

regulation and shared our thoughts with you on some of the

issues.  Now for your comments and questions.

          We do have people with cards, if someone would

like — I think following the format that Jack has defined,

we would like to take statements pertaining to 3001 first,

followed by written questions on 3001, followed by oral

questions on 3001.

          MR. LEHMAN:  Are there any Members of the audience

who would like to make a statement on Section 3001?

          I don't see any.  We have people who are prepared

to hand out cards.  We would prefer if you could write the

questions rather than ask them directly.  It is more effici-

ent that way.

          We do have people — are there questions on the

cards?  Do we have cards ready now?


  1             We have one written question here.  We will start

  2   on that while we are collecting the others.

  3             The question from the floor.  Is there any dialogue

  4   at all between EPA and the public health services?  If so,

  5   how is this implemented in the Act?

  6             MR. CORSON:  I think part of the dialogue comes

  7    out rather easy.  There is someone from the public health

  8    services that sits on our working group.  Those of you not

  9    familiar with the procedures used within EPA-developed

 10    regulations, we do have a working group that works on

 11    Section 3001.   We meet at least monthly.

 12              Membership on that group — full membership is only

 13    Federal employees.  We do have people from all the offices

 14    within EPA, ERDA, public health services, the Department of

 15    Transportation has been invited. Health Education and Welfare

 16    I guess public health services is part of that organization.

 17              NIH, which fits into one of the pidgeon holes — so

 18    that is our interface with the public.

 19              MR. LEHMAN:  What is the approximate timetable for

 20    promulgation of  RCRA regulations?

 21              Perhaps I could best answer that,  rather than

 22    passing that to Alan, because I think the question is

 23    general here.

24               Of the seven guidelines and regulations that I

 25    mentioned in the beginning statement, the first one to come


  1    along will be Section 3006, which is the guidelines for

  2    state programs.  We are attempting to push that one through

  3    first, because it basically defines the requirements and

  4    criteria that a state program must have to be equivalent to

  5    the Federal program

  6              In some cases, for a state to meet these criteria,

  7    state legislation — new state legislation will have to be

      passed.  Many state legislatures meet early in each year,

  9    and then adjourn, so we are attempting to get Section 3006

 10    regulations finalized by early calendar year 1978.  By early

 11    I mean January or February — so that we can meet this legis-

 12    lative window at the state level.

 13              The proposed regulations for Section 3006 should

      be in the Federal Register, sometime in November.

 15              Following Section 3006 will come Section 3010 regu-

      lations, which deal with the notification process.  We are

 17    required to get those regulations out earlier than the rest,

 lg    because, as I mentioned, there is a 90-day time period after

 19    hazardous wastes definition regulations are finalized, during

      which everyone who is involved must notify EPA or the state.

                In order to have that process set up and ready to

22    operate by the time we get the 3001 regulations finalized,

23    there is a lot of preliminary work that needs to be done.

24    As you will find out later on when we discuss 3010, we are

25    going to publish a sample form to use for that notification.


 1    All  of  these  forms have  to be printed  and  so  on.   So we need

 2    to get  that regulation going earlier than  the rest.

 3               Here  again, we hope to have  that regulation  in

 4    draft form in November,  and finalized  in February  or March.

 5               The remaining  regulations would  come probably in

 6    this sequence,  probably  Section  3003,  the  ones dealing with

 7    transport would come next, then  3001,  2, 4, and 5.

                We  probably will propose these regulations on a

 9    staggered schedule, you  know, late this year  and early next

10    year, and than  make them final all at  once, because they are

     a set,  if you will, of regulations that sort  of go together.

12               But in order to allow  the public ample time  to

13    review  these  regulations and comment  back to us,  we intend

]4    to propose them on a staggered schedule.   If  we publish them

     all  at  once,  I  am afraid that it would overwhelm everybody's

,(j    capability to comment on it.

!7               The approximate time for  final publication on all

     of these, as  I  mentioned in the  opening statement, is  mid-

19    1978'

20               The second question on this  card is, will material

„,    for  energy be considered as an RCRA regulated — I can't

     read it.   I  think the thrust  of  the  question  is, I presume,

     is material  that would be used in  an  energy recovery  situatioi.

24    being considered under RCRA?

2_               MR. CORSON:   I am glad it was  asked.  When we were


  1   making the exception for material going to resource  recovery,

  2   material going there for recovery-obviously is what that is.

  3   For those things for which there may be energy recovery, our

  4   feeling at the moment is that it should go to a  fully permitte

  5   facility.

  6             Part of our problem is that there are  heat recovery

  7   boilers which could be used to incinerate materials  but do not

  8   reach a high enough temperature to effectively destruct them

  9   and would volatilize the pollutants.  Energy recovery will go

 10   to a fully permitted facility.

 11             MR. LEHMAN:  We have another question  from the

 12   audience.

 13             The question is, how do you view the interplay of

 14   toxic waste control under RCRA with the Toxic Substances

 15   Control Act?  Control of all toxic substances, including

 l(;   wastes.

 17             In other words, TSCA does allow for the control of

 ]8   waste materials as well as RCRA.  Will RCRA control  over
19   TSCA?
               The first part of the question, the interplay
„,    between those two Acts, let me respond to that briefly.   In
                      no Qfiact-
22    our view, the two^act as a dovetail together quite nicely.

23              The main thrust of the Toxic Substance Control  Act

24    is to control the front-end of the manufacturing and distribu-

25    tion process, to control.substances before they are out in the


       public domain.

                 RCRA, on the other hand, is on the back-end of the

       manufacturing process, if you will, controlling the wastes

       of the manufacturer primarily, although there are other types

       of wastes that will be controlled.

  6              So the two Acts do come together in that sense.

  7    There is some overlap in the authorities between the two

       laws, and you will probably be aware that under TSCA a pro-

       posed set of regulations for the disposal of PCBs_ was pub-

       lished in the Federal Register in April, and that is under

 H     the authority of TSCA, not RCRA.  That was mandated in TSCA

 12     that that be done.

 13               So that regulation, which is being finalized now,

 14     will go into effect and be part of TSCA.  When the regula-

 15     tions under RCRA go into effect there may be a period where

 IB     both laws will operate or we may have one supersede the

 17     other.  We have not come to that determination yet.

 18               However, it seems to make sense to us as a tenta-

 19     tive connection that since the regulations under TSCA deal

 20     with one substance at a time, whereas the regulations under

 21     RCRA are much more generalized and broader in scope, and

 22     deal with essentially all toxics and hazardous wastes at

 23      once, so we would assume that over time RCRA will be the

24      dominant regulatory force for waste management.

25                That does not mean, however, that under TSCA, as


 1    individual problems arise that specific substances that are

 2    causing some type of waste management problem could not be

 3    controlled under TSCA.   They could.

 4              We have another set of questions.  Why don't you

 5    go ahead?

 6              MR. CORSON:  I have a series of questions.  I will

 7    read half a dozen of them because they deal with the same

 8    subject.

 9              What SLT is used for bioassay?  Reference to the

 10    fact that ASTM for testing materials has formed a D.1912

 11    committee to work on methods for analyzing and control of

 12    leachate.  Will there be a similar standard leaching test?

 13    If so,  can you distinguish between physically stabilized

 14    and incapsulated treatment?

 15              Let me pick those up in one answer, if I can.  We

 IB    have been trying to develop a standard leaching test for

 17    about a year and a half now.  For instance, assuming that

 18    the Act would someday get passed, we started this work in

 19    the spring of 1976.  The University of Wisconsin is develop-

 20    ing for us a leaching test.  Their test uses a synthetic

 2i     garbage juice, has developed a contact procedure by which the

 22     wastes  in that garbage  juice are interacted and has developed

 23     an extraordinary procedure to separate the liquids from the

24     solids.  Our feeling is that the solids left over are inert,

 25     and we  don't both: bother with those in our tests to see


 1    whether or not we meet the criteria for hazardous wastes.

 2              We have had study done for us by MITRE this year

 3    where we reviewed leaching tests used by EPA, Corps of

 4    Engineers, other Federal and private activities.  From the

 5    results of that study, we took two other test, one being —

 6    one developed by I.U. Conversion Systems, the second one that

 7    is being used or proposed to be used by the State of Minne-


 9              We have a series of 10 wastes which are going to be

10    leached using these three tests, as well as leached using

11    some landfill leachate.  Analysis of-results of those will

12    all then be compared — as a matter of fact, we expect to

13    meet sometime later on this week to review the results of

14    that analysis.

15              Hopefully, within the next three weeks we will pick

     our so-called leaching tests.  It is our intent within the

     domain of 3001 to recommend a single standard leaching test

     which will be applied to waste assessment nationwide to

19    determine whether or not those wastes meet the hazardous

2Q    criteria.

               The application of a site specification  leaching

22    test, one which would refer only to an on-site  disposal  or

23    that particular  facility, becomes, we  feel,  part of  a perma-

24    nent process.  The idea being again, as we mentioned earlier,

 25    the only way we  can  control wastes  is  to have them in the


 1    Subtitle C definition.  Once they are out of that definition,

 2    the only control is that they must go to a Subtitle D facility

 3              So, even though the on-site facility may have nothirjg

 4    but distilled water going through it, once that facility is

 5    filled and the waste now leaves the site to go somewhere

 6    else,  the only way to keep them in the system is have them

 7    as a hazardous waste if they were to fail the criteria using

 8    the standard leaching test.

 9              We do have a concern where wastes have been fixed

10    or stabilized with the results of that process.  Using terms

11    that I understand, if we have put a coating on that waste,

12    an incapsulation process, which is just slow dissolving, and

13    we think by our understanding of the chemical process that

14     that is all that has occurred, we might then feel that we

15    should chop that waste up or grind it up or do something

16    with it.

17              If, on the other hand, we think we have stabilized

18    it by  making something new out of it, created a different;

19    material through a chemical process, we would refine it to

20    a  point where we can use it in the tests.

2i               The point is,  we can't run a leaching test on a

22     solid  block of concrete.  At the same time we don't think

23     if the material is new it is fair to willy-nilly grind it

24     all up.

25               With regard to the drinking water standards, our


 1    reference is to primary standards.  We probably will only

 2    select some of those, the ones we feel are pollutants.

 3              Are we concerned with restricting to 10 times the

 4    amount of iron or whatever else was in the standard was

 5    asked, and we will refine that as we go.

 6              With regard to the question about a formula  for

 7    determining hazardous waste permeate or runoff, our concern

 8    is with the permeate.  Runoff is a physical process during
         0.0   ^Sf>aoji_
 9    the^_op«ration /^of the fill.  It is still the fact that the

10    material can leach.  It is whether it goes down or out.  Our

11    part will be covered, we think, for hazardous waste through

12    the standards that will be promulgated under 3004.  The

13    process will be as though it were leached.

14              MR. LEHMAN:  I have another easy question from the

15    audience before we pass on to some others.

Hi              The question was, are private businesses which

17    recycle cars and appliances covered as either generators or

18    receivers of waste?  The answer is no, because cars and —

19    I assume you are speaking of white good type appliances,

20    would not fall under the category as a hazardous waste.

2i              VOICE:  What about battery acid?

22              MR- LEHMAN:  We will get the oral questions  in a

23    moment.

24              MR. KOVALICK:  We have a set of questions again on

25    the subject of listing which he mentioned as an issue.


 1              Would you please explain a little more in detail

 2    how you view the advisory list of hazardous wastes versus

 3    the criteria list.   If listing is done by process, will

 4    reference be made to specific sub-processes so that a

 5    production method not generating hazardous materials will

 6    not be burdened, and which listing alternative is preferred

 7    by EPA?

 8              To begin  with the first question, the distinction

 9    is not between advisory lists and criteria lists.  It is

 10    between advisory lists and mandatory lists.

 11              Let me try that once.  That is, we could have an

 12    option of a list, not necessarily long — it could be

 13    short — of processes such as wastes from the asbestos

 14     brake manufacturing industry, which is an example I sometimes

 15    use, or a list of substances like PCBs in some concentration,

 16    and you can either  have those items on a mandatory list or

 17     on an example list.  If I had those items, either or both

 18     on a mandatory list,  you would have a hazardous waste if you

 19     had PCBs in that concentration, or if you were in the asbestos

20     brake manufacturing business.  The only way not to have a

2i     hazardous waste would be to use the toxicity criteria to

22     show that your waste is not toxic.  That would be the manda-

23     tory list with either a substance or process.

24               At the other end of the spectrum would be a list

25     with those two items as an example list, in which case the


      Agency wpuld publish this as a list of examples of kinds

  2    of hazardous waste that we think might, if you will, flunk

  3    the tests, but there is no presumption that they are hazardou

  4    waste.

  5              For those of you who are familiar with the Pesti-

  6    cide law, this would be the opposite of the rebuttable pre-

  7    sumption.  The first example of a mandatory list, you would

  8    have a rebuttable presumption to show your waste is not

  9    toxic.  The example list, the generator or Agency would be

 10    testing his wastes against the criteria, and those would

 11    just be aids to alert generators that they might have a

 12    hazardous waste.

                So, generally the distinction is between mandatory

 H    lists and example lists, whether they are  substances or pro-

 15    cesses really is just another sub-option.

                As far as which alternative EPA prefers, that

 17    exactly is why the issue is listed under  unresolved.  There

 18    is a wide variety of opinions within the  Agency about what

 19    is the best mechanism to implement Subtitle C, and what  is

 20    the most enforceable thing  for EPA to do  given its  limited

 21    resources.

 22              I hope that is another try at explaining  the diffei

23    ence  between a mandatory list and an example  list.  Not  to

24    confuse you too much more,  Alan mentioned three or  four

      times in his presentation there will always be a  few  things


      listed, and ao we will always be meeting a legal requirement

      of the law.  That is, since carcinogens are difficult to

      test for, we always plan to have a listing related to

      carcinogens, so the discussion I have been running through

      is not a matter of legality.  It is a matter of policy.
                That is, we are legally correct as long as we have

  7  II some list and a list of one meets the legal requirement.

  8    So it is a question of policy, not legality.

  9              MR. LINDSEY:  You bail me out, Alan, if I make any

 10    mistakes on this.

 11              One of the questions here is, what is the procedure

 12    and the requirements of a petition by a state Governor,

 13    presumably to have his waste included on the list?  We haven'

 14    addressed this as yet.  I think it is important that we

 15    determine the function of the list before we set out the

 16    particular requirements for or the particular procedures to

 17    be used by state Governors.

 18              That is something that presumably we can do

 19    relatively easily, and I think it is important to get this

 20    question of how the lists are going to be handled settled,

 2i    and what the functions of the lists are going to be, before

 22    we get into that.

23              There are a couple of questions relative to the

24    question of sewage treatment plant sludge and how that will
      be handled.  Let's see if I can combine them together into


   1    one set of questions.

   2              It was stated earlier,  for those that didn't

   3    catch this, municipal  water treatment sludge will be con-

   4    sidered hazardous if the waste is not stabilized.  What sludg«

   5    processes/operations will be considered to provide aid

   6    stabilization?

   7              At the present time, within the Agency there is

        another working group  dealing with municipal sewage sludge,

        and this is — I think is co-chaired by another part of the

   10    Office of Solid Waste  and by the  Office of Water Program

        Operations.  They are  coming up with standards for or guide-

   12    lines, I guess is the  word, for sewage sludge, and in that

   13    there is a definition  of what stabilized is.  This is a seven

   14    page definition.  I am not sure that I know the provisions

   15    of that at this time.

                  Actually, the Systems Management Division of the

        Office of Solid Waste  wants people to contact there — if any

   18    of you have any problems locating them, you can give us a

   ,Q    call and we can certainly put you in touch with them.

__2o              Other questions along the same line, could sludge

   21    be considered a hazardous waste based on its heavy metals

   22    content?

   23              First of all, if the sludge fails the criteria,

        testing criteria in some fashion, which was discussed earlier

        what those criteria will be, then it will be a hazardous


 l    waste.

 2              On the other hand, it is not clear yet, as Walt

 3    was just addressing, what the  function of the  listing will

 4    be.  The list will have on  it  substances, if you will,  and

 5    it probably will have also  waste  streams or sources of  waste.

 6              Now, depending on what  the  function  of that list

 7    is, a waste could be considered to be hazardous if it con-

 8    tained more than a certain  level  of heavy metal content.

 9    That would be if the list is held to  be definitive.

10              On the other hand, if there are example lists,

11    then these would be lists of materials, heavy  metals would

12    be included on that, which  would  say  that the  material  may

13    be hazardous.

14              I also want to point out here that we have received

15      couple of questions which  more properly relate to other

16    sections, and we will hold  on  to  those and answer those or

17    hopefully address those at  the proper time.  One of them has

18    to do, for example, with the nuts and bolts of properly

19    disposing, which we will address  under Section 3004.

20              How would a hazardous waste, which might in turn

2i    produce a hazardous gas stream, be handled?  And questions

22    on the resource recovery facility three-months' limitation,

23    and doesn't this leave a loophole in  control relative to

24    the manifest?

25              We will address those under Section  3002 or 3004.


MR. LEHMAN:  We have another question that is of
2   a more general nature, and I will attempt to answer that.

3             The question is, will every substance that falls

    within the jurisdiction of TSCA, Toxic Substance Control Act,

    also fall within the jurisdiction of the Hazardous Waste

6   Management Act when it reaches the waste stage?

7             The second part of the question is, will there be

    substances which do not fall within TSCA but fall within the

 9   Hazardous Waste Management Act when it reaches the waste

10   stage?

11             First of all, just a general comment, and I think

12   that this is worthy of a comment.  This is not the Hazardous

13   Waste Management Act that we are discussing.  It is the

14   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which covers a lot

15   more ground than the Hazardous Waste Management provisions of

16   Subtitle C.

17             If you are not familiar with the entire Act, I

18   suggest you take a look at  it.   It is out on the table.   It

19   is  a fairly comprehensive piece  of legislation.  Hazardous

20   Waste Management provisions are  merely a part of that.

21             To get back to the main thrust of the question,

 22  namely, will every substance that falls within TSCA  also

 23   fall within the Hazardous Waste  provisions of RCRA whan  it

 24   reaches the hazardous waste stage, I  think the answer  to  that

 25  is  not a  simple yes or no,  because there  seems to be a


  1    misconception on the part of the questioner here in the sense

  2    that — and I think it is worth calling to your attention  —

  3    that TSCA deals with substances or groups of substances

  4    one by one, if you will, whereas, when we are talking about

  5    wastes we are talking generally speaking about a, you know,

  6    very possibly broad mixtures of substances that can be either

  7    synergistic or antagonistic in the way those substances

  8    interact with one another in the waste.

  9              So it is not possible to say in advance that every

 10    substance, you know, one by one, TSCA addresses would also

 11    fall within this provision.

 12              Let me give you an example.  Mercury is considered

 13    as a toxic substance both under TSCA and by us under RCRA.

 14    However, as we mentioned in the beginning, household residues

 15    for example, would not be controlled, and I believe we all

 16    realize that many florescent lamps have small amounts of

 17    mercury in them, and so »ven though this is a substance

 18    which is subject to control under TSCA and under RCRA, that

 19    part, which someone throws out a florescent light bulb from

 20    a home would not be covered by this Act.

 21              As to the second part of the question, will there

 22    be substances which do not fall within TSCA, but do fall

 23    within RCRA, when it reaches the waste state; that is again

24    a possibility.  Here again,  it begins on the — whether the

 25    criteria are met in terms of the waste stream.

























          As I mentioned, sometimes synergistic effects do

take place in mixture of waste streams, which could cause a

waste to become hazardous, whereas the individual constituent!

might not be.

          That is about the best I can do with that type


          MR. CORSON:  I have a series.  Let me try to  go

through these.

          One question I passed by earlier — somebody  wanted

to know what immediate means.  We talk about immediate  use

as a by-product.  We recognize that we will have to come up

with a better definition than immediate.  We were concerned

that it was not something that was beginning to sit around

for any length of time.  We are told by the iron and  steel

industry that all their slag is sold for use as road  beds,

and sits there for a while on line, but it does have  utility

rather quickly to ship.

          We will define that in absolute time so it  does

become something that everybody understands.

          A series of questions related to mining and milling

We are concerned to take the mining beyond the simple extrac-

tion process, recognizing in many cases it is a combination

of mining and milling correlated to get to a process  for use-
                                       /tft fl^»«V (^

ful ore material.  We are concerned with  technite milling,

certainly uranium mining and milling,  and possibly in


  1    phosphate mining.   These will be covered in the study.   We

  2    don't know yet the total scope of milling wastes or how many

  3    and what sources will  be involved.

  4              With regard  to that discussion between us and the

  5    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with regard to chemical

  6    properties rather  than radiologic, there are waste streams

  7    or processes which could by the very nature of them be  sub-

  8    ject  to more than  one  Act that the Federal Government has

  9    passed.

 10              I think  this is such a case for those which might

 11    have  toxic chemical properties as well as radiologic.

 12              Our concern  in working with HRC would be to try

 13    to have that a single  permit process.  In this case it  is

 14    conceivable — we  have not worked out mechanisms yet, but are

 15    talking to the possibility of having NRC write a regulation

 16    to pick up our part of the process.  The concern about  what

 17    happens when the facility is closed.  TO our knowledge, their

 18    permit process does not require any monitoring after the

 19    disposal site is finished for the mill tailings.

 20              Another  question on the leaching test.  Someone

21    questions the use  of a synthetic garbage juice.  All I  can

22    say at this point  is we have not chosen the standard leach-

23    ing test.  Our concern has been to try to come up with

24    a  relatively worst case situation, one which kind of looked

25    something like the worst of what could happen across the U.S.


















          If there was a specific site where there was some-

thing that looked like acidic rain water, that would be used

in the permit process.  When we get to selecting our final

leaching test we will have tried to develop the rationale for

why we pick the one we do.  We have to justify it to get it

by the gentleman on my right.  If we end up with a family of

curves, with just a matter of degree as to what gets leached

out, we are going to pick the test which is the cheapest to

do because you can always set levels to deal with family


          A question about the possibility of our regulations

being more stringent — we do not want t» negate any current o

tion for the use or disposition of that particular waste.  I

am not sure what the questioner had in mind, but if, for

example, we are doing a soil beneficiation process to apply

sludge which may have metal content, if the metal content

is beyond what we have set for the definition of a hazardous

waste, that would be a hazardous waste, and a permit would

be required.

          The point there is the only way to be sure of how

much goes on to that land is to do it through the permit

process.  It would not be to disallow the use of that opera-


          The last question  I have relates to the 10 times

standard for drinking water.  These are  discussed very briefly
       B          o
in the background document that was tied into our draft


 1    regulation.  In both cases we tried to  look  at potential

 2    for damage, looking at  locations of —  one of our  concerns

 3    is if waste is not a hazardous waste it could be disposed of

 4    in a sanitary landfill  in accordance with Subtitle D,  and

 5    get into the drinking water and affect  public health.

 6              Even though we recommend landfill  as the last resort

 7    we have to be worried about what happens if  we go  to that

 8    last resort.  The concern is if humans  or animals  or fish

 9    live, have to live within or drink the  water contaminated by

10    disposal of that waste.  We have looked at locations of

11    wells in relation to locations of landfills, potential con-

12    tamination of water by  adults.

13              We suggest you look at our draft background. If

14    you don't have one, leave your name with Dave Friedman.  You

15    can then follow it through.

16              We recognize  there may be questions about those

17    numbers, and we are open to your thoughts.

18              MR. LEHMAN:   I have another general question here

19    that I will answer.

20              RPA's work group sessions to  prepare these regula-

21    tions is open to the public?  If so, how does one  find out

22    about them?

23              The working group sessions are not generally open to

24    the public.  As I mentioned in the preliminary statement, we

25    do have a wide representation on our work groups,  not  only


? !    from various offices within the EPA and our regional offices,

 2    I might add, but a wide cross-section of other Federal

 3    agencies and state governments.

 4              We have found that in the past EPA did not include

 5    state government representatives in their working groups,

 6    but we are, and we find them to be very — a very good source

 ^    of information.  It is possible that an individual who is not

 8    from the Federal Government or a state government that has an

 9    explicit point that would be of value for the working group

 10    to hear could be invited to the working group session, but

 11    it would b« by invitation, and these are not generally open

 12    to the public.

 13              On the other hand, I also pointed out to you that

 14    we have been attempting to provide the public through public

 15    sessions such as this, through access to mailing lists, early

 16    drafts of these regulations, so that you can get a sense of

 17    how the Government process is going on and won't be surprised

M8    with what you read in the Federal Register when it finally

 19    goes — so that avenue is open to the public.  And we urge

 20    you to take part in that.

 21              If you would like to get on the distribution list

 22    for drafts of these regulations, we can take those at the

 23    registration desk.  Also, I might point out that most of

 24    the people that are on that distribution list now are

 25    members -- are the executive officers, if you will, of a


 1    wide range of industrial trade associations, public interest

 2    groups, citizens groups of various kinds, and so on, and so

 3    that is another avenue.  If you want to work through your

 4    executive representatives, through that process, that is

 5    another way to get involved in this.  It is more efficient

 6    from our point of view.

 7              I hope you can appreciate it, if we sort of get

 g    one sector's point of view rather than an individual's point

 9    of view.  But that doesn't prevent individual comments from

10    being accepted and recognized.

11              We have some more questions.

12              MR. KOVALICK:  Will you briefly address the over-

13    lap of Section 3001 definition of hazardous waste with the

14    definition of hazardous material under the Federal Water

15    Pollution Control Act and the overlap of Section 3001

18    toxicity criteria with the Toxic Substances Control Act.

17              This question gets at the essence of EPA working

13    groups which Jack has briefly described for you.  There are

19    several offices in EPA, not only those involved with the

2Q    spill regulations, which I assume this question refers to,

2i    Section 311 of the Water Pollution Act.  Those sections

22    working on effluent guidelines and the more than 60 toxic

23    substances and the Office of Toxic Substances, evaluating

24    the toxic substance lists evaluated by EPA all are on our

25    working group.


 1              When it says addresses the overlap — at the moment

 2    there isn't any overlap in that we are trying to understand

 3    and go through each other's authorities.  Usually it doesn't -

 4    it revolves around competing goals in legislation, since the

 5    industrial regulations for hazardous materials as opposed to

 6    oil related to quantities shipped, the amounts used in

 7    commerce and having to do with the penalties for spillage, tho

 8    and our authority relates to just getting them into a manage-

 9    ment system.

10              I would be happy to talk with you, whoever asked

11    this during the break.  Suffice it to gay that several of

12    the EPA offices working on ore regulations are on our working

13    group, and we are working out as best we can our joint

14    authorities.

15              I have opened up a Pandora's box, as we expected,

16    with the question of lists.  Let me try more questions related

17    to that.

l8              First of all, it had been rumored that all indus-

19    trial waste sludges will be automatically classified as

20    hazardous.  Is this true?  No.  There is a short answer.

21    Again, it would have to do with which of these several options

22    that we were describing, but neither of the options I men-

23    tioned include all industrial waste sludges.  They included

24    either examples or, if you will,  rebuttable presumption  lists

25              What would be required  to create  an  exemption?


























          That really gets to the question of how the  lists

would be developed.  Really the word exemption is perhaps

ill put.  Other than household, Alan described only one

category where we are postponing action, mining and milling,

and all the other categories would be dealt with through

lists or criteria.

          Regarding the burden of proof as to where a  waste is

hazardous or not, have you considered the economic implica-

tions to smaller companies?

          Yes, and I hope you will stick around tomorrow

when we discuss the economic environmental impact statement

we are developing, where we will display the data that we

have on the impact of various options.  So we are considering


          A couple of other questions related to burden of

proof on getting a waste to be hazardous.  How does a  substance

get on the mandatory list?  For example, asbestos was  mentioned,

but there is no demonstrable evidence of asbestos carcinogen-

icity other than when inhaled.

          Again, I am going to be sore for using examples,

and the Agency is going through an investigation for asbestos

in water in Minnesota.  We would be using available OSHA or

NIOSH data, so far as something getting on the list would

be a matter of evaluating data as to whether we have a

reasonable expectation that that substance in that

 1    concentration  in a waste would  cause  our  tests  to  go  to
 2    the negative side, in this  case one of  the  toxicity tests,
 3    or to put a process on the  list, which  is related  to  the
 4    other question here.  We would  put a  process  on the list  if
 5    we had  an expectation that  it produced  something that was
 6    at a certain level — at a  level of flammable at 140  degrees.
 7    If, for example, if we evduated an industrial process using
 8    variable effluent limitation guidelines,  perhaps,  and our
 9    own data, which is in fact  what we are  doing, and  we  were
10    able to determine that the  concentration  of solvents  normally
j)    present in that kind of waste caused  that waste to flash
12    under the conditions of the test, that  waste  would be on  the
13    mandatory list.
14              Obviously, the question of  carcinogens in the waste
15    is more difficult, and we would probably  have to address  that
IB    based on NIOSH and advica from  HEW, but the fact remains
17    that there is  only a certain level required,  something
18    greater than 50 percent, that the presence  of these chemicals
19    in the  waste or this process stream is  likely to be hazardous.
20             Another question  is,  can EPA  require  tests  for
21     proof from generators as to whether wastes  are  hazardous  or

22    n°t?
23              That will be the  end  result of  using  mandatory  list!
      That is,  if  I  run the risk  again — an  asbestos brake manu-
      facturer, and  we had that process on  a  mandatory list, and


  1   you were not  using EPA  or the state's manifest  system,  which

  2   we would be able to cross-check by  computer  as  to whether  you

  3   were, then you would be a legal candidate  for an inspection

  4   to see why it is that your activity, which is on the  list,

  5   is not being  handled in concert with Subtitle C.

  6             I am running  ahead as to  the  requirements you would

  7   be required to meet.  Later today we will  get into that.

  8             But the essence is that,  yes, you  would have  to

  9   test your waste if there were mandatory lists in order  to

 10   prove that you did not  have a hazardous waste,  and that is

 11   why this consideration  of the various options are so  important

 12   in terms of our writing the resolution.

 13             MR. LINDSEY:   I have a couple of questions  on

 14   flammability  criteria.   One of which I  will  answer myself, anc

 15   one I am going to turn  over to our  technical expert in  this
> in   area. Den Viviani.

 17             How much flammability does it take to be hazardous?

 18   In other words, how much of a flammable waste is needed before

 19   we consider it to be hazardous?

 20             The criteria  for flammable are not dependent  on

 21   quantity.  They are dependent on the closed  cup test  method

 22   at 140 degrees.  On the other hand, as  was mentioned, I think,

 23    earlier in Alan Corson's presentation,  there will be  a  small

 24    quantity or small generator kind of an  exclusion.  We mentioned

 25   the home owner and he also mentioned that  there would be othei


 1    exclusions for small generators, and so this would not make

 2    the waste not hazardous, but it would, in fact, remove the

 3    waste from some of the regulatory provisions and those will

 4    be addressed later.  The small generator item will be handled

 5    under Section 3002, which is the next section.

 6              The question here which I would like to have Mr.

     Viviani handle, is, what flash point method, open cup or

     closed cup, is being considered?  I believe that is closed

 9    cup.  Will there be a provision for flash point at 10 percent

10    evaporation, 50 percent, etc.?

11              MR. VIVIANI:  The only reason you would want to

12    test progressive evaporation is, the first circumstance is

13    where you have a mixture and the more volatile constituent

14    is less flammable and the less volatile the more flammable,

15    in which case as you evaporate the flammable, you end up with

16    a higher nole fraction of the more flammable material after

17    it evaporates.  This is a fairly unlikely situation because

18    vapor pressure and a flash point have a tendency to run hand

19    in hand.

               The second situation where this might happen is if

     you have a less flammable — less dense material which would

22    float on top of the more flammable material, which would

23    inhibit evaporation.  We take care of this situation by using

24    a Pensky Martin's closed cup, which has a stirrer incorpor-

25    ated into it to give mechanically induced holes to  facilitate


1 || evaporation.  We  are using  a  flash  point of  140,  which gives

2   us a safety margin, and  -we are  using a closed cup,  which alsc

3   makes the situation more stringent.

4             MR. LEHMAN:  Thank  you.

5             MR. CORSON:  We finally got an easy one,  I think.

6             If the  only applicable criteria is toxicity and the
    material is ncmjeachable,  is  it  a non-hazardous  waste?

              Yes.  The question  was also raised generally,  are

    we doing the toxicity on leachate and the  other tests on

    corrosiveness on the whole waste?

              The answer there is also yes.  We  expect to do the

    toxicity on the leachate or the  liquid.  Which gets to the

    next question.

              The choice there, if it is  a liquid, here we are

    using the old-fashioned chemical definition  of liquid, not

    liquid to mean solid.  If  it  is  a liquid waste,  I  think  the

    definition we are using as a  result of our leaching test is

    going to a .45 micron filter, the generator's choice as  to

    whether he uses a liquid or tries the leaching test.  The
? 7













 20  ||  rationale for our corrosion test, a quarter  inch a yeari is
 21    right out of DOT.  The point is to limit  containers  and if

 22    the waste is likely to corrode the container, we want to

 23    k».->w about it, and that is the purpose of that  regulation.

 24              The draft guidelines for 3001,  the question was

 25    raised as to whether we have threshold limits.   Our  concern


 1    was •there, should we have, for example, an upper limit for

 2    toxicity.  Should we say that we are not interested if the

 3    oral LD50 was above a thousand milligrams per kilogram of

 4    body weight.  For the moment, we have not made that choice.

 5    That upper-end is open.

 6              From a practical point of view, we realize we

 7    probably should close it off somewhere, because you get to

 8    a point where it is virtually impossible to inject enough —

 9    you kind of die of drowning, I think, before you could get

JO    enough of it into you to cause the toxic effect.  We also

U    have the problem that was raised earlier, and we answered

12    for the moment, with regard to quantity of waste.  The only

13    quantity cutoff we have made so far is that which separates

14    the small waste generator from all other generators.  We may

15    have an issue there for measuring some of the criteria we

lg    have posed so far.

17              MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you, Alan.

18              I have a few more questions that I will try to

]9    answer.

2Q              Will leaching from a hazardous waste site where run

     off goes to surface water, which is the reason that bioassay

     is used as a criteria, be controlled under the water agency

23    via N.P.D.E.S. permit or under RCRA?  Also, is there any

24    conflict of Sections 307(b) and 311 under the Water Act with

25    RCRA?


























           Let's define some ten is here.  By leaching we are

 referring to downward movement 

 1   regulations containing very specific requirements for dis-

 2   posal of wastes from surface coal mining operations, treat-

 3   ment and control of acid runoff and general reclamation and

 4   reconstruction of surface mining areas.

 5             States or the Department of Interior will issue a

 6   permit to operate a surface coal mine under these regulations.

               Would a surface coal mining operation also require

     an  RCRA permit for on-site disposal of mining wastes if they

     are hazardous?

               Okay.  We are aware of the Department of Interior

     regulations,  although I must point out that we learned about

12   them about  the same time the public did.  As we mentioned

13    earlier, we are postponing any action on mining operations

     until the results of a study of mining wastes, which is

15   directed under another part of RCRA, is  completed, and at

     that time we  will make a decision based  on that study, and

17    the direction that these Department of Interior regulations

     go  as to whether or not any  further regulations under RCRA

     would be required.  That is  all I  can  say  about this at  this

20    point,  in the sense that we  are still  studying these Depart-

     ment of Interior  regulations to see how  they would interact

22    with RCRA.

               Another  general  question,  after  final promulgation

     of  rules and  regulations at  the end of 1978,  will the  imple-

     mentation be  phased or will  they  be  effective forthwith?

   l              Let's go back a bit.  There is again, I think, some

   2    confusion in the mind of the questioner here.  We intend to

   3    have final promulgation of rules and regulations under the

   4    hazardous waste provisions by the summer of 1978, not the

   5    end of 1978.

   6              In other words, the regulations will be final.  The

   7    law then states that there is a six-month hiatus before those

   8    regulations become effective, so we are saying they will

  9    become effective at the end of 1978, that is, six months

 10    after they become final.

 11              AS to the second part of the question about will

 12    the implementation be phased or will it be effective forth-

 13    with, the answer is yes, they will be effective forthwith,

 14    but there will also be under the permit system, the way we

 15    are contemplating it at this point, first of all, there are

 16    two things operable here.  There is a possibility of having

 17     an interim permit while permit processing for a full permit

 18     is going on.  And so in that sense, even though the regula-

 19     tiona are effective six months after final promulgation,

 20     there is a possibility of getting an interim permit to con-

 21     tinue operation until final permits are issued.  W« will dis

 22     cuss this more in-depth when we talk about Section 3005.

 23               Another question, how will Federal facilities be

24      regulated under RCRA?  Are they subject to state permits?

 25               Here again, we are stepping ahead, I think, to mor<


 1     implementation-related questions.   I  think we will save this

 2     one  until  tomorrow,  when we  talk about that.

 3               Here  is  another  question about the  relationship

 4     between  the  Toxic  Substances .Control  Act and  RCRA.  It says
         /7C6 SfXtOf.^
 5     TSCA^defines substances as  toxic. RCRA legislates disposal

 6     of hazardous and toxic materials.   Please elaborate on pre-

 7     vious  explanations as  it did not explain the  difference.

 8     Does RCRA  control  final disposal of toxic substances under

 9     TSCA?

10               Let me try again.   Let me just repeat that TSCA

11     regulates  substances.   RCRA  regulates wastes.  There is a

12     distinction  there.  It is  possible that while RCRA, the way

!3     we are defining waste, having a very  broad scope,  if you will

14     to at  one  time  try to  set  up management control systems for

15     all  waste  materials that could be considered  hazardous, which

16     includes toxic, it would be  my presumption that most of the

17     materials  that  are toxic under TSCA that become a waste and

18     are  disposed of would  probably fall under the purview of

19     RCRA.  That  is  our intention.   However, as I  pointed out

20     earlier, there  could be cases where it is felt that the

21     authority  under TSCA is a  better mechanism to control the

22     disposal of  a specific chemical, and  that was done in the

23     case of  PCBs.   It  was  done because of a legislative mandate

24     to do  it that way.  And there may be  other conditions later

25     on which would  dictate that  approach.


  1              So I am just saying that that is an option that

  2    remains open to use the authority of TSCA to regulate the

  3    disposal of a specific chemical of concern, whereas the more

  4    general provisions of RCRA would apply across the board.

  5              If there is still some question about that, I will

  6    be glad to talk again during the break as to that distinction

  7              MR. SANJOUR-:  There are several questions that we

  8    are postponing for a later answer.  Under Section 3004 ther«

  9    is a question on hazardous wastes that produce gases, on the

 10    nuts and bolts of corporate disposal and on the disposal of

 11    primary sludges.  We will handle those three in the discussioi

 12    of Section 3004.

 13              Then there is another question about the notifica-

 14    tion system, and the time allowable to test, and we will

 15    discuss that question under Section 3010.

 16              MR. LEHMAN:  We have some more questions here.

 17              MR. CORSON:  Question, would not the promulgation

 18    of both a process list and a substance list under 3001 make

 19    enforcement easier?

 20              The answer, I guess, is yes.  We will publish

 21    probably both a process list and a substance list.

 22              The real question is one addressed earlier in my

23    remarks, followed up by Walt in response to a comment from

24    the floor, the nature of the list, if they are definitive,

25    that is if you are on the list your waste is hazardous, and


























you must test to get off the list, or whether the list is


          I won't try to speak for enforcement and say which

is easiest.  I believe if you go down a list and say my waste

is on there, it is hazardous, that has got to be easier.

          Is our present intention to define guidelines to

define a carcinogen?

          We are not going to try to come up with a new defi-

nition.  We will follow the Agency's lead.  I know the Agency

is participating currently in the four agencies, OSHA, CPSC

and FDA, and whatever.  Part of that involves testing — the

fourth one is EPA.  That is us.  I knew there was a problem

there.  We will be following their guidance as to defining

a carcinogen.  We will look to them for help in defining

standard testing techniques.                        .
          The general properties for high and low «f with

corrosive wastes we are looking at a liquid waste or the
saturated solution of a non-fluid waste for our Pft measure-

ments .

          Someone pointed out to us the fact that bioassay
tests are quite sensitive to PH range.  We understand that.

One of the things — Oak Ridge National Laboratory is our

contractor — they will be factoring that problem into

their work.
          If Wi is the only matter of toxicity, how do we

















     take that out  so the bioassay  test  is  valid?
          MR. LEHMAN:  That was a set of very  interesting

and challenging questions.  We expected the discussion  under

3001 to be li^vely and it was, because of the  nature  that

the definition is obviously the keystone to the entire  progran

here, and we were not disappointed.  We are at the break

point.  But I would like to know if there are  any verbal

questions that anyone would like to ask at this point from

the floor about Section 3001.  .

                      j)e&&  h

          MS. LEVIN:  Debeii-ah^/fevin , Institute of Scrap Iron

and Steel.  I am sorry I was late and I missed the definition

of waste.  Could you repeat that, please?

          MR. LEHMAN:  Could I suggest that rather than take

the time of the entire audience that you get together with

Alan Corson on my left during the break, and he could go over

it once again?  I hope that is satisfactory.

          Okay, let's take a 15-minute break,  and we  will

begin again at 10:35.

          (Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m. the hearing was recessed,

to reconvene at 10:35 a.m.)


 1              MR.  LEHMAN:   I would like to reconvene the meeting.

 2              As I mentioned, we have a lot of ground to cover,

 3    plus we have a number  of speakers who are going to be address

 4    ing the group at the end of today, so it is to our mutual

 5    benefit to keep on schedule here

 6              At this time 1 would like to introduce Mr. Harry

      Trask,  the Program Manager for Pesticide Waste Management in

      our Division,  who will discuss Section 3002.

 g              MR.  TRASK:  Ordinarily I could just stand here and

10    talk, but the Washington Post told me last week it was not

      the flu I had but a virus, and I can't talk very well.  Can

12    you hear that now?

13               Section 3002 of the RCRA requires the Agency to

14     establish standards affecting recordkeeping, labeling, con-

15     tainers, furnishing the information, a manifest system and

      reporting.  The Agency is approaching this generally follow-

      ing the outline of the Act, but in some cases trying to com-

      bine these where it seems appropriate.

]9               In recordkeeping, for example, where the purpose is

20     to identify the quantity and the hazard for later reference,

      that is in case something happens on the way to the disposal

      site or at the disposal site, then a good record is held by

      the generator, who, after all, does have some responsibility.

                We will use the manifest as the basic document in

      this record.  In some cases it may be necessary to have more


















 information than would be on the manifest.  We are attempting

 to have a somewhat simplified manifest, as w« will get to a

 little later.

           Generally speaking, we believe 'that three years is

 long enough to keep a record of these wastes.  It doesn't put

 any particular burden on industry because many industries do
 nqg)keep records longer than that, and it also does give

 time enough for the waste to be handled at the storage or dis

 poaal facility so that some final disposition is made of it.

           In the area of labeling, we again are trying to

 consolidate to the extent that we can.  The purpose for label

 ing is to identify the containers which have hazardous waste

 in them so we know what the hazard is and what the material

 is.  As the Act says, that we must label for storage, trans-

 port or disposal.  We are going to use the DOT hazard labels

 to the extent that we can, that is, where they cover the


           As Alan Corson explained to you, some of the hazard

 ous wastes do not fit within the DOT categories.  In those

 cases there will be some EPA identification labels that will

 give us a better handle on what those particular things are.

           The names on the labels are going to be keyed into

 the names that will be used on the manifest, so that it will

 be a simple matter to look at a manifest and a label and

the two will be the same.


 1              We  are  going to use the DOT — as I mentioned earliejr

 2    We will  use an EPA name if there is no DOT name or if the

 3    DOT  name says NOS, meaning not otherwise specified, then that

 4    will be  a trigger to look for an EPA name.

 5              In  the  area of containers, the purpose of the con-

 6    tainer standard is to — as the Act says, to use appropriate

 7    containers for storage, transport and disposal.  We are keyinc

 8    in  again to the DOT specifications, because, after all, they

 9    are  in effect, they are being used.  We see no alternative to

10    that.

H              However, there are a couple of questions which have

12    come up, and we are still wrestling with these.  For example,

13    should we require more stringent specifications for contain-

14    ers that are going for storage?  This is one of the purposes

15    of the standard is to have an appropriate container for

16    storage.  And, on the other hand, should we also look at

17    less stringent specifications when a container is going for

18    disposal?

19              One of the overall purposes of the Act is to

20    conserve resources, and if we are going to do that, then

21    it seems that we need to take a hard look at whether or not

22    we need as good a container  as the DOT specifications call

23    for when the container is going to be put directly into the

24     ground.

25              I would like to emphasize here  that we are still


  1    working in this area.  We do have a consultant working on a

  2    contract.   His report is not in yet, so we have not come

  3    down hard on either of these at the moment.

  4              The third instruction in the Act was to write

  5    standards to furnish information to those who transport,

  6    treat, store or dispose of a hazardous waste.  We are attempt-

  7    ing to do this through the medium of the manifest, but also

  8    through some direct contact between the generator and the

  9    disposer.   I use the term 'disposer,1 meaning treatment,

 10    storage or disposal facilities.  I hope that doesn't confuse

 11    anybody, because there are some cases where storage will be

 12    as important or perhaps more important than disposal.

 13              The Agency requires that information be furnished

 14    on the general chemical composition.  We are taking that to

 15    mean the common name given to a material where wastes or mix-

 16    tures of material — it may be a common name for the material

 17    followed by the term waste, for example, or used or spent,

 18    for example, spent sulphuric acid would be one example of

 19    that.

20              I should be careful about using examples, Walt.

2i    I may get into trouble like you did.

22              The records will furnish the backup for any infor-

23    mation that is furnished.  We believe that the most important

24    furnishing of information occurs between the generator and

25    the disposer when they negotiate the terms of the business


1    deal, and we see no way we can write any regulations there,

2    but we feel that that will serve to furnish most of the

3    information.  The information for those who handle it, that

4    is the storage and transporters, will be furnished via the

5    label.

6              The manifest system, which is the key to the control

7    of hazardous waste, is, according to the Act, designed to

8    assure that all of the waste is designated for a permitted

9    facility.  It is important to note that on-site disposal of

1°    waste, that is generators who dispose of waste on their own

11    site, will not be required to have a manifest.  The manifest

12    does track the waste while it is in transit.  It identifies

J3    what the waste is and what the hazard is.  It will use an

14    existing piece of paper.  We do not foresee the need for a

15    separator or second piece of paper to be carried by transporte

16    to serve as a manifest, and what we are visualizing now and

17    what is in the draft which has been sent out for public review

18    shows a format which requires much the same information that

19    is on a bill of lading, and that is on the DOT shipping papers

20    in case a hazardous material is involved.

21              The difference there is that we would require a

22    certification that the facility that is designated, that is

23    the consignee, is a permitted hazardous waste facility and

24    that some instruction or source of instruction be given in

25    case an incident happens while the waste is in transit.


 1              And those are basically the two variances.  We do

 2    not visualize the manifest going out of commercial channels.

 3    That is, the manifest system says that the generator will

 4    fill it out.  He will give it to the transporter.  The trans-

 5    porter will take it to the disposal site, where the disposal

 6    site operator will verify that all of the waste that was

 7    listedjan the manifest actually did arrive.  Then a copy

      will be sent back to the generator so that the generator

 9    knows that all of the waste got to the disposer.  We do not

10    visualize a copy — in the national system, the national

      standards, the Federal system, we do not visualize a copy

12    coming into the EPA office.

13              In the case of reporting, which is the sixth

      standard involved in Section 3002, the purpose is the basic

15    control tool, that is how we are going to know that all of

      the waste that was generated actually got to the disposal

      site, the designated disposal site.  This will verify by

18    means of comparing the report from the generator with the

      report from the receiver or the disposer, and comparing the

2Q    quantities and the identification of the waste on those two

21     pieces of paper.
                In the advance notice of groposed jrulemaking which

23     was  issued last winter,  we proposed to — we asked for

      opinions  on two options  to put in the manifest system and

25     the  reporting system.  One of these said that the reporting


 l    the manifest system would serve as a report — in other words

 2    a copy of the manifest would be sent into EPA and that would

 3    be the report.  The other one said that the report would be

 4    separate.  It would be based on the manifest.  We have come

 5    down on the side of that second system.

 6              In other words, the data that is on the manifest

 7    will serve as the base for the report.  And we feel also

 8    that for the Federal system that a quarterly report is what

 9    is needed.  In other words, the generator would collect all

10    of his manifests for a quarter.  Xt that time he would send

11    us a summary of those manifests.  His report would tell us

12    by manifest number what wastes he sent and where he sent

13    them.  The disposer's report would tell us the same thing

u    except he would say where the waste came from.  Those two

15    then cam b« moved into a computer.  The quarterly reports,

16    there is some concern about whether or not that is too long.

17    We have had some people say that if we have to wait three

18    months to find out what happened to the waste — Is that the

19    real point?

20              I think the real point is that if people know that

21    there is a reporting system here, they are going to be more

22    serious about handling their waste properly.  But the quarterly

23    reports do have a lot less paper involved, and it does help

24     to spread the labor out some.

25              Some of the unresolved issues — and these are















_JR 15











 fairly big ones  — Alan Corson mentioned  these  to  you

 earlier.  One of these is the small generator issue.   If we

 were to take every generator of hazardous waste, regardless

 of the quantity  involved, I think w* would  soon be swamped

 under, because whether you know it or not,  virtually  everyone

 does generate some hazardous waste.  Even throwing away half

 a can of paint thinner is actually a hazardous  waste  and can

 be so classified.

          We are going to exclude householders  because there

 is no real way of enforcing any regulation  that we would put

 in there.  What  about everyone else?  Should we say that

 everyone except  a householder is a generator?   That would

 take into account the grocery store which has a few broken

 bottles of -a pesticide, for example.  Do  we want to exclude
him or -do we want him in the system?  At the moment the

normal course of action is to add these broken bottles of

pesticide to his regular solid waste.  I do not think we want

all of his solid waste into this system.

          One of the problems that the whole hazardous waste

industry is running into now is finding sites, and if we fill

up these sites, too soon, what are we going to do in the

future?  I see a fellow grinning.  He is having a problem with

Kepone finding a site, and he is probably going to be working

with that the rest of his life.  Maybe they will have to find

a site for you, Bill.

    1               Another approach here into this small generator
 J> 2     issue  is  to take  a look at the M SIC *. codes or some of the
  f                                     ^—    f**-
    3     processors involved.  I_don'-t have any real strong feelings
    4     on  this one, with the exception that some of the SIC codes
    5     could  result in fairly large quantities of hazardous waste
    6     being  generated periodically — not regularly.  And whether
    7     we  want this waste in the system or not, or whether we want
    8     it  outside the system, I think, is the real question here.
    9               The one that we are favoring at the moment, and I
   10     would  like to emphasize that this is not really settled yet,
   11     i*  a generation rate, and one number which has been proposed
-^12     is  27  pounds per mg^ith, which figures out to  .9 pounds per
   13     day, and  I have a fellow here who can explain the base for
   14     that if we need to.
   15               This, when coupled with some local options, that
_>-> 16     is  if  some local area, some  region or perhaps a state,
   17     when states take these regulations, might be changed up or
   18     down,  depending on the conditions within that local area,
   19     there  is  a lot of sentiment for that among our regional
   20     offices,  and some of the states have felt that they would
   21     like to have better control over that.  We would be intereste
   22     in  your  comments on this, and we are getting some by mail
   23     already.
   24               Another of the unresolved issues here, which again
   25     Alan mentioned, is what to do with resource recovery wastes


 1     should they be manifested or should they not.   Clearly,

 2     resource  recovery is  a purpose of the RCRA,  and we ought to

 3     favor it  to the extent that we can.  But should we go all the

 4     way  to not controlling these wastes at all?   Should we allow

 5     them to be out of the system completely?

 6               Some of the wastes going to resource recovery that

 7     are  hazardous  will require some shipping papers under DOT

 8     regulations, because  DOT does not distinguish whether a

 9     material  is a  waste or not or whether it is  headed for resource

10     recovery  or not.  But some of them, those that DOT does not

11     recover,  if we were to exclude these from our manifest

12     system, then there would be no control at all during the

13     transportation phase.  So we are interested  in comments on

14     this.

15               At the moment we believe that some incentive should

16     be given,  and  we aae possibly considering lowering some of the

17     requirements of reporting and possibly with  a less stringent

18     requirement for a permit, which will be gone into more to-

19     morrow morning.

20               You  see, I  helped you speed things up here, Jack, arjd

21     we are ready for questions.

22               MR.  LEHMAN:  First of all, are there any statement

23     from the  audience on  Section 3002?

24               Then we will go into our written question and answei

25     period at this point.  If you need some cards to write some


   1    questions on or have some questions, please  raise your hand

   2    and we will get them in here.

   3              While that is going on, there  is a more general

   4    question that has been brought as a  result of our previous

   5    question and answer period.

   6              Let me read that to you.   It says, relative to the

   7    questions of overlap between RCRA and the Toxic Substances

   8    Control Act or the Water Act, can you help explain  what  will

   9    happen in the EPA regions, specifically  — that is, in the

^i 10    £egional offices, specifically, will there be one staff  to

   11    deal with in the region regardless of the EPA statutory

   12    authority to address the hazardousness or toxicity  question?

   13              Again, that is not an easy question to answer.

   14    Let me just comment, if I may, that  there is a difference,

   15    again, between TSCA and RCRA in the  sense that TSCA is a

   16    strictly Federal program, whereas the hazardous waste manage-

   17    ment provisions of RCRA are intended to  be carried  out by

   18    state governments and not by the Federal Government.

   19   I           It is only where a state does  not  choose  to act  that

   20   II the Feds get involved with the implementation.  So  you have

   -21    a  basic difference right there.  We  would hope that most

   22   states will assume this program, and so  that most of the

   23    implementation questions would be dealt  with by state govern-

   24    ments and not by EPA's regional offices. Where that does  occu

   25   where the state does not take the program and you have to  deal


    1   with the EPA, we are attempting to have a single window, if

—J 2   you will, in the regional offices such that you don't have

    3   to go from pillar to post to find the answer to questions.

    4             One thing that I think will help this — some of you

    5   already know this — the Office of Solid Waste was recently

    6   transferred within the EPA to fall under the purview of the

    7   Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials,

    8   which means that there should be a much greater degree of

    9   integration between the Solid Waste Management programs and

   10   the water programs, and we hope to extend this, not only in

_a 11    the headquarters area, but also to the regional offices so

   12    when you are dealing with MPDS-type water questions and with

   13    RCRA hazardous facility questions, hopefully you would be

   14    dealing with one group.  Maybe not the same individual, but

   15    at least one group.  We are attempting to work this out, and

   16    we will try to make it as easy as possible.

   17              That is about the best I can respond to that ques-

   18    tion~

   19              Harry, you have questions here?

   20              MR. TRASK:  I have one here that I think I have

  2i    already answered.  It says, will a hazardous waste that is

  22    destined for a permitted resource recovery facility within

  23    three months be covered by the manifest?

  24              I think the answer to that is no, it will not.

  25    But I think it should go along with that that it may be


  1    covered by DOT shipping papers.

  2              It says, if not, will this provide a large  loophole

  3    in the law which will present enormous problems in enforce-

  4    ment?

  5              I can't comment on enforcement.  There is a loop-

  6    hole there, no question.  But it may not be as large  as we

  7    thought because DOT shipping papers do come into play.

  8              The next question is on small generators, the 27

  9    pounds per month.  I knew I should not have mentioned that.

 10              MR. KOVALICK:  Here are some more.

 11              MR. TRASK:  It says 27 pounds of what — total

 12    waste generated, individual waste, 27 pounds each of  listed

 13    hazardous waste — and these are all questions.

 14              This is Mark Morris, who is working closely in

 15    developing this regulation on 3002.

 16              MR. MORRIS:  It is 27 pounds the total hazardous

 17    waste — no, it is 27 pounds of the total waste.  In  other

 18    words, if you had 27 pounds of hazardous waste in your

 19    solid waste, then the whole quartity would be hazardous.

 20              MR. TRASK:  The next question is on containers,

21    and it says, when empty drums contain a residue material,

22    some of which is hazardous, is the transfer of such empty

23    drums covered by 3002?

24              I think the general answer is yes, the short answer

25    We may get into later some questions of quantity, how much


 1    is  left in that empty drum,  but that obviously has to be

 2    keyed into what happens under 3001 and whether we get the

 3    lists,  and how we  treat quantity under 3001.

 4              But the  general answer is yes,  there will be.

 5              Another  question,  is it true that all hazardous

 6    wastes  which are generated and are disposed of on-site will

 7    not have to be manifested or reported?

 8              They will not have to be manifested.  They will

 9    have to be reported.   That is, if the generator is disposing

10    himself on hia own site, then he will report the wastes  that

11    are disposed of.  But he will not require a manifest, since

12    there is no purpose to be served there by requiring that.

13              Individual small waste generators may not present

14    a hazard.  Collectively they may.  For example, one florescent

15    versus  1,000.   What considerations have been given to this

16    possibility?

17              I guess  the question here refers to the — if  we

18    allow 1,000 florescent bulbs to be put into a landfill,

19    haven't we created a hazardous waste problem, and I think

20    the answer there is that if they are put  in there individually

2i    then the direction is such that it may not create a hazard am

22    there may be some  provisions there or some possibilities

23    there for attenuation of the mercury that is in there.

24              You know, clearly it is a problem,  but on the  other

25    hand, we do not see any way that we can require every single


 l    small generator to comply with this  full permit system.

 2              The next one, isn't an exemption  for small

 3    generators an invitation to circumvent the  regulations,  for

 4    example, by concentration or subdivision of the waste to

 5    fall below the prescribed waste rate limit?

 6              MR. MORRIS:  Let me first  explain where  the 27

 7    pounds came from.  That may shed some light on how we

 8    arrived at that number.  We first were trying to look and

 9    trying to focus our enforcement so that we  could more ade-

10    quately enforce RCRA,  so what we intended doing was first to

11    eliminate the household, which was clearly  unenforceable.

12    Using the household then in '& family of four, we would  take

13    a  look at the generation rate of potentially hazardous  waste.

14    What we did there was, we looked at  the solid waste and used

15    the Bureau of Mines study authorized to break the  solid waste

16    down and to see what was potentially hazardous in  it.   It

17    came out that with. a family of  four  you generated  potentially

18    27 pounds of hazardous waste.  We took that number and  said,

19    well, if we are going  to exclude the household  from RCRA,

20    then why not exclude generators who  produce 27 pounds per

21    month of hazardous waste?  We just carried  it over.  That  is

22    the rationale we used  to get th*i 27  pounds.

23              What happens when you implement something with that
      type  of  a rate?   In  other words,  who .do you get out of the

25    system,  or who is in the system?


























          The  27  pound  figure, based  on  a  Maryland  study,

 could exclude  as  many as  80 percent of the generators  in

 that state.  What is more significant is what quantity of

 hazardous waste does it exclude?

          It only excludes about two  percent of the hazardous

 waste.  That allows us  to focus enforcement on 20 percent of

 the generators producing  98 percent of the hazardous waste  in

 that state.

          We would like to regulate the  few who create the

 majority of the problems.  As you move the 27 pounds up,  you
Bee,^you pull less waste into the system, and you exclude

more generators.  But right now the 27 pounds seems to do
               "T^AJ^m^^ "jMAfff
what we want.  ** pounds is approximately two cups a day or

a little less than two  cups a day.  If you dispose of that in

your regular solid waste, then it is attenuated in the solid

waste, and you get some lessening factors in there with respecr

to that attenuation.

          in other words, if you assume that 100 percent of

all the hazardous wast* presently goes to Subtitle D-type

landfills or less than Subtitle D-type landfills, or dumps,

if you take 98 percent of that waste out which was hazardous,

and only put two percent in, in a sense you have corrected a

majority of your problems.  That is where that number came

from and why we are trying to find a number.  The 27 pounds

only came about as a means of excluding the household.


























          In other words, once we excluded the household, we

looked at that number in order to use that logic to carry it

over to industry.

          MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you, Mark.

