» f
TRANSCRIPT
Public Meeting
on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976;
Subtitle C. Hazardous Waste Management
October 13 and 14, 1977, St. Louis, Missouri
These meetings were sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste
and the proceedings (SW-26p) are'reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
TRANSCRIPT
Public Meeting
on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976;
Subtitle C, Hazardous Waste Management
October 13 and 14, 1977, St. Louis, Missouri
These meetings were sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste
and the proceedings (SW-26p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
PUBLIC MEETING
ON
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES/REGULATIONS
PURSUANT TO SUBTITLE C
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT of 1976
(PUBLIC LAW 94-580)
October 13, 1977
Khorasson Room
Chase Park Plaza Hotel
212 North Kings Highway
St. Louis, Missouri 63108
-------
PANEL MEMBERS
JOHN P. LEHMAN, Director,
Hazardous Waste Management Division (HWMD)
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
WALTER W. KOVALICK, JR., Chief
Guidelines Branch, HWMD
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
WILLIAM SANJOUR, Chief
Assessment and Technology Branch, HWMD
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
ALFRED W. LINDSEY, Chief
Implementation Branch, HWMD
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
-------
1 I N £ I £
PAGE
2
3 Chairman Lehman 4
4 Alan S. Corson 13
Program Manager, Hazardous Waste Guidelines,
5 Guidelines Branch, HWMD, Office of Solid
Waste, EPA
6
Scott Miller 27
7
Question & Answer Period (Cards) 36
8
Question & Answer Period (Oral) 58
11 Chairman Lehman 90
12 Harry W. Trask 92
Program Manager, Pesticide Waste Management,
13 Guidelines Branch, HWMD, Office of Solid
Waste, EPA
14
T. J. Robiehaux 104
15
Charles Clark 108
16
Question & Answer Period (Cards) 112
17
Harry W, Trask 136
18 Program Manager, Pesticide Waste Management,
Guidelines Branch, HWMD, Office of Solid
19 Waste, EPA
20 Question & Answer Period (Cards) 142
21 Question & Answer Period (Oral) 158
23 Evening Session
24 Chairman Kovalick 133
3 John Schaum 184
Chemical Engineer, Technology Program,
4 Assessment and Technology Branch, HWMD,
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
5
Question & Answer Period (Cards) 193
6
Question & Answer Period (Oral) 250
7 j
i Adjournment 284
-------
1 HEOC.EEDXNGS.
2 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Good afternoon. Ladies and
3 gentlemen.
4 Before we begin, you probably notice already
5 but let me suggest that we set up the room so that smokers can
6 sit on your right and nonsmokers on the left.
7 We welcome you to this public meeting to
8 discuss the hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C oJ:
9 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. I am very glad
10 that you could attend and hope that this meeting will be
11 productive for all of us.
12 My name is Jack Lehman. I'm the Director
13 of the Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office of Solid
14 Waste, in EPA in Washington, D.C.
15 Let me introduce the gentlemen on my right
16 who will be sharing the meeting with me on a rotating basis
17 and also will constitute a panel to answer your questions.
18 First on my right is Walt Kovalick, Chief
19 of the Guidelines Branch and Division; Fred Lindsey, Chief of
20 the Implementation Branch and Bill Sanjour, Chief of the
21 Assessment and Technology Branch.
22 I would like to briefly discuss the history
23 of the regulations and guidelines and then describe the pro-
24 cedure for this meeting.
25 There has been extensive public participa-
-------
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tion in the development of these regulations since RCRA be-
came law on October 21, 1976. Initially 11 public meetings
were held in each EPA Region and in Washington to discuss the
provisions of RCRA generally. Throughout the spring and
summer, over 80 invitational public meetings were held around
the country with potentially affected parties, including in-
dustry, environmental groups, state and local governments and
others, to discuss various possible regulatory options.
Additionally, public comments were requested
f
regarding regulatory options in the advance notice of proposed
i(a££, n &**<&;&*£ * ~
_r_ule^making published in the Federal Register on May 2, 1977.
Recently, some early drafts of proposed regulations were sent
out by the Agency for review and comment.
The external reviewers included affected
industry, state and federal agencies, environmental and other
public interest groups.
This series of three identical meetings is
a continuation of that process of public involvement in the
development of the regulations. The main purpose of these
meetings is to describe the probable content on a section by
section basis of the regulations as we see them at this time
and to gather an initial set of reactions and comments.
It is important to emphasize to you that the
regulations as described can change substantially both as a
result of your thoughts as well as due to further deliberation!
-------
among the various program offices within the Agency.
2 A second purpose of the meeting is to outlini
3 for you our plan to develop environmental and economic impact
4 information on these regulations. The meeting will also iri-
5 elude a case study discussion where we can thread through the
various regulatory requirements using several example kinds of
1 affected companies.
8 The regulations that are being discussed
9 will be published as proposed in the Federal Register for
formal, public comment over the next several months. After
this comment period and public hearing — there will be public
hearings after the proposed rule making in the Federal Regisjr
13 ter — they will become final regulations next summer and go
into effect six months after that, or near the end of 1978.
Before summarizing the regulations for you,
let me remind you of their overall purpose. We are discussing
17 today the development of national standards for hazardous
]8 waste management that would be federally enforced. However,,
Subtitle C contemplates state programs to regulate hazardous.
2Q waste wherever possible. If a state applies and is authorised
to conduct a program under the guidelines under Section No.
22 3006, that state's regulations would apply as long as they were
23 no less stringent and equivalent to the federal standards .
24 Thus states are not assuming the federal standards when they
25 are authorized, but rather they are creating equivalent
-------
programs in lieu of the federal program. This is an important
point.
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 interrelationship of the sections of the Act and then
briefly discuss the procedure for these meetings before begin-
ning individual considerations of the regulations.
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, creates a regulatory framework to control hazardous
waste. Congress has found that such wastes present special
dangers to health and require a greater degree of regulation
than does nonhazardous solid waste. Because of the serious-
ness of this waste problem. Congress intended that the states
develop programs to control it. In the event that the states
do not chose to operate those programs, EPA is mandated to do
so.
There are six regulations and one guideline
being developed and proposed under Subtitle C to implement
the Hazardous Waste National Program. And they are the ones
to be discussed at this meeting.
It is important to note the definition of
-------
8
1 solid waste in the law encompasses garbage, refuse, sludges;,
2 including Liquid, semi-solids and contained gases, with a few
exceptions, from both municipal and industrial sources.
4 Hazardous wastes, which are a subset of all
5 solid wastes which will be defined by regulations under Section
No. 3001, are those which have particularly significant impact
7 on public health and environment.
o So as defined by the new RCRA, solid wastes
are not necessarily solid anymore. They include liquids arid
10 sludges as well.
Subtitle C creates a management control
system which for those wastes defined as hazardous requires
13 cradle to grave cognizants including appropriate monitoring,
14 record keeping and reporting throughout the system.
., Section No. 3001 requires EPA to define
,, criteria and methods for identifying listing hazardous wastes.
._ Those wastes which are identified as hazardous by these meains
18 are included in the management control system constructed undei
Sections No. 3002 through 3006 and Section No. 3010. Those:
that are excluded will be subject to the requirements for rton-
21 hazardous solid waste being carried out by states under Sub-
22 title B of RCRA under which open dumping is prohibited and
23 environmentally acceptable practices are required.
24 Section No. 3002 addresses standards appli-
25 cable to generators. EPA's regulations under this section
-------
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
}1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
describe the class of generators for whom some requirements
may vary.
For example, the Agency does not interpret
the intent of Congress to include regulation of individual
homeowners due to the small quantites of hazardous waste they
may generate.
Section No. 3002 also requires the creation
of a manifest system which will track waste from the point of
generation to their ultimate disposition.
Section 3003 addresses standards affecting
transporters of hazardous waste to assure that wastes are
carefully managed during the transport phase. The Agency is
exploring opportunities for meshing closely with proposed
and current DOT regulations to avoid duplication in this
area.
To this end, I want to call your attention
to the joint public meeting with DOT planned for October 26
'' li
in Suburban Chicago. Copies of the Federal Register Notice
D«JT
relating to this meeting are on the registration table -«p-
front.
Section No. 3004 addresses standards
affecting owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. These standards define the
levels of environmental protection to be achieved by these
facilities and provide the criteria against which EPA or the
-------
10
1 state officials will measure applications or permits. Fac.Ll-
2 ities on a generator's property, as well as off-site facilities,
3 are covered by these regulations and do require permits.
Generators and transporters do not otherwise need permits.
Let me say that again because this is widely misunderstood,.
Generators and transporters do not need permits, only people
who operate storage, treatment or disposal facilities need
permits.
Section No. 3005 regulations describe th«
scope and coverage of the actual permitting process for
facility owners and operators. Requirements for the permit
12 application, as well as for the issuance and revocation proces;
are to be defined by these regulations.
Section No. 3005 (c) provides for interim
15 permits during the time period that the Agency or the state:
are reviewing any permit applications. Here again, this is
17 an important point that under certain circumstances, which
18 are easily achieved, facilities automatically have interim
19 permits and can continue to operate while a more formal permit
20 application is being reviewed.
Section No. 3006 requires EPA to issue
22 guidelines for state programs and procedures by which states
may seek both full and interim authorization to carry out the
hazardous waste management program in lieu of the EPA admin-
25 istered program.
-------
11
1 Section No. 3010 regulations define
2 procedures by which any person generating, transporting,
3 owning or operating a facility for storage treatment and
4 disposal of hazardous waste must notify EPA of this activity
5 within 90 days of the promulgation of regulations which
6 defines hazardous waste under Section No. 3001.
EPA intends to make provisions in these
regulations for states to be delegated this function upon
9 application to the Administrator.
10 It is significant to note that no hazardous
waste subject to Subtitle C regulations may be easily trans-
12 ported, treated or disposed of unless this timely notification
13 is given to EPA or a designated state.
14 The Agency intends to promulgate final
regulations by mid-19,78 under all sections of Subtitle C.
However, it is important for the regulated communities to
17 understand that the regulations in Sections No. 3001 through
18 No. 3005 do not take effect until six months after promulga-
19 tion, as I mentioned in late 1978.
20 There will be a time period after final
promulgation during which public understanding of the regula-
22 tions can be increased. During this same period, notifications
23 required under Section No. 3010 are to be submitted and
24 facility permit applications required under Section No. 3005
25 will bo distributed for completion by applicant.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.12
Let me now discuss the procedural aspects
of our meeting. This afternoon's session will run until
about 5:15 with a break at about 2:15, about a 15 minute
break. And then we will continue after dinner with the dis-
cussion of Section No. 3004 which is a very important section.
Each section of the regulations will be
discussed for about an hour and a quarter, including a 20
minute introduction with about an hour for questions and
comments from the floor.
Due to the time limitations, the chairman
reserves the right to limit lengthy discussion or statements;.
After each presentation on each section, we
will take prepared statements on the section under discussion
first. During this time, blank cards will be available and
passed out. Please list your questions on these cards and
the panel will respond.
Following that, if sufficient time remains,
questions will be taken directly from the floor.
Statements relating to all the regulations,
as opposed to one individual section, will be taken at the end
of each day.
The court reporter is present today. The
questions and comments will become part of the public record.
This record will be available for public inspection by
November 18, 1977 in the Docket Section, Room 2111 of the
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office of Solid Waste,
at the EPA in Washington, D.C.
Now let me introduce first Mr. Alan Corson.
Alan is the Program Manager for Hazardous Guidelines in our
Division and he will discuss the first set of regulations
under Section No. 3001.
Alan?
MR. CORSON: Thank you. Jack.
In reviewing our work on Section No. 3001,
I will in general follow the handout material which you either
received in the mail or you may have picked up at the desk
outside. That is this section called Summary Materials.
First, I will briefly review the authority
of the Act, the mandate under which we are developing these
regulations. Then I will go to short discussion of our present
thinking and the definition of hazardous waste, that is, the
content of the draft regulations. And finally, we will briefly
cover the key unresolved issues.
By unresolved issues, we are referring to
some of those that although we may have a position we are
following at the moment it is not firm because there is still
some discussion within the Agency as to which way we should be
going.
With regard to the authority. Section No.
3001 of RCRA, the first two paragraphs (a) and (b), which
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
mandate the initiation of some action by the Agency, they call
for us to develop and promulgate criteria for identifying and
listing hazardous waste and regulations identifying the
characteristics of hazardous waste and listing particular
wastes which are to be covered by Sections No. 3002 through
No. 3005 and No. 3010 and does deal with the permit require-
ments and state requirements under No. 3006 in terms of
comparability.
In short, we must establish the criteria
for and provide lists of hazardous waste. We will go into the
issue itself specifically a little bit later.
The third paragraph of RCRA, Section No.
3001, Paragraph (c), allows a governor to petition the EPA
to identify or list a particular material as a hazardous
waste and to list that waste. The Administrator then has 90
days within which to act.
Going from the authority to the content,
the first item I would like to review, the word we have in our
outline is the word exceptions, and to amplify that a little
bit.
By exceptions here, we mean some characteris-
tics or traits or whatever, some classes that will be handled
a little differently than things we are categorizing generally
as hazardous waste. These materials, although they may me«t
our criteria, will be handled in a different matter and we
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
. will go into that in a moment.
At the outset, I should point out that our
approach has been to minimize the number of things, the number
of categories that are being treated out of the ordinary.
Basically, RCRA provides for only two types of management of
, wastes. Wastes which are not hazardous must meet the character
6
istics of Subtitle B of the Act in their disposal. Wastes
which meet the criteria of Subtitle C, Section No. 3001, those
wastes which are hazardous, they require the special managemen
requiring the regulations and standards we have promulgated
in the sections of this Act.
Those areas which we are treating in a littl
bit different manner: First, we intend to exclude from our
definition all household waste. By just the nature of the
problem, we feel it is unmanageable to consider regulating
70 million households.
Second, there is a category of what we are
calling small waste generators. These will be defined and
discussed under Section No. 3002--these will-be discussed
under Section No. 3002. The definitions cause some problems.
For these people, we will be proposing a certain minimum set
of requirements, things which will give them a little bit of
a break and we feel will be less burdensome than those that
are treated on the not small quantity generators.
25
The third category deals with the applicabil -
-------
16
ity of the regulations to mining and milling wastes. In this
2
1
case, we propose, since there is a study to be performed
under Section No. 8002 of the Act, that the application of
3
these regs to such wastes will be delayed for six months
after completion of that study or until we promulgate differ-
ent regulations for those particular wastes, whichever comes
6
sooner.
That puts the burden on EPA to take some
8
positive action within six months after the study is completed
or these regulations will become effective. Now one of the
things that will happen in that study—we hope, we are planninj
as a result of that study to develope a better handle in our
minds on the mineraAmining industry. As a result of industry
studies done for our office in the past, we do have a fairly
14
good grasp of metals mining.
And particular attention will be paid in
this study to regulatory options. When you look at the vast
quantities of waste that are involved in the mining industry,
18
it may cause some different method of regulatory control.
This will be provided, the option will be discussed in the
study and we will then be able to make our decisions.
So for the moment, these are the only areas
that are being treated differently, one exception, one delay
and one with not so quite stringent requirements.
On to the definitions, there is a !:ey
-------
17
definition that we tried to develop in the regulatory program
so far. This is a definition of when is a waste, waste? We
have gone through all the categories in our own mind in terms
of trying to foster and sponsor resource recovery, use of
materials as a by-product. The approach we have taken so far
is that any abandoned or discarded material is a waste. Any
other material where the generator can justify to us that he
is using the material as--rather immediately as a by-product
or is going to a resource recovery facility for materials
10 recovery within 90 days will be excluded from our definition
11 of a waste.
12 One more time. All abandoned or discarded
13 materials are waste. Any other material when the generator
14 can substantiate that it is going through a resource recovery
15 facility for material recovery or has immediate use as a by-
16 product will not be considered as a waste.
