TRANSCRIPT
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 ***<-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
TRANSCRIPT
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.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2 RESOURCE CONSERVATION RECOVERY ACT
3
4 Ramada Inn
1900 Fort Myer Drive
5 Arlington, Virginia
6 Tuesday,
Octob«r 11, 1977
7
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at
8
8:30 a.m. o'clock.
9
ATTENDEES;
10
PANEL
11
JOHN P. LEHMAN, Director
12 Hazardous Haste Management Division
Office of Solid Haste, EPA
13
HALTER H. KOVALICK, JR., Chief
14 Guidelines Branch
Office of Solid Haste, EPA
15
ALFRED H. LINDSEY, Chief
16 Implementation Branch
Office of Solid Haste, EPA
17
WILLIAM SANJOUR, Chief
18 Assessment and Technology Branch
Office of Solid Haste, EPA
19
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.
-------
2
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
2o
RCRA generally. Throughout the spring and summer over 80
invitational public meetings were held around the country with
-------
3
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
14
., regulations as we see them at this time and to gather an
10
. 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
lo
to further deliberations among the various program offices
19
within the Agency .
A second purpose of the meeting is to outline for
you our plans to develop environmental and economic impact
22
information on these regulations. The meeting will also in-
23
elude a case study discussion where we can "thread through"
24
the various regulatory requirements using several example
25
-------
1
2
-=>3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-?11
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
that.
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
this waste problem, Congress intended that the states develop
y
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
av
22
23
24
25
6
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
required.
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
.gh
-------
7
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
£O
the states are reviewing the pending permit applications.
24 /
Section 3006 requires EPA to issue guidelines for
-------
8
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
-------
9
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
-------
10
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.
-------
11
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.
-------
12
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
2.O
24
On the key definitions, there is just one I want
-------
13
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
-------
14
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
/H>3fCLO*
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.
pH
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
a.
-------
15
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
L
, 25 not to the feed stocks of the process, although these feed
-------
16
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
-------
17
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.
23
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
-------
18
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
14
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
22
someone feels the waste needs to be stored for a longer time,
2,0
we feel it is appropriate that standards be set, and reports
25 come in.
-------
19
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-
5
Can we set a permanent standard for a resource
6
recovery facility or, using the authorities of the Act, we
7
really have to declare a resource recovery facility a subset
8
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
ID
define all the criteria now as suggested, and implement at
phase levels?
18
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
-------
20
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
-------
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?
-------
22
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
-------
23
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.
-------
24
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
-------
25
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?
20
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
-------
26
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
-------
27
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
-------
28
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-
sota.
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
-------
29
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
-------
30
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.
-------
31
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
-------
32
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
-------
33
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
25
be handled. Let's see if I can combine them together into
-------
34
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
-------
35
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.
-------
1
36
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
-------
37
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.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
^24
25
38
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
question.
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,
AM
certainly uranium mining and milling, and possibly in
-------
39
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.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
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
relationship.
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-
tor.
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
era-
-------
41
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
-------
42
? ! 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
-------
43
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.
-------
44
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?
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
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
that.
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
-------
46
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
-------
47
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
Oonn
> 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
-------
48
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
-------
49
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
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 || rationale for our corrosion test, a quarter inch a yeari is
II
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
-------
50
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?
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-716
17
18
19
-^20
-)21
22
23
24
25
51
Let's define some ten is here. By leaching we are
referring to downward movement
-------
52
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?
-------
53
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<
-------
54
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.
-------
55
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
you must test to get off the list, or whether the list is
advisory.
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. .
fH
The general properties for high and low «f with
corrosive wastes we are looking at a liquid waste or the
tl*
saturated solution of a non-fluid waste for our Pft measure-
ments .
Someone pointed out to us the fact that bioassay
f>U
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.
fiU
If Wi is the only matter of toxicity, how do we
-------
1
2
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
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.)
-------
58
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
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
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
k
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
waste.
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.
-------
60
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
-------
61
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
-------
62
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.
-------
63
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
-------
64
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
_JR 15
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
65
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.
-------
66
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
-------
67
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
-------
68
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
-------
69
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
-------
70
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
-------
71
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
-------
72
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?