          I have a couple of more general questions here that

I will cover.  One is, are the statutory deadlines under

Section 3002 being met?

          The statutory deadline for all of the regulations

under Subtitle C of RCRA is that final promulgation of all

of the regulations and guidelines are to be accomplished

within 18 months after enactment of the law, which works out

to be April 26, 1978.

          As I mentioned earlier, it now appears that some

of the regulations will not be ready by that date.  It de-
      QUO a^ooc.
panda ^.o some degree on the type and intensity of comments

that we receive after we publish as a proposed regulation in

the Federal Register.

          If everyone agrees that what we have proposed is

absolutely fine and no problem, then it is no problem to

make that regulation from a draft into a final, and that

could be done fairly expeditious ly.  We do not expect that to

happen, quite frankly.  It has never happened in the past.

So we are — we probably will not meet these deadlines,

depending on the degree of comment we  receive — proposed.

          Another question says, for a generator's permit,


  1    how will the permit be valid and under what conditions  could

  2    it be  revised or undergo Agency review?

  3              First of all, the question  is  again misconstrued.

  4    Generators do not need permits.  Let  me  say that with some

  5    emphasis.  Transporters don't need permits.  Only  people who

  6    store,  treat or dispose of hazardous  wastes at  some  facility

  7    need a permit.

  8              So, if you  generate the waste  but do  not store,

  9    treat  or dispose, you do not need a permit.

 10              AS to the other parts of that  question,  I  will save

 11    that for discussion under Section 3005.

 12              Walt, do you have some questions?

 13              MR. KOVALICK:  Yes, two related  questions.

 14              Will the generator be able  to  pass full  legal

 15    liability for hazardous wastes to the transporter, and  ulti-

 16    mately the disposal by a proper use of the manifest  system?

 17    And, simply, is the generator responsible  for wastes until

 18    final  disposal?

 19              It is our understanding that the regulations  we

 20    are writing — I am not an attorney — do  not interrupt the

 21    possibility of a suit anywhere along  the line against parties

 22    who cause damage.  W« believe, however,  that the generator

 23    who properly fills out a manifest, correctly designates a

24    transporter to a permit facility, certainly lessens  his

 25    liability in the eyes of a reasonable man, who  is  also


 1    known as a gentleman, as to whether he is responsible for

 2    damages resulting from those wastes.

 3              So our current view is that you are not going to

 4    be able to pass full legal liability.  We cannot write a

 5    regulation to do that.  However, you will be able to provide

 6    demonstrable evidence if you are a generator that you compile

 1    with all the requirements and those doing damage down the

 8    chain from you, you are more insulated from that.

 9              Will the manifest form be standard nationwide?

 10              We have a number of discussions and a lot of

 11    input on this from states and others.  Our current thinking

 12    is that we will have a suggested manifest format, and we will

 13    list those items of information in their proper order as they

> 14    would appear on a manifest in the Federal Register, and

 15    we will even have an example of what such a format would look

 16    like laid out on a sheet of paper.  We are trying to follow

 17    DOT shipping paper requirements in this phase, that is just

 18    as they do not specify the width.of the boxes and the length

 19    of the boxes on the  form, they do specify the order in which

 20    the information should appear.

 21              Many transporters print bills of lading for their

 22    customers.  We are going to specify the information in the

 23    order of how it should appear, offer  an example  of how it

 24    could be  laid out.   It is still possible  for  states to add

 25    other information that they require  in  their  systems,  if they


    1    are an authorized program.  That would not prohibit a state

    2    from being authorized merely because they had additional

    3    information that they wanted from generators.

    4              Does the manifest information include appropriate

    5    measures to be taken in the event of an accidental spill

    6    during transport?

    7              Yes, our intention is that one of the requirements

    8    will either be information as to what to do in the case of

    9    a spill, how to control it, or a 24-hour telephone number

    10    that the generator certifies will provide information as to

    H    what to do about the spill.

    12              This is not to accommodate many generators who

    13    prefer to use available systems such as Chemtrec.  That would

    14    require you to register with Chemtrec the kind of waste you

    15    ship and what should be done with it.

    16              Is a nationwide numbering system and direction of

    17    manifests accepted?  If so, how will the system work?

    18              No, in the sense that the manifest form will be

    19    provided — well, I should say it is commonplace that it is

    20    provided today by transporters.  If not generators would have

    2i    to create a manifest form.  As I outlined earlier, they are

_A 22    free to use the suggested form in the Federal Register or

    23    their current bill of lading.  We are not getting in the

    24    business of printing manifest forms for the country.

    25              Last, but certainly not least, will manifests be


























public documents, open for inspections by competitors?

          My early reaction to that is that the Agency is

about to revise its Freedom of Information Act regulations,

and you will see shortly, in the next, I would guess, 30 to

45 days, amendment to our existing Freedom of Information

Act regulations, which will add the Toxic Substances Control

Act and the RCRA to the cjean air laws, the water act and the

g.lean air act covered by those regulations.

          Those are the rules under which we operate in terms

of providing information under the Freedom of Information

Act.  In other words, that a competitor would have to use.

I am somewhat familiar with those regulations.  We will be

offering the opportunity in our notification of procedure,

which we will discuss later, and in the manifest on the form

for generators to argue, that is, to check a box, if you will

that they believe that the information they are providing is

confidential business information.  That would at least

require then the Agency to go through the procedure described

in the regulations that I mentioned that are being revised

to include RCRA in order to provide that information to the

outside world.

          If you are interested in that problem, your point

of influence is the program that will soon be announced to

include RCRA under the current Freedom of Information Act

requirements.  I must point out that you will be swimming


    1     against the stream to try and devise a new set of requirement

    2     solely for RCRA,  because those regulations apply to a number

    3     of our environmental laws.  That is the place where the

    4     criteria are listed, or how the Agency analyses what is con-

    5     fidential information.

    6               Will manifests be required for transportation to

    7     a licensed facility across the public road to the generator's

    8     licensed facility?

    9               In other words, the generator owns a permitted

   10     facility across the road from his own generating facility?
—~)ll     If a generator disposes .of his own waste on a location away

   12     from the generation point, will a manifest be required?

   13               The regulation that we are explaining now — I have

   14     another one that has to do with when the property is con-

   15     tiguous — if we are discussing a piece of property through

   16     which a public or private thoroughfare passes, in that situ-

   17     ation, no manifest would be required.  But in the situation

   18     where the disposal facility is owned by the generator, but it

   19     is down the road, not contiguous, then the manifest would be

   20     required.  It is a contiguous facility with only a public

   21     or private road through the middle that no manifest would be

   22     required.

   23               MR.  LINDSEY:  I•have a couple of questions along

   24     the same lines of the generator kinds of questions.

    25              The manufacturer of a cleaning substance which


l    produces a toxic or hazardous substance ships his product to

2    a large janitorial service who uses the cleaner — who  is

3    the generator and who has responsibility  under 3002?

4              The shipment of the cleaning solution is a product

5    and not a waste.  So the manufacturer of  the cleaning substan

6    does not have a hazardous waste.  The material which the

7    janitorial service.uses and then cleans up, if the material

     that is left at that point fits the criteria as a hazardous

9    waste, that would be a hazardous waste, and if collected in

10    a larger quantity such that he did not meet the small quantit

11    limits, that we were talking about earlier, then he would

12    have a hazardous waste and he would be a  generator, and he

13    would have to handle it in that fashion,  at least as it sits

14    now.

15              On the other hand, the person who manufactures the

16    cleaning substance may also have a waste  material, possibly,

17    which would fit the criteria of a hazardous waste, and  then

18    he would be a generator as well.  But the product itself,

19    which I think is the source of this question, is not a  waste.

20              ^s the recipient of the hazardous waste in empty

2i    drums or the reconditioner therefor deemed to be a  generator

22    of this waste material despite its origin by the true  gene-

23    rator?

24              If the material in the drums,  and that  is then  the

25   drums themselves, is considered to be hazardous, then  the


 1     shipment of those drums would be a hazardous waste and would

 2     thus require a manifest.  The generator therefore would be

 3     the person who shipped the drums to start with.  The drum

 4     reconditioner would be a treater of hazardous waste and would

 5     require a permit.  We will talk more about permits tomorrow

 6     when we talk about the permit section.

 7               On the other hand, the drum reconditioner may also

 8     have a waste left over, possibly, depending on what he is

 9     doing with the drums, and thus may be considered the generate

10     himself.

11               This is the same question that was answered a littL

12     bit ago, what are the requirements of a generator who is also

13     a disposer?  We have already answered that.

14               What about ICC regulations which at present make

15     it illegal to produce a waste in one state and dispose of tha

16     in a second state?  This is done commonly now.  There is no

17     ICC regulation which precludes somebody from shipping a waste

18     from one state to another.

19               In the case of empty pesticide containers to be

20     transported to high temperature incinerators for disposal,

21     will manifests be required?

22               The answer is yes, if the residue makes the drum

23     hazardous.

24               Would a service station that generates a barrel of

25     crank case oil per month be exempt as a small generator?


1              The answer to that is it won't be exempt.  Assuming

2    first of all that used crank case oil fits the criteria of a

3    hazardous waste, if that is the case, then h« would nofc be

     exempt because he would b« above the small generator limit,

5    but there would be a lesser set of requirements on him.

6              Will he be required to obtain a permit?

7              He only needs a permit if he is going to dispose.

     You do not need a permit to ship that crank case oil or what-

9    ever it is off.  You may have to comply with the manifest

10    system.

11              MR. SANJOUR:  Need the generator insure that the

12    waste disposal operator have a valid permit?

13              I think that answer is yes.  If the generator meets

14    the requirements of a small generator and disposes and stores

15    his own property, would he be subject to Section 3004 stan-

16    dards based on the previous answer, 27 pounds?  Not a hazard-

17    ous waste, etc.

18              I think that if a generator is exempt because of

19    the small quantity limit he would also be exempt under 3004

20    for requiring a permit to dispose on his own site.  But I

     do not think — this is rather a new area, but I do not

22    believe he would be exempt from the requirements of Section

23    3004, even though he would be exempt from the permit.  That

24    means EPA would not bother him, but any citizen of the United

25   States could bring him to court if he failed to meet the


 1     requirements of  Section  3004.

 2              MR.  LEHMAN:  I had  a question  related  to  the  one

 3     Fred  just mentioned  about  interstate  shipment  of wastes.

 4     While we are talking about manifests,  I  feel that is  germain.

 5     It  is all germain  to Section  3003,  the transportation regula-

 6     tions.  The question is, will you discuss  the  matter  of

 7     interstate waste generated within one state, but transported

 8     to  and  disposed  of in  another state?   Would there be  conflicts

 9     as  to applicable regulations?

10              Okay.  This  gets back  to  a  statement I made earlier

11     that  if a state  takes  on this program, their program  does

12     not have to be exactly the same  as  the Federal program. We

13     are accepting  their  program in lieu of the Federal  program,

14     so  it is possible  that there  might  be slight variations in  the

15     way each state does  their  business.

16              However, Section 3009  of  Subtitle C  of RCRA says

17     that  no state  may  have any standards  or  regulations that are

18     less  stringent than  the  Federal  regulations.   So there  is a

19     base, then, a  floor  of regulations  that  are applicable  in

20     every state, whether or  not they are  authorized  to  carry out

2i     the program.   And  so,  while there may be mo»stringent  regula-

22     tions in certain cases —  and we will get  to that when  we

23     discuss Section  3006,  there cannot  be less stringent  regula-

24     tions,  and so  we do  not  expect any  great degree  of  conflict

25     as  to applicable regulations  from state  to state.


 1              Now there may also be  slight  differences  in  the

 2    manifest requirements in each  state.  As Walt mentioned, we

 3    are attempting to make the manifest system as uniform  as

 4    possible nationwide, but here  again,  I  doubt that we would

 5    disqualify a state program if  their manifest requirements

 6    were  substantially the same but  not exactly the  same as ours.

 7              But, here again, I think most state governments

 8    that  we have talked to recognize the  problem of  interstate

 9    transported wastes and are in  fact desirous of having  uni-

10    formity in the manifest system nationwide.

11              Harry,  do you have  some more  questions?

12              MR. TRASK:  Yes, and these  refer to  some  of  the

13    responsibilities  of generators,  transporters and disposers.

14              Let me  first take one  I think we would like  to

15    answer this  afternoon.  In  fact, the  discussion  on  3003 may

16    answer this  one.

17              Under DOT labeling  waste might be labeled flammable

18    and yet not  be  flammable  under EPA  criteria —  how  would th«

19    truck be marked?  There is  a  discussion on that in  the pre-

20    sentation this afternoon.

2i              Another one,  if a  generator stores a mixture of

22    used  oils,  solvents,  etc.,  in an undergournd tank and this

23    material is  periodically  collected  by a contractor using a

24    tank  truck,  what  recordkeeping requirements involve the

25    generator and what  requirements  involve the transporter?


 1               The  generator,  in putting a mixture of used oils

 2     and solvents in an underground tank will be required to say,

 3     how much is  there  and what is  in it?  Otherwise, under the

 4     regulations  being  developed under 3003,  the transporter

 5     would not be able  to accept it if he did not know what was

 6     in  it.   So that the generator  will be required to tell the

 7     transporter  what is there.   If the transporter fills out the

 8     manifest for the generator, then he would not be required to

 9     keep the record, but he  is  required to take the manifest to

10     the disposal site  so that he does in fact know what is there.

11               The  requirements  on  the transporter are that he kee

12     a record of  what he transports and where he mix49 it up, and

13     where he drops it  off.  So that everybody is involved in this

14     particular question here.

15               MR.  LEHMAN:  Could I interject?

16               MR.  TRASK:   Sure.

17               MR.  LEHMAN:  The  generator —  Harry mentioned the

18     possibility  of the transporter filling out a manifest for a

19     generator.  If that happens, the generator is still responsi-

20     ble for  the  accuracy of  that manifest and must sign that mani-

21     fest as  the  generator under perjury that that is a correct

22     statement of what  is  in  the waste.  So the generator is

23     ultimately responsible.   We did this on  purpose.

24               MR.  TRASK:   Another  question,  will a manifest be

25     required if  a  generator  owns a disposal  site but the disposal


    1    site is removed  from the plant  and  requires  transport over

    2    public roads?

    3               I think that was  answered a few minutes  ago.   If

-^ 4    the property is  contiguous  it can be separated by  a public

    5    road and be considered on-site.  Is the  answer the same where

    6    the generator owns his own  trucks or has a contractor haul

   .7    it?  That  does not matter.

    8               Whose  responsibility  will it be to determine the

    9    proper shipping  classification?

   10               It will be the generator's responsibility.  How-

   11    ever, he might seek help from the disposer.   Generally speak-

   12    ing, the transporter may or may not have a good familiarity

   13    with how to determine whether it is a DOT proper shipping

   14    name or not.

   15               For labeling purposes will large containers leased

   16    from commercial  outlets, 30 cubic yards  in size, require

   17    labels, since these usually attiude  many  mixtures which will

   18    vary from  load to load?

   19               Again, we will be getting into this more in the

   20    discussion on 3003, but I think the simple answer  is yes,

   21    some kind  of marking will be required.  It is now  if some  of

   22    the DOT hazardous materials are included in  that load, then

   23    it will be under EPA as well.

  24               The second part of this question,  have you given

   25    thought to the labeled material? This has a bearing on the


  1    permanence of the label, i.e., flammable,  paper, etc., type

  2    of fluid used, pressure, water active, etc.,  is also importan

  3    What is the present status?

^ 4              Let me cop out.  The present ^jstatua A.*8 th* con-

  5    sultants are still studying.

  6              Have you considered a standard label diamond-shaped

  7    with places to fill in information?

  8              We have seen a number of these labels around at

  9    soms of the generators.  In fact, some of them are getting

 10    downright gaudy.  They are really in florescent paint so they

 11    glow in the dark.  There are a number of possibilities here.

 12    One of the problems with getting into the diamond-shaped

 13     label is it tends to similate the DOT label,  and we are try-

 14     ing to keep the two separate, because the DOT label has a

 15     long history behind it with some, you almost might say, knee-

 16     jerk kind of reactions.

 17               When people see a DOT label, it means certain

 18     things to them.  We don't want to confuse or get involved in

 19     that particular set of reactions.  The same thing holds true

 20     with DOT placards.  We will get into that this afternoon.

 21     The short answer is yes, we are considering this sort of

 22     thing.  I think Mark has a few here.

 23               MR. MORRIS:  I have several questions, all that

24     deal with the right of disposal with respect to small gene-

 25     rators, and then, if you had at th« end of 10 months, let's


1    say, 260 pounds of hazardous waste, then could you divide it

2    by 10 and come out with 26 pounds a month and be a small

3    generator?

               The answer to that is no.  A small generator pro-

5    duces and disposes of less than 27 pounds per month.

6              Another question directed over here was the fact,

7    is it 27 pounds of hazardous wastes such as mercury and flor-

 8    escent lightbulbs or is it 27 pounds of lightbulbs?

 9              When you produce the hazardous waste, if it is in

10    a lightbulb, such as mercury, then it is 27 pounds of light-

11    bulbs when you produce it.  When you dispose of it, if you

12    mix it in the solid waste that you have — in other words, if

13    you came out with less than, say, 27 pounds of hazardous

14    waste and you mixed within your solid waste, that would be

15    okay.  That is when you go to have it collected.  However,

16    if you produce it and it is a mixture such as oil, is not a

17    hazardous waste, but it has dioxane in it, then the whole

18    quantity is hazardous.

19   I           There was a question also directed to me with

20    respect to people picking up hazardous waste, regular munici-

21    pal crews picking up hazardous waste in loads which would

22   exceed 27 pounds, and there was another question directed to

 23  I me within a working group with respect to the same thing.

 24             If you had to go around and pick up 27 pounds of
     hazardous waste from small generators, you would have to hit


 1    25 before you could even get a drum, the idea being that

 2    nobody is going to go around and collect from that many people.

 3    The transportation costs would kill you.  It is better to see

 4    the hazardous waste go into the solid waste.  You are not

 5    going to get that kind of an amount from a municipal crew

 6    picking up less than 27 pounds in the solid waste.

 7              MR. TRASK:  A couple of questions here that are

 8    closely related.  Both of them asked, will a manifest be

 9    required for liquids transported in a pipeline across public

10    land or a water course to a disposal site not contiguous to

11    the site?  Will a manifest be required if a generator dispose;

12    at a pipeline several miles away, the pipeline is underground

13    and is contained in a pipeline easement on land owned by

14    others, and the generation site and disposal site are owned

15    by the same company?

16              We do not intend to require manifests for pipelines

17    However, when the waste leaves the pipeline, then if it is

18    transported by any other method, then it would require a

19    manifest or, of course, if it is going to a disposal site

20    off-site, then that would require a permit.  If it is on-site

21    obviously it also requires a permit as well.

22              So those two questions — we have not given a

23    whole lot of thought to the pipeline.  The Office of Pipeline

24    Safety in the Department of Transportation has regulations on

25    transport of hazardous materials by pipeline.









l              A card here has three questions on it, two of

2    which I think really will be answered under other sections.

3    The first one, in a spill or incident situation, does the

4    transporter than become a generator and initiate a manifest/

5    report?

6              Let me give the short answer to that, but you will

7    hear more about it this afternoon.  The transporter does not

8    become a generator if he is transporting a hazardous waste,

9    because he already has a manifest and there already is a

10    generator for that hazardous waste.

11              Second, does each small generator, for example a

12    small dry cleaner to the collector/transporter, who picks up

13    from a number of small generators, initiate the manifest/

14    report?

15              The answer to that is yes.  In fact, we believe that

16    is what is likely to happen, and a number of transporters

17    have asked we make provisions for that.  It would require a
very slight modification to the manifest format, mainly in the

area of the generator certifying on each line how much materia

he actually turned over to the transporter.

          The third question here, regarding state regulations

can authorized states simply enforce Federal regulations, or

must they develop their own compatible regulations?

          I think that will be more properly answered under

Section 3006, which will be tomorrow.


1              Mark,  do you have anymore?

2              MR.  MORRIS:   No.

3              MR.  LINDSEY:   Two others.   First of all,  how is

     the  United States  Government going to help generators to

     recycle  waste  such as  heavy metal if the recycling cannot be

6    made economical  because virgin raw materials are leas expen-

7    sive? Under Title C there  is no authorization to do this at

8    all.

9  II            I presume we are  talking about such things as

10    freight  rate studies and changing that kind of thing, or

11    perhaps  incentives for resource recovery.  We mentioned

12    earlier  that there will be  different provisions for resource

13    recovery facilities and probably wastes destined for resource

14    recovery facilities.  In the Act there are several other pro-

15    visions.   For  example, under Subtitle E, if any of you have

16    the  Act  with you or can pick up copies out at the table, there

17    are  requirements for the Secretary of Commerce to develop







specifications for secondary materials and to develop markets

for recovery materials.  Under Subtitle H there are a number

studies required and demonstration projects available under
               A* fi/o«c4_.
Subtitle H for ^_a^ special study and demonstration projects

on recovery of useful energy and materials.

          Another part of the Act is the setting up of the

resource conservation and recovery committee, who is having

a public meeting on October 19 at the Department of Commerce


 1    Auditorium.  And if you will see Mrs. Meyer at the desk,

 2    those of you who may be interested in that particular thing,

 3    she can give you more on that.

74              There will be a public meeting of the resource

 5    conservation and recovery Committee.  One other item on this

 6    area is that there is the provision for the granting of

 7    technical assistance, both directly as we have been doing

 8    for sometime out of the office, and also via TA panels.  The

 9    panels mechanism is for use by states and local governments.

 10              One other question, are potentially hazardous wastes

 11    produced as a result of disposal of hazardous wastes — in

 12    other words solid in an incinerator residue or scrubber

 13    water — required to be reported if they are then in turn

 14    disposed of on-site?

 15              That covers a lot of land, that question.  First of

 16    all, the incineration of the hazardous waste is a treatment

 17    operation and would require a permit.  We will talk more

 18    about permit requirements and so on tomorrow.  The scrubber

 19    water, if in fact it is hazardous and is then handled as

 20    pointed out here by disposing of it on-site, then that would

 21    also be disposal and the scrubber water itself would be

 22    generated material and there would be reporting requirements

 23    both as a generator or as a disposer on both ends of that.

 24    We will talk about the disposal requirements sometime later

 25    on.


 1              I also have, I might point out before I leave, a

 2    number of questions have come in now which relate to either

^3    Sections 3005 or Section 3008, which has to do with / state

 4    guidelines, and I will just save those until the proper time,

 5    which will be tomorrow morning.

 6              MR. KOVALICK:  I guess this is a question following

 7    on my discussion of confidentiality of business information.

 8              How many copies of the manifest will be on file,

 9    that is by the transporter, the storer, and the disposal site:

 10    If each one of those persons has a copy, how can confidentiality

 11    be protected?

 12              Our current thought is there will be one copy of

 13    the manifest with the generator, one with the transporter and

 14    one with the disposer.  What I discussed had to do with the

 15    United States Government protecting the data submitted  to it.

 16    It does not pertain to the holder of the data.  There is very

 17    little protection if, I suppose, a transporter wanted to

 18    give that data to a competitor, which does not make a lot of

 19    sense, but it is possible.  In the case of dyes, pigments,

 20    chemicals, etc., salable articles of commerce subject to

 21    specifications, but they are off-specification for an

 22    innocuous reason such as dirt, off-shade, off-color blend,

 23    etc., can they be disposed of in a sanitary landfill or are

 24    they considered hazardous?  This goes back to the definition

 25    of waste and hazardousness.  Assuming the dye had toxic


  1 II  properties and assuming that it was not going for recovery,

  2    then it would be in the system.  That question really bears

  3    more discussion.  You may want to nail down Mr. Corson and

  4    run through the definition of resource recovery and run

  5    through that.  We have been through that at least twice now.

  6              MR. MORRIS:  A generator has a quantity of oil

  7    which is analyzed to be less than 27 pounds of dioxane.  Then

  8    his waste does not come under regulation.  If the total waste

  9    of the oil exceeds 27 pounds, not the dioxane, but the oil

 10    in the dioxane, then he is regulated, even though the amount

 11     of dioxane in the oil falls under the 27-pound limit.

 12               MR. LEHMAN:  Can we perhaps clarify that a bit?

 13               MR. MORRIS:  If you have a barrel of oil, let's

 14     say, and let's say it weighs a thousand pounds, and you

 15     analyze that barrel of oil and you find out the total dioxant

 16     is less than 27 pounds,  tinless you can separate the two,

 17     the total barrel is hazardous.

 18               VOICE:  Plus the oil?

 19               MR. MORRIS:  Let's say the oil is not hazardous.

 20     You have a barrel of oil and oil itself is not hazardous,

 21     but it is analyzed and it contains less than 27 pounds of

 22     dioxane.  Unless you can separate the two, the whole thou-

 23     sand pounds is hazardous.

24               MR. KOVALICK:  Why don't we finish the questions?

25               MR. SANJOUR:  The man's question is, if you can


  1    separate the two, you can throw them out.

  2              MR. LEHMAN:  We have other written questions, and

  3    then we will get back to oral questions.

  4              This one is really an enforcement-related question,

  5    I think.  It says, a company that both transports and dis-

  6    poses could easily falsify the manifest system.  I will pre-

  7    some the person means a company that generates, transports

  8    and disposes could easily falsify the manifest system, becaus

  9    otherwise the question does not make much sense.

 10              Let me get at this — if the company is not the

 11    generator — in other words, if it is just the transporter

 12    and the disposer that is picking up some waste and disposing

 13    of it from a generator, he cannot falsify the manifest system

 14    because it is the generator's responsibility to fill that out

 15    and certify that it is accurate.  So the transporter — if

 16    it is just the transporter and disposer link that is in

 1?    question, there could be no falsification there, and also

 18    the generator — the disposer must then certify back to the

 19    generator that it has arrived at a permitted facility.  If

 20    the company in question here is all three, that is the

 21    generator, the transporter and the disposer, which is the

 22    case in some instances, then the question is, under those

23    conditions the assumption is made that the company could

24    easily falsify the manifest system.  What programs will be

25    instituted to prevent or detect violations or falsified


 1     manifests, and it closes with a comment, perhaps this would

 2     be a good reason to manifest resource recovery waste.

 3               Let me address that issue and point out that there

 4     are many more requirements on a generator or a transporter

 5     or a disposer than the manifests.  There are also record-

 6     keeping requirements.  There are reporting requirements that

 7     are independent of the manifest system requirement.  The

 8     experience by certain state governments has been that they

 9     are able to detect within a certain industrial classification

10     let's just, for example, say just for purposes of illustra-

11     tion — we always seem to be getting into trouble using

12     examples, but let's say that a state has 10 chemical com-

13     panies in it and eight of them are keeping records and report

14     ing and the other two aren't.  It is then by management, by

15     exception, fairly easy to pick out those other two and go

16     pay them a call and say, okay, eight of your competitors

17     seem to think they have hazardous wastes.  Why don't you

18     think you have?  Overriding the entire situation is the fact

19     that regulations under Section 3002, 3003, 3004, are national

20     standards that are independent of the permit system or the

2i     manifest system or any other type of implementation vehicle

22     here.  These are national standards that can be enforced

23     against per se.  So any discovery of a violation of those

24     standards can be enforced against industry.

25               We have another comment on the small generator.


 1              MR. KOVALICK:  We are getting close to questions

 2    and answers.  Let me make a point that seems to have passed

 3    by all the people trying to figure out whether they have 28

 4    or 26 pounds.  The only people who do nothing in the system

 5    so far are householders.  The essence of what we discussed

 6    in 3001 and 3002 is that householders at the moment do

 7    nothing, even if you have a pesticide at home or even if you

 8    have a PCB ballast, a florescent light.

 9              Mining and milling we are postponing, until we have

10    a study.  The idea of whether a small generator has a certain

11    kind of SIC code or a poundage limit has to do with lessening

12    the recording and labeling and manifesting and recordkeeping

13    requirements.  It does not have to do with doing nothing.

14    Does everyone understand what I mean?  It is not so impor-

15    tant — it is important, of course, how many are in the cate-

16    gory of doing less versus how many are in the category of

17    playing fall generator foles in terms of recordkeeping, etc.,

18    so the discussion revolves around what is a reasonable level

19    or what is a reasonable kind of category that should be in

20    this lesser category where they do less, not that they do

21    nothing.

22              And so that really is the essence of the discussion

23    not so much how to get out of the system by being a small

24     generator.  Obviously, a small generator works with the list-

25    ing that I mentioned earlier if it is a mandatory list.  I


 1     wanted to be clear about the distinction of householders who

 2     do nothing and small generators who will have a much lesser

 3     set of requirements than a regular generator.

 4               MR. LEHMAN:  I have another written question on

 5     that issue.
                                                 /*A 3fO£Jt-
 6               MR. KOVALICK:  This question states^ a person's

 7     understanding.  As I understand now, a generator that pro-

 8     duces one pound per month of a hazardous material contained

 9     in 28 pounds of non-hazardous material is now a large gene-

10     rator.  Does EPA plan to propose diminimis limits or is this

11     logic extrapolated to one molecule in 28 pounds?

12               Again, I think you are missing the point of waste.

13     The gentleman was asking about the oil and dioxane.  The bott

14     line is, is that larger non-hazardous carrier of this smaller

15     amount of so-called hazardous material, does it flunk th«>

16     criteria?

17               MR. LINDSEY:  The whole thing.
18               MR. KOVALICK:  The whole quantity.  That barrel

19     of oil with dioxane, is it toxic, either by using the bio-

20     assay as a representative sample or by using an analytical

2i     method.  In this case there may well be there  is a hazardous

22     material diluted in 28 pounds of something else, but if it

23     is not toxic, it is not a hazardous waste.  Do not lose

24     sight of hazardous material and its quantity.  It is whether

25     a representative sample of the whole waste is  hazardous.  If


 1    that whole waste is hazardous, if the quantity  is  above 27

 2    pounds —

 3              VOICE:  Why don't you  forget about the 27 pounds?

 4              MR. KOVALICK:  That is one of  the options,  is to

 5    drive it right down to zero regardless.   I agree that is

 6    one.

 7              VOICE:  That will include households.

 g              MR. KOVALICK:  There are a number of  small  businesses

 9    who we expect will argue during  the formal rulemaking the

10    less requirements on them it would lighten their economic

11    burden.  That is our reason for  this.  We are happy to hear

12    advice to the contrary.

13              MR. SANJOUR:  The question here is, would all

14    hazardous wastes which are transported from various buildings

15    on a large generator site by pipeline to an industrial water

lg    activated sludge treatment plant on the  same site  need to

17    be reported quarterly?

18              The answer is no.  We  do not intend to regulate

19    waste water treatment plants with wastes carried by pipeline.

20    We will get into more on that under discussion  on  Section 300

2i              MR. LEHMAN:  I believe we have gone through all of

22    the written questions and have postponed as we  said some of

23    them that seemed more appropriate for discussion under other

24    points later on.

25              Do we have any open questions  now?  If so,  please

     come up to the mike and identify yourself.
 2             MR. KOHLER:  George Kohler.  Just a point of  clari-
      fication.  Michigan Cyanamid Company  — not a  small business.
 4             There appears to be a direct  contradiction,  if  I

 5   understood this morning, the gentleman  commenting on  Section

 6   3001, with a  later interpretation, and  if my notes  serve  me

     correctly, exceptions were to be  granted to household-derived

     wastes,  small waste  generators, and,  of course,  a six-months

     exemption on  the mining and the milling operations.

10             Now,  as I  understand you on Section  3002, there is

11   really no such  things as a small  waste  generator.   You are

12   only  considering households as an exemption.   I  can only

13   derive it from  what  you were tryhg to discuss  on the 27-pound

14   question.

15             MR. KOVALICK:  The thing that is wrong is the sheet

16   of  paper you  have that  says exemptions.  Exemptions are

17   householders, a temporary postponement  for mining  and milling

18   Small generators  are not exemptions  in  the  same  terms as  the

19   householders.  Does  that  fit  it  together with the  last

20   understanding you had?

21             MR. PARSONS:  Jim Parsons, Resource Industries, a

22   transporter and disposer  of hazardous wastes in Alabama.

23              I thought I understood you to say the treatment,

24   the disposal and the storage  of hazardous waste would be

25    controlled  by permit, but the transportation and generation


 1     would not be, is that correct?

 2               MR. LEHMAN:  That is correct.

 3               MR. PARSONS:   How can you cross-reference it on

 4     the computer without having the permit process on the genera-

 5     tor and the transporter?

 6               MR. LEHMAN:  The permit is a generalized permit

 7     which might be — we will get into this later as to the

 8     length of time that that permit is applicable — over many

 9     years — the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are

10     quarterly by the generator, and the disposer.  So that each

11     individual shipment of wastes has to have a manifest with it.

12     Records of that shipment have to be kept by the generator and

13     the manifest itself has to be copied by the transporter,

14     also the disposer.  And then quarterly reports, a summary of

15     all of that information is then sent to the EPA or to the

16     state if the state is running it.

17               So that is how the control is maintained.  If a

18     disposer, for example,  submits a report which does not match

19     the generator's report, then a red flag goes up and we will

20     investigate that situation.

21               MR. JENKINS:   Ron Jenkins, Greenleaf Telesca,

22     Consulting Engineers.

23               I would like  to pose a real world problem, if I

24     might.   We are presently designing a hazardous waste incinera-

25     tor that will be municipally owned and operated.   We are


























proposing a satellite complex point for empty pesticide

containers from a large agricultural area.  I am confused as

to whether or not the farmers who bring their empty pesticide

containers to the satellite complex facilities will have to

begin a manifest system for these containers and whether or

not these complex facilities will have to be permitted.

          MR. LEHMAN:  Okay, let me attempt to answer that.

Let's take the second one first.  I believe that you are

describing is what we would refer to as a transfer station,

and these are common in municipal waste management, and are

coming into vogue also in the hazardous waste management area

There are some in existence in the state of California, for

example, at this time.  We would, I think, look upon the

transfer station as a storage facility if the waste is kept

there for more than three months.  That is the cutoff at this

point.  If the waste is trans-shipped after that point —

before three months have gone by, and maintains its'

in terms of waste, that is if it is a drum that can be

tracked, then that facility probably would not require a

permit.  However, if the wastes are. mixed at a transfer sta-

tion where you now lose that identity of the original waste,

that is, it is mixed up together in another thing, at that

point I think we would consider the transfer station as being

a receptor site or a disposal site from the standpoint of

the generator at least.  He has now lost control of tracking


1    over  his waste  because  it is  now mixed with other wastes,  and

2 II  so we would consider in that  situation that the  transfer

3 ||  station would require a permit and would provide the second

     link, if you will,  back to the generator that his waste was










    received, and then the trans-shipment phase would now be

    another act of generation and shipment, and so a new manifest

    would have to be filled out for that mixture of waste until
    it gets to its final facility.

              Whether individual farmers have to manifest the

    waste, this is a classic example of why we are trying to arriv

    at this whole issue of small generators.  If a farmer has an

    amount of waste which is small and seasonal, let's say that he

    uses a couple of barrels of pesticides and so forth and then

    takes the drums to this transfer station, if it is less than

    this 27-pound limit — let me point out before we get to that

    point that we have published under EPA — has published under

    the authority of the Pesticide Act a recommended procedure for

    how to handle pesticide drums, and that procedure involves
          /*-£> SfO-QZ^
    triple ^rinsing of those drums at the point of application of

20  l|the pesticide.  So if the drum is triple-rinsed at that point

21  jby the fanner, then that drum would be considered a non-hazardo

22   drum and could go through separate channels that would not be


    in this tracking system.  If it is not triple-rinsed and still

    contains a residue, then he would, under the terms that we are

    talking about, still require a manifest system to get it to youi


 1     transfer station,  if it exceeds 27 pounds.   If nothing else,

 2     perhaps this is an incentive to triple-rinse.

 3               MR.  JENKINS:   Might I continue for clarification?

 4               MR.  LEHMAN:  Yes.

 5               MR.  JENKINS:   The  farmers will be expected to

 6     bring waste to the transfer  stations where  they will be mixed

 7     in a compaction-type unit on a daily or several times a week

 8     basis.  If their individual  load is not 27  pounds but their

 9     quantity over the  month would be, they would have to manifest

10     each load even though it would be under 27  pounds?

11               You see, this starts to build.  I do not see how we

12     could keep track of who was  bringing in what and when.  I

13     think probably nobody would  come in to use  it, and that is

14     what I am afraid of.

15               MR.  LEHMAN:  Maybe the best way to handle this is

16     just to accept your question as a comment on the whole issue

17     of how to deal with special  classes of people, and farmers

18     are that.  We certainly understand what you are trying to

19     say, that sometimes these general'regulations when applied

20     in specific cases get to be  somewhat ridiculous.  We are try-

21     ing to avoid that.  On the other hand, there is also the

22     possibility, when you get into large-scale  farming and

23     corporate farms, you get into large-scale aerial application

24     of pesticide that you have very large quantities of these

25     containers around.  In those cases, we would want those


   1     people to consider themselves as generators and go through

   2     the system.   We will take your comment as a comment, if that

   3     is acceptable to you.

   4               MR. JENKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.

   5               MR. KOVALICK:   I was just reminded that we have a

-^ 6     public comment on the advance notice''that where a waste

   7     disposal facility in this very case suggested that in this

   8     case the transfer station provide a service to a farmer, in

—» 9     this case of completing any paperwork or properly.^, labeling

  10     the drum if  necessary, and/or picking it up for him, and

  11     that that service would be a part of what was offered to the

  12     farmer in sending this empty container.  This is not the

  13     first time the issue has come up, but it is obviously a

  14     sticky one.

  15               MR. LEHMAN:  I would like to exercise the Chairman1

  16     prerogative  here and call the meeting into recess for lunch.

  17     Before we do that I would like to make a couple of remarks

  18     off the record, if I may.

  19               (Whereupon at 12:10 p.m. the hearing was recessed

  20     to reconvene at 1:30.)







1               MR. LEHMAN:  We would appreciate if all of you

2     that did come register at the front at our registration

3     desk, if you wandered in and did not see the registration

4     desk, would you please register on your way out?  We would

5     like to keep a record of who is here.

                In this afternoon's session we will cover Section

      3003 on transportation regulations and also Section 3004 on

      the facility regulations.  And following that we will  attemp

9     to get to as many of the speakers who have asked for time as

10     possible.

11               So it is not possible at this point to give  you an

12     estimated time of completion for this afternoon's session.

13     We will try to make it as short as possible.

14               Of course, our purpose here is to gather inforrnati

15     and we will stay here as long as it takes to do that.

16               At this time I would like to reintroduce Harry

17     Trask, who will give a short presentation on Section 3003.

18               MR. TRASK:  Thank you. Jack.

19               Section 3003 of the Act requires that the Administ
                                   fto SfACK^,
20     tor promulgate regulations to ^ establish'standards that

21     include but are not limited to — I want to stress that —

22     include, but are not limited to, recordkeeping only, accept-

23     ing proper labels, complying with the manifest and insuring

24     that all of the waste is delivered to the designated facilit

25              Section 3003(b) further requires that any regiatio


1    that EPA writes under Subtitle C be consistent with DOT regu-

2    lations.  In the coordination effort with DOT we have held

3    a number of meetings with them individually, and we are now

4    planning and have scheduled a meeting,  a public meeting, with

5    DOT.

6              If you do not have one of these, I think they are

7    around here somewhere or we can send you one.

               That meeting is scheduled for October 26 at the

9    Ramada O'Hare near O'Hare Airport in Chicago.  We are expect-

10    ing a pretty good turnout out there to discuss how these

11    regulations fit together.

12              In implementing or setting down the standards for

13    transporters, the first section in the draft regulation as

     it now exists called 'general' is that a transporter can

     transport a waste only if it assigned manifest — if it has

     the proper labels on the containers and if it is in proper

     containers.  If any of these conditions are not met, then it

18    would be illegal to transport that waste.  The general sec-

19    tion also includes some loading and Storage standards, and

20    these succinctly are that no incompatible wastes should be

21    transported in close proximity to each other.  In other words,

22    if a situation existed where one waste coming in contact with

23    another would produce a third hazard, then that would be an

24    illegal kind of transportation.  A list of these incompatible

25    wastes is being developed under the Section 3004 regulations.


 1    and this would be keyed into that set of regulations.

 2              It also requires that any loading and storage

 3    requirements that DOT has established must also be observed.

 4    And, basically, the DOT standards are that any incompatible

 5    wastes must be separated.  In other words, the hazards must

 6    be separated.  Transporters will be required to comply with

 7    the manifest in that they must certify that they have

 8    accepted the waste.  They must obtain a receipt when they

 9    deliver it and they must keep a copy of the manifest as  their

10    record.  And this will also satisfy the recordkeeping stan-

11    dard.

12              Transporters further are required to deliver  all of

13    the waste to the designated facility.   It can be only to a

14    permitted facility, and that must be certified on  the mani-

15    fest  by the receiving facility.  We are making a provision

16    for some cases where a manifest might not actually be

17    accompanying the shipment.  In those cases, the  information

18    that  is on the manifest would be accompanying the  shipment,

19    and if the manifest itself is not there, then there  is  a pro-

20    vision for a substitute device to show  that actually the

2i    material was delivered.   This is in keeping with a computeriz4d

22    system that the  railroads now use where the actual piece of

23    paper called the manifest might not be  with the  shipment at

24    all times.  Whether the manifest  is there  or  not,  the informa-

25    tion  is  still  there and that,  of  course,  is what it is all


 l   about anyway.

 2             The regulations also have a section on handling

 3   during emergency in transportation, such as an accident.

 4   In these cases some very quick action is required.  There

 5   is not time to perhaps comply with all of the conditions of

 6   the manifest system, and in this case we have provided that

 7   a transporter may notify EPA or the Coast Guard or both or

 8   some local authority, and then he can report later and do

 9   the paperwork later as to what is necessary.

10             But the first consideration, of course, during an

11   emergency is concern for human life, and that at the site,

12   and then the other things come along later.

13             in reference to one of the questions that was asked

14   this morning about manifesting that — re menifesting waste,

15   of course, if there is a waste to start out with it does not

16   require a new manifest.  If a hazardous material is involved

17   in an accident, then it will be a waste when it is cleaned up.

18   That will require a manifest.  We can discuss that later here,

19   too.

20             There is also a section on marking of vehicles

21   which will be carrying hazardous waste.  This is a controversial

22   area.  Some of the states wanted us to require permits for

23   hazardous waste transporters, claiming that they could only

24   control or get close to transporters if they had permits.  Our

25   problem is that we are not really transportation people.  We


 1    do not know what the conditions  for a  permit  should be for  a

 2    transporter, because it  is not really  in  a waste  area.  It

 3    is more of the transportation area, and that  is not — that

 4    is not what we view our  mission  to be.

 5              At the moment,  though, we are thinking  of some way

 6    of marking the vehicles.  We have not  settled on  anything.

 7    There are too many numbers — on many  of  the  trucks that are

 8    on the highways now involved in  transportation.   If you look

 9    at the cabs of some of these power units  on tractors,  if

10    you could make out an individual number on there  you will do

11    well, because the whole  door is  filled with them.   We  do not

12    really know how to key them into our system.

13              We are asking  when transporters notify  EPA that

14    they are transporting hazardous  waste  that they furnish us

15    with the ICC number that covers  hazardous waste.

lf>              There is a section on  placarding in this regulation

17    which says that the DOT  system will be used provided all the

18    materials are covered by the DOT regulations  are  on the DOT

19    list.  The DOT list is well established,  and  the  markings,

20    that is the placards that go on  the trucks are well known and

21    the shape, the size, the colors, are all  readily  recognizable

22    by people who respond to accidents.  It is almost a knee-jerk

23    reaction that when a fire chief  sees a flammable  DOT placard

24    the siren comes on and away he goes.   DOT has asked us speci-

25    fically that we not key  any addition into this at all, that


 1    if we want to add a different class of materials here,  which

 2    we will  in the toxics,  then we should use some other kind of

 3    a system.   It is  also possible to use multiple placards,  and

 4    our  regulations do provide  for this.

 5              In other words,  if you have both a flammable  and a

 6    toxic and  a poison, then you could use that combination of

 7    placards.   The real unresolved issue here is how to use the

 8    placarding system and avoid the confusion that might exist if

 9    we were  to take the diamond-shaped labels that DOT uses.

10    We want  to avoid  the same  size and shape that they use.  We

11    want to  avoid their colors  if we can.  We do not want to

12    cause any  more confusion, but we want to get the vehicles

13    marked if  they are carrying toxic material which is not covered

14    under the  DOT. And that covers the transportation situation.

15              De we have questions now for this?  I think we have

16    a couple already  here,  Jack.

17              MR. LEHMAN:  First, does anyone have a statement

18    that they  would like to make with regard to Section 3003?

19              We would like to  move now to the situation of

20    written  questions.   As  we mentioned this morning, there were

2i    a few questions that were submitted that were really more

22    properly addressed under this section of the program, and so

23    we will  move on to those questions first.  If you do have

24     further  questions,  please write them on the cards which are

25    available,  and they can be  collected and brought up here for


   1   answering.

   2             Harry,  do  you want  to cover the  questions from this

   3   morning  first?

   4             MR. TRASK:   One  of  these  questions  from this mornin

   5   we have  already discussed  so  — But I think it should be

   6   repeated again.   In  a spill or accident situation does the

   7   transporter then  become a  generator and initiate a manifest

   8   report?

   g             I assume that this  question meant that a hazardous

 10   material was being transported, because if a hazardous waste

 U   was  being transported, then a manifest would already exist.

 12   If a material was being transported and was involved in an

 13   accident and was  cleaned  up and became a waste, then a mani-

 14   fest is  needed  and a report would need to be filed.  And ther

 15   is a procedure  discussed  in the regulations for this.
im             On my left now  is ^rnie Edelman, who is working on

 17   the  Section 3003  regulations, and he has a couple of question

 18   that he  is  going  to  respond to here.

 19             MR. EDELMAN: The  first question deals with label-

 20   ing, but I  think  it  goes  beyond labeling.  I think it goes

 21   into the classifications  under EPA and under DOT of hazardous

      wastes versus hazardous materials.

                Under DOT  labeling  a waste might be labeled

 24  n   flammable.   Would it be  non-flammable by EPA criteria,  i.e.,
       flash point of under 12?)?


1              The way EPA is considering developing the  regula-

2    tions is, regardless of what one has the DOT regulations

3    must be complied with at first.  If you have a DOT hazardous

4    material with a flash point of 120 degrees F. it is  a  com-

5    bustible material.  Even though EPA defines that as  falling

6    under flammable criteria, it would be handled as combustible.

7    It must be handled according to DOT.  For those materials

8    that do not fall under their regulations, for example,  the

 9    carcinogens, mutagens, the wastes which may be bioaccumulativ

10    will be handled under our classification system.

11              MR. KOVALICK:  Will the proposed New Jersey  label

12    of special waste for hazardous waste be~oompatible with EPA

13    rules?

14              To the best of my knowledge we have not been  asked

15    to review the New Jersey rules yet.  I know they are in

16    transition.  I think the more important test at the moment is

17    whether that label, if you really mean label, is consistent

18    with DOT rules, because they also have authority to, shall we

19    say remedy difficult inconsistencies in state programs.  We

20    really are not prepared to comment on that without reviewing

21    "•

22              MR. EDELMAN:  We have looked at the New Jersey regu

23    tions and commented to N»w:Jersey about this special waste

24    label.  I think it is important when designing any label or

   II                            ^
25   any placard to determine what the intent of that special


























marking will be.  If the special waste label meets New Jersey1

needs to identify these materials as special wastes and that

this special labeling will indicate to emergency response

personnel what needs to be done with that waste, the label

serves the function.  If it does not give this information,

there may be no need for that type of label.

          We are trying to come up with terminology useful

not only to the regulators, the people designing the regula-

tions, but to the people that have to respond to these emer-

gencies.  Calling something special waste in terms of our

view may not be that informative to an emergency response


          MR. LEHMAN:  We have another question here.  The

lack of flexibility in not interpreting on-site to include

noncontiguous sites of generator and disposer only encourages

a generator to dispose on-site by landfill to avoid manifest-

ing, even though a more desirable incineration  facility exists

a few miles away under common ownership.  Why not extend

on-site down the road?

          Well, you get — this question, of course, can,

is subject to negotiation I would assume, depending on how

far away down the road is, but I will get back  to the point

we made earlier today, that our damage assessment work showed

us that over about half of the damage cases that are docu-

mented from improper disposal of hazardous waste, improper


 1   management of hazardous waste resulted  from lack of  control

 2   over the transport link from the generator to the disposal

 3   site.  And down the road means different things to different

 4   people.

 5             I think our — another aspect of this question  is

 6   that, I would tend to doubt that if  it  made sense from a  legal

 7   economic and other points of view  for a generator to use  a

 8   facility further down the road, even though it was not on-

 9   site, that a requirement for a manifest would not be a major

 10   factor in that decision.  That would be my feeling about  it.

 11             And, at the same time, if  we  relax this concept of

 12   requiring transportation control,  I  think we are just asking

 13   for the same kind of trouble that  we have seen in the past.

 14             MR. SANJOUR:  I think the  person who asked that

 15   question may not realize that relieving the generator of  a

 16   manifest for disposing on his own  site  does not relieve him

 17   of the need for the permit to dispose on his own site and

 18   reporting requirements that go with  that permit.  Those are

 19   far stiffer requirements than a manifest.  In that kind of

 20   circumstance, the manifest would be  a minor issue compared

 21   to the permit issue.

 22             MR. LEHMAN:  That is a very good point.

 23              Do we have another question?

24              MR. KOVALICK:  This has  to do with our relationship

 25   with DOT again.  If EPA flammable  wastes, for example, 120


  1    degrees F.  flash point falls under DOT as combustible, then

  2    is the DOT label to be used?  And then why then does RCRA not .

  3    adopt DOT definition of flammable?

  4              I had a simple question at lunch.  Starting with

  5    the second question first, as it happens, the Department of

  6    Transportation Hazardous Materials Act, under that Act is

  7    charged with protecting health and safety, which means in

  8    general the health and safety of vehicle drivers and operators

  9    and the vehicle itself.  Under RCRA we are charged with pro-

 10    tecting public health in the environment.  This is a summary

 11    of the whole public meeting we are going to have in Chicago

 12    October 26.

 13              Basically we have two different sets of missions

                                fro SfCLtf—
P14    that we are trying to mesh  ;  together here.  The fact that

 15    we might choosi a different  flammability number than DOT does

 16    not necessarily make us in  conflict.  It means, reflecting

 17    our differing missions, DOT feels, because they have used

 18    that number over the years  that 100 degrees F. does provide

 19    protection for the vehicle  and presumably the driver.  However

 20    we are gathering data about the temperatures and conditions

 21    apparent at disposal facilities, notably  landfills, for

 22    example, mufflers of vehicles driving over wastes reached

 23    considerably over 100 degrees F.  We are  designing  the number

 24    to reflect our overall mission to protect public health and  tie

 25    environment.


 1              If we arc trying to prevent flammable wastes as we

 2    define them from being ignited, then we have to pick a number

 3    related to the conditions they may find.  But you will not —

 4    I hope the intent of this question is not having to do with

 5    two different things, one for DOT and one for EPA.  That is

 6    also our goal in terms of labeling and placarding.  If the

 7    vehicle carrying the waste had, for example, would be required

 8    to have a DOT combustible placard that would be the- end of

 9    story.  In other words, it would not need an EPA flammable

10    placard and a DOT combustible placard.  You could use the DOT

11    placard for the hazardous waste.  We do not consider those to

12    be in conflict.  We have tried to mesh as best we can, given

13    that we have a different mission than DOT.

14              MR. EDELMAN:  Another question here.  Will a list

15    of acceptable transporters in a given area be developed?

16              The answer to that specific question is no.  How-

17    ever, under the draft regulations as currently proposed and

18    given out to the outside reviewers, we are requiring anyone

19    who transports or will transport a hazardous waste to notify

20    EPA in accordance with the standards developed under Section

21    3010.  This notification must take place before a transporter

22    transports any hazardous waste.  After the transporter has

23    notified EPA under our thoughts he has read the regulations,

24    he may understand them — hopefully he will understand the

25    regulations.  We will have his name, address, phone number.


 1    some idea of where that transporter operates, his area of

 2    traffic service.  I think also required under Section 3010

 3    is interstate ICC number, his state PUC number, any other

 4    permit number that he has.  Once this information is gathered

 5    and the transporter has notified EPA, we will hopefully have a

 6    publication listing of all those transporters that have noti-

 7    fied EPA, and we will make that publication available to the

 8    public.

 9              However, through the notification — that does not

10    mean that this transporter is acceptable.  It does mean that

11    he is aware of the regulations and hopefully he is familiar

12    with the regulations and therefore he is identifiable.  We

13    do not have a permit system developed, and we do not contem-

14    plate at the time developing any permits.

15              So we really cannot say who is an acceptable trans-

16    porter, only that we know that that person transports hazard-

17    ous waste.  Notification will be required of anyone who

18    transports, private, contractor, common carrier.

19              MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you,

20              I would like to pick up on his comments and reiterat(s

21    once again that our whole philosophy revolves around the

22    generator of the hazardous waste having the responsibility for

23    insuring its proper management, and that includes selection

24    of a reputable transportation agent for his wastes.  We have

25    again case after case on our files of generators who deal with


  1    less than  reputable transportation people,  and  if  something

  2    happens  during the transportation link  and  it can  be  traced to

  3    the fact that the generator  did not  take  proper precautions

  4    of insuring the transporter  knew what he  was supposed to do

  5    it ultimately gets back  to the generator.   We have gotten

  6    through  all of the written questions on this section.

  7              MR. SANJOUR:   I have one.   The  question  is,  could

  8    you describe further what your damage work  was  and shows,

  9    what data  was used, how  many accidents  per  year, what were

 10    major types of accidents, generators, vis-a-vis transporters,

 11    vis-a-vis  disposal sites?

 12              The damage assessment work has  been going on over

 13    a period of several years.   We have  investigated in various

 14    departments several hundred  cases of known  damages from

 15    hazardous  waste going through files  of  state and county

 16    authorities.  The best I can offer at. this  time with  such a

 17    broad question is if you will leave  me  your card,  or  your

 18    name and address, we will be glad to mail you studies we have

 19    done on  damage assessment, from hazardous waste.   We  have

 20    studies  we have done and reports we  can send you.

 21              MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you.

 22              I will amplify the remarks and  say when  I made

23    reference  to damages resulting in the transportation  link it

24    was not  so much from accidents, but  rather  the wastes finding

25    their way  to a very improper final resting  place,  like some


 1    farmyard somewhere along a county road, down a sewer manhole,

 2    as happened in Louisville recently and wiped out the entire

 3    Louisville sewage treatment system for about six weeks, these

 4    types of so-called accidents are what we had in mind.

 5              It is not so much that these people are anymore or

 6    less subject to transport accidents.  I suspect that they

 7    are.  It is what they do with the waste ultimately that con-

 8    cerns us.

 9              MR. EDELMAN:  Just to add to that, recently in June

10    a waste truck blew up on an expressway in Chicago.  Apparently

11    a generator wanted to get rid of waste he did not know what

12    to do with.  He gave it to the transporter and said I have

13    three cubic yards of trash.  As he was driving the lugger

14    box blew up.  No one knew what was in it.  The fire department

15    responded to the accident and put water on it.  Noxious fumes

16    resulted and many firemen became ill.  This is one episode

17    we hope not to see again once these regulations are passed.

18              MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you.

19              I think we have completed the written questions.

20    Are there any questions from the floor at this time concern-

21    ing 3003?

22              MS. DOLIARD:  Libby Dollard, National Solid Waste

23    Management Association.

24              Can you explain what the delivery document is sup-

25    posed to accomplish and if that needs to be signed by the


 1   receiver of the waste  at the disposal  site?

 2             MR. EDELMAN:  I have  seen that  comment  somewhere

 3   before.  What the intent of this delivery document  for  the

 4   people in the audience not familiar with  the terminology,

 5   it was our concern when dealing with multi-modes  of transport,

 6   rail, motor carriage,  air, in many cases  a document is  given

 7   to the transporter.  The manifest is given to the truck trans-

 8   porter who takes the manifest and delivers the waste to the

 9   designated facility and gets a  signed  receipt on  that manifest

 10   either upon delivery or soon after delivery.

 11             In the rail  end of transportation, the  handling of

 12   the documents is not the same.  The generator or  shipper gives

 13   a manifest to the rail carrier, who then  when he  receives that

 14    manifest produces a new document, via  the computer,  usually,

 15   which is considered a  waybill or invoice. In this  instance

 16   the railroad will have a signed document  at their headquarters

 17   office or at the terminal office signed by the generator

 18   stating that the waste has been properly  described,  labeled

 19   and packaged and also  that the  waste was  picked up  by the

 20   railroad.  While in transit the train  would not have the

 2i    official manifest with the shipment.   We  have developed the

 22    delivery document specifically  for the railroad,  but this

 23    does not preempt a motor carrier from  issuing a delivery

24    document.  When the train delivers the cargo, a document is

 25    issued and this could be the waybill as the railroad currently

     signature  of receipt that would indicate that the waste was
 „    a copy would go to the waste management facility, and that

















issues.  We will require on the delivery document to have the

name of the generator, the name of the transporter, the name

of the facility, also the quantity and type of waste.

Basically the information contained on the official manifest.

And also on this delivery document a receipt, an area for
     delivered.   Once this document is signed, it is our view that
the waste management facility would take this delivery docu-

ment and send a copy back to the generator or shipper certi-

fying that the waste was received.

          In addition, the transporter would take the signed

copy of the delivery document and attach it to the original

manifest, thus having two pieces of pieces of paper now, with

three signatures, the generator, the transporter and the con-

signee signature, all on a document, and keep that as a


          MS. DOLLARD:  Are you going to explain all that  in

the regulations?

          MR. EDELMAN:  That will be in the preamble, yes.

          MR. LEHMAN:  Any other questions?

          MR. KOHLER:  George Kohler, Michigan Cyanimide

Company.  A real world question.  Has any dialogue been con-

ducted with DOT on the normally accepted variations between

shipping and receiving weights of materials handled in bulk,


 1    and if so, what sort of variations are being compiled for the

 2    regulations?

 3              MR.  EDELMAN:  In terms of the DOT regulations, they

     are not concerned whether or not a shipment of a hazardous

     material gets  to the designated facility in full load.  Under

     RCRA we are concerned that the total quantity picked up is

     delivered to the waste management facility.  If I understand

     your question  —

 9              MR.  KOHLER:  I am sorry.  You mentioned before that

10    you were not experts in transportation.  And I felt that you

11    might consult with experts in transportation such as the

12    Department of  Transportation.  For instance, very often in

13    shipment of material it will become wet or some of its residua

14    moisture will  evaporate so there would be differences between

15    a shipping and receiving weight.  What sort of a variation are

16    yOU planning to build into your system to account for such

     normal changes during transit?

18              MR.  EDELMAN:  I do not really think at this time

19    we have a specific answer.  I can just give you another

20    instance that is a continuation of your problem.  Many times

21    transporters bill on full loads.  He will have a 5,000 gallon

22    tank, pick up 2,000 gallons and say it was 5,000.  When he

23    delivers that to the waste management facility they only

24    record 2,000 gallons being received, so there will be a dis-

25    crepancy


                 MR. MORRIS:  In contractual  arrangements between

       the generator and the receiver of the  waste, the  idea being
        that the  generators  ship to  the  receiver what  he  is  supposed

   4 II  to, if  there is  an area where  there would be an evaporation

   5    the receiver would know that and that would be in the  agree-
     ment between them.
                  In  order for the  facility to protect his  permit,  he

        would know what wastes he was  receiving so he  would realize

   9    the  evaporations  would be there  so there would not  be any con-

   10 ||  flict in the  manifest or the reporting.

   11              MR. LEHMAN:   That is a good point,  and I  am glad

   12    you  raised it. We will look into that some more.