17 With those exceptions, that definition we
18 are considering as our—based on damage incidents which we
19 have on file in the office the legislation itself and other
20 studies which we have conducted that the following criteria
21 will be included in our definition of hazardous waste:
22 flammability, corrosiveness. infectious waste, reactive waste,
23 radioactive waste, toxic waste. Within the category of toxic
24 wastes, we include those which have the defined characteristics of
25 bioaccumulation or potential for genetic harm.
-------
18
1 For each of the criteria which we have list
2 ed, we expect to have a definition and a test method. There
may be some however for which a test method is not readily
available, for example, carcinogens, in those cases, we will
include a list of those substances with the concentration
which will make the waste a hazardous waste.
We intend for our test method, wherever
possible, to use standard methods such as those listed by the
American Society of Testing Materials, ASTM.
Let me briefly go through each of the
11 criteria and terms. Plammability, for flammability, we are
proposing that for a liquid the flash point will be the
13 measure. And our definition of flammable liquid will be a
14 flash point of 140 degrees F. For nonfluid wastes, we
15 currently are working with a prose definition, but are hoping
16 within the next three weeks, with an acceptable standard test
method, to give us the same sort of yes/no test we can get
18 with flammable liquids.
fd
For corrosive wastes, two measures, a WH-
20 of the liquid or a saturated solution of the nonfluid waste,
rH
a 9ft less than 2 or greater than 12. we are also proposing
22 a corrosion rate measurement as an alternative measure using
23 a quarter of an inch per year on 9S* 1020. This is the same
24 test being used by the Department of Transportation.
" Infectious wastes, infectious wastes presen1
-------
19
a problem in that we do not have a measurable quality that is
unambiguous such as we feel we have some of these other
criteria. Because one of the problems with bacteria is if you
wait long enough it will probably multiply the level of con-
cern. Therefore, we looked and studied what were the potential.
sources of problem for infectious wastes which led us to the
development of sources which we would identify unless they
did not have certain characteristics. In so..ie cases, we are
going to sources within sources. For example, our regulation
10 will propose that infectious waste will cover certain sources
.. within health care facilities and laboratories and sewage
treatment plants' sludges which have not been stabilized
unless it can be shown that they do not have the organisms
,, of concern.
15 Reactive wastes, reactive wastes also pre-
sent a problem for us in trying to come up with a set of
yes/no tests. But for the moment, we are again here working
18 with a set of prose definitions and attempting to develop a
series of test protocols. The definitions we are using cover
20 oxidizing agents, explosives and materials which autochloriniz^.
Radioactive wastes, the Resource Conservatioji
22 and Recovery Act excludes source special nuclear by-product
23 material covered under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Con-
24 versely it therefore includes things which are not excluded
25 or included within RCRA. We are proposing at this time.
-------
20
1 recognizing the exclusions to regulate wastes with a radiant
2 226 concentration of 3 picocuries per gram or greater.
3 I should point out at this time that the EPA
4 radiation program is providing the major input into this part
5 of the definition. And with them, we are interfacing with
the appropriate offices within the Department of Energy.
Toxicity, I should have pointed out at the
very beginning of this talk that our concerns with the
9 definitions do relate to the waste itself. The carcinogens
10 we discussed previously will be measured on the waste as
11 disposed, not on the feed stock that went into the production
12 process. For toxicity, however, we do have a problem because
13 our concerns again are only with the means by which the
14 contaminants or fluids within the waste can be relieved to
enter the environment. Thus, our interests lie in the portion:
15 of the waste which may volatilize and enter the are or those
17 which may leak or run off and enter the ground or surface
18 water. So that for the toxicity measurements, we will be
19 proposing that either the liquid waste be measured, if it is:
pure liquid, or a standard leachate test be conducted on the
2i waste to determine that which will leak out of the waste and
22 have the potential to harm the environment. The toxicity
23 evaluation will be done on a liquid in either case, waste
24 itself or the leachate from that waste.
25 We are proposing that there will be alterria-
-------
21
tive methods for assessing toxicity. One will be an analytic
method. The second will be one that goes into a bioassay.
In either case, prior to doing the final tests, that liquid
or leachate will be tested for—will be tested first for
genetic change potential using a named assay or something
like that which we will pescribe and a proficient-coefficient
test to assess its tendencies to bioaccumulate. So in either
case, we go through the genetic change and bioaccumulation
problem before we go into the analysis or the bioassay method
10 We are suggesting that the analysis
approach leads itself most readily to those cases where the
12 waste is rather simple and the generator feels he has a
13 good handle on what is in his waste, where there are only
14 several substances present.
15 And just as a clue to the things we will
16 be looking for, for those states in which a drinking water
17 standard exists, we have gone through a process of looking
18 at the locational ground levels, dilution of leachate before
19 it gets to the well, the intake of human water that could
20 come from the well and from this, we end up with where there
2i is a drinking water standard that exists we are recommending
22 a limit of ten times that standard in the leachate or the
23 liquid.
24 For those where a standard does not exist,
25 we propose that we go to standard references such as the
-------
22
1 NIOSH Registry of Chemical Substances—I think that's the
2 name for it—and we set a tixicity concentration relationship,
3 such as if there is a given amount of a waste or a concen-
4 tration of a waste, a given toxicity level which would make
5 that full waste load hazardous.
6 You go through this whole logical proces-
7 sion and the number comes out to be .35 times—and we are
OfOj 0)&/))/9l#//*s9tD
8 using in this case the Ogalmai'ian Rat Test—so that, for
9 example, if there is a waste whose Oral LD-50 is 500 milli-
grams per .kilogram of body weight, then the concentration
11 of that substance in a waste at 175 milligrams per liter
12 would make the waste hazardous.
'3 For the moment, we have not set an upper
14 limit in terms of Oral LD-50's with which we are concerned.
15 So that as an example, if there was something with an Oral
16 LD-50 of 2,000 milligrams per kilogram,in the presence of
17 that substance in the waste at a concentration of 750 milli-
'8 grams per liter would make the waste hazardous. However, we
19 are considering the limits should be included.
20 we will establish similar relationships
21 forjhidotoxicity and aquatic toxicity.
22 For the bioassay method, these are methods
23 again which will be used with the leachate or the liquid. We
24 will be providing a set of test ^protocols probably with
25 fathead minnow. Oral Rat LD-50 tests, daphnia magna, phido-
-------
23
1 toxicity using soybeans.
2 Threshold levels and dilutions remain to be
3 defined. But our objective will be to make the equivalent
4 bioassay test equivalent to that procedure.
5 This is a very brief overview of the
6 criteria. I would like to know get into some of the key
7 unresolved issues.
8 One is on our definition of a waste. I
9 did indicate at the outset in that definition we had two
10 time elements involved,immediate use as a by-product and
11 three months for storage. Meeting either of these criteria
12 would get it out of the category of a waste.
13 Our concern with time is that we are very
14 much concerned about control measures if we went much longer
15 than three months for storage.
16 Also it turns out—not turned out, it was
17 planned that way—that in Section No. 3004 they are taking
18 the position that storage of three months or less does not
19 require a permit and No. 3005 gets it out of the storage
20 category.
21 This is to allow people to accumulate in
22 economic quantities for shipment. So the time element is stil
23 not totally and finally resolved in the office.
24 The other problem is we did indicate that
25 those materials are uncovered going to resource recovery if
-------
24
1 it is a permanent resource recovery facility. The question
2 does come about the authority to permanent resource recovery
3 facilities, whether or not we don't have to call them a sub
4 set of treatment facilities or to accept those standards on
5 them.
6 The second issue that was listed is one of
7 implementation strategy. Although we are developing regulatio
8 criteria today so we will promulgate all criteria at one time
9 and all effective at one time, there is an issue as to whether
10 we should phase the criteria—that is, put out some of them
11 today or when the regulation comes out, namely all but
12 toxicity,for example,and phase in the toxicity definition
13 at sometime in the future—or whether we should promulgate at
14 a given level when we propose and make that level more strict
15 with time such as the water people have done with their
16 guidelines.
17 In the bioassay test program, we have some
18 problems in terms of standards set and the applicability oE
19 using standard species or a restricted list of species to
20 represent the toxicity of a waste sample and what threshold
21 level should we set, what in particular we should be looking
22 at in our aquatic toxicity method, how relevant is the
23 soybean test to the toxicity of the waste? These sorts of
24 questions are in there.
25 The last issue that we will discuss and
-------
n
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
22
25
25
certainly not the least of those has to do with our use of
hazardous waste lists. How should the waste be listed? Or
how should the lists be used?
We are r equired by the Act to publish and
promulgate those criteria and lists and we will do so. They
key is how should the lists be used?
On one end, we have the thought of using
criteria and an advisory or better word for it might be
red flag lists. These would be lists of substances or
processes which we have pretty good information that would
lead us to believe that if you've got that process or that
substance you should be examining your waste because there
is a fair likelihood that it might be hazardous by our
definition. That's the one end.
The other end we have the thought of again
using the criteria, but this time using lists which are what
we call definitive or maybe a better analogy would be that
these are similar to the bold presumption approach, picking
it from the pesticide program. If your substance or process
is listed, we are saying that it is hazardous unless you can,
as a generator, use our criteria and our test methods to show
us that the waste should not be considered hazardous.
So in the one case, we have the burden —
again, this is with the bold presumption ^aproach — the burden
is on industry; if they are listed, you show us they should not
-------
26
1 be.
2 On the other hand, if we use the red flat
list or advisory list as we are calling it, then the burden
kind of falls on EPA to show industry in a specific case that
they do need our criteria.
6 We think, however, that with the advisory
7 list and the processes there should be enough information
8 between that and reports we have done to give us a fair clue
9 as to whether or not they really belong in the control group
or not . We just think that that makes our job a little bit
11 tougher, but that is not necessarily bad.
12 This has given you a very brief overview of
13 the draft regulations, contents we are proposing, some of
14 our thoughts on the unresolved issues. We are now open foe
15 your comments and questions.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: As I mentioned in the
beginning, at this time, we will accept statements concerning
18 Section No. 3001.
1' Does anyone have a statement they would like
2° to make concerning Section No. 3001?
21 (No response.)
22 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Evidently not.
23 so we will go on to the second step of o'ur
work.
We have someone who wants to make a state-
-------
27
ment on No. 3001.
Would you please give us your name and
affliation for the record?
MR. MILLER: My name is Scott Miller. I am
with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. I am part
of the Hazardous Waste Unit.
We have a number of problems with Section
8 No. 3001. The first one starts with the definitions.
9 Flammability, any liquid which has a flash
10 point less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit, 60 degrees Centigrade,
11 determined by the method cited in Section No. 250.13(a) of thi
12 Chapter. We can't understand why the quantity 140 degrees is
13 used especially in light, farther along in Section No. 3004
14 2.21, they say materials with a flash point less than 65
15 degrees Centigrade will not be allowed to be landfill. So
16 why do we have a contradication of terms?
17 On most landfill sites, municipal refuse
18 decomposes at temperatures in excess of 160 degrees Fahren-
19 heit. So why use 140? It doesn't leave any margin of safety.
20 Why not pick something on the order maybe of 180 degrees
21 Fahrenheit?
22 The next definition, corrosive wastes, any
23 liquid waste or saturated solution or nonfluid waste having
24 a fH less than 2 or graater than 12 is the method cited in
25 No. 250.13 (b) aqain of this Chapter. A more accurate test
-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
may be the percent a3.lmle.ni. fay or the percent acidity.
P#
Coca Cola has a Wf of 2.5 when you open up
a can. You are getting very close to the limit. White vine-
r»
gar has a P» less than 2. So why are we using the number 2
when we are really not doing anything definitive with it?
And why, in the next section, do they
request that the corrosion rate can be no greater than .25
S&.
inches a year on an •6ft grade 1020 steel at temperatures in
excess of 130 degrees?
The majority of the vault tanks that our
transporters are using have steel of a much lower thickness
than this.
Reactive waste, something that has been
entirely deleted was waste that would in combination with one
or more heterogeneous or homogeneous waste streams undergo
violent chemical change, free potentially toxic gases,
detonates or has flame as an end product to that reaction.
They have deleted this. They have deleted any substances
that react violently with other substances. They a re talking
about substances that only react in themselves.
On radioactive wastes, they picked a number,
three picocuriesper gram. And all they have done is extrap-
olate this from the water quality standards .
In our state, a number of the water treat-
ment sludges that come through will not be able to pass this
-------
29
1 because of the so-called radium belt that we are working in.
2 We propose a level maybe on the order of
3 30 picocuries per liter.
4 Also, the definition of hazardous waste is
5 completely unuseful. We propose that any waste—that all
5 wastes are hazardous unless you can prove them otherwise.
7 They have taken a bunch of numbers and they have made—they
8 started with a gas and built on another gas, another gas and
9 another gas and they came out with what they call logical
10 progression. In mathematics, I have never used that as a
11 logical progression.
12 They come up with a number .35 times the
13 LD-50 value. Well, the last time I looked through NIOSH,
14 there was approximately 2,000 LD-50 values in NIOSH as opposed
15 to more than four million chemicals.
16 Now the majority of the chemicals that we
17 receive, that we request permits for, are intermediate. They
18 are not a true chemical. They are usually radicals or
19 isomers of the particular chemicals that they are trying to
20 process too. Now what are we going to do? There is not going
21 to be an LD-50 value for these. They run the entire gamut of
22 the organic chemical universe or the inorganic chamical
23 universe.
24 we cannot use this definition at all. How
25 about ten tines the water quality standard? What are they
-------
30
1 maybe 20 metals or some cyclic hydrocarbons that are in the
2 water quality standards? Nothing there is unusable.
3 LD-50 values for flathead minnow. Well,
4 what happens when we get inland water?
5 We have waters in one particular site that
6 are at levels that will meet the LD-50 value, but they bio-
7 accumulate. This particular chemical I am talking about is
8 endren. It bioaccumulates in the algae and^* have killed over
9 400 fish in that lake. The level here again is unusable.,
10 We think that they should completely re-
11 define hazardous waste. We cannot use this definition. We
12 will not use this definition. It would allow too many chem-
13 icals that are both toxic to humans and to the environment to
14 escape and not go where we can contain them and we can keep
15 a complete tab on what is going on.
16 Also, what they want to use, they want to
17 use a leach test. I don't know how many other states here
18 have a leach test. We have two of them. The definition of
19 leachate predisposes that your site is going to leak. We are
20 going to get some chemicals leaching out. When we design a
21 site, we don't intend that to happen. If it does, then
22 we have made some kind of engineering error.
23 What we have found so far going with the
24 leach test is that it is also unusable. And using a leach
25 test on one particular chemical / we ran it through the Icib
-------
31
, in the quantity that we were receiving at one of our sites
could kill two times 78 people if the reaction reversed it-
self. And it takes nothing more than a PH 3 to reverse the
reaction.
But on leach tests, this particular chem-
ical would be classified not hazardous under their definition
6
7 of hazardous waste.
So again, I say we can't use the leach test.
You are better off using totals. If you want to use the
10 leach test, fine, maybe tlm t is what will leach out if you
,, spill it in transport. But it is not what is going to
12 happen on a site. A site is clay. It should have a minimum
thickness to insure integrity per minimum of 600 years. So
why are we worrying about a leach? Why don't we go with
,, total and work with numbers from there?
Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: O.K., thank you for your
18 remarks.
We a re interested in receiving these
comments. That is why we are here.
21 I think it is fair to say that the gentle-
22 man was referring to some figures that many of you may not
23 have. I mentioned earlier in my remarks that certain early
24 drafts of materials have been circulated to various groups
25 including state governments for them to have an early look at
-------
32
what we were up against here. I believe the gentleman from
Illinois was referring to those early draft documents and they
might not be available to all of you.
Also, I don't intend to respond to each
and every point that was made here. Weva.ll take under advise-
ment what was stated.
There is one point though that I think
8 perhaps the gentleman from Illinois has misrepresented here,
or misunderstood, and that gets back to the leaching test.