-------
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
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.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l5
16
l7
18
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
74
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,
-------
75
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
-------
76
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
-------
77
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
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
-------
79
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?
5u>a/».c<_
~)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: Ihave a couple of questions along
24 the same lines of the generator kinds of questions.
25 The manufacturer of a cleaning substance which
-------
80
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
-------
81
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?
-------
82
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
-------
83
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.
-------
84
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?
-------
85
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
-------
86
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
-6
-^ 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
-------
87
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
-------
88
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
25
hazardous waste from small generators, you would have to hit
-------
89
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.
-------
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
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.
-------
91
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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
-------
92
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.
-------
93
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
-------
94
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
-------
95
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
-------
96
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.
-------
97
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
-------
98
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
-------
99
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
-------
100
come up to the mike and identify yourself.
2 MR. KOHLER: George Kohler. Just a point of clari-
3
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
-------
101
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
\l
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
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
-------
103
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
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
23
24
25
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
-------
104
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
-------
105
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.)
21
22
23
24
25
-------
106
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
-------
107
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.
-------
108
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
-------
109
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
-------
110
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
-------
Ill
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
-------
112
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.
/r<4>/<,
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
II
24 n flammable. Would it be non-flammable by EPA criteria, i.e.,
25
flash point of under 12?)?
-------
113
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-?15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
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
person.
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
-------
115
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
-------
116
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
A*
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.
-------
117
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.
-------
118
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
-------
119
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
-------
120
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
-------
121
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
-------
1
2
3
5
signature of receipt that would indicate that the waste was
7
a copy would go to the waste management facility, and that
o
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
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
record.
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,
-------
123
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
-------
1
2
3
6
7
124
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
25
3004" is in fact a collection of about, at last count,
-------
125
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
-------
126
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
-------
127
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
-------
128
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
-------
129
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
-------
130
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.
-------
131
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,
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
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
answering.
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
-------
133
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-a 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
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*
-------
135
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.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
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.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
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
-------
138
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
-------
139
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
-------
140
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
-------
141
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
-------
142
1 cleared up some of those points.
^ 2 Let me pass -out down to John.
U)i6£~
^ 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
-------
143
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
-------
144
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
-------
145
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
-------
146
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
-------
147
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.
-------
149
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
OA&.
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
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
13
14
15
-* 16
17
18
19
}20
21
22
23
24
25
150
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
-------
151
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.
-------
152
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
-------
153
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
-------
154
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 tothe 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
-------
155
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
-------
156
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
environment.
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
-------
157
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
-------
158
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
-------
159
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
-------
160
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
-------
161
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
13
14
15
16
17
162
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
24
25
-------
163
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?
-------
-=?
164
I can answer it. It is really a bit misleading. I
think what Jack Lehman was referring to earlier about
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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.
-------
165
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-
e.
_=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
-------
10
11
12
13
166
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?
-------
167
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
-------
168
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.,
pU
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
-------
169
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
170
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
-------
171
1
on the regular standards will have to apply. Relative to
2
leaving it on-site, which is the specific question in this
case, it has been buried there, are we going to leave it
4
there?
We, through the EPA regional offices, will have to
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
-------
172
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
-------
173
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
-------
174
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
presentation.
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
fid&fnflo
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
-------
175
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
-------
176
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
-------
10
11
)
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
}22
23
24
25
177
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.
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,
fH>6face^,
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
I
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,
AP
-------
178
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,
-------
3
4
5 MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
179
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
-------
180
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!
o4-
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.
[I
24 || Standard tests should be conducted on the composite
25
waste itself and not on individual components. A composite
-------
i
2
hazardous. The standard leachate test needs to recognize
-7
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
181
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.
Msr/Afs
~$~> 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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
182
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.
-------
183
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-
ll
-------
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
184
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.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
185
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
-------
136
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
-------
187
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
-------
188
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
-------
189
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.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
REPORTER'S rBRT.mr.ATB
DOCKET NUMM?R:
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
-------
URBAN ENVIRONMENT CONFERENCE, INC.
C« Wmhlngton, D.C. 20036
1302 - 18th Street, N.W. 202 466-6040
URBAN ENVIRONMENT CONFERENCE URGES STRONG
REGULATIONS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
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-
sources.