   13              Any other questions  from the floor  on 3003?

   14              Okay, we got a little  bit ahead of  schedule on

   15    that section.  I  think we  should press on and start our dis-

   16    cushion on Section 3004.  This is a major section of the

   17    law, and I am sure it will lead  to a number of questions.

   18              At  this time I would like to introduce to you John

—9 19    Schaum, who  is a  chemical  engineer in our technology program
 '                       —        =                •          ~

la20    in hazardous  waste jnanagement-division, who is the desk offie

   21    for  this regulation, meaning that he has the primary responsi

   22    bility for developing and  issuing this regulation.   I do not

   23    know whether John plans to cover this, but let me just say

   24    that Section 3004, the so-called "regulation under Section
     3004" is in fact a collection of about, at last count,


 1    something  like  17 different  regulations,  agglomerated under

 2    that label, and I think as John goes through his presentation

 3    you will begin  to see the complexity of this particular regu-

 4    lation.

 5               John?

 6               MR. SCHAUM:  Section 3004 authorizes  EPA  to promul-

 7    gate standards  applicable to the owners and operators of

 8    hazardous  waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities.

 9    The mandate further  specifies that these  regulations  should

10    include requirements pertaining to the following areas:

11    records of the  wastes received at the  facility  and  the manner

12    in which they are handled, reports to  the permitting  agency,

13    requirements for environmental monitoring at the facilities,

14    requirements for inspections of the facility conducted by

15    the facility, requirements for where facilities can be located

16    requirements for how facilities can be designed, operated

17    and constructed, requirements for training  of the facility

18    personnel, requirements for  ownership, continuity of  opera-

19    tions, and functional responsibilities, requirements  for

20    contingency plans and finally it has a catch-all statement

21    that any other  — standards  that are felt necessary for pro-

22    tection of the  public health and the environment can  also be

23    promulgated.

24               There are two important aspects of this mandate

25    that I would like to point out.  One is that it applies to


 1    all media,  that is the air,  the ground water, the surface

 2    water and the land.   Secondly,  the mandate specifies that

 3    these be performance standards, and most people think of

 4    emission-type standards when they think of performance stan-

 5    dards.

 6              Since some other areas are specified in the Act

 7    such as location,  operating and design, etc., we are inter-

 8    preting performance to include  all these types of regulations.

 9              I would  like to discuss next the prospect and con-

10    tent of the regulations.  Please remember that these are

11    draft regulations.  They are very preliminary and some areas

12    still have not been completed.

13              Due to the comprehensive mandate the draft regula-

14     tions are very extensive and I  will not have time to cover

15    all the details, so I will just highlight the major areas.

16    The structure used in the draft regulations consists of a set

17    of mandatory standards and a set of recommended standards.  Tl

18    mandatory standards apply to all facilities and all facilities

19    must comply with them under all conditions.  These include

20    environmental objectives for each medium.  The recommended

21     procedures are mostly of the operating and design type and

22     will specify how the mandatory  standards can be achieved.

23               The facility must follow the recommendations or

24     prove that an alternative meets all the mandatory standards.

25     Facilities which follow the recommendations will be


 1    considered in compliance initially, but must always meet the

 2    mandatory standards in order to stay in compliance.

 3              In the area of ground water protection, we intend

 4    to use the same approach as was used in the underground injec-

 5    tion regulations proposed under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

 6    Under this philosophy only usable ground water is protected.

 7    AKiough our current draft regulations do not protect usable

 8    ground water, we are open to suggestions as to how this could

 9    be done.  Usable aquifers is defined as 10,000 milligrams

10    open liter of total dissolved solids.  Additionally permitting

11    Agency may designate certain aquifers as usable if they are

12    not potential drinking water sources and after public notice,

13    public hearings and approval of the EPA Administrator.

14              The basic environmental objective for usable ground

15    water is that it cannot be degraded such that it would be

16    necessary to treat it more than would otherwise be necessary

17    for drinking purposes.

18              The air objective as written in the handout is very

19    misleading, and I would like to request that you please dis-

20    regard it.  What we were trying to say was that our objective

2i    for protecting the air is that facilities should be designed

22    and operated in a manner which complies with existing EPA

23    air standards and which does not degrade the ambient air

24    beyond 1/10 of the level for OSHA air contaminants.  We would

25    only be adopting the OSHA standards on an interim basis for


 1    those air contaminants not yet regulated by EPA any new EPA

 2    standards would automatically replace the OSHA standards.

 3    We hope to write this regulation in a manner to allow the

 4    Administrator to use a different divider other than 10 if

 5    future information shows it is needed.

 6              Air, ground, water and leachate monitoring will

 7    be required at most sites.  Some form of monitoring will be

 8    required at all sites.  At sites that have the potential

 9    for ground water pollution we will require ground water

10    monitoring.  For example, landfills located over usable aquifejrs

11    will have to monitor the leachate and the ground water.

12    We will probably require that they have lysimeters underneath

13    the site to detect leachate escaping from the bottom and have

14    ground water wells located adjacent to the site as a backup

15    system.  For example, we will require air monitoring at

16    incineration facilities and it will probably be in the form

17    of stock gas monitors for carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,

18    total hydrocarbons, etc.  Storage operations must be conducted

19    such that emissions to the environment do not occur.  We

20    feel this kind of a regulation is necessary in order to be

21    consistent with the Act which defines storage as an opera-

22    tion during which the waste constituents cannot escape.  In

23    the handout we said that all surface runoff from active areas

24    must be collected and confined to a point source.  Our think-

25    ing has changed somewhat on this particular issue.  We are


1    now recommending collection, but not requiring it.

2              We are requiring that point source discharges

3    must comply with the regulations under the Pedeai. Water

4    Pollution Control Act and that the non-point discharges such

5    as surface runoff must be controlled to prevent discharge of

6    pollutants to the off-site surface water bodies.

7              Training will be required for all personnel on an

8    annual basis.  We are requiring that they be trained in their

9    contingency plans and are recommending they be trained in

10    other ways such as environmental awareness, sawpling and

11    monitoring, waste handling and operating procedures.  The

12    compact-type of training must be approved by the permitting

13    agency.  We are considering a number of recordkeeping and

14    reporting requirements.  However, we are trying to keep these

15    to a minimum to reduce the paper burden on both the government

16    and industry.  In the draft regulations we are requiring that

17    facilities keep records of the types and quantities of wastes

18    handled, tte manner in which they are handled, the amounts

19    and the locations of where they are disposed of.  The draft

20    regulations will require that facilities make reports to the

2i    permitting agency on the manifest violations, incidents,

22    operating conditions and the results of th«i* environmental

23    monitoring.  The draft regulations require that facilities

24    have contingency plans to cover incidents such as fire,

25    explosion, spills and leaks.  These are emergency procedures


 1    which describe what to do in the event of an accident.

 2              For example, they will describe who shall be con-

 3    tacted, what kind of remedial action shall be initiated,

 4    evacuation procedures, etc.  The draft regulations will

 5    require that facilities demonstrate their financial  capability

 6    to cover possible accidents; closure costs and other liabili-

 7    ties of the exact form of this regulation -has not been

 8    drafted yet.  However, we are considering requirements for

 9    such things as bonds, liability insurance, trust funds, and

10    insurance pools.  So far I have been discussing our mandatory

11    type standards.

12              I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the

13    operating and design recommendations that will also be

14    included in the regulations.  For landfills over usable aqui-

15    fers we will recommend two kinds of designs.  One, for 10

16    feet of natural soils of at least 10 to the minus 8 percent

17    meters per second permeate.  Where natural conditions are

18    not accepted, leachate collection.  I said 10 feet of 10 to

19    the minus 8 , Steve, 500 years as appears in the handout

20    because the 500-year containment wording implies that we

21    would be allowing pollution to occur after 500 years.  This

22    is not our intention and so we are not using that wording.

23    The design recommendation is for landfills, will cover many

24    other details such as site location, suitability of waste,

25    daily cover and many others I do not have time to cover now.


     Our design recommendations for incinerators will be that they

2    are operated at a thousand degrees C. and two seconds resi-

3    dence  time,  and achieve a combustion efficiency of 99 percent.

4              I  would like to discuss next the unresolved issues.

5    The first issue as listed in the handout is how should the

     detailed recommended procedures be promulgated.  We have

     taken  a position on this issue, and our feelings are that

     the recommendations should be promulgated with the regulations

9    to the extent possible.  Other detailed operating and design

10    procedures such as ones for state of the art technology will

11    be published after promulgation as EPA reports.

12              The next issue is what level of fl»aricfial responsi-

13    bility should be required?  As mentioned earlier, this issue

14    has not been resolved.  It is a very difficult issue, because

15    there  is very little damage case data upon which liabilities

16    can be estimated.  Also it is difficult to not* the costs

17    associated with long-term care since it extends into the

18    distant future.

19              The next issue is, is it legal to require zero

20    discharge?  This issue is based on the fact that disposal as

2i    defined in the Act allows discharge, therefore it may not be

22    legal  to require zero discharge for disposal operations.  Our

23    counsel tells us we can promulgate any regulations we can

24    prove  are necessary for protection of human health and the

25    environment.  We do not think a zero discharge is n«eded,


























however, and it is not the approach we used in these regula-

tions.  Should the air standards of Occupational Safety and

Health Administration be adopted?  This is a controversial

issue.  The criticism against it is that the OSHA standards

were adopted or were designed for workers in indoor environ-

ments and hence may not apply here.  The arguments in support

of adopting the OSHA standards are that it would establish

air limits for many more compounds than previously existed,

and thus improve human health and environmental protection.

          MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you, John.

          Does anyone have a statement that they would like

to make with respect to Section 3004?  I do not see any.

          We would like to go now to written questions.   If

you have written questions concerning Section  3004, would you

please write them down and indicate by raising them that  you

have them, and they will be picked up and brought  forward for


          We have some questions relating to Section  3004

that came up this morning in the discussion, and so while we

are collecting new questions, we will answer the old  ones.

          MR. SANJOUR:  Let's assume all chemical  wastes  are

generally hazardous.  What is the mechanical nuts  and bolts

way of properly disposing?

          I do not make that assumption myself.  My personal

statement has been that roughly 10 percent of  industrial

     1    wastes in general will be hazardous,  but that is just a guess.

     2    Nuts and bolts,  that is not the kind of question we can

     3    answer in a few minutes up here.  Our regulations will con-

     4    tain a great many recommendations of ways that we know of

     5    disposing of hazardous wastes.   In addition we will be pub-

         lishing guidelines of all the technical information that we

    7    have on the subject and promulgating it for the public to

    8    use, so there will be, we think, a lot of information made

    9    available on proper disposal.

   10              In addition tte  option is provided that any official

   11    who has their own ideas on the  subject, there is also a mech-

   12    anism provided for them to demonstrate to us that their own

   13    ideas are workable.  I do not think I am going to go into

   14    great details in this meeting on the  nuts and bolts, because

   15    there are a great many of them.  We have already published

   16    quite a few reports on the subject.

   17              If anybody is interested in what we have on that

   18    area, leave a card with Sam,  the gentleman over there, and he

   19     will send you the publications.

   20               Next question.   How would incineration of a hazard-

,ja21     ous waste .which  might in  turn produce a hazardous gas stream^

   22     be  handled?

   23               We will be regulating the hazardous air emissions

   24     also, so they will come under the regulations.   Basically,

   25     you will have to control  the  hazardous gas streams emitted
















-a 16










from the hazardous wast* or else not burn it.

          Would all hazardous wastes which are transported

from various buildings on a large generator site by pipeline

to an industrial waste treatment plant on the same site need

to be reported quarterly?

          As I said earlier, we are not going to include as

treatment facilities those facilities which are part of the

manufacturing process itself.  We have here to draw a line as

to where the manufacturing process ends and where waste begins

No matter what we do, that kind of line is going to have to

be drawn.  The way we have chosen to draw that line, and we

are open to comments and suggestions, is that so long as the

waste remains part of the manufacturing process in that it

is still in pipe, still on a conveyer belt, still in a waste

treatment, sewage treatment plant, we do not consider it a

waste jigr. se, and we do not consider that operation as being

a hazardous waste treatment operation.

          It is not until you discharge something, that it

comes out of a pipe, you scoop something out of a septic

tank or something like that, that it becomes a waste.

Therefore, we do not consider waste water treatment plants

as hazardous waste treatment facilities at all, nor the waste

water in them as being a hazardous waste.  It is not until

it is discharged in some form that it becomes a waste.  How-

ever, if any such facility takes in wastes from another sourc*


  1    for example,  if you have  a vacuum truck that brings wa3te

  2    water to your waste water treatment plant from another plant,

  3    then that waste water treatment plant becomes a hazardous

  4    waste treatment facility.  If,  for example,  you have a manu-

  5    facturing process  that you pipe your effluent out to an

  6    incinerator and you burn  it there, that incinerator would

  7    not be a hazardous waste  treatment facility  because it is

  8    connected by pipe.  If you take waste from another source and

  9    bring it to the incinerator, that incinerator would be a

 10    hazardous waste treatment facility.

 11              Next question.   In plant operations with large

 12    primary and secondary treatment plants, what is the status of

 13    primary sludge and can it be disposed of in  a sanitary

 14    landfill such as in New Jersey  when the primary lagoons are

 15    dredged out?

 16              Let me ask briefly — are you talking about sewage

 17    sludge or industrial waste water treatment?   Is the questioner

 18    here?  We have criteria from 3001.  We will  promulgate cri-

 19    teria.   If this sludge fails the criteria and is a hazardous

 20    waste,  then it cannot be  disposed of in a sanitary landfill

 21    unless  it also has a hazardous  waste disposal waste permit,

 22    which most would not have.   Therefore,  ifit  is a hazardous

23    waste under th» definition of 3001,  it can only be disposed

24    of  in a hazardous  waste disposal facility that has a permit.

25              I hope that answers the question.


























          If waste crank case oil is listed as a hazardous

waste will resource recovery operations such as waste oil

refiners be defined as hazardous waste treatment and disposal

facilities, or will they be exempt due to the fact that the

waste oil is no longer a waste but a resource for a product?

          The answer to your question is yes, yes.  If waste

crank case oil is a hazardous waste any facility it is brought

to is a hazardous waste facility.  That includes a waste

oil re-refiner.  However, we plan under Section 3002 to make

certain exemptions for resource recovery facilities and waste

oil of re-refiners would qualify and the two exemptions are

that the permits for such facilities would be a general per-

mit, basically a mail order permit, and it would be a much

simpler matter to apply for than most permits.  This is

being done to encourage such facilities.

          Secondly, anybody, any generator sending a waste to

such facilities would be exempt from the manifest requirements

if they went to a permitted resource recovery facility.  So

that, while it comes under the Act, under certain conditions -

while the waste oil and the resource recovery and the re-refin

are under the jurisdiction of the Act, they are granted under

certain conditions, that the facility is permitted and that

the waste oil goes to such permitted facilities — under those

conditions they are essentially exempt from complying with

most of the Act, to encourage such  facilities and their use.








          MR.  LINDSEY:   A couple more.   The  drafts  of 3004

which have been  circulated do not  contain  Sections  9  dealing

with contingency plans  and 10, which  deals with  financial

responsibilities.  Are  these available?

          First  of all,  the drafts for Section  3004 — I  do

not know where you got  the copies  of  the drafts, because

they have not  been made available  broadly  at least  to the

public in any  event.  What you have is a very preliminary
  9    document, which is an in-house kind of working document.  So

 10    basically, the answer is that the draft you already have has

 11    not been circulated publicly yet.

 12              Second, there has not been until very recently even

 13    an attempt to put down on paper anything relative to contin-

 14    gency plans and financial responsibilities.  That work is

 15    being done now as -a result of a contract effort which we have

      just very recently received.

                Will deep well injection be considered acceptable

 18    and, if so, what are the general guidelines for permitting;
and a simple question, has deep well injection been considered

as a proposed means of disposal?

          If this topic is addressed under the Drinking Water

Act would RCRA requirements for disposal be required?

          The answer is yes, it is under the Safe Drinking

Water Act and that work is being done by our office of water

supply.  There are standards being put together as well as a


 1    permitting operation for that.  We are in contact with  the

 2    people doing that work to mesh the two parts of the Act.

 3    We will not have under RCRA separate regulatory activities

 4    on injection wells.  We will mesh the two together so it will

 5    be one permitting operation.

 6              If storage is to be zero discharged, does this

 7    mean earth basins are no longer acceptable  regardless of

 8    permeability?

 9              The answer is storage is to be zero discharged, but

10    disposal is a facility at which there is some escape of the

11    materials to the environment by definition  in the Act,  so

12    such facilities would need a disposal permit if, in  fact,

13    there is some escape.

14              The question is, are such facilities no longer

15    acceptable regardless of permeability, and  the answer is

16    they would be acceptable under standards which are being pre-

17    pared.

18              MR. KOVALICK:  These seem to be related to this

19    morning, but I will run through them.

20              In the tank truck industry it is  common for a

21    carrier to pick up waste from his own terminals  for  treatment

22    at his industrialized facility.  Assuming a hazardous waste

23    and common ownership of all facilities, including vacuunl  trucks

24    does the Act apply?

25              Yes.  I would be happy to discuss that with the


 1    person who asked it, but the fact is that the wastes are

 2    moving from the generator to the ultimate disposer, and the

 3    Act would apply even though it was a private carrier in that

 4    sense.

 5              How will small waste samples, one to five gallons,

 6    shipped to laboratories for analysis be handled under RCRA?

 7              Manifest required if sample is hazardous?  Will it

 8    have to go to a permitted facility for disposal?

 9              With extensive water monitoring this could be a

10    problem.  There may be a need for a small generator category

11    where is is possible for a generator to use that as a dis-

12    posal option rather than a permitted facility.  It also gets

13    at the question of vhelha: a manifest is required for very,

14    very small quantites, but we have been over that sometime  in

15    the morning, and we are still taking comments about whether

16    a differentiated set of requirements for small generators

17    makes sense in order to accommodate problems like this.

18              MR. LEHMAN:  I have a couple of questions here.

19              When will the 3004 proposed guidelines be offered

20    for comment?  How will the proposed guidelines differ from

21    geographic region to geographic region?

22              I will take those one at a time.

23              First of all, the 3004 — they are not guidelines.

24    They are regulations.  And according to our current schedule,

25    they will be proposed for public comment in the Federal


     Register in late February of 1978.

2 ||            The second question, how will the proposed guideline^

3 ||  or,  really regulations, differ from geographic region to

     geographic region?  The answer to that is that they won't

5 ||  vary by geographical region, because they are national stan-

6 ||  dards.   Uniformly applicable throughout the country, as I

     mentioned this morning.  There will be, however,

     case determinations of local conditions, local geographic

     hydrologic and other factors, will be taken into account via

10  ||  the permit conditions under Section 3005.

11  ||            Let me reiterate, 3002, 3003, 3004, are national

12  ||  standards, independently enforceable.

13  ||            Now a point on 3004.  What I was referring to there

     was the formal proposed rulemaking in the Federaj Register in

15  ||  February.  There will be drafts of these regulations which

16  ||  will be circulated for comment within the next 60 days or so.

17  ||            Another question, there is confusion as to whether

18  ||  hazardous wastes are to go to so-called sanitary landfills

19 || versus incinerators or to acceptable open dumps.  This con-

20 || fusion is due to overlap of municipal and industrial wastes,

2i || Subtitle C and D, and Sections 4004, 4005, and 1004(26) in

22   RCRA.  Can non-hazardous industrial wastes go to open dumps

23   having no health and environmental problems?

24 I           Well, that is a contradiction in terms, I  am

 25 II afraid.  The way the Act defines  an open dump is that it  does


  1   have health  or environmental problems, whether you are talking

  2   about hazardous wastes, non-hazardous  industrial wastes,  or

  3   municipal wastes.  The Agency,  under Subtitle  D, Section  4004,

  4   has developed draft  regulations which  define what  an  open

  5   dump is, and by reference then  what a  sariiary  landfill is,

  6   and these provisions apply  to all non-hazardous wastes, whethejr

  7   they be municipal  or industrial.  The  regulations  under

  8   Section 3004 supersede these more general  regulations under

  9   4004, explicitly for hazardous  wastes.

 10              So — and  to get  back to the first part  of  this

 11    question, all hazardous wastes  will not have to go to a sani-

 12    tary landfill.  I  want to dispell that idea if it  if  prevalenl

 !3              You know,  versus  incineration or some other method

 14    of waste management. As a  matter of fact, if  you  have read

 15    our hazardous waste  policy  statement, which we issued a year

 16    ago, before  the new  law was passed, we list sanitary  landfill!

 17    and hazardous wastes as the last thing we  would like  to see

 18    done rather  than the first  thing.  We would much prefer to go

 19    through any  kind of  resource recovery operation, any  kind

 20    of incineration, physical,  chemical, biological treatment —

 21    any of those things  in our  mind are better things  to  do with

 22    hazardous wastes than to put them in a landfill.

 23              We realize that there will always be a need for

24    landfill; you are  not ever  going to reach  a point  where

 25    there will not be  any landfills.  I hope that  discussion  has


  1    cleared up some of those points.

^ 2              Let me pass -out down to  John.
^ 3              MR. SCHAUM:  W*4  examinations  be  required of dis-

  4    posal facility personnel to prove their  competence?  The

  5    question is, will examinations be required  for facility

  6    personnel to prove their competence?

  7              In current draft  regulations this is not required.

  8    However, we are looking into the  possibility of a  certain

  9    identification program, which could involve examinations.

 10              Reference is made in the 3004  draft to analysis.

 11    Are the operators of hazardous waste  facilities to be requirec

 12    to perform analysis, and if so, for what purpose?

 13              There will not be a requirement that the facility

 14    itself perform any kind of  analysis.  There will be a require-

 15    ment that the facility confirm the contents of the waste to

 16    the extent necessary to comply with the  permit. Now, if

 17    that information is not in  the manifest,  they may  have to

 18    have more analysis or do more analysis themselves.

 19              Will standards take into consideration that un-^r

 20    used aquifers may become water supplies  in  the future years

 21    for future urban growth?

 22              Yes.  In order for a state  to  designate  an aquifer

 23    as unusable, they would have to prove it is not a  potential

 24    drinking water source, not  just for now  but forever, and that

 25    they would have to have hearings  and  approval from the EPA


      Administrator, etc.

  2             It seems that  an across-the-board incineration

  3   requirement of 1,000 degrees C.  for  two  seconds  might be

  4   energy-wasteful,  since many materials  can  acceptably be

  5   handled at lower  temperatures  and  times.   The  thousand degrees

  6   in two seconds recommendation  that we  have in  our  regulations

  7   is only a recommendation.  As  I  pointed  out earlier, someone

  8   can be doing something different than  what our recommendations

  9   are if they can prove that it  still  meets  our  mandatory standards.

 10   Someone who could acceptably destroy a waste at  lower condi-

 11   tions would be allowed to do that  if they  could  successfully

 12   demonstrate that  they can do it.

                Is any  consideration being made  of alternative

 14   methods to landfilling such as deep  well injection?   I ttink

 15   Fred already covered this.  Deep well  injection  is not pre-

 16   eluded in our current draft regulations, and they  are regu-

 17   lated under the Safe Drinking  Water  Act  under  a  different set

 18   of regulations.   If they have  a  permit for hazardous wastes,

 19   they will be allowed to  receive  hazardous  wastes.

 20             What provisions are  made for landfill  design in

^21   regional areas where there is  very little^,10  to the minus 8

 22   soil?

 23              As I said earlier, our recommendations would allow

 24    a facility to use a leachate collection  system where the

 25   natural conditions did not meet  our  recommendation of 10 to


 1    the minus 8 soil.

 2              You mentioned leaohate collection as the alternative

 3    please expand.

 4              The design details of the leachate collection sys-

 5    tern could get pretty lengthy.  Maybe the best way to handle

 6    that is to see me later or review the draft regulations when

 7    they are available.  They will be fairly extensive in this

 8    area.

 9              What monitoring might be required for a landfill

10    located over a nonusable aquifer?

11              Such a landfill would first of all have to do some

12    ground water monitoring to prove it is a nonusable aquifer.

13    There could be requirements for periodic checks to make sure

14    that aquifer is not contaminating others around it.  The

15    requirements in that situation would be much less than over

16    a landfill over a usable aquifer.

17              In your recommendations for incineration operations

18    does this affect units presently operating or being designed?

19              Yes, it would.  These regulations will affect any

20    systems or units treating, disposing or storing hazardous

21    wastes from the day the regulations become effective on,

22    whether they have been designed and built beforehand or not.

23              Is there or will there be definite rules concerning

24    depth of soil or rock to usable ground water?

25              Yes.  As I said, what we are recommending is 10


   1    feet of 10 to the minus 8, which is fairly specific/ and

   2    I would like to repeat again that if someone has a different

   3    set of natural conditions which they felt were equivalent and

   4    could prove it that also would be considered acceptable.

   5              Will ponds, lagoons, etc., be covered under RCRA?

   6    Under what circumstances will they be exempt?

   7              Any pond or lagoon being used for hazardous waste

   8    treatment, storage or disposal will be regulated under RCRA,

   9    and only if they are not being used for that purpose would

  10    they be exempt.

f 11              How is storage.treatment and disposal classified?

  12    Will separate permits be required if more than one activity

  13    is carried on?

  14              The answer to the last part of that question is no,

  15    as we envision it now there will be only one permit required

  lfi    for a facility, even if the facility is doing both storage

  I7    and treatment and also disposal operations.  Perhaps that

  18    question will be addressed further tomorrow during the dis-

  19    cusion on 3005.

 20              The question about how will they be classified,

 21    those terms, storage, treatment and disposal, are defined in

 22    the Act.   We do not expect to redefine them any further.

 23    A facility, as we see it, can' apply — can call their facilit;

 24    whatever  they want.   They can call it a storage, treatment or

 25    disposal  facility, and then they must comply with our


 1   requirements for that kind of facility.  They will probably,

 2   have more to say on that on 3005 tomorrow also.

 3             I would like to introduce Howard Beard, who is

 4   assisting in the area of air pollution.

 5             MR. BEARD:  The first question, how will RCRA key

 6   to the Clean Air Act to regulate hazardous waste incinerators?

 7             I was expecting a question in relation to the Clean

 8   Air Act.  As you may know, we are required to integrate with

 9   various acts, including the Clean Air Act.  Those — owners

10   and operators who have incinerators may be familiar with the

11   permit and it gives you some idea as to what the Act requires

12   in relation to hazardous waste incinerators.  The permit

13   under the Clean Air Act to send to regional or EPA and the

14   region and finally, North Carolina wants to know the amount

15   of the ambient air — the pollutants for which there is a

16   national ambient standard.  In other words, the Clean Air

17   Act will not adequately regulate the kinds of things that

18   we would envision that might be located at hazardous waste

19   facilities and, as far as incinerators go, we do not see

20   any conflict.  We simply see two permits, one to the air

2i   branch, specifically for the Clean Air Act, which should not

22   be very difficult to — which applies to those pollutants,  and

23   for which there are ambient air standards, and a permit for

24   the incinerator, or it would be specifically for the facility,

25   and if you have an incinerator you would have to follow the


      regulations under 3004.  The way it is envisioned at the

  2    moment, if you follow the recommendations, as John went over

  3    them, it should not be a large requirements.  There should

      nc-t be any difficulty in — you should be able to see the

      difference between the stipulation in the Clean Air Act and

      our own.  For one, 2,000 degrees in two seconds is one of the

  7    requirements under RCRA, and there are some others similar

  8    to that.

  9              Another question that relates to this is, OSHA indus

 10    trial work-based standards are based on eight-hour time

 11    waited averages for worker safety.  These standards, due to

 12    dilution in ambient conditions, how can these numbers be

 13    considered under Section 3004?  Can you elaborate more on

 14    your Agency's thinking on this issue and the pros and cons of

 15    your present position?

                Firstly, the question was, how can these numbers

      be considered?  We find it necessary to look at those contami-

      nants.  We do not think that they are covered under the Clean

 19    Air Act adequately.  We do not think that the numbers alone

 20    provide an adequate margin of safety for human health in the

 21    environment.  That is why we at the present have the OSHA

 22    divided by 10 as an interim measure.  Firstly, those pollu-

23    tants for which there is an ambient standard, those pollu-

24    tants for which there is an ambient guideline that is used

25    for a hazardous air pollutant emissions standards, those woul

  II                                                         148
1    apply and then the OSHA divided by 10 would be used as an
2    interim measure.   Of course, there is no substitute for
3    pollutant by pollutant analysis, and an emissions standard
4 I  based on that, but in the interim the OSHA divided by 10 pro-
5    vides an adequate margin of safety.
6              Something mentioned earlier by Walt was, that there
7    is nothing to prevent anyone from bringing suit to an owner
8    or operator if that particular pollutant is still hot,
 9    emitted in a concentration — at a concentration beyond the
10    fence line that would harm individuals.  We think that the
11    divided by 10 provides an adequate margin of safety, and a
12    safety factor which owners and operators as well as the public
13    would be able to live with.
14              As a followup to an answer earlier, control of
15    natural gases/ will RCRA control this or will it be regulated
16    by EPA's area branch? I think I answered that.
17              In our recommendations — I think the key word here
18    is control, control of hazardous gases.  I think in our recom-
19   mendations we were trying to provide the best of good practical
2o   technologies as we can identify them.  In so doing, we hope
 2i   that hazardous gases will be controlled by such things as
 22   not landfilling volatiles above a benchmark or the thousand
 23   degrees in two seconds, and I think that will effectively
 24   control many of the problems associated with controlling
 25  ll hazardous gases.


               At the point where our technology or our understand-

     ing of the technology is run out, at that point when somebody

     comes for a permit for a new technology, they would want to

     demonstrate that it will meet our objectives standards that I

     discussed, the ambient and the OSHA divided by 10.  That is

 6    all I have.

 7              MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you, Howard.

 8              We have still a fairly significant number of written

     questions to get through.  We have been at this non-stop for

10    sometime.  We still have statements to come after that, so
     we Agoing to call a recess.  I want to make it a short

12    break of 10 minutes, and let's get back and be ready to go at

13    3:25.

14              (Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m. the hearing was recessed,

15    to reconvene at 3:25 p.m.)
























-* 16










          MR. LEHMAN:  Ladies and gentlemen, let's continue on

with the discussion.  We are, as you know, taking written

questions now.

          I have a few here that I would like to address.

First of all, a question that I believe was covered this

morning, but I will cover it again.  How does one get on the

list for review of draft regulations now or to be circulated

for comment?  Is this a federal Register notification?

          Let me say that in our attempt to really apply the

sunshine policy that the EPA has adopted to this exercise,

we have been making draft regulations available for comment

before they go into the Federal Register for more formalized

proposals for public comment, if that makes sense.  Maybe I

better say that again from a different direction.

          In the past, EPA has developed regulations, pro-

posed them in the Federal Register and requested public

comment in a fairly formal fashion, and we will do that later

on, but we are also directing drafts of regulations as  they

become available to certain individuals who request to  get

them in advance of this more formal proposal in the Federal

Register; and the question was, how does one get on that list

for review.

          I said, okay, we will accept sign-up out on the

registration table, but I also pointed out that we do — we

will at least — I make the comment that our original concept


 1   was that most  of  the  comments we would  receive would be via

 2   trade associations or headquarters  components of  environmental

 3   groups or  citizen groups,  so that we would not be overwhelmed

 4   by a number  of individual  comments, but could get them all

 5   sort of all  at once.  So we would prefer that you work through

 6   your established  associations if possible, but we will cer-

 7   tainly take  individual  comments as  best we can.

 8              Another question, are there any plans  for EPA to

 9   assist states  in  determining what are acceptable  disposal

 10   site locations for hazardous wastes?

 11              And  the answer is yes, there  are two mechanisms for

 12   this.  I assume the question would  apply in  that  instance

 13   where the  state is running a program.   But there  are two mech-

 14   anisms at  least by which we will do this.

 15              First of all, the Act in  Section 2004 calls for

 16   resource conservation and  recovery  panels.   Now these are

 17   misnamed.  They are really technical assistance panels that

 18   apply acroaa-the-board  not only to  resource  conservation and

 19   recovery issues,  but  also  to municipal  solid wastes and hazard -

 20   ous wastes.  These panels  will operate  out of EPA's regional

 21   offices and  be available to assist  state and local governments

 22   in various —  you know, upon request on a number  of different

 23   issues.  So  if a  state  wants EPA to assist them in this area,

24    they could so  request and  EPA would respond  via this panel

 25   program.


 1              In addition to that,  we have made mention earlier

 2    that we, after this regulation  development porcess is com-

 3    pleted,  we intend to press on and publish supplementary techni

 4    cal guidelines which amplify these regulations under Section

 5    1008 of the law, which calls for EPA to publish guidelines

     as opposed to regulations.

               And some"of these guidelines, I am sure, will get

     into this area of determining acceptable disposal site loca-

 9    tions.

1°              Another question deals with or asks the question,

     do you envision a national directory of permitted disposal

12    facilities?

               And the answer is yes, we do envision such a nationa

14    directory, not only of disposal facilities but also treatment

     where that is applicable.  I might also point out that we have

     in print a directory of hazardous waste management facilities

     in the Unifd States.  However, this directory was published

     before RCRA was passed.  As a matter of fact, we published, I

19    beli»ve, three editions, each one superseding the previous one

20    and so there is a directory on the street with EPA's name on

21    it.  Please be advised that the facilities that ar^ in that

22    directory are not EPA-permitted facilities.  No one has an

23    EPA-permitted facility at this point, because we have never

24    issued an EPA permit.  If anyone claims that they have an EPA

25    permit under RCRA anyway, they are incorrect.  Th°y certainly


 1    could have air or water permits,  but not a hazardous waste

 2    permit.

 3              Let's go on.   Walt?

 4              MR.  KOVALICK:  I have a pair of related questions.

      If an existing hazardous waste disposal site is found to be

 6    unacceptable,  what action is contemplated regardint that site

 7    Would the hazardous waste need to be removed?  Are there any

 8    retroactive regulations for completed landfills or lagoons?

 9              First of all, I should point out for you Section

10    7003  in  the law,  which  is an authority for the Agency to use

11    related  to hazard, imminent and substantial hazard.  This is

12    an authority where we can upon an identification of a particu-

13    lar problem area in terms of storage,  treatment, transporta-

14    tion  or  disposal where  there is an imminent substantial en-

15    dangerment to  health, EPA can  get involved directly in an

16    injunctive-type manner  with the situation.

                However, I think this does not speak to minute-to-

      minute-type hazards but perhaps continuing-type hazards.  We

19    have  only a partial answer in  that counsel advised us that

20    the date of passage of  the Resource Conservation Recovery Act

21    and signature,  which was October 21, 1976, does not affect

22    designation of a waste  as a hazardous  waste.   That is, if

23    there  were a pile of waste or  "in  this  case a lagoon of waste

24     which  upon taking a representative sample was a hazardous

25    waste  or was listed as  I mentioned this morning, then it is


 1   a hazardous waste, and that property owner or that waste

 2   owner is now the proud owner of a Subtitle C hazardous waste.

 3             If you carry that logic — and this is where we do

 4   not have the answer for you today — to•the question of closed

 5   landfills, then it becomes much murkier — there is no

 6   question that there is a property owner, but did he know

 7   when he bought it that it had a. waste disposal  facility under-

 8   neath it?

 9             Suffice it to say that as far as the  legalities

10   are concerned, these wastes are technically covered, no pun

11   intended, but the question is how do we deal with them in the

12   regulations?

13             MR. LINDSEY:  I received one here which I will just

14   acknowledge and will address tomorrow morning,  and that has

15   to do with what standards states are going to be allowed to

16   have and whether or not they are going to be allowed to pro-

17   hibit out-of-state waste importation, which is  a big issue

18   and one we are going to spend a lot of time on  tomorrow

19   morning.  I will hold that until we talk about  the state pro-

20   gram tomorrow morning.

21             I have another one here which I think is important

22   and covers a lot of territory — how do you feel about the

23   possibility — very real, this person believes  — that the

24   demands upon the disposer are going to be so great that no

25   new people will enter the field and, in fact, present


     disposers may drop out?

               Presumably, the questioner in this case is indiciatin<

     that he feels that the standards may be so difficult that many

     people will not be able to meet them and thus drop out and

     that new people may be discouraged.

 6              I think this gets to another broader issue, which

 7    is a gut fear many people have, including us, and we stay

     awake nights worrying about this, as to whether or not there

     are going to be sufficient numbers of acceptable facilities

10    to handle all the waste, particularly at the outset.  And I

11    think there are several things that bear upon whether or not

12    that capacity will be available and how soon that capacity

13    may be available; in addition to what this person is getting

     at, which presumably is that the standards may be quite

15    difficult.  For example, I think that the lack of capital or

16    the availability of capital is one issue which is going to

17    bear on this and another is certainly the opposition of local

18    citizens to the siting of these facilities.

19              In the studies we have made it indicates that this

20    probably is the biggest single item, and there is going to be

21    much more impact on the siting and development of the facili-

22    ties than either the stringency of the regulations or the

     availability of capital.

24              I might point out relative to the stringency of

25    the standards, we have kind of a problem which is a little


     difficult,  I think,  than the permitting of discharge permits

2    and so forth under the Water Act,  and that is that to the

3    public a facility which has an EPA permit in this case, is

     going to view that EPA permit as kind of a bill of health,

5    as it were,

6              If we grant a permit to a facility, then what we are

7    essentially saying to the public or at least the public will

8    view it this way, is that this facility has been blessed by

9    EPA, and will in fact not harm their public health or the

10    environment where they live.

11              Consequently, it is necessary for us to prepare

12    regulations stringent enough to protect public health in the

     environment which is what we are charged to do and the only

14    thing we are charged to do, but on the other hand not to be

15    overly burdensome.

16              We have to and will protect public health and the


               The question says, what happens if in  fact there

19    are not sufficient facilities, and I have indicated that many

20    of us have  a fear of that and what some of the things are we

21    think are going to impact upon the Government.   If there  are

22    not sufficient facilities, then the generators of the waste,

23    if they are unable to  find an off-site contract  disposal

24    facility are going to  be faced with in some  fashion handling

25    the material themselves unless or until they find someplace


  1   to send it.  That means some sort of storage arrangement or

  2   a treatment or disposal arrangement on their own.

  3             Our estimates from studies indicate that some 80

  4   percent of the wastes are handled on-site now.  That means

  5   80 percent of it is already handled in this manner.  That is

  6   a serious problem, and I am not sure that we have all the

  7   answers to that yet or even know exactly how difficult  a prob

  8   lem that may be.

  9             MR. SANJOUR:  Just to add a word to what you  just

 10   said, it was largely at the instigation of hazardous waste

 11    disposers that this Act ever got passed in the first place.

 12              I have a question here that read, are proposed

 13    air standards under RCRA performance standards or recommended

 14    operating procedures only; that is, are minimum emissions

 15    of hazardous pollutants defined or only operating conditions,

 16    i.e., two seconds at a thousand degrees C.?

 17              The answer in one word is yes, they are both.  I

 18    think as John pointed out the fundamental standard is the

 19    operating procedure, is the design standard, if you like,

 20    on ambient air, that is your 1/10, the OSHA standard on the

 21    ambient air.  That is basically a design standard.  That is

 22    not meant to be an enforcement standard, a standard on which

 23    facilities will be required to maintain surveillance or

24    monitoring.

 25              Now, under that general umbrella of that design


  1   standard, we will be promulgating recommended operating pro-

  2   cedures, which if a facility follows them be granted a permit

  3   based on the operating procedures, not on the design standard.

  4   In other words, that is what will be written on the permit.

  5   That will be the permit conditions, will be the operating

  6   procedures.  We only mentioned the design standard because-we

  7   recognize that we do not know everything there is to know.

  8             There ar» one or two things we may not know that

  9   you know that we do not know.  Therefore we. provid« a mechan-

 ic   ism by which other procedures other than the ones that we know

 11   about can still be followed and the purpose of this design

 12   standard is a means by which facility operators can demon-

 ,,                     Dl£»)
) 1J   strate that th^ir of*R particular operating conditions are

 14    environmentally adequate because they meet the sane design

 15   standards that were promulgated.

 16             So basically we figure that most people will be

 1?   following our recommended operating procedures and will be

 18   granted a permit based on those, period.  And you can forget

 19   the subject of ambient standards as a practical matter.  Only

 20   on those facilities who demonstrate otherwise does the questio i

 21    of ambient standards come into play at all.

 22              The second part of the question is, is OSHA — a

 23    point source or property boundary standard?

 24              That would be the property boundary standard.  Those

 25    are standards to protect the environment.  We will provide a


 1    mechanism to translate that into a point source emission

 2    standard if one is required.  That will be part of the proce-

 3    dure for making that translation.

 4              Next question or comment.  Most of us agree that

 5    obtaining a clean air permit should not be very difficult.

 6    I do not know if that is meant to be facetious or what.  I

 7    have to correct one thing that was said earlier, that is

 8    that the Clean Air Act is covered by our Act.  But, in fact,

 9    it is not.

10              Under RCRA, RCRA mentions that waste covered by

11    other acts are exempt from RCRA, and then proceeds to list

12    those acts and the Clean Air Act is not, repeat not, among

13    them.  Congress did not consider that material covered by th

     it is never considered a wasti? by RCRA so long as that is a

 2    legal disposal.   If it is illegal, if the plant does not know

 3    about it, then  it is covered by our Act.

               If a  manufacturing facility has a waste treatment

 5    facility on its site but does not have intermediate tank

 6    storage prior to incineration or other treatment rather than

     a continuous pipeline operation directly to the treatment, is

     a permit necessary?

 9              We are walking on the wire now to try to test exact-

10    ly where the regulations fall, and I guess I am in a position

     of having to be an instant solon.  From the top of my head,

12    my guess is so  long as the stuff stays in a pipe you are okay

     If you pipe it  to the storage tank and then pipe it to the

14    incinerator you are home free.  That is just my guess at the

15    moment.  We are at the fine line of defining where we are

     going to be, but that would be my guess at the moment.

               Under the proposed regulations would the treatment,

18    storage or disposal facility be granted broad authority to

19    accept broad categories of solids and liquids, or will a

20    rifle approach be used?

21              Yss.   Either way.  Those people who want to apply

22    would apply for a specific or a broad permit.  If you apply

23    for a specific permit it is easier to get.  If you are apply-

24    ing for a permit to cover broad categories of waste and broad

25    categories of treatment and disposal methods, there is a


 1   great deal more you have to prove you  are  capable  of doing,

 2   so the permit application would be more  costly,  a  lot more

 3   things have to be demonstrated.  Either  way, you call the

 4   shots when you apply  for the permit.

 5             Next question.  Will there be  a  new R  &  D  program

 6   to demonstrate zero discharge technique?  What technique is

 7   demonstrated on what  scale when?

 8             We have had ongoing R & D programs relevant to

 9   zero discharge techniques.  We have programs looking into

10   liners, lining material.  Much going on  in the area  of chemi-

H   cal identification, in the area of attenuation of  soils.  This

12   work will continue.   It is relevant to the zero  discharge.

13   It will continue on a larger scale because there is  more money

14   available for it, as  a result of the passage of  this Act.

15   As to full-scale demonstration, I guess  many of  you  know that

ie   we do have a grant in Minnesota to demonstrate a full-scale

17   chemical wast* landfill which will have  a  zero discharge

18   leachate complex system.  However, it  does not look  like

19   the results of that are going to be available in the next

20   couple of years.

2i             Next question.  Your statement wasthat there would

22   be no allowable air emissions from storage facilities.  Does

23   this include the vapors lost during normal product transfer?

24   If so, how do you intend to prevent their  loss?

25             Let me answer the last question  first.   We do not











    intend to prevent their  loss.  You who  are  applying for the

    permit or who wish to operate the facilities  do  that.   We

    will tell you what constitutes a loss,  if you like.  We will

    define the environmental standards that have  to  be  met. I

    would guess  for a transfer operation, I do  not think we have

    a  zero discharge requirement.  I know you can transfer with

    very little  emissions if you have the equipment  to  do  it or

    if you design the facility to do it.  I have  seen facilities

 9  I that do it,  that have double vapor locks and  lots of gadgets

1"  " to prevent any kind  of emissions.  But  the  underlying  regula-

11   tion, though, is our environmental standard,  which  is  1/10 the

12  || OSHA at the  fence line,  if you like.  If you  can demonstrate

    that can be  met, then a  certain amount  of discharge during

    transfer would be allowed.  The storage itself would still have

    to be zero discharge because that is the law, the definition

    of the storage in the law.

              It says your definition of usable water is not clear.

 18 llwhat if water exists in  insufficient quantity to be usable?

 19 ||Will it still be protected?

 2° II          We adopted the definition used by the  Office of Water

 21 ([Supply in the Underground Water Protection  regulations. The

 22 Hquantity of  water flow is not part of the definition of usable

 23  Later, is that right?

              MR. SCHAUM:  That is right.

              MR. SANJOUR:   So I guess our  definition,  the quantity



 1    of  flow would not be part of the definition.

 2              What engineering  requirements  standards  are  envisionjed

 3    for ponds and lagoons  used  for  storage of  hazardous  waste,

 4    i.e., are they the  same  as  for  land  disposal?

 5              Well,  I suspect that  the questioner  is using the

 6    English language meaning of the word storage and disposal

 7    rather than the  Congressional meaning of those words.   Let

 8    me  remind you that  under the law, storage  and  disposal mean

 9    two different things,  and we intend  to treat them  as two

10    different things.   In  storage we will regulate the vessel

11    and we will give a  permit essentially to the vessel, such

12    that it does not discharge  to the environment  at all.   For

13    disposal we will regulate the wastes and the situation in

14    which it is disposed.  Disposal allows for a certain amount

15    to  escape to the environment so long as  it does not  endanger

16    human health in  the environment.  A  lagoon, then,  would more

17    likely be permitted as disposal rather than as storage.  It

18    would be much harder to  obtain  a storage permit for  the

19    lagoon.  You hav« to demonstrate there is  no discharge either

20    to  the ground or the air.   It is hard to demonstrate a lagoon

2i    does not discharge  into  the air, in  which  case the same as

22    for land disposal would  apply.

23              Next question.  How do accident  statistics for rail-

24    road versus trucks  compare  in relation to  shipment of  hazard-

25    ous wastes?

                 I can answer it.   It is really a bit misleading.  I
       think — what Jack Lehman was referring to earlier about
the accidents — and I put the word^accidents" in quotes, that
result in shipping hazardous wastes, you have to remember firsl
of all that the way the waste business is handled presently
today, most manufacturers will hire a shipper to dispose of
his waste.  When he turns the waste over to the truck driver,
he is getting rid of it.  He is not hiring him as a common
carrier to deliver it to a prearranged destination.  He is
hiring him to get rid of the wast, period.  So he is both a
transporter and a disposer in fact, and the truck operator
makes his own decision about where to dispose of it.  That is
the usual practice today.  Which means he is getting just one
fixed fee to both transporter and disposer.  If he has to take
that fixed amount of money, $3.00 a barrel or whatever, and
has to bring it to a landfill and pay the landfill operator
to take it over, that comes out of his pocket.  This practice
therefore induces a lot of accidents of the type that usually
happen about 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. over a manhole cover, which
they do not have to pay any fee.
          A railroad does not work that way.  When you give
a hazardous waste to a  railroad, you are not hiring them to
dispose of it.  They are a common carrier.  There  is a bill
of lading.  Such statistics are not comparable.  We know of
no case of hazardous waste accidents from railroads.


   1              MR.  LEHMAN:   John has a few more written questions.

   2              MR.  SCHAUM:   This question reads, you made the

   3    statement that to use  an aquifer the state must prove that it

   4    will remain unusable forever.   This is tantamount to a

   5    blanket prohibition since it is impossible to prove anything

   6    is forever.  Is this the actual Agency position in this matter

   7              The  Agency position in this matter is spelled out

   8    in the undergoand injection regulations.  I have been reading

   9    them over now  to try to find the exact working.  I do not

   10    see the word "forever"  used in it, but it is definitely

   11    future-oriented.  It says things like "in the foreseeable

   12    future"  and that kind  of language, I think, is the intent.

   13    I  am not an expert on  the underground injection regulations.

   14    Perhaps the person to  answer this question — you would be

   15    best off talking to them.  Coordination in this area is diffi-

_=si6    cult duj) to the fact these regulations are being rewritten

   17    now.  A new draft is out and the wording might be slightly

   18    changed from the copy  that I have now.

   19              The  next question is, if a waste is transported by

   2o    truck rather than pipe  to an on-site treatment facility, does

   2i    that facility  need to  be permitted?

   22              Yes, it would.  Only treatment facilities, as Bill

   23    was saying, that are connected by a contained — in a con-

   24    tained intimate manner,  only those kinds of treatment facili-

   25    ties would be  exempt from these requirements, but if it is




      trucked to a treatment facility,  my interpretation of this

      point anyway, is that that facility would need a permit.

                Will the regulations stipulate requirements for

      buffer zones around the disposal, storage or treatment

      facility, or will this be left to the discretion of the local

      land use planning process?

                Buffer zones will not be specifically required by
      the mandatory standards.   For example, a facility that has

 9    leachate collection system would not have any leaking to the
       ground,  and I would consider  in  that situation  a buffer zone

       would not be necessary.
                However,  if  a  facility was  leaking,  I would think

       they would have to  have  some kind of  a buffer  zone  in order

14     to  dilute the waste before  it  left  their property.   We would

15     not be  allowing facilities  to  pollute the ground water under

16     their site if it would pollute the  ground water outside their

I?     site.

18              If they had  a  leak,  they  would probably need a

19     buffer  zone, but that  is not specifically required  in the

20     regulations.

21 I             The next  question is, inasmuch as many privately

22     owned waste disposal operations exist on a marginal economic

23 |    base does EPA feel  that  the private sector will be  able to

24     afford  to comply with  the standards envisioned on their

25     3004?


 1              As Fred was saying earlier, this is certainly a con-

 2    cern that we have.  We are investigating this matter.   The

 3    economic impact analysis is being made by Mike Shannon, who

 4    will be reporting on that area tomorrow.  All I can say is

 5    that our first responsibility is to protect human health

 6    and the environment, and we hope we can do that in a manner

 7    which is affordable, and we are attempting to.

 8              The second part of the question is, does EPA  en-

 9    vision state-owned and supported disposal sites in place of

10    private operations?

11              There is nothing relating to that question in the

12    3004 regulations.  However, my understanding is that we are

13    not encouraging state-owned disposal sites and do not

14    endorse that policy in our office.

I5              MR. LEHMAN:  Let me comment on that, John.

I6              That is not quite the case.  Let me just say  that

I7    in a slightly different way.  We have no objection to a state

I8    owning a hazardous waste facility or a local government own-

19    ing a hazardous waste facility.  In fact, as Bill Sanjour

20    mentioned, we are through the grant process in Minnesota

21    funding such a facility which will be owned by the Metropolitaji

22    Waste Control Commission  of the Twin City Area in Minnesota.

23    Rather, I think to put it in a slightly different way,  our

24    policy has been that there exist out there a number of  private

25    corporations that are in the business of managing hazardous


 1   wastes and we believe that  a private  sector  responsible to

 2   the issue of providing  facilities  is  a  good  and proper

 3   response.  If the private sector is not capable of  providing

 4   these facilities where  needed  or in the time required,  then

 5   it may be incumbent  upon local or  state governments to move

 6   into that area.  I think that  is perhaps a better way to

 7   state that.

 8             MR. SCHAUM:   The  question is, a manufacturing plant

 9   treats on its site plating  wastes, cyanides, chromium,  etc.,
10   and comes up with a  clear BK  7 effluent, and a heavy metal

11   hydroxide sludge, which is  landfilled off-site.  Does this

12   plant need a treatment  permit?

13             This  goes  back to where  does  treatment  start.  If

14   the treatment is connected  intimately in a contained manner

15   such as  through a pipe, then  that  treatment  operation would

16   not need a permit.   If  it was  trucked from the plant to the

17   treatment facility,  even though it is on-site, then it would

18   need a permit.

19             The second part of  this  question,  is this plant

20   operation a waste generator?

2i             As I  said, if it  is  in the  situation where it does

22   not need a permit,  all  it would be is a generator.

23             MR. LINDSEY:  I have a couple.  One of  them is a

24    followuo to the last question I answered relative to — you

25   may recall I said so««t9»ing about  the permit being


 1    interpreted as a bill of health.   This is a followup to that.

 2    If a permit is to be interpreted as a bill of health by local

 3    citizens,  then anyone entering the disposal business must put

 *    up all capital involved, and then get a permit and hope the

 5    local citizens agree.  This makes for a very high-risk ven-

 6    ture.  Please comment.

 7              We are getting into a comment of the permit mech-

 8    anism, which we will handle in more detail tomorrow.  Since

 9    this was a followup I will address it.

10              Basically, to make a very short answer here,, before.

11    he goes or builds his facility, he will obtain the permit at

12    that time.  In other words, he would not build a facility,

13    then go out and get a permit,  and then hope that the public

14    agrees.  He will due all that ahead of time.   But we will

15    cover this kind of thing in more  detail tomorrow.

16              Another question, will  there be any Federally

I7    operated disposal facilities,  landfills or incinerators for

18    use  in energy situations?  In  other words, when a hazardous

19    material spill generates a hazardous waste?

20              The answer to that is no,  there won't be any

21    Federally  operated disposal facilities that will be available

22    for  hire or whatever to the general public.

23              The Act does not really give us the authority to

24     do that.   There  may be some Federal disposal  facilities

25    operated by Federal installations,  DOT, or the Forest Service

























or somebody like that for their own wastes.
          Also, will your office consider treatment and/or

disposal at a spill site if that is shown to have acceptable

impermeability, presumably that it meets the standards?

          A little earlier on Harry Trask, who spoke on

Section 3002 and 3, addressed the whole situation of energy

situations where there would be a — what is the term I am

looking for — where  there is a hazardous material spilled

or a hazardous waste spilled that the iguidelines and stan-

dards would be held in abeyance during the period during

which an imminent hazard is perceived to exist.

          In other words, if there is a problem with the

waste at a spill site and it is carted up and moved away or

buried on-site or nearby as quickly as possible because of
                            /to ^Qfla__
perhaps emissions or whatever^ the reason may be, during

that period when an imminent hazard is perceived to exist the

standards for manifesting, the standards for labeling and

containerizing and the standards for disposal would not be

in force .

          In other words, during this emergency period the

person on-site will do what he thinks is best with it.  Once

the imminent hazard period no longer is perceived to exist,

that is it has reached a resting place, be that in a tank or

a series of drums or buried someplace, then through the report

ing procedures EPA will find out about it and from that time


     on the  regular standards  will have  to apply.   Relative to

     leaving it on-site,  which is  the specific question in this

     case, it has been buried  there,  are we going  to leave it


               We, through the EPA regional offices, will have to



















determine whether or not that is an acceptable site.  It may

be it is.  If so, fine.  It gets a permit.  If on the other

hand it does not meet all the standards, then we will have to

make a decision whether or not to dig that stuff up or to

cause it to be dug up and moved.  The hazard by doing that

may be worse than the hazard that would be posed by leaving

it there.  We will address that in a case-by-case situation

and there will be a special permit available if in fact we

determine that leaving it there is in the best interest to

the public health and the environment.

          We will talk more about this tomorrow.

          MR. SANJOUR:  The question is, if piped incinerators

and on-site waste treatment facilities associated with manu-

facturers do not need RCRA permits, why would waste treatment

lagoons be handled differently if they are part of the waste

treatment operation?

          That is a point we have wrestled with.  Logically,

you could argue if the incinerator is part of the manufacturin

process, why isn't the lagoon also a part of the manufacturing

process, and I guess the answer is not strictly one that fits


     into this nice neat logic.  The answer is, lagoons leak and

     we know they leak, and they are a very significant portion

     of the environmental problem of managing hazardous waste.

     That is lagoons.  We know that if we did not regulate them

 5    we would hardly be doing our job at all.  So I guess that most

 6    any lagoon would have to be considered disposal regardless if

 7    it was part of the treatment plant or not.

               If this turns out to be illegal and as a result of

 9    which we have a double standard going, I guess I would sooner

10    drop the whole concept of not regulating pipe incinerators and

11    not regulating them if we have to, but regulate lagoons,

12    because lagoons have to be regulated.

13              MR. LEHMAN:  I think we have gotten through all of

14    the written comments.  Are there any questions from the  floor

15    on Section 3004?

16              MR. JENKINS:  Ron Jenkins, Greenleaf Telesca,

17    Consulting Engineers.

18              Under RCRA, does EPA plan on having any involvement

19    in the site selection process for these hazardous waste  dis-

20    posal facilities?

21              MR. LEHMAN:  If EPA is running  the program,

22    definitely yes.   If the state is running  the program, no, in

23    the sense that  if we deem a state to have an acceptable  pro-

24    gram, we would  like to follow a hands-off policy there and

25    let the states  do their thing, if you will.  If EPA  is


 1    required to issue the permit directly, then the site  location

 2    would have to meet all of the requirements under the  3004

 3    regulations.

 4              MR. JENKINS:  Thank you.

 5              MR. LEHMAN:  Are there any other comments or

 6    questions — not comments, questions on  3004?

 7              Okay.  We have just one comment I would like  to

 8    make before we move onto the list of scheduled speakers.

 9              The question is, the prompt availability of the

10    questions and answers to the companies would be very  helpful

11    and much more informative as to how to set up or try  to

12    start to set up systems to do all this work.  And I think the

13    question gets to what is the availability of the proceedings

14    of these meetings.  As I mentioned in my introductory remarks,

15    w« will have the proceedings of this meeting available  for

16    public inspection in our offices on November 18.  We  hope

17    to have published copies of these proceedings approximately

18    four weeks later than that, so that the proceedings will be

19    available, but at a later point than they are available for

20    public inspection.

21              There will also be advance copies, that is  unedited

22    copies of material will be available from our court reporting

23    service approximately two days after the closure of the

24    meetings, for inspection.  So if you are interested in these,

25    please see us.  I would like to move now, because we  are tryin


     1 || to keep to our schedule as much as we can, to those individua

     2   who have indicated a desire to present statements to  the  grou

     3             I would say that we are first of all going  to make

     4   these in the order in which we received the request to  make

     5   such a statement.  Secondly, there are a number of individual

     6   who have indicated that they will provide written statements

         which will become a part of the official transcript,  but  will

         not make a verbal statement at this time.  So the complete

     9   transcript will contain not only what you hear today, but

    10   some statements that will be submitted for the record without


    12              The other thing I would like to point out is  that

    I3    due to the time limit involved we would ask each speaker  to

    14    speak for a maximum of five minutes, and if there is  a  state-

    15    ment — if your statement is going to take longer than  five

         minutes, please provide a summary or synopsis of what you

         want to say and submit the longer version as a statement  for

         the record.

    19              The first is a Mr. Wentworth from the Urban Environ
—J  20    mental Conference in Washington, D.^C.  Is Mr. Wentworth

    21    here, please?

    22              MR. WENTWORTH:  I would like to read the following

    23    statement that has been drafted by a group of interested

    24    labor organizations and environmental grouos.  This statement

    25    that I am about to read has been endorsed by the American


     Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations,

     the American Public Health Association, the American Rivers

     Conservation Council, Congress Watch, the Conservation Founda-

     tion, Environmental Action, Environmental Action Foundation,

     Environmental Defense Fund, Isaac Walton League, Laborers

     International Union, National Association of Machinists,

     National Audubon Society, National Urban League, National

 8    Resources Defense Council, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workmen,

 9    Sierra Club, the Technical Information Project, Transport

10    Workers, United Auto Workers, United Rubber Workers, United

11    Steel Workers of America, Urban Environment Conference,

12    Wilderness Society, and Zero Population Growth.

13              Thank you for waiting for all that.

14              The Urban Environment Conference (UEC) and its

15    participating organizations urge EPA's Office of Solid Waste

16    to draft well-defined, comprehensive regulations to control

17    hazardous wastes and prevent the continued contamination of

18    our air, land and water resources.

19              The undersigned UEC participants support a strong

20    enforcement and regulatory program that can insure that the

21    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act becomes a workable

22    reality — not just another empty promise.