The fundamental philosophy behind the leaching test is to
determine what would happen to a waste if it does not reach a
hazardous waste facility. He was referring to the fact that
they intended to design and permit only hazardous waste
14 facilities that don't leak so why do you need a leach test?
15 Well, one could logically ask that.
'6 But what we are concerned about is only
17 those wastes that are designated as hazardous that are undesr
Q^A^uU^
the transportation control scheme. Nonhazardous wastes arcs
19 not under any transportation control and, therefore, are not
20 necessarily going to arrive at the appropriate facility. So
21 what we are concerned about is leaching of waste so that they
22 might cause a problem if they did not come under this trans -
23 portation control. I hope that makes sense to you.
24
25 there .
Somebody is shaking their head no back
-------
33
In other words—let me try it again: if we
could be assured that every hazardous waste was going to
arrive at a permitted hazardous waste facility that was
appropriately designed, then we probably would not be worryim
about a leach test. But since the way the law is structured
that you only have transportation control over hazardous
waste, there exists that possibility then that a number of
wastes will not arrive at any permitted facility, whether it
is a hazardous waste facility or not.
10 It could end up in a farm yard. It could
11 end up alongside a road in a ditch and so on. And if the
12 leach is there, then that is the point we are concerned as
13 to whether it causes a hazard to the public health and the
14 environment.
15 I think also a word is in order here about
16 the timing of these regulations. We made some general
17 reference to it. But I think it might be interesting to you
18 to have an understanding of our intent here in the timing.
19 We are pushing on Section No. 3006 guide-
20 lines first. Theyare at the head of the list. And the reasor
2) they are at the head of the list is that since they deal with
22 state program authorizations many state legislatures only
23 meet during the spring months of each year and there is a
24 provision for states to seek authority under the law. And
25 to be in at the beginning of the system, they would have to
-------
34
have their program off and running by about this time next year
, Some of the state that may want to do that don't have the
3
4
in a few weeks, and try to finalize those guidelines early
next year so that they would be out and available for
guidance to state legislatures at that legislative window.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
necessary legislative authority to do it.
So what we are trying to do under Section
No. 3006 is to promulgate these in proposed form very quickly.
The next group of regulations thEt would be
coming out of the pipeline is Section No. 3010. And again,
there is a reason why that is second.
Section No. 3010 refers to the notification
system that has to take place 90 days, within 90 days.after
promulgation of the hazardous waste definition, Section No.
3001.
As you will learn later on in the discussion
we are anticipating promulgating a sample format, and form,
for this notification and consequently, there are a lot of
forms to print and distribute and have in the people's hands
that need them at the time the other regulations go final.
So that Section No. 3010 then has to be
underway sooner than the rest of the regulations do.
Next out of the pipeline would probably
come Section No. 3003 on transportation requirements. These
are under discussion now with the Department of Transportat.ior
-------
35
1 There is another meeting in two weeks in Illinois in the
2 Chicago Area. We are further along with those than the others
3 and we will probably propose those as the third item that
4 comes out.
5 The next would be probably—we are anticipat
, ing things in our scheduling at this point--be Sections No.
7 3001 and No. 3002 that deal with definition and generator
8 standards.
9 I am talking now about oroposed regulations.
10 And last would be Section No. 3004 and
H Section No. 3005 that deal with facility standards and permits
12 These are so closely interrelated that they go as a set.
13 So what we are talking about then is to have
, 14 all these in the Federal Register in proposed form between
15 now and February. We elected to propose them in a staggered
16 fashion as I just described rather than wait and put them all
17 out as a group. Because we feel that it would just over-
18 whelm the public's ability to give adequate time to each one.
19 We want to propose them in a staggered way.
2o After the final promulgation of all the
2i regulations, as I mentioned, we will publish No. 3006 final
22 and No. 3010 final under separate publications. But our
23 thinking at this time is that we will probably hold the
24 remaining regulations, the final promulgations of the remain-
25 ing regulations, and publish them all as a set because they ari
-------
36
all very closely interrelated.
O.K., that's rather a long-winded discussion
there.
We are still on the written questions, sir,
if you would like to—
SPEAKER: I just have a question on your
last statement there.
This No. 3001 precedes No. 3010 in your
schedule?
10 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: No, sir.
11 No. 3001 does not. No. 3010 deals with
12 procedural regulations. We will get into that and discuss
13 that in depth then you will see that.
14 Does anyone else have a statement to make
15 about No. 3001?
16 (No response.)
17 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: O.K., at this time, we
18 would like to move on to the written questions. A number of
19 questions have been passed up.
20 Alan, you had some you wanted to start on?
21 MR. CORSON: O.K.
22 One point was brought out and I am glad the
23 question was asked. Does the waste have to be completely
24 analyzed for every criteria if one of its physical properties
25 already classifies the waste as hazardous?
-------
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
The answer to that is a resounding no. The
whole purpose of this test is that if you fail any one of them
your waste is hazardous from a definitional point of view.
This gets you into the system and you now must comply with the
rest of the regulations also under the other sections of the
Act. What testing or what other information you may need will
come out later on.
What type of tests must be used for 140
flash point?
We are recommending the Bensky-Martin
closed cup tester using D93-73.
Incidentally, one other little piece I
should have added was you use a method which we are recommend-
ing to include or will include in our regulations. We accept
the results of that test as being reasonably representative
of that particular characteristic.
If a generator proposes to use some other
test for that characteristic, then we will ask for data to
substantiate the validity of that proposed test for that
characteristic and that it does meet the same standard that
we have recommended.
The test for bioaccumulation, we haven't
defined it yet, but we will.
Someone mentioned a question here that talks
about the fact 1,000 part salt solution has a use in agricul-
-------
38
tural stock water. That kind of puts the same sort of
comment or answer I would give there that I would give thes
comment made by the teacher in talking to the acidity or
alkalinity of vinegar or Coca-Cola and that is that there
are materials which are being used which, if they were a
waste, would be a hazardous waste. But our Act does not, nor
do our regulations regulate substances.
f>H
I guess that vinegar has a Btt. greater than
12. If we had 3,000 gallons of vinegar going into a land-
10 fill, we ought to consider it hazardous and be very concerned
^ about where it goes. Or the other end, I am sorry, less than
12 2-
fff
The Pft greater than 12 is not indicative
14 of material that would corrode. I am not arguing. That is
15 why there is the second method which is really thsre for
]6 when you talk about No. 3002 that is really why it was put in
17 because No. 3002 does relate or does set standards which says
18 we must use proper containers—generators must use proper
19 containers for his waste. That is the only reason we have
2o have the corrosion of steel criteria in there.
21 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I have a couple of
22 questions here. One is the follow-up that I just ran through,
23 it asks for a little bit more detail. Will you present the
24 proposed dates of publication of these various regulations
in the Federal Register?
-------
39
1 O.K., bear in mind now these are the pro-
2 posed regulations for public comment, not the final regula-
3 tions.
4 I'll give them to you by month because that
5 is the closest we can estimate at this point.
6 No. 3006 guidelines in November.
7 No. 3010 also in November.
8 No. 3003 in December.
9 No. 3001 and No. 3002 in January.
10 No. 3004, No. 3005 in February.
11 Those are our plans.
12 Another question, will the Toxic Substances
13 Control Act's List of toxic substances now being developed
14 under No. 94460 be used for the preparation of the Hazardous
15 Waste List under Section No. 3001? And if not, why not?
16 O.K., this calls into issue a very—the very
17 basic difference between TSCA, the Toxic Substances Control
18 Act, and RCRA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. And
19 perhaps, it is useful to take up a moment here and try to
2o discuss what those differences are and where the overlaps are.
2i From our view, the Toxic Substances Control
22 Act is first of all a substance by substance oriented law that
23 is primarily aimed at the front end of the manufacturing and
24 distribution system.
25 The hazardous waste positionsunder RCRA, in
-------
40
1 contrast, are aimed at wastes which should be mixtures oE
2 many, many different substances, possibly not even the sub-
3 stances that are part of the—that are the products of the
4 manufacturer„ It is the by-product waste which contains
5 substances that are not related to or even—they are not the
, same as the basic product that is being manufactured.
7 Furthermore, the RCRA attempts to define
8 disposal requirements for all hazardous waste. Toxic
9 properties is one aspect. But there are others as Alan Corson)
]0 jus t went through. It is very possible to have a hazardous
,, waste without it being a toxic waste.
12 Now these are some of the differences.
12 Some of the overlaps occur where in Section
14 No. 6(e) of TSCA the Administrator of EPA is required to
15 publish regulations concerning the disposal of PCB's. An3
16 those regulations have been proposed last April. They have
17 caused some confusion because the two laws were passed within
18 ten days of one another last fall as to who is doing what to
19 whom.
2Q The PCB disposal regulations under TSCA
2i are being developed because the Administrator is required to
22 do it. The question remains as to whether the hazardous
23 waste regulations, when they are published, will in some way
24 supercede PCB regulations or complement them. It is con-
25 ceivable in our minds to have both sets of regulations
-------
41
operable at the same time. And that may be the case in the
_—^ future.Where there is a good and substantial reason to
/ A-
explicitly specify special disposal requirements for a parti-
cular chemical, that can be done under TSCA. It can also be
done under RCRA. So we have a number of arrows in the quiver,
if you will. It's a matter of integration and coordination
within EPA as to which authority to use for these various
provisions.
9 Now the list then of toxic substances
10 being developed under TSCA—and I assume the questioner is
11 referring to the list of 300, or the list of 50, or whatever,
12 I am not that familiar with TSCA. I am not that familiar
13 with TSCA. But I understand they are developing these lists.
14 These lists are being developed from the standpoint, as I
15 mentioned, of those wastes which require control of their
16 manufacture and distribution, toxic substances. And it is
17 not necessarily the disposal phase of thos e that is causing
18 them to be on the list. It could be.
19 So we don't intend necessarily to list
20 those substances on the list of hazardous waste.
21 Another reason is that when you are—I
22 think Alan alluded to this—that when you list a substance
23 you also have to list an amount or a concentration or both
24 in a waste to make any sense out of it. It doesn't make to
25 us to just list a substance, if your waste contains any
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
42
amount of that substance. Wow there are exceptions to that.
There are certain chemicals which gee carcino
gens or extremely toxic material which we may choose to take
that route where we will just say that any amount of--I mean,
if a waste contains any amount of this substance, it can be
, considered a hazardous substance.
o
Most other chemicals to make sense you hcive
to define a quantity and a concentration along with the meanin*
of that chemical.
So there are—these are the differences
between the two laws and I hope tba t rather lengthy explanai-
tion satisfies the question.
Do you have something?
MR. KOVALICK: I have several questions.
Number one, if the burden of proof for the
hazardous waste list is placed on the generator, is the intent
to processes/products or specific by-products or waste streams:
The basic answer is yes. It is possible to
do any of those things. If the option that Alan described of
listing waste for which we have a rebuttal presumption, if you
will, that they are hazardous wastes, one could choose a waste
stream—and I will risk using the example I used in Rosslyn
yesterday, Tuesday—we put on the list waste from the asbestos
brake manufacturing industry. There would be a rebuttal
25
presumption that those are hazardous wastes unless the
-------
43
generator in that category used the criteria to demonstrate
that they are not.
Another kind of rebuttal presumption list
would be to put PCB's in such and such concentration and any
holder of a waste of that substance in that concentration
is assumed to be a hazardous waste generator unless he demon-
strates otherwise.
So those are the rebuttal presumption kinds
of lists. So one could have processes; one could have waste
10 stream names and one could have substances if that option were
11 chosen.
12 Did I understand that all waste will be
13 subjected to genetic affects tests and partition testing be-
14 fore going on to other testing?
15 If you did, that was our error because that
16 is not correct. Our intent is to offer, for the generator's
17 use, a logic protocol for which test to use first. That would
18 mean if you knew nothing about the waste you would probably
19 the test that costs the least and the easiest to perform. So
f*
you might logically do BH first or flammability and moving
21 on to corrosiveness or radioactivity.
22 Now the point that Alan was making is that
23 when you reach the toxicity level and you still have doubts
24 about the waste the logical thing to do first would be to
25 tsst the waste against what will probably be a short list of
-------
44
1 carcinogens for their presence or presence in a certain
2 amount. That would save you running the whole gamut of tests
3 to determine the waste was possibly carcinogenic or mutogenic.
4 You would have a direct test on the waste at a much lower cost
5 So again, you would perform the test that
6 you believe your waste would flunk first. And if you knew
7 nothing about your waste, then you would go through a series
8 that were probably of increasing cost.
9 The follow-on question logically then is
10 are there sufficient labs available to do these tests for all
11 possible hazardous wastes in the country within the 90 days
12 for notifying EPA or the six months before tha regulations
13 are effective?
'4 This is one good point which we did not make
15 which is you do not have to test your waste at all. If your
16 view of testing the waste is that it would cost you much more
17 to make a final determination about that waste than would ths
18 increased disposal costs, whatever that increment is, you can
19 declare your waste a hazardous waste. There is nothing that
20 says you must test the waste.
21 But even so, to go on to this question, if
22 you did choose to test your waste—in the session tomorrow
23 we will go into some more detail—but there is an option for
24 you to indicate that you do not know the answer to the toxic-
25 ity question. Whereas the other tests can be oerformed rather
-------
45
rapidly. So you would not be in jeopardy during the time
during a finite amount of time that we would specify that
you were trying to find out about toxicity. So I hope that
clarifies that.
The content of solid waste varies more than
that of liquid. You envision testing each load of waste going
6
to the landfill. It could be well be necessary to do this to
comply with No. 3001.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Well, again, going back to my point a moment
ago, first of all, you don't have to test your waste. If your
process on the average or even more than that, if it is on the
whole, turns out a waste that you believe to be hazardous,
it would probably behove you to go ahead and treat the entire
the series of shipments as hazardous.
If, on the other hand, you think that only
an occasional load or an occasional bad batch of your waste
would be in the hazardous category, then it behoves you to
test more frequently in order to get those wastes out of the
Subtitle C system.
So it really is a function of the disposal
cost facing you versus the confidence level you have in the
production process of those wastes.
And we don't believe it would be necessary
to test each load of waste. Nor do we believe that producers
of large quantities of waste make disposal contract arrange-
-------
ments on a load by load basis. We believe what is, in fact
commercial practice that they make contract arrangements for
waste disposal and unless they carefully separate their waste-
which is something else one might be motivated to do in this
system—they handle all their waste for all of a certain kind
of waste in the same disposal contract. So we really don't
believe that is a significant problem.
Why the use of 140 degrees Fahrenheit as
flammability?
10 DOT regs call for 100 degrees F. for their
11 flammability. Different flash points can lead to confusion
,2 between EPA and DOT regulations.
13 Well, we are going to get into this in some
14 detail in our public meeting with DOT, but the basic reason
goes back to the difference in our mission. In the Hazardous
16 Transportation Act, DOT is charged to protect the health and
17 public safety which means they are charged to protect the
18 driver and the immediate populace, the truck and others from
19 its immediate transport effects.
EPA's mission under RCRA is to protect
public health and the environment. So if we are able—and we
22 have been able to try and investigate situations where wastes
23 which are flammable end up in, for example, landfill envirori-
24 ments where they are exposed to more than 100 degrees Fahren-
25 heit.
-------
47
The gentleman from Illinois was arguing he
feels that 140 is too low. But 140 also happens to be the
National Fire Protection Association's choice for one of their
cutoffs and to the extent possible, we have tried to recognize
existing industry practices in selecting levels.
So the reason the difference is based on
environment versus DOT's focus on safety in the vehicle. We
are assuming they have the data for that particular number.
9 And also, as to the point where there is any confusion, this—
10 you should recognize that just because you hava decided that
11 a waste is hazardous does not cause you to flow into a
12 different set of requirements with regard to the DOT regula-
13 tions. We are trying, as we will show here later this after-
14 noon, to interface totally with DOT. So, in fact, 140 degree
15 F. waste would fall into their combustible category and you
16 would placard it as combustible and you would fill out the
17 shipping paper as a combustible and you would ship it as
18 combustible.