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
promise.
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
accountability.
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.
DRAFTED FOR THE U.E.C. BY:
A. Blakeman Early, Environmental Action
Robert Hayder., United Steel Workers
Franklin Wai lick, United Auto Workers
Merchant Wentworth, Environmental Action Foundation
9-28-77
-------
This statement drafted by the Urban Environment Conference
has been endorsed by the following organizations:
AMERICAN FEDERATION OP LABOR-CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN RIVERS CONSERVATION COUNCIL
CONGRESS WATCH
CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION FOUNDATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE
LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
OIL, CHEMICAL, AND ATOMIC WORKERS
SIERRA CLUB
TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROJECT
TRANSPORT WORKERS'
UNITED AUTO WORKERS
UNITED RUBBER WORKERS
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
URBAN ENVIRONMENT CONFERENCE
WILDERNESS SOCIETY
ZERO POPULATION GROWTH
-------
STATEMENT OF MOORE HEftSHSON, PRESIDENT
NATIONAL BARREL & DRUM ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGARDING STORAGE & DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE. RAMADA INN,ROSSLYN,VIRGINIA, OCT. 11,1977
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
reuse.
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
-------
-2-
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.
-------
-3-
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
feasible.
########
Encl.: Energy Study by Drs. Laurel 8t John Pruasiag, Univ. of Illinois.
-------
THE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF STEEL DRUM
MANUFACTURING AND RECONDITIONING
by
Laurel Lunt Prussing
and
John E. Prussing
Urbana, Illinois February 14,1974
-------
ABSTRACT
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
-------
ii
LIST OF CHARTS AND TABLES
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
-------
iii
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
LAUREL LUNT PRUSSING
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.
JOHN E. PRUSSING
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.
-------
INTRODUCTION
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.
ESTIMATES OF THE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR STEEL DRUMS
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.
-------
2
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
-------
FLOWCHART
STEEL DRUM RECONDITIONING SYSTEM
INDUSTRIAL '
I USER I
_J
1
Scrap
RECONDITIONERj
DISCARD
SCRAP
DEALER
-------
TABLE I
ESTIMATED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MANUFACTURE,
TRANSPORT, AND RECONDITIONING OF STEEL DRUMS
Process
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
q
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.)
100.1
27.0
1,322.5
10.9
113.0
2.7
7.2
108.7
2.0
1.4
1.4
147.6
2.5
0.9
5.9
20/18 aaoe drum
(38 Ib.)
82.7
22.3
1,092.5
9.0
113.0
2.3
6.0
107.0
1.7
1.2
1.2
147.6
2.1
0.9
4.9
22 aaae
(28 Ib.)
60.9
16.5
805.0
6.7
113.0
1.7
4.4
104.8
0.9
0.9
0.6
3.6
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 share65%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
-------
6
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.
-------
7
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
MANUFACTURE AND DELIVERY OF NEW DRUM TO FILLER!
RECONDITIONING AND DELIVERY OF USED DRUM TO FILLER
(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
COMPARISON OF THE CUMULATIVE ENERGY REQUIRED
FOR 100 MILLION FILLS OF
REUSABLE AND SINGLE-USE STEEL DRUMS
Reusable
18 cage
20/18 gage
Single-use
22 gage
56,489 bil. BTU 77,735 bil. BTU
111,400 bil. BTU
(9 fills per
drumj 8 recon-
ditionings)
(4 fills per
drum} 3 recon-
ditionings)
(new drum for
each fill)
ENERGY RATIO
20/^.8 oage drum
18 gage drum
1.4
22 gage drum
18 gage drum
= 2.0
-------
10
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.
CONCLUSION
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
-------
11
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.
-------
12
References
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.