23              Action is needed by the Office of Solid Waste to

24    insure that the hazardous waste provisions in the Act are

25    effectively implemented.  Criteria for classifying hazardous


 1    waste must be as broadly defined as possible so as to include

 2    all problem materials.  Pathogenic bacteria and other biolo-

 3    gical materials such as viruses, spores, and cysts, and

 4    recombinant genetic material must be included in this defini-

 5    tion.  Both chronic and acute effects should be considered

 6    in the formulation of these criteria.  Mutagenicity, tera-

 7    togenicity, carcinogenicity, and impaired reproductive functio

 8    must be included in these criteria.

 9              The generators of hazardous waste must assume the

10    burden of testing and analysis of their discards.  Both public

11    and private facility operators should be required to have ade-

12    quate liability insurance.  Full and complete disclosure of

13    trade and chemical names of materials handled is vital to

14    work^health and safety.  Permit requirements should not

15    exclude small facilities and should be detailed enough to

16    insure proper evaluation of the waste.  Permits should be

17    issued for a fixed number of years — not indefinitely — and

18    records should be retained to insure accountability.

19              Regulations under these hazardous waste provisions

20    should be drafted in concert with pertinent sections of the

21    Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Toxic Substances

22    Control Act.

23              Through the enabling legislation of the Resource

24    Conservation and Recovery Act, the Office of Solid Waste now

25    has the opportunity to directly attack our mounting hazardous
















waste problem.  We ask  for strong regulations to properly

implement these vital hazardous waste provisions in the Act

and insure continued protection of our public health and
          Thank you.

          MR. LEHMAN:  Could we have a copy of what your

statement was, please?

          That goes for any of the speakers.  We would

appreciate getting a copy of your remarks if available.

          The next speaker I would like to call on is Leslie

Dach, Science Associate, the Environmental Defense Fund,

Washington, D-jjC.

          Is Leslie Dach from the Environmental Defense Fund

here?  Perhaps he stepped out.  I will come back.

          The next speaker is Mr. Clifford Harrison, Managing

Director, Nationajc Tank Truck Carriers, Incorporated, Washing-
      P* */***-
ton , D . /i,C .

          Mr. Clifford Harrison, Managing Director of National

Tank Truck Carriers, Incorporated.  Is he here?  Well, we will

come back.

          The next speaker, Mr. Morris Hershson, President,


 1    too critical of me if I state that at the end of this long

 2    session I am somewhat confused.   And I suppose that might be

 3    true of two or three of us in this room.

 4              I do not want to burden this group with particulars

 5    concerning my industry and the impact that various interpre-

 6    tations and answers that it would have on the industry.  I

 7    feel, however, that industry associations such as mine, as

 8    many others here in this room, should be consulted on a

 9    personal basis, a conference, if you please, between an

10    association and the group such as sitting at the dais, to

11    discuss the problems of the particular industry -based upon

12    draft regulations already in their possession, which we do

13    not have.

14              And I think we might make much greater progress if

15    such individual meetings were held over a period of time

16    between individual associations and you gentlemen than perhaps

17    may be gained from public meetings such as this one.

18              MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Hershson.  I might

19    point out that we have held over 80 such meetings around the

20    country in the last several months, and evidently we have

21    not made contact with your organization as yet.  If you would

22    contact us, please, we would try to work something out along

23    the lines that you suggested.

24              MR. LEHMAN:  The next speaker is Arthur A. Morris,

25    President of the Capital Energy Resources Association,

 5             MR. PARSONS:   Thank you.




















 Washington,  D-^C.   Is  Dr.  Arthur Morris  present,  Capital

 Energy  Resources?   Evidently not.  We  will come back.

           The next speaker is Janes T. Parsons, President

 Resource Industries of Alabama,  Inc.
           Many of my comments which I have presented here I

 would just like to submit to you for the record and not take

 this group's time in going over them, sines many of them have

 already been dealt with in detail through the question and

 answer session.

           MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Parsons.  We will make

 this part of the record.

           Our next speaker is Mr. Frank Singleton, Director

 of Environmental Health, Greenwich, Connecticut.  Is Mr.

 Frank Singleton, Director of Environmental Health, Greenwich,

 Connecticut, present?  Evidently not.

           The next speaker is Dr. Stacey L. Daniels, Dow

 Chemical Company, U.S.A., Midland, Michigan.

           DR. DANIELS;   I wish to make remarks today similar

 to those previously submitted for comment in response to the

ft                                     ri
 advance notice of groposed rulemaking and also to the dis-

 cussions pertinent to today, and also to the draft regulations

 for those portions made available for public comment.

           I find myself sort of in the position of a hunter

 trying to take a shot at an elephant going through the jungle


1    in that I can see three legs of the regulations, but I cannot

2    tell whether the elephant is going toward me or running away.

3    However, the present concerns I have today are in three

4    areas.

5              First the criteria for determining what and when  a

6    waste is hazardous.  Second, the reasonableness of what  const!

7    tutes off-site and on-site operations.  And third, the distinctions

8    among storage, treatment and disposal operations.

9  ||            I feel that much of the present confusion may

10    result  from misinterpretation of ambiguous terminology and

11  I  attempts at quantitation of subjective  criteria of what  const!
12    tutes hazard.>\ For this reason, a meaningful  and reasonable

13    interpretation of when and wher<= and  for how  long a material

14    is a hazardous waste is critical to interpreting the entire

15    law.

16              I  feel that materials which are used as by-products

17    should not be classified  as wastes and materials used for

18    material  or  energy resource recovery  should also not be

13    classified as wastes.  The tiraeframe  for these uses should

20    certainly not be restricted to only three months.

2i         ^rThe selection of test methods should be based on

22    sound, well-established procedures and be generally applicable

„„    to all potentially hazardous  wastes.

24   ||           Standard tests  should be conducted  on the composite
     waste  itself and not on individual components.   A composite

     hazardous.  The standard  leachate test needs to recognize





















waste should not be considered hazardous by individual

component analysis if a bioassay on the leachate proves non-
real world conditions.
          The proposed criteria for toxicity based on a
factor of ,35 times the lowest oral mammalian LD.50 is too

stringent for all materials, and should be raised.  As pre-

sently proposed, any leachate containing greater than 0.1

percent, common salt or some fertilizers or some foods would

be considered hazardous.

          Levels of hazards should also be determined by the
                                        fco Vf*&-  /*t>tf*.Ct—
most representative data available for LD^SO and LC.50 and

not from the lowest reported concentrations to cause effects.
  ~$~>   The listings themselves should be restricted to

the basic categories of flammables, corrosives, reactants,

infectious agents, radioactive agents, and toxicants.  The

use of ambiguous advisory lists of "example" or "typical"

substances, such as element "X" and compounds, heavy metals,

solvents, used oils, scrap plastics, should be avoided since

such lists do not accurately reflect concentration, chemical

form,  leachability or specific hazards.

          The criteria for declaring a waste hazardous should

also b« distinguished from certain unrelated criteria for

drinking water qualities.  As presently proposed, any leachate

containing .5 ppm of manganese, 3 ppm of iron, or 10 ppm" of


























copper would be considered hazardous even though these three

metals have drinking water quality standards based only on

asthetic properties.
    ^(     Fully integrated facilities for conducting all

phases of hazardous waste generation, transportation and

storage/treatment/disposal under the management of a single

corporation on-site should be recognized.  On-site should

include activities under the responsibility of a single corpor ite

location which are within reasonable proximity.  This should

be something besides crossing the road.  It should be down

the road a few miles.
     ^ Qeu£&t*rt£'
  •$      The on-site generator of a waste should not be

subject to a manifest.  Maintenance of records and submissions

of reports should be the function solely of the on-site dis-

poser. - The decision of hazardew^should also recognize

both concentration and available form.
    ^fg fvr^ pO*^13
>fc(j  I &   The on-site transporter should not be subject to

manifest.  If transportation beyond a reasonable proximity,

say 50 miles, is required, the requirements for labeling

should be no more stringent than DOT regulations for materials

with similar properties distributed in commerce.
          The on-site storer, treaty, disposer should not

be subject- to manifest but should be designated as the sole

responsible party for permitting, recordkeeping and  reporting

on an annual basis to avoid duplication by the generator.


 1    There is confusion as to what distinguishes storage, treatment

 2    and disposal operations, particular^ as to length of time and

 3    how each of the operations pertain to temporary accummulation,

 4    hazard reduction and ultimate containment.

        /I S9l£fc**v*^'
 5    Jfr $ T *~  A single permit should be required for a disposal

 6    facility handling multiple hazardous wastes.  This permit

 7    should cover both construction and operations and it should

 8    be consistent with existing permits for associated operations

 9    of air pollution control and waste water treatment without

10    undue overlap.     ^- C*>a . -r-ATpj fa-

























     promulgated.   Future deadlines should also allow sufficient

     time  for public review and comment.
          I will also submit formal written comments at a
later date.
          Thank you.

          MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you, Dr. Daniels.

          VOICE:  Do you recognize questions based on speeches
just made?

          MR. LEHMAN:  That is up to the speaker.

          VOICE:  He seems to have information not available

to the rest of this group.  He quoted numbers of certain

constituents and leachates.  'I got the impression talking to

him earlier today that he had those numbers and they were not

available to you.

          MR. LEHMAN:  We commented on that earlier today,  I

believe, that we have not released officially any draft

materials under Section 3004.  Evidently these were obtained

gome other way.  Section 3001 —

          VOICE:  Do we all have the same rules to play under?

We are trying to meet something we don't know what it  is yet.

          MR. LEHMAN:  Section 3001, which is, I believ,

what Dr. Daniels was referring to, is available — we  have

released those drafts.

          VOICE:  Through getting the address out at the —

          MR. LEHMAN:  Your card at the registration desk.


























          VOICE:  I will be receiving that then?

          MR. LEHMAN:  Yes.  The Section  3001,  2 and  3  drafts

are available.  3004 is not.  3005 is not.   3006 is,  and  3010

is available at this time.

          Our next speaker is Arthur PJircell, Technical Infor-

mation Projects, Washington, D. C.

            :. P&rcell.

            ?•  U
            I. P/RCELL:  Technical Information Projects, Inc.,

appreciates the opportunity to make a statement before  this

     j£A*f>*dM*J*                             ,,

very imfuilturt public meeting.  I am Arthur P/*rcell.

          We have been engaged in a number of activities

related to environmental resource policy  questions and  two

of these are of particular relevance to this meeting.   These

involved arranging and conducting an ongoing series of  EPA

supported regional workshops across the country aimed at

increasing public participation in waste  issues and arranging

and conducting an international conference this year  on toxic

substances.  NSS supported the later work and,  incidentally,

proceedings of this, called Toxic Substances, is available

from us.

          These efforts have helped delineate the depth and

complexity of the problems of hazardous substances in our

environment, and the strong concern that  our citizens share

over the need for measures to resolve these problems.   We

have learned, for example, that in 1976,  seven  million  of


 1    Our  citizens were directly exposed  at  the work place  to

 2    substances  deemed hazardous  enough  to  be regulated by OSHA,

      the  Occupational Safety  and  Health  Administration, but we do

      not  know how many more people  suffered exposure when  20,000

      plus substances in pure  or altered  form entered the waste

      stream.  We can only  guess how much damage  to health  and

 7    environment has been  done,

 8             It is clear wideranglng measures  are needed to

 9    control the threats posed to our society by hazardous wastes.

^10    At our international  conference on  toxic substances we focused

 11    on the area of information communication barriers, making

 12    progress in the toxic substances control area.  Much  of what

 13    was  generated at this meeting,  at the  toxic substance meeting,

 14    is applicable to the  hazardous waste problem.  In particular,

 15    the  conflict between  corporate trade secrecy and the

 16    Government's and the  public's  rights to know the nature of

 I7    hazardous substances  entering  the environment is of particular

 18    relevance.  Until this conflict is  properly resolved  it will

 19    be impossible to fully identify and classify hazardous wastes.

 20             If we do not know  what is in a substance, if the

 21    producer  of it declines to  tell us and if  analytical tests

 22    are  inconclusive, we  do  not  know whether it will become a

 23    hazardous waste.

 24             In 1976 of  the 20,000 plus chemical products affected

 25    by OSHA regulations,  6,700 of  them  were protected by  trade


 1    secrecy.  One-third of these products which posed potential

 2    waste hazards were essentially unknowns.  The trade secrecy

 3    problem has polarized industrial and public interests in this

 4    area.

 5              At Tip's conference we got indications that a

 6    common ground does exist on which this important conflict can

 7    be resolved.  The Office of Solid Haste, through vigorous

 8    implementation of the Hazardous Waste Act of RCRA can help by

 9    establishment of standards reflecting this need of a base line

10    for resolutions to further be drawn.

11              Hazardous wastes will not be fully controllable

12    until all information needed to define them is available.

13    Guidelines and regulations formulated under RCRA can greatly.

14    facilitate this ability.

15              Thank you.

16              MR. LEHMAN:  That completes the scheduled speakers.

17    Let ne go through one la»t tine those who requested time for

is    speaking but did not respond earlier.

19              Is Leslie Oach of the Environmental Defense Fund

20    present?

21              Mr. Clifford Harrison of the National Tank Truck

22    Carriers present?

23              Dr. Arthur Morris, Capital Energy Resources Associ-

24    ation?

25              Mr. Frank Singleton, Director of Environmental


 1    Health,  Greenwich,  Connecticut?  Is he present?

 2              We will try these again tomorrow if we have tine.

 3              May I also request that the following individuals

 4    who have indicated they would like to submit a prepared

 5    statement to become a part of the official transcript, that

 6    they do so to our court reporter, who is up here in the front

 7    of the auditorium.   Mr. Hugh Thompson of Ba$»lle, Mr. Edward

 8    Grenning, Department of Energy, Aerospace Corporation, Mr.
                                            au> ap&jc*-.
^9    Joseph Lyman, I.S.S.A., Washington, D.^C., Mr. William Hager-

 10    man, Gregory Grace and Associates, Bartlett, Tennessee, Mr.

 11    William Casey, Agway, Incorporated, Syracuse, New York, and

 12    Mr. Edwin Rafner, Hafner Industries, Inc., New Haven, Connec-

 13    ticut.  Would those individuals please provide a copy of your

 14    statements to the court reporter?

 15              Ladies and gentlemen, Z want to thank you for your

 16    participation during the session today.  I would like to

 17    point out to you that this document, which is  a synopsis of

 IS    the presentations our EPA employees are making to you which

 19    was not available this morning is available now, and if you

 20    did not receive one either through the mail or some other way

 21    copies are available now, and it may be helpful to you to-

 22    morrow when we go through the remainder of the presentations.

 23              Also tomorrow we will be discussing  case examples

 24    related to Subtitle C, and there are  copies of this single

 25    sheet of paper which outlines these case examples that we wil


  1    be discussing tomorrow.  If you would like to do a little

  2    homework and read up on those, those arc available also.  All

  3    of these are available at the registration table, the front

  4    of the auditorium.

  5              Again, I want to thank you all for your attention,

  6    and Z will recess the meeting until 8:30 tomorrow morning, at

  7    which time we will start with Section 3005, that relates to

  8    hazardous waste facility permits.

  9              Thank you very much

 10              (Whereupon, at 4:35, the hearing was adjourned, to

 il    reconvene at 8:30 a.m. the following day.)

















      CASH TITLE:   Resource Conservation Recovery Act

      HEARING BATB:  October 11,  1977

      LOCATION OF HBARINfi:  Arlington, Virginia

      I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence

herein are contained fully and accurately in the notes

taken by me at the hearing in the above cause before the


and that this is a true and correct transcript of

the sane.

                          DATEP:   October 25, 1977
                              Official Reporter
                              Acne Reporting Company
                              1411 K Street, N.W.
                              Washington, n.C.  20005

        	C« Wmhlngton, D.C. 20036
       1302 - 18th Street, N.W.                    202 466-6040
     The Urban Environment Conference (UEC)  and its participating
organizations urge EPA's Office of Solid Waste to draft well-
defined, comprehensive regulations to control hazardous wastes and
prevent the continued contamination of our air,  land and water re-

     The undersigned UEC participants support a strong enforcement
and regulatory program that can insure that the 'Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act becomes a workable reality - not just another empty

     Action is needed by the Office of Solid Waste to Insure that the
hazardous waste provisions in the Act are effectively implemented.
Criteria for classifying hazardous waste must be as broadly defined as
possible so as to include all problem materials.  Pathogenic bacteria
and other biological materials such as viruses,  spores, and cysts, and
recombinant genetic material must be included in this definition.   Both
chronic and acute effects should be considered in the formulation of
these criteria.  Mutagenicity, teratogenicity. carcinogenicity, and
impaired reproductive function must be included in these criteria.

     The generators of hazardous waste must assume the burden of testing
and analysis of their discards.  Both public and private facility
operators should be required to have adequate liability insurance.  Full
and complete disclosure of trade and chemical names of materials handled
is vital to work health and safety.  Permit requirements should not
exclude small facilities and should be detailed enough to  insure proper
evaluation of the waste.  Permits should be issued for a fixed nunber of
years - not indefinitely - and records should be retained  to insure

     Regulations under these hazardous waste provisions should be drafted
in concert with pertinent sections of the Occupational Health and Safety
Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act.

     Through the enabling legislation of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Office of Solid Waste now has the opportunity to
directly attack our mounting hazardous waste problem.  We ask for
strong regulations to properly implement these vital hazardous waste
provisions in the Act and insure continued protection of our public
health and environment.


                A. Blakeman Early, Environmental Action
                Robert Hayder., United Steel  Workers
                Franklin Wai lick, United Auto Workers
                Merchant Wentworth, Environmental Action Foundation

This statement drafted by the Urban  Environment Conference
has been endorsed by the following organizations:


       This statement is submitted on behalf of the National Barrel and

Crum Association of 1028 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20036,

which represents the steel drum reconditioning industry in the United States.

The 55-gallon steel drum is the primary package for the petroleum, chemicals,

paint, adhesive a and other industries.  About 20 million of these drums are

manufactured  annually of 18-gauge and 20/18-gauge  steel.  Approximately 45

to 50 million of them are reconditioned annually and put back into commercial


       A study made by economists at the University of Illinois (copy of which

is attached) has proved that if all newly manufactured rfrums were made of the

heavier 18-gauge steel,  rather than thinner steel which produces short-lived

or throwaway drums, enough energy  could be saved annually to light the city

of San Francisco  for one month.  This means a savings of over one million

tons of steel each year as well as the millions of tons  of iron ore, coal, coke

and other metals which go into the manufacture of this steel.

       The reason for this explanatory preface is to highlight the importance

of the reconditioned  steel drum in the Nation's efforts to conserve energy and

natural resources.  But there is an additional area in which our industry serves

to further the objectives of the EPA.  All so-calle* "empty' drums received

by reconditioners contain residue of  their previous contents  -- oil, paint,

chemicals, etc.-- sometimes  as  much as 3 gallons.  This is industrial and


of ten hazardous waste. Although we have no choice but to collect and Dispose

of it, we are nevertheless performing an important and necessary environ-

mental function.  The EPA should therefore recognize our industry as a strong

ally and optimize its usefulness in this area.

       A major obstacle to the health of the reconditioning industry is the in-

creased production of light-gauge, short-lived or throwaway drums, which

cannot be returned to commercial reuse.  This has already caused a national

shortage of used drums. It calls for the adoption of measures to discourage

this waste of energy and natural resources, measures which would,  at the

same time,  encourage the purchase and reuse of the all-18-gauge  drum.

       Empty, used drums are also used  today by many generators of hazar-

dous waste for the storage and disposition of such materials.  Such use of an

unreconditioned,  untested drum is  illegal under  COT Regulations for the trans-

portation of hazardous materials, which require either new or reconditioned

specification drums for this purpose.  Furthermore,  dangerous  conditions may

be created at the landfills, or other disposition areas, because the wastes being

poured  into a drum may not be compatible with the residue of other hazardous

materials, and fires or explosions may result.

       If drums are to be used for the disposition of hazardous wastes, they

should be new, or reconditioned and tested.

       In addition to the necessity for  waste generators to be made aware of

this  requirement through appropriate educational and enforcement activities,

we recommend two additional projects for the EPA's consideration, in order

to further Congressional intent.   The Act requires  a study of the appropriateness

of incentives and disincentives to promote resource conservation, and of res-

trictions on the manufacture or use of  the product,and of  disposal charges.


       1.           The first research project should be an intensive and

            exhaustive study into the possibility of incineration, chemical

            degradation, or other means of reducing waste materials to the

            lowest possible volume.  vV'e understand that some efforts have

            already been initiated but we believe that this problem is of such

            vast importance and consequence that far greater efforts should be

            made.  We also feel that the results of all such research to date,

            both private and public, should be collected,analyzed and distributed.

       2.           We believe a second research project should be undertaken

            to seek the  optimum package for the transportation and burial of

            hazardous wastes.  Perhaps the answer is an extremely light-gauge

            steel drum — 26,28, even 30 gauge, with  some lining, suitable for

            a  single short trip from generator to landfill; perhaps fibre, or

            plastic, or some cheap material not presently being used in the

            packaging field.   We recommend a multi-industry task force to

            consider  this  problem, to include such organizations as the Manu-

            facturing Chemists' Association,  the National Paint b Coatings

            Association, the Society of Adhesives  Manufacturers, the Fibre

            ?rum Association, the Steel Shipping Container Institute, the Na-

            tional Barrel  & Drum Association, and others keenly interested

            and involved in the packaging, transport and  disposition of industrial

            wastes of all kinds.

                    With EPA and industry working together,  we believe

solutions can be found that are  environmentally acceptable  and economically


Encl.: Energy Study by Drs. Laurel 8t John Pruasiag,  Univ. of Illinois.

                 Laurel Lunt Prussing
                   John E. Prussing
Urbana, Illinois                        February 14,1974

     This study estimates and compares the energy require-
ments of reusable and single-use steel drums.  Single-use
drums require twice as much energy per fill as heavier drums
which can be reconditioned.  This is because the greatest
energy requirement in the steel drum system is for the manu-
facture of steel.  It takes roughly ten times as much energy
to manufacture a drum as to recondition a drum.
     A shift from the current mix of reusable and single-
use drums to an all 18 gage drum system with an average of
eight reconditionings per drum (9 fills) would create energy
savings of 17,043 billion BTU per year, which is 23% of the
total energy requirement of the present system and enough
energy to provide electric power for one month to a city
the size of San Francisco.
     Further energy savings could be realized if the number
of reconditionings of reusable drums could be increased.

                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Charts and Tables	ii

About the Authors	iii

Introduction	1

Estimates of the Energy Requirements for Steel Drums...!

Conclusion	10

References	12

Technical Appendix	A-l

Flowchart, Steel Drum Reconditioning System	3
Table I Estimated Energy Requirements for the
    Manufacture, Transport and Reconditioning of
    Steel Drums	4
Table II Energy Requirementsi  Manufacture and
    Delivery of New Drum to Filler; Reconditioning
    and Delivery of Used Drum  to Filler	8
Table III Comparison of the Cumulative Energy
    Required for 100 million fills of Reusable
    and Single-use Steel Drums	

                 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

     Mrs. Prussing is an economist with research and
practical experience in the economics and politics of
recycling.  Her academic background includes A.B..Wellesley
College. A.M.(Boston University, and graduate study at the
University of California, San Diego.  She is presently a
Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Economics at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  As an elected
official of Champaign County, Illinois, she is charged with
the responsibility of finding solutions to county solid
waste problems.  She was formerly an Urban and Regional
Economist with Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts and an Economist at the Center for Advanced
Computation, University of Illinois.

     Dr. Prussing is an Associate Professor of Aeronautical
and Astronautical Engineering at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.  His academic degrees -are S.B., S.M.,
and Sc.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
His research and teaching interests are in optimal control
of dynamic systems, a field in which he has published
numerous articles in professional journals.  Prior to
joining the faculty at the University of Illinois, Dr.
Prussing was Assistant Research Engineer and Lecturer at
the University of, California, San Diego and at M.I.T.

     This study was commissioned by the National Barrel
and Drum Association to determine the energy requirements
of reconditioning steel drums versus discarding or recycling
drums by scrapping and remelting.  The steel drum recondition-
ing industry has long promoted its product as a more economical
alternative to single-use or limited reuse drums.  However,
as in other types of packaging, there has been a trend toward
throw-away steel drums.
     In 1973 fuel shortages caused Americans to realize that
nature's riches are not infinite.  The United States may be
returning to an earlier ethic of resource conservation.  It
is appropriate to examine the role of the steel drum recon-
ditioner in such conservation.
     The method used in this report is based on Bruce Hannon's
classic study of the energy requirements of reusable versus
recyclable beverage containers.  Professor Harmon has been
ot invaluable help in this analysis of the steel drum industry.
     Energy use can be studied at many levels, for most industries
are interrelated.   This report is based on a model which abstracts
1 Bruce Hannon, "System Energy and Recyclingi  A Study of the
  Beverage Industry", Document No. 23,  Center for Advanced
  Computation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
  January 5, 1972, revised March 17, 1973.

from that maze of interrelationships and selects the most
significant energy requirements of the steel drum system.
     This study traces the energy needs of steel drums from
rav materials procurement through steel making, drum manu-
facturing and reconditioning and all transportation links
between these activities.  The flow chart on page 3 shows
the steel drum system and the processes for which energy use
was estimated.  Activities enclosed by broken lines on the
chart were not included in the energy estimates.  The energy
requirements of fillers and industrial users, for example,
dwarf the portion that might properly be allocated to the
use of steel drums within the industry.
     Although there are other industries besides steel from
which drum manufacturers purchase inputs (e.g., paints) sheet
steel comprises 95% by weight of all such inputs.  Similarly
an insignificant fraction is omitted by not including chemical
and paint purchases by reconditioners.
     Table I on page 4 gives the energy required at each
stage of the flow chart for three types of steel drums,
the durable IS gage drum, the lighter weight 20/18 gage
drum and the single-use 22 gage drum.  Although the 18 gage
drum is heavier and requires more steel and more transport
energy at each stage, its ability to withstand many recondi-
tionings eventually reduces its total energy requirements
considerably below the 20/18 gage reusable drum and the 22
gage single-use drum.
*Notei  the finished weights of these drums are 46 Ib.,  38 Ib.
                            ch requires  an additional  25*
                             allow for fabrication scrap.
and 28 Ib., respectively. Each requires an additional 25* of
steel from the steel mill to al	*-•--7—-r	


I    USER    I

                      TABLE I
Energy Requirement
 (1,000 BTU/drum)

Mining of ores
Transport of ore
Manufacture of steel
Transport of steel to
drum manufacturer4
Manufacture of drums
Transport of scrap from
drum manufacturer to
steel industry
Transport to filler
Transport of filled drums
to industry8
Transport of used drums i
a) to reconditioner
b) to scrap dealer
c) for discard
Reconditioning of drums
Transport of reconditioned
drums to filler11
Scrap yard12
Transport of scrap to
steel industry 3
IB aaae drum
(46 Ib.)
20/18 aaoe drum
(38 Ib.)
22 aaae
(28 Ib.)
Notes on following page

Notes for Table I (complete list of references on p.12)

1. Harmon, Table 3i 1,740 BTU/lb. of finished steel

2. Ibid.. 470 BTU/lb. of finished steel

3. Ibid.. 23,000 BTU/lb. of finished steel

4. Ibj.d.. 190 BTU/lb. of finished steel to transport steel
   to drum manufacturers an average of 392 miles.  Includes
   weighted average of rail and truck transport at 640 BTU
   per ton-mile and 2,400 BTU per ton-mile respectively
   (Hannon, p. 12)

5. Census of Manufactures, MC67(S)-4, Table 4, "purchased
   electricity" converted to thermal energy at 1 kwh= 11,620 BTU;
   "Kilowatt hour eqivalents of purchased fuel" converted to
   thermal energy at 1 kwh=3,412 BTU (Hannon, p. 12).  Alloca-
   tion of fuel requirements for steel drums in SIC 3491,
   "Metal Barrels, Drums and Pails" computed from the value
   of steel drums as a percent of the value of the industry's
   total output in 1967 (reference 3).  This share—65%—is
   virtually identical to the physical measure of drum output
   versus total output in terms of the surface area of the
   steel processed.

6. 25X of the transport energy used from steel industry to
   drum industry

7. Average distances and mode of transport from reference 4

8. Share of drum output to each filler from reference 5,
   distance and transport mode from reference 4

9. Reconditioner receiptst 85* local by truck 10 miles|  14*
   by truck 100 miles| IX by rail 250 miles.  Energy of local
   truck shipments! 4 miles per gallon diesel fuel;  138,000 BTU
   per gallon.  Energy to scrap dealer and discardi  10 miles
   by truck! 4 miles per gallon diesel fuel; 240 drums per
   truck.  Energy reduced for lighter drums by weight.

10. Reconditioning energyi natural gas (1 therm= 10  BTU),
   purchased electricity as in note 5 above

11. Reconditioned drums shipped an estimated 25X further
   than reconditioner drum receipts

12. Gasoline consumption of scrap dealer less energy for
   10 mile haul from local sources (note 9 above)

13. Based on average shipping distance of a midwest scrap
   deaieri  400 miles by rail

     The manufacture of a steel drum begins with the mining
and transport of ores to the steel industry.  Sheet steel
from the mill is then shipped to the drum manufacturer.
The steel required to make a drum includes an extra 25%
allowance for each pound of finished  drum to account for
scrap incurred in the drum manufacturing process.  This
scrap is returned as an input to the steel industry.
     Steel requirements and transportation energy are estimated
in proportion to the weight of each of the three types of
drums.  Drum manufacturing energy, however, was estimated as
equal for all three, since surface area rather than weight
seemed a more reasonable measure of the energy used in the
fabricating of drums from sheet steel.
     The transport  energy required to ship drums to fillers
was estimated from a weighted average of the proportion of
drums shipped by rail and by truck.  Slightly more than half
of new drums are shipped by truck and the rest are shipped by
rail.  Rail shipment takes about one fourth as much energy
per ton-mile as truck shipment (640 BTU per ton-mile, versus
2,400  BTU p«r ton-mile according to Harmon's estimates).
     The energy required to ship filled drums to industrial
users was computed as a weighted average based on the type of
filler (chemicals, SIC 281; paints, SIC 2851; and petroleum
products, SIC 291), the average distance to customers from
each filler by rail and by truck, and the proportion of each
filler's output shipped by rail and by truck.

     Once drums are emptied by industrial users they can
be reconditioned, scrapped, or discarded. (In this model
we have included in "discard"  drums which may find a useful
purpose such as highway markers or even stoves and shower
stalls in Alastaj in short, drums which are no longer used
to ship the output of fillers.) The energy required to ship
used drums to any of these alternatives is relatively small.
     Information on the energy used to recondition drums was
supplied by a reconditioner who prefers to remain anonymous.
Reconditioning energy was assumed to be the same for both
types of reusable drums since the energy is needed to clean
and repair drum surfaces.
     The energy requirements to ship reconditioned drums to
fillers and to compress drums for scrap and to ship the scrap
to steel mills are negligible compared with other requirements
of the drum system.
     Table II on page 8 sums the appropriate energies from
Table I-and indicates the savings made possible by recondi-
tioning a drum rather than manufacturing a new one.  For the
18 gage drum reconditioning energy is one tenth as much as
manufacturing energy.
     Table III on page 9 indicates the total amount of energy
which would be required for each type of drum to provide 100
million fills, the estimated annual number of fills of steel
drums in the United States.   The energy ratios at the bottom
of the table show that an all single-use drum system would

                       TABLE II

                 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS I



                   (1,000 BTU/drum)
                      18 page    20/18 gage    22 gage

New drum1             1583        1328          1008
Reconditioned drum2    152         151
1 Table I dovn to and including transport to filler

2 Table I, transport to reconditioner, reconditioning
  energy, and transport to filler

                      TABLE III


               FOR 100 MILLION FILLS OF

   18 cage
                     20/18 gage

                       22 gage
56,489 bil. BTU    77,735 bil. BTU
                    111,400 bil. BTU
(9 fills per
drumj 8 recon-
(4 fills per
drum} 3 recon-
(new drum for
 each fill)
          20/^.8 oage drum
            18 gage drum
22 gage drum
18 gage drum
                                 = 2.0

require twice as much energy as an all 18 gage system.
A complete 20/18 gage system would require 40% more energy
than an all 18 gage system.
     Table III is based on a systems analysis in which all
flows of material on the flow chart have been estimated.
The equation and an explanation of the variables upon which
Table III is based are given in the Technical Appendix.
     Table III is based on the reconditioning industry's
conservative estimates of eight reconditionings per 18 gage
drum (9 fills) and three reconditionings per 20/18 gage
drum (4 fills).  Lighter weight drums which can be recondi-
tioned have an initial advantage over heavier drums until
the number of reconditionings of the heavier drum exceeds
that for the lighter drum. (Single-use drums are at a dis-
advantage after the first reconditioning of an 18 gage drum.)
Lighter weight drums are less durable and generally cannot
be reconditioned more than three times.  The 18 gage drums,
however, could be reconditioned up to 16 times with little
problem.  Any increase in the number of reconditionings vill
lower the energy requirements of the steel drum system.
     The estimated energy requirements of the current mix of
reusable and single-use steel drums in the United States is
73,532 billion BTU per year.   If the system were converted
to all 18 gage drums with an average of eight reconditionings
(9 fills per drum) an estimated 17,043 billion BTU per year


 could be saved!  This  is enough to provide the equivalent

 in electrical  energy for a city the size of San  Francisco

 for one month•

     If the  return rate of 18 gage drums vere increased so

 that the average number of reconditionings was raised to

 15 ( 16 fills  per drum) then the United States could save

 an estimated 29,707 billion BTU per year, the equivalent

 of 238 million gallons of gasoline, by converting to an

 all 18 gage  drum system.  This would raise the ratio of

 energy requirements of the 22 gage single-use drum to

 energy required for the 18 gage (16 use) drum to 2.5.

     Clearly efforts to increase the use of 18 gage drums

 and the rate of return of such drums(by such means as

 deposits) would conserve energy.  Conversely, a  trend to

 use more light weight drums or to reduce the return rate

 of drums would further burden American energy resources.
2 See Hannon, op. cit..  p.  23.

3 If no losses occurred in the IB gage system (no discards
  and no drum failures)  the ratio would reach a maximum of
  4.2.  This is because as the number of reconditionings
  increases, the average energy approaches the reconditioning
  energy, since the energy required to manufacture the drum
  becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of the cumulative
  energy used.   Mathematically, in equation A-4 of the Techn-
  ical Appendix the average energy for the 18 gage drum
  approaches a lower limit of 265.5 x 103 BTU per fill as
  the number of fills becomes infinite.  The average energy
  for the 22 gage drum is 1113.5 x 103 BTU per fill.



1. Heumon, Bruce, "System Biergy and Recycling I A Study of the Beverage
   Industry", Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois,
   CAO Document No. 23, revised March 17, 1973.

2. U.S» Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufactures, 1967, Special Seriest
   Fuel and Electric Energy Consumed, MC67(S)-£, U.S. Government Printing
   Office, Washington, D.C., 1971.

3.. U.S. Department of Commerce, "U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1974, Metal
   Shipping Drums and Falls".

It* U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Transportation, 1967, Vol. Ill,
   Commodity Transportation Survey, Part 3, Commodity Groups, U.S. Govern-
   ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1970.

5. U.S. Department of Commerce, "Current Industrial ReportsiSteel Shipping
   Drums and Pails, Summary for 1967", M34K(67)-13.


                  APPENDIX  A

                Technical  Appendix
      The  system  analysis  of  the  steel drum  reconditioning

 system  is based  on the  flowchart of  the  system.   On  the

 next  page the  flowchart is   shown   with the  energy

 variables of the system labelled.  These variables denote

 the amount of  energy  required  by a process, such  as  EDR

(the amount of  energy  required  to make a  drum) or  the

 amount  of energy required for  transportation, such as

 ECT r,n  (  the energy required to  transport the steel  for a
  & i ,UH

 drum  from the  steel industry to  the  drum maker).  On the page

 following the  flowchart a symbol list is given which defines

 each  of the symbols appearing  on the flowchart.

      The  total energy required to mine raw materials,

 make  a  new drum,  fill it  and deliver it  to the industrial


 user  is called E   , and is equal toi
                       EST + EST,DR * EDR,ST * EDR +
                * E
           DR,F * EF,I
     Next, an equation is derived, based on the flowchart,

which describes the total energy requirement for the

complete reconditioning system.  The total energy


1 	 * 1
1 us

' .. Esc



          Energy Requirements

E.. = Mining of ores
E,^ ST = Transport of ore
EgT = Manufacture of steel
E__ __ = Transport of steel to drum manufacturer
E_R = Manufacture of drums
E_R s_ = Transport of scrap from drum
   '     manufacturer to steel industry
EDR F a Transport to filler
E_ _ = Transport of filled drums to industry
ET R = TransP°rt of used drums to reconditioner
Ej DI = Transport of used drums to discard
E. sc = Transport of used drums to scrap dealer
ER = Reconditioning of drums
ERF = Transport of reconditioned drums to filler
ER „_ = Transport of reconditioned drums to
  '     scrap dealer (equal to Ej S(;)
ESC = Scrap yard
ESC ST = TransP°rt of scrap to steel industry

requirement, E, is expressed in terms -of N, the number
of reconditionings of a drum.  By changing the value of
N in the equation, one can calculate the energy requirement
for any number of reconditionings.
     The general equation for the energy requirement for
N reconditionings  (N + 1 fills) ist
                                                 EIfDI +
[EI,R * ER * f4 (ER,F * *f.l> + f5 (ER,SC +   (A-2)
          ESC * ESC,STj   *  (1 - f3 V

     fj = fraction of drums from industrial user to scrap
     f2 =      	     "      "       "    " discard
     f, =      "    "   "     "      "       "    " reconditioncr

 ( Note that these fractions must sum to onei f. + fj + f3 = 1)
      f^ = fraction of drums from reconditioner to filler
      f_ =     "    "    "     "         "      "  scrap

 ( f4 + fg = 1)

Numerical values for these fractions are given on the following
page.  The values  for  the energy vatiables  are  given  in Table  I
 of  the report.

Numerical values for the fractions
             1 H GAGE              20/18 GAGE
f .
1.03 N/(N+1)

1.05 N/(N-fl)

 Notei  f, is determined from f^f** which is the return
        rate for the reconditioning loop, equal to
        1 - l/(N-fl) =
     While expressions for the fractions f^ and fj
( the fractions of the drums from the industrial user
which go to scrap and discard)  can  be determined, the
terms in Eqn. (A-2) in which they appear have very small
coefficients.  These negligibly small terms are ignored
in obtaining the simplified equations which appear later
in the appendix.
     Assuming f. and f- are equal, expressions for them
arei  f, = f, =
1 - 0.03N
 2 (N-T1
T     for the 18 gage drum, and
fl = f2 =  12j'N°'°5N   for the 20/18 gage drum.

Once the total energy requirement E for a given number
of reconditionings N is calculated for a given weight
drum, the average energy requirement per fill can be
calculated by dividing E by the number of fills, N+l.
This average energy per fill, Eav , is the number which
decreases as the number of reconditionings of a drum
increases.  The total energy used, E, increases each
 reconditioning,  but less  than for new drums.
           E    =  B  / (N+l)    =  average  energy  per  drum   ,.  ,.
                               per  fill.                  I


	 3 — 3*"

ER,SC + Esc7
* ESC,ST    J
8.2                7.0               4.2

 SIMPLIFIED EQUATIONS  for the cumulative energy per drum

 (E)  for  an arbitrary  number  of  reconditioning^. (N)i

 Equation  (A-2)  ,  after substitution of the values of

 the  energy variables,  can be simplified.   Some of  the  terms

 in the equation  are negligibly  small and  can be ignored.

 The  simplified equations are as followsi


          E = J1692.1  (2N+1)  + 265.5  N2J/  (N+l)       (A-4)
 20/18 GAGE DRUM   (maximum of 3  reconditionings)

      for N^3  i    E =  [1434.8 (2N+1) +  266.0 N2J/  (N+l)     (A-5)

                    E =  E(3) «• E(N-4)

                    E .  E(7) + E(N-8)


22 GAGE  DRUM    Since fj  =  0,  Eqn.  (A-2)  reduces  to

              E = (N+l)  E*                         (A-6)

      (Thus  for  this weight  drum the  average  energy per

      drum  per  fill  is just E   )

                           COMPUTER PROGRAM
              A small computer program vas written  to  calculate

         the cumulative and average energy requirements  per drum

         for the reconditioning system. A listing of the program

         appears below.
      DO 100 K-1,16
      IF(NF.GT.NC)  GO TO 10
      60 TO 99
  10  IF(HOD(NF«NC>.EO.1)  KMOD-KMOD+1
      E2018-E(KHOD*NC> +EAV20»AV18
  98  FORMAT(lXj2I5,5Fll.I)
  100 NR-NR+1
  97  STOP
         On the following page a list of symbols and their

         explanation is given.   The equations programmed are the

         simplified equations from the preceding page.



MR a number of reconditionings

NC = maximum number of fills for the 20/18 gage drum.

NF = number of fills

El8 = Cumulative energy requirement in 1000 BTU's per

      drum for 18 gage drum

E2018 B Cumulative energy requirement for 20/18 gage drum

E22 = Cumulative energy requirement for 22 gage drum

AV18 = average energy per drum per fill for 18 gage drum

AV20 = average energy per drum per fill for 20/18 gage drum

                    TABLE A-l

-     fe


O -P
Id *O

3 oi
z u

01 TJ
01 01
> 0>
H (M

C D>
01 It)
> 00
18 O


                              h M
                              01 •D
                              01 01
                             JJ CO
                             ID >H
                                         01 O
                                        B IM
                                        01 01
                                        D< a
                                        * i
                                        01 9
                                        > *
                                        < TI
                                        899. 1
                                                    01 CO
 C  u
 779. 1
 513. 1
Notei The average  energy per drum per  fill  for the 22 gage
      drum  is  1113.5 regardless fT The value of N.
      ALL NUMBERS  SHOWN ARE IN UNITS OF  1000  BTU's per drum.

                                               Submitted by:  W.O. Hagerman
                                                  for Mr.  James T. Parsons,
                                                  President, Resource
                                                     Industries  of Alabama,  Inc.
October 10, 1977
                               COMMENTS ON
                              OCTOBER, 1977

     The following comments are offered as part of the official record
relative to the establishment of regulations for hazardous waste manage-
ment.  These comments are provided  to assist those who are developing
the rules and regulations relative  to the hazardous waste management and
to provide the viewpoint of the hazardous waste transporter and disposer.
The following comments are prepared and summarized by the appropriate
section of the hazardous waste disposal act.

Section 3001
     In defining a hazardous waste, the infectious and radioactive wastes
must be isolated and not considered part of the overall definition.  The
infectious and pathogenic wastes are best kept separate and handled in a
separate category.  Likewise, the radioactive wastes are presently managed
by other agencies and regulations and should not be part of RCRA.  With
respect to the influence of resource recovery systems on hazardous waste
information, the ultimate disposal  should not enter into the definition.
If the waste is hazardous as per its generation or point of origin, it
should not affect its categorization simply by being a part of a resource
recovery system for its ultimate disposal.
     The implementation of the definition of a hazardous waste should be
as orderly as possible.  Much of the work which has been needed in the past,

Page 2

but yet held up and not accomplished, has been delayed because of inade-
quate definitions of the problem.
     The test methods and actual  tests to be run should be placed back
upon the originator of the material.  Likewise, the development of hazard-
ous waste lists and analysis of the waste in accordance with that list
should be the responsibility of the originator.
Section 3002
     The small generator of hazardous wastes is probably more of a problem
than the major generators.  From operating experience, the large generators
are more eager to cooperate in the management of hazardous waste and are
easier to work with than the untold, unaccountable number of generators of
very small quantities.  This possibly could be handled best through a
rigorous enforcement action by the local  and federal agencies and by tight
manifest systems with disposers and transporters.
     If material is shifted to a resource recovery system be it from a small
generator or a large generator, it should still be categorized as a hazard-
ous waste if it fits the overall  hazardous definition.

Section 3003
     If the transporters of hazardous wastes could obtain from the originator
the necessary nomenclature and plak cards to explicitly identify the material,
it would tremendously assist in the problems of marking and transportation.
One of the largest problems at the present time is due to inadequate mark-
Ings and definitions as far as markings of transportation vehicles.  The use

Page 3

of the same nomenclature as the originator and possibly even having the
originator to prepare and furnish plak aids would help alleviate this

S_ection 3004
     The control of surface water from active areas must be defined In
explicit detail.  Latitude must be provided to the operator to designate
"active areas" so that only a limited amount of contaminated water would
be collected and confined.  It would be better if a point source dis-
charge were not allowed from such a disposal site.  A closed disposal
system would be much preferred where liquid wastes were either evaporated
through solar energy or through incineration.
     Training of personnel is ideal, and we agree it should be accomplished.
Standards must be established by the regulatory agency for training and
programs must be developed by someone in the permitting agency.

Section 3005
     This section of the Act should be carried out as much as possible by
the participating state rather than by EPA.  The states can provide a
closer control over what is happening and provide a better working rela-
tionship with the generators, transporters, and disposers.  Existing facil-
ities which do not qualify for an interim permit should be given a time
schedule of which to be either upgraded enough to comply or to be out of
business.  If the law is to be effective and if private enterprise is to
put forth sums of money to make the law effective, then an equal basis must
be applied to all people.

Page 4

     A construction permit and an operating permit should both be required
for disposal.  One permit could possibly accomplish the same result  by
being issued in two parts; however, a blank check should not be written to
the disposer in terms of a single permit.   If two permits are issued,  some
proof of responsibility through the construction into the operation  would
be provided for.  Incineration criteria as recommended of 99% removal  or
better and 1000°C for two seconds would appear to be too definitive  in the
rules and regulations.  These standards may have to be revised periodically
or may have to be tailor-made for each individual waste which will be
     As to the at-present unresolved issues, the air standards of occupa-
tional safety health administration should be adopted within the working
area.  The zero discharge should be enforced due to the nature of the
materials which are being handled.  The recommended procedures should  be
promulgated in the established procedure which EPA is utilizing.  The
environmental impact statement should not be required for every facility.
This in most cases is a time-consuming and often pointless procedure.
Special permits should be applied to infectious or pathogenic wastes and
radioactive waste.  These two categories should not be included within the
normal area of operation of hazardous waste management systems.

Section 3006
     The need for consistency amoung State programs is paramount.  Particu-
larly, the importation bands and reciprocity must be given due considera-
tion in order to provide a uniform disposal system across the Nation.

       Provisions of Subtitle C
      Hazardous Waste Management
Comments by Dow Chemical U.S.A. to the
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  Hazardous Waste Management Division
         Office of Solid Waste
           October 11, 1977

Mr. Chairman, I am Dr. Stacy  L.  Daniels,  a Research Specialist in

the Environmental Sciences  Research Laboratory of the Health and

Environmental Research Department  of Dow Chemical U.S.A.  I wish

to make remarks pertinent to  the development of regulations for

hazardous waste management  similar to those previously submitted

to the Agency in response to  several Advance Notices of Proposed

Rulemaking  (1,2) and  which  will be presented elsewhere at technical

meetings (3,4).  The  present  remarks also reflect additional con-
                                          ^ SdL * loo/, 3*0 ^ 1*03 f>*4si vua-^tc is«hazardous   should  not be classified as waetee.    ^,
    JCiuuLluu ul Ua^diduubi watiLe's.  The selection  of  test  methods

    should be based on sound, well-established  procedures,  and

    be generally applicable to all potentially  hazardous  wastes.

    Standard tests for flammability ,  corrooivity ,  reactivity,

            i -t-y; T-nrHnnn-t jyity , — and—toil ioity  should  be conducted
    on the composite waste itself  and not  on  individual  components.

    ATwastte should not be considered hazardous. by . individual com-
    ppnent< analy-sie if/ a /comyub Jte bioaseaw proves  nonhazard.1 The
    A  <,^**i*h> M. Cff-r,
    proposed criterion for  toxicity based on .35x the  lowest oral

    mammalian LD50 is too stringent for all  materials  and  should

    be raised.  As presently proposed,  any \mst-e containing  greater
    than 0.1% common salt^would  be considered hazardous.   Levels

    of hazard should also be determined from the most  represen-

    tative data available for LD,-_ and LC,-,,  and  not from the lowest
                                 ou        ou
    reported concentrations to cause effects.
3.   Listings

    Listings should be restricted to the b/asic  categories  of
                                        •VWe K.S
    flammables, corrosives, reactants,  ctilogic  agents,  radio-
                                                        ^d i'
    active agents, and toxicant.  The use of  ambiguous  "blio
    lists of "example" or "typical" substances, such  as  element "X"

    and compounds, .should be avoided since such lists do  not accu-

    rately reflect either concentration, £»" chemical  f orm. i  The criteria

    for declaring a waste hazardous should also be distinguished

    from certain unrelated criteria for drinking water qualities £7

    that aro bacod uponi aathetics ana no I liatiai'tt.  As presently

    proposed, any waste containing .5 ppm of manganese, 3 ppm

    of iron, or 10 ppm of copper would be considered hazardous

    even though these three metals have drinking water quality
                            As'r^fc>« c_
    standards based only on organoloptic properties.

4.  Fully Integrated Facilities

    Fully integrated facilities for conducting all phases of

    hazardous waste generation, transportation, and storage/

    treatment/disposal under the management of a single corpora-

    tion "on-site" should^be recognized and clearly identified

    as aajor exemptions to the manifest system.  "On-site" should

    include activities under the responsibility of a single corpora-

    tion at locations which are within reasonable proximity, e.g.

    50 miles.

5.  Generator

    The "on-site" generator of a waste should not be subject to

    manifest.  Maintenance of records and submission of reports

    should be the function solely of the on-site disposer.  -A—


                    Lhu b
                                                  The decision of
    hazardous should also recognize concentration and available

6.  Transporter
    The "on-site" transporter should not be subject to manifest.
    If transportation beyond a reasonable proximity (50-mile radius)
    is required, the requirements for labelling should be no more
    stringent than DOT regulations for materials with similar
    properties distributed in commerce.
7.  Storer/Treater/Disposer
    The "on-site" storer/treater/disposer should not be subject
    to manifest but should be designated as the.responsible party
    for permitting, record keeping, ajid reporting on an annual
    basis/  Storage "Should be interpreted as\the placing of dis-
           matorial, whrch has art associated afcd
    withNno recoverable value sCnd that is in exc
    quantitjR to ship or treaXXinto a given area
    years/in such a manner/as noVto constitute
    menis such Vs "pits1/, "ponds", and "lagoons" a
    storaee ana treatment as well as diisposal.
       interpreted las' the placing of ditecarded

    an associated anirxrecognized hazard/'With no recoverable  value,
    into a given area wi\h the express purpose of reducing or
    eliminating the hazards Diaposal should then be  interpreted
    as the containment of ha^zaXdous waste within a given  area  so
    as to minimize potential harm\to human health and the environment
    with no intent to ^nduct storagfc^or treatment.

8.  Permits
    A single permit should be required for a disposal facility
    handling multiple hazardous wastes.  A single permit  should
    also cover both construction and operation.  Such a permit
    should be consistent with existing permits for associated
    operations of air pollution control and wastewater treatment
    without undue overlap.  An environmental Impact atntomcnt
    •n-iMilfl h" ri  I in 1,1 ill  I, F H irT.~T''"-i'"»»-v n-t 1 fjnn -H""  "° rr.^r^o^H
9.  Open Dumps and Sanitary landfills
    The definitions^of "onten dump" and  "sanitary  landfill"  should
    better reflect ultimate disposal of  industrial  as well  as
    municipal wastes. /Xj is important  to broadly interpret
    "sanitary landfi/1" to\also  include industrial  landfills for
    both hazardous And nonhaeardous wastes.  Op.en dumping of certain
    industrial nonhazardous solid wastes should be  allowed  to con-
    tinue indefinitely without prohibition  as  long  as such  practice
    is not harmfully to human health or  the  environment.

     Performance  Criteria           _
                                    A- £Le

     Environmental  effect criteria/are preferable to operational

     criteria.  The disposer should be allowed discretion in

     compliance through acceptable performance! without regulatory
                                     Cfn £Tt»*H*>»i ?
     detailing of procedures,  design,, or operation.  Disposal options

     are thus made  flexible and not mandated.  This is consistent

     with best practicable controls and allows for determination

     of- compliance  based on site specific  evaluations by the disposer.

     Performance  standards for disposal operations should be consistent

     with EPA standards under  related  air  and water laws.
j.a summary, the  reasonableness and feasibility of interpretations of

waste hazard, louaLlim  of  waste management facilities, and distinctions

among storage, treatment,  and disposal should be carefully assessed

before regulations  are  promulgated.   Future deadlines should allow

sufficient time,  however,  for adequate public review and comment.

^hn rrnnnHffl rpgnl atintm jliuulu bi auallHUJLe foi a I'uvicw pejiod-q£

SO dayo.  ftio Agoney  io to be commanded for aMtrwing lor public, Inpi

to_tlie_dewiLtpiufe, xugala^ono at tjjiis.
Thank you.


1.   Daniels, S. L.,  Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations,

     letter for Alan Corson, Office of Solid Waste, U.S.  EPA,

     July 1,  1977.

2.   Daniels, S. L.,  Solid Waste Planning and Disposal,  letter to

     Kenneth A. Shuster,  Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA,  August

     5, 1977.

3.   Daniels, 'S. L.,  Role of Producers of Chemical Wastes, remarks

     to be presented- at the workshop on Hazardous Waste Management,

     6th National Congress on Waste Management Technology and Resource

     & Energy Recovery, cosponsored by NSWMA and U.S. EPA, Washington,

     November 14, 1977.

4.   Daniels, S. L., The Impact of the Resource Conservation and

     Recovery Act (PL 94-580) on Hazardous Chemical Waste Disposal,

     to be presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the AIChE,

     New York, November 17, 1977.


 MANAGEMENT/GUIDELINES, 11-12 October 1977, Arlington, Virginia


               Arthur H. Purcell, Ph.D., Director
              Technical Information Project/ Inc.

      Technical Information Project, Inc.  (TIP) appreciates the

opportunity to make a statement before this important public

meeting.  My name is Arthur H. Purcell, and I serve as the

Director of TIP.  TIP has been engaged in a number of activities

related to environmental and resource policy questions.  Two of

these activities are of particular relevance to this meeting.

These have involved a) arranging and conducting an on-going

series of EPA-supported regional workshops across the country

aimed at increasing public participation in waste issues and

b) arranging and conducting an international conference this

year on toxic substances.  The National Science Foundation sup-

ported the latter work.

      These efforts have helped delineate the depth and complexity

of the problems of hazardous substances in our environment and

the strong concern that our citizens share over the need for

strong measures to resove these problems.  We have learned, for

instance, that in 1976 seven million of our citizens were di-

rectly exposed at the workplace to substances deemed hazardous

enough to be regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration.  But we don't know how many more people suffered

exposure when these 20,000-plus substances, in pure or altered

form, entered the waste stream.  We can only guess at how much

damage to health and environment has been done.

      It is clear that definitive, wide-ranging measures are

needed to control and reduce to an absolute minimum the threats

posed to our society by our growing piles and pools of hazardous


      At our international conference on toxic substances, we

focused on the area of information and communications barriers

that inhibit progress in the toxic substances control area.

Much of what was generated at this meeting is applicable to the

hazardous waste problem.  In particular, the conflict between

corporate trade secrecy and the government's - and the public's

- right to know the specific natures of all hazardous substances

which enter the environment that was detailed is of particular

relevance.  Until this conflict is properly resolved, it will

be impossible to fully identify and classify hazardous wastes.

If we.don't know what is in a substance, if the producer of it

declines to tell us, and if analytical tests are inconclusive,

we don't know whether it will become a hazardous waste.  In

1976, e.g., of the over 20,000 chemical products affected by

OSHA regulations, 6,700 were protected by trade secrecy? in

other words one third of these products which posed potential

waste hazards were essentially unknowns,

      The trade secrecy problem has long polarized environmental

and industrial interests in the hazardous substance area.  In-

tensive cooperative efforts between high-level representatives

of these interests at TIP's week—long conference, however, gave


indication that common ground does exist on which this very

important conflict can be resolved.  The Office of Solid Waste,

through vigorous implementation of the hazardous waste provisions

of RCRA can help effect such resolution.  By clearly demonstrating

the need for broad disclosure of hazardous substance contents,

and establishment of standards reflecting this need, a baseline

for resolution will be further drawn.

      Hazardous wastes will not be fully controllable until all

information needed to define them is available.  Guidelines and

regulations formulated under RCRA can, however, greatly facilitate

this availability.



























                  OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE

                     RCRA SUBTITLE C

                     PUBLIC MEETING
                                   Ramada Inn
                                   Rosslyn Room B
                                   1900 N. Ft. Meyer  Drive
                                   Rosslyn, Virginia

                                   Wednesday, October 12, 197
                                   8:30 A.M.

                                   Volume II
JOHN P. LEHMAN, Moderator
Hazardous Waste Management Division  (HWMD)
Office of Solid Waste, EPA

Guidelines Branch, HWMD
Office of Solid Waste, EPA

Implementation Branch, HWMD
office of Solid Waste, EPA

Assessment and Technology Branch, HWMD
Office of Solid Waste, EPA


























SAM MOREKAS - Section 3005

MATT STRAUS - Section 3006

TIMOTHY FIELDS  -  Section 3010

MIKE SHANNON -  Environmental/Economic Impact








  1                       ?-:R.0_c-?Ll:.P.!N.G_s
  2              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Good morning, ladies and
  3    gentlemen.  Could I ask you to take your seats, please, so
  4    we can get started?
  5              This morning we are going to cover Sections 3005,
  6    the Hazardous Haste Facility Permit Regulation and Section
  7    3006 in charge of the guidelines to states for what consti-
  8    tutes an acceptable hazardous waste program.
  9              At this time, I would like to introduce Mr. Sam
 10    Morekas who is Program Manager for our Assistance Program in
 11    Hazardous Haste Management Division who will discuss Section
 12    3005.  Sam?
 13              MR. MOREKAS:  Thank you.  My topic as Jack
 I4    indicated is the Section 3005, RCRA, which is titled Permit
 15  _^for Treatment^Storage or Disposal of Hazardous Haste.  X will
 Hi    run Very briefly through the main provisions of that section
 17    of the Act and then cover our approaches to developing the
 18    regulations.
 19              Just as the other sections, we are required to
 20    promulgate final regulations requiring each person owning or
 21    operating a facility fox treatment, storage or disposal of
 22    hazardous waste to have a permit issued and these regulations
      i-e to become effective six months after they are promulgated
24               The law also outlines the information that each
      applicant is required to submit which  includes estimates of


























the composition, quantity and concentration* of hazardous

wastes, • tirnu frequency for rate of treatment, transport or

disposal, the sit* at which such hazardous wastes will  b»

disposed of, treated, transported or stored.

          The law further authorizes an administrator to

issue or to Bwdify permits in compliance with  the requirement)

of Section 3004 standards.  If any modifications are  to be

made, such mollifications must indicate the time allowed to

complete it.

          Further, the section contains language that

authorises thii administrator to revoke a permit for non-

compliance. wi
aasage of the Act in October of 1976 who have complied with the notification requirements of Section 3010 and who have ikpplled for a permit under this section. Theiie facilities will be considered as having a permit until iidminlstrative dlspositidn of the application is made. *feV- The prospective contents of our regulations -a* we are developing now is as follows. One of the first things i$ we are attempting to do *• as the law requires,^0 integrate arnyi provlsioaii in ftbKA with provisions that are found In other acts awl to ail extent possible, to avoid duplication in the requirnsM&t of our law and the other acts.















 _j> 19






•— ^ 25

          These include the Federal Water Foliation Control

Act, the Sate Drinking Hater Act, the Clean Air Act, the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodentieide Act and Marine

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act which is costsonly

known as the Ocean Disposal Act.