19 And that would not negate the fact that
20 in terms of EPA it was a flammable waste. Nor would it put
21 you in jeopardy with DOT.
22 So I guess at worst this would mean if the
23 traffic--if you are in a large enough firm to have a traffic
24 department, they would have to learn that there's a second
25 number chat relates to shipping of wastes versus the shipping
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
of virgin material.
Another statement in question, household
wastes are accepted.
Are such wastes, for example, cafeteria,
office paper, restroom trash, etc., from an industrial site
automatically excluded or will the burden of proof, by testing
be on the generator?
Well, it is not likely, first of all, that
those—some of those wastes anyway would be—would fail the;
criteria for hazardous wastes. So unless they were listed on
a rebuttable presumption list, it is not likely that they
would be considered hazardous.
However, we have recognized the fact that
there are a variety of categories of generators who either
have small enough quantities or who have basically small
enough quantities that deserve special consideration. And
that was our reference to small generators which we are going
to get into in some detail at the next session. But it
suffices to say that we are facing several options for small
generators or these kinds of wastes including picking such
things as SIT Codes like retail and commercial establishments,
doing nothing and recognizing some quantity limits. So I hope
that answers that question.
MR. LINDSEY: I have a couple here. The
first one has to do with—the question has to do with an
-------
49
estimate of the percent of the total industrial waste that
¥
2 would be classified hazardous using the tentative cricteria
3 for No. 3001.
We have a study going on now which will
address that specifically. It is going to do essentially
with sensitivity analysis of relative levels of different
levels of criteria and the effect that would have on various
kinds of waste.
9 So the answer to that, I don't have at this
10 point.
On the other hand, as a general statement,
12 I think we can say that as a result of some studies that we
have done over the past several years on some 15 industrial
14 waste classifications which looked at the waste streams coming
15 from those industries and tried to identify whether or not
there was a potential, at least, for those materials being
17 hazardous.
Based on those studies, we think that
somewhere between 10 and 14 percent of the total industrial
20 wast* quantity will fall in that category. This is somewhere
21 in the neighborhood of 35 million tons.
22 I have two questions here which have to do
23 wjth the definition of hazardous waste. On this particular
24 one, under the definition of hazardous waste, is it possible
25 for a substance--and I presume you mean waste--to be classified
-------
50
as hazardous in one sense and not in another depending on the
facility which receives it? That is, will the definition of
a substance as a hazardous waste depend on the facility which
receives it?
O.K., it is the criteria and the tests and
possibly, as we talked about a little earlier, the lists which
will determine whether a waste is or is not hazardous.
Now whether a material is or is not a waste
under the definition and for purposes of this Act is the other
10 part of this question. If a material is the prime produce of
11 a manufacturing operation, it is not a waste. It is a by-
12 product of that operation. And nationwide, industrywide, no
13 significant percentage of that material is disposed. That is,
14 this particular material is always recycled, always reclaimed
15 into some kind of a product. Then that will not be a waste;
16 either.
17 As i think Mr. Corson touched on, and we
18 will touch on it quite a bit later—quite a bit more in the
19 next section under generator standards and then later on under
20 permitting standards, materials which are destined for a
2i resource recovery facility, if it can be substantiated that.
22 they are being sent there, then there is a whole lot less
23 activity that needs to be done by the generator in those ca.ses
24 Homeowners are always exempted.
25 So the answer to your question is that a
-------
51
1 waste is a waste—I mean, that a hazardous—the answer to
2 your question is that it is basically not so much whether it
3 is a hazardous waste but whether it is a waste and where it is
4 not a waste for purposes of regulation under this Act.
5 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Let me just add a little
6 bit to that. This question is one that is often raised and I
7 think merits a little more discussion.
8 The determination of whether a waste is
9 hazardous or not—besides the excpetions that Pred mentioned—
10 is generally speaking an independent act. Once you have
1! determined that, yes, it is a hazardous waste and it falls
12 in the control system toxicity, the next question you want
13 to ask is what is the best way to manage that waste?
14 It is at that point that you start to
15 determine what is the best facility to send it to. Should it
16 go to a recycling facility? Should it go to a treatment
17 facility? An incinerator? Or to a landfill? Or some other
18 option?
19 So do not confuse the determination of
20 whether or not a waste falls within the regulatory control
21 system with the subsequent determination of what is the best
22 way to manage that.
23 MR. SANJOUR: The question here is could an
24 NPDES discharge bu regulated as a hazardous wpste if it fits
25 into the criteria?
-------
52
In a word, no, the law explicitly exempts
NPDES discharges from the definition of a hazardous waste,
the definition of a waste at all.
Next question, will hazardous waste going
into NPDES permitted water treatment plants IE ed to be
analyzed? If so, all affluent streams?
Well, that question is a little bit more
complicated. The waste waters that come out of a production
facility, if they are part of the production process, in that
10 the waste waters are always kept within pipes, go right
11 to a sewage treatment plant, there is never an outfall of
12 some sort and there is never a waste. Regardless of how
13 hazardous the affluent stream may be, it is not considered---
14 it will not be considered under these regulations as a waste
15 until there is an outfall.
16 So the answer to the question is in generatl
17 the affluent stream treatment plants will not be considered
18 as hazardous waste unless they have first gone through some
19 kind of outfall in which they could be considered a waste.
20 We will get into more detail of this in
21 discussions of Section No. 3004.
22 And the naxt quosticn is a 90-day stockpile
23 is suggested as exempt from the waste definition.Since the
24 volume generated in 90 days will vary greatly between sources,
25 would a weight or volume limit to the stockpile have more
-------
53
?
. environmental significance?
- I guess before I answer the question I ough
, to address the hypothesis which is incorrect and that is that
4 a 90-day stockpile is exempt from the waste definition. It i:
c not. It is exempt from the requirements for a permit for
storage. It is not exempt from the requirement for storage.
6
In other words, there are certain regula-
„ tions set forth about what constitutes environmentally
o
9 adequate storage. And the waste storage is--for 90 days is
)0 not exempted. They are exempt from the paperwork that goes
?1 with it. They can still be shut down if they violate the
12 environmental regulations for 90-day storage.
... So I think, therefore, it is not necessary
,4 to answer the second half of the question, I hope.
.. MR. CORSON: I have a three part question.
16 What is the process for determining what
17 substances are either genetically active or persistent bio-
]8 acumulative not subject for inclusion as a hazardous waste
19 due to toxicity?
20 There are two approaches we are following.
-. One is the list substances with concentration both for
ft**} 01 ffg 0 //*J
_ 22 genetically active and for paraintan bioacumulative.
23 The other approach we are investigating is
24 to define the test procedure for each of thos e two character-
25 istics.
-------
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
54
We have suggested that possibly Aims Test
and one other to pick up those areas that the Aims Test misses,
those are the metals, would be satisfactory for a tendency
to be mutogenic, carcinogenic.
And proef f icient-coef f icient test may be
yT for bioaccumulation. We we have this group of
in-house people from EPA who are also working--&r your informa-
tion this is part of the four Agency Testing Committee. Fusst
to put that in perspective, CPSC, the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration, OSHA and EPA have formed a major Inter-Agency
Committee looking at several common areas . One of the major
pieces of that group is working on areas of testing. So the'
four Agencies will be looking at the same sort of test
procedures, same sort of test methods.
So in one case where you have a list or a
test method, if we can, primarily because we think the test
method covers those yet to come whereas lists only put out
those things that you know to be today.
That is part of the answer.
Also, the second question is how will the
TLV, the threshold l_imit value to the substances be allied.
From that, we go to how you relate the value for the TLV
to accident cases or damage cases to try to cope with numbers
which represent those areas where we have damage resulting
already or relate those values to carcinogens concentration
-------
55
and the same concentrations for the bioaccumulative.
6e-
Will the substances l»e specifically defined
3 and/or limited with respect to asbestos, nickel and compounds.
4 There may be some people here who are on our
5 outside reviewers list which means as part of our participa-
tion process they have had the advantage of having seen for
about two weeks new a copy of our draft regulations. If you
are providing written comments back to us, recognizing that
9 this is in a formative part of the process, not a firm issue.
10 So included in that thing there was, for example, a list of,
say, things like asbestos and nickel and compounds. And we
12 recognize that not necessarily all nickel compounds or
13 all mercury compounds belong on the list.
So if you go to a list, try to be definitive
15 to the point that they only include those which we are
16 concerned about.
17 MR. LINDSEY: I have one more. A question,
18 municipal sludge, regardless of analysis, if applied, is not
19 included and the question is is that correct?
20 And the answer to that is, no, that is not
2i correct. First of all, it would depend on whether it was a
22 hazardous waste. And second of all, the whole issue of
23 resource recovery facility which has been mentioned so far wil
24 be addressed in more detail under Section No. 3002, No. 3004
25 and No. 3005 later on. And I think it will become clear at
-------
-V7 5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
that point how that works. If it isn't at that point, then
please feel free to ask a question.
MR. CORSON: I have another question. Thiss
relates to standard leaching tests and talks to specific
characteristics.Rather than read the whole question, let me
define where we are with the results of the standard leaching
test.
About a year and a half ago—and for those
of you who may be familiar, we do have the University of
Wisconsin under contract and they have developed leaching
tests which consisted of three basic processes.
One was a synthetic garbage juice which was-
which tended to—the thing of that was its application to
solid waste or something other than pure liquid was to mimic
the effect of that waste when disposed to a municipal landfill
The second part of the program was to deveLo
a contract procedure, a means by which that synthetic garbage
juice was interacted with the solid waste—again, the legisla-
tive definition of solid waste.
The third was an extraction procedure which-
in which we separated the liquid resulting from the interactio
saying that that was the part that represented the leachate
from the waste.
We further—that takes care of the develop-
ment test.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
We further had a study conducted for us and
we have selected two other leaching tests, one which uses
distilled water and one of which uses a different synthetic
leachate. A set of ten weights was leached using these three
procedures as well as with some municipal landfill leachate.
Those four resulting liquids then are in the
process or have already been analyzed. We will shortly be
meeting to review the results of that analysis and select a
standard leaching test.
We can't tell you today whether that
standard leaching test will use distilled water or some other
synthetic we had to start with. Our attempt here though as
Jack indicated earlier is to describe a national standard. In
our case, the use of the leaching test is for definitional
purposes as to whether it is a national standard a waste would
leach.
To cite specific characteristics of that
leach when exposed with specific substances will be accomodatec
to the permit process. And that's when we'll pick up the
specific problems.
And incidentally, that is also where we will
pick up the problems of the--of materials which react one
with another because it is only at that point we can make
sure that we keep things apart.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: That's all the written
-------
58
1 questions we have. There is certainly time for more.
2 If not, I'd like to call for any questions
3 that anyone may have, oral questions, from the floor.
4 If you have them, please come to the micro-
5 phone and identify yourself and we will attempt to answer
6 them. A , .
ftoblCJVkHJL. ^
i>7 MR. TODIOIIAUKi I am T. J. Robichau» with
8 the Petrolite Corporation. I am still a bit concerned about
9 this 90-day storage period that was addressed in which they
10 mentioned by-product storage for over 90 days might be subject
11 to permit requirement.
12 We store by-products for considerable period!
13 of time because we quite frequently find these to be raw
14 materials in later processes.
15 NOW how does that come under the permitting
16 of storage or waste disposal?
17 MR. CORSON: Let me take a try at it.
18 Did everyone hear the question?
19 All right, let me repeat. I think the
20 gentleman was asking a question of the 90-day restriction on
21 the storage of some material which they have later used as a
22 by-product, suggesting that—suggesting, at least in their
23 case, they frequently have the occasion to store for longer
24 than 90 days.
25 i guess there are several ways of trying to
-------
59
. handle it. One is the case where you know it is an input
2 material, some other process you have already found and used
, for it and you are now storing it someplace else as an input
i material for some other process. I guess in that case I
, probably see it as a by-product and not a waste.
The other problem though is what happens if
- you have something which you are storing because maybe you are
a going to have some use for it as a by-product. Our concern--
o and this is really why we said there is an immediate time
period for the by-product and recognizing that time is up for
grabs at the moment. But if you don't know whether it is a
by-product, you are waiting to see if there's a lot of it and
,, then you find some process for which there's a use, our feelinc
,. was 90 days, which las been indicated earlier, gets you out of
., the need for a storage permit, but not out of compliance for
., storage requirements.
17 We felt for the moment--and again, the 90-
,„ day period is subject to discussion--we felt that was the
.„ turning point where we felt we should have a permit because
-- unless you know it is a by-product, we felt it should he
2^ considered as a waste and, therefore, be concerned about it,
.„ the storage and have some knowledge about it.
23 MR. SANJOUR: I think I can elaborate on thai
2- just a little "Lii. It is an obvious loophole if we allow
25
indefinite storage of by-product material. Anyone could just
-------
60
fill up anything he wants with anything and just say he is
waiting for a market for this glop. And if there's no time
limit attached to it, there is an obvious loophole you can driv
-------
61
If you read the act carefully, EPA cannot
dictate resource conservation and recovery. But by various
ways in which we write the regulations, we can certainly
influence the degree of resource conservation and recovery
that does take place and we are attempting to do that.
I think the point that Bill is trying to
raise is that the reason we put a 90-day restriction—a 90
day exemption on the storage permit requirement was along
those lines. It could be zero.
10 So you make it 90 days to give people a
11 chance to find a use for their by-product.
12 We can argue whether 90 days is correct,
13 180 days, a year, two years, whatever it may be. But it was
14 an intent for a middle ground, to reach a middle ground,
15 where there was some incentive, namely not requiring a permit
16 for a 90-day period, to try to find a resource recovery
17 solution. And yet not an open-ended situation which is
18 subject to abuse.
19 So if you would like to comment formally
20 if you consider some other date to be appropriate, we would
21 be glad to take that.
22 Yes, sir, we have another question.
23 MR. JOHNSON: I am Chuch Johnson,
24 McDonald-Doa^-i^s Corporation.
25 I have a concern on the criteria for
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
establishing flammable solid materials.
On flammable liquid, it is pretty well
defined, but in a lot of large factories, you may have the
accumulation of oil rags, of fuel-soaked absorbent material
for spills of various kinds of fuels, miscellaneous, parti/
filled paint cans, items that would normally go into a trash
container and may wind up in a compacter, you know, a trash
compacter truck. Will there be some criteria or some defini-
tions for flammable solids so you will know whether or not you
can move this material in a disposal truck, trash compacter
truck?
MR. CORSON: We do—what we do expect to
happen--let me read to you what we have so far and you'll
understand why we are looking for a--
MR. JOHNSON: Let me make one statement?
MR. CORSON: Yeah.
MR. JOHNSON: My concern is with the Depsirt-
ment of Transportation regulations. That is my prime respon-
sibility to assure for a large corooration that we do satisfy
the criteria for transportation safety.
When you start, in a large factory, trying
to segregate all the materials that might be defined as
hazardous by more than one set of criteria, that involved
elaborate packaging requirements and the expenses can J.e great.
And unless these criteria are defined and defined within certai
-------
63
parameters so that you can say flammable solid material, yes,
must go into spec packaging. This is the concern that I have.
MR. CORSON: I think the definition that we
are working with so far, if my memory is correct, is identical
to that which DOT uses for flammable solids.
One of our concerns though is that it be-
comes very hard from the enforcement point of view to work
against a closed definition.
9 Let me read it to you anyhow and you'll
10 understand why we are looking for a measurable test.
11 Any nonfluid waste that under conditions
12 incident to its management is liable to cause fires by
13 friction, absorption of moisture, spontaneous chemical
14 changes, retain heat from manufacture or processing, and
15 ignited burns so vigorously and persistently as to create a
16 hazard during management.