-------
A-l
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
-------
FLOWCHART
STEEL DRUM RECONDITIONING SYSTEM
A-2
RAW
MATERIALS
1 * 1
bM,ST
J
STEEL
INDUSTRY
'DR.ST
1
EM
EST
EST,DR
DRUM
MAKER
LLI
J FIL
P
I INDUS
1 us
EI,SC
1
1
1
t
ESC,ST
EDR
EDR,F
LJL
LER
&:
TRIAL
E
FT"
>'
EI,DI
^
1
1
1
1
EH.F
ER
R
R'SC E
' .. Esc
DISCARD ! SCRAP
1 " DEALER
/
-------
A-3
LIST OF SYMBOLS FOR FLOWCHART
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)
3
ESC * ESC,STj * (1 - f3 V
where
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
f3
f .
4
f
1.03 N/(N+1)
0.97
0.03
1.05 N/(N-fl)
0.95
0.05
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
1434.8
7.0
1.2
149.3
109.1
3 3*"
1113.5
5.1
0.9
--
105.3
ER,SC + Esc7
* ESC,ST J
8.2 7.0 4.2
-------
JU7
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
18 GAGE DRUM
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)
etc
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.
DIMENSION E(SO>
NH-0
NO4
CC NC IS THE MAX. NO. OF FILLS FOR 20/18 DRUM.
KMOD-0
DO 100 K-1,16
NF-NR+1
NZ-NF+NR
NSO»NR*NR
E18-<1692.1«NZ»26S.5niSO>/NF
£22-1113.5*NF
AV18-E18/NF
IF(NF.GT.NC) GO TO 10
E201B«<1434.8»NZ+266.»NSO>/NF
AV20»E2018/NF
E(NF>-E2018
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
END
On the following page a list of symbols and their
explanation is given. The equations programmed are the
simplified equations from the preceding page.
-------
A-9
COMPUTER PROGRAM SYMBOLS
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
OUTPUT OF COMPUTER PROGRAM
JU10
- fe
01
H
H
iw
0
1
3
Z
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
g>
g
O
W-H
O -P
H
Id *O
IJ8
3 oi
z u
0
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
S2
01 TJ
01 01
> 0>
36
a
H (M
r
u
1113.5
2227.0
3340.5
4454.0
5567.5
6681.0
7794.5
8908.0
10081*5
11135.0
12248.5
13362.0
14475.5
15589.0
C D>
01 It)
01
> 00
H,-4
18 O
H CM
U
1434.8
2285.2
2746.0
3109.4
4544.2
5394.6
5855.4
6218.8
7653.6
8504.0
8964.8
9328.2
10763.0
11613.4
h M
01 D
01 01
Dl
JJ CO
ID >H
1692.1
2670.9
3174.2
3558.5
3895.4
4208.4
4507.9
4798.9
5084.2
5365.5
5644.0
5920.3
6195.0
6468.3
01
»
a
01 O
01-H
B IM
(V
1-1
01 01
D< a
a
* i
01 9
> *
< TI
1434.8
1142.6
915.3
777.3
908.8
899. 1
836.5
777.3
850.4
850.4
815.0
777.3
827.9
829.5
&
Li
01 CO
a,-.
41-H
C u
1692.I
1335.4
1058.1
889.6
779. 1
701.4
644.0
599.9
564.9
536.6
513. 1
493.4
476.5
462.0
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
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES/REGULATIONS
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
problem.
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
incinerated.
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.
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
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 , andtoil 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
ff^UatO'i
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
\i
-------
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
generator
-------
lel'
Lhu b
J
qu
The decision of
hazardous should also recognize concentration and available
form.
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
y
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.
-------
*
x-
REFERENCES
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.
-------
STATEMENT FOR EPA PUBLIC MEETING ON HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT/GUIDELINES, 11-12 October 1977, Arlington, Virginia
by
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
wastes.
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 weeklong conference, however, gave
2
-------
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.
-------
-------
C/DP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
PANEL MEMBERS
JOHN P. LEHMAN, Moderator
Hazardous Waste Management Division (HWMD)
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
WALTER W. KOVALICK, JR.,
Guidelines Branch, HWMD
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
ALFRED W. LINDSEY
Implementation Branch, HWMD
office of Solid Waste, EPA
WILLIAM SANJOUR
Assessment and Technology Branch, HWMD
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
-------
II-2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AGENDA
SAM MOREKAS - Section 3005
MATT STRAUS - Section 3006
TIMOTHY FIELDS - Section 3010
MIKE SHANNON - Environmental/Economic Impact
Assessment
CASE EXAMPLES;
*****
PAGE
3
64
105
149
172
-------
II-3
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
23
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
25
applicant is required to submit which includes estimates of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
II-4
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. wiaasage 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.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
_j> 19
20
21
^22
23
24
^ 25
II-5
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*
-------
3
4
5
. 6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
II-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
recovery.