          We are in close cooperation, coordination with the

other offices of EPA who are responsible for those acts and

we are expecting to develop specific language in our regula-

tions to make it as clear as we can to those that are

affected by all these acts on how EVA intends to integrate

their requirements and also to avoid duplication.

          Ne have developed in the regulation the requirement

that all onQite and- of finite hazardous waste storage treat-

    o^L             je&
•entydisposal facility-will need a permit.  We recognise that

there are cases that will not fully meet this stringent

requirement and we have developed see* exclusions.

          z will go over these exclusions very briefly.

S*mit*xy landfills, for instance., that do not accept

Manifested waste as required under 3002 will not; require a

penult under this section.

          Hospitals and medical facilities that sfcore or

treat on^ite hasardous waste, infectious waste as they will

be identified under 3001 will not require a permit provided

that they are meeting state requirements.

          Most states do have laws that control am*




. 6




















•equlalluu* th.»t control the storage and treatment of these

typejof wastes on ho«pit«l» and medical facilities.

          As you beard it yesterday, we will not require a

permit for storage of hazardous waste for a period of 90 days

if those wasten are intended for further transport to

treatment,storage or disposal facilities or for resource


          Me are also developing a permit that we call

special permit for such facilities as resource recovery

facilities, experimental facilities and for those facilities

that accept for storage, treatment or disposal wasteSthat

have resulted from an accident or other type of emergency

that we need to streamline the process for getting -those

wastes taken cure of.

          The regulation* further stipulate that all

applications must contain sufficient information to  insure

efficient and <»xpedient determination by EPA.  They  will  set

time limits for submission of applications and for EPA  to

act upon applications, will establish procedures for

maintaining confidentiality of information under the trade

secret type of requirement, will establish procedures for

revoking or for modifying permit* insuring that all  due

process considerations are met and  for existing facilities,
will require a compliance schedule  for coining up to  the

standards i»su

1              Currently we are thinking  that  such  compliance

2    schedules will be developed by mutual  agreement with the

3    applicant but will not extend for  a  period of  more than four

4    year*,

5              EPA, also under these  regulations, may  impose

6    conditions and a permit  to insure  compliance with the

7    standards as issued under Section  3004.   The regulations will

8    also  provide opportunity for public  participation.

9              Our thinking now is that when EPA, through the

10    original offices that will implement these regulations, makes

11    a tentative determination that a permit may be issued,

12    modified, or revoked., public notice to that effect will be

13    given.

14              The public  will be given an opportunity to comment,

15    to provide written comments to EPA prior  to the setting of

16    the public hearing and if a public hearing is  deened necessary

17    at the  discretion of  the regional  administrator,  such a

18    public  hearing will be announced and will be held.

ig              The regulations are  also to provide the opportunity

20    for adjadicatory hearings if those are requested.

21              That's briefly the prospective contents of our

22    regulations.  Mow we  do  have  several unresolved issues that

23    we are  still debating.   One of these is how to handle those

24    facilities that technically do not qualify for interim

25    permits,  that  is,  those  facilities that cnme into existence

 1     «ft*r the passage of tto Act in October of 197«.
 2               Oar thinking right now is that we will handle those
 3     the same way M though they existed prior to October 1976.
 4               Another issue that hasn't yet been resolved is
 ^     for new facilities, whether or not to require two permits.
 6     That is, a COBStraction permit and an operating permit.  The
 7     reason for that, of coarse, is to assure that whatever was
 8     submitted as a design concept has, in fact, been constructed
 9     and can be authorised to operate.
10               We're also developing the details on what sort of
11     requirements, reduced requirements we will have for the
12     special permits that X mentioned earlier and to streamline
13     the process through which EPA would handle the special
14     permit.
is               It's <»lso a possibility that an environmental
16     impact statement may be required prior to EPA issuing a
17     permit.  We are still debating that issue.
18               Another issue is a concept of either a lifetime,
19     life site permit or a renewable permit at a certain period
20     of time.
21               That laasieally is the presentation this morning.
22     Jack?
23               H9DEIMTO11 UOMH:  Thank you, Sam.  Are there  any
24     statements from the floor on Section 3005?
25                (No response.)


 1              MODERATOR LEHMAHs  Okay.  we would like  to call

 2    for questions on written questions on 3x5 cards.   There are

 3    folks available here with cards and if you have written
 4    questions, pleas£) just  jot it down and hold  it up  and people

 5    will coma by and pick them up and we will answer then from

 6    the panel here up front

                we have some  questions on Section  3005 that were

 8    asked yesterday but are more appropriate to  answer in this

 9    session.

 10              Fred, I believe you have those?

 11              MR. LINDSEY:  Yes, I'll take these while the other

 12    cards are coming in.  This is again questions that were

 13    asked yesterday, by the way, so if you turned in a question

 14     yesterday and it didn't get addressed, why we're getting it

 15    today under the proper  section.

                If a generator cannot find a permit or disposal

      for a particular waste, is the generator required  to obtain

      a storage facility permit?  The answer to that is  yes, unless

 19    provided he holds it for more than 90 days,  if he  holds it

20    for less than 90 days before he does something with it, then

21     he doesn't need a permit.

22               He could, of  course, treat for or  dispose of it

23     if he has the wherewithal to do that.

24               For a generator's permit, how long will  thje permit

25     be valid and under what conditions could it  be revised or


 l     undergo agency review?

 2               First off, generators don't require permits ever

 3     unless they tr«»at, store or dispose, okay?  So we'll change

 4     that for a disposer's permit.  How long will the permit be

 5     valid?

 6               Our current thinking on this is that we are still

 7     considering a range of options here which go all the way

 8     from relatively short term of one or two years on up to

 9     lifetime permits.

10               Our current thinking is ten years subject to

11     change as I say.

12               Under what conditions could the revised — reduce

13     a review?  Well, it would undergo a — review every ten

14     years.  On the other hand, if we had a complaint or if we

15     find that a facility is not meeting the requirements of the

16     basic standardu, then it could undergo review basically at

17     any time.

is               Under what conditions could it be revised?  I

ig     think there ar<» two reasons why such a permit would be

20     revised.  Number one, the standards have changed as you may

21     or may not realise.

22               The .net requires us to review the regulations

23     every three ye<»rs to add to them or modify them as may be

24     necessary to protect public health and the environment.   It's
      conceivable th'iti)that we will find out that the regulations

 1     that we do have «t some point in time are not doing the

 2     job and if that's the case,  then it would be modification

 3     time.

 4               On the other hand, if we find that a permitted

 5     facility i* not meeting the  standards through whatever

 6     reason, it's conceivable that the conditions, etc., on the

 7     permit could be changed there under those conditions as well.

 8               in many operations, runoff and leachate are

 9     combined and treated together in a waste water treatment

10     facility permitted under NPDES.

n               Will the operation on a combined runoff leachate

12     also require a second permit under RCRA?  I think we touched

13     on this yesterday.  Our intent is not to re-regulate effluent

14     treatment systems, okay?

15               Therefore, our thinking is if such a facility is

m     piped op to regulate through a manufacturing operation like

17     in a sewage treatment plant, that this would not require a

is     RCRA permit unless for some  reason in that treatment plant/

19     there is a leaking lagoon, a lagoon which leaks to the

20     ground, in which case, that  would constitute disposal under

21     the Act and would require such a permit.

22               But our interest and our intent in the wording

23     would be such that effluent  treatment facilities will not

24     meet permits under RCRA.  If a waste water treatment facility

25     which has an NPDES permit — if a waste^ water treatment


 1     facility which has an OTDBS permit receives a hazardous

 2     wast* for treatment, will the facility b« required to have a

 3     RCRA permit under Section 3005 also?

 4               Again,  that's kind of a same question.  If it is

 5     piped directly,, the answer is no.  On the other hand, if it

 6     is trucked into sach a facility and such a facility becomes

 7     a hazardous waiite facility, assuming the waste are hazardous

 8     and it would require a permit.

 9               A sulfuric acid plant which also processes a spent

10     sulfuric acid, Z presume, for recovery of the sulfuric acid

11     and the consider resource recovery facility, again, if this

12     is some kind ol'. a spent hazard which is piped directly from

13     the manufacturing plant in some fashion, a dilute acid or

14     something of tliat nature and concentrated are recovered and

15     piped directly and the product then recycled back into the

16     system, the aniiwer is no, it would not be considered a waste

17     at that point.

18               On tJM other hand, if this is acid which comes in

19     from the outside, waste acid as it were, which is then

20     reclaimed, such a facility then would constitute a resource

21     recovery plant and would require a permit.

22               Mow .C will think about that as I think Sam Norekas

23     touched on it, is that the requirements for such resource
24     recovery permit will be le*«.£ur purpose here is to encourage

25     such facilities by making the requirements or the procedures


1    really, for obtaining permit* less fear.  Lees  cumbersome,

2    I guess, i* the proper word.

3              Such a facility will still have to meet the

4    standards under Section  3004 but the obtaining  of a permit

5    under those standards will be — I think the word used

6    yesterday was like mail-order.

7              In other words, such a facility — such facilities

8    will have to let us know where they are and what business

9    they do and what they receive, but basically that will  be

10    all there is to it and the permit will be issued.

li              On the other hand, they will have to  meet the

12    standards under Section  3004, they will be  subject to

!3    inspection by enforcement personnel, etc.,  like any other

14    facility and if they are found to be violating  those standards

15    such a permit can be revoked just like any  other permit.

16              This is an area which has received a  lot of comment

IT    a« to whether or not the somewhat less degree of control we

18    have by doing that is counterbalanced really by the fluid

19    which comes from encouraging such facilities which in fact

20    remove the waste from the waste stream.

21              Our thinking at this point is that it does but

22    there's a lot of comment on that and if anybody has any

23    comment on that, we would sure like to hear them.

24              Bow does the disposer verify the  contents of  a

25    hazardous waste he receives from the transporter and then a


 1    comment to protect himself, should not a disposer perform

 2    additional t«ists, in other words, for heavy metals, cyanides,

 3    etc.?

 4              We, as a matter of regulation, will not be getting

 5    into or effecting the contract that results between the

 6    generator and the disposer.  That's a private contract and

 7    the disposer can choose to require more information from the

 8    generator or less as he requires.

 9              On the other hand, the right to protect himself,

10    he cannot receive for processed waste in a different manner

11     than what he is permitted to do and if he gets bum informa-

12     tion from the generator, the generator may be in some trouble

13     Sox giving bum information but on the other hand, z would

14     think the disposer would be advised to be sure insofar as

15     he can, that the materials he is receiving are the ones he

16     thinks he is receiving.

n               That's all I have at the moment.

is               it has been pointed out to me that there are some

19     folks here that weren't here yesterday and they don't know

20     who the players are her* in front of the room.  My name is

21     Jack Lehman, I am the Director of the Hazardous Waste

22     Management Division, Office of Solid Waste at EPA.

23               On my right is Walt Kovalick who is Chief  of  the
      Guidelines Branch^Division and next is Fred Lindsey, Chief
                                  &i. 3^*^£_
25     of the  Implementation  Brancn^pivision and at the end, Bill


  1     Sanjour who is Chie* of the Assessment and Technology Branch

  2     of the Division.

  3               While I have the mike here — well, Sam :/e

  4     introduced before.  While I have the mike, there are a couple

  5     of questions that I have and would like to handle here.

  6               The question is status of pits, ponds and lagoons

  7     no longer in use for the past ten years or for the past any

  8     kind of year, I guess, is the general question.  Our legal

  9     counsel has indicated to us upon review of RCRA, that there

?10     AS no distinction between old treatment storage.disposal

 11     facilities and new ones or active ones.

 12               So it appears at the present, that there is no

 13     limitation on this and that if a pit, pond or lagoon has

 14     hazardous waste in it, even though it hasn't been used for

 15     several years, it can't still be considered to be subject of

 16     the requirements of RCRA.

 17               Consider the use of steel plckeling liquor for

 18     phosphorus removal in waste water treatment, is it a

 19     hazardous waste?  Is the municipality a disposer?  Would the

 20     municipality need a RCRA permit?  It's a very interesting

 21     question because it crosses a lot of lines here.

 22               If steel pickeling liquor is let's say, sold to

 23     or provided to a municipal waste water treatment plant for

 24     the purpose of phosphorus removal, then in that operation,

 25     I think we would consider it to be a resource recovery type


 l     of operation.

 2               in other word*, you're using the steel pickeling

 3     liquor for some other purpose and not disposing of it

 4     directly.  So in fact, it would not meet the definition of

 5     a waste as we talked about yesterday and therefore, the only

 6     requirement on the generator of the steel pickeling liquor

 7     would be record keeping to insure that he could prove that

 8     this material was in fact recycled or reused in some way.

 9               It then follows that the municipality, the

10     municipal waste water treatment plant is not a disposer and

11     would therefore not need a RCHA permit.  Also, I might point

12     out that the law, XCKA, does make a distinction between

13     solid waste as it is broadly defined in the law and facilitie

14     which are operating under a water pollution control permit

15     and HVDBS permit.  The law is really clear on that point

16     that if a facility has an NPDES permit, it is a sewage

17     treatment plant, for example.

18               The material that is going through that plant is

19     subject to the water pollution control law and not to RCRA.

20     Mow sludge that may result from the operation could possibly

2i     be a hazardous waste if it meets the criteria that we are

22     working with and if that is the case, then the municipal

23     waste water treatment plant must be considered a generator

24     and have to comply with RCRA from that standpoint.

25               I hope that distinction is clear in your mind.


 1              We have a  number of other question*.   Sam,  do you

 2    want to cover  some?

 3              MR.  MOREKASi   I  have a question  asking under the

 4    90 day storage exemption from a permit, will  a  chemical plant

 5    which has a continuing  flow of hazardous waste  into storage

 6    containers which  are shipped within 90 days and however,

 ?    where there is always material in  storage  be  exempt?

 8              The  answer to the first  part of  the question is  no.

 9    If the material is in containers and  is shipped under the  90

10    day stipulation,  it  does not require  a permit.   The other

ll    one is a little bit  trickier.

12              i assume the  questioner  is  asking if  we have a

13    large container such as a  standard 20 or 30,000 gallon tank

14    and the material  is  constantly being  put in and obviously

15    some of it is  there  for more than  80  days, the  way we are

16    expecting to handle  that is on a case by case basis as

17    determinations are made in implementing the program.

18              Another question is, if  a plant  practices both

19    resource recovery and hazardous waste disposal, are two

20    permits required? I guess the answer to that is in one of

21    the pHsjteical configuration of these two practices, if they

22    are within the same  general site that is adjacent to  each

23    other, I see a possibility of having  one permit to cover both

24    Of those operations.

25              However, if they are separated by some distance,



the other opportune way to handle it will be with two
separate permits.  It was stated that sanitary landfill not
receiving Manifested waste will not need a permit.  It was
also stated that oj£^ite facilities handling hazardous waste
would need one.
          If oolite operations do not require manifesting,
why do they require permits?
          I guess I have to revert to the way this question
was handled yesterday.  That those on-^ite operations that
are for disposal and do have piped waste that obviously,  I
think that it was stated, do not require a manifest but would
be permitted.
          It's a question of the integration with the
requirement of the other Act as I see it.  I think this
particular question deals with liquid wastey • 1 would LUiaK
that are going into lagoons that probably do have an HPDES
permit and as it was stated yesterday, we suspect that most
of these lagoons are leaking so they must come under RCRA
where it is not a direct comparison in our estimation with a
municipal sanitary landfill that is handling primarily
residential waste and will not be accepting manifested waste.
          The next question is, if an o^ite disposal
facility has been in operation for an extensive period of
time and the time of waste disposed of has changed either
through change in ownership or change in operation, will  the

1     owner be required to determine the type of waste existing
2     in the facility?
3               I would think that this will be determined during
4     the application phase, assuming that this new oitner or
5     operator does want to continue operating the site that
6     foster the requirements that we would have for submitting
7     information and the identification of the site and why it's
8     there will have to be identified during this permit applica-
g     tion stage.
10               Mow whether we would require an inventory, if you
11     will, of the cite, it is probably unlikely but we do need
12     some identification of what generally has been disposed of
13     at that site.
14               Now regarding the environmental impact statement,,
15     one, would one be required for an existing facility; two, if
16     I add a waste my existing plant, would an BIS
17     be required?
18               As I indicated, this is still an issue that has not
ig     been fully resolved.  By our thinking in trying to handle
20     this type of question, that is, how do we handle existing
21     facilities, at least our tentative approach now is not to
22     require environmental impact statements for existing
23     facilities.
24               However, the second part of the question probably
25     deals with what we would term a major modification to an


 1     existing facility, that is, the adding of the incinerator

 2     and we would think that if in fact, an EIS is ultimately

 3     required, that such a major modification will also require

 4     an EIS.

 5               Another question.  Today it was stated that those

 6     operating a waste treatment facility on site would require

 7     a permit.  Yesterday it was stated that this was not true if

 8     the waste generating facility and treatment facility are

 9     connected by pipeline.

10               i guess that's the similar question that I answered

11     earlier,  if they are connected by pipeline, it will not

12     require a permit.

13               Another question on the EIS,with regard to EIS,

14     if adopted, would state program require an EIS?  The answer

15     to that is no, unless the state has its own HEPA, if you

16     will.

17               Questions  resource recovery facilities often

18     store feedstock for extended periods of time  (up to two

19     years) before process and recovery.  Hill the reporting

20     procedures be designed to provide for the time lag that may

21     develop in disposition of waste from these feedstocks,

22     meaning the hazardous wasting of feedstocks?

23               The answer is yes, we will develop  those

24     procedures.

25               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Bill San jour.

1              MR. SAMJOORs  I'm not sure Z exactly got one  of
2    those question* straight but lat mo just 90 over in my  own
3    mind about permit requirement* for resource recovery facili-
4    tiea that the special permits for such facilities would not
5    include disposal of hazardous waste.
6              The disposal, a resource recovery facility also
7    disposes of hazardous waste.  The disposal operation would
8    require a full permit and it would not be covered by the
9    Resource Recovery Act.
10              VOICE:  What you're saying is the resource recovery
11    would be 80 percent and the remaining 20 percent would  then
12    be handled as waste?
13              MR. SANJOURs  If the residue of the process,  the
14    resource recovery process, if it produces a residue which is
15    itself a hazardous waste, the disposal of that residue  would
is    not be covered by the resource recovery permit.  It would
n    require an ordinary hazardous waste disposal permit.
18              in other voids, the resource recovery facility then
19    becomes a hazardous waste generator and it's a hazardous waste
20    disposer.
21              MODERATOR LEHMANs  Let me just point out for  the
22    benefit of those that weren't here yesterday, we will have an
23    opportunity for direct questions from the floor after we
24    finish the written questions.  Walt Kovalick has several here
25              MR. KOVALICK:  One question from yesterday's



















discussion, assuming that regulations under RC8A are

eventually proposed for the mining and Killing wast*, will

they be incorporated directly into the regs in existence at

the time or will they be in proposed form and subject to the

full hearing process?

          Well, in fact, they will become a part of these

regulations but X guess the answer is the second.  That is,

we will have to propose a separate set.  In other words,

there will be a full due process to enter these regulations

just as there would be if we wanted to add to other parts of

the regulation so there will be a doe process, I think, is

the essence of that question and they will be proposed first.

          The second question is a hypothetical situation.

A riant 1 disposes of some hazardous waste ophite, 2 dispose*

of some hazardous waste of^^ite.  What would be the permit

requirements?  Would the permit mention only the


          Assuming that this plant does not own the

facility, then yes, the permit would be only for the

disposal by that generator and he would only be keeping

records on the of{^ite disposal.

          When a generator is required to obtain a storage

permit, must he show any changes in the chemical or physical

nature of the material which might have occurred due  to

storage for the purpose of a correct manifest description?


 1               I  think the answer to that is  yes.   That is, the

 2     fact  that  a  generator has a storage  permit and changes take

 3     place,  doesn't mitigate any of his responsibilities for

 4     correctly  filling out a manifest so  what started oat as a

 5     liquid  ends  up being a sludge and he couldn't ship it on a

 6     manifest as  a liquid so the generator still has the responsi-

 7     bility  when  he ships the waste, whenever that is, to

      correctly  describe the waste on the  manifest.

 9               MR. LZMDSET:  I have a series  of questions here

10     concerning compliance schedules to bring existing facilities

      into  compliance.  •*»• criteria being developed to differen-

12     tiate amongst existing facilities with regard to the amount

13     of time they will have to comment to compliance?

14               The compliance schedules will  be based on a case

      by case basis based on the ability,  the physical ability to

      make  the modifications or whatever is needed it will take.

      The situation as we currently see it is that that will be

      whatever is  worked out between the two parties bat not longer

19     than  four  years  with a possibility for an extension of two

20     years if conditions warrant such things as acts of God and

21     so forth that will be involved in that.

22               Further, these facilities, I should point out, in

23     no case will any facility be permitted in any sense that

24     presents an eminent and identifiable hazard to groundwater

25     or public  health in some other fashion.   So all of this


   i     assumes that there is no identifiable immediate hazard.  If

   2     there is, we probably will — we probably will not only not

   3     permit such a facility but we may take action under Section

_—4     7003, the imminent hazard provision to close that down

   5     immediately.

   6               Will there be new types of permits required under

   7     HCRA for hydrochloric acid regeneration or sulfuric acid

   8     recovery facilities?

   9               Mot if these facilities are hooked up directly

  10     into the manufacturing operation.  A facility that has waste

  ji     acid and waste as it is recycled within its plant directly

  12     back into the process, the answer is no.  If it's hooked up

  13     •¥ • pipeline directly, the answer is no.

  14               On the other hand, if it is a waste management

  15     facility in the sense that it receives waste from wherever

  16     and brings them in for recovery, then the answer is yes.

  Yl               Our purpose in this, by the way, is to get as we

  18    all, I'm sure, can think of many, many areas where there are

  19    by-products recovered directly from manufacturing operations

  20    and recycling operations which are part of a manufacturing

  21    operation.

                  In these cases, we don't want to get into the

        business of controlling those directly under RCRA.

                  Suppose in a material recovery operation, all

   „,    hazardous components are recovered and reused and are the

 1     only waste to be disposed of is non-hazardous under Section
 2     3001, does this recovery operation require a RCRA permit
 3     assuming it's not hooked in directly by pipeline to a
 4     manufacturing operation?
 5               The answer is yes, the resource recovery operation
 6     would require a RCRA permit.  It would, however, require a
 7     special resource recovery permit which we discussed a little
 8     earlier.
 9               Does it matter whether it is otfyite or of^site?
10     It would require resource recovery permit whether it was o^
11     site or off^fite.
12               Does it matter if coupled to the basic process and
13     the  answer is yes, it matters if it's coupled to the basic
14     process and then the answer is no, it would not require
15     resource recovery permit.
16               The waste, on the other hand, to be disposed of is
17     not  hazardous.  In other words, this is the product or one of
18     the  products of the resource recovery operation is the waste.
19     Now  you recover the product and there's some residual left
20     over.
21               That waste, if it's not hazardous under 3001, will
22     not  fall under the purview of RCRA.  If it is hazardous, if
23     the  waste is hazardous, then that would require a permit to
24     do something with it or in fact, the resource recovery
25     facility would become a generator and would have to live


 1    under  all  th*  otter generator requirements.

 2               Will a waste product which is transported in a

 3    tank — I  assume a tank track from an operation* unit or

 4    resource recovery  unit within the same plant require a permit

 5    {or the recovery operation?

 6               Tee. Yes,  assuming the waste is hazardous.

 7               What type of permit will be required for industrial

 8    waste  recycling facilities?

 9               What type of permit will be required for industrial

10    waste  recycling facilities?   A resource recovery permit for

11    treatment  operations.  That's the special permit we talked

12    about  earlier.

13               How  many years will these permits be issued for?

14               At the present time, we have them opei^nded, okay?

15    If somebody has some  comments on that, we would like to hear

16    them.

17               What regulations will be applicable for secondary

18    solid  waste generated?

19               X assume they are  talking about residues resulting

20    from the recovery  operation.  If those wastes are hazardous

21    and the resource recovery facility, if he's a generator, if

22    he disposes of them outside, he'll need a permit for that.

23    ** h*  lends them off^ite, then he has to comply with the

24    generator  requirements.,

25               In existing disposal facilities, if they are


 1     required to obtain permits, will this include existing

 2     aludge lagoons?

 3               I'll let Bill answer that so he'll answer that.

 4     Okay, I'll pass the mike to him, yes.

 5               If a facility includes both disposal and recovery

 6     operations, will this facility be exempt from 3005 as a

 7     resource recovery operation?

 8               Not the disposal part.  The disposal part, if he

      disposes of oolite, would require a permit.  Zf he sends it

10     someplace else, he is a generator of that particular material

11     and would fall under the generator requirements.

12               Permits are required to be obtained within 90 days

      of identification aad listing.  Who is held responsible if

14     the process takes longer than 90 days or is the application

15     due within 90 days?

                First of all, 90 days is wrong, it's 180 days.

17     The person who read this looked at the wrong part of Section

      3010 which is where it shows up.  It's 190 days under Part B

19     instead of Part A.

20               But second of all, is the application that's

21     required within the 180 days, if a treatment storage or

22     disposal facility has made application within the required

23     180 day period has notified us under Section 3010, which

24     we'll talk about later, then they will be treated as having

25     the permit, an interim permit.  We will do nothing.  They


 1    will be treated as having a permit until such tin* as EPA

 2    gets around to acting on that permit which may be some length

 3    of time.

 4               There's no limit on that.  Is that understood?  so

 5    all they have to do ia notify us within the required time

 6    limits and to have submitted the application within 180 days

 7    of the passage of Section 9001, the promulgation of that.

 8               Will EPA permits be required for facilities already

 9    holding waste storage processing disposal permits from other

'0    agencies such as a Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

11               As was indicated earlier, there are certain acts

12    which are mentioned in this Act, in the RCKA, which indicate

13    that activities which are regulated under those acts are not

H    regulated under this Act.

15               so in this particular case, I think — I'm not

16    certain of this but I think the Nuclear Regulatory Act, the

17    Atomic Unclear Regulatory Commission responsible for the

18    Materials which is under Atomic Energy Act of '54, those

19    would not be covered under this.

20               it's only those nuclear wastes which are not

21    covered under the Atomic Energy Act of '54.  on the other

22    hand, there are some other acts which require permits from

23    EPA, one of which I think was mentioned yesterday, is the

24    underground injection and in some fashion, underground

25    injection activities would require by law a permit under

 l    this Act.

 2              MOW what we're trying to do here and what we will

 3    do is to integrate the permitting requirement* under the

 4    Safe Drinking Water Act for underground injection requirement)

 5    Me will not write separate requirements.

 6              Once the regulations are promulgated, the amounts

 7    of waste now labeled hazardous will certainly increase a

 8    need for adequate disposal capacity will be more necessary

 9    than ever.

10              At the same time, sludging such a facility is

11    becoming an impossibility.  Do you have any plans or ability

12    to actively get involved with — other than the TA Committee

13    mentioned yesterday?

14              This gets to the same question we talked about

15    yesterday and that is we all have fears that there is not

16    going to be sufficient capacity available at the outset and

17    that it's going to take some period of time before that

18    capacity could be generated.

19              It is also going to take us some period of time

20    to act on the probable 10 to 20,000 permit applications that

21    we expect to receive at the outset.  How severe then in the

22    long term, the short fall is going to be is hard to say and

23    will depend on two things, I think, or we think.

24              One is capital availability and second is the

25    local public opposition which always crops up at these cases.


 1    It is thought that the latter, the public opposition part of

 2    this, will be the most serious problem and there is, for

 3    example, I think the question is aimed at such things, is EPA

 4    or the federal government  — going to step in and set up

 5    hazardous waste facilities or in some manner is going to be

 6    able to dictate sites and things like that.

 7              There is no authority in RCRA for us to do that at

 8    all.  He cannot impact that directly.  On the other hand, we

 9    do have plans to impact upon the public opposition phase of

10    this by conducting local education programs for decision

11    makers on the local level, things like counties and city

12    officials as well as the panels and so forth that we talked

13    about yesterday.

14              At least by so doing, the public officials will be

15    able to react to proposals to cite based on real knowledge

16    hopefully, as opposed to hysteria kinds of reactions.  At

i?    least that'* our intent but we have no authority to step in

18    in a direct wanner and construct facilities and/or dictate

19    siting requirements.

20              i did mention, I think, yesterday that we talked

21    somewhat about the permit.  The permit will be  viewed by the

22    public as a stamp of public health,  if you will,  from EPA

23    saying that this is a completely adequate  facility  and  so

24    forth, as well  it should,  and in that sense,  I  think  just  the

25    fact of an EPA permit and  EPA issuing that permit.


 1              First of all, the  — permit  is  going  to  draw a lot

 2    of heat doring that period of time but once  it's issued,

 3    hopefully, that will  assuage the public that we have in fact

 4    identified that there are no problem*.

 5              NR. LINDSEY: Can  you elaborate on a  treatment

 6    facility?  My assumption is  a facility that  treats and

 7    disposes of materials will not require a  permit but may be a

 8    generator of material.

 9              & facility  which treats material from someone else')

10    waste will require a  resource recovery permit.  This is a

11    much less involved kind of permit to get  but the standards

12    still apply.  It's just easy to get  the permit.

13              if it stores hazardous waste for greater than 90

14    days, however, it will require a storage  permit.   The storage

15    and treatment are what would not require  a permit.  The

16    disposal would require a permit.

17              On the  other hand, if we're  talking  about the

18    storage of a subsequent waste from the resource recovery

19    facility, any wastes  which  are produced  by the resource

20    recovery  facility are in  fact treated  just like any other

21    generator.  That  facility  is treated just like any other

22    generator for that waste  so it would be incoming wastes

23    which are stored  and  the  treatment process,  not the disposal

24    and not the storage of any  subsequent  waste which  is

25    generated.


1              I hop* that clean  it  up.

2              Can a disposal  firm obtain  a disposal  permit for a

3    plant completely designed but not yet built?

4              The answer *s yes.  For new facilities,  that's the

5    way it will be handled.   Before  the facility  is  constructed,

6    the permit will be granted.   There is still a measure of

1    disagreement as to whether or not there will  be  two  separate

8    permits; one for construction and one for operation  or

9    whether it will be somewhat simpler than  that.   One  for the

10    whole thing that you get  before  you build and then a release

11    is required which assures that the facility has  been

12    constructed according to  the  proper techniques that  were

13    agreed to.

14              MR. SANJOUR:  Let me answer this one first.  If a

15    serious disposal capacity short  fall  occurs at the outset, do

16    you see the possibility of the generators having to  shut

17    down?

18              in one word, no.  Do you want to elaborate on that?

19    There would be interim permits available  to all  disposal

20    operations immediately.

21              I've got five questions in  front of me all dealing

22    w*tb the same subject and that is —  now  I've got six.  And

23    that is the permitting of lagoons which are part of  a waste

24    water treatment process which already has an  NPOES permit.

25             I must admit when I came here,  I thought we


      answered £o) that question and that is that thay would require

 2    a permit since they are essentially a disposal facility even

 3    though the sludge may be essentially dredged out of it.

 4              However, to some extent, the fact that they are

 5    covered by NPDES, I'm not sure what the extent is.  I was

 6    under the impression the NPDES only covered the discharger

 7    to water but I gather from some of these questions that NPDES

 8    may go a bit further than that.

 9              The other point that's raised is that these are an

10    intrinsic part of the manufacturing process.  I must admit I

11    don't think we gave the subject a great deal of thought in

12    light of the amount of interest that comes from this audience

13    on the subject so I think perhaps we ought to go back to the

n    joint board on that one and re-think the whole issue and

15    what I would like you to do, any of you who have lagoons,

16    particularly those of you who asked the question, if you

17    have lagoons and you would like us to come out and look at

18    your lagoon and talk to your engineering people wd make

19    some kind of re-reading of our own of how to evaluate that

20    situation, I would like you to just leave your cards with me

2i    and perhaps we'll come out and visit you and I would like to

22    just leave it at that.  I'll leave the subject open.

23              MODB3NTOR LEHMAN»  All right. Bill, thank you.

24    Let me just add to that though, that storage lagoons that

25    are not connected to an NPDES permit facility, they are


 1     unambiguously covered under RCRA.   I want to make that point

 2     clear.

 3               It is only those lagoons that are perhaps part of

 4     a wast* water treatment system that has an NPDES permit that

 5     ultimately has a discharge that is covered under NPDES.

 6     That's  the area that we're goint to require some further


                We hare a couple of more questions here that I

 9     might cover while I'm at it.  They both get back to this

10     business about resource recovery facilities and I think this

11     concept is giving the audience some difficulties and maybe

12     it is good to just go over it one more time, perhaps go back.

13               We really didn't cover this in our philosophical

14     base for thia but maybe it would put it into perspective if

      I covered that briefly and that is the name of the Act we're

16     operating under is the Resource Conservation and Recovery

      Act and one of the goals besides the protection of public

      health  is to maximize and enhance the recovery of materials

19     and energy from waste.

20               So we feel that the philosophical basis for the

21     law includes some Title C of hazardous waste as well as non-

22     hazardous waste.  So what we are attempting to do here is

23     provide some degree of incentive to urge people to look for

24     other solutions to waste management which involve resource

25     conservation and recovery as opposed to direct treatment for


 1     disposal.

 2               So that's the whole point behind this.  As we

 3     Mentioned, however, we don't want to lose complete control

 4     over wastes that are used for this purpose and so now we

 5     start to get into the area which I think has started to

 6     confuse people.

 1               Let me just amplify that by reading a couple of

 8     questions getting back to the point.  Question:  will a steam

 9     generation plant that is on occasion fueled with waste to

10     recover the heat value of the waste, will that steam geaera-

11     tion plant require a resource recovery permit?

12               Hell,  assuming that the wastes that are being

13     discussed here are hazardous wastes, the answer is yes.  If

14     you are b»rfning waste to get the energy recovery out of it,

15     you are basically -- you are complying with the intent of

16     our regulation,  namely using this material for energy recover;

1?               But at the same time, this facility would have to

18     have some kind of resource recovery permit which would get

19     at the air emissions and other aspects of it but as we

20     mentioned earlier, a resource recovery permit, in our

21     parlance, is easier to get than a regular permit is.

22               In other words, I don't see any distinction between

23     a resource recovery of energy as opposed to resource recovery

24     of material.  I think in both cases, we would want to have a

25     resource recovery permit.

                Another similar question.  The resource recovery
 2     facility becomes « generator when it produces hazardous
 3     waste residue from its recovery operation.  True.  Does this
 4     mean that the original generator of the feedstock, that is
 5     the facility from which the resource recovery facility, not
 6     the material, does this mean that that original generator
 7     is not a generator of hazardous waste in this case?
 8               True.  In other words, it gets back to the first
 9     thing we mentioned this morning.  As an incentive for
10     generators to try and get them to consider resource recovery
11     solutions, a generator which supplies a hazardous waste as
'2     a feedstock to a resource recovery facility is not considered
13     a generator of a hazardous waste in this case.
14               However, he is required to keep records which
15     could be proven later on that the hazardous waste was in
13     fact — a resource recovery facility.  This is almost a
17     direct — to the question earlier about the use of picJceling
18     liquors in your municipal waste treatment systems.
19               Okay, Sam, you have some questions?
20               MR. HOXBKAS:  I have a question dealing with
21     incineration of shipboard incineration either within U.S.
22     water or on the high seas.  As I indicated, this is another
23     area we are trying to coordinate with the ocean disposal
24     people on the regulations that exist and those regulations
25     will apply on the situation inhere the incineration takes

    1     place Aboard ship and there are regulations out

    2     now under the Ocean Disposal Act.

    3               However, RCRA we see impacting the transport of

    4     these Materials, say from an inland facility to the loading

    5     dock for obviously loading on the ship and these are the

    6     kinds of details we are trying to integrate with the ocean

    7     disposal requirements, so that it is handled as expeditiously

    8     as possible by our regional offices.

    9               We have a question that says will all spill sites

   10     require a permit?  The answer to that is if an owner or

   11     operator acknowledges that it is his spill site and if, in

   12     fact, it is determined to be a disposal site, then it will

   is     need a permit.

   u               A follow-up to that is, will spills on plant

   15     property which do not reach navigable waters require a permit

   16     Again, in the context that we're developing, what we call

   17     the emergency permit under the special permit provisions of

   18     the regs — I'm not entirely sure but I believe that under

   19     the FWPCA dealing with spills, owners and operators are

   20     required to report any such occurrences on plant sites.

   2i               Therefore, the provisions are what we have indicate^

_s 22     will cone to play.  By the way. the regs are being envisioned

   23     now is that the responsible official, either local, state or

   24     federal official who responds to this notification will make

   25     an on-the-scene on-the-spot determination of what disposition


.  1    to b* made through the materials spilled  and * permit will

  2    b« issued after the fact.

  3              We're trying to Make that *m  learn burdensome  a*

  4    possible as Fred, I think, went to great  lengths  to explain

  5    yesterday as to how this special permit will be issued.

  6              We have a question  that says  will land  application

  7    of treated effluent require RCRA permit and a follow-up and

  8    would leachate testing be required?

  9              The answer  is yes.  If this treated effluent  is

 10    deemed  to be a hazardous waste under  Section 3001.

 11              Question:   will the RCRA permits require regular

 12    reporting procedures  similar  to those required  under NPDES

 13    permits?  The reporting requirements  will be spelled out

 14    under the Section  3004 standards that will be applied under

 15    the  permit program and the answer is  yes, there will be

 16    reporting requirements.

 n              Question:   if a hazardous  waste generator treats

 18    the  waste only  to  make  it less  reactive and safer to

 19    transport, would a treatment permit be  required?

 20              The answer is yes.   If it is  in fact a hazardous

 21    waste that  is treated for that purpose.

 22              MR. SANJOUR:   Sam, however, if he does that

 23    treatment as part  of the manufacturing process, then it

 24    never would be a waste to begin with.


 1              MR. MOREKAS:  Correct, in the context that you
 2    have described.
 3              Ha have a question, if EPA permits a disposal site,
 4    doesn't a citizen or any group go to court and tie up
 5    implementation use of that facility for one, two, or three
 6    years, etc., until resolved in the courts?
 7              I guess the short answer to that is yes.  According
 8    to the requirements of the Act, anyone can bring suit as  the
 9    questioner says, to tie up the process.
10              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Nalt Kovalick has a question.
11              MR. KOVALICK:  If a waste is stored in excess of
12    90 days due solely to a strike or a work  stoppage, do I need
13    a permit?
14              I think that would fall under the category of an
15    act of God and probably not.
16               (Laughter.)
17              MR. LINDSEY:  i have two more questions.  Why are
18    you considering making an EIS requirements and what are the
19    pros and cons involved?
20              Well, we're considering making  them required on
2i    the basis of NEPA and EPA some several years ago after a  lot
22    of — I think it even included court panels as  I recall,
23    agreed to do voluntary EIS's on major federal actions.
24              There is still, as Sam Morekas  pointed out,  some
25    discussion within our — a  lot of discussion within our own
























office »« to what that Mans relative to RCRA and we haven't

decided it will take getting the General Counsel and so  forth

involved in that decision.

          The'pros of doing it, I think, are twofold.  First

of all, it involves the public in the decision making process

which is related to a look on environmental issues.  Secondly

it helps to address alternative activities following the NEPA


          The cons to Be are clearly time and cost involved.

Mow this is a long one and I think I interpret it correctly

but if not, if the person will write another card, why we'll

address it correctly.

          A resource recovery facility apparently is of^^ite

is to be located in a state and resource* — r«coveror*  for

reuse — several product streams for sale — in other words,

it recovers products for sale, incident thereto May be a

very small amount of hazardous waste and the writer says

probably under 27 pounds per day — let's get rid of that  27

pound concept and we111 talk about it by saying that the

incident thereto is a very small amount of waste and which

would fall under the criteria of being a small generator,

whatever that is.

          Should the operator work now with the EPA or for

an EPA/£tate coordinated effort and how would it be

regulated?  I'm not sure I understand how they work now  with


  1     EPA or state coordinated effort would be regulated or for

  2     that part, bow regulated the facility would be required to

  3     obtain a resource recovery permit as we currently see it to

  4     recover the products.

  5               The very snail amount of waste would fit under the

  6     snail generator requirements that we discussed yesterday

  7     which is a very much less involved set of requirements and

  8     then it says the products recovered — the product recovered

^,9     is stored and will periodically also be reused at an oCJ^ite

 10     facility and is never discharged and never disposed of.

 11               If the product of the resource recovery facility,

 12     that is the primary product is never discharged and never

 !3     disposed of, then it's never a waste.  It would be the waste

 14     resulting therefrom.

 15               That's all I have.

 13               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  I have a couple of clarifying

 17     points here and I think what's happening here is that the

 18     audience is presenting us with a number of permutations on

 19     some thoughts that quite frankly we haven't considered at

 20     this point and that's good, that's the purpose of our

 21     meeting like this is to bring up things that we haven't

 22     thought about and the point here is that at one point

 23     yesterday, you said that a resource recovery facility had to

 24     recover materials in order to qualify as a resource recovery

 25     facility and now you say that a steam plant will qualify as

 l     a resource recovery facility.
 2               Now I ju*t said that.   I think the point is here
 3     that we  are attempting to make a distinction between material
 4     recovery in the sense that you are recovering come usable
 5     value  out of the waste as opposed to some other use for that
 6     waste  and I guess I misspoke then in terms of answering the
 7     previous question about the steam generation plant.
                On further reflection, I think we would consider
 9     at this  time anyway, that a steam generation plant that uses
10     hazardous waste as a fuel would be basically a use of that
11     fuel and the same thing would go, I think, an analogy might
12     be using a hazardous waste of oily nature as road oiling,
13     for example, where if a beneficial use of that material —
      but you're really not recovering into that material in the
15     sense  of having it available for further use and we would
16     certainly want to be able to control, for example, the use
17     of hazardous oils as road oils and in the same way that we
is     would  want to control the use of waste as a fuel for the
      same reasons.
20               So let me backtrack then.  This is a very good
21     point  that is being made by this question.  Let me backtrack
22     and say that let's try and redo this once again and say okay,
23     yes, material recovery directly of the waste such as an oil
24     re-refining or a solvent recovering operation would be a
25     resource recovery facility but a different kind of facility


 l    like an incinerator or rather like a steamboiler, a steam

 2    generating plant for road oiling or something like that

 3    would not qualify as a resource recovery facility and would

 4    rather be considered as one requiring a standard treatment

 5    or disposal permit.

 6              Now obviously you can tell from the fact that

 7    we're bouncing around here, that some of these issues

 8    require some further thought.  A similar question is this.

 g              Yesterday, in answer to a question, it was stated

10    that a used drum containing residue of hazardous material on

n    its way to a drum reconditioner would be subject to manifest-

12    ing by the generator.

13              Today, however, it was stated that a generator

14    sending material to a resource'recovery facility need not

15    manifest the waste, merely keep records.  Is this not

16    inconsistent?

17              I think it's a fair question but I think it really

18    gets down to a nicety, if you will, as to whether you're

19    talking about — in other words, when you take a drum that

20    has a hazardous residue in it and send it to a drum recondi-

21    tioner, are you really recovering the hazardous residue or

22    are you recovering the steel and it depends on how you

23    envision the drum reconditioning operation because in most

24    cases, it's a burnout operation which could be considered to

25    be a treatment or disposal of the hazardous residue, if you

 1    will, while at the sane time recovering the steel.

 2              And yet we also said yesterday that the whole thing,

 3   :*•» steel dram and the residue is a hazardous waste.  So

 4    this is a very thoughtful question.  I think the best thing

 5    to say at this point is that we'll give it further thought

 6    and try to clarify this point and hopefully when we go

 7    forward with a proposed rule making, it will not be inconsis-

 8    tent.

 g              Let's switch gears here for a second and take a

10    more philosophical question.  It's really two questions.  It

il    says, isn't the kepone situation just one example of the lack

12    of proper disposal facilities for hazardous waste?

13              I think the answer to that is not really.  I think

14    in the kepone situation and in others, we are getting into

15    what might be called politically hazardous waste in the sense

16    that In our estimation, there are facilities in this country

17    which could safely handle the kepone waste.

18              It gets to be a question of local or regional or

19    state government reflecting the will of the people in that

20    area as to whether they want that type of waste to be

21    disposed of in their jurisdiction.

22              I don't think at this point there is a lack of

2g    suitable facilities for kepone disposal.

24              The next question is, isn't it unrealistic to

25    assume that the standards of RCRA will be met without state


  1   or federally owned and operated hazardous waste material

  2   disposal sites?

  3             That is also a very thoughtful question.  He have

  4   been addressing that ourselves very exhaustively in the last

  5   year or so.  Perhaps the best way to answer that is to give

  6   you some historical background on this point.

  7             In 1973, we wrote a report to Congress on hazardous

  8   waste disposal that some of you may have read that basically,

  9   the position that the existing commercial or private hazardous

 10   waste Management industry could respond to the needs for

 11    facilities to handle hazardous waste if there were a regulator

 12    program to insure that these wastes ended up at adequate

 13    facilities.

 14              The problem as we saw it at that time was that

 15    there was not sufficient incentive for people to send their

 i<>    hazardous waste to a reputable firm and where other cheaper

 17    disposal options were available.

 is              Consequently, the private operators were in effect

 19    competing economically with open dumping or midnight dumping

 20    as down the sewers in Louisville or whatever and once that

 21    situation was corrected in the sense that these cheaper

 22    operations were closed that the existing industry would be

 23 I   able to respond and get the appropriate capital and expand

24    and be able to handle the problem.

 25              Since that time, we are now coming up against a


l    different kind of problem, namely  citizen reaction and in

2    many cases, opposition to the  siting of new hazardous waste

3    facilities or even  against existing hazardous  waste facilitiei

4    which  adds another  dimension to the whole situation and we

5    now can see that it is possible that some — you know, other

6    than the government providing  an incentive via regulation,

7    it  may be necessary to go further  than that.

8              There are various options that are available to

g    the government in terms of incentives for stimulation of

10    facility development which include such things as injurious

11    aspects, loan guarantees — I  mean just running through the

12    spectrum here, making federal  or state land available for

13    profit operation and on down through a whole number of

14    options down to the final one  which is direct  federal or

15    »tat«  ownership and operation  of hazardous waste facilities

16    which  is comparable to the  radio active waste  disposal

17    facilities  for high level nuclear  waste.

18              These are all owned by the federal government and

19    operated by  them but there  is  a philsophical difference here

20    that  I would like  to comment  on and which was brought out in

21    the report  to Congress in 1973.

22               That  the reason that there are federally owned and

23    operated nuclear waste disposal sites is that the federal

24    government  itself  was the major generator of nuclear waste

25     and it was  basically handling its own waste and then after


 1    that with the advent of commercial nuclear facilities  cane

 2    on scene and there were already in existence these federal

 3    facilities so it didn't make much sense to have two sets of

 4    facilities and so it was decided that commercial nuclear

 5    facilities could use the federally owned and operated

 6    disposal sites.

 7              Whereas in this case, the majority of hazardous

 8    wastes are not generated by the federal government and as

 9    so, you run into a public policy or a philosophical type of

10    situation here where there is some real concern on our part

11    of the federal government or state government basically

12    talcing over this implementation of this program.

13              There are also equity problems in how does one deal

14    with those facilities, private facilities that are already

15    in business?  Since you've mandated that everything goes to

10    a government owned facility, you would put everybody that's

17    In business oat of business and there is an equity problem

18    there.

19              So this is a rather long answer to this question

20    but it was a very thoughtful question and I thought  I  would

21    take the time to make a  few comments here.

22              I think you might also be interested to know,  if

23    y°u don't already, that  Congressman Findley of Illinois  has

24    introduced in the Congress an amendment  to HCIIA  as of

25    August  1st of this year, which if  that  amendment were  made

 1    law, would require that  all  hazardous  waste disposal be

 2    conducted on government  owned  property.

 3              So Congress  is aware of  these  problems,  too,  and

 4    we Might get a  legislative mandate to  do this so 1 think you

 5    might want to watch the  development of that amendment closely

 6    and see how that whole issue is resolved.

 7              X think for  the moment we are  assuming that the

 8    federal government, not  speaking for the state governments

p9    now but the federal government.will Wt  get into the business

 10    of handling and operating these waste  disposal sites for one,

 11    well, aside from the philosophic point that I just mentioned,

 12    a very practical matter  is that the law  RCRA does not mandate

 13    does not allow  us to do  it.  There are no funds or there is

 14    no authority and there is no funding authority in RCRA for

 15    the federal government to take on  such a program.
 16              I think there  is a lot of confusion on that point

 17    because as I mentioned,  the  previous law we operated under,

 18    Resource Conservation  Act of 1970  and  within it, this

 19    requirements for us to study the feasibility of a system of

 20    federally owned and operated national  disposal sites and that

 21    was the genesis of this  report to  Congress that we just

 22    mentioned.

 23              Many  people  got the  impression that just because

 24    we were studying the feasibility of such a system, that in

 25    fact we were intending to follow through and do it and that


 1     is not the case.

 2               As I mentioned, even in the more recent amendments,

 3     1976 amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, there is no

 4     authority for the federal government to do that.  I just

 5     want to make that point clear.

 6               Okay, that's enough on the philosophical point.

 7               He have some more questions here.

 8               MR. LINDSEY:  Here is one with several parts.  An

 9     incinerator has recently been constructed to burn organic

10     waste and is now in the start out phase.  Plans are underway

11     to add an acid recovery unit — presumably a separate

12     operation — and a heat recovery unit to make steam.

13               What permits would be required?

14               First of all, such a facility is in existence as

15     we presently see it.   This is currently a recently consjtructec

Hi     facility.  They wouldn't need to have an interim permit for

17     the time being until and provided they have notified us under

18     3010 and made application.

19               They will,  in fact, require a full permit if they

20     made the application and notified us, they will be considered

21     as having an interim permit until we have identified or have

22     proceeded to evaluate their permit.

23               Now relative to the active recovery unit which

24     presumably is going to be built later, that would be a

25     separate operation and would require an amended permit.  It


 1    would have to amend the facility permit.

 2               The permit will be granted on a facility permit

 3    and  additions to  them would require amendments.   However,

 4    this would be a resource recovery operation presumably.   Yes,

 ^    it said  so — it  says so as a recoveror and thus the

 6    amendment would be a very simple thing to obtain.

 7               Now heat recovery unit to make steam would not

 8    affect — as  I think of it, would not require a permit

 9    modification  since it doesn't affect the adequacy of disposal

10    in the incinerator.

11               So  it would be something that was there that

12    didn't affect the hazardous waste treatment at all.

13               Can you clarify the difference between transfer

14    and  storage facilities for hazardous waste management?

15               I don't know whether you are thinking oi^^ite or

                 In my  way of thinking, they are both the same.

17    If you're going to store the waste for 90 days before you

18    transfer them to  a truck to haul them away, you're going to

19    need a storage permit.

20               If, on  the other hand, you are in the process of

21    bringing in a lot of waste to a tank and mixing them altogether

22    or  in some other  way treating them or modifying them, then

23    you're going to need a permit for that operation.

24               The storage permit 90 day requirement thing is for

25    us  to develop a way so that we don't have to permit every


 l     storage tank that's used as a means of collecting enough

 2     material at a generator site to transport it.

 3               Typically, problems don't occur in that area and

 4     the sense of serious environmental problems, they are not

 5     terribly common in that area and we don't want to prevent

 6     having to do that for hundreds of thousands of permits in

 7     that area.  It is clearly unmanageable.

 8               Does a disposal facility — does a disposal

 g     facility need a second permit for storage and if so, under

10     what conditions?

11               It's one permit.  The perwit will be granted for

12     all the activities conducted at that facility so it will be

13     a combined permit.  The storage activities and disposal

14     activities and treatment Activities on a given site, there

15     will be one permit issued for the whole operation.

16               MR. KOVALICK:  1 have two questions.  It seems to

17     relate to yesterday's discussion.  What magnitude of spill

18     would have to be reported, for example, five gallons of PCB's

19     or 5,000 gallons of sulfuric acid?

20               Yesterday we tried to outline the fact that we

21     are meshing as closely as we can both with DOT and with the

22     other parts of EPA and I was just discussing the fact that

23     the new EPA spill regulations for hazardous materials as

24     opposed to oil are very, very close to being re-proposed, as

25     I understand it, in the next 30 to 60 days so we will be


 1     trying to align ourselves with the upcoming spill regulation*

 2     from EPA on the subject of hazardous materials.

 3               Now as far as a vehicle having an accident, we are

 4     also trying to integrate our requirements with the current

 5     incident reports from DOT and our transport expert is teefc *t

 6     the office this morning but we were just discussing that we

 7     think most, if not all transport incidents of which we are

 8     interested in would require that DOT incident report that is

 9     filed within 15 days.

10               So we are trying to integrate as much as we can

11     and not invent new requirements so the answer is then we are

12     not going to be devising a new reporting scheme that relates

13     to sizes and quantities of waste.  We're going to try and

14     work with the ones that are in the offing.

15               The other question is the definition of solid waste

16     in RCRA — and includes the phrase, "and other discarded

17     materials."  How do you justify the decision to class a

18     hasardous material by-products for fuel or other uses as a

19     hazardous waste when materials are not discarded?

20               Many wastes of the past arc starting products of

21     processors today.  Do they come under RCRA and require permit

22     You may be permitting many more facilities than the intent

23     of Congress.

24               Well, this question gets at Jack's discussion

25     about ten minutes ago of our9'efforts to try and encourage


 1     recovery and to identify materials that are definitely going

 2     to go to recovery.

 3               However,  it is those materials that were mentioned

 4     there that are becoming products today that had been stored

 5     for many, many years and are leaching into the groundwater

 6     and surface water that we're trying to get a handle on.    :

 7               Just because they're going to be recovered, it

 8     doesn't mean they are not having an environment effeot.  So

 9     all I can say is we're trying to devise a definition of waste

10     and that will certainly be something you will want to focus

11     on and propose a regulation that accommodates the fact that

12     when the material we are discussing is used 100 percent, and

13     by example yesterday was slag in some industries, 100 percent

14     usage and none of it is ever discarded, that that would be a

15     different category  on materials and materials that are in

16     sane parts of the country recovered and in other parts of the

17     country they are disposed of and that is the dilemma we have,

18     trying to do something equitably nationwide.

19               So in fact the hazardous materials we want to

20     regulate are the ones that are discarded but there's got to

21     be a way to draw the line so that everyone knows which ones

22     are being discarded and which ones are being recovered.

23               MR. MOKEKAS:  We have another one.  I guess it's a

24     two-part one.  One  for me and one for you, Walt.  The question

25     is — what has happened — of a number of permits in the


 1     United States and types — number of manifests expected?

 2     Question:  millions per year?

 3               Now, let's have the first part.  Again, as best as

 4     we can estimate it at this point, without really having

 5     developed fully all the criteria for hazardous waste and

 6     which wastes will be falling in the category as to the

 7     number of — treatment storage or disposal permits, our

 8     numbers admittedly vary anywhere from 10,000 to as many as

 9     400,000 depending on how many facilities will fall in that

10     category.

11               We have a kind of a working number provided

12     certain things do occur in the identification process that

l3     we estimate roughly about 20,000 that will be the number of

14     permits that would be required but again to qualify the

15     answer, not really having resolved this to exactly which

13     wastes will be hazardous.

17               MR. KOVALICK:  On the question of the total number

18     of manifests, we don't know, and the reason we don't know  is

19     because of several statistics you heard yesterday.  One is,

20     it is our impression from a couple of studies that between

21     70 and 80 percent of waste, hazardous waste, are currently

22     disposed of on the generator site.

23               So  if you remember our discussion yesterday, no

24     manifest is required for waste disposed  of on site.   Mow

25     obviously, we'll get a  lot better  insight into  that  statist!


  l    after  the  system starts  out.

  2               so that Mans  that  only 20 to 30 percent of the

  3    waste, presumably 20  to  30 percent of this, say 30 million

  4    tons that  could be  hazardous  and that doesn't Man it's all

  5    hazardous  because if  you remember yesterday's discussion

  6    about  lists, that is, mandatory lists versus example lists.

  7               So it's very difficult to say how many manifests

  8    would  be issued when  we  don't have a final word on the size

  g    of the net,  that is,  will there a mandatory list or a broader

  10    use of the criteria?

  11               One statistic  that  I am familiar with which may

  12    give you a little glimpse of  the future is it is our under-

  13    standing that in the  metropolitan Chicago area, there are

  14    about  75 million gallons of liquid waste moved every year

  15    and if you were to  assume that all of it moved briskly in

  1G    5,000  gallon vacuum trucks that were full, you would have

  17    15,000 movements per  year in the metropolitan Chicago area.

  18               If you divide  that, if you remember, we're not

  ig    getting  every manifest,  if EPA ran the program in Illinois

  20    which, of  course, is  not assured but if the Illinois state

  2i    ran it,  those 15,000  would be reported quarterly on reporting

  22    forms  by generators and  disposers.

  23               So if they  were spread out equally over the year,
                             3  £5T>
p 24    we would have what, -3O—TW manifests in the metropolitan area

  25    that would be condensed  into quarterly reports by generators


   1    and disposers.

   2              So I don't know how many generators  and  disposers

-7 3    are accounted for but if there were  as many  as -3vM  individual

   4    generators, then there would be that many possible reports

   ^    flowing from that very large metropolitan area but that makes

   6    a lot of assumptions about not only  one  report per waste.

   7    Many generators generate numbers of  waste which would  all be

   8    summarized under one reporting form.

   9              So I think the key to this is  to remember  that in

   10    the states with federal government operating the system,

   11    they're not sending in the manifest  individually to  the

   12    regional office and in many states,  we anticipate  that they

   13    will adopt this quarterly or periodic reporting requirement

   14    rather than just individual manifest.

   15              MR. LINDSBYj  Here's a new one.  What about  landfil

   16    or industrial properties that do or  could contain  various

   17    waste residues, drums, sludge or unknown materials?  In

   18    other words, already existing.  Many of  these  may  be unknown

   19    to present owners and any actions or regulations required.

   20              The permanent activities will  be  for future

   21    operations and not past operations.  Under  the Section 7003

   22    requirement of Imminent hazard, if existing facilities

   23    existing and are closed down — clearly, if  7003 is  involved,

   24    if there's an imminent hazard,  such  facility can be  acted

   25    against at that time and  if it's  not an  imminent hazard as


 1    Halt was just telling me, as he said yesterday, we're waiting

 2    for our counsel to give us a reading on what responsibilities

 3    etc., exist in a closing down of a kind a facility would have

 4    otter than imminent hazard, if any.

 5              MR. SANJOURt  Question:  would a waste oil

 6    generator who stores this material for sale have to know

 7    whether the collector is recovering oil, burning the oil or

 8    what?  Would the end use require different record keeping

 9    for the generator?

10              in a word, the answer is yes.  This gets to the

11    very heart of a lot of the things we've been talking about.

12    i think I mentioned yesterday that under this law, the

13    generator is required to know where his waste is going.

14              The day of just turning it over to a collector

15    who both transports it and disposes of it is essentially

16    outlawed by this law.  It ia up to the generator to make sure

17    that his waste is going to a permanent facility.

18              He has to make the arrangements.  He is responsible

19    to see that it gets there and the transporter is nothing more

20    than a coamon carrier to get it there.  How, if you were

21    generating waste oil, you would have to learn whether or not

22    the permanent facility has a resource recovery permit or a

23    disposal permit.

24              If it has a disposal permit, then you will have to

25    file a manifest for the waste oil.  If it has a resource


 l     recovery facility, then you're not required to have a

 2     manifest.

 3               If you think this is unfair, that is what it's

 4     meant to be.  That's the whole purpose, to encourage people

 5     to send their waste oil for resource recovery and in order

 6     to encourage them, we're relieving them of the responsibility

 7     of filling out the manifest.

 8               The next question is, if waste — recovery

 9     facilities for — regeneration facilities have been

10     incorporated at a protection facility as a result of NPDES

11     requirements, that is the most economically desirable

12     alternative has been used, will these existing facilities

13     require permits as resource recovery facilities?