17 It is hard to say what one of those is. So
18 I believe that may be similar, if not identical to the DOT.
19 We are trying to work to get a compatable
20 definition to theirs for solids or one that can be measured
21 rather than this type of subjective evaluation.
22 MR. JOHNSON: One of the points I want to
23 make is that I am sure that in any large industry these
24 materials that may be defined as flammable solids, if they
25 do require segregation and packaging in accordance with DOT
-------
64
regulations, the cost is going to be greatly increased.
O.K., that means you have controls, you have
separate containers. We have oily rags in one container,
aerosols in another. And when you go into a big factory, you
will find that probalby 9/10 of the factories will accumula.te
this material, put it into a dumpster, often that dumpster wil
be a trash compacter, and off it goes.
If you get into spec packaging of various
type items, the expenses—I don't know how to explain it, but
10 it could be quite costly for a large corporation.
11 And if the criteria that you are establish!™
12 and you do specify this falls within the definition of a
13 flammable solid and we can test it, then that packaging will
14 be required under the regulations.
15 Am T right in assuming this?
16 MR. CORSON: It will only be required by
17 DOT if it meets DOT definitions. If it meets DOT'S definition
18 it does today require that spec packaging.
19 There is nothing we are doing, I will state
20 and will be stated again this afternoon, that changes any of
21 your requirements or any of your obligations to the DOT
22 requirements. Any shipment which is defined as poison,
23 flammable, combustible, whatever by DOT standards must meet
24 their standards when you are shipping.
25 MR. JOHSNON: O.K., the point I was making
-------
65
is that if you redefine flammable solids and set up a pararaete
where you do not have testing requirements to determine if
this is a flammable solid, then some of those items that
before you had a choice--you could say, O.K., we don't feel
it burns persistently or we don't feel it meets this criteria.
Once you establish those criteria then you also establish
all of the packaging criteria and all the necessary logistics
support of that material which was before just trash.
9 When you get into definitions of actually
10 establishing a criteria for a given class of materials to have
" these characteristics, then you impose not just in-house
12 controls, but you impose controls throughout the logistic
13 cycle.
14 MR. KOVALICK: One comment and maybe this
15 will help a little, if a waste were flammable by the EPA
16 criteria, we are not altering your responsibilities to DOT.
17 In other words, you are stating that because
18 we would have a spec for something being flammable, say, a
19 flammable solid, we are not going to have flammable solids,
20 we are going to have flammable. So it still may be a flammabl
21 solid for DOT. And you are saying--your judgment now is that
22 it is not a flammable solid for DOT, O.K. That means you
23 would only have to meet EPA's container soecs for that
24 substance, that particular thing, which we would have to
25 rationalize in the regulations as being necessary which means
-------
66
other than for transportation.
1
So you are quite right. If something were
2
such an environmental problem that it needed some additiona.l
3
specs for packaging, then we have it. But otherwise, you meet
4
your current DOT specs for packaging.
5
And when Mr. Trask discusses the generator
6
obligations , you'll get into that a little bit more. Again, we
7
are talking about differences in mission here. And I am con-
fident especially in the area of genetically active materials
9
that we will be identifying some materials for which we will
10
have to have--or choose among DOT packaging specs perhaps and.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
say, use those. As you know, DOT does not recognize--that is
the subject of our meeting here later this month—many of the
chronic health effects of carcinogens and other compounds. The
subject of that meeting is how do we get at that problem? Does
DOT add it to their regs and specs or do we do it in our regs
with an extra module only for these wastes?
CHAIRMAN LEI-MAN: Let me just point out on
the other side of the coin, if I might—and I have had some
personal experience with this—that one of the major causes of
loss of solid waste management vehicles is indiscriminate
disposal of flammable materials in supposedly trash. And in
the way from one point to another, the material catches fire
and it is quite a common occurrence.
And so we are trying to address partly that
-------
67
problem, partly to be consistent with the DOT, but also to
worry about that problem too, not to mention what happens when
it gets to the landfill.
Another major problems in municipal landfills
is flammable materials coming in with supposedly innocuous
effects.
6
O.K., we have another question. Somone
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
raised his hand?
MR. HANEY: I am Bud Haney, Clayton Chemical
Company.
I think I would have to agree with the
gentleman from the Illinois EPA in that your definition of
waste is, in my estimation, shamefully poor and looks like
a method of avoiding additional work for the EPA to control.
But waste can be defined very s imply as a
product generated in industry that is sold or disposed of for
a value less than the raw materials that went into them makin>
up the waste.
You can go into a company and prove that a
material is a wast by using such a definition. Obviously no
one is going to manufacture a product to sell for less than
the materials that went into it.
By using a definition such as this for waste
you can prove, in fact, that it is waste. I believe one of
the reasons for using a definition such as yours is to help
-------
68
recycling companies or recycling systems. In fact, I think
you are forming a very definite loophole for many hazardous
wastes to pass through.
. I know there are at least two companies
r represented here that recycle some waste oils.
If a company wants to, they can blend off
many truely hazardous materials in the waste oil. But by /our
definition, waste oil would not be a hazardous material , it
can go right on through the system.
A point, there was two in the State of
Missouri in the last few years where "waste oil" was picked
up, one containing a dioxin and the other case was high
,, concentrations of PCB ' s .
.. In the solvent waste recovery area, again
companies could generate large amounts of solvents that are
16 very recyclable material. At the same time, they could add,
17 say, PCB's to this material. The solvent would be recovered;
18 the sill bottoms, in fact, would go to very possibly a land-
19 fill not equipped properly to handle PCB's and at no time,
-0 would this material be considered or called a hazardous waste
21 under your definition.
22 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Could I respond to your
23 comments, please?
24 MR. HANEY: Certainly.
25 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: We anticipate— we have
-------
69
anticipated this problem that you described. And I think
perhaps you misunderstood what it was we are try ing to do
and the controls that do apply.
Let's take the case that you mentioned last
of a solvent which is reclaimable which is, say, salted with
some other material which is also hazardous. The solvent
is reclaimed and according to your remarks, the residue would
be disposed of indiscriminately. Now that is not the case.
9 We will get into this later on when we
10 discuss facility standards and permits. But in that case,
11 first of all, the facility which recovers solvents would
12 still be required to meet the facility standards under Section
13 No. 3004 for its operation. Any waste material that is a
14 result—that results from the recycling operation, the residue
if
15 from that recovery,y^it is hazardous according to the criteria,
16 then the solvent reclaimer becomes the generator.And the waste
17 that he generates, if it is hazardous, is required to be
18 reported on, have a manifest on it and it is illegal to send
19 that waste to anything but a permitted hazardous waste
20 disposal storage.
21 MR. IIANEY: This is absolutely true. But
22 taking the same example, the recycler may serve soiretning
23 in the order of, say, 80 industries. These materials come in
24 on basically a good faith basis, say it is from a paint
25 manufacturer, paint manufacturing company, and we know the
-------
70
1 criteria for the background of paint waste, but at the same
2 time, if a substance was added to it to dispose of it whether
3 it be cyanide, PCB's or what, there is realistically no way
4 that the recycler is going to know that it is there. The
5 waste generated practically defies analysis other than in a
6 general manner. Very innocently, this can pass all the way
7 through the system.
8 There is no way for, say, an oil company
9 to know that he has PCB's in "drain oil". There is no one
10 testing for that.
11 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: O.K.
12 Let me further comment, if I may. We are
13 trying to make a distinction when we are talking about the
14 recovery operations here between recovery of a material, like
IS solvent recovery operations, and a use such as burning waste
16 oil in a boiler or using waste oil as a road dust depressant,
17 things of that nature.
18 In the latter two cases, the facilities
19 that, say, burn waste oil which is classified as hazardous--
20 were classified as hazardous—would require a treatment permit
21 Mainly, it is an incinerator for hazardous waste.
22 The same thing goes for road oil. If it is
23 a hazardous waste, we require a permit for that use.
24 The whole issue of innocence in the sense
25 that someone passes something off to someone and they don't
-------
71
know what's in it, that is a serious problem. If the person
supplying this material is caught, let's say, then he can be
punished under the provisions of this law, mainly that he, in
fact, did have a hazardous waste, and he was pawning it off
as a nonhazardous waste. That is against this law.
So it is one of those things where we are
to a certain degree going to have to trust people that they
are going to follow this law persuming that they know what
its requirements are.
We have another question tee.
11 MR. PALLANICH: I am Paul Pallanich.
12 You described the effect of trying to
13 develop a list of waste and the alternatives available. You
14 described it very well. But I don't get any feeling of what
15 you might actually propose to do. Could you please comment a
15 little bit and tell us at this point in time how you feel you
17 will go when you define this list on a substance basis? Will
18 you define products and processes? You say, if you make those
19 materials and you have a hazardous waste? Do you know which
way you are going to go? Do you know which way you are going
2i to place the burden of proof based on what you know now?
22 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Mr. Corson?
23 MR. CORSON: I'll start with it.
24 There will no doubt be a list which contains
25 processes which we have high confidence yields a hazardous
-------
72
waste.
There will also be a list of substances, the
presence of which at a given concentration will make that
waste hazardous.
One of the problems that we are faced with
now is how extensive will most of those lists be? For example
we are—we have a list of carcinogens and a list of some
processes that we have a very high confidence factor. The
question is how far down do we go with that?
10 || I think there also may well be, regardless
11 of direction, a set of advisory lists. Just by definition,
12 if we go the aialytic approach, for example, on toxiclty—
13 | forgetting for the moment whether or not the number of .35 Js
14 || a valid number or whether it should be .5—there will be some
15 I number, some such number, some such derivation of a number,
and that automatically defines a concentration toxicity re-
17 lationship for everything for which there is an Oral LD-50,
18 for example.
19 So I don't know whether we gain much by
20 publishing that list of substances. We may do that also.
2i MR. KOVALICK: I would like to make a
22 process comment. I know that you—I appreciate that you
23 understand our options and I wish we could tell you the
24 answer. We have a lot of options in holding meeting like this
25 One is to hold off holding the meeting until we have made all
-------
73
. I, the decisions and then have someone explain it to you and
2 H shoot holes in it.
3 I! Another option is the one we are doing toda
. which is to tell you as far as we have gotten today--! tell
you there is still controversy about a number of points,
II including the one that you'd love to know the answer to and
7 so would I—and then see how it flies.
So we are operating under the latter at the
9 moment. And all we can tell you is that there are a variety
10 of actors in the scene today, including ourselves and the
jj Office of Enforcement and the Office of General Counsel, who
,, will deliberate on the results of this record, plus other
]3 data we gather in terms of letters and oral comments.
14 So we honestly don't know which way it will
15 come out. But as towhich way it will tend--Alan pointed out
16 there will be some basic lists—it will be another, at least,
17 45 days. That is just a comment on where we are.
lg CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: We are running a bit over
19 Is this on No. 3001? O.K., this will be the last question.
of £ei+x. +
—^ 2n MR- MURRAY: I am Dave Murray, Wrightj unG
^o^ 21 u unus".
22 The question—the comment was made from the
23 head table, I believe, stating you do not have to test or
24 analyze your waste to cover the—to declare the hazards. That
25 could cause a problem. It could present hazards in the
-------
74
1 disposal and it would become perhaps very hazardous to the
2 enviornment. To protect the environment, consideration should
3 be given for specifying the contents of the waste material
4 to be disposed, the names of the chemicals, the acids,
5 alkalies, oxidizing agents, approximate percents of each,
6 percents of solids and liquids in the material and the flash
7 point of the material.
g Perhaps the waste material should be treated
9 prior to disposal in order to stabilize it because we realize
10 we don't want to precipitate any heavy metals in the process.
1 1 There may be some unknown oxidizing agents
12 in the material that could cause a health hazard in the future
13 and, in essence, could generate toxic gases. That is why we
14 recommend all information available should be given for the
15 material being disposed.
16 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: O.K., a fair comment.
17 I think it is slightly premature.
18 If I may get back to my previous comment,
19 let us not confuse the definitional process for what is and
20 what is not a hazardous waste with what happens after that
21 distinction or that determination is made.
22 When we get into the next session, we will
23 talk about the methods we are going to ship that waste, the
24 certain requirements to identify what is in the waste for
25 purposes of shipping it, packaging, containerization.
-------
75 - §9
There are requirements on the part of the
person accepting this waste to have some degree of knowledge
about the waste for the purposes of managing it properly and
in point of fact, in the real world, I think you'll find that
those who are reputable people in the business of managing
hazardous waste make damn sure they know what is in the waste
so they don't blow up their equipment.
Again, not to confuse that determination,
the first step is to say, yes, we hiow it is or is not a hazard
10 ous waste. Then after that, there's a lot of things that come
11 after that and we will get into that in the next session
12 and subsequently.
13 We'll take our break now and be back in
14 15 minutes.
15 (Recess.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
90
1 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: While you're taking
2 your seats, I'd like to relate to you that during the break
3 I was approached and queried about the availability of the
4 draft regulations that I mentioned in my opening remarks
5 and we made reference to the fact that some of you may have
6 access to them and some may not.
7 We are following a sunshine philosophy
8 in the development of these regulations and while it is
9 somewhat unusual for EPA to circulate draft regulations,
10 we are doing that in this case. To this point, rather than
11 sending them out to the world, we have been sending to
12 those individuals who have indicated a desire to have them.
13 So we certainly will extend that offer to any of you here.
14 So if you do wish to receive copies of these drafts, would
15 you please leave your business card at the registration
16 table and we'll make sure that you get a copy.
17 Also, before we begin this session, I
18 would like to just make note of the fact that we have on
19 record here a number of requests to make short statements
20 at the meeting. And I just want to make sure that indi-
21 viduals know that we know that they want to do that.
22 As I mentioned earlier, we will take
23 statements on each individual section of the Act immediately
24 after the presentation. We also will take more general
25 statements that cover the entire Subtitle C, if that's the
-------
91
1 nature of the comments, at the end of each day. So not
2 knowing which of these cases is involved, let me just say
that Mr. Robichau* of Petrolite Corporation; Betty Wilson,
4 League of Women Voters, St. Louis; Mr. Miller, Illinois
5 Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Clark, Illinois EPA;
6 Glen Gettenger, Midwest Oil Refining Company, St. Louis,
7 have all indicated that they want to make a statement and
we'll make that opportunity available to them.
' In addition, a number have indicated
10 they would like to submit prepared statements to become a
11 part of the official transcript. And some of those that I
12 just mentioned are in that category. But also, Mr. Robert
13 Anderson of Baxwell Corporation, Kansas City, and Mr. C. L.
14 Robertson of El Dorado, Arkansas Energy Systems Company,
15 have indicated the desire to submit prepared statements.
In those cases, I'd like to request
that you provide the statements to the official court
reporter here on my right sometime today or tomorrow. If
1' that is not possible, we will keep the record open for
20 this meeting for approximately a week. But we are under
2' pressure to publish these proceedings as soon as possible
22 and that's about as far as we can go.
23 So for the purposes of submitting state-
24 ments for these public meetings, either get them to the
court reporter today or tomorrow or by mail to us in CP,^
-------
92
1 in Washington by the end of next week. After that, we'll
2 have to cut it off and send it to the printer.
3 O.K. At this time, I'd like to move on
4 and discussion 3002 concerning standards affecting hazardous
5 waste generators. To make the presentation, I'd like to
6 call on Harry Trask, Program Manager in our Guidelines Branch
7 and is the desk officer for this regulation and mainly the
8 man ultimately responsible for it.
9 Harry.
10
HARRY W. TRASK
11 Section 3002
12 Thank you, Jack. If this was a little
13 bit higher, I could get down behind it.
14 In my presentation, I'll first discuss
15 the legislative purpose and intent of each of the standards
16 which relate to generators. Then discuss our approach to it
17 as to what we have done so far. And finally, discuss some
18 of the unresolved issues that we see and that we have not--
19 I want to repeat--have not come down hard on any one side
20 of the various options we're looking at.