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,
oL.
will require a compliance schedule for coining up to the
standards i»su
-------
II-7
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
-------
II-8
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.)
-------
II-9
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
-------
11-10
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
rt
conceivable th'iti)that we will find out that the regulations
25
-------
11-11
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
-------
11-12
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
Qu*
24 recovery permit will be le*«.£ur purpose here is to encourage
25 such facilities by making the requirements or the procedures
-------
11-13
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
-------
11-14
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
-------
11-15
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
-------
11-16
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.
-------
11-17
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,
-------
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-18
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
-------
11-19
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 incinerator.in 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
-------
11-20
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.
-------
11-21
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-22
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
disposal?
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?
-------
11-23
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
-------
11-24
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
-------
11-25
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
-------
11-26
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
-------
11-27
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
-------
I
11-28
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
-------
11-29
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.
-------
11-30
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.
-------
11-31
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.
-------
IS-32
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
-------
11-33
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
-------
11-34
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
thoughts.
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
-------
11-35
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.
-------
11-36
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
-------
11-37
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
-------
11-38
. 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.
25
-------
11-39
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-r»13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
11-40
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
process.
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
-------
11-41
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
-------
11-42
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
-------
11-43
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
-------
11-44
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
-------
11-45
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
-------
11-46
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
i
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
-------
11-47
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
-------
11-48
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
-------
11-49
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
-------
11-50
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
-------
11-51
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
-------
11-52
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
-------
11-53
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
-------
11-54
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!
-------
11-55
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, -3OTW manifests in the metropolitan area
25 that would be condensed into quarterly reports by generators
-------
11-56
1 and disposers.
2 So I don't know how many generators and disposers
JIW
-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
-------
11-57
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
-------
11-58
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
-------
11-59
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
-------
11-60
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,
-------
11-61
M«se.
' 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
facility.
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
-------
11-62
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
(***<**tjt;nt)
24 just that and the purpose of going into the Federal Register
25 with the proposed regulations is to comment on a more
-------
11-63
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
-------
1
2
3
4
-75
-^8
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-64
involves the authorization of state hazardous waste Management
programs.
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
regulation.
All the other parts of Subtitle C are regulations.
This one is a guideline which means that it is not a mandatory
thing.
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
Act.
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-^ 22
-? 23
^24
25
11-65
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
program.
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
authorization.
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
f#
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.
-------
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1G
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-66
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
terras.
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
-------
11-67
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.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-914
15
16
17
^ 18
19
20
23
24
25
11-68
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
standards.
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-69
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
decision.
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
-------
11-70
» ' 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.
-------
11-71
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
-------
11-72
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.
-------
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-73
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
-------
11-74
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
22
23
24
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
-------
11-75
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
ft>^
125 New Jersey tseat imposing an importation ban on all waste
-------
11-76
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
-------
11-77
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
-------
11-78
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
-------
11-79
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?
-------
11-80
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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
option.
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
-------
11-81
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.
-------
11-82
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
-------
11-83
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
-------
11-84
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
920
*
21
22
23
24
25
11-85
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
-------
11-86
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
-------
11-87
?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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-88
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
-------
11-89
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
-------
11-90
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
/wf/04//y
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.
-------
11-91
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
-------
11-92
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
-------
11-83
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
-------
11-94
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
-------
11-95
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
rules?
It so happens that we have our recent general
counsel opinion that says that we are that after the rules
fce.de* 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
-------
11-96
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
-------
11-97
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
-------
11-98
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
-------
11-99
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-ofstate 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?
-------
11-100
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.
-------
11-101
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
-------
11-102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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-
(_t4A^U^M^)
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
^A^QfO.^
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
-------
11-103
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
-------
11-104
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.)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-105
AFTERNOON SESSION
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
before.
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.