14               Again, here we have a case where we have designed

15     the regulations in such a way to encourage,deliberately

16     encourage a manufacturer to treat their waste, not as a waste

17     but as part of the manufacturing process so that it never

18     really becomes a waste so it doesn't get into the environment

19     to begin with and that is what we would like to do and as a

20     result of that, that's why we said before that if the stuff

2i     goes to a treatment facility through a pipe or in some way

22     that it can't get to the environment, then we never consider

23     it a waste and we never consider the facility as being a

24     treatment facility.

25               So I don't know the details of how this is laid


 1    out  in the plan but if  these recovery facilities can be

 2    considered as  an intrinsic part of the manufacturing facility,

 3    then they will not cone under this Act.  That's the kind of

 4    process that we are encouraging.

 5               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Why don't we just Bake an

     amplification  on that?   I think part of the philosophy here

     is that a facility which is directly connected to the

     manufacturing  process by a pipe,  as Bill mentioned, must be

 9    designed to handle waste or the by-product of the manufac-

10    turer on a real time basis.

                In other words, it has to be able to keep up with

12    the  manufacturing process.  That's another aspect of this

13    thing.  So that's part  of it.  There may be a surge tank or

14    something like that but the point is, there wouldn't be large

     amounts of waste being  put into a holding lagoon or something

     like that for  long periods of time.

                1 have a question here that addresses the interplay

     between RCRA and the Safe Drinking Water Act which is being

19    administered by EPA's Office of Water Supply.  It says Tom

20    Beck — I believe it's  really Tom Belk, head of EPA's

21    Groundwater Protection  Branch, that's in the Office of Water

22    Supply, on September 9th said, "that EPA has been under

23    pressure to regulate waste water impoundments, namely pits,

24    ponds and lagoons.

25               He said, "The current agency plans will be based


 1    on results of the  state's  assessment  of impoundments  which

 2    will be available  by June  1979.  The  EPA,  then  plans  to

 3    prepare a report by January of 1980,  a report to Congress

 4    and decide — decide on  a  control  strategy in light of that

 5    information."

 6              Is this  the  same topic of waste  water impoundments

 7    on our discussion  today?  Okay, this  nay take a little

 8    explanation because the  interplay  between  the two laws is

 9    rather complex.

10              If the waste we're  talking  about is not a hazardous

11    waste, and the pits, ponds and lagoons do  not involve a

12    hazardous waste, then  Subtitle C of RCRA does not apply.

l3    However, Subtitle  D of RCRA may apply.

14              So the assessment of pits,  ponds and  lagoons that

15    has been undertaken by the Office  of  Water Supply is  being

13    integrated into or with  Subtitle D of flCRA which calls for

17    an inventory of open dumps.

18              in those cases where a pit, pond or lagoon  would

19    meet the criteria  of an  open  dump, then it would possibly

20    then fall under the purview of Subtitle D  of the Act  and I

21    believe the  statement  that a  control  strategy would be

22    developed based on this  information is an  accurate statement

23    for non-hazardous  waste  that  are a part of pits, ponds and

24    lagoons.

25              If, however, we're  talking  about hazardous  waste,

 '     in «**• pits,  ponds and lagoons a* I said once before, it is

 2     really unambiguous that the Resource Conversation and Recover}

 3     Act  under Subtitle C has a direct regulatory authority over a


 5               Mow  stay with me because we're going onto the next

 6     phase.   If these pits,  ponds and lagoons are part of a waste

      water  treatment system  that has an NPDES permit,  that's the

      point  we were  discussing earlier this morning which requires

 9     further thought and discussion on our part as to  whether or

10     not  those types of lagoons would be covered under RCRA or

11     whether they would be covered under the NPDES

12               i hope that has clarified that for you.  We are in

13     constant touch with the Office of Hater Supply and evolving

14     this whole situation of how we're going to handle these

15     various things under the various laws that EPA administers

      and  I  would like for just all of you to know that that

17     integration is taking place and we are attempting to avoid

      any  type of conflict or duplication here

19               One  other point here.  Another comment, really.

20     It's really a  question, also.  In that several issues have

21     been raised at this meeting that EPA had not considered when

22     you  plan on more public meetings to discuss your planned

23     resolution of  these issues before publication of the proposed

24     regulation?

25               I think we're going to have to say that the answer


 1     to that is no for a couple of reasons.  He are under rather

 2     severe time constraints on this law as I think you are well

 3     aware.

 4               The Mandatory deadline for publishing these

 5     regulations is in final form is April of 1978.  He are

 6     attempting to come as close to that date as possible.  He

      feel there is another aspect to this also and we'll get into

      this a little bit oa our next presentation about the state

 9     antkorixatios* for the hasardou* w*«te program and the

10     interim authorization period which occurs there.

11               There is a two-year period during which states can

12     get interim authorization which begins in October of 1978

13     and ends in October of 1980 and that window is fixed in time.

14     It is not keyed to when EPA publishes its regulations as are

15     some other aspects so that is a fixed time window that we

it>     are trying to hit and so we want to make sure that our

      regulations are out and on the street in sufficient tine for

      this interim authorization period to take place.

19               So I don't anticipate then another round of public

20     meetings such as this to discuss these other points.  That

21     does not mean that you can't talk to us and that we won't

22     listen and that you can't find out how we're coming down on

23     those issues and furthermore, the proposed regulations are
24     just that and the purpose of going into the Federal Register
25    with the proposed regulations is to  comment  on a more


 l     formalized basis.

 2               So there is still another opportunity to comment

 3     plus I mentioned,  we vill be having public hearings on those

 4     proposed regulations throughout the country.  So there will

 5     be ample opportunity for you to comment on these proposed

 6     regulations but I  don't think we really have tine and you

 7     can appreciate, I  think, that it takes basically two weeks

 8     out of our schedule to do a series of Meetings such as we

 9     are doing here and in St. Louis and Phoenix and we just don't

10     have that two weeks.

11               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  We have gone past our scheduled

12     break tine.  Before we break, though, perhaps just to wrap

13     this up, are there any questions from the floor on Section

14     3005?

15               (No response.)

16               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Okay, evidently not.  He'll

17     take a 15 minute recess and please be back at 10:35 and we'll

18     go on to Section 3006.

19               (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

20               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Ladies and gentlemen, while we

21     are taking seats,  I have a telephone message here for a Mr.

22     William Gilley of Richmond, Virginia.  William Gilley,

23     Richmond, Virginia, we have a telephone message for you.

24               At this time, we would like to move on and discuss

25     Section 3006, a very important part of RCRA Subtitle C which


involves the authorization of state hazardous waste Management
          To conduct this part of the program will be Matt
Straus, an environmental engineer at our assistance program,
also the desk o_fficer for this section of the law.  X might
point out that this section 3006 is a guideline and not a
          All the other parts of Subtitle C are regulations.
This one is a guideline which means that it is not a mandatory
          Matt, would you go on, please?
          MR. STRAUS:  Thank you, Jack.  Good morning, ladies
and gentlemen.  For the next 20 minutes or so, I would like
to describe our current thinking in developing guidelines
under Section 3006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
          Mow, Section 3006 requires EPA to promulgate
guidelines to assist states in the development of state
hazardous waste programs.  These guidelines are to be
promulgated not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of RCBA which would make it about April 21st of
1978 and after the Administrator has consulted with the
various state authorities.
          As has been indicated many times during this public
meetiag, the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act requires














-^  22

-?  23

that a hazardous waste program be conducted and operated in
each and every state jurisdiction.
          It is our judgment that Congress intended that the
states would develop and operate these hazardous waste
programs.  However, in the event the states choose not to
operate the program or the states should not become authorized
by EPA, EPA is required by law to conduct the hazardous waste
          After the past day or so, we have been discussing
and describing the hazardous waste program that will be
conducted and operated in the event the states do not choose
to assume the program.
          For the next hour or hour and a half, we will be
describing and discussing the state hazardous waste program.
How, in the Act, a state can apply for one of two types of
          The first type, full authorization, a term we have
arbitrarily cho*en to describe the authority a state can
receive under Subparagraph (b) will be granted to the state
in lieu of the federal program.
          That is, the state will conduct a hazardous waste
program in its entirety^). £f the state is found to be
equivalent to the federal progranuconsistent with the federal
program or other applicable state programs.and the state
program provides adequate enforcement.


























          Now, unfortunately, Congress did not tell us what

an equivalent, consistent,. and adequately enforced program

        was so one of our tasks was to set out and define these three


                  Now the term equivalent has been defined in terms

        of seven separate elements and these elements are as follows.

        The state must have legislative authority to control hazard-

        ous waste, including the authority for both oi^ite and of|£)

        site disposal.

                  The state must have published criteria standards

        related to hazardous waste management and in all casesr the

        criteria and standards promulgated by the states have to be

        as stringent as those that will be promulgated by EPA as

        stipulated in Section 3009 of the Act.

                  Now, this does not mean that state standards or

        criteria cannot be different.  It juat means that the  	

        criterion/standards have to be as stringent.  A state must

        also have a permit-like mechanism which provides an adminis-

        trative -legal- and resource framework to issue, revoke, and

        deny permits.

                  The states must also have a manifest system  which

        will track waste from the point of generation to the point

        of final disposal.  The state must also have adequate

        resources in which to conduct and operate the state program.

                  Now, the sixth element in defining equivalency


  1     applies  only to those states which have more than one state

  2     agency involved in the administrative and enforcement of a

  3     hazardous  waste program and for these particular states and

f 4     the application to be submitted to the regional office, the

  5     state  must explicity delineate the responsibility for each

  6     state  agency as it relates to hazardous waste.

  7               In addition, the state would have to designate a

  8     lead agency among the various state agencies to facilitate

  9     communications between EPA and the various state agencies.

 10               The seventh and final element in defining an

 11     equivalent state program is that the state must include a

 12     public participation plan with their application and this

 13     public participation plan would have to comply with the

 14     public participation guidelines that will be promulgated

>15     under  Section 9394-B of the Act.

 16               Now the second criterion in evaluating a fully

 l?     authorized hazardous waste program is whether the state

 18     program  is consistent with the federal program or other

 19     applicable state programs.

 20               NOW at all of our meetings and in all of our

 21     discussions, there has been only one issue that has come up

 22     dealing  with consistency and this pertains to the pre-

 23     mcvement of hazardous waste and this particular issue has

 24     been most controversial and -meetly hotly contested issue in

 25     the development of these guidelines.

^ 18
          Now this particular issue can be divided into two
sub-issues.  The first sub-issue deals with legi«l*tive
importation baas — and in the guidelines, we have taken the
position that a state which has a legislative importation
ban will be inconsistent with the federal program and
therefore will not be eligible to assume a fully authorised
hazardous waste program.
          The second sub-issue deals with the similarity or
dissimilarity of the criterion standards that will be
promulgated by the states.  How as I indicated earlier,
Section 3009 of the Act precludes a state from imposing any
requirements which are less stringent.
          However, the Act is silent in the area of more
                                       *e          /
stringent.  However, we feel that the s%ate> criterion/
standards have to be consistent with the federal criterion
          So therefore, when a state applies for a fully
authorized hazardous waste program, the regional administrate
                                        s.       s^
will evaluate the state's criteria for their equivalency —
excuse me, for their consistency that he will use to test.
          The first test is to determine whether the states
criterion/standards are justified on grounds of public health
and the environment and the second test is to determine
whether there is any discrimination by geogrffmia OrifJU.
That is, is there a different standard for in-state waste as

























there are for out-of-state waste?
          How, the third criterion in evaluating a fully

authorized hazardous waste program is whether the state

program provides adequate enforcement.  Now, our initial
intent in writing the guidelines was to put quantifiable

standards into the guidelines such as the state must make so

many inspections per number of facilities, they must make so

many or take so many samples per visit.

          However, the meetings that were held, it was

quickly pointed out that putting hard and fast numbers into

the guidelines would make it very difficult for a state to

actually meet these numbers because each state has their own

individual characteristics, their own peculiarities, their

own bureaucracices that might make a state eligible with a

program that might provide less inspections or less samples

than what might be indicated in the guidelines.

          So therefore, we have taken the approach of writing

the guidelines so as to allow the jregional administrator

maximum flexibility to take into account these individual

characteristics, these bureaucracies and any efficiencies or

inefficiencies that a state might have to make his final


          However, to assist the regional administrator, KPA

will be putting out a guides paper that will be addressing

this whole area of applicable enforcement which will be used


» '     and can b« used by either the Regional administrator and/or

 2     the atates to help them in designing their enforcement

 3     program.

 4               Now that basically describes a fully authorized

 5     hazardous waste program.

 6               The next type of authorization which is described

 7     in the guidelines is call«6 perti*! authorization and t»

 8     I indicated earlier, there are two types of authorization

 9     which are specifically described in the Act.  Partial

10     authorization is not one of them.

11               It kind of cane up as a result of our public

12     meetings and in the state meetings that were held, several

l3     of the states had indicated to us that there might be certain

14     circumstances where a state could not take over the full

15     program because they lacked certain legislative authorities

16     or do not have the adequate resources to conduct the entire

17     program.

18               so therefore, they urged us to make some provisions

19     in the guidelines for a state to assume part of the program

20     for a partial authorization.  So therefore we have.

21               Now, under a partial authorization, you would have

22     two regulatory agencies controlling one hazardous waste

23     program.  You would be having two cooks in the kitchen.   The

24     state program would be conducting part of the program and

25     EPA would be conducting the rest of the program.


 1              Now the decision of whether to grant partial

' 2    authorisation will rest entirely with the regional office.

 3    Furthermore, the decision of whether to grant partial

 4    authorization will be limited.

 5              A state will only be able to apply for  partial

 6    authorization where they lack certain specific legislative

 7    authorities and in all cases, the combination of  the federal

 8    hazardous waste program and a state hazardous waste program

 9    would have to meet the substantive and procedural requirement!

 10    of a fully authorized hazardous waste program which I  just

 11    finished describing.

 12              Now the second type of authorization that is

 13    specifically described and discussed in the Act is called

 14    interim authorization and this is discussed tinder Subparagrapl

 15     (4) of Section 3006 and a state will be granted interim

 16    authorization if they are found to have a hazardous waste

 17    program in existence by July 20th of 1978 and if  the program

 18    is found to be substantially equivalent to the federal

 19    program.

 20              In addition, the state will conduct a hazardous

 21    waste program in lieu of the federal program for  a maximum of

 22    24 months.  Now as Jack had alluded to earlier, 'interim

 23    authorization is a temporary type of authorization.

 24              A state can only apply for interim authorization

 2S    in a specified time period, that being July 20th, 1978 to


 1    October 20tm* 1978 and a state can only operate the hazardous

 2    waste program uader interim authority for a maximum of two

 3    years and this definite psAeodar period being October 21st,

 4    1978 to October 20th, 1980.  After this period, they will no

 5    longer be an interim authorization.

 6              Now it appears to us that Congress intended this

 7    interim period to be kind of a grace period for the states

 8    to assume the hazardous waste program while at the same time

 9    build their program up to a fully authorized hazardous waste

10    program without EPA being in there with a parallel program.

11              So therefore, we see the major difference between

12    the equivalence which is defined under full authorization

13    and the substantial equivalent which is defined under interim

14    is that the latter program would lack certain legislative

15    and regulatory authorities.

16              Now we think that this temporary relaxation is

17    consistent with Congress' intent to maximize the number of

18    states who could get into the program under interim authority

19    build their program up and ultimately assume the program

20    under full authority.

2i              EPA supports this viewpoint and therefore have

22    structured the guidelines as follows.  For a state to be

23    considered substantially equivalent, the state must have e*e,

24    the legislative authority to control at a minimum either ot^

25    site or ofigiite disposal.























          Tke state wist have son* resources in which to

conduct the program.  The state must have * per*it@l.ike

mechanism to control at a minimum either oolite or of^^ite

disposal and the state must have some surveillance and

enforcement program.

          Now the adequacy of the surveillance and enforce-

ment program and the resources that will be proposed by the

state in their application will be — the adequacy of that

will be judged based on the regional administrator's
                            I—       ^i

experience and his own judgment.

          Now in addition, when a state, seeks interim

authorization with his application, he will submit what we

are calling an authorization plan and an authorisation plan

will lay out any additions or modifications which have to be

made to the state program under interim authority to get the

program in line with a fully authorized hazardous waste

program, and will also give the schedule in which the state

proposes to make these additions or modifications.

          NOW that basically describes the various types of

authorization that a state can apply for.  In addition, in

the guidelines there will be three other sections.  One that

will describe the substantive and procedural requirements

for states applying for authorization, one that will describe

the substantive and procedural requirement for the withdrawal

of authorization and one section which will describe KPA's

1    oversight of the state program.

2              Now due to tiJM constraint*,  I will not b«  going

3    into any detail on these three sections.   In addition to the

4    guideline, when EPA or miy agency puts  out any regulation,

5    there is usually a preamble that precedes  the actual

6    regulation or guideline and the preamble is supplementary

7    type information to assist the reader in making  him under-

8    stand why the regulatory agency did what they did.

9              In our preamble, there is a specific section

10    called Recommended Elements and in the  meetings  that  were

11    held, there were other activities or responsibilities which

12    many people felt should be included in  the hazardous  waste

13    program than should be required.

14              Howeveri in evaluating these  various activities,

15    we  felt that the state program could adequately  obtain the

16    same degree of control without these elements control over

17    hazardous waste and therefore are not requiring  them  but will

18    recommend that the state adopt them.  These three  elements

19    are a technical assistance program, a hazardous  waste inven-

20    tory and confidentiality provisions.

21              The last thing I would like to speak about  are the


unresolved issues and basically, there is one unresolved

issue as we see it.  This deals with the importation ban.

As I had stipulated earlier, a state which has a legislative
 25    importation ban will be considered inconsistent with the


       federal  program and therefore will not be eligible to ass

  2     the  full fully authorized hazardous waste program.

  3              We  are taking this position for several reasons.

  4     First of all,  we've always espoused a philosophy that

  5     hazardous waste should be managed at the best possible

  6     facilities  from an environmental, economical and techn*§otica]

  7     reason regardless of a state or its boundaries.   Therefore

  8     we have  always discouraged importation bans.

  9              Secondly, the hazardous waste management industry

 10     usually  requires large generating districts.  That is, they

 11     usually  require to accept waste from more than one state to

 12     meet an  economy of scale on an equipment cost.

 13              Many people feel that if we do not take this

 14     position, that eventually each state will impose an importa-

 15     tion ban and  therefore you would have to have a  hazardous

 16     waste management facility in each state able to  handle all

 17     the  different types of hazardous waste which could be

 18     generated within that state and frankly, we don't feel this

 19     is the way  to go.

 20              Now the arguments on the other side of the coin,

 21     that is  people who think we should not take a position in

 22     this particular issue, first of all, there is a  legal case

 23     going on right now.  I'm not sure how many of you are aware

 24     of it but the City of Philadelphia has sued the  State of
125     New  Jersey  tseat imposing an importation ban on all waste


 1   going  Into  New Jersey for final disposal.

 2             These people feel that since it  is a legal matter,

 3   we  should let  it be up to the courts  to decide what the

 4   decision  is and EPA should not get involved.

 5             Secondly, some people have  indicated that since the

 6   drafters  of the legislation specifically left this particular

 7   point  out,  that is, out-of-state bans, that we have no legal

 8   authority to use the existence or non-existence of a ban as

 9   a requirement  for full authorization.

10             Another argument that has been presented is that

11   the restriction on waste into a state can  be achieved by

12   other  means other than legislatively  such  as they can have

13   discriminatory rates, they can have restricted hours on

14   landfill  operations, they Ban have local or county bans and

15   therefore they think it is both discriminatory and unfair to

16   penalize  only  those states which have gone to the trouble of

17   imposing  such  a ban in an outright manner.

18             That basically presents my  total presentation and

19   I will come back to you, Jack.

20             MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Thank you very much, Matt.  The

2i   management  seems to have turned on the heat again so please

22   feel free to take off your jackets and get comfortable if

23   you would like to do that.

24             As we have in the previous  parts of this, I would

25   like to call for anyone who wishes to make a statement, a


 1    statement with regard to Section 3006 to indicate at this

 2    time if they wish to do that.

 3               (No response.)

 4              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  It appears that no one wants to

 5    make a statement.

 6              We'll move on to the second phase of oar session

     which is to deal with written questions.  Again, if you have

     any questions concerning this section, please write them

 9    down on a 3x5 card and they will be collected and brought up

10    to the front.

11              We do have some questions that are left over from

12    our discussion yesterday that are more appropriately answered

13    under this session and I believe Fred Lindsey has those.  Go

H    ahead.

               MR. LINDSEY:  Some of these are kind of peripheral

     but in a way related so I'll handle them all here.

17              How will federal facilities be regulated under RCRA?

18    Are they subject to state permits?

19              The answer is yes.  Under Section 6001 of the Act

20    it specifically addresses the position or condition that a

21    federal facilities relative to this Act and as we read it

22    and I think it's pretty plain.  Federal facilities — it was

23    the intent of Congress that the federal facilities be handled

24    just like any other facility.

25              The second part of that question, will the Departmen


   1    of Defense installation send hazardous waste to state or

?  2    private facilities, oolite facilities or a central govern-

   3    aent facility?

   4              As I say. Congress' intent was that the federal

   5    facilities be treated like anyone else and as such, they'll

   6    have to make their arrangements as anyone else would.  So

   7    the answer is they could do it to any or all of these options

   8    would be open to them.

   9              Can a state refuse to accept a hazardous waste

 10    which is being shipped into that state for purposes of

 11    disposal?

 12              This addresses the sane issue that Mr. Straus

 13    just addressed in detail and I'll just begin to hit the high

 14    points on this.  Legally, at the Moment, the answer is yes.

 15    However, there is a court ca*e pending between Philadelphia

 13    and New Jersey which addressee the issue on the basis of

 17    whether or not such a state ban, in this case Mew Jersey's

 18    ban, poses an undue — I'm not sure I can get the legal

 19    wording right but basically, it poses an undue restraint on

 20    interstate conferee.  That's the issue.

 21              When that will be decided,  I'm not sure.   It'has

 22    been up to the Supreme Court once, it's been remanded back

 23    to the state court and is back in the Supreme Court  again.

 24    Presumably within a year, there will  be a decision on that

 25    issue whether or not  it poses an undue burden on  interstate


1    commerce.

2               Relative  to thin  —  position as of now and a*  Mr.

3    Straus  indicated, it's  an extremely — it generate* a lot of

4    beat.   Our petition is  at this point that such bans are

5    inconsistent with the federal  intent of the Act and with

6    carrying out RCRA and as such, we will not authorize such

7    states.

8               On the other  hand,  in the absence of a decision

9    which makes such bans illegal  from the Supreme Court, in the

10    absence of those bans,  a state could still adopt such a ban.

11    We just wouldn't find them  authorised.  We would just not

12    authorize  them.

13               -It's a little confusing because there are several

14    other things involved but that's the way it sits at the

15    present.

16               Regarding state regulations, can authorized states

17    simply  enforce the  federal  regs or must they develop their

18    own compatible regs?

19               Either way as far as we're concerned.  The biggest

20    problem with just adopting  federal regulations will probably

21    be their  state legislatures.   They have to have the authority

22    within  a  given state to operate.  If they want to adopt our

23    regs, that's  fine,  and  some may do that.

24               Hill the  EPA  allow states to refuse to allow

25    disposal  by  landfill of liquid waste?


               That gets to a similar standard situation.  A state^

2    standards have to be at least as stringent as ours where we

3    address land disposal of waste under the 3004 regulations.

4    Their standards would have to be at least that stringent.

5    They may be different but they have to be judged in our

6    opinion to be at least as stringent as ours.

7              They can be more stringent to a limit, the limit

8    being where that extra added degree of stringency impacts

9    upon the free movement of waste and if they have standards

10    which are much more stringent than ours and we judge then to

il    be impacting upon the free movement of waste, then the

12    jregional administrator will apply a two-part test.

13              Number one, do those standards discriminate against

14    out-of~»tate waste as opposed to in-state waste?  In other

15    words, are they developed clearly to keep waste from coming

16    into the state or and secondly, on the other hand, is there a

17    basis or need to protect public health and the environment on







which those standards are based or in fact are the standards

just set so arbitrarily high as to keep waste out-of-state?

And/or to force their own waste out-of-state which is another


          So in those cases, that's the test that will be

applied, aed will EPA allow state to prohibit out-of-state

hazardous waste removal?  I just answered that,  I think.

          Hill the federal EPA provide funding for the states


  1    to take responsibility and authority for RCRA?

  2              The answer is yes, under Section 3011, there is a

  3    grant program set up and that will be implemented starting in

  4    fiscal year 1979.  It is not clear to us at this point exactly

  5    how much money there will be available at that time in fiscal

  6    year '79.

  7              This year, states who wish to begin gearing up for

  8    this can do so and we will grant monies under Section 4008 to

  9    do that so yes, the answer is they will be funding.  The

 10    question is, will it be sufficient funding and that's another

 11    question entirely.

 12              The Delaware River Basin Commission is sponsoring a

 13    two-phase feasibility study aimed at setting up a regional

 14    hazardous waste facility and presumably similar programs are

 15    underway in other locations and if they are, we're not

 16    familiar with them but there may be.

 17              EPA will fund two-thirds of the information

 is    gathering phase, I should mention not out of our office.  If

 19    industry kicks in one-third and supplies information on its

20    hazardous waste, we will fund the one-third.

21              Hill EPA consider gathering such information on

22    such a study as having fulfilled information requirements

23    under Section 3010 and/or 3006 as an incentive for industry

24    to participate?

25              Let me say two things about that.  First of all.


 1    no, it will not cover the procedural requirements of either

 2    3006 or 3010.

 3              On the other hand, relative to the requirements for

 4    information under 3010 — 3006, by the way, is the state

 5    program an-', industries don't notify on that.  That's another

 6    problem but under 3010, that's a notification that has very

 7    definite requirements in the Act and so it would not cover

 8    that.

 9              However, the development of information either for

10    gaining a state permit or a federal permit or for other parts

11    of the Act, the same information may be required and as such,

12    it would help in that regard.

13              Can a state with an EPA authorized hazardous waste

14    program, would a new or major modified hazardous waste

15    facility be exempt from the BIS requirements of NEPA and

16    subject only to the state mandated EIS requirements?

17              As we understand it from our counsel and the answer

18    to that is yes, that's the way it would work.

19              MODERATOR 3>EHMAN:  Matt, you have a number of

20    questions there.

21              MR. STRAUS:  It says, if a state adopts a hazardous

22    waste management program consistent with the requirements of

23    Section 3006, prior to promulgation of guidelines by EPA,

24    will they still qualify for federal assistance under RCRA?

25              Well, a state will not be authorized under 3006


 1    until the requirements under 3006 net all of the other

 2    requirements, 1 through 5 are also promulgated.

 3              As has been indicated, a state program cannot be

 4    any less stringent than that of the federal program so EPA

 5    will not be able to determine whether the state program is

 6    less stringent until all the federal regulations are promul-

 7    gated and a second part is, will they still qualify for

 8    federal assistance under RCRA?

 9              The answer is yes.  And the second question, does

 10    the citizen supervision of RCRA apply to approved state

 11    programs and I would imagine that would be yes also.

 12              And here is a third question.  Will permits issued

 13    by states with approved programs be subject to NEPA and I

 14    think that was answered earlier and the answer is no.

 15              How will local county non-importation bans affect

 16    the state for full authorization of the program?

 17              A* I had indicated, RCRA does not give us the

 18    authority to cover local or county bans so a state that

 19    would have local or county bans could be eligible for full

 20    authorization.

 21               What type of review process and/or reporting system

 22    do you foresee for states with full authorization by EPA?

 23               Again, the states reporting and review process have

24     to be as stringent as the federal program.  It does not have

 25    to be the same.  It just has to be as stringent.  Each


 1    state's application would have to be evaluated an a ease by

 2    case basis.

 3              I cannot «ay that the reporting system will b*

 4    this way or that way.  It will depend on the state and how

 5    they want to handle it.  Some states have indicated that they

 6    will take over management of the hazardous waste program only

 7    to the extent that is federally funded.

 8              Does EPA have the resources to fund state programs

 9    or for an KPA operation of those programs?

10              Hell, let me try to answer in this way.  Since

11    Congress intended or wants the state to take over the program

12    they have not given us very much money thinking that the

13    state will take over the program.

14               So if a large number of states do not take,over the

15    program, we have to — we're required to take over the

16    program and we will control hazardous waste but we would not

17    be able to control it as good as if we had more resources.

18              now if Congress sees that the states do not take

19    over the program, they will probably then give us additional

20    resources to control the program but that will be probably

21     down the road some.

22               Here's a statement, I'm not sure I understand it.

23     It says, obviously, states will not get authorised therefore

24     allowing them to ban importation waste.  I'm not sure what

25     the point is.  Well, if the, commenter can write another card


























to clarify th»t, unless anybody else understands it.

          Will the states be required to use the soon to be

adopted EPA standard leaching test?

          As I have indicated earlier, a state's program has

to -be as stringent.  It does not have to be the sane so again

we get to definitional problems here of equivalency and

consistency but my reading is they will not hare to use the

EPA standard leaching test as long as whatever test they used

was as stringent.

          Bow can I get a copy of the leaching test as soon

as it is finalised?

          He will notify Mr. Corson and we will have to know

who you are since your name is not on here and then third,

as I understand, ASTM 4s working toward a leaching test.

          Isn't this — for adoption by EPA?

          Hell, I can't answer that.  Why don't you talk to

Allen Corson who is the desk officer for Section 3001 on your
                        15.   ^

particular question.

          Can states with full authority use state division

such as regional councils or 208 regions. as a means to carry
        ^S       *9

out their program?  In other words, the states act as a

central office as opposed to direct administration.

          He really don't care how the state is organized

and how they control the hazardous waste program as long as

they can assure us that they control the entire — at least


1    under a full authorisation, the entire program and that

2    nothing will leak through the crack and aa I indicated, for

3    those state* who have more than one agency involved in the

4    administration and enforcement of the Act, they would have to

5    explicitly delineate the responsibilities of each state

6    agency as it relates to hazardous waste management.

               Again, we are not dictating which agencies these

     have to be.  This is up to the state to decide.

               If the EPA does not recognize a state due to

10    importation bans, will a generator, transporter or disposer

     have to meet both EPA and state regulations?

12              Well, I'm afraid so.  If the state has a program,

13    then there will be two regulatory programs controlling

14    hazardous waste in that state.

15              can a state receive full authorization for its

16    program if it exempts hazardous waste generators that produce

     in excess of the 27 pounds per month limit in excess?

18              It sounds like it's less stringent so it probably

19    would not.

20              A last question is, when will the — paper for

21    enforcement adequacy be available and how may it be obtained?

22              Well, all these — papers will be distributed and

23    will be public documents for anybody's inspection.  Now,  when

24    it will be available, probably  in the next couple of months

25   It will definitely be available probably by the time that 300


?i    £uidelinea are proposed or I should say promulgated.

 2              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Thank you, Matt.  I have a

 3    couple of questions here that I will try to cover.

 4              It «ay«, would a cooperate effort with a private

 5    industry to site, permit and construct a hazardous waste

 6    management facility by October 20th, 1980 be a major

 7    contributor to obtain full authorization for that state?

 8              Well, that set of circumstances would be helpful

 g    but not necessary for a state to get full authorisation.  In

 10    other words, if a state does not have any hazardous waste

 11    management facilities within its boundaries, it could still

 12    get authorized because the availability of a facility is not

 is    a precondition to getting it authorized.

 14              And here's another one on the importation ban.

 15    What approach will be taken — I presume by EPA — if the

 16    pending New Jersey-Pennsylvania court case rules that banning

 17    importation of waste is legal?

 18              Okay.  First of all, we have to, as I indicated

 ]9    yesterday, due to the timing of the situation, we have  to

 2Q    propose these guidelines before this case is likely to  be

 21    settled.  It is on the Supreme Court calendar for this  year

 22    but we don't know at what point in the Supreme Court year it

 23    will come up.  It could be  anywhere from now until  June of

 24    next year.

 25              The second point  is that the ban in question  deals


























only with land disposal.  It does not. deal with treatment or

storage to my knowledge.  So oar response would be somewhat

dependent OB the scope of the Supreme Court decision that is

handed down.

          I think basically the answer is that we would just

have to wait and see what the Supreme Court decision is and

its scope to determine what our response would be.

          MR. UHPSETt  X think we might discuss several

scenarios in terms of expanding, although Jack is clearly

right, we'll have to wait and see what the scope of the

decision is.

          If, on one hand, a state finds that such bans are

illegal because they improperly impact on interstate commerce

then such bans at least probably for disposal at least, would

be illegal and that would then take care of that problem

pretty much as we are concerned.

          Maybe not necessarily completely because it would

not address treatment/storage.  On the other hand, suppose

the Supreme Court finds that such bans are legal, in effect

they do not pose an improper ban and imppoper hindrance on

interstate commerce.  That does not necessarily preclude us

from finding them inconsistent with the purposes of the Act.

          They would be legal and the state could adopt them

but that does not mean we could not find them inconsistent

which is what we're talking about here for the purposes of


  1    the Act.

  2               So that's  the question.   I jost wanted to discuss

  3    those two  possible scenarios.

  4               MODERATOR  LEHMAN:  Thank you,  Fred.   I have a serie

  5    of questions here dealing with whether states  will assume

  6    this program from EPA.   Let  me just take them  one at a time

  7    here.

  8               It appears that about half of the states have

  9    assumed primacy  under P.L. 92-500, the Federal Water Pollu-

 10    tion Control Act and perhaps 12 to 15 are doing so under

 11    P.L. 93-523.  I  believe that is the Safe Drinking Water Act,

 12    I'm not positive.

 13               How many do you anticipate to do so  under P.L.

 14    94-580 which is  the  Resource Conservation Recovery Act?

 15    Would the  same state be doing  so and under all three laws?

 16               I'm sorry, I  can't read that exactly but I believe

 n    the intent is, do we anticipate the same states that are

 18    assuming programs of the water law and the Safe Drinking

 19    Water Act  to be  the  same states that will participate under

 20    RCRA?

 2i               Well,  let  me  go back and address those one at a

 22    time.  How many  states  do you  anticipate accepting the

23    hazardous  waste  provisions under RCRA?  We don't know, to

24    be honest  with you.   We have had a number of discussions

25    with all of the  states.  Many  of the states are on the fence


 1    right now waiting to see what the scope and the particulars

 2    of EPA regulations — you know, what they are, what they

 3    turn out to be before they make a final decision.

 4              we are urging all states to, at the very minimum,

 5    preserve their options in this instance and to sort of keep
i 6    their powder dry and not declare a primrj that they are not

 7    going to take this program.

 8              There are also a significant number of states that

 g    already have hazardous waste management programs operating to

 10    one degree or another under state law.  Now we would antici-

 11    pate that these states, again as a minimum, would be the

>12    leading candidates to take on£heir own program in lieu of

 13    the federal program and there is another part of a similar

 14    question that asks why would any state want to take over the

 15    hazardous waste program from the feds?

 16              There are really several answers to that.  One of

 17    the answers is just what I just said, namely they already

 18    have a state program operating and underway or are planning

 19    to have a program.

 20              A second reason which has been told to us by many,

 21    many states is that there is a strong feeling of state contro

 22    versus federal control within those states, states rights,

 23    if you will, which is a very strong feeling in many states.

 24    They don't want no feds in there and that's consistent with

 25    the congressional intent.


 1               A third reason, and a very important reason, is

 2     that as I mentioned earlier,  states that are authorized to

 3     conduct their own program in  lieu of the federal program,

 4     they don't adopt the federal  program and carry that out so

 5     they are free under certain restraints to tailor their

 6     program to the individual needs of their own states.

 7               This is a very compelling reason that some states

 8     have indicated for wanting to take the program on.

 9               Now, I'll get back  to these other questions.

10     There's a whole series here but another similar question was,

11     why should a small state presumably also with poorer

12     financial stability bother with the expense of being

13     authorized?

14               Well, many of the same reason apply here.  Whether

15     you are a large state or a small state, you may still have

16     this strong states right type of feeling there and don't want

17     the feds involved and in fact, I think this is the case.

18               Many of the smaller states seem to be the ones

19     that have the strongest feeling about states rights and we

20     certainly support that.  Our  whole program is based on the

2i     presumption that we want to maximize the number of states

22     that do assume the program.

23               Now granted, there  are some states that are either

24     in financial difficulties or  have such a limited amount of

25     hazardous waste generated within their state that they may


l    not want to bother with it and we will find that out a* we

2    proceed here.

3              The basic question was, how many state* do you

4    anticipate taking on the program?  Well, we made some

5    preliminary estimates based on discussions with the states

6    and have made some preliminary plans based on those estimates

7    that at least 25 states we anticipate will take the program,

8    and possibly 30 to begin with, and eventually, we would hope

9    to have almost all of the states involved for the reasons

10    that I've mentioned.

11              This includes both a fully authorized state program

12    and an interim authorised program.  Now whether or not these

13    states would be the same states that are now operating the

14    water pollution control permit program or the safe drinking

15    water program is difficult for me to say.

16              I think generally speaking, that is probably

17    accurate.  There will be exceptions, I think.  At some point,

is    a state will take this and not the other and so forth but the

19    states that are active in these other programs are generally

20    the ones that have that philosophical bent.  They want to

21    have their own state programs rather than the federal programs

22    The crystal ball is cloudy right now.

23              He are attempting to keep in mind in everything we

24    do here as to what the impact of the regulations, the impact

25    of the definition of hazardous waste, all of these,  everythini


 1    we do under Subtitle C in the back of our mind  is what  impact

 2    will that have on the ability of states to take on  the

 3    program and we want to make it as easy aa possible  for  the

 4    state to tak« the program while at the same time maintaining

 5    the minimum national standards that the law requires  us to

 6    do for the protection of public health and the  environment.

 7              So those are our twin goals and it does require*

 8    as you can expect, some judgements about how far we can go

 9    to get the states to play and at the same time  maintain the

 10    integrity of the program.

 11              We have some other questions.

 12              MR. KOVALICK:  Can the state receive  full

 13    authorisation for its program if it exempts hazardous waste

 14    generators and produce an excess of 27 pounds per month?

 15    That was the question that Matt had and the first thing I

 16    would like to do is point out to you is that the 27 pounds

 17    that we spent about an hour on yesterday was one of the

 18    three options that Mr. Trask described, actually more than

 19    that but one of them was to do nothing with regard  to small

 20    generators which is one of the things that some of  you  were

 2i     suggesting when we got through explaining why we were trying

 22     to do it.

 23               One of those was to take arretail or  commercial

24     establishment* and we ptdated o*t th» j>r«*>lem like  things

 25     like warehouses or products like pesticides and others  are


 l     handled and the difficulty there and the third one was to

 2     fix some poundage limit of which 27 was one example

 3     drum which is about a thousand pounds is another example so

 4     I hope you will not leave this meeting thinking that is the

 5     final answer.

                Be that -as it may, no doubt there will be some

      states that have exemptions, for example, I believe Missouri

      has exemptions for farmers and I believe service stations.

 9     Speaking of the waste oil problem, now would we not authorize

10     Missouri if everything else were the same is perhaps an

11     example here and the answer is it depends.

12               It depends on how much hazardous waste is under

13     control in Missouri.  It so happens, as I understand it,

14     -they're trying to also set up a systen by which waste oil

15     is collected and sent to either re-refining or use in

Hi     Missouri so they are gaining control over the entire

17     important waste stream even though their particular criteria

18     would not be an exact duplicate, let's say if we knew what

19     ours were going to be so it's not possible to give a final

20     answer until ours are — in that particular state to compare

2\     against it, but it isn't just strictly a matter of reading

22     line by line their reg and our reg and making that decision.

23               A peripheral question but  an important one.   Does

24     EPA prohibit ex parte> meaning after outside of the meeting

      communications between the administrator's staff and persons


who are not EPA employees in the course of rule making

procedures?  If the answer is yes, are those restrictions

with respect to EPA employees engaged in promulgating such


          It so happens that we have our recent general

counsel opinion that says that we are — that after the rules
                                * AI
that we are working on are proposed and the r»gistee» which

is not the time we are in now, but after they are proposed
in the 

 1    waste management plan*.   Bar EPA considered certain states

 2    as models for workable regulations as well as simple

 3    stringency of criteria in hazardous waste listing?

 4              The answer is yes.   It so happens that California

 5    and  Texas come  to our working group meetings rather regularly.

 6    Texas, as you may know or you may not know, is the chairman

 7    of the National Governors Conference Hazardous Haste

 8    Subcommittee which is composed of 17 states and those 17

 9    states meet around the table about once every six or eight

10    weeks to review as far as we are at our regulatory rate

11    process, and they come to tell us what they think.

12              So we are studying their regs.  They do send them

13    to us for review and we do make comment back to them.  The

14    curious thing is if you study the California, Texas and

15    Washington regs, they all differ.

16              So whatever state happens to please you, then your

17    neighbor sitting next to you probably prefers one of the

18    other ones, so  we are taking them into account but obviously

19    it's not a matter of voting on which one is better and as I

20    said, in some of our meetings, we have the problem of a

21    difference between having input and having your way and so

22    we're trying to make that distinction for states as well as

23    ourselves.

24              MR. LXNDSETt  V couple more here that have to do

25    with the state  ban situation.  Should a state institute a


  1    ban on the out-of-atate domestic refuse, not hazardous waste,

  2    now?  Could this be consistent with Subtitle C?

  3              The answer is yes.  We're talking, as far as we're

  4    concerned, about hazardouaswaste.  Then it follows on with

  5    another question.

  6              Even though this nay possibly not be consistent

  7    with Subtitle D, that's another question.  Frankly, I don't

  8    think there's any place for any responsibility in Subtitle D

  9    which allows EPA to address consistency or state bans relative

 10    to municipal refuse.  I don't believe it's there.  If it is,

 11    I don't know what it is.

 12              As Mr. Sanjour indicates, the concern is not as

 13    great as I kind of indicated before.  One of the problems

 14    was hazardous waste facilities, particularly with the

 15    preferable treatment detoxification resource recovery kinds

 16    of facilities, one of the problems is that these facilities

 17    require large sending districts to affect the economies of

 18    scale and we feel that if every state had a ban, first of

 19    all, we would be needlessly duplicating the capability to

20    handle various kinds of hazardous waste.  It would be

21    extremely expensive nationwide.

22              Secondly, we would be inhibiting the development

23    of those kinds of facilities because of the fact that they

24    would not be able to be of an economic size.  So I guess the

25    answer to this particular question is that we're talking


1     about hazardous waste,  not municipal refuse here.

2               How effective do you think will be your with-

3     holding of a states program or the state bans of importing

4     of waste?  Hill it cause states to change their position?

5               Hell this, aa I think Mr. Straus may have touched

6     on, is one of the main  objections to our including this.

7     There is really no objection.   I haven't heard anybody object

8     to the philosophy behind our taxing our particular stance,

9     that being that waste should be handled where they can best

10     be handled, both from an environmental and a cost basis.

11     Nobody disagrees with that.

12               The question  becomes whether or not our talcing

13     this position will be effective and we've heard varying

14     predictions on that basis.  Some of the people, particularly

15     those states who have such bans now have told us forget it,

16     it's not going to make  any difference to us one way or the

17     other.

18               In other words, we're not going to have our bans

lg     removed.  Other states  have indicated to us that if we don't

2Q     follow the position we're following now, thus goes the entire

2,     midwest, for example.  They'll all have —within a year,

22     year and a half so we have diametrically opposed opinions on

23     this basis from people on the outside, particularly the

24     states.

25              I should indicate to you that the states are about


1    evenly divided on this  issue,  those that we've heard from,

2    very vocal  one way,  very vocal the  other way and we will

3    probably  be sued either way.

4              Another question more pointed.  Are we to under-

5    stand that  South Carolina could not be approved as a state

6    operated  hazardous waste management authority because it

7    refuses to  accept kepone dredgings  from the James River and

8    its tributaries?  Will  West Virginia and Ohio also be

9    disqualify** if  they refuse?

10              Now the question becomes  on what basis do they —

11    is this a legislative ban where the state refuses to accept

12    something just because  it refuses or is it a regulatory

13    action which says we don't have any facility that can handle

14    that kind of waste which very  well  may be the case so the

15    question  is, what we'll be looking  at is not a specific

16    instance  on kepone but  whether or not: there is a ban on all

l7    waste or  a  great number of wastes which have no basis and

18    the ability of a state  or its  facilities to handle those

19    wastes and  which legislate against  differently between in-

20    state and out-of—state  waste.

21              What impact will an  EPA approved 208 areawide

22    water management plan have on  state or federal evaluation of

23    hazardous waste  disposal site  and their operations?  Suppose

24    future 208  planning  is  at variance  with that approved

25    disposal  site and/or operation as relates to 208 goals?


 l              First of all, it's My understanding — and I'm not

 2    expert in this 208 area — it's my understanding that most of

 3    the 208 planning activities do not go into hazardous waste

 4    specifically, although some may.

 5              In the event where such a thing would occur is

 6    going to be up to the governor of the state to get his act

 7    together relative to his assumption of RCRA and the standards

 8    that go along withJkmat and with the criteria, etc., that are

 9    being used in the 208 program.

10              The standards, the federal standards under RCRA

11    will be minimal standards for those kinds of facilities,

12    Section 3004 for which this Act applies, and those will be

13    minimum standards.  They can have more stringent than that

14    up to the elements we discussed but there will be minimum

15    standards and they'll have to be addressed.

16              NOW these have to do with funding and I'm really

17    limited at what I can tell you about that.  How much funds

18    will be available to states to develop and implement the

19    programs related to hazardous waste management?

20              AS I think I may have indicated a little earlier,

21    I don't know exactly.  Section 3011 indicates that $25 millioi

22    is authorized per year for fiscal year  '79, '78 and '79.

23    Seldom is the authorized limit appropriated and in this case,

24    I'm pretty sure that it won't be but I don't know how much

2S    will be.


 i              There has been serious question *s to whether or

 2    not the amount will be sufficient to handle all the demands.

 3    He don't know.

 4              How will the funds be allocated to the different

 5    states in fiscal year '78?  The available funds will be

 6    distributed under Section 4008 of the Act on a population

 7    basis, in fiscal year '79 and the hazardous waste programs

 8    will be implemented.  That is, when our regulations will take

 9    effect early in '79 or very late in '78, then we will be

10    cranking up the distribution allocation under Section 3011

U    which says that we must base this distribution on first of

12    all, on how much waste is generated, treated, stored or

13    disposed of or transported in a state.

14              Secondly, on the extent of exposure to the popula-

15    tion within that state to hazardous waste and ether factors,

16    whatever they might be.  We're not quite sure where we're

17    going to get all the data that we're going to need to set up

13    some kind of a formula for this but we'll be doing that over

]9    the next year.

2Q              Pees Congress, EPA or whatever agency specifically

21    allocate dollars for funding the state programs?

                The answer is yes.  I think I just answered that

.     one and on what basis.

24              If a state has a $1 million program and fets only

25    10 percent of the funding, a state budget may not include

























enough funds perhaps because of political considerations,

then what?  Then if a state is unable to carry out an

authorizeable program, EPA will be running that program.

          Regardless of what the reason is, unless it's the

unavailability of legislative authority in which case we can

conduct a perhaps partial authorization program.

          MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Thank you, Fred.  I want to just

make a further comment on the importation ban that seems, as

we expected it would be, a major point of discussion here

today, and that is that we are proposing this as a. require-
ment or intending to propose it in our Federal Register

proposal expressly to get comments on this.

          We want to make sure that if we were solid on the
issued, our feeling is we would not get the kind of responses

that we might want to get.  So we want to pose it and see

what kind of comments we get back.

          It does not guarantee that it will be in the  final

guidelines.  I believe this is the last written question  and

it's sort of a converse of a previous question.   It says,

what are the disadvantages to a state  for not  assuming

responsibility for the hazardous waste program?

          I could go  through the litany of  what or why  it's

good for them.  Some  of the disadvantages are  that  first  of

all, it is our understanding that  industry  within a  state

prefers to deal with  a state government rather than with  the


1    federal government and if a state does not take on the

2    program, then industry would be forced to deal directly with

3    the federal government which may not be what industry wants.

4              There is, as was mentioned earlier, a possibility

5    of a dual program, one by the state and one by the feds

6    which could lead to problems and conflicts which could be

7    avoided if the state assumed the program.

8              Lastly, we have this whole issue of whether EIS

9    analyses are required for a facility permit and assuming that

10    turns out to be the way we think it will, there will be at

11    least certain classes of permits for major facilities or

12    major modifications of facilities, new facilities which will

13    require federal EIS but will not necessarily require EIS

14    under a state program.

15              So there are several reasons, several disadvantages

16    I believe, to the states not assuming the program.

17              I believe that is all of the written questions we

18    have.  We have exceeded our time, our scheduled time but I

19    think it was important for us to do that.

20              Before we go, though, are there any questions  from

21    the floor on Section 3006?

22               (No response.)

23              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Evidently not.   I would like

24    then to recess for an hour and a half and be back  right  at

25    1:15.  He have quite a bit more to cover this afternoon  and


 1    «t this point,  I would like to go off the record.

 2               (Off  the record.  Administrative announcements.)

 3               (Nhereupoa, the meeting was recessed  for  luncheon

 4    to reconvene this same day at 1:15 P.M.)
















































                                                 1:15 P.M.

          MODERATOR LEHMAN:   Ladies  and gentlemen,  if I

could ask you to take your seats, we will get started with

the afternoon session.

          This  afternoon, we are going to discuss Section

3010 which is about notification procedures.   Following that,

environmental and  economic impact assessments work  and

following that, I  intend to  go back  and see if any  of the

individuals who indicated a  desire to speak at this session

who were absent yesterday are present today and following

that, we will go into case examples  and then conclude the

session as close to 5 o'clock or before that we can.

          Since our purpose  is to gather information, I

certainly don't want to cut  off discussion but for  those of

you who have travel plans and so on, just be advised that we

will try very hard to stick  to concluding at 5 o'clock or


          At this  time, I would like to call on Tim Fields

to make a presentation on Section 3010.  Tim is program

jianager for technology programs in our division.

          MR. FIELDS:  As Jack has indicated, I'm going to

talk about the  notification  procedure that has been

established under  Section 3010 of the Act and the content of

the regulations and what we're doing in this area.


    1               Basically, we intend to promulgate regulations in

 -? 2     the Federal. Register that will require all hazardous waste

    3     handlers,  and by that I mean all generators, transporters,

    4     treatment, storage,  and disposal facilities, to notify us or

    5     a designated state agency within 90 days from the time that

    6     the 3001 criteria that Alan Corson talked about yesterday

 —7 7     «re promulgated in the Federal Register.

    8               A notification as indicated in the Act must provide

    9     certain things.  That is, the location of the facility,

   10     general description of that activity and in the identified

   11     or listed  hazardous waste that they handle.

   12               A notification must be filed with EPA or a

   13     designated state agency within 90 days from the time that

-~> 14     the regulations are promulgated in the Padorp^ Register and

   15     as the Act provides for this notification, to be sent to a

   i6     state that has an authorized hazardous waste permit program.

   17               Of course, we don't have any authorized.  We're

   18     not going  to have any authorized programs or we don't think

   19     so at the  time of that notification activity.  Therefore, we

   20     have provided for this in these notification regulations.

   21               The reasons we are promulgating the regulations

   22     under Section 3010 are first of all to establish procedures

   23     whereby EPA and states may receive and process notices of

   24     — and by respective parties, we plan to promulgate the regs

   25     to make the affected parties aware of the notification


  1    requirements.

? 2              Ha feel that by publishing the rules in the Federal

» 3    Register,  affected people will be aware of the requirements

  4    of the Act more so than just being embedded into the Act

  5    itself.

  6              We plan to promulgate these regs thoroughly to

  7    assure a certain amount of non-ambiguity among both affected

  8    parties and the state agencies and the EPA regions that have

  9    to act upon the requirements of the Act.

 10              we plan to specify, for example, what we mean by

 11    general description of the activities.  These things need to

 12    be defined so everyone knows what we're talking about.

 13              Fourthly, we need to promulgate regulations in this

 14    area to allow for state involvement in the notification

 15    process because it's clearly the congressional intent that

 m    states get involved in all areas of hazardous waste management

 17    as early as possible.

 18              Therefore, we think that a mechanism needs to be

 19    provided so that states, if they desire to do so, will be

 20    allowed to handle the notification activity under Section

 21    3010.

 22              Next I will get into what the current version of

 23    the draft regulations look like.  The regulation is divided

 24     into two parts.  First of all, there's a section on what we

 25    call limited interim authorization.  This should not be

   1    confused with the partial or full or interim authorization
   2    which Matt Straus discussed this morning.
   3              This is a special authorization that a state will
   4    be granted to handle the Section 3010 activity alone.  This
   5    is provided, as I said before, because 3006 will not provide
   6    for states to be authorized at the time of the initial 90
   7    day notification period.
   8              So a special mechanism needs to be provided so that
   9    the states will be allowed to handle this notification
   10    activity.  Under this authority, if granted by the EPA region
   11    the states may receive notices from affected partiea which
   12    includes federal facilities that handle hazardous waste
   13    within their state.
   14              The states may conduct support activities to the
   15    EPA regions in support of 3010.  They may mail forms if they
   16    desire to do so, they may advertise in the trade press, etc.
   17    EPA reserves certain authority, however-, under Section 3010.
   18              We plan to promulgate the regulations ourselves
   19    defining the notification mechanism.  We will define who is
   20    the generator, who is the transporter, who is the treatment
   21    atorage and disposal facility in our regulations 30003 through
—a 22
   23              For example, now a state can require a notification
   24    from a milling or mining operation if we've accepted them
   25    under our regulations in the notification process.  Host stat


  1     authorities don't have the enforcement mechanism for

  2     enforcing against violators under Section 3010.

  3               So we will also have the enforcement function.

  4     We'll have to enforce against violators of this section

  5     because this is not in the legislative mandate of most state

  6     agencies.

  7               The conditions for a state receiving limited
                    OUUL.        -tu*V
j>8     authorization o» basically fee- — the first one is mandatory.

  9     The state has to provide in their application to the EPA

 10     regional administrator an agreement to maintain the notices

 11     that they receive for a certain period of time.

 12               We are talking about three years right now, three

 13     years from receipt of the notification.  They have to agree

>14     to supply copies or the notice itself to the EPA.regional

> 15     office upon request.

 16               They have to agree to report violators of Section

 17     3010, people that they know that have failed to notify and

 18     should be notifying.  They have to supply those names and

 19     addresses to the EPA officials.

 20               We will then take the appropriate action against

 21     those parties.  The second item is they must submit a plan

 22     for how they plan to implement Section 3010 of the Act and

 23     this is all part of their application that they have to send

 24     into the EPA regional administrator.

 25               This application must be in 30 days from the date










-=?  10



—   13

 JJ  16









  .= 25

of promulgation of the Section 3010 regulations.  Next, the

EPA regional administrator then has 30 days to make a

decision on that application.

          The first item is all those items of agreement.

The agreements maintained, the records, the agreement to

report violators and the agreement to supply information to

EPA upon request or a mandatory.  That must be contained in

the application.

          The second item, the implementation plan.  The

EPA ^regional Administrator can make a subjective judgment.

It's his judgment as to whether the state implementation plan

is adequate or not.

          So it's at the discretion of the EPA regional

administrator as to whether he is going to approve or

disapprove the Section 3010 authorization.  Once the EPA

^regional administrator has made that decision within 30 days

from the time of receipt of the application, he will let EPA

jieadquarters Know and then we will compile a list of all

those state agencies that have been given the authority to

handle Section 3010 activities and we will publish a list of

                                                 prior to
all those state agencies in the Feder

the time of promulgation of Section 3001 criteria and in

that way, all hazardous waste handlers will know who they

have to send their notification to, whether to an EPA

regional office or to that appropriate state agency.
















-7  25

          The second va^or part of the regulation is the

actual notification mechanism.  We are requiring in our

regulations that each individual facility notify EPA or a

designated state agency.

          The one exception is in the case of transporters.

In the case of transporters, a corporate headquarters that

is handling a hazardous waste in the case of a transporter

may notify the appropriate jurisdiction whether it be a

state or an EPA regional office but a copy of that notice

must be sent to the appropriate jurisdiction.

          If he has a terminal, for example, that he owns

or operates in another state, he must send a copy of that

overall notice to that appropriate jurisdiction.

          We plan to provide — it's been indicated to us

that there's a need for a continuing notification process.

The initial 90 day period is, of course, in the Act but in

our regs, we plan to provide for those individuals who come

into the system after the initial 90 day period.

          We are providing that those people who begin to

generate, transport, treat, store or dispose of hazardous

waste after the initial 90 day period, notify EPA 90 days

after the commencement of those activities.

          So the notification process will be a continual

activity.  The notifications again, we are providing two

alternatives.  We plan to publish in the Federal Register


 1     regulation* and attached to those regulations will be an

 2     appendix which contains a sample notification form and

 3     instructions.

 4               If a person chooses to fill out that notification,

 5     that sample for* and send it in, he has satisfied all the

 6     requirements of notification.  If a person chooses not to

 7     use that standard form and decides to — you know, he wants

 8     to send in his own notice, he wants to send in a letter or

 9     whatever, he wants to send us some additional information,

10     he may send in a notice but we are requiring certain

11     mandatory information if he chooses not to use that form.

12               Specify typical items like name, address, principal

13     industrial contact, etc.  Some of the key items are, he must

14     provide a list of those hazardous waste types that he is

15     handling, to identify or list it under Section 3001 criteria.

16               He must provide a description or identify what type

17     of hazardous waste activity he is performing.  A generator,

18     for example, might be both generating hazardous waste and he

19     might be disposing of hazardous waste on site.

20               He should indicate any of the five classifications

21     of hazardous waste activities that he might be conducting.

22     He has to provide some sort of verbal description of the

23     hazardous waste that he's handling.

24               For example, he might say acid sludge from a re-

25     refining operation or whatever, some kind of verbal


 1    description needs to be provided and he should specify the

 2    information that is available on the contents that are in the

 3    waste.

 4              We are requesting also the annual amount, the total

 5    amount  of hazardous waste that he is handling at that facility

 6    This is to be provided in the notification.  We want some

 7    sort of ID number to also be provided.

 8              All businesses are given, if  they have employees,

 9    are given — if you're not in business  for yourself,  are

 10    given by the Internal Revenue Service an employer identifica-

 ll    tion number.  That number should be provided in your notifica-

 12    tion.

 13              If you are a federal facility, you have a nine-

 14    digit General Services Administration number and that should

 15    be provided in your notification and in some certain cases

 13    where you might be self-employed and you don't have any

 17    employees working for you, there are other mechanisms we

 18    might provide there.

 19              Dun & Bradstreet has the business list of the

20    companies and they assign all establishments what they call

21    a Dun's number.  I've learned from the  transport people that

22    the Public Utilities Commission and the state agencies assign

23     a permit number to most transporters of hazardous waste.

24               So some sort of identification number will have to

25     be provided.  He haven't found this exactly in our regs yet.


 1     but some sert of identification number will hare to b«

 2     provided by all people notifying EPA.

 3               We're almo providing in the  area of criteria under

 4     3001,  there are mix criteria that were discussed yesterday

 5     and of course, there are a certain amount of lists that we're

 6     going  to be having under 3001 but in the area of toxieity,

 7     if a person can't make a definitive determination within 90

 s     days as to whether his wastes are toxic or not, we are

 9     providing for an undetermined response within the initial 90

10     day period.

11               The person will then have an additional 90 days

12     to make a final determination as to whether his wastes are

13     toxic  or not.  Me feel that in the case of the other criteria

14     the criteria of — oar objective now is so someone can make

15     a final determination and let us know within 90 days whether

16     his wastes are inflammable, etc.

17               We're doing certain support activities which I'll

is     just talk about two of them.  We're developing through

19     contracts a list of all potentially affected parties, that

20     is, people that we think that are on a state by state basis,

2i     are generators of hasardous waste, people we think are

22     transporters and people we think who are in the treatment,

23     storage and disposal business within each state and this

24     directory is being developed for us.