21 Section 3002 of RCRA requires the
22 administrator to establish regulations — to promulgate regu-
23 lations establishing standards respecting recordkeeping,
24 labeling, use of appropriate containers, furnishing of
25 information, establishment of a manifest system, and a
-------
93
1 reporting system for generators of hazardous wastes.
2 In our regulations and tied directly to
3 a definition in the Act, we have defined a generator--!
4 should say in our draft regulations—we have defined a
5 generator as any person whose act or process produces solid
6 waste composed in whole or in part of hazardous waste as
7 identified under the criteria or listing in Section 3001.
8 Therefore, everything we do under 3002 is keyed to the
9 waste which are singled out as hazardous under Section 3001
10 standards. .
(ff**-u>wfQ
*\ 11 For record^jjceeping, the purpose of this
12 standard is to identify those wastes which in quantity or
13 in the hazardous constituent contained and what happens to
14 them. In other words, the disposition of those wastes for
15 later reference. The intent here is that the generator
16 keep a record of what he actually generated and sent away
17 from his property or disposed of on his property so that if
18 something goes wrong later, then there is a mass of data or
19 information which can be tracked back to find out exactly
20 what was in that waste so that corrective action can be
21 taken.
22 As we see it at the moment, the manifest
23 will serve as the basic document for recordkeeping. In
24 other words, a copy of the manifest, in most cases, would
25 suffice as a record.
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
— J> 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
We believe that three years is a suffi-
cient time for this record to be kept. It does not appear
to impose any significant burden on generators since three
years is approximately standard industry practice on records.
It also gives the storage /treatment of disposal operator
time to handle this material so that some sort of disposition
would be taken care of. And in our view that should then be
sufficient for recordkeeping.
The labeling standard purpose is to
identify the containers that are used for storage transport
or disposal. We intend here to use the DOT hazard labels,
that is, the familiar triangular shaped labels with color
coded and with insignia to indicate the different hazards
S"*4*L6*A
that are involved, such as, f lammability, e_t cetera. *
We also propose that we add to this an
additional label or an EPA identification label in those
cases where a container is not adequately marked to show
what the material is in the container. Therefore, we will
have two parts to the labeling: One, identifying the hazard;
the other, identifying what the waste is.
The names on the latter identification
would be keyed to the manifest. In other words, the same
nomenclature would be used on the container as is used on
the manifest so that proper tracking of that waste can be
managed through this system.
-------
95
1 We intend to use the DOT nomenclature
2 insofar as it applies to hazardous wastes. That is, if the
3 waste—as Alan Corson described to you, if a waste meets
4 the criteria or is on the list that DOT has published, then
5 that name should be used. If it is not, if the name of the
6 waste is not on that list or if it's one of the DOT NOS
7 materials, that is, not otherwise specified, then we would
8 request that an EPA name be specified.
9 We do not have a list of those EPA names
10 yet, however, they would be something simple, such as,
11 waste or sludge or some name of that nature.
12 Our standards for containers, the pur-
13 pose of this is to use appropriate containers for the kind
14 of hazard that is involved. It's significant to note that
15 these containers — these standards are for containers to be
16 used for storage, transport or disposal—not just transport.
17 And, therefore, these standards may differ somewhat from the
18 DOT standards when we get into the areas of storage and dis-
19 posal. For transport, they cannot differ from the DOT
20 standards.
21 It's important for me to note here that
22 the approach I'm giving you now is somewhat flexible. We
23 do have a study under way by a consultant, and the results
24 are not in yet, on exactly what kind of container speci-
25 fications are appropriate. So we can only speculate at the
-------
96
1 moment as to where we're headed here. And, therefore, we
2 have some questions as to what we should do in the area of
3 storage.
4 It has been suggested that we should
5 have more stringent standards than the DOT container specs
6 when we get into long-term storage. It's also been suggested
7 that we should have less stringent standards than DOT specs
when we get into the area of disposal.
If the purpose of this Act is truly the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, then it seems not
quite proper to dispose of reusable materials. For example,
12 the steel drums which could be reconditioned perhaps ought
13 not to be disposed of. So in the interest of conserving
14 resources, we are sort of favoring that approach, that per-
15 haps some lesser standard than the DOT standard would be
'6 appropriate for disposal.
17 But I stress again that this is only a
18 very preliminary approach we're taking here and we expect
19 to come up with something here in about 30 to 45 days when
20 We get more information from our contractor.
21 One of the other standards here, and an
22 important one, is that the generator must furnish infonna-
23 tion to those who handle, transport, store, treat or dis-
pose of the waste. The purpose is to alert these people to
25 the hazards that are involved and to the exact nature of
-------
97
1 that material.
2 Generally speaking, the general chemical
3 composition plus the nature of the hazard will do this. We
4 propose to furnish this information by means of the manifest
5 plus the labels which I discussed earlier. However, the
6 records that the generator keeps would provide a backup for
7 this information and would provide greater detail in case
8 that became necessary at some point down the road.
9 We believe that in practice now and
10 probably will continue that a negotiation between the
11 generator and the disposer does elicit all of the informa-
12 tion that the disposer really needs. Most disposers tell
13 us that they will not take a waste unless they know a con-
14 siderable amount about it, either furnished by the generator
15 himself or as proven by tests which the disposer will run
16 before he will accept the waste.
17 This furnishing information may be an
18 important concept when we come to the small generator.
19 In the manifest system which we pro-
20 pose, the purpose is to assure that all of the waste is
21 delivered or is designated to a permitted facility. I
22 think that part of the Act is very clear, that it is for
23 nothing else than that, that all of the waste is designated
24 for a permitted facility.
25 And on-site disposal is exempt. And
-------
98
those generators who dispose of wastes on their own property
will not be required to fill out a manifest.
And as an aside here, our current
definition of on-site is that it would be property that, is
contiguous. It may, for example, be divided by a public
highway. But if it is contiguous with the property where
the waste is generated, then it would still be considered
on-site. We know of many situations where this exists. And
9 it seems somewhat ridiculous to make a man fill out a mani-
10 fest to delivery to his own property on the other side of
11 the road.
12 That does not relieve him of the DOT
13 shipping paper requirements, not at all.
14 The manifest system, as we see it,
15 would be a piece of paper looking very much like a bill of
16 lading or the DOT shipping papers. It would have a couple
17 of features that they do not have. And we are now in the
18 process of negotiating with DOT to add those features to
19 our manifest.
20 It would require a description of the
waste using the DOT nomenclature where that fits the waste
22 or the EPA nomenclature if the DOT does not fit.
23 It would have the name of the generator.
It would have the name of the--excuse ne
25 --the name and the identification number of the generator;
-------
99
l the name and identification number of the transporter; the
2 name and identification number of the receiver.
3 The identification number system will
4 be explained to you tomorrow, I guess, in Section 3010, the
5 explanation of those standards.
6 The system, as we visualize it, is that
7 the generator would fill out the manifest. He would give
8 it to the transporter who would sign it indicating that he
9 had received the waste. The transporter then would take
10 the waste and the manifest to the receiver, that is, the
11 treatment storage or disposal site, who would sign it,
12 indicating that he had received that quantity of waste.
13 There is a place on the manifest form format as we see it
14 now which provides for any exceptions, that is, if all the
15 waste was not there, and any explanation.
16 The transporter or the disposer then
17 would see that a copy of the signed manifest, completely
18 signed manifest, was returned to the generator so that the
19 generator knows that all of the waste did reach the
20 designated permanent disposal site.
21 As you can see now, this system as we
22 see it, is going to use existing paper. That is, it will
23 not be necessary to have a separate manifest form. You
24 will use the same bill of lading or shipping papers that you
25 now use with the exception that there will be a couple more
-------
100
1 places to fill in on there.
2 And you'll also note that this stays i.n
commercial channels. The federal or the national system
does not visualize that a copy of this would be sent to
5 EPA.
6 What will be sent to EPA, however, is
7 a report which will be based on the manifest. The report-
8 ing requirement of Section 3002 offers the real control
9 tool for EPA to find out what's happening to these wastes,,
10 Using reports generated from the manifest, we can verify
11 what happened to waste, that is, with an independent report
12 from the generator compared to an independent report from
13 the disposer. The computer will send up a red flag when
14 those two don't match.
15 This report will have the quantity
generated. It will have—the generator's report will have
17 the quantity that he generated and shipped, the identi-
'8 fication number of the transporter he shipped it with, and
the identification number of the facility which received Lt,
20 and the date, and I'm not sure what else.
21 The receiver's report will have
22 identical information excepting that it will have the
23 identity of the generator instead of the identity of the
24 receiver.
25 We believe that these reports should
-------
101
1 be sent in quarterly, although that figure is still flexible.
2 We believe that this leads to less paper flowing in channels,
3 it spreads out the labor somewhat, and we do have some
4 statistics which show that we can cut the amount of paper
5 by about—what's that number, Mark--12 or 13 times doing a
6 quarterly versus handling the manifests individually.
7 Those then are the six standards required
8 by Section 3002.
9 Some of the unresolved issues though
10 are what to do about small generators. As Alan Corson told
11 you already, it's our intent to exempt householders
12 completely from these regulations. That is, we see no way
13 of effectively controlling 70 million households.
14 So what do we do with everyone else?
15 Do we say that the quantity which is exempt is zero and
16 bring it all into the system, even as much as a pound or an
17 ounce or a gallon, a quart? Where do we draw this kind of
18 a line?
19 One approach, as Walt Kovalick has
20 already mentioned to you, is to look at the SIC codes, look
21 at industries. Say that certain industries will be covered
22 and all those that are not listed would not be covered. Or
23 look at processes and say all those processes would be
24 covered, and, therefore, those that are not on the list
25 would not be covered. Is that the proper approach? We don't
-------
102
1 know and we're wrestling with this problem.
1 One of the options that has been sug-
3 gested and seems to be gaining a good bit of favor is to
4 have some generation rate. That is, some quantity per
5 week, month, year, which would when considered by local
6 officials who have a good handle on what their disposal
7 facilities are, might be appropriate for disposal in the
0UW**}
^8 sojgalred plat of Subtitle D land fills or the regular
9 municipal waste land fills.
10 Some of the state people and the local
11 people who operate land fills have told us that if they
12 have small quantities of hazardous waste and they know it
13 and it is separated from the regular municipal waste
14 stream, then in some part of the land fill they can dispose
15 of that and do it safely. But they and we have not yet set
16 any number as to how much that is. And if you have any
!7 suggestions there, we're willing to take them.
18 But it seems though that if we do go
/«?«/ or
\ 19 the generation rate option, that the "*••"*•" ,1^ im ql •erf
20 regional offices would be definitely involved in perhaps
21 modifying that quantity to fit local conditions.
22 The other major unresolved issue in
23 this generator area is what to do about those generators
24 who send waste for resource recovery, and that has also
25 been mentioned here. Clearly, it's the purpose of RCRA
-------
103
1 that we favor this to the extent that we can. It seems clear
2 though that they ought not to be uncontrolled completely.
3 That has already been mentioned here on some of the comments
4 on Section 3001.
5 But what incentives can we use to promote
6 resource recovery? We believe that among these, probably,
7 are some options to reduce the burden on these generators,
8 such as, relieving them of the necessity for a manifest.
9 That's one possibility.
10 On the other hand, whatever we do here
11 does not relieve any generator or transporter from the
12 responsibility to have shipping papers according to DOT
13 standards. I think that's an important thing to point out.
14 That even if we say you don't need a manifest for waste
15 going for resource recovery, it does not relieve you of any
16 responsibilities you may have under DOT.
17 Speaking of which, Jack mentioned and I
18 want to mention again and I'll mention it even again later,
19 that there is a special session with DOT to be held at the
-^20 Ramada O'Hare Inn the 26th of October, about two weeks from
21 now, discussing this in great detail with a panel made up of
22 ourselves and DOT people to show how these two Acts fit
23 together.
24 Let me stress again that--I don't want
25 to run into the problem we ran into in Rosslyn the other day,
-------
104
people thinking that these things are set in concrete. We
nave issued some draft standards which have been circulated
to, I guess, a hundred, more or less, people so far and I
think we got about a hundred requests in Rosslyn for addi-
tional copies. We are receiving comments back. We haven't
6 really tabulated those comments yet but I'm willing to bet
7 that half of them will say we're too stringent and half will
8 say we aren't stringent enough. So maybe we're about right.
9 If you would like to have a copy of
10 those, I think you can leave your name here with cither us
11 or the girls at the desk and we'll see that you get them.
12 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you, Harry.
13 At this time, I'd like to call for any
14 statements from the floor on Section 3002.
15 I guess I neglected to mention earlier
16 that we would like to limit statements of this nature to
five minutes.
18 Are there any statements from the floor
19 on Section 3002?
20
T. J. ROBICHAU*
21 Petrolite Corporation
I'm T. J. Robichaua, Director of Safety,
23 Health and Environmental Affairs for the Petrolite Corpora-
24 tion. Petrolite is a medium sized, multi-plant manufacturer
25 of specialty organic chemicals for industrial markets.
-------
I 105
1 In the process of manufacturing specialty
2 chemicals, certain waste products are generated which must be
3 disposed of properly. These wastes are first dulled for
4 reworkable or resaleable materials or materials useable
5 within our plant stocks. This process leaves a residue
6 which is true waste that we must get rid of in an economical
7 and environmentally safe manner.
8 The EPA is properly concerned with the
9 environmental safety aspects of waste disposal. I would
1° call your attention to the first portion of our concern--
11 the economics of waste disposal. Two factors loom large in
12 considering waste disposal regulations, characterization of
'3 the waste material and recordkeeping by waste generators.
14 We art not atypical in our manufacturing
15 processes. Many of the raw materials which we use could be
16 considered waste products from other upstream manufacturers.
'7 Our wastes are culled for materials of further use to us,
18 or other downstream manufacturers. Thus, the materials
19 which we ultimate discard, and their handling, represent
20 cost of products sold. In order to maintain a profitable
21 business, we must minimize such costs.
22 Much has been said about the chracteriza-
23 tion cf waste products. And, certainly, it is necessary to
2^ identify truly hazardous properties of materials to be
disposed of. However, full characterization of all wastes
-------
106
1 would be an expensive, and in many cases, unnecessary
2 activity. To avoid adding to the undue burden of manu-
3 facturers by establishing regulations requiring full
4 characterization of all wastes, I strongly recommend that
EPA identify those properties which are important when full
consideration is given to waste containerization, method of
treatment, and final disposition.
8 The waste which we produce in our St.
9 Louis plant, like many, vary, depending on product mix,
10 plant upsets, research and pilot plant activities, and
other operations. To attempt to characterize each load of
12 waste in detail would be an inordinately expensive tajik.
13 Regulations regarding waste characterIza-
tion should take into account variability of wastes from a
IS source and characterization required should be held to a
16 minimum considering method of containment and ultimate: dis-
17 position.
18 Turning to recordkeeping, the cost; of
19 recording activities is increasing daily. Certainly, in
20 the event of an upset or an emergency, the need for
21 retrieval of pertinent data is important. The need for
22 multi-point recording of information and multi-point report-
ing to state and federal agencies is less obvious. The state
or federal regulating agency should require waste site
25 operators to accurately inventory hazardous wastes on
-------
107
location and to report ultimate disposition of such wastes.
The agencies should not require reporting
of waste types and volumes by generator, hauler, site
operator and others unless a valid need for such redundancy
can be demonstrated. Recording and reporting data and
maintaining records over long periods of time by industry
adds unnecessarily to the cost of goods in the market place.
And receiving, manipulating and warehousing of data by
agencies adds to the burdensome cost of government without
10 reducing wastes or improving protection to the environment,
11 two specific goals of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
12 Act.
13 An added point, please. EPA should
14 reconsider the proposed 90 day limit for storage of by-
15 products without a permit. Such a limited time is
'6 unrealistic to many manufacturing operations. A period of
17 365 days will accomplish the goal of EPA to cut off
'8 indefinite storage. This time would give--this limit would
19 give industry time to seek a use of the material and to
20 arrange a process or a manufacturing schedule or a sale
21 of the product. Since RCRA is an Act dedicated to conserva-
22 tion, EPA should not write regulations which encourage dis-
posal to avoid entanglement with additional regulations.