-------
11-106
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
-------
H-107
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
-------
11-108
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
3t>OfL
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
-------
11-109
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-=? 10
11
12
13
15
JJ 16
17
-718
19
20
^21
22
23
24
.= 25
11-110
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.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-7 25
11-111
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
-------
11-112
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
-------
11-113
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.
-------
11-114
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
-------
11-115
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
-------
11-116
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
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-117
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
floor.
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?
-------
11-118
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
-------
11-119
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
-------
11-120
*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.
-------
11-121
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?
-------
11-122
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
-------
11-123
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
-------
11-124
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
-------
11-125
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
-------
11-124
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.
-------
11-127
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
-------
11-128
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.
-------
II-129
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,
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
^17
18
19
-**) 20
21
22
23
24
25
11-130
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
-------
11-131
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.
-------
11-132
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?
-------
11-133
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
-------
11-134
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
-------
11-135
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
-------
11-136
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.
-------
11-137
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
-------
11-138
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.
-------
11-139
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
-------
11-140
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
-------
11-141
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
forth.
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
-------
11-142
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.
-------
11-143
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
-------
11-144
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
-------
11-145
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.
-------
11-146
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.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-9 w
-V4
-=\ 15
-f 16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-147
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
waste.
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
-------
11-148
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
-------
11-149
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
-------
11-150
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
-------
11-151
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
-------
11-152
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
-------
11-153
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
-------
11-154
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
-------
11-155
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
-------
11-156
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
-------
11-157
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
-------
11-158
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
-------
11-159
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
-------
11-160
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
-------
11-161
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
-------
11-162
sense, what are the cost impacts or impacts on various
2
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
6
7 good benefit cost analyses per se of a regulatory action.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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.
-------
11-163
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?
-------
11-164
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.
-------
11-165
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
-------
11-166
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.
-------
11-167
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
-------
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
U
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11-168
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
-------
11-169
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
-------
11-170
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
-------
11-171
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?
-------
II-172
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
-------
11-173
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
-------
11-174
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
-------
11-175
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
-------
11-176
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
-------
11-177
1 his own property, meaning property contiguous to the place
2 where he generates.
o
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
-------
11-178
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.
-------
11-179
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,
-------
11-180
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
-------
11-181
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
-------
11-182
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
-------
11-183
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
-------
11-184
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?
-------
11-185
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?
GpQ&L-
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
-------
11-186
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.
-------
11-187
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"?
-------
11-188
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.
-------
11-189
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
-------
11-190
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.
-------
11-191
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".
-------
11-192
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
-------
11-193
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
-------
11-194
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
-------
11-195
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.
-------
11-196
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
-------
11-197
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?
-------
11-198
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.
-------
FC/DP
11-199
C«*«4£(WUy
~~? 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
meeting.
(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 P.M.)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and thnt This is a true ,tn
-------
AttendeesOctober 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
Group
North Star Division MRI
10701 Red Circle Drive
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Balick, Sanford E.
Assistant Transportation
Counsel
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
Affairs
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
Inst.
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.
Staff
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.
19380
Cowan, Ted M.
State Representative
Oklahoma
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
Prop.
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.
Chemist
Tennessee Eastman Co.
Kingsport, Tenn. 37664
Grayson, Mark
Government Affairs Counsel
AIA/NA
1745 Jefferson Davis Highway
#509
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
Practices
Office of Environmental Union
Camp Corp.
P. 0. Box 1391
Savannah, Georgia 31402
Hall, M.E.
Department Head, Environmental
Protection
Union Carbide Corporation
S. 0. Box 2831
Charleston, West Virginia 25330
Kami11, Bruce
Counsel
National Paint & Coatings Assn, Inc.
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Hanks, George J., Jr.
Asst. Director - Federal
Relations
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
(WH-562)
EPA-OSW-TICB
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
President
National Barrell & Drum Assoc.
1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Hesse, John L.
Chief, Office of Toxic
Substances
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
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
President
IR&T
7655 Old Springridge Road
McLean, Virginia 22101
Ince, H. C., Jr.
Manager, Environmental
Engr.
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
Board
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
Greenleaf/Telesca
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
Hygiene
P. 0. Box 13387
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
Johnson, Charles A.