25               We're also developing a list of labs and test


 1     facilities  that  are  available to tMt people's wast* to

 2     determine whether  their waste are hazardous or not.

 3              Some of  the issues that we wrestled with in

 4     developing  our regs  to this point, I would like te discuss

 5     next.  He wrestled with the issue of a SMf)ie for* versus a

 6     mandatory form.

 7              He decided to go with a sample form and mandatory

 8     requirements.  This  allows for flexibility.  A lot of states

 9     have  indicated to  us that they want to send us this form on

10     their own letterhead.  They might want to require some

11     additional  information that we're not requiring so we felt

12     the best way to  handle this issue was to go to the sample

13     form  and have mandatory requirements *md certain minimum

14     amounts of  information that had to be required no matter

15     what  kind of form  people used.

13              A mass mailing of the sample forms, some people

17     have  indicated they  want to, you know, somehow they want them

IS     out of the  EPA regions.  We want to send these sample forms

19     to people that might be on the list of affected parties.

20              Our position at headquarters has been that we will

21     print up, as Jack  indicated yesterday, required numbers of

22     notification forms baaed upon the demand that is out there

23     for these forms  for  the people that plan to mail them out and

24     that  kind of thing.

25              There's  a  need for coordination with states.  The


 1    timing mechanism is very important her*  and as  Jack indicated

 2    yesterday, that's the reason we have  to  go  early on the 3010

 3    regulations and get then promulgated.  The  regulations  have

 4    to get final so the state  agencies can get  in their notifica-

 5    tion applications so the EPA ^regional offices will  have a

 6    chance to review those applications to make a decision  as to

 7    whether the state program  is acceptable  or  not.

 8              All of these actions have to take place prior to

 9    the promulgation of the 3001 criteria so there's a  need to

10    get these regulations out  early and a need  for  coordination

11    with states.

12              The state programs have to  be  ready at the same

13    time as the EPA programs.

14              A final issue has been raised  at  our  working  group

15    meetings and this has been brought by several states is the

16    issue of what are ongoing  state hazardous waste programs.  A

17    lot of states have already indicated  that they  already  know

18    who their hazardous waste  handlers are in their states.

19              They're saying why should the  industry in my  state

20    be required to notify me again if we  already know who they

2i    are and that kind of thing.  Another  contrasting position is

22    that some states have defined hazardous  waste differently

23    than we do.

24              The might have excluded.certain classes of

25    generators that we're not  going to exclude, they might have


























included some people that we are not going to include so our

current position is that all hazardous waste handlers will

have to notify, whether people know about them, and once the

Section 3001 criteria are promulgated in the /aderal Register.

          With that, I'll turn it back to Jack.

          MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Thank you very much, Tim.  Are

there any members of the audience who desire to make a

statement concerning Section 3010?

          (Mo response.)

          MODERATOR LEHAMK:  Evidently not.  At this time

then, we would like to accept written questions from the


          He have available 3x5 cards which you can fill out

and just wave in the air and someone will pick them up and

we will attempt to answer them.

          Tim Fields will start off with some of the

questions here.

          MR. FIELDS:  The first question I have is, as ~

in Section 3010, notification of hazardous waste activities

must be submitted within 90 days after promulgation of

Section 3001.  Since considerable amount of testing may be

required to determine if a waste is hazardous, will any

extension on filing data will be given to companies which

produce several hundreds of waste that are suspected as

being hazardous?


 1               I guess  I've addressed  in my  presentation the fact

 2     that we  are going  to  grant  an extension in the case of

 3     toxicity.  The  3001 people  have indicated to us that it might

 4     be  difficult  for a person to make a determination as to

      whether  his waste  are hazardous based on toxicity within the

      additional 90 day  period.

                So  we've essentially stated that for our 180 days.

      The second point I would like to  make about this is that a

 9     person doesn't  have to test his waste at all.  All you have

10     to  do under Section 3010 is to make a determination.

11               If  you want to declare  your waste hazardous without

12     testing, you  don't have  to  test your  waste to determine.  You

13     know, you don't have  to  declare your  waste as hazardous based

14     on  a test.

15               so  while we're not requiring  you to test your waste

      based on the  3001  criteria  to declare them hazardous or not.

17     Thirdly, if you are producing one waste which you know is

      hazardous, you'll  have  to notify  us that you are a hazardous

19     waste handler.

20               You don't have to test  all the hundreds of waste

21     that you might be  handling  to have it declared as a hazardous

22     waste  facility.

23               MB. KOVALICK:   Mining and milling operations are

24     apparently going to  be exempted from the initial requirements

25     of  Subtitle C.   Does  this also include  3010 notification


1     requirements?   If so,  will you define exactly what mining

2     and milling operations are exenpt and I might suggest using

3     those  industries covered by MESA as one way of doing that.

4               This  person  nay not have been here for yesterday's

5     discussion but  I'll run through it again.   There's only one

6     category of people that is exempted at this moment in our

7     thinking and that is households.

8               Mining and milling operations, any regulation of

9     them  is being postponed until we get the results of the

10     study  mandated  in Section 8002 of the law.   So at the tine

11     that everyone else is  notifying that mining and milling

12     operations of all kinds will be outside the scope of Subtitle

13     c and  then they would  not notify.

14               If later, when we do get back to addressing mining

15     and milling waste and  if some of them become hazardous waste,

16     as will be portrayed in the regulations, then those operation!

n     would  fall into the normal system.

is               so for the first round, the notification requiremen

19     would not apply unless, as Tim pointed out, a state decided

20     to elaborate on our requirements and that, of course, we

21     don't  control.

22               MR.  FIELDS:   In light of the fact that there are

23     many  small oil  storage facilities who are unaware of their

24     requirements under SPCC regulations, what measure will be

25     taken to insure that the requirements of KCRA, re small


*i                                   **•
7 »     waste transportation,  storage e* treatment facility operators

> 2     other than publication in the Federal Register?

  3               I didn't go  over our complete development program

  4     but at the time of promulgation of these regulations in the

? 5     »fft^jil Register,  we're going to advertise in the trade

  6     press and in a lot of  industry publications, we plan to

  7     issue a press release  that will be distributed nationwide.

  8               A lot of our EPA regions and most of them, as a

  9     matter of fact, and a  lot of states have indicated they want

 10     us to print these  sample forms up for them and they plan to

 11     mail it to all these people who are going to be on this list

 12     that we developed  so a lot of support activities are going

 13     to be going on to  make people aware of the notification

 14     requirements.

 15               Those requirements that are under Section 3010.

 16     This is just — as numerous unknowns become a major RM>

 17     analytical project, they complete (100 percent characteriza-

 18     tien of the sludge) could easily take more than 90 days.

 19     That is probably a true statement in some cases.

 20               The issue is whether you have a complete character-

 21     ixation to determine whether it's hazardous or not, I don't

 22     know.  In the area of  toxicity, we agree with this.  In the

 23     area of certain categories like flammability and reactivity,

 24     we have reason to believe that we can make that sort of

 25     determination within the initial 90 day period.


 1              Th* third question here is  in the case of multi-

 2    facility  companies, can technical contact persons be located
 3    in  central  offices  or must tha1 -^contact be located at the

 4    facility?

 5             In  onr regulations,  we are requesting that the

 6    technical contact be  located at  the  facility.   For example,

 7    there  are big chemical  companies that have facilities located

 8    in  a lot of different states.

 9             You might have  30 plants and you would have a

10    headquarters  office located in one state.   We  are requesting

11    in  our regs that the  principal technical contact be a person

12    located at  that facility  that  will be available to answer

13    questions when the  state  agency  or the EPA regional ^f f ice

14    can call that number  and  talk  to someone at that facility

IS    about  the information they sent  in in the  notification.

16             MR.  LINDSEY:  Hill the notification  procedure also

17    be  required of the  resource recovery facilities?  The answer

18    is  yes, as  is anyone  else.

19             MR.  SANJOUR:  What constitutes a hazardous waste

20    cannister?  That would  be a handler, treater,  storer, anyone

2i    who is regulated under  the Act.

22             MODERATOR LEHMAN: Question:  with the tine

23    constraints for testing,  generators  might  just declare all

24    waste  that  is hazardous.   Won't  this make  the  potential

25    problem of  acceptable smoke sites even worse?

 1               I presume when referring to the potential problem,
 2     the writer means the potential lack of acceptable smoke sites
 3     He have considered that.  The problem is that the law is quit<
 4     explicit about what the timing constraints are and what the
 5     requirements of Section 3010 are.
 6               I don't believe we would be on very firm ground if
 7     we extended the testing times.  He have in the case of
 8     toxicity because we know what potentials we have in the case
 9     of toxicity but we know that is a problem.
10               Actually, perhaps a word of explanation would be in
11     order here.  He anticipate that there will be a hierarchical
12     methodology in determining whether waste is hazardous which
13     would start with fairly easy tests such as flammability, Ph,
14     corrosivity, a well-established cheap test and that the
15     majority of potentially hazardous waste would be — you
16     could be able to determine yes or no, based on those fairly
17     simple tests.
18               You won't really get into the toxicity problem
19    .until you've gone through all of those gates with a positive
20     answer and you still have that one gate to get through,
21     namely whether or not it is toxic.
22               I guess we don't anticipate as much testing or at
23     least not as much difficult or extensive testing as some of
24     you out there do.  Furthermore, as we mentioned under the
25     discussion about 3001, depending on which choice we are

 1    making in terms of whether we have a mandatory or a
 2    rebuttable presumption type of list or whether we have  an
 3    example type list.
 4              If we choose to go the mandatory  list  route,  then
 5    essentially no testing is required because  you could be able
 6    to tell fairly well, I think, just by the fact that  you are
 7    on the list that you are required to notify and  then test to
 8    get off of that list.
 9              But whether or not all of this will, although the
10    system, if you will, in terms of acceptable disposal sites,
11    is the sticky question.
12              We also have under the permit system as was
13    described earlier today, the possibility for interim permits
14    so that in effect, things can continue to be handled in the
15    way they've always been handled during an interim period
16    while appropriate permits are developed and issued.
17              So there won't be a cork in the bottle, if you
18    will, that was on purpose by th« Congress,  I'm sure, who set
19    it up that way.
20              Another question.  How do you intend to enforce
21    compliance with Section 3010 notification requirements? What
22    if a generator — what if generators don't  respond either
23    deliberately or through ignorance?
24              Hell, here again, to answer that, it depends  to a
25    certain degree on what type of listing requirement we put out


 1    If we go into a mandatory Hating type of situation  or  a

 2    rebuttal preemption type list, then enforcement is  immediate.

 3    If you pick up a violation.

 4              If someone is on the rebuttable presumption list,

 5    let's say, and he does not notify, when this is determined

 6    that he did not notify, you have an immediate case for

 7    enforcement right there.

 8              If we choose to go the other route and have the

 9    hazardous waste criteria to be the factor rather than a

10    rebuttable presumption list, and again a generator does not

11    respond, then it would be incumbent upon the EPA, if EPA or

12    the state suspected that a generator does have a waste  even

13    though he didn't respond, to get a sample of that waste and

14    we have the power under Section 3007 to inspect and  take

15    samples.

16              We can go in and get samples-, test and see whether

17    the waste meets our criteria and then issue a notice to the

18    generator that he is in violation.  If the generator, within

19    30 days, does not shape up, if you will, and begin to follow

20    the system, then he would be subject to civil penalty.

21              So that in a nutshell is the answer to that

22    question and as I mentioned, it sort of depends on which way

23    we go but one way or the other, there is a way to get at

24    people.

25              one is more immediate and direct, one takes a little

 1    more tine, a little more resources on the part of EPA or the
 2    state.
 3              As I mentioned, I think, yesterday also, the
 4    manifest system itself provides and the record of those
 5    manifests which are required to be submitted, to provide a
 6    clue in this area because if you have, say ten petroleum
 7    refiners, let's say, in a given state and eight of them are
 8    responding and two of them aren't, just by management by
 9    exception, you can pay a call on the other two and see what's
 10    going on.
 11              Do we have some other questions?
 12              MR. FIELDS:  The question is, under Section 3010,
 13    what needs to be reported, listed waste or all suspected
 14    toxic waste?
 15              Well, of course, I guess you mean if the waste is
 16    listed under the Section 3001 criteria that you're handling
 17    that waste, you have to report that waste.  If you have
 18    certain toxic waste or other waste that meets the Section
 19    3001 criteria, those wastes also have to be reported so I
 20    guess the answer is that any hazardous waste that you handle,
 21    that you know about, should be reported in your notification.
 22              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  May I comment?  Let me just
23     comment on that a little bit more.  The point is, if it's on
24     the list, let's say if it's a rebuttable presumption type
25     list, then you've got to report it but the mere fact that

 1    it'» act on that list, does not necessarily mean that it is
 2    not hazardous became the  criteria  i* what's governing here.
 3              So litter it'» on tlM list  or it meets the criteria.
 4    In either or both cases, you  should be reporting those.
 5              I think after the discussion here, you May get the
 6    sense of what this really  is.  It's really a registration,
 7    if you will, to get everybody's name  and number on record
 8    before the system begins to operate.   That is really what
 9    this is all about.
10              MA. KOVALICKi  I would  like to add to that which
11    is the risk that you rust.  If you remember the discussion
12    this morning on  3005 permits  and  if you are a generator —
13    I'M sorry, if ywo are a  storer or treater or disposer of a
14    hazardous waste  and was  in operation  before last October and
15    you failed to notify during  this  90 day period, you have lost
16    your option  for  interim  permit.
17               tf you remember, interim permits are the thing that
18    gat us keeping  facilities  open in the time until the EPA has
19    a chance  te  issue ye«r  permit application so by not notifying
20    Wkicft  presumably means  yen would not submit a permit applica-
21    tion,  you're running  the risk of being discovered with the
22    hasareious waste and having no place to take it because you
23    have  lost yeur opportunity to have an interim psrmit once the
24     90 days  is over.
25               So whether there's a list or just a criteria.


 1    either way or  both,  we believe that since 79 to to percent

 2    of the waste are  disposed of en site,  that generators run a

 3    very high risk by net notifying because if they de not

 4    notify during  the 90 days and then apply for a permit, there

 5    are questions  as  to  whether they have  an interim permit to

     carry them through this period until we can leek at the

 7    application.

 8              I had a couple of other questions.  One Jack

 9    answered about what  about the problems of the waste if it

10    isn't on the  list and so forth and another one is, what

11    considerations would be made for duplication or inconsistent

12    responses that are made as a result of a mass mailing to
13    generators,  transporters, etc. i£hat overlap responsibilities?

M              A start on the answer to that question anyway is

15    that we've alluded to the fact that we're going to use

      automatic data processing equipment and we're going to use

17    those in two or three ways and one of the ways is to use

18    lists of people who notify us.

19              A way to enter those data on the computer and match

20    them against the list of potential people who should notify

21    so we have an exception list of people who did not and

22    another way to look at that is we would mail permit applica-

23    tions to those who notify and match the people who apply for

24    a permit against those who de net and Msong these set who

25    did notify so you see the variety of ways that we can match


 1    people who notify which is basically registration against

 2    people who apply for a permit and then that same system can

 3    be used to natch people who use manifests against people who

 4    notify.

 5              So if we suddenly see people shipping via manifest

 6    and reporting as they are required to do on the results of

 7    those manifests, that can be cross-checked against whether

 8    they notify or not.

 9              So the point is there are some risks that are run

10    by not notifying and we're not going to be doing this by hand

11    and obviously after the same fashion, this would be one way

12    to try and sort out these duplicate responses.

W              That is, as we said, the IRS — any number — that

14    anyone who employees people have is the IRS employee identi-

15    fication — employer identification number.

16              This is a general question for 3001 but it relates

17    to testing.  Will it be possible for the Section 3001

18    regulations to fully describe the various testing procedures?

19    The problem locating and interpreting the various test

20    methods may cause a small operator some great problems.

21              We agree and we may not have given you that

22    impression yesterday but the regulation will have in it the

23    test methods that we are recognizing as the ones to be used

24    to test for flammability, corrosiveness and so forth on the

25    list.


     1              Obviously, it's much easier for us to pick

     2    available recognized tests for those physical chemical

     3    properties and it's much harder to pick the test for the

     4    toxioity type properties.

     5              So our current plan is that the regulation that we
                                   •JfivuJHy —fyj>Au.Btf
 —O 6    propose, hopefully, in the vfamiai-yi February period, will

     7    have all the test methods proposed except perhaps for

     8    toxicity.

     9              Our — development plan indicates that we may delay

    10    that a little longer but all the other test methods will be

    11    in the final regulations when it comes up.

    12              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  I just want to add a little bit

    13    more to that.  There is a distinction, I think, that should

    14    be recognized here.

    15              Between identifying whether or not you have a

    16    hazardous waste and therefore whether or not you ought to

    17    notify and then later on decide what is the best management

    18    practice to manage those wastes, one case, as I indicated as

    19    we go through this hierarchical system, the series of gates.

-»^  20              If you flunk at Gate No. 1 like pH, then you don't

    21    have to know whether it's toxic or not in order to know

    22    whether it's a hazardous waste and whether you ought to be

    23    reporting.

    24              You do need to know More about the waste in order

    25    to decide what is the best method for managing that waste,




















-**) 20






whether it ought to be incinerated, whether it ought to be

landfill and if so, under what conditions?

          Generally speaking, the people that are in the

disposal and treatment business do have chemical laboratories

as part of their facilities and when generators and disposers

enter into a contract, there is a good deal of determination

of waste properties partly for the reasons that people that

are in this business want to know for their own protection

what's in the waste so that they don't blow up their

incinerator or cause fires or some other thing.

          I just want to make that distinction between

deciding whether or not you have a hazardous waste and

deciding what is the best method of managing that waste.

          MR. LINDSEY:  This one has some legal ramifications

which I'm not sure I can answer but I'll read them anyway.

Owners of hazardous waste facilities may not always be the

operators.  What responsibility do the owners have,joint  or

civil liability with the operator?  Who does EPA look to

first, the operator or the owner or both?

          I'm thinking about situations involving lon^

leases of land used for hazardous waste disposal.

          Relative to the liability, joint or civil  liability

I'm not sure.  It's clearly  something  I haven't addressed and

I'm not sure any of the panel here would be  able to  relate

to that.  We'll have to bring that up  to our counsel to  see

 1    if we can get son* idea on that.
 2              Relative to making application for a permit, this
 3    would be a  joint application between the owner and the
 4    operator.   It says under Section 3005 that anyone who is the
 5    owner or operator of any treatment, storage and disposal
 6    operation must have a permit —
 7              Hell, let me read it exactly — the Administrator
 S    shall promulgate regulations which require each person owning
 9    or operating a facility, meaning both, but this could be a
10    joint application and we'll make arrangements for that in
11    the regulation.
12              MR. FIELDS:  A few more questions.  The first one
13    is a three-part question.  Suppose a generator has a number
14    of waste, some hazardous and some not.  Do you have  to list
IS    all hazardous waste or the fact that you generate hazardous
16    waste?
17              The way the regs are currently constituted, you
18    have to list those hazardous wastes that you know about.   If
19    yow handle  even one hazardous waste, you have to notify and
20    identify that one hazardous waste you are handling.
21              The regs don't require that you list every waste
22    that you suspect of being hazardous.  Again, we're interested
23    ii this first 90 day, as Jack indicated, and registering you
24    into the system so if you know you handle at least one
25    hazardous waste, you should notify.


 1               We're not requiring that every individual hazardous

 2    waste that you handle or every individual waste you have that

 3    a determination be made only if you have one,  you had better

 4    get it to us.

 5               The  second question, if you list a waste as

 6    hazardous, that is, if you notify EPA or the state that you

 7    have a hazardous waste and later find out that it is not

 8    hazardous, can it be removed later?

 9               The  answer to that is yes.  If you notify us that

10    you are a hazardous waste handler and you later test your

H    waste or make  some other determination and determine the

12    waste is not hasardous, all you have to do is  let us know

13    and provide evidence of that and you can be removed from our

14    file of hazardous waste generators or transporters or whatevex

15    file you might be in.

I6               The  third part of the question is, if a generator

17    does not believe originally that a waste is hazardous and

18     later be finds out that it is, would he then be required to

19    notify?

20               The answer to that is yes, he would be required to

21    notify.  Of course, if he has a hazardous waste, as soon as

22    he determines that he did.

23               The next is a two-part question.  Hill aeyMmto

24     notifications be required for each waste or from more than

25     one plant in different states generating the  same waste?


  1              Well,  we're not requiring a separate notification

  2    for  each waste.   In your facility,  for example, you might be

      a treatment and  storage and disposal facility.  You might be

      handling hundreds of hazardous wastes at your facility

                He are not requiring a notification for every

      hazardous  waste  that you handle. A separate notification

  7    does not have to be filed for every hazardous waste that you

  8    handle  so  one notification will  suffice for your facility

  9              We are requiring one notification per facility

 10    not  per waste.

 11              Row accurate a description of a hazardous waste

 12    must be indicated in the notification?  For example, can a

 13    complex make sure by identified  process — I guess is the

 14    question — we are not requiring a  detailed chemical analysis

 15    in the  notification.

                All we are requesting  is  that whether you handle

 17    the  hazardous waste, first of all,  and a general description

 18    of that waste and we are requiring  you to indicate if your

 19    wastes  are flammable or toxic or explosive, etc., and that's

 20    about the  extent on the description.  It's not a real detailei

21    chemical analysis required at the time of notification.

22              The next question is,  what if a waste — this is

23    the  same question, I guess.  What if a waste is initially

24    characterized by a company as hazardous and notification is

25    given and  it's later determined  that the waste is not

 1    hazardous  or a process change makes the waste not hazardous?
 2    Bow can notification be withdrawn?
 3               We don't have any formal withdrawal procedures in
 4    our regs but I guess we need to address this in our next
 5    version but all you have to do is notify the EPA region or
 6    the state  and your name will be taken off the list, if you
 7    later determine that your waste is not hazardous.
 8               The last question I have here is — next to last
 9    one — do  hazardous waste handlers have 90 days from
10    promulgation as in Section 3010-A of the Act or 180 days
11    from promulgation as in Section 3010-B of the Act?
12               I know there's some confusion here.  He discussed
13    this internally.  I know that the regulations that are
14    required under Subtitle C of the Act take effect six months
15    after the  date of promulgation.
16               However, the notification period for which
17    regulations are now required in the Act as specified in the
18     law that the notification has to take place 90 days after
19    the Section 3001 criteria are promulgated in the ^Federal
20    Jtegister.
21              So the answer is that notification is required 90
22    days from the tine that 3001 criteria as in the Section
23    3010-A.
24              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  I have here what is really a
25    statement rather than a question and for the record,  I will


 1   read it because  it is one  individual's  comment on Section —

 2   I guess it's Section 3010  or  3001.

 3              It says and I quote,  "I disagree with your

 4   assumption about very few  materials  going through the entire

 5   hierarchy  of test criteria.   It would seen to me that the

 6   "easy" test such as pH, corrosivftty, etc., will quickly

 7   identify those materials which  are definitely hazards but

 8   will not eliminate suspected  materials.

 9              In other words,  any material  suspected of being

10   hazardous  will have to go  through the entire hierarchy to

It   get a clean bill of health.   The toxic  mutagenitic, etc.,

12   tests are  very costly in both time and  money."

13              MR. FIELDS:  How will state universities that have

14   chemical and biological research facilities  be affected by

15   3010?

16              Hell,  the  3010 regulations define  a generator of

17   hazardous  waste  based on the  criteria established under

18   section  3002  so  if a person meets — if a university has a

19   chemical or a biological research facility and they generate

20   sufficient quantities of hazardous  waste,  that makes them a

21   generator.

22              They will  be  required to  notify EPA or the

23   designated state agency.   If  they dispose of waste, they will

24   have to  be in compliance with the  3004  standards and if they

25   are a disposer,  they'll have  to notify  so the same regulation

 1    apply to thoM facilities aa well aa industrial facilities
 2    or other federal facilities.
 3              MR. KOVALICK:  This is a question from yesterday
      Morning,  it started this morning and it's catching up with
      us as we adjust our mental set on manifests here.
                If waste oil is going to a recovery process and
 7    BOW manifest is required which we discussed this morning,
 8    bow does the transporter know the environmental risk in the
 9    event of accident?
10              well, if we follow through on this lack of
11    manifesting, first of all, if it's an interstate shipment,
12    end even for some intrastate shipments, DOT shipping papers
13    and labeling them — then placarding apply.
14              So there's a much smaller set of uncontrolled
15    shipments that one would otherwise believe and the transporter
      would be getting information from that.
17              Secondly, as we mentioned, the EPA spill
18    regulations are still applicable during this entire period
19    and it's my understanding that many transporters have become
20    abruptly aware of the fact that they could become a spiller
21    and have obligations so I trust they're not very many —
22    that even a smaller set of transporters will be totally
23    ignorant of their responsibilities to the environment if
24    there ia a spill of this oil and they're not covered with
25    manifest information.

 1              So basically, this question summarizes that the
 2    point that we're trying to provide incentives for resource
 3    recovery such as giving a generator a breaX, if you will, on
      the paper work.
 5              There is some small risk we are assuming but the
 6    risk we believe is quite small given the DOT and EPA spill
 7    requirements.
 8              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  I believe we've completed the
 9    written comments.  Here comes another one.  While we're
10    waiting on that, there have been a number of questions about
11    the availability of the proceedings of this meeting and we
12    have similar meetings to be held in St. Louis and Phoenix in
13    the next few days.
14              we addressed this yesterday.  However, I've got an
      update, if you will, on the availability and let me just run
16    through this so you all have a feel for it.  First of all,
      we at EPA will receive tux unedited transcript of each
      meeting within two days of the meeting.
                That means by a week from tomorrow, that is a
20    Thursday, we should have a complete set of the transcripts
      of the meeting unedited.  He get three sets.  One set we
22    plan to tear apart and send to various sections and to the
23    various desk officers so they'll have a set to work from.
24              The second set will be put into editing.  The
25    third set will be available for inspection at our offices

 1    unedited.  The edited version would be available by
 2    November 18th.  This is the date that I indicated in my
 3    opening remarks yesterday and about two weeks following that
 4    or about December 1st, we would anticipate copies being
 5    available of the edited version for mailing.
 6              So I hope that answers your questions on that
 7    point.
 8              Now we have some more questions here.  Halt?
 9              MR. KOVALICK:  I think this is a review question
10    from yesterday.  Let's see if you get the same answer today
11    and not like this morning.
12              Does the hazardous waste disposal contractor
13    assume title to and full responsibility for material accepted
14    for instructions?  That is, can his actions come back to
15    haunt the generator?
16              I'll give the same answer I did yesterday  which is
17    nothing we can write in the regulations is going to  absolve
18    the generator of some kind of contractual connection against
19    a court suit.
20              what we believe is that if a generator follows the
21    rule and correctly uses the manifest and sends his waste to
22    the designated permit facility, in the eyes of that  most
23    important reasonable man who is the judge, he is much more
24     insulated from liability than someone who did not but as far
25    as we can tell, this seems to be asking.


 1              Now,  the other question is,  yes,  the disposal

 2    contractor,  the one who accepts the waste is going to bear a

 3    much larger  burden of responsibility than he might today

 4    because of the  fact that he is a permitted facility.

 5              As Fred was describing, he has a clean bill of

 6    health and he's running against those  standards to operate

 7    that facility.

 8              MR. LIKDSEY:  This is a confirmation kind of a

 9    question,  I  guess.  A generator of hazardous waste who has

10    oiAite disposal or storage is required to notify, true?

H    Yes, true.

12              The same generator is also subject to permit under

13    Section 3005.  That is also true.

14              MR. SAMJOUR:  In the determination of whether or

15    not a waste  is  hazardous, does the criteria apply directly

16    to the waste or to the standard leachate?

17              The standard leachate is only used in connection

18    with toxicity testing.  The other tests are used to — but

19    in connection with the toxicity testing, only the leachate

20    is applicable and not the waste itself.

21              MR. KOVALICK:  To confuse the matter, I think the

22    only addition I want to make to that is we are still evolving

23    the question of not only which test to use but also the fact

24     that the state  of the waste makes a difference.

25              For example, you can't run a pH test of a solid


   1    waste and therefore you have to get a solid waste into

   2    solution.  Likewise, you can't run a flammability test —

   3    well, we're working on that one but we're not confident you

   4    can until you get into the solution.

   5              So I guess I will amend Bill's statement to say
                     y y  

     health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,

 2    transported or disposed of or otherwise managed.*

 3              I call your attention to the words "significant and

     substantial" which are a part of the definition there.  We

 5    are certainly aware of the fact that some people will believe

 6    that EPA is attempting to bring under regulatory control

 7    every waste there is in the world.

 8              This is not the case.  He understand as in our

 9    judgment that the Congress intended us to address in this

10    regulatory part of RCRA only those wastes which meet these

11    general criteria as expounded in the law, namely significant

12    problems, substantial present or potential hazards and so


14              We are attempting to do that.  If you feel upon

15    review of the criteria for Section 3001 that we're missing

     that mark, I wish you would comment to us and furthermore,

17    besides telling as what we are doing wrong, it is of great

18    help if you tell us the ways to do it right because in the

19    same sense as we discussed this infamous 27 pounds or whatevei

20    it was yesterday, it's an attempt — in a way, it's an attempt

21    to meet the intent of the law of limiting ourselves to

22    significant and substantial problems and substantial hazards.

23              If you have a better way to do this, by all means

24    let us know but just to tell us that we're wrong, that doesn't

25    help us a great deal and we would solicit your positive


 1     contributions  to our effort.

 2              Are  there any questions from the floor concerning

 3     Section 3010,  the notification?  Yes,  sir.  Could you please

 4     step to the mike?

 5              MR.  SCOFIELD:  This may not  belong here.  I have

 6     waited two  days expecting somebody to  touch on it and we've

 7     succeeded in going through the whole thing without mentioning

 8     it.

 9              When you are getting your criteria for 3001, you

10     gave a commendable emphasis on the use of standard test

11     methods which  I think is excellent but no mention was maee at

12     all  of the  problem of getting a uniform sample of the waste.

13              Now, I've been working to some extent, for example,

14     with the paint industry where their waste stream is likely

15     to consist  of  a large number of paper bags with traces of

16     pigment which  may or may not be toxic in it, broken palettes,

17     a few cans  of  spilled paint with the debris collected in it

18     and  so forth.

19              How how in hell you're going to get a sample to

20     measure any of the properties to determine whether you've got

21     a hazardous waste there or not, I'm sorry to say although you

22     requested,  I don't have an answer for it but I would be a lot

23     happier if I were sure you all were aware that there was a

24     problem there.

 25              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Thank you for your comment.

 1    That is a good comment and one  that  I  think we're  going to
 2    have to again do some more work on.  We  have,  as you are
 3    probably aware, been extremely  busy  trying to  establish what
 4    the criteria are and it's pretty clear that you are  correct
 5    that we have to have a standardized  sampling methodology
 6    along with a testing methodology and we  will take  that comment
 7    to heart.
 8              MR. SCOFIELD:  There  are a number of ASTM  committees
 9    that are working on that for  various things.
10              MODERATOR LEHMAN:   Right.  I might point out we're
     not totally unaware of that problem.  We have  had  some
12    contract work underway in California to  develop a  standardize
13    sampling methodology for liquid tank trucks which  is a
     problem in its own right.
15              You mentioned one,  I  think it's pretty clear to
18    some of you who are familiar  with  this business that a tank
17    truck can have four or five different  phases within  one
18    single tank and try to get a  representative  sample by a dip-
     stick method or some other type method is a  difficult
2Q    problem.
               We are  tracking what  is  the  development  of that
22    procedure in California and we'll  try  to address  this more
23    explicitly in our regulations.  Good comment.
24              Any other questions or  comments from the floor?
     Wait a minute, we have a written  question, I'm sorry.  Let's

 1    carry on with that first.
 2              MR. LINDSEY:  This just came in.  Has a cost study
 3    been made by EPA or any other government agency demonstrating
 4    the financial impact upon a covered business which is subject
 5    to hazardous waste management provisions of the Act?
 6              I just want to point out in this that the next
 7    section on the next discussion here will deal with environ-
 8    mental and economic impact analyses so I think your question
 9    will be answered..
10              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  He have a comment here,  it is
11    not a question and I'll just read it into the record.
12              "Excluding all other provisions in the regulations
13    of what determines a hazardous waste, it appears that almost
14    any waste can be declared hazardous if improperly handled."
15              This is related, I think, to the other comment that
16    I had about can you cite any waste that is not hazardous.
17    There is a distinction in our minds about Subtitle C  and
18    Subtitle D Of RCRA.
19              Subtitle D will, to some degree, exclusively
2o    through the state process control non-hazardous waste and
2i    those that are deemed hazardous would be handled and
22    controlled under Subtitle C but I get the very distinct
23    impression from these comments that there are some of you  in
24     the audience who believe that we are moving too far through
25    the spectrum down into what you would consider non-hazardous


 1    waste and again, all I can do is repeat that we are attempting

 2    to live with the intent of the law.

 3              I might cite some figures that derive from a series

 4    of industrial waste practice studies that we've gotten over

 5    the past several years of 15 different industrial SIC codes

 6    where the total amount of waste — of industrial waste in

      those industries was identified.

 8              I'm talking about now, this is just the 15 of

 9    approximately — I believe the number was — Tim knows the

      number — roughly 200 million metric tons, whereas that

      portion which was judged to be hazardous by the contractor

12    who conducted the study, this was before any criteria

13    existed, came up with, I believe it was 26 million metric

14    tons.

15              So roughly 10 to 12 percent of the total waste.

16    This has been our general feeling all along — all alone —

      but this' ia the area we were targeting for or roughly in

      that area, about 10 percent of the waste are likely to turn

19    out to be hazardous and the other 90 percent which is a

20    substantial amount would not come under the control of

21    Subtitle C but would come under the control of Subtitle D of

22    the Act.

23              Perhaps that puts it into a little perspective.

24    I think that covers it unless there are any further — wait a

25    minute, we have one more.

 1              MR.  SANJOURi   The question is, axe handlers of
 2     possible waste excluded under 3010 and the answer is no.  I
 3     guess that  needs some explanation.
 4              Assuming these possible wastes are hazardous and
 5     anyone who  handles the hazardous waste must notify EPA.
 6              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Yes, we have a question from
 7     the floor.
 3              MR.  JENKINS:   It was my understanding that hospital
 9     wastes were excluded in 3005, is that correct?  If that's the
10     case then,  wouldn't they be exempt under 3010 also?
11              The  other question was, if they are exempt or
12     disallowed  under 3005,  this seems to be reverse of the EPA
13     policy up to this point and I was wondering if we could get
14     that clarified?
15              MR.  LINDSEY:   The way it's currently handled under
16     3005 is that hospital waste treatment facilities, hospital
17     treatment facilities, that is the incinerator or autoclav
13     or storage  facilities or the hospital are excluded if they
19     are regulated  under state control and that state control is
2Q     judged to be equivalent then to the 3004 procedures that we
21     have, the 3004 standards.
22              That's the only way in which they are excluded.
23     They would  not need another permit under 3005 but they could
24     be generators.  They would still be generators of a hazardous

25     waste.

-9  w

-=\  15
 -f  16

          The only people who don't need to notify — and
tell me if I'm wrong on this — but the only people who don't
need to notify who treat, store, dispose, transport or
generate hazardous waste are the homeowners.  Isn't that
right?  I don't think there's anyone else, only homeowners —
          MS. FIELDS:  And mining and milling operators.
          MR. JENKINS:  Now, people who would dispose of or
ultimately dispose of hospital waste, if they are determined
to be hazardous under 3001, then they would need a permit
under 3005 for the storage, treatment or disposal of possible
          MR. LINDSEY:  Yes, right.
          VOICES  Of^fsite.
          MR. JENKINS:  Off~>ite.
          MR. LINDSEY:  Or oi^iite if it were disposal.  Only
the treatment operations — are the incinerator, the autoelav-
or whatever those kinds of things.  If they're land disposing
on the hospital grounds, they're going to need permits.
          MR. JENKINS:  This has something to do with ~
          MR. LINDSEY:  I believe that's a little far-fetched
I hear some chuckles.
          MR. JENKINS:  I don't know whether you can answer
this question here or not.  It's pertaining to hospital waste
It has been up to now in our determination of what EPA policy
has been with hospital waste that they would like to see all

 1    hospital waste considered as infectious or hazardous.
 2              All hospital waste generated in the hospital
 3    facility.  That being true,  is it anticipated that this sane
 4    sort of a definition is anticipated under 3001 of RCRA?
 5              MR. LINDSEY:  I'll turn that over to the gentleman
 6    on My left.
 7              MR. KOVALICXt  The draft reg that some people have
 8    and others of you can get if you would like, names certain
 9    sources within hospitals as  generators of hazardous waste
10    like operating rooms and pathology labs and so forth.
11              It is our contention that if we named those which
12    tend to be higher i inn 

 1              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  We hare another very thoughtful

 2    question here which says, if only homeowners are exempt from

 3    notification, what about office buildings, apartment complexei

 4    campgrounds and so forth?

 5              Good point.   I believe we will have to — I think

 6    you get the sense of what we're trying to do here, though.

 7    He want to exempt municipal and commercial type waste which

 8    I think most of these  others would come into, office

 9    building and apartment complexes and so on.

10              Good comment.  Are there any other questions from

11    the floor concerning Section 3010?

12              (Mo response.)

13              MODERATOR LEHMANi  Okay, if not, thank you very

14    much,  Tim.

15              Now we would like to move on to a discussion of

16    the environmental and  economic impact assessment under

17    Subtitle C.  A» I bellow I mentioned yesterday, we have

19    elected to conduct environmental impact appraisal and

19    economic impact assessment on the entire Subtitle C all at

20    once,  rather than trying to do it on each individual regula-

21    tion or guideline.

22              Mike Shannon who is the program manager for Policy

23    Analysis in the Hazardous Haste Division will make a present*

24    tion on this subject.   Hike?

25              MR. SHANNON:  The authority comes from a variety


    1    of EPA policy statements and the Act, the National Environ-

    2    mental Policy Act.  The EPA policy  for doing BIS's cam** or
    3    stems from 1974 EPA administrative decision to conduct

    4    regulatory programmatic EIS'« of major regulatory  actions

    5    that EPA is involved in and Subtitle C has been deemed  such

    6    an action and this is, as opposed to the kinds of  EIS's we

    7    were talking about this morning and EIS on a Subtitle C

    8    action, not site specific EIS's for a particular facility

    9    site permit applications.

    10              Regarding economic analysis, the requirement  for

    11    conducting them or considering economic consequences in part

    12    »t least is included in the EPA position on doing  EIS's

    13    which is based on NEPA in turn but in addition, in recent

    14    years, the requirement for doing economic analyses has  been

    15    enlarged and is based on two executive orders requiring that

    16    broad scope economic impact analysis be conducted.

    17              That requirement is implemented by Office of

    18    Management and Budget circular.  There are certain criteria

    19    that have to be met before such analyses are required but

    20    even if the criteria are not met,  if they were  below the

    21    cutoff limits such as the  $50 million  incremental  cost  impact

    22    which is the guideline for conducting  the OMB  required

    23    analysis, the EPA administrator and the  General Counsel of

    24    EPA have determined that regardless of how small the economic
—^?25    impact may be, the administrator,  at least,  wants  to be


 1    apprised of what that impact is.

 2              Regarding the prospective content of  the  EIS  and

 3    the EIA analysis,  I would  like to cover  in three  parts, just

 4    briefly talk about the general content of —  particularly

 5    the EIS and then talk about the specific parts  of the EIS

 6    and specific parts of the  — or work  being done under the

 7    economic impact analysis requirements.

 8              The purpose of the impact analyses  is to  provide

 9    the environmental  economic consequences  of Subtitle C actions

10    to the federal, state, local government  agencies  that are

11    involved, ultimately of course, to the Congress,  to the

12    President and the  public.

13              The EZS  in particular is supposed to  be a relatival

14    straightforward document and does not require extensive

15    technical or scientific expertise to  comprehend and evaluate.

16    it is written for  general  audiences.

17              it basically lays out what  it  is that the agency

IS    is doing and what  the consequences are.  The  EIS  in particula;

19    is used as the official EPA vehicle for  soliciting  public

20    comment on the content and presentation  of the  regulation.

21              At this  point, the draft environmental  impact

22    statement will be  filed when the  — I guess the last regula-

23    tion  is proposed which at  this time would  be  February and

24    then  there would be  a  60 day comment  period  and then after

25    that  period of time, there would  be a period  of further

 1    deliberation within EPA to consider the comment and a final
 2    EIS would be promulgated when the regulations or a final EIS
 3    would be  issued when  the final regs are promulgated.
 4               The EIS will  basically identify and describe the
 5    action.   It will identify  those industries and other segments
 6    that are  affected which generate hazardous waste.  It will
 7    discuss the transportation and treatment and storage and
 8    disposal  problems associated with hazardous waste management.
 9               It will generically describe the criteria used for
10    defining  hazardous  waste.   It will get into the environmental
11    problems  associated with hazardous waste, air emission, water
12    quality problems and  public health hazards.
13               The real  work of the EIS, the specific nature of
14    the EIS,  begins with  a  discussion of the rationale for the
IS    exclusion of certain  major regulatory options that the agency
16    consider.
17               Why did we  exclude certain possibilities from this
18    consideration? Then  the next thing EIS will discuss is the
19    testing of the remaining alternatives for reasonableness.
20    From that point, we go  on  to list the regulatory options that
21    are available to us for implementing the Subtitle C regula-
22    tions  and of course,  many  of those have come from the options
23    that have come from public meetings such as this, earlier
24    public meetings and contexts that have been referred to.
25               These options, by the way, are not only Subtitle C

 1    across-the-board action but also the specific options that
 2    are available within  a  particular section.   Then a determine-
 3    tion  is made of  which options  achieve attainment of the
 4    overall objectives  of the Act.
 5              The next  step is to  select a reasonable and
 6    manageable  set of alternatives for the actual assessment and
 7    this  includes not only  the baseline alternative action that
 8    has been  talked  about up to this point but  also a number of
 9    alternatives to  what  we've been discussing  up to this point.
10              He are evaluating, for instance,  or we'll begin to
11    evaluate  alternatives that enhance resource recovery
12    conservation alternatives that give us a certain amount of
13    increased public health, environmental protection or a
14    decreased amount of environmental health protection.
15              The purpose of doing the alternative analysis is
16    to force  the regulators, the EPA in this case, to objectively
17    look  at alternatives  in an interdisciplinary nature so that
18    we are covering  every aspect of that action in terms of the
19    various ways that people will  be affected from a technical,
20    social or economic  standpoint,  for example.
21              The next  step is to  go on to an evaluation analysis
22    of the impacts that are to be  seen from the various alterna-
23    tives that  have  been  identified.  The primary impacts that
24    will  be evaluated are pollution reduction,  hazardous waste
25    reduction that will be  experienced, any procedural changes

  1    that are likely to occur in the management of hazardous
  2    waste, resource recovery conservation  impacts that will  be
  3    significant, improvement in that method of management and
  4    also what are the physical and biological changes in  the
  5    environment that we are likely to  see  because of this
  6    particular action.
  7              The secondary impacts that will be discussed are
  8    changes in the social and economic makeup of communities,
  9    for instance, a particular region  that might be affected by
 10    these regulations and also whether or  not there would be any
 11    cross-media impacts or as a result of  the hazardous waste
 12    action, will there be increased problems for other environ-
 13    mental concerns?
 U              Other considerations that will be discussed are
 IS    unavoidable adverse impacts of the action, the relationship
plg    between local shortt^Jterm impacts versus the maintainance and
1 17    enhancement of lon^^erm objectives or a sacrifice of lon^£)
> 18    term objectives at the expense of  shor^term  uses.
 19               Irreversible, irretrievable  commitment  of  resources
 20    Will we see that  kind of problem?  Then of  course,  a
 21    discussion of the public comments  that were received and the
 22    extent to  which they were  considered  and this would be in
 23    the  final  EIS.
 24               Then the  final  step of  the  EIS  is  to state and
 25     justify  the  rationale  for the selection of the proposed


 1    action.   Going on to the economic impact analysis requirement!

 2    the first thing that we are trying to do that we are

 3    attempting to do at this point is to improve, upgrade our

 4    cost of  compliance data which primarily comes from the 15

 &    assessment studies that were just mentioned.  Primarily,

 6    those studies were done in '74 and '75.

 7              We are trying to put — they were done on an

 8    industry by industry basis.  It may not reflect the

 9    comparability of the costs that in actuality may be seen

10    across the industry lines because of the way we now plan to

11    regulate.

*2              Three or four years ago, the position was probably

13    not to regulate on basically a waste stream basis.  It was to

14    be done  on an industry approach.  Once that cost data, the

15    technical cost of the compliance data is upgraded and

16    improved, we will go on to the next step of translating

17    those increased costs into economic impacts on those who are

19    going to be affected.

19              The generators, transporters and hazardous waste

20    management facilities.  How much will those increased costs

21    impact on their ability to produce a given product or offer

22    a particular service?  How much will the price of that

23    service  or product go up?

24              Will the increased costs have an adverse impact on

25    their ability to invest in productive capacity?  Will the


  1    action have employment impacts in that  it would cause  a

  2    layoff or curtailment of employment  in  certain sectors?

  3              In addition to that, the final study that we are

  4    doing which in effect is equivalent  to  the BIS is  a

  5    comprehensive, economic impact analysis which will tie

  6    together the interrelationships that are experienced in  the

  7    total demand-supply situation of hazardous waste management

  8    where you've got a whole series of affected  parties.

  9              we will attempt to determine  what  the linkage  is

 10    between these affected sectors so that  we can understand the

 11    requirements of one part of the network and  then therefore

 12    understand what kind of changes we will see  on other sector.

 13              For instance, will more waste be managed ojAsite

 14    now and if that's the case, what kind of impact will that

i15    have on the of^frite management facilities?  That  is,  I

 16    guess, a good example of the kind of economic impact we  are

 17    not getting from the specific industry  by industry studies

 18    that we are conducting.

 19              The unresolved issues in a sense are in  many cases

 20    also problems that we face  in conducting the analyses  both

 21    economic and environmental.  For instance, the definition of

 22    a hazardous waste and standards for  facilities obviously

 23    depending on how they are finally established will have

 24    various impacts on the environmental and economic  impacts.

 25              That is, in fact, one of the  difficulties  in doing


 1    these  two  analyses  and that we are  kind of shooting at a

 2    moving target,  we  are trying  to remain flexible in the

 3    economic and  environmental  analyses but still comprehensive.

 4              Me  are  conducting these analyses very early in the

 5    decision making process which  is, I think, somewhat unusual.

 6    Other  problem areas or issues  that  we  are dealing with are

 7    the  fact that most  of  our cost data is what the cost of the

 8    technical  compliance is with the regulations.

 9              In  other  words, how  much  does it cost for a secure

10    land disposal operation or  incineration?  He do not have

11    very good  or  extensive cost data on some of the administrativ«

12    or non-technical  cost  of Subtitle C.

13              Many of the  things we have talked about,  for

14    instance,  record  keeping, recording, etc.   Other problems

15    that we're trying to deal with in terms of impacts  are the

16    fact that  we  do not have a  lot of good data information in

17    terms  of impacts  on industries outside of these 15  primary

18    generators of hazardous waste  that  will be impacted.

19              Non-manufacturing SIC codes, for instance, in other

20    areas.  I  guess,  really, the significant problem that we have,

2i    too, that  on  going  problem  is  the definition and development

22    of regulatory alternatives  that will really achieve distinct

23    or definitive objectives apart from the regulatory  baseline

24    action that we've been talking about for the last two days.

25              Finally,  the problem of achieving a reasonable


 1     balance between environmental and economic consequence*.

 2     This is an important issue and something that will ultimately

 3     foe dealt with by the Administrator and the decision making

 4     process leading up to his decision under the Subtitle C

 5     regulations.   Thank you.

 6               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Thank you, Hike.  I think you

 7     can all appreciate the difficult job that Hike has been

 8     assigned.  As he mentioned, he's been trying to develop

 9     environmental alternatives and economic analyses and so on

10     and so forth  which are very important.

11               At  the same time, we are evolving these very

12     complex and interrelated set of regulations.  It is a very

13     challenging assignment and I think so far, so good.

14               At  this time, I would like to call for anyone who

15     has a statement that they would like to make concerning the

16     environmental-economic impact assessment.

17               (No response.)

18               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Evidently not.  We will at this

19     time take written questions and we have a few here.  I think

20     some of the questions we've answered earlier had a relation-

21     ship to this.  We just got to them early on in the process.

22               If  you have a written question, just write it down

23     on a 3x5 card and we'll pick it up and try to answer it.

24               Mike, why don't you go ahead?

25               MR. SHANNON:  The question is, how can the EPA do


 1   any meaningful EIA economic  impact  analysis when criteria

 2   for what  constitutes a  hazardous material is  still undefined

 3   and the unknowns of adequate disposal  sites?

 4             The answer is that we may not be able  to do as good

 5   a  job as  we would  otherwise  be able to do. Obviously, if we

 6   had that  information at this point. But what we are doing

 7   as we are assuming, for instance, that the amounts of waste

 8   defined by the hazardous waste assessment studies give us a

 9   good substitute of information as to what the impacts may be.

10             What we're doing is assuming that the  criteria, as

11   defined,  will be equal  to or very close to the amounts of

12   waste or  the problem associated, particularly with the

13   assessment studies.

14             MR. LINDSEY:   This is kind of along the same lines.

15   Question  and statement, really.  Shouldn't this  kind of study

16   be completed to determine which materials should be consider•<

17   hazardous under 3001?

18             It appears that hazardous wastes are currently

19   selected  and then  justified by  the  EIS rather than making the

20   ETS on the materials as a method of selecting those materials

21   which  fall under  3001.

22             It has then  been stated  that a problem is defining

23   a hazardous waste  in this endeavor, where in fact an EIS

24   should define  the  hazardous waste.

25              I think  that's a little  bit of a contradiction in

  1    the way the EIS really works.  The EIS, a programmatic EIS,
  2    doesn't do the selecting.  You must have a series of
  3    alternatives in the EIS to analyze and you analyze those
  4    alternative approaches or ways of proceeding to determine if
  5    the approach or way of proceedingsis being used is the best
  6    one.  If it's not, then you change it.
  7              MOW, ideally, the way to do this would be to do
  8    enough analysis of the different alternatives to identify
  9    the alternatives, then do the EIS and economic impact
10    analysis, too, for that matter and take the time to do all
11    that and then come back and then propose and do your regula-
12    tions under the one that seems best.
13              In other words, according to the procedures and so
14    forth that appear to be the best approach.  Given the
15    extremely limited time frame that we are working under under
16    this Act, as you may or may not realize, that has not been
17    possible so we have had to proceed on a parallel basis.
18              MOW the method here is not to — with the EIS is
19    not to use the EIS to justify what the approach is which is
20    being taken but rather to proceed along parallel paths and
21    when if, in the EIS analysis which has been going on, we
22    find a problem exists or a way in which a proceeding which
23    would be more effective and perhaps encouraging resource
24    recovery or protecting public health or whatever, the
25    decision is made then on whether to shift our procedure or


 1    not.

 2              MODERATOR LEHMAN:   Let me break in,  if I  may.   We

 3    have a telephone message  for Mr.  Gilley,  State of Virginia,

 4    Mr. Gilley, you have a message  here.   Okay,  go ahead.

 5              MR.  SHANNON: Question:  who prepares the EIS

 6    required by RCRA?

 7              Technically, I  guess  I could clarify that question.

 8    The RCRA doesn't require  an  EIS.   It has  been  decided  that

 9    the Subtitle C action  is  the major action.   But the point is

10    this program office is responsible for conducting the  EIS and

11    making the ultimate decisions on the alternatives that are

12    being evaluated and the decisions on the  final proposed

13    action or recommended  action due to the EPA  decision making

14    process.

15              we do have a contract study underway with a

16    consultant to  provide  us  with assistance  in  doing this work.

17    They are preparing  background data and conducting analyses

18    for us of the  regulatory  alternatives.

19              Another question.   What if determined costs  of

20    Subtitle C greatly  exceed the benefits?
                      regulatory  reforms  occur legislatively or

22   otherwise?

23             One of the  great  difficulties of conducting impact

24   analyses  has always been to identify the benefits.   The

25   primary decision making  information has been what,  in a


      sense,  what are the cost impacts or impacts on various

      economic factors?

                I guess there's a give^and^ake process that goes

 4    on between the perceived environmental benefits and the

 5    adverse economic impacts that are identified.  To the best
 7    good benefit cost analyses per se of a regulatory action.

















      of my knowledge,  there is really no — there have been no
          If this were the case of cost exceeding the

benefits — greatly exceeding the benefits, would they lead

to regulatory reform of RCRA?  I don't know.

          MODERATOR LEHMtf:  It's a very thoughtful question.

Let me just say that our preliminary economic analyses which

were done as a result of these other 15 industry studies  as

I mentioned, seem to indicate and I grant you they were not

extensive economic analyses, seem to indicate that generally

speaking and there are always pockets that you could call as

an exception, generally speaking the general thrust of what

we were attempting to do did not appear to result in

significant and economic impacts at least in compiurison with

air and water regulations.

          The proof of the pudding will be these more

detailed studies that are underway at this time.  If it

appears that we are way off base and that the economic

impacts will be extremely high, then very definitely we will

take that into consideration.


   1              I might also point out on the benefit side,

   2    everyone talks in terms of cost.  Let's take a look at the

   3    benefits as Mike was saying, it is difficult to quantify the

   4    benefits and in this particular situation, it is also very

   5    difficult, it is even more difficult because of the nature

   6    of the beast that we are dealing with.

   7              It is the nature of waste management that the

   8    impacts of improper waste management are not acutely obvious.

   9    In many cases, it takes months or years for the impacts to

   10    become apparent.  So we are faced with that situation.

   11              Also, the Congress made it very clear in the law

   12    and in the legislative history behind the law that they were

   13    concerned not only with acute hazards like flammability,

   14    explosivity, pH, corrosivity and so on, or even acute

~x 15    toxicity, but also with chronic effects, long^berm toxicity,

   16    bio-accumulation, the more subtle and insidious hazards of

   17    our society.

   18              So here again it is difficult to quantify what the

   19    benefits are of a set of regulations when you are dealing

   20    with chronic effects which take some period, some lengthy

   21    period of time to manifest themselves.  So that is just some

   22    supplementary remarks to what Mike said.

   23              MR. SHANNON:  In conducting the economic statement,

   24    what sort of information would you use to determine how far

   25    the generator will be affected versus the larger generator?


  1              The  criteria that we use for determining whether

  2    or not we first  of  all study an industry are basically the

  3    same whether or  not it's  industry or whether or not we would

  4    conduct  these  analyses.

  5              For  instance, one of the criteria we use is will

  6    the incremental  cost impact of this action be 5 percent or

             «£                                            SfXUJL-

1  7    greateig) Translated into the price of service, will,the

  8    price of that  service has to go up more than 5 percent.

  9              But  beyond that, we have to go into the industry

 10    economics of a particular segment to determine, for instance,

 11    what the ability of a firm is to pass on a 5 percent cost

 12    increase.

 13              It could  be that even with a 1 percent cost

 14    increase that  may be a significant adverse impact.  They may

 15    not be able to pass it on and their profit margin may be

 16    very, very minor.   It may wipe out their profit margin.

 I7              So there  are, in addition to these guideline type

 18    criteria, the  analysis that has to go inside of that kind of

 19    analysis.

 20              DO you have definitions — different definitions

 21    for your own use of small, medium, large generators?

 22              Me do  from industry to industry have various

 23    categorisation of industry size and other determinants that

 24    would impact on  cost like the types of raw materials that

 25    arc used or geographic location, .for instance.


 1              It is  very,  very important to categoric* industry

 2    into those components  that are representative of the way

 3    cost impacts are likely to be affected.  Generally, they are

 4    consistent with  what other environmental studies have shown

 5    or  industry studies  of associations  have shown.

 6              That leads into the next question, will you be

 7    meeting with the affected trade associations to  arrive at a

 8    cost analysis?

 9              In some cases, we have done that and also in some

10    cases, particularly  of the industries that we have studied.

11    These particular industries, through their trade associations

12    have conducted their own cost analyses or hazardous waste

13    management surveys and that data is  very useful  to us in

14    conducting our analyses and I think  it's fair to say that we

IS    would solicit any kind of information, cost information or

16    economic  impact  analysis not only from trade associations

17    but individually from  those who are  affected by  the regula-

18    tions.

19              MU  UmMKTt  Regarding the 15 assessment studies

20    that were addressed  earlier, are the industries  addressed in

21    the studies felt to  be the major hazardous waste generators,

22    the only  significant generators or what?

23              This goes  back into history a little bit, all the

24    way back  to in the early '70's when  Congress mandated that

25    we  take a look at the  whole hazardous waste picture and try


 1     to identify the source* and the impacts and a variety of

 2     other thing* which then culminated in our report to Congress

 3     in — when was that,  in 1973?

 4               A study was done at that time which identified for

 5     preliminary purposes  what were felt to be the major industry

 6     groups that were likely to generate hazardous waste and it

 7     made a complete survey of all the SIC codes, for example.

 8               Now, when we later on, probably the following year

 9     beginning in 1974, we began to undertake an analysis, a more

10     in-depth analysis of  the sources within that industry and

11     the characteristics of the waste and what we've typically

12     done with those wastes, etc.

13               Tes, the answer is the 15 assessment studies that

14     we conducted are thought to be the major generators of

15     hazardous waste, industries which generate most of the

16     hazardous waste.

17               They are not the only industries that generate

18     hazardous waste but they are thought to be the most signifi-

19     cant ones.

20               MR. SANJOUR:  They were undertaken because they

21     were in advance thought to be the most significant ones.  At

22     the result of the studies, we found we were wrong in several

23     cases, that some of the ones which we did study were not very

24     significant at all and some which we did not study are

 25    significant.


 1              MR. LIHDSEY:  How many industries Sic codes were

 2    examined to select those that were addressed?

 3              As I say, the initial study that was done before

 4    we began getting into the more detailed studies addressed

 5    the entire across-the-board picture.  At that point, little

 6    or nothing was known about hazardous waste, publicly, anyway.

 7              Are all 15 available and from whom?

 8              I believe at this point all 15 are available  from

 9    NTIS.  I em told that that is not quite true.  Twelve or 13

10    of them are currently available, two of them are  still  being

11    edited, completed and edited and being published.

12              MR. KOVALXCK:  Those of you who aren't  familiar

13    with that acronym, that's the National Technical  Information

14    Service run by the Department of Commerce in Springfield,

15    Virginia and they ship publications by order and  by number

18    at a cost, usually by the number of pages and the study and

17    some of our studies are two volumes so some of them are fairl;

18    large.

19              MR. LINDSEY:  Next question, in preparing an EIS,

20    will a requirement of public participation be encouraged?

21    If so, what will be the method of notifying the public and

22    what will be the time constraints?

23              This is a little different  kind of an EIS than the

24    kind with which most of us are  familiar.   It is not a site

25    specific EIS but rather a programmatic EIS  and as far as we

















know, this is the first tine a programmatic SIS has been done

on a broad comprehensive s«t of regulations.

          For example, a regulation on what air pollutant or

something of that nature.  But in fact, the public participa-

tion will be involved and it is being merged in with the

publication participation facet of the regulation promulgation

phase in that the SIS, the progranmatic BIS will be published

in proposed form at the same time the regulations are

published in proposed form and the input, comment, etc. , on

that will be accepted in the same manner, addressed in the

same manner.

          What regulatory alternatives have been considered

to date?

          This work is still going on.  The basic approach

for broad regulatory alternatives to cut across all sections

of the regulations now, one of them to use vernacular words,

one of them would be a set of regulations which would

significantly increase public health protection.

          Another one would be a lesser degree of public

health protection.  Another one would increase and concentrate

on increasing the likelihood of a state that is taking over

the program.