24 Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you for your
-------
108
1 comments.
2 Do we have any other statements on
3 Section 3002?
4
CHARLES CLARK
5 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
6 I'm Charles Clark, Illinois Environmental
7 Protection Agency, speaking for the Agency regarding Subpart
8 (b), Section 250.22, small generators. The classification
9 of small generators should be eliminated completely from
10 the subject guidelines. The original draft defines such a
11 small generator as one who generated less than 27 pounds in
12 hazardous waste per month.
13 This was grossly ill-informed in that
14 it did not establish any levels of toxicity or concentrations
15 It is understood from various discussions that the inclusion
16 of reduced requirements for small generators is intended to
17 relieve some of the load on small businesses. However, it
18 is our impression that the entire Act is aimed at reducing
19 or eliminating the impact to the environment, and, conse-
20 quently, the public, from the disposal of hazardous waste.
21 This cannot be done by eliminating any generator of hazardous
22 waste.
23 The small volvumes of highly concentrated
24 and extremely toxic hazardous waste can have a tremendous
25 impact on the environment and on the public when improperly
-------
109
1 disposed.
2 Appendix B, the requirements for small
3 generators, should be eliminated totally from the guidelines
4 regardless of the disposition of small generator classifica-
5 tions.
6 Section 250.22(b), taken in context with
7 Appendix B, presents the following scenario. A small
8 generator may follow the requirements set down for other
9 generators, or he may wrap his hazardous waste in newspaper
10 and then send it to an unlicensed, illegal dump, provided
11 that he notifies the hauler that the material wrapped in
12 newspaper is hazardous waste.
13 A large part of Public Law 84580 is
14 aimed at the elimination of open dumps, not the encouragement
15 of their use for the disposal of hazardous wastes.
16 Section 250.23(a) and (b), it is again
17 recommended that all reference to small generators be
18 deleted.
19 Section 250.24, manifest system. In
20 general, the following comments are provided regarding the
21 proposed manifest system: Several states, including Illinois,
22 has in effect or nearly in completion a manifest system.
23 These systems are tailored to the needs of the states. And
24 in the case of Illinois, will be keyed to our present permanent
25 system in our data bank. It is strongly recommended that the
-------
110
1 requirements contained herein be sufficiently flexible to
2 allow incorporation of certain facets of the existing state
3 manifest systems.
One important point from our viewpoint is
5 the number of copies of the manifest and the final disposi-
6 tion. We believe that the manifest system is almost totally
7 useless unless we receive a copy of the manifest as
8 originated by the generator and a copy as received by the
disposer. We have a list of 5,000 potential generators in
10 the State of Illinois, and it would be an impossible task to
have to contact everyone of those generators to look at their
12 manifest records.
13 I'd like to break in. It would also be
impossible to take those quarterly reports and compare 5,000
15 generators to 320 disposal sites also, without some electronic
data processing to help you out on it.
17 ' It would be even more difficult and
18 impractical to obtain information in this matter from out of
state generators who ship hazardous waste into Illinois. In
general, the sample manifest form would meet our needs. How-
2' ever, the distribution and final disposition of the copies
22 would not be compatable with the program which we have ready
23 to place in effect.
24 The following additional comments are
25 also presented: The type and nunber of containers could very
-------
Ill
1 well be eliminated from the form as useless information. It
2 is envisioned that the descriptions will be such as drums,
3 barrels and boxes. The practical use of such information
4 is not clear.
5 It is strongly recommended that all
6 volume reporting be limited to the English system. The use
7 of English or metric system will only create unnecessary
8 complications in any future use of the information provided.
p 9 250.25, reporting system. It is strongly
10 recommended that a copy of any and all reports required
11 herein be forwarded to the state authority in which the
12 generator is located, as well as the state to which the waste
13 was designated for shipment. Even though a state may not
'4 elect to participate in this program, it is imperative that
15 they receive this information. It is even more important
16 that participating states receive the information on a
17 direct basis from the generator rather tHan sometime two or
18 three years later after it goes through the mill.
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you for your
21 comment.
22 MR. SANJOUR: Can I make a statement?
23 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: No, we haven't been
24 re spond ing.
25 MR. SANJOUR: Well, the gentleman
-------
1.12
1 mentioned something about damages caused by small generators.
2 I'd like to request if he has any data on the subject, could
3 he please provide that for us.
4 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Do we have any further
5 commentary on Section 3002, any statements?
6 (No response.)
7 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Apparently not.
8 Well, let's go on to the second page then
' of written questions. We have a number here already. If
10 you have more, please feel free to write them down and
11 they'll be collected and brought up.
12 Harry, do you have some there? Why don't
13 you go ahead.
14 MR. TRASK: First, we have what I believe
'5 really is a statement for the record. It was stated that
16 hazardous waste must have a DOT hazard label if it meets
17 DOT definition; if not, it must have an EPA label. We feel
18 the label should include precautions in case of fire, Leak
" or exposure and a method of cleanup.
20 We agree with that. The manifest, as we
2' see it, is still the key document as far as transportation
22 is concerned. And that precautions and either the informa-
23 tion itself for cleanup or a source of information for the
2<* cleanup will be one of the features of the manifest.
25 But that's a good comment. I appreciate
-------
113
1 that.
2 Another question is: Who developed the
3 EPA record, the generator, the transporter or the disposer?
4 My response to this is that all three
5 must keep records for EPA. That is written directly into
6 the Act. In other words, that's a legislative mandate that
7 all of those must keep records.
8 I think perhaps the questioner was also
9 referring to the EPA report. Now not everyone must report.
10 The generator must report and the disposer must report, but
11 not the transporter, unless he elects to in place of the
12 generator. But that is his decision. The law does not
'3 require him to report.
'4 Another question here says: How will
15 bulk sludges be handled relative to transportation/container-
16 ization requirements?
17 Again, the containerization requirements
18 of DOT take precedent. That is, the bulk sludge is now being
19 handled in a vacuum truck and then the DOT requirements for
20 that vacuum truck, provided that sludge meets the DOT
21 standards for hazardous material, then those would take
22 precedence. We have not at this time developed any further
23 standards on that.
24 Another question here relates to hazardou
25 waste fills. It says--I think the question here if I may
-------
L14
1 take some liberty with this question, it says: The hazardous
2 waste fill which produces a waste, I think it meant a material
3 am I correct in that, a hazardous material fill which pro-
4 duces a waste. I'm going to take that assumption. At wheit
5 point does this hazardous waste come under Subtitle C? And
6 the second part of this question: Can there be a waiver of
7 EPA for authorized state requirements?
8 Obviously, we can speak only for the EPA
9 requirements. The authorized state requirements could be
10 more stringent. So, therefore, we cannot speak to what those
11 might be.
12 Let me speak to the first part of this.
13 At what point does the hazardous waste come under Subtitle C?
14 As we are writing under Section 3003, that is the transporter
15 standards, when the emergency is over, that is, if there is
16 a spill incident and there is an emergency, then when that
!7 emergency is over and so declared by the on-site, on-team
18 coordinator, then the waste must be handled in accordance
19 with Subtitle C requirements.
20 Now, if the emergency required that that
21 waste be handled, be buried onC^ite, then sometime down the
22 road the site would have to be inspected by either the state
23 or the regional EPA group and it would need to meet the site
24 requirements for a hazardous waste disposal site.
25 If it's cleaned up and put in containers
-------
115
1 and hauled to a. commercial disposal site or a municipal dis-
2 posal site, then it would need to be done in accordance with
3 Section 3002, 3003 and taken to a permanent site. And the
4 generator then would be whoever cleaned up that waste, as we
5 visualize it.
6 Now the second part of this question
7 says: Can there be a waiver of EPA or authorized state
8 requirements? The waiver is in effect while the emergency
9 is in effect. And we have specifically written that in
'° there, that there should be a waiver of the EPA requirements.
11 Now we cannot speak to the state requirements.
12 Your comments about containerization
13 differing from DOT requirements bring several acute problems
14 to hand. One, what danger is there in repouring from DOT
15 to tPA containers? And two, who pays for tht EPA containers
16 and returning DOT containers?
17 I'd like to emphasize again that we have
18 not really looked beyond using the DOT standards. I hope
19 I emphasize that these were merely questions that we were
20 raising looking for some input.
2' The second part of this question--well,
22 the first part of this question, I think, will be handled
23 under the Section 3004 standards which relate to operations
24 and performance standards at disposal sites.
25 The second part says; .Tho pays for the
-------
116
1 EPA containers and returning DOT containers? I submit that
2 that probably is going to be a subject of discussion among
3 the generator, the transporter and the disposer, as to if
4 we go this route, then some arrangement will be worked out
5 among those three groups.
—^6 Let me introduce to you now Mark
7 who actually has done much of the writing on these standards
8 and Mark is assisting me in this presentation in answering
9 these questions.
fnorns
10 MR. MOROE: I'm lucky, I got the short
11 one.
12 Is it intended that quarterly generator
13 reports will be sent to EPA in addition to the state if the
14 state has an authorized program?
IS The answer is no.
16 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I have a couple of
17 questions here. Are all hazardous wastes to be container-
18 ized? As an example, could a sludge be stored in an open,
19 secured pit?
20 Yes, they could be. In other words, the
21 containerization standards that we're discussing here are
22 primarily oriented for the transportation phase although we
23 are also considering certain requirements for storage and
24 possibly for disposal. But the example given here is not es
25 straight forward as it might appear.
-------
117
1 When the question is asked: Could a
2 sludge be stored in an open, secured pit, it gets down to
3 the legislative definition of storage. And let me just
4 comment on that because it's perhaps not well understood.
5 We keep using the terms storage, treatment, disposal. Perhaps
6 it would be a good opportunity here to discuss that.
~l The laws define disposal in terms of
8 ultimate leakage to the environment in some way, the ground
9 water, surface water or air. In other words, the term dis-
10 posal as used in the Act anticipates some degree of leakage
11 but controlled to the point where it does not present a
12 hazard to public health or the environment.
13 The term treatment mentions incineration,
14 physical chemical treatment, things of this nature are
15 referred to when we're talking about treatment.
16 When the law defines storage it says
17 everything that is not disposable, implying zero discharge
18 or containment. Containment not only to the ground water
19 and the surface water but also to the air, in our views.
20 So storage in an open, secured pit may be a misnomer. It may
21 be disposal in the sense that there could be air emissions
22 from an open pit. Provided those air emissions meet the
standards of disposal, then it could be done. And provided,
when you say secure, it is secure from the standpoint of
25 surface water and ground water contamination, as defined
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
"
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
25
118
under disposal, and we'll get to that in Section 3004.
Another question: What is the duty of
the transporter or disposer to safeguard proprietary Informa-
tion?
This strikes me as being basicalty a
legal question between the transporter, disposer and the
generator. Presumably the generator is the one who makes
a determination that he has some proprietary information.
It is, I would suspect, probably a contractural requirement
when a generator deals with a transporter or a disposer for
this type of protection.
MR. KOVALICK: Let me follow that questior
with an answer that I gave in Rosslyn which will hopefully
forestall another question: What about the data you're
sending to us on those reports or what about the data that;
we have from generators and disposers? Is that in the
category or could it be in the category of confidential
business information?
The reason that's a problem, for those of
you who may not have considered it, is if a transporter
wished to come to an EPA regional office and peruse all the
generator reports in our files, it seems to me he could do
a day- -in a day a marketing survey that would vastly improve
his opportunities for new business. So you should know that
EPA is in the process of revising its Freedom of Information
-------
119
Act regulations. And the current regulations pertain to the
air and water statutes and others that we have. And those
regulations do describe the procedure that we go through in
order to make information available which the originator of
5 that information considers to be confidential.
(fi.0-
6 This will be a proposed rule^making
process to expand the same set of requirements that relate
to MPES permit data and other similar data, to expand it to
9 Toxic Substances Act data and to Resource Conservation and
10 Recovery Act data. So this is to alert you not to miss your
11 opportunity to influence that subject, that is, confidential
12 business information, in that arena which is the revisions
13 to those regulations.
14 In other words, they describe the fact
15 that whenever we have a form and all the forms we've been
16 discussing today will ultimately have a statement on there
17 that gives you, a generator, or you, the disposer, opportunit}
to check off, if you will, that you believe that you have
19 confidential business information. And then these regula-
20 tions that I'm describing that would be subject for proposed
21 rule making describe the procedure we go through to verify
22 whether they are indeed confidential business information
23 or whether we can release it.
24 So I call that to your attention, that
these reports, if the system is structured the way we've
-------
120
1 described it to come in quarterly, would potentially be
2 available, and you may want to impact that process.
3 I have one other question from the floor:
4 Do you envision a standard or a national format for a mani-
5 fest due to the nature of some interstate transport of
6 hazardous waste?
7 The answer is yes, we intend to use the
8 procedure that DOT uses which, if you're familiar with it,
9 they do not specify a form. There is not a requirement that
10 you use a form; there is a requirement that you supply
11 information on shipping papers in a certain order. That is,
12 that the name and address appear first, the hazard class;
13 appears before the quantity, and so forth. It is a relation-
14 shipff^ype regulation.
15 So in the same way we are going to
16 follow suit and list the information that must be on the
17 manifest, much of which, as Harry mentioned, will be the same
'8 as shipping paper information. And then also publish a lay--
19 out, if you will, a format for that information. Now it is
20 our understanding that normal business channels, many
21 transporters preprint what you all know as bills of lading
22 and which would ultimately be manifests, and so they have
23 the option to lay out this information with the boxes of
24 various sizes as they may wish.
25 But after the DOT example, all
-------
121
the information must be there and it must all be there in
the order described in the regulations. That is our current
intent. But we're not in the business of providing out of
the Government Printing Office manifest forms. That will
be a private sector activity either as transporters offer
services or as generators originate wastes.
MR. LINDSEY: Under the proposed record-
keeping system, could a generator of wastes dispose of this
in any way he chooses on his own premises without being
10 required to complete a manifest or furnish information in
11 any other form?
12 First of all, if he meets the require-
13 ments, which, as Mr. Trask indicated, haven't been finalized
14 yet, if he meets the requirements of a small generator, all
15 he would have to do would be recordkeeping,
16 If he doesn't meet the requirements of
being a small generator, that is, if he generates a sub-
18 stantial amount, the answer is no. He would be subject to
19 the standards under Section 3004 for treatment, storage
20 and disposal facilities. And he would need a permit under
21 Section 3005. We haven't gotten to those yut and we will
22 be getting to the standards this evcninb and tht pt rmit
23 system tomorrow morning.
24 On-site disposal is exempt from the
25 manifest rcquirtttieut.. These disposal sites must, nevtrthe-
-------
122
less, be permitted, mustn't they?
2 Again, the answer is yes. It's the same
3 kind of a question. We'll be getting into that under Section
4 3005.
Does the fact that the last sentence of
the first paragraph of Section 3002 reads, "Shall establish
requirements respecting," end of quote, and does not include
8 the phrase, "But need not be limited to," end of quote, mean
9 that EPA does not consider itself to have the authority to
10 go beyond Numbers 1 through 6 in promulgating guidelines for
11 generators?
12 The answer is basically yes. Most of
'3 the sections of the Act other than Section 3002 list a
series of things in there that we must do and then say, for
example, must include but need not be limited to, meaning
that we can come up with whatever other standards we think
may be necessary to protect public health and environment.
18 But under Section 3002, that is not there,
19 And, therefore, We read ourselves as being limited then to
20 Numbers 1 through 6 of the requirements that are written
21 up in 3002 without recourse in making up whatever other
standards we think might be needed.
23 I also have several questions here which
24 relate to states assuming the program and what happens if
25 they do or do not.