Tech. Director
NSWMA
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
Government
Relations
Air Products and Chemical
Suite 1016
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Kadlubuwski, Michael F.
Environment Engineer
Virginia Electric & Power
Company
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
Resources
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 HWMD
EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460
Leubecker, Daniel W.
General Engineer - Environmental
Activities
Department of Commerce
Maritime Administration
Code 730.2
Washington, D. C. 20230
Levin, Debra
Dir. of Trans. & Econ.
Institute of Scrap Iron 7
Steel
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
EPA
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
Services
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
Systems
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
Association
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.
Ecologist
EPA
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,
N.Y.S.
Assembly
Legislative Office Bldg.
Albany, New York 12248
Morrison, A.E.
Supt. Environmental & Chemical
Services
Gardinier, Inc.
P. 0. Box 3269
Tampa, Florida 33601
Mulholland, R.L.
Manager Residual Process
Materials
Allied Chemical
Columbia Road
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Mullen, Hugh
Director of Government
Relations
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
Affairs
Union Carbide Corp.
270 Park Ave.
New York, New York 10017
Parks, Barry
University Safety Engineer
VPI S, SV
Office of Occup. Health
& Safety, VPI s SV
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Parsons, James T.
President
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
Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P. O. Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Philipbar, William B. Jr.
President
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
Chemist
U.S. Government Printing Office
North Capitol S H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20401
Prokop, John
President
Independent Liquid Terminals
Association
1101 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Purcell, Arthur H.
Director
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
-------
10
Rice, Rip G. Dr.
Jacobs Engineering CO.
1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Richard, RObert S.
Attorney
Sanitini Industries
P. 0. Box 2069
Montgomery, Alabama 36103
Robinson, Donald J. Dr.
Director Solid Waste
Manager
Dept of Defense
OASD (MRAIL) Room 3B252
Pentagon
Washington, D. C. 20301
Roodkowsky, Tatiana
Washington Rep.
SOCMA
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
Affairs
American Petroleum Inst.
2101 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20037
Rutherford, Robert E.
Director
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
Activities
GM Technical Center
Warrenton, Mi. 48090
Santini, Gary
Administrator
Md. Environmental Service
60 West Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Sathue, Terese
Environmental Analyst
American Can Co.
Americal Lane
Greenwich, Conn. 06330
Schell, Richard L.
Environmentalist
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
WAPO RA, Inc.
6900 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20015
Seelye, Mary - Averett
Director
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
-------
11
Shappell, H.M.
Technical Director
Steel Shipping Container
Institute
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
Betz
Somerton Road
Trevose, Pa. 19047
Simmons, Donald W.
Engineer
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.
Manager
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
Editor
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
Association
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.
Engineer
Betz - Converse - Murdoch
Inc.
800 Fullin Lane, S.E.
Vienna, Virginia 22020
-------
12
Terlecky, Michael P. Dr.
Head, Environment Sciences
Section
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
EPA
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.
Specialist
Olin Corp.
120 Long Ridge Road
Stamford, Conn. 06904
Wagaman, David
Planner
Montgomery County
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Ward, S. Daniel
Water Resources Engineer
Metro Washington Vouncil of
Government
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.
Director
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.
Director
IU Conversion Systems
3624 W. Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19104
Wellborn, Suzanne
Analyst
DOE
Germantown, Maryland 20767
Wentworth, Marchant
Res. Director
Envir. Action Foundation
DuPont Circle Bldg. Suite 724
Washington, D. C. 20036
Whitney, Scott Professor
Professor
College of William Y Mary
Williamsburg, Virginia 23122
Weidman, J.G.
Vice President
Environmental Control
Betz
Somerton Road
Trevose, Pa. 19047
Wilbur, Linda
Legis. Research Analyst
NSWMA
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
-------
13
Willis, Durwood
Engineer
Virginia State Water Control
Board
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
Press
3601 Spruell Drive
Silver Spring, Maryland 20902
Zgurzynski, Joe
Engineer Env. Control
Hoffman LaRoche Inc.
P. 0. Box 238
Belvedere, New Jersey 07823
yo!621a
Shelf No. 650
-------
------- | |