          Another one would significantly increase or

encourage, concentrate on encouraging resource recovery

facilities and operations.  Those are four of them.  I'm not


1    sure and Mike, you may want to elaborate in a minute  or  so

2    if I've missed any that are actively going on.

3              Will you elaborate on what is considered non-

4    technical coat data and how this information will be

5    estimated?

6              Now what we mean by this general term is not the

7    data or not the cost of complying with regard to building

8    facilities or that kind of thing but rather the cost  of

9    preparing applications, the cost of running the notification

10    system, the cost of running a manifest system, those  kinds of

11    costs are what we're talking about by non-technical costs.

12              We are going to undertake another study along  those

13    lines of what those costs are and how will they be estimated?

14    By a variety of techniques including a lot of contact, I

15    think, with the people who are involved.  The states, our own

16    regional EPA offices as well as the industry, etc., that is

17    involved.

18              MR. SHANNON:  The only other option, there  may be

19    some others but one that the EIS process requires that we

20    analyze is the alternative of no action.

21              Question:  implementation of the Clear Air  Act, the

22    Water Pollution Control Act and more recently, the Safe

23    Drinking Water Act will significantly impact both quantity

24    of hazardous waste and cost of solid/hazardous waste  manage-

25    ment.  Have these effects been factored into the EIA  for RCRA


 1               I  am not *ure about all of these acts but in tens

 2     of,  I  guess, at least the Clean Water Act, the impact has

 3     been factored in in a sense that the cross-media impacts of

 4     what happens when you have more water pollution controls,

 5     residuals, etc., is factored into the problem while hazardous

 6     waste  management ahdttfce cost of control for those wastes.

 7               But as to the impact of specifically the Safe

 8     Drinking Hater Act and the Clean Air Act, I don't really

 9     know.

10               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Let me add to that, Mike.

11     Again  back to these 15 industrial waste management practices

12     studies  that were discussed in the last hour or so.  Those

13     did  include  estimates of the impacts of the Clean Hater Act,

14     the  Federal  Hater Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air

15     Act, at  least those two.

I6               I'm not sure that when we started that process of

17     the  Safe Drinking Hater Act was not in existence so it did

18     not  include  any impacts from that aspect.  He attempted to

19     estimate what would happen in 1977 and 1983.  Those are the

20     original targets under the Hater Pollution Control Act as to

21     what those impacts might be.

22               More recently, as you are probably aware, there are

23     increased emphasis and pre-treatment standards under the

24     Water  Act and also new amendments to the Clean Air Act were

25     passed just last month.  Amendments to the Hater Pollution



 1    Control Act are under active consideration at this point and

 2    some of which have waste management implications.

 3              So here again, it is somewhat of a moving target.

 4    We are attempting to keep up with that and factor those

 5    changes in as best we can.

 6              Well, that appears to be the substance of the

 7    written questions.  Do we have any comments from the floor

 8    on the environmental and economic impact analysis?

 9              (No re*ponse.)

10              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Evidently not.  I would like at

11    this time to call again on those individuals who indicated a

12    desire to present their remarks before this meeting.  We

13    attempted to get those remarks on the record yesterday and

14    the individuals were not present at that time.  I would like

15    to run through them one more time to make sure that we don't

16    miss then.

17              Is Mr. Leslie Dach, a science associate with the

IS    Environmental Defense Fund of Washington, D.C. present?

19              Mr. Clifford Harvison, managing director. National

20    Tank Truck Carriers, Inc., Washington, D.C.?  Is Mr. Harvison

21    present?

22              Dr. Arthur Morris of the Capitol Energy Resources

23    Association in Washington, D.C., is Dr. Morris present?

24              Mr. Frank Singleton, director of environmental

     health, Greenwich, Connecticut, is Mr. Singleton here?

 1              Nell, none of the individuals who did request time
 2    are present now nor were they present yesterday when we made
 3    available tine for the* and I think we will have to move on.
 4              We are at a break point here but the next part of
 5    the agenda is to go over these cases examples which have
 6    been available to you out in the registration area.  I would,
 7    I guess, like to get a show of hands as to how many of you
 8    could stand still and skip a break and keep going and finish
 9    this up.  Perhaps we could leave a little early or we could
10    take a break.
11              How many would like to skip the break right now
12    and keep going and how many want to take a break and come
13    back?
14              Nell, it looks about even so let's take a 15
IS    minute break and be back no later than 3:30 and we will
16    continue.
17              (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
18              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Ladies and gentlemn, may I ask
19    you to take your seats again?  Well, we seem to have lost a
20    few people at the break but that's the breaks.  I congratulate
21    all of you who are still here with us.
22              We are going to run through some case examples
23    under Subtitle C.  This is a sort of peculiar guineau pig in
24    the sense that we've never attempted to do this before.  We
25    thought it might be an interesting discussion topic and we


 1   will see how it turns out.

 2             MOW, Halt Kovalick, who is the chief of our

 3   guidelines branch is going to moderate this part of  the

 4   session.  Halt?

 5             MR. KOVALICK:  What we are going to try is

 6   questions from the floor directly so we'll see how that works

 7   out.  Those of you who do not — I'm using this one-page

 8   sheet which says Case Examples.  We have more copies in the

 9   back and we will run through them.

10             What I thought we would do as I read through each

11   one and see if you have any further questions.  There are

12   several important, at least one important caveat is  whenever

13   we write anything down, we run a great risk of your  believing

14   that is cast in concrete.

IS             On the other hand, we thought the benefit  of

16   writing it down so that you could thread through a whole

17   company's experience, thread through all of the regulations

18   you heard about in the last two days and get some feeling for

19   the obligations of the examples imparted.

20             So why don't I start and see what happens?

2i             The first example and ail of the examples, you'll

22   notice that we've used the word "hazardous waste" in the

23   actual statement and that means that we are talking  about the

24   material that has the properties of a hazardous waste whether

25   we know it or not and an example of whether you know it or

 1    not.
 2               If  you are familiar with the old saw about if the
 3    tree  falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it,
 4    is  there  a sound?  {fell, we're talking about if there is a
 5    tree  and  it has fallen.
 6               Mow, the question is how do we determine whether
 7    there's a sound and does someone have to be present?  That's
 8    the kind  of discussion we're having.  I'm not sure that helps
 9    any.
10               So  the first example is an organic chemical company
11    produces  significant quantities of a hazardous waste.  That
12    was my preface a moment  ago and sends that waste to a
13    commercial disposal firm.
14               Mow we use the word significant there to get us
15    around this problem of small generators.  We want it to be
16    clear, this is a big producer of hazardous waste.  He
17    believes  from reading the reg and what you've heard in the
18     last two  days reading our conception of the regs that these
19    are his obligations.
20               Either if we have a mandatory list which we ran
21     through yesterday, he would look at the list and call his
22    waste hazardous because his waste is on the list or he can
23     use the criteria or the test that we mentioned  earlier today
24     to prove that even though his waste is listed,  it is not
 25    hazardous.  That is one option that may come out of the


 1    regulatory process.

 2              The other option  and  an option that applies  to

 3    wastes that  are  not listed  no natter how extensive the list

 4    is, would be that the generator can  either  declare the waste,

 5    the hazardous waste without testing  it.

 6              That is, you  have knowledge of the input processes,

 7    you have confidence that the constituents that went into the

 8    input processes  or the  constituents  of things you add  to it

 9    during the process will make it a hazardous waste that you

10    don't want to spend the money to test it and therefore you

11    may declare  it a hazardous  waste or  you may test the waste

12    against the  criteria.

13              This speaks  to Jack's earlier discussion about

14    whether you  have to test the waste against  all the criteria

15    or the moment that you find or  think you will flunk one of

l6    them you would have a  declarable hazardous  waste.

17              So assuming  that  one  or the other and that's the

18    reason there is  an or  statement is  for you  to recognize that

19    the reg is not settled and  we don't  know how we're going to

20    use the list yet and you have the responsibility under 3002

21    as a generator,  to properly label,  placard, containerize

22    this waste  to enter  the data pertaining to  that waste on a

23    manifest  including your designation of what permitted

24    facility  to  go to.

25              So this would include your using  everything from


 1     the yellow page*  to * trade association to find someone who

 2     can take  your  kind  of waste,to maintain a record being

 3     usually at least  the manifest copy that yon use or other

 4     record, purchase  order or whatever and to prepare a report

 5     quarterly.

 6               Quarterly again is something that we are having a

 7     draft  at  to EPA to  all the manifests that you ship.

 8     Obviously,  that report will have probably many manifests on

 9     it.

10               If you  are a big firm, as this example applies,

11     your other obligation, as we see it, is to notify EPA within

12     90 days of the publication of the 3001 regulation.  The 3010

13     discussion we  had earlier today and of course, whether we

u     have a mandatory  list or whether we just have criteria

15     affects your notification action.

16               So that is an example of what we would call a. large

17     generator or a regular generator who ships to off site

18     disposals and  his obligations.

19               Does anyone have any clarifying questions or if

20     not, I'll keep going and then maybe something will jog in

2i     your mind.

22               (No  response.)

23               MR.  KOVALICK:  Okay.  The next example is very

24     similar  except that we happened to pick a petroleum refiner

25     who produces a hazardous sludge and disposes in a lagoon on


 1    his own property, meaning property  contiguous  to  the place

 2    where he  generates.

               You remember our discussion yesterday about a

 4    public highway  striking through  the middle  of  a set of

 5    properties.  This implies that that is  the  case here, that

 6    the site  adjoins or  is contiguous.

 7              That  generator would under 3001 do one  of the two

 8    options that I  ran through for the  organic  chemical company.

 9    But because he  is disposing  of on his own property, his only

10    obligation as a generator is to  keep records of the amount of

11    waste that he generates, the amount of  hazardous  waste that

12    he generates.

13              Then  he will have  to get  a disposal  permit because

14    he is disposing in a lagoon  on his  own  property and if you

15    remember, lagoons may leak and they certainly  emit  to the

16    atmosphere so they are a disposal facility  and not  a storage

17    facility  and that permit will have  conditions  on  it so that

18    he meets  the standards that  we discussed under 3004 and you

19    remember  there  was a whole laundry  list of  standards that

20    might be  applicable  but we have  included the reporting

21    requirement here to  tie off  this reporting  that as  a disposer,

22    he would  be reporting on his on  site disposal  rather than

23    reporting as a  generator.

24              Finally under 3010, this  larger generator or

25    regulator generator  would notify EPA within 90 days of the


 l    fact that be was both the generator and the disposer and it's

 2    possible, of course, that he considers himself a transporter

 3    but you'll notice that there are no requirements in terms of

 4    manifest and so forth on his for transportation.

 5              So that's another example of a  fairly substantial

 6    sized firm that is disposing on their own property.  Yes, sir:

 7              MR. JENKINS;  I hate to  admit my confusion after

 8    two days of this.

 9              MR. KOVALICK:  That's all right.

10              MR. JENKINS 5  Does it matter in example  be whether

11    this guy pipes it or trucks it back to the lagoon?

12              MR. KOVALICK:  If you're asking whether  the  lagoon

13    is a disposal, it doesn't matter,  no, it  doesn't matter.

14              MR. JENKINS:  But if it  wasn't  a lagoon, maybe  it

15    would not.

16              MR. KOVALICK: If it were treatment  of what we were

17    running through earlier today, we  are working towards  having

18    that — that  is the  incinerator with  the  pipe going  to it,

19    not needing a permit as far as the process.

20              MR. JENKINS:  Do you have  an  example that  covers

21    that?

22              MR. KOVALICK:  No,  there isn't.

23              MR. JENKINS»   In other words,  if-that were an

24    incinerator  instead  of  a  lagoon, he  wouldn't need a permit?

25              MR. KOVALICK:   If  it were  piped.


 1              MR. JENKINS:   I'm going  to  sit  down.

 2              MR. KOVALICK:   Any  Others — yes,  sir?

 3              MR. CASEY:  I'm not sure I  understand the

 4     difference  between  treatment  and disposal if you're

 5     considering an  incinerator as a treatment and not a  disposal

 6     and before  you  define disposals that  leak to the  environment.

 7              MR. KOVALICK:   Going back,  when you look at the

 8     definition  in the law, we are not  inventing  all of this

 9     spontaneously.   The definition of  disposal in the early part

10     of the  law  is very  long  and has to do with everything

11     including discharge, deposit, injection,  dumping, spilling,

12     leaking or  placing  of any solid or hazardous waste into or

13     on any  land or  water.

14              So in disposal, we  equate with  on  the  land.

15     Storage is  non-disposal  that  is no emissions and  then

16     treatment is down below.   The term treatment has  connection

17     with  hazardous  waste means any method, technique  or  process

18     including neutralization designed  to  change  the physical,

19     chemical or biological character or composition of a waste

20     so as to neutralize such waste or  so  as to render such wastes

2i     non-hazardous or safer for transportation or amenable for

22     recovery or amenable for storage or reduced  in volume.

23              It has to do with its physical, chemical properties

24              MR. LINDSEY:   The easiest way to remember  is that

25     anything you put in or — with the idea of leaving it there,


 1    is either storage or disposal.  It is not treatment.

 2              VOICE:  Even if it's part of an NPDES treatment?

 3              MR. LINDSEY:  Let's get back to that previous

 4    argument concerning the NPDES system.  If you're talking

 5    about a lagoon, it would be within effluent treatment — of

 6    a manufacturing operation.

 7              This was something, as we indicated, we're going

 8    to have to think through a little bit more.  It has been our

 9    understanding that the facility was permitted for the

10    discharge from that treatment train, although we understand

11    that NPDES requires an approval of the overall train to

12    determine whether or not it will meet that.

13              We're going to have to make sure of our position

14    there.  Our concern is that those leaching lagoons or leaking

15    lagoons, however you want to put it, would go unregulated

16    and that's a serious problem.  Those things can be a serious

17    problem.

18              VOICE:  What if they're regulated by the state

19    already under a state discharge permit?

20              MR. LINDSEY:  Under a state discharge permit?  That

21    wouldn't matter under the way we've got  it written now.

22              VOICE:  The Act does not define a generator.  At

23    least I can't find it.  Is there one that, the regulations are

24    going to define?

25              MR. KOVALICK:  Yes,.  The draft reg, the one that's


 l    available  for  public view right  now say*  — I  thought what

 2    the Act says but  at any  rate,  it says  that the generator is

 3    any person whose  act or  process  produces  a hazardous  waste

 4    meaning people who spill things  as  well as people who make

 5    things.  I thought it was in the Act.

 6               It's defined as a generation, it's Definition No. 6

 7    in the 1004 series, Page 27-99 of the  law.  It defines

 8    hazardous  waste generation so  we've just  changed that to be

 9    generated.

10               All  right.  Example  C, photographic  lab generate*

11    a small quantity, however that is defined, of  hazardous

12    waste and  sends that to  a commercial disposal  firm.   The

13    current thinking  is that that  facility would comply with

14    the same as Category A.

15               That is the issue here.  We  are trying to eliminate

16    or shed some light on — is in order for  a permitted

17    disposal facility to accept the  waste, they must be manifested

18    Therefore, anyone using  that facility  would have to use a

19    manifest which gets this particular firm  into  the generator

20    status.

21               Now  you could  argue  and many people  do argue and

22    advisedly  so,  that these small quantities ought not to be —

23    otherwise  scarce  hazardous waste disposal and  treatment

24    facilities.

25               So at the moment, this is designed as a disincentive


 1     if you will,  for the  small generator who  purchases a small

 2     amount of waste to 90 to  that  trouble.  It would be  easier

 3     for him  to  follow the other  guidelines  that we are considering

 4     in setting  out  for him in the  generator regs  which is why

 5     our discussion  about  — yesterday,  you  remember I said a

 6     small generator does  not  do  nothing, he does  a lesser set

 7     of things that  a regular  generator  — but at  the moment,

 8     this is  what  we are contemplating.

 9              If  that doesn't confuse you,  nothing will.

10              To  contrast that,  I  see we have an  inconsistency

'l     in our examples.  About ten  of us have  reviewed this but I'll

12     go on.

13              Item  D says a pesticide aerial  applicator  generates

K     a small  quantity of hazardous  waste and soil  incorporates

15     waste on his  own property.   This item says record keep only

16     and  that is designed  around  a  set of requirements where

17     someone  disposes of a small  quantity,  however, that  is

18     defined  on  his  own property.

19               In  other words, we have to permit regulations

20     designed to fit with  — other  regulations so if you are a

21     small hazardous waste generator dealing with your problem on

22     your own property,  you do not  need a permit nor are you in

23     the system, in the elaborate system of recording and so forth

24     and manifesting under 3002.

25               Now the inconsistency is, which I just noticed, is


 1     this says record keep only.   It doesn't speak to notification.

 2     So —

 3               VOICE:  We're straightening that out right now.

 4               MR.  KOVALICK:  Hell,  the implication is at the

 5     moment from the way this text reads is that they would not

 6     notify.   That's inconsistent with the one I just gave you

 7     where the photo lab would notify so we have to work that out.

 8               The  point of this example is to illustrate to you

 9     that someone who had a small quantity and dealt with it on

10     his own land,  we would try to make a provision to get him

11     out of this elaborate regulatory system.

12               MR.  CASEY:  Could you take that same example and

13     say large quantities?

14               MR.  KOVALICK:  His question is can I take that same

15     example and be a regular generator — no.

16               MR.  CASEY:  Can you run through your answer again?

17               MR.  KOVALICK:  Here is, in fact, an example, B.

18     If you were a  regular generator, you would be Example B

19     because you would have ia» above whatever the small quantity

20     is, you would be record keeping because you're doing it on

21     your property — he would need a permit for appropriate

22     reporting and notification.

23               VOICE:  I assume that's a hypothetical of 27 pounds

24     being a small  quantity, whatever it may be?

25               MR.  KOVALICK:  What if I said it's retail and


 1     commercial?  Anybody that's retail and commercial does "D"

 2     and everybody else does that.   How about if I do that to

 3     confuse that?

 4               In other words, we haven't decided about small

 5     quantity.   It could be retail stores are small generators.

 6               VOICE:   What about a farmer who uses a small

 7     quantity of pesticide?  Is he a small generator?  Does he

 8     have to keep records even though he put it into a municipal

 9     waste stream and  he's only got a few containers?

10               MR. KOVALICK:  Well, there is a diversity of

11     opinion about our ability to deal with the pesticide

12     containers and the shock load we get is fairly sizeable from

13     farmers and at the moment, there is no specific special

14     candleing, if you will, for farmers in the regulation but

15     we recognize the  need to think about that.

16               Given the examples as they are today and that's

17     why we are having the meeting, he would be in Category D at

18     the moment which would call for record keeping.  Now, of

19     course, record keeping can be records of purchases of

20     pesticides.  That's one way of looking at — record keeping,

2i     about 105  gallon containers and that may be the record.

22               So it isn't necessarily anything elaborate, it's

23     nothing you have to set anyone.  It is strictly that, it is

24     record keeping.

25               VOICE:   He is subject to notification then?


  1              MR. KOVALICK:  That is what I am saying.  The

  2    notification is the one that is not clear.

  3              MR. JENKINS:  I've explained before that we are

  4    presently designing a system which would be municipally

  5    owned and operated to take empty pesticide containers from

  6    fanners on a county-wide basis and dispose of them in a

  7    permitted facility.

  8              If the farmer takes his pesticide containers, not

  9    in his backyard or in his cornfield, but takes them to one

 10    of our satellite collection facilities, what is he under

 11    then?

 12              MR. KOVALICK:  Well, if we had a poundage limit

 13    like 100 say, then we would have to make a determination

 14    whether the load he was taking that day was a small quantity

 15    or not.  Was he disposing of a small quantity?
 16              If it were,then he would presumably, under the way

 17    we are currently designing things, nead to have a manifest

 18    by document.   Now as you and I discussed at break time

 19    earlier, it is not impossible and we've actually had a letter

 20    from a company in Oregon who says they ought to be in the

 21    business as a receiver of these drums or containers, they

 22    ought to be willing to fill out the manifest for the fanner.

23              All he does is sign that he delivered them and the

24    recipient facility will take care of all the papers for him.

 25    So that brings us to the point and we may have skipped over

 1    it, that it  isn't necessary  for  the  generator to fill out
 2    the manifest as  long as he will  certify  it.
 3               In other words, if I'm willing to  give you my
 4    liability  and  trust you because  I  have a contract with you,
 5    then there's nothing to prevent  me from  signing  that. Yes,
 6    you as my  agent  have correctly placarded it  or containerized
 7    these wastes.
 8               So I know we have  emphasized the fact  that
 9    generators are responsible for filling out manifests but the
10    responsibility comes from signing  your name  and  if you want
11    to have your agent, whom you trust,  do your  work for you,
12    certainly  spill  cleanup groups do  that on behalf of trucking
13    firms.
14               MR.  JENKINS:  There's  a  certain inconsistency  here
15    in that disposal on their own property in this particular
16    case is not  allowed due to local ordinances.
17               MR.  KOVALICK:  Okay.   Nell,  I'm assuming it was
18    allowed when this was written.   He wouldn't  have a solution,
19    I take it, you're saying other than  storing?
20               MR.  JENKINS;  No,  that's illegal,  too.
21               MR.  KOVALICK:  Even the  full ones?
22               MR.  JENKINS:  That's one of  the inconsistencies.
23    You can store  all the full ones  you  want.
24               MR.  KOVALICK:  I see.  We're not  the only ones with
25    problems.  Okay, we'll  try another example.

 1               A transporter picks up hazardous waste pumpings
 2     from several manufacturers' lagoons.  Now we're talking about
 3     the responsibilities of the transporter in this example
 4     which are that he must have a manifest certified by the
 5     generator as to the destination for those purapings and the
 6     placarding on his truck and other information like spill
 7     information.
 8               Mow this is apropos of what I just described to
 9     you.  That is, the transporter can't do these things for the
10     generator.  That is, tell him where a place is that will
11     accept these — and to placard — but the bottom line is that
12     the generator is going to certify that he is in fact
13     responsible.
14               Likewise then, the transporter himself under 3003
15     will certify that he accepted the waste, that he did in fact
16     deliver it into the location listed on the manifest.  So this
17     is an example that speaks to multiple pickups from many
18     manufacturers' lagoons, if you will, and what the transporter
19     obligations could be.
20               There's a notification requirement.  All right, we
2i     should add to that that the transporter who is in this
22     business under 3010 would be required to notify EPA that he
23     was in this business and that was omitted.
24               VOICE:  Wouldn't 3001 come into play the same as
25     under "A"?

 1              MR. KOVALICK:  Hall,  under Example E,  the
 2    transporter doe*  not  have  those obligation*.   Those are the
 3    generator's problems.  Now if the  generator tosses up his
 4    hands  and says  you  find  out what's in that tank, well then,
 5    the  transporter may do that with some testing or some other
 6    assessment on behalf  of  the generator but 3001 hazardous
 7    waste  determinations  are the generator's  problems, not the
 8    transporter's problems.
 9              If he picks up a waste that he  doesn't know, then
10    he's in trouble because  the generator has not filled out a
11    manifest for him.
12              Under "D",  I guess I  had built  into that example,
13    was  the fact that we  have  a pesticide that was a hazardous
14    waste  so there's  more to illustrate what  you could do.
IS              VOICE:  How can  the generator assure himself that
16    the  disposal facility is properly  licensed in the immediate
17    future after the  effect  of the  regulations?
18              MR. KOVALICK:  Well,  if  he is in doubt, he can ask
19    the  disposer and  if he doesn't  believe him, he can call EPA
20    or the state, depending  on who  has jurisdiction  and ask if
21    they have a permit  application  on  file from such and such a
22    firm and presuming  that  they do, he can ask what they've
23    applied to handle there.  I'm  assuming this is during the
24    startup period  when everyone will  not have a permit but they
25    will have applied for permits.

 1              There will probably be a lot of checking like
 2    that or he may even nay make a duplicate of his application
 3    at his facility that you could look at.
 4              VOICE:  It's apeing to give the transporters
 5    problems if jpou «&x  two different wastes in the same truck?
 6              MR. KOVALICK:  There are loading and storage
 7    requirements that we are considering in the regulations so
 8    if he creates a new waste, if he blends a new waste, then he
 9    has to create a new manifest.
10              la other words, if you're adding waste oils and
11    waste oils and you keep adding different goodies in there,
12    he may end up having to manifest a new waste as opposed to
13    six different original products.
14              Presumably he's not going to try and destroy his
15    $10,000 tank truck by mixing the wrong things, although we
16    are aware of examples of implosions and setting up of tanks
17    under thase conditions.
18              All right.  Now on to Item F.  An electronics firm
19    has etching solutions which are a hazardous waste.  Half are
20    sent to a commercial disposal firm and half are recycled.
21    For the portion that is disposed, it is the same as "A".
22              In other words, he runs through the same drill that
23    an organic chemical company does that I mentioned earlier
24    and for the portion that is recycled, if you remember our
25    definition of a waste, it is not a waste pursuant to


 1    Subtitle C.

 2              So all that ha would have to do is keep none kind

 3    of record, that is, a purchase order to buy, transport

     services to get it to a user or if he had his own trucks

     with bills of lading or some kind of mechanism that would

     show us on inspection that half of his waste disappeared.

     That is, the other half of the reportable waste had suddenly

 8    become a non-waste under Subtitle C.

 9              No manifest required for the latter half of the

10    waste.

11              The last example, G, a solvent reclaimed accepts

12    waste solvents from a variety of manufacturers and produces

     "clean" solvent and hazardous waste residues.  These latter

14    wastes are sent to commercial disposal.

15              Now we are discussing the obligations of the

I6    solvent reclaimer.  With regard to the residues of the

17    reclamation, he would behave like any other generator, the

18    same as "A".

19              Now with regard to his status as a  "resource

20    recovery  facility" which we've been trying to get at for the

21    last two  days, he would get a special permit under Section

22    3005 which would call for him to meet those same standards

23    under 3004 including reporting that we've gone over in the

24    last day  or so and he would be a notifier to  EPA because he

25    would be  in the class of a permit facility.


 1              You will note  that one of  the  highlights  is that

 2    no manifest is required  for incoming waste.   In other words,

 3    he as a receiver is not  going to be  signing off on  manifests.

 4              Now for the portion of his waste residue  after he

 5    finishes  the reclamation, he behaves like a generator so he

 6    would be  filling out manifests  as  a  generator of  residue.

 7              I guess that completes our now correct  examples.

 8              MR. JENKINS:   If a company produces a product

 9    which if  it was going to be a waste  would be  hazardous but

10    it's going to be recycled, do they have  notification, too,

11    under 3010?

12              MR. KOVALICK:  I think the answer is no because

13    you started by saying if he produces a product and  the first

14    test for  a waste is, is  it the  prime product  of your process?

15              MR. JENKINS:   Let me  rephrase  that  then.   He

16    produces  something  as a  result  of  his  process which, if he

17    disposed  of it, it  would be a waste.  However, he is

18    recycling it so it's not a waste.  Does  he have  to  notify

19    you within 90 days  that  he is producing  that  substance as

20    the result of his operation?

21              In other  words,  if he stopped  recycling,  it would

22    be a hazardous waste,as  long as he recycles  it,  it  is not.

23              MR. KOVALICK:  Okay.   I'll have  to  think  about that

24    one.

25              MR. MOREKAS:   It might be  the  second half of "F".


 1              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Let me  jump  in  here.   I  think

 2    the answer to that would be yes.   In the  same  sense that we

 3    are requiring records to be kept of  the transfer of the

 4    material to the recycling  facility.   He want to be aware of

 5    the fact that he  is producing  a waste that if  it did  not go

 6    to the resource facility,  would fall within  the purview of

 7    this Act.

 8              It is really  a question  of control.   That is one

 9    of the sticky-wickets,  if  you  will,  in trying  to provide

10    some incentive for resource recovery. We want to  provide

11    that incentive and at the  same time, we don't  want to lose

12    track of this material.

13              so my first reaction would be under  the  example

14    you cited that he should notify.   Then his only further

15    requirement would be to keep records so that he could prove

16    that he sent that material to  a resource  recovery  facility.

17              VOICE:  Would you just go  through  that note again

18    in your explanation of  that note at  the bottom of  that last

19    example?

20              MR. KOVALICK: Well, we  were trying  to  highlight

21    there that a reclaimer  who is  receiving  these  solvents which

22    the *ende*jEBjenld  view as not  a waste.  In other words, a

23    sender  is  like  "F",  the sender is  like the last half of "F",

24    he is sending this etching solution to the solvent reclaimer

25    and that waste  is not manifested  to him so that the receiver


 1     doesn't have any manifest obligations either.

 2               VOICE:  But the generator would?

 3               MR. KOVALICK:  No.   Like an example,  if the

 4     generator doesn't have any manifest obligations, remember I

 5     ran through this, he may still have some DOT shipping

 6     obligations to ship waste solvents.  However,  under RCRA, he

 7     wouldn't have these obligations and we're trying to lighten

 8     this paper work again with the generator and with whatever

 9     reclaimer receives the waste.

10               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Any further questions — yes,

11     sir?

12               MR. CASEY:  In the case when you hire a disposal

1^     agent and he claimed to have recycling capability and tells

14     you your waste will be recycled and you rely upon his system

15     and his ability, do you have to bother, as a generator, to

16     do any checking on him or is that strictly up to the

17     reporting of EPA?

18               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Did you all hear that?

19               VOICES:  No.

20               MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Let me see if I can paraphrase

21     your question.  In the case where a generator sends his waste

22     to a recycling facility or one who claims to be a recycling

23     facility, does he have to determine for his own — whether

24     or not the guy really is a recycling facility, whether he

25     really recycles the facility — in other words, do you trust


     the person who says he's going to recycle your material

 2    without further checking as to whether he actually  did it?

 3              MR. CASEY:  Yes.

 4              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Well, bear in mind that  first of

 5    all, a resource recovery facility does require a permit.  It':

 6    a special kind of a permit but he still has  to have a permit

 ?    so you've got to determine that number one,  that he has a

 8    permit.

 9              He is then subject to the  requirements of the law

10    regardless of whether or not he has  this special kind of

11    permit or not.  Okay, he has a special permit, let's  say,

12    for his treatment or recovery operations but he also  disposes

13    of residues oigPsite, let's say, so he also has a standard

14    permit for that process.

15              The question  is, how much  checking does  the

16    generator have to do to make sure that his wastes  were  in

I7    fact recycle?

19              MR. CASEY:  And  is his word good enough  at  that

19    point to sign a written document?  Can you then close the

20    case and say we assume  you did your  job?

21              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  I would say  that if you as a

22    generator has determined that the guy has  an appropriate

23    permit and they are in  force, that  it is  then —  and you have

24    some sort of a contractual document  back  and forth between

25    his facility, that  you  could assume  that  the guy  is in fact


 1    going to recover your waste.

 2              If he does not, then he is violating the terms of

 3    his permit and —

 4              MR. CASEY:  He has a permit to go either way with

 5    it?

 6              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Yes, but what if he does neither

 7    What if he does something else?  Well, I see what you're

 8    driving at.

 9              MR. CASEYs  Why bother with a manifest if I can't

10    trust the guy?

11              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Okay, that's a very complicated

12    question.  It would have been better if you had come up to

13    the mike and given it but I'll try and do it for you.  I see

14    what you mean now.

15              if a resource facility has both recycling permit

"5    and a disposal permit, how do you know when you send your

17    waste there whether he's going to recycle it or whether he's

18    going to dispose of it?

19              MR. CASEY:  Yes.

20              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Because in one case you need a

21    manifest and the other case you don't, does that paraphrase

22    your question?

23              MR. CASEY:  Yes.

24              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  You don't know.  I guess that's

25    the answer.


1               MR.  CASEY:   So cover your tail,  you want to have a

2    manifest.

3               MR.  KOVALXCK:   I  thought you were asking that you

4    got a bill for the recovery or you got a bill for the

5    disposal and he actually recovered.  That  was bothering you

6    but X don't think we  can do anything about that.

7               MR.  CASEY:   What  responsibility  does the generator

8    have when  the  guy he  is  taking the waste to can go either way

9               MR.  KOVALICK:   If he can go either way with it,

10    then it's  permitted to go either way, that's not your problem

11               MR.  CASEY:   But you haven't manifested.  If you

12    reclaimed  it,  you don't  have to have that  and if he does

13    reclaim it, you do.

14               MR.  LINDSEYi  I guess it will depend on how much

15    you trust  that fellow to do what he says,  really, and you may

16    want to get that in writing, for example,  I suppose to protec

17    yourself.

18               who  are we  going  to go after if  a guy says I'm

19    going to recycle this material and then he doesn't recycle it

20    and we think none of  the regulations are broken, etc., and he

21    has now changed his mind as it were —

22               MODERATOR LEHMJW:  I think we've learned two things

23     from this  example. Number one, please come to the microphone

24    with your question and number two, you raised a subtl*ty

25     there that bears some further thought on our part as to how


 1    that would work.

 2              Yes, sir, and would you please come to the  mike

 3    for the purposes of the reporter?

 4              MR. JENKINS:  And so we'll get out of here  by

 5    5 o'clock.  I want to raise another subtlety on that  same

 6    Pandora's box on resource recovery.  I'm Ron Jenkins.

 7              It seems to me that just by the very nature of all

 8    resource recovery operations that there is going to be some

 9    kind of a residue associated.  Doesn't this imply that any

 10    resource recovery facility would need to have not only a

 ll    special permit but would also have to have a regular  permit?

 12              MODERATOR LEHMAN:  Well, I don't think you  can

 13    assume that all resource recovery operations will result in a

 14    hazardous residue.  It is conceivable to me that that

 15    component which is causing the waste to be hazardous  is in

 16    fact a component that is recovered and subsequently sold

 17    such that the residue is non-hazardous.

 18              Therefore, the man would not need a disposal permit

 19    or would not be a hazardous waste generator.  He would

 20    recover a valuable product which he would then be putting

 21     into sale.

 22              MR. UNDSEY:  And don't lose sight of the fact

23     that he could send that residue even if it is hazardous

24     off site and thus he would only have to make the requirements

25     of a generator and not of a disposer, okay?

                MR.  JENKINS:   Thank you.
 2              MODERATOR LEHMAN:   Another gentleman had a question
 3    in the back.   Maybe he  has had second thoughts.
 4              Are  there any other comments on this set of case
 5    examples?
 6              (No  response.)
 7              MODERATOR LEHMAN:   As I said, this is an experiment
 8    to try to eliminate some of  the requirements here.  No
 9    further questions?
10              (NO  response.)
11              MODERATOR LEHMAN:   Very well.  I want to close the
12    meeting.  I want to thank all of you for attending.  It's
 3    been very interesting and beneficial to us and I hope to you.
14              We will take into account the comments that we
19    have received.  There were a number of excellent questions,
16    a number of very interesting points were raised which we had
      not contemplated which is one of the reasons we are having
18    these meetings and if any of you have further  commentary as
      a result of these meetings,  please feel free to send your
20    thoughts or comments to us and I would also say that, the
21    sooner the better.
22              Your commentary is obviously of more use to us
23    before we go into the proposed rule making than it is after
      because we are able then  to propose a document which is
25    closer to what we want to end up with.


~~?  1              Also, the ex parte goes into effect when we go

         proposed and this places some limitations, although not too

         many, on us in terms of dealing with the public.  Also, I

         just want to reiterate the announcement we made yesterday

         and invite you to another public meeting which will be a

         joint meeting on the transportation aspects of Subtitle C,

         a joing meeting between the Environmental Protection Agency

         and the Department of Transportation at the Raraada o'Hare

         Inn in suburban Illinois near the O'Hare Airport near

         Chicago on October 26 of this year and if any of you have

         explicit or a special interest in the transportation aspects,

         I would think you would find that meeting very interesting.

                   So again, thank you very much —

                   VOICE:  Is that a one-day meeting?

                   MODERATOR LEHMAN:  It's a one-day meeting, yes, sir,

         with both representatives of DOT and EPA to be present.

                   So again, thank you, and we will adjourn the


                   (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 P.M.)
























      pincrr WMTP-.
           TTTIP:  Public Meeting
                   RCRA  Subtitle C
           V" n,MT: October 12,  1977

                        r;:  Rosslyn, Virginia
      I ii^K-vy n''"T'"Y thnt the nroceedinRS  and  eviflence

lir-Tfin nro contiirjet' fullv nnr! acciirstely  in the notes

talen >v re .it t>» hea'jnf in th/>  a^ove  cause heforr the


and thnt This is a true ,tn
                          Attendees—October 11 and 12, 1977
Acklesberg, Oscar J.
Assistant Vice President
W.R. Grace & Company
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York  10036

Allen, Robert L.
Chief Hazardous Materials Branch
U. S. EPA Region III
6th S Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19106

Altpeter, Tom L.
Prog. Manager Toxic Substance
North Star Division MRI
10701 Red Circle Drive
Minnetonka, Minnesota  55343

Balick, Sanford E.
Assistant Transportation
FMC Corporation
200 E. Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois  60601

Bellevian, R. E.
Assistant Manager - Technical
Government & Rel
Proctor & Gamble
Cincinnati, Ohio  45217

Berney, Bert
Environmental Health Scientist
Environment Control Inc.
611300 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland  20852

Bogato, Henry P.
Engineering Department
Atlas Power Co.
12700 Park Central Place
Dallas, Texas  75251

Boltz, Sherry
Government Regulations Specialist
National Paint & Coatings
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, M. W.
Washington, D. C.  20005
Bradd, Byron
Environment Coordinator
Air Products
Allentown, Pennsylvania  18105

Brubaker, Bruce H.
Special Assistant to the Director
Diamond Shamrock Corporation
1100 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio  44114

Dr. Buchanan, R. J.
Chief, Bureau of Hazardous Waste
Dept. of Environment Protection
New Jersey
32 E. Hanover Street
Trenton, New Jersey  08625

Carbough, Donovan
Research Supervisor
DuPont Co.
3500 Grays Ferry Avenue
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19146

carey, Dennis J.
Mechanic Engineer
U. S. Government Printing Office
North Capitol & H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20401

Carr, Melissa
Assistant Director Washington
Research - Cohrell
1800 K Street, N. W. *720
Washington, D. C.  20006

Carwile, Roy H.
Environmental Engineer
Aluminum Company of America
1501 Alcoa Blvd".
Pittsburg, Pa.  15219

Cayer, T. S.
Engineer- Environment Control
General Electric Co.
1 River Road Bldg. 41-110
Schenectady, New York  12345

Chicca, E. William
Chief - Industrial S Hazardous
Substances Section
Tawes Sosse Office Bldg.
Annapolis, Maryland  21401

Chidsey, Steve
Planning and Development
Council, Environmental Planner
201 Deveny Building
Fairmont, West Virginia  26554

Colburn, Lecil M.
American Coke & Coal Chemicals
1010 16th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.  20036

Connor, Raymond
Assist. Tech. Director
National Paint & Coatings Assn.
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20005

Cooper, Daniel E.
Commission - Engineer Tech.
Ala. Water Improvement
State Office Bldg.
Montgomery, Alabama  36130

Copenhaver, Emily D.
Policy Analyst
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P. O. Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee  37830

Corbin, Michael
Roy F. Weston Inc.
Weston Way, West Chester, Pa.

Cowan, Ted M.
State Representative
4233 S. Pittsburg
Tulsa, Oklahoma  74135
Curtis, Glen & Bent, Chuck
Environmental Engineers
Reynolds Metals Company
S601 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia  23261

Daugherty, Gerald L.
Admin. Assistant Environmental
Reg. Affairs
Koppers Bldg.  K-750
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania  15219

DaVia, Paul G.
Betz Environmental Engineers
Plymouth Merring, Pa.  19462

deBivot, Lawrence H.
International Research and
Technology Corp.
7655 Old Springhouse Rd.
McLean, Virginia  22101

DeStefano, Guy
Acme Services Unlimited
3628 M.W. 2 Ter.
Miamie, Florida  33135

Downey, Harry L. Jr.
Washington Representative
The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
1730 K Street, N. W.
Suite 915
Washington, D. C.  20006

Drevna, Charles T.
Supv. Chemist
Consolidation Coal Co.
724 N. Washington Road
McMurray, Pa.  15317

Doyle, Richard
Administrative Assistant
American Trucking Assoc.
1616 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20036

Drill, Edward T.
Director Environmental Affairs
Berer Industrial Corp.
124 W. Putman Avenue
Grejenward, Connecticut  06830

Ditts, Roger G.                    Eirkson, Lee E.
Staff Engineer                     Administrator, Environmental
Cast Iron Pipe Research Assn.      Control Dept.
1125 - 15th Street, N.W.           Stauffer Chemical Company
Washington, D. C.  20005           Westport, Connecticut  06880

Dunn, James J.                     Pacer, Gordon
Senior Research Biologist          Dep. Asst. Dir. Safety Env. &
Lever Bros. Co., Inc.              Ind. Health
45 River Road                      Dept. Energy
Edgewater, New Jersey  07020       Germantown Md.
                                   Washington, D. C.  20545
Eilender, Albert L.
Vice President                     Farrington, E. H.
Cosan Chemical Corp.               Washington Office
481 River Road                     Kerr - McGee Corp.
Clifton, New Jersey  07013         1626 K Street, N. W.
                                   Washington, D. C.  20006
Ellerbe, Doris J.
Program Analyst - Used             Filmore, Mary
Oil Program                        Writer Editor
Dept of Energy  (DOE)               EPA/ORP
12th & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.      AW460
Washington, D. C.  20461
                                   Frankel, Sidney A.
Ellison, Donald E.                 Resource & Conservation Manager
Manager - Grout & Industry RelationRmerican Cynaniid Co.
Virginia Chemicals Inc.            Bound Brook, New Jersey  08805
3340 West Norfolk Road
Portsmouth, Virginia  23703        Ghasseni, K.
                                   Environmental Engineer
Engelinan, C.H.                    TRW
Asst. to the manager of            One Space Park
Technology                         Redondo Beach, California  90278
Industrial Chemicals Division
American Cynamid Co.               Gilley, William F.
Berdan Avenue                      Task Force Executive Director,
Wayne, New Jersey  07470           Kepone
                                   Virginia Department of Health
Erb, David A.                      109 Governor Street
Prog. Dev. Engineer                Richmond, Virginia  23219
W. R. Grace
Poisson Avenue                     Gillman, Earl G.
Hashau, New Hampshire  03061       Coordinator,
                                   Regulatory Affairs
Evans, Charles A.                  American Cynamid Co.
Environment Rel. Manager           859 Berden Avenue
E.I. DuPont nemours                Wayne, New Jersey  07470
P. 0. Box J.S.
Ingleside, Texas  78362

Gooley, Carl M.
Env. Proj.  Engineer
General Electric Co.
Environment Protection Op'N
Bldg. 36-120
Schenectady, New York  12345

Goodwin, Jr. C. L.
Tennessee Eastman Co.
Kingsport,  Tenn.  37664

Grayson, Mark
Government Affairs Counsel
1745 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington,  Virginia  22202

Graziano, Robert M.
Director, Bureau of Explosives
Association of American Railroads
1920 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20036

Grimm, ALfred
Director Solid Waste Management
CH2M Hill
1500 114th Avenue, S.E.
Bellvue, Wa.  98004

Gunthrie, David A.
Director Environmental Protection
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.
Niagra Falls, New York  14302

Guinan, Deborah K.
Environment Engineer
Vesar, Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia  22151

Haeussler, F. W.
Manager Land Use & Forest
Office of Environmental Union
Camp Corp.
P.  0. Box 1391
Savannah, Georgia   31402
Hall, M.E.
Department Head, Environmental
Union Carbide Corporation
•S. 0. Box 2831
Charleston, West Virginia  25330

Kami11, Bruce
National Paint & Coatings Assn, Inc.
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20005

Hanks, George J., Jr.
Asst. Director - Federal
Onion Carbide
1730 Penn. Ave., N. W.
Suite 1250
Washington, D. C.  20006

Hardison, R. A.
Environmental Manager
Union Carbide Corp.
12900 Snow Road
Cleveland, Ohio  44101

Harris, Gladys Lewis
Citizens Activities Officer
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Harthman, Sammy E., Jr.
Solid Waste Planner
Government of the Virgin Island
Department of Public Works
St. Thomas, Virgin Island  00801

Haus, Stewart
Technical Staff
Hetro Corp.
Westgate  Resources Park
McLean, Virginia   22101

Healy, David
Public Health Engineer
State of  Maryland
Dept. of  Health &  Mental Hygiene
201 W. Preston  Street
Baltimore, Maryland  21201

Hershon, Morris
National Barrell & Drum Assoc.
1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20036

Hesse, John L.
Chief, Office of Toxic
Michigan Department of Natural
Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan  48909

Hooper, Thomas W.
Naval Architect
Maritime Administration
14th S E Street
Washington, D. C.  20005

Horsefield, David R.
Senior Vice President
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
6132 W. Fond Du Lee Ave.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin  53218

Humpstone, Charles
7655 Old Springridge Road
McLean, Virginia  22101

Ince, H. C., Jr.
Manager, Environmental
J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.
Box 2789
Greenville, South Carolina   29602

Irwin, Frances H.
Project Coordinator
The Conservation Foundation
1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20036

Jackson, Patricia A.
Pollution Control Specialist
Virginia State Water Control
2111 N. Hamilton Street
Richmond, Virginia  23230
Jayne, Jack E.
Manager Environmental Services
Green Bay Packaging Inc.
P. 0. Box 1107
Green Bay, Wisconsin  54305

Jenkins, Ronald H.
Project Manager
Planners, Engineers, Architects, Inc.
1451 Brickell Ave.
Miami, Florida  33131

Jimmink, Mary
Manager Washington Office
INDA Association of the Nonwoven
Fabrics Industry
1619 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20036

John , Douglas H.
Head, Planning Section
Division of SOlid Waste
Department of Health and Mental
P. 0. Box 13387
Baltimore, Maryland  21203

Johnson, Charles A.
Tech. Director
1120 Connecticut Ave.
Washington, D. C.  20036

Johnson, Karl
Assistant Vice President
Member Services
The Fertilizer Institute
1015 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20036

Johnson, Larry G.
Manager Environmental Quality
S.C. Department of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina  29201

Keehn, David C.
Asst. Director - FED
Air Products and Chemical
Suite 1016
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20006

Kadlubuwski, Michael F.
Environment Engineer
Virginia Electric & Power
P. 0. Box 26666
Richmond, Virginia  23261

Kesten, S. Norman
Asst. to Vice Presieent,
Environmental Affairs
120 Broadwy
New York, New York  10024

King, Hohn A.
Senior Staff Engineer
Mitre Corporation
Westgate Record Park
McLean, Virginia  22101

Kleppinger, E.
EWR Consultants Inc.
9143 Fordham Street
Indianapolis, Indiana  46268

Knoech, John
Director of Planning
Air Products and Chemicals
Box 538
Allentown, Pennsylvania  18105

Koehler, George R.
Manager of Safety and
Environmental Services
American Cynamid Co.
Bound Brook, New Jersey  08805

Kohnen, A.H.
Vice President
Systems Technology Corp.
245 N. Valley Road
Xenia, Ohio  45385
Koleff, Allen M.
Director, Environmental Services
Stone Container Corp.
6th & Anderson Street
Franklin, Ohio  45005

Komoroski, Ken
Environmental Engineer
PPG Industries, Inc.
One Gateway Center
Pittsburg, Pa.  15222

Laman, Joseph R. P.E.
Corp. Manager
Environmental Engineering
The Firestone Tire s Rubber Co.
1200 Firestone Parkway
Akron, Ohio  44317

Landon, Ronald A.
Asst. Manager Earth Science
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
One Weston Way
West Chester, Pa.  19380

Lang, Martin
Vice President
Camp Dresser s McKee, Inc.
Suite 2637
One World Trade Center
New York, New York  10048

Laubusch, Edmund J.
Asst. Secretary Treasure
Chlorine Institute
342 Madison Avenue
New York, New York  10017

Lazar, Emery C.
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA - Office of Planning
and Evaluation
Washington, D. C.  20460

Lazarchik, Donald A.
Director of Land Protection
Department of Environmental
P. O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pa.  17120

Lehr,  Leon
Sanitary Engineer
U.S. Forest Service
11573 N. Shore Drive #11C
Reston, Virginia  22090

Leifer, Mel
Northern Division FAVFAC
U.S. Naval Base, Bldg. 77
Philadelphia, Pa.  19112

Lennon, J ame s
Earn. Scientist
EPA, Washington, D.C.  20460

Leubecker, Daniel W.
General Engineer - Environmental
Department of Commerce
Maritime Administration
Code 730.2
Washington, D. C.  20230

Levin, Debra
Dir. of Trans. & Econ.
Institute of Scrap Iron 7
1627K Street, N.W.
Suite 700
Washington, D, C.  20006

Liroff, Stuart D.
Policy Analyst
Tekukron, Inc.
2118 Milvia Street
Berkeley, Ca.  94704

Lytle, Paul
ENv. Scientist
Office of Solid Waste/Hazardous
Waste Management
Washington, D. C.  20460

Martiniere, John P.
Roy F. Weston
4329 Memorial Drive
Suite C
DeCatur, Georgia  30036
Martin, Charles R.
Grants Coordinator
Dept of Environmental
415 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20004

Manella, Raymond J.
Di rector, Envi ronmenta1
Engineering - RCA Corporation
Bldg. 202-2
Camden, New Jersey  08101

Manley, Robert L.
Manager Finishes Recovery
E.I. DuPont De Nemours
F&F Department
Wilmington, Delaware  19898

Malloy, B. Charles
Jones - Malloy Assoc.
P. 0. Box 69
Berwyn, Pa.  19312

McLain, Paula
Property Disposal Specialist
Defense Logistics Agency
Cemeron Station
Alexandria, Virginia  22314

McLeland, Nhung
Research Assistant
Rubber Manufacturers
1901 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20006

McComb, Wm.
W.F. McCorob Engineering
P. 0. Box 8973
St. Thomas, Virgin Island  00801

Metry, Amir, A. P.E.
Management Specialist
Metry Waste
1485 Byrd Drive
Berwyn, Pa.  19312

Miller, M.B.
Vice President
EAC, Inc.
789 Jersey Avenue
New Brunswich, New Jersey  08902

Mingst, Barry C.
Nuclear Engineering Intern
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop 396-55
Washington, D. C.  20555

Minser, Wendel L.
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Moffa, Richard P.
Policy Analyst
Ohio Env. Prot. Agency
361 E. Broad Street
Columbua, Ohio  43215

Moniot, J.D.
Environment Engineer
M.S. Steel
600 Gr. St.
Pittsburgh, Pa.  15230

Morse, Richard
Program Analyst
Prog & Committee Staff,
Legislative Office Bldg.
Albany, New York  12248

Morrison, A.E.
Supt. Environmental & Chemical
Gardinier, Inc.
P. 0. Box 3269
Tampa, Florida  33601

Mulholland, R.L.
Manager Residual Process
Allied Chemical
Columbia Road
Morristown, New Jersey  07960

Mullen, Hugh
Director of Government
14 Conversion Systems
3624 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19104
Munson, R.
Staff - Metallurgy
Room #332
Bureau of Mines
2401 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20241

Norton, Lawrence
Manager of State Regional Affairs
National Agric. Chem. Assn.
1155 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20005

Ottinger, R. S.
Manager Energy Resources
TRW Energy Systems Group
7600 Colshire Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101

Palmore, G.W.
Chief Division of Refuse
Coll & Disposal
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia  23219

Parker, Hampton
Technical Manager ENvironment
Union Carbide Corp.
270 Park Ave.
New York, New York  10017

Parks, Barry
University Safety Engineer
Office of Occup. Health
& Safety, VPI s SV
Blacksburg, Virginia  24061

Parsons, James T.
Resource Industries
P. 0. Box 1200
Livingston, Ala.   34570

Pasztor, Lqszlo
Asst. L. Vice President
New Technology S Planning
Dravo Corp.
One Oliver Plaza
Pittsburg, Pa.  15222

Patton, Robert V.
Fac. Specialist
Defense Logistics Agency
Cameron Station
Alexandria, Virginia  22314

Pelensky, M.
Chemical Engineer
EPA - Region III
Philadelphia, Pa.  19106

Pellissier, R.L.
Environmental Engineer
FMC Corp.
2000 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA.  19103

Peterson, Jack K.
Research Consultant
USS Chemicals Division of
U.S. Steel
600 Grant Street
Room 2813
Pittsburg, Pa.  15230

 Petrich, Carl H.
Research Associate - Energy
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P. O. Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee  37830

Philipbar, William B. Jr.
Rolling Environment Services Inc
One Rollins Plaza
Wilmington, Delaware  19899

Pierre, Wayne
Chemist, Hazardous Waste
EPA Region II
26 Fed Plaza
New York, New York  10007

Potter, Victoria
EPA/Planning and Management
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Praskievicz, Robert
U.S. Government Printing Office
North Capitol S H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20401
Prokop, John
Independent Liquid Terminals
1101 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20005

Purcell, Arthur H.
Technical Information Project
#217, 1346 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, DD. C.  20036

Randall, C.G.
Biochemicals Specialist
PPG Industries, Inc.
One Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, Pa.  15222

Raymond, RObert G.
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.
P. 0. Box 728
Niagra Falls, New York  14302

Redding, B.R.
Assistant Chief
Miss. State Board of Health
P. 0. Box 1700
Jackson, Mississippi  39205

Regna, Ernest A.
Director Environment Services
Allied Chemical Corp.
Box 1139 R.
Morristown, New Jersey  07960

Reitman, Jan
Environmental Prot. Specialist
Def. Logistics Agency
Cameron Station
Alexandria, Virginia  22314

Rhodes, Robert L. Jr. Esquire
Holland & Knight Attorneys
at Law
P. 0. Drawer BW
Lakeland, Florida  33802

Rice, Rip G. Dr.
Jacobs Engineering CO.
1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20036

Richard, RObert S.
Sanitini Industries
P. 0. Box 2069
Montgomery, Alabama  36103

Robinson, Donald J. Dr.
Director Solid Waste
Dept of Defense
OASD  (MRAIL) Room 3B252
Washington, D. C.  20301

Roodkowsky, Tatiana
Washington Rep.
1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Rubianao, Nancy C.
Environment Engineer
E.I. DuPont De Nemours
P. 0. Box JJ
Ingleside, Texas  78362

Rucker, J.E.
Asst. Director Environment
American Petroleum Inst.
2101 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20037

Rutherford, Robert E.
Gulf Oil Corp.
P. O. Box 3240
Pittsburg, Pa.  15230

Sampson, Arlene
Fred C. Hart Assoc.
103 6th Street, S.W.
Apr. B419
Washington, D. C.  20024
Samuels, J.D.
Project Engineer
General Motors Environment
GM Technical Center
Warrenton, Mi.  48090

Santini, Gary
Md. Environmental Service
60 West Street
Annapolis, Maryland  21401

Sathue, Terese
Environmental Analyst
American Can Co.
Americal Lane
Greenwich, Conn.  06330

Schell, Richard L.
Ala. Dept of Public Health
State Office Bldg.
Montgomery, Alabama  36130

Schremp, Bill
Environmental Engineer
EPA Region III
Philadelphia, Pa.  19106

Scofield, Francis
Senior Scientist
6900 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20015

Seelye, Mary - Averett
Program for Community &
Culteral Interests
2401 Va. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20031

Shapiro, Marc F.
Staff Associate
National League of Cities
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20006

Shappell, H.M.
Technical Director
Steel Shipping Container Inst.
2204 Morris Ave.
Union, New Jersey  07083

Shappell, H.M.
Technical Director
Steel Shipping Container
2204 Morris Avenue
Union, New Jersey  07083

Sherheni, Jay T.
Manager of Engineering
Hardwicke Chemical Co.
Rt. 2 Box 50A
Elgin, South Carolina  20945

Shaver, Robert
Vice President
Versar Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia  22151

Shelor, Michael H.
Pollution Control Specialist
State Water Control Board
P. O. Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia  23230

Shema, B.F.
Manager Environmental &
Regulatory Affairs
Somerton Road
Trevose, Pa.  19047

Simmons, Donald W.
National Steel Corporation
2800 Grant Bldg.
Pittsburg, Pa.  15219

Skilling, Kenneth
Environment Reporter
BNA Publications
1231 25th Street
Washington, D. C.  20037

Smalley, W.B.  J-26
Senior Engineer
General Electric Co.
P. 0. Box 780
Wilmington, North Carolina  28401
Smithey, W. R. Jr.
Mobil Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 26683
Richmond, Virginia  23261

Stameli, Arthur
Senior Engineer
West Electric
222 Bway
New York, New York  10038

St. John, Wayne
Project Engineer
Milw. Metro Sewerage District
P. 0. Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wisconsin  53201

Stern, Linda
Toxic Materials News
P. 0. Box 1067 Blair Station
Silver Spring, Maryland  20910

Stokes, Goodrich H. Jr.
Asst. Director
Division of Federal Agency
Liaison American Hospital
444 No. Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20001

Streiter, Eugene
Environmental Rep.
Marisol Inc.
125 Factory Lane
Middlesex, New Jersey  08846

Sweet, William
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
& Hamilton, Socma
1250 Connecticut Ave.
Washington, D. C.  20036

Tenanty, Robert M.
Betz - Converse - Murdoch
800 Fullin Lane, S.E.
Vienna, Virginia  22020

Terlecky, Michael P. Dr.
Head, Environment Sciences
Colspan Corporation
P. 0. Box 235
Buffalo, New York  14221

Trubacek, Nan
Environmental Associate
Scott Paper
1 Scott Plaza
Philadelphia, Pa.  19113

Turgeion, Marc
Pilo Hemb/OPP
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Vadovic, Joseph P.
Environmental Specialist
Americal Cynamid
1 Walker Avenue
Closter, New Jersey  07624

Vaughn, David R.
Olin Corp.
120 Long Ridge Road
Stamford, Conn.   06904

Wagaman, David
Montgomery County
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland  20850

Ward, S. Daniel
Water Resources Engineer
Metro Washington  Vouncil of
1225 Connecticut  Ave, N.w.
Washington, D. C.   20036

Warner, Mark Dr.
Aquatic Toxicotogist
U. S. Army
Fort Detrick, Bldg. 459
Frederick, Maryland  21701

Watson, Phillop H.
Systems Technology  Corp.
245 N. Valley Road
Xenia,  Ohio  45385
Webb, Jack P.
Fire Marshall
U.S. Government Printing Office
North Capitol S H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20401

Webster, William C.
IU Conversion Systems
3624 W. Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa.  19104

Wellborn, Suzanne
Germantown, Maryland  20767

Wentworth, Marchant
Res. Director
Envir. Action Foundation
DuPont Circle Bldg. Suite 724
Washington, D. C.  20036

Whitney, Scott Professor
College of William Y Mary
Williamsburg, Virginia  23122

Weidman, J.G.
Vice President
Environmental Control
Somerton Road
Trevose, Pa.  19047

Wilbur, Linda
Legis. Research Analyst
1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Suite 930
Washington, D. C.  20036

Williams, Earl M. Jr.
Environmental Engineer
S.C. Department of Health
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina  29201

Williams, Richard
Arthur D. Little Inc.
35 Acorn Park
Cambridge, Massachusetts  02140


Willis, Durwood
Virginia State Water Control
2111 North Hamilton Street
Richmond, Virginia  23230

Winchester, Jim
Research Asst.
Moshman Associates
6400 Goldsboro Road
Suite 304
Washington, D. C.  20014

Woolsey, John L.
Research Chemist
International Fabricare Inst.
12251 Tech. Road
Silver Spring, Maryland  20904
                                     Mailing Address for Mr
Zagrobeluy, Thadous J.              Thadeus Zagrobeluy is
Environmental Engineer               Code 104
EPA  (OE)/Naval Facilities            Naval facilities Engineering
401 M Street, S.W.                   200 Stovall Street
Washington, D. C.  20460             Alexandria, Virginia

Zeldin, Marvin
3601 Spruell Drive
Silver Spring, Maryland  20902

Zgurzynski, Joe
Engineer Env. Control
Hoffman LaRoche Inc.
P. 0. Box 238
Belvedere, New Jersey  07823
Shelf No.  650