-------
123
These clearly don't relate to this section
They relate to the section which we'll discuss tomorrow
morning, Section 3006, which is the guidelines under which
the EPA will find a state program to be equivalent to the
federal program and thus authorizes them.
Just let me say though in passing, and I
will get to these tomorrow. I'll answer them tomorrow
morning. Just let me say though that what we're discussing
today is the federal program. This is what's going to
10 happen if we, EPA, implements the program in a given state.
11 If the state takes over a program, their program will have
12 to be judged equivalent to the federal program and at least
13 as stringent, but not necessarily the same.
14 If we authorize a state program, we
15 authorize them to carry out their program in lieu of the
16 federal program. But we'll get to these specific questions
17 which came up tomorrow.
18 MR. SANJOUR: The question is: Regarding
19 the requirements that on-site disposal must be contiguous
20 property, how would pipeline disposal nearby but not con-
21 tiguous property, owned by generator be handled?
22 That would not be considered a waste and
would not meet the system.
24 So long as the effluent remains from the
25 manufactured process, remains in the pipe, we are not going
-------
124
1 to consider it a waste. We are not going to consider it a
2 waste until it comes out of the pipe.
3 QUESTIONER: Supposing it comes out of
4 the pipe.
5 MR. SANJOUR: If it comes out of the
6 pipe, it depends on where it comes out of the pipe. If it
7 comes out of the pipe in a way that is regulated by an MPES
8 permit, then we're not interested in it. If it's coming out
9 of the pipe and going into a land fill, then at that point
10 it becomes a waste and would be regulated.
11 QUESTIONER: What if it's on site?
12 MR. SANJOUR: It means it would not
13 require a manifest. It would still require a permit but not
14 a manifest.
'5 The next question is: In the case of
16 a bioassay testing exceeding ,90 days; if so, do I have to
17 obtain a permit to store while I test?
18 I'm having difficulty in understanding
1' the question. Let me hypothesize what I think the question
20 means. On the day the regulation is passed, you have to
2' perform a bioassay. That bioassay takes more than 90 days
22 to run, in which case you need a permit to store while
23 you're testing.
24 Now I've rephrased your question in a
25 way that I know the answer. The answer is no because you
-------
125
I don't require any permits for the first, what is it, six
2 months, after the Act is passed. It takes six months before
3 the Act goes into effect from the date it's passed. So if
4 it's taking you more than 90 days to run an assay test,
5 that doesn't impinge on your need for permit. You can wait
6 six months before you get a permit.
7 However--here's the however--under Sectior
8 3010 of the Act, if you want a permit—if you want an
9 interim permit — 3005, not 3010. If you require an interim--
10 if you would like to have an interim permit, you have to
11 notify EPA that you're storing within 90 days from promulga-
12 tion. Therefore, I would advise you that if it takes more
13 than 90 days to determine that your waste is hazardous,
14 and assume it is for the purpose of complying with Section
15 3010, notify EPA that you are storing or generating hazardous
16 waste so that you can comply 'with the interim permit require-
17 ments.
18 If you later find out that you do not
19 have a hazardous waste, you haven't lost anything. But if
20 you don't apply under Section 3010 in the first 90 days and
21 you later find out that you do have a hazardous waste,
22 you'll have lost the opportunity to have an interim permit.
23 Did I get that right?
24 The next one is: What reporting to
2^ EPA will be required for on-site storage?
-------
126
1 We'll discuss that when we discuss
2 Section 3004.
3 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I have a couple of
4 questions here. As a matter of fact, I have a question
5 along with an answer, which is interesting. It says--thi:> is
fif 3^^^-Qr'Jf^'^
-=7 6 the question: With w S^galron drums on a truck of slightly
7 different hazardous wastes, how, without a serial number
8 cross-reference, are you going to know what really was spill
9 in the event of spill? Answer: Require a label giving the
10 manifest line number so a good cross-reference is provided
11 and not a simple EPA name.
12 O.K. That's one possible way to get
13 around the hypothetical problem. I should also point out
I4 that if we're talking about 80 different drums of different
IS hazardous wastes, it is a requirement that each drum have a.
16 label on it which describes what's in it.
17 So we'll take that suggestion under
18 advisement.
19 Here's another question, and this is one
20 that is often asked and I think is a very interesting ques-
21 tion: Does the responsibility for the hazardous waste
22 handling move from the generator to the transporter to the
23 disposer in a fashion similar to the manifest movement?
24 A simple answer: No. In our view, the
25 generator of the waste is ultimately responsible to make
-------
127
sure that his waste gets to a facility to which it is--to a
permitted hazardous waste facility. That is the reason, and
you'll see some of the details if you get our draft of the
3002 regulations.
One of the reasons we require a copy of
the manifest when it is received by the disposer to be sent
back to the generator, so the generator himself can be
assured that the waste actually got there. Now it is clear,
I believe, that the generator's liability is diminished in
10 the case where he follows the regulatory control system that
11 is being set up here, as opposed to operating outside of a
12 regulatory control system as is the general case at the
'3 present time. There are some states that do have hazardous
'4 waste management control systems; many states do not.
15 In those states that do not, at this
point in time, and if there is a damage, the judge decides
17 who's responsible. So it's a legal issue. And I'm not going
18 to presuppose what the judge is going to decide after these
1' regulations go into effect, but we assume and presume that
20 it is definitely to the generator's benefit to follow the
2' rules. And in many respects, we would think that if sub-
sequent damages do occur and he has followed all of the
23 rules, the generator has, then he would be in a pretty good
24 shape to argue against any liability damages being placed
25 upon him.
-------
128
1 But nonetheless, we feel pretty strongly
2 that it is the generator's responsibility to make sure that
3 his wastes reach a permitted destination,
4 O.K. We have some more questions.
5 MR. TRASK: I have one here. It says:
6 Do generators have to use a reconditioned DOT inspected drum
7 to place the hazardous liquid waste in to be transported
8 within the state for disposal?
9 This is a very deep and very involved
10 question that gets into the coverage of the DOT regulations.
11 DOT does require that certain specification drums be used
12 for their hazardous materials. DOT requires that any
13 interstate transporter, even though he may be transporting
14 a waste only within a particular state, if he is an inter-
15 state transporter, if any part of his operation is inter-
16 state, then he comes under the DOT requirements. At least
17 that's our understanding of it.
18 In addition to that, 45 states, so we're
19 told, have adopted the DOT requirements. So that in 45
20 states the requirements—this requirement would be in
21 effect because these 45 are identical or very nearly
22 identical to the federal DOT requirements.
23 For private transporters, again it is
24 our understanding of the DOT system, the containers and
25 labels requirements of the DOT standards would have to be
-------
129
met. However, the shipping papers requirements do not have
to be met. Again, that is our understanding. I stand to
be corrected if there is an expert on the DOT standards
4 here.
5 I mention again that we are having this
6 DOT liaison. We are actively conducting this and the
7 public meeting is being held in Chicago on October 26th to
discuss how these two standards — sets of standards and the
9 requirements of the separate pieces of legislation will fit
10 together so that some of these questions can't really be
11 answered yet. You may or may not know that there art some
12 forces for preemption of state standards by the federal DOT
13 standards. In other words, there is some pressure that in
14 some states where DOT standards would be different than the
15 state standards that the DOT standards prevail. I don't
16 know what the status of those actions are but there have
17 been some actions in the past.
18 Mark has a couple.
Worr-is.
MR. MOllSC: The question is: Will
20 manifests be required for shipping samples of materials
21 suspected to be hazardous wastes to be analyzed by an out-
22 side laboratory facility?
23 If you don't know that your waste is
24 hazardous, I would suggest that you review your raw
25 materials to dt.termine what may be in the waste, then
-------
130
package and use DOT shipping papers—package according to
DOT and use the DOT shipping papers. That's for samples of
wastes going to laboratories to be analyzed to determine
whether or not they're hazardous.
Another question was: What do you see
as a loophole in the manifest system?
7 I don't see any if they use it.
8 Will the tPA recognize the existing
exemptions or special permits granted by the DOT on paok-
10 aging of hazardous materials?
11 Yes, since they also require packaging
12 for hazardous wastes and in that sense, yes, for hazardous
13 materials. We don't regular the hazardous materials, iust
14 the hazardous wastes.
15 What would be the status of municipal
16 trash pickup services accepting the industrial pick up of
17 hazardous wastes delivered to sanitary land fills? Would
18 this prevent an industry from co-mingling his domestic and
19 industrial hazardous wastes for pick up?
20 Yes, it would. We'd like to see them
21 segregated. If he mixes it with his municipal waste, then
22 it all becomes hazardous if it hits the 3001 criteria. so,
23 therefore, he would be subject to penalty.
24 MR. KOVALICK: I'd like to make one
25 addition. We're not usually trying to identify loophoLes.
-------
131
We have identified a difficulty we have which doesn't really
affect you in this region. But wastes do move across inter-
national borders. And specifically in this case Canada,
both on the eastern—in the eastern states in the United
States both to and from Canada and in the western states
both to and from Canada. So that's really a problem and an
issue that we're addressing actually the very weeks that
we're in right now. But- it is a problem of making sure
that wastes shipped to Canada, or more importantly for us,
10 wastes sent from Canada, do actually arrive at facilities
11 in the U. S. and not as storm run-off drains in other
12 places. So that is an issue.
13 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I have another couple
14 of questions. Question: How many inspectors does DOT have
15 to enforce their regulations in the country?
16 (Laughter.)
17 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I suggest you go to
18 the Chicago meeting of DOT and ask them. I'm sorry, I
19 don't know the answer to that.
20 Question: If hauler and disposer are
21 the same, will a set of records have to be kept for both
22 hauling and disposing?
23 Well, no, not really, because the mani-
24 fest is the. record. .".n<1 when the hauler and the disposer
25 nr'._ the same person, he would be keeping that one manifest
-------
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-9 U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for that shipment.
MR. TRASK: In responding to that, the
records kept by the disposer would be a copy of the mani-
fest which would identify the transporter as well. So only
one would need to be kept.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: This is a comment.
Well, let's get it on the record. It is the current
practice to ship lab samples for analysis by U. S. Mail,
a practice which is also used by the EPA. Do you propose
to change this?
Perhaps this falls under the small
generator requirement.
(Laughter.)
fflorriQ
MR.44eft£E: I have a comment. When
Harry was making his talk, he asked about manifest movement
and some statistical numbers that I didn't have at my finger-
tips at that moment but I can give them to you now just, for
the record.
If a state were to choose to receive
the manifest as opposed to a quarterly report, I have data
that shows on the average that 100,000 manifest per quarter,
per state would be received, as opposed to a quarterly
report which would only be 5,000 per state. So in the case
where EPA runs the program and in the event that we use a
management information to do so, I think it's the
-------
133
1 right now--I don't know whether it's be a quarter or a
2 monthly report, but I think EPA would rather see something
3 more than the manifest, some type of summary report to cut
4 that number down. 100,000 manifests is a lot of material
5 to get into a computer every three month period.
6 And it works down to 2,000 manifests
7 per day. So if you received them on a daily basis, you
8 would still have a large volume of input into your computer.
9 So that's, you know, just for your
10 information for the record.
II That assumes—now the data that I
12 developed that from assumes two things. It takes a study,
13 a contract study done by Harten Associates which they said
14 there were approximately 500,000 generators in the country.
15 And I took that and I split that and said, well, let's say
16 that 250 of them fall into our system. Then we're talking
17 to the Raw Powers and Browning-Ferris and those people.
18 I got a handle on how many pickups per
19 week on the average and they indicated there's probably
20 about two pickups. Also, from data from the State of Mary-
21 land on generation rates, it comes to about two pickups.
22 And using that data, I developed the information I just
23 gave you.
24 So with 250,000 generators and two
25 pickups per week.
-------
134
1 Assuming waste with ordinary refuge causes
2 it all to be hazardous, what is the difference where five to
3 six paint and solvent cans, plus refuse, from the industrial
4 source are refused where equivalent load of similar materials
5 comes from private residents?
6 Do you want to comment?
7 MR. KOVALICK: I think that question
8 gets at the earlier statement, the problem we have with
' recognizing that there are some hazardous wastes, as this
10 person does, in the household, that is, paint thinners and
11 pesticides and so forth. And also recognizing the realities
12 of not being able to or not even wanting to, perhaps, try
13 and regulate those small amounts.
14 So the analogy is probably correct, the
15 problem is that the one is more controllable than the other.
16 And so that's why we're trying to cope with small generators.
17 We don't disagree with that description of the dilemma we're
18 in. It's just how we choose to deal with it is the final
19 answer.
ff)OrrtS
OS 20 MR. «eftSfc My problem with that would be
21 getting a representative sample to determine whether the
22 whole waste was hazardous. I mean would you grind it all
23 up or I'm not sure that you could do that and adequately
24 say it was all hazardous. You'd need a considerable amount
25 of hazardous waste in your solid waste--nonhazardous solid
-------
135
waste to get it to be hazardous, depending on the hazardous
2 waste itself.
3 The question is: How does the manifest
4 system apply to shipments by rail?
5 That would be probably covered better
in 3003. Right now, I think the rail shipments are going
to a computerized system and I think it's adequately
8 addressed in 3003 and I'll leave it 'til then.
9 MR. TRASK: This other comment also
10 refers to transportation. It says: For information, DOT
11 does require shipping papers on private carriers but does
12 not require certification on those shipping papers.
13 Thank you for that information.
'4 MR. SANJOUR: The question is: If a
15 new source of hazardous waste begins operation after the
Section 3010 limit of 90 day notification ends, how does
the source comply with regulations regarding notification?
I8 And we'll answer that question in
discussion of 3010, I guess, unless the guy is not going
20 to be here tomorrow. In which case, we can answer it today.
21 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: As we experienced in
22 the Rosslyn meeting two days ago, you're anticipating us.
23 There's no good way I can think of that we can give you
the entire package all at once without you falling asleep.
25 And so many of the questions that you're asking will be
-------
136
covered In the later sections of the meeting.
In view of the fact that we art running
a little behind schedule, I would like to pass on open
questions from the floor at this time and proceed on with
the presentation on Section 3003 on transportation. And,
time permitting, we will open it up for questions later
on.
To make the presentation, again, Harry
Trask. Harry.
10
HARRY W. TRASK
11 Section 3003
12 Some days you can't win, just get off
13 the firing line and back on again.
We'll follow the same procedure on 3003
15 that we did on 3002. We'll first discuss the legislative
mandate and then our approach to it, and, finally some
17 unresolved issues.
18 Section 3003 of the Act requires the
19 administrator to promulgate regulations establishing stand-
20 ards that include but are not limited to--let me repeat--
21 that include but are not limited to recordkeeping, acceptance
22 of only properly labeled containers, compliance with the
manifest system, and assurance that all of the waste is
24 delivered to the designated permitted facility.
25 Section 3003(b) further requires that
-------
137
1 all regulations issued under Subtitle C be consistent with
2 the DOT regulations and the legislation under which they
3 are developed as the Hazardous Materials Transportation
4 Act.
5 And again, if you haven't done so
—96 already, let me show you this copy of the Federal Register
7 announcement of a meeting to be held in Chicago on October
8 26th at which both EPA and DOT will appear on the same
9 platform at the same time and discuss how these regulations
10 are to be integrated.
11 The first standard under Section 3003
12 is that a general requirement and in essence it says that
13 a hazardous waste may be transported if there is a signed
14 manifest, if there are proper labels on proper containers.
15 I should have said—only if there is a signed manifest and
16 proper labels on proper containers.
17 In other words, there is a responsi-
18 bility of the transporter to be sure that the labels are
19 correct and that the container is correct. Now, obviously,
20 the transporter is not going to get involved in chemical
21 analysis to insure what's in there is right. His responsi-
22 bility is to see that there is a DOT hazard label on there
23 and that there is an hPA label on there or some other
24 marking which says what the nature of that waste is.
25 Under the general section of the standards
-------
138
1 there are also some loading and stowage requirements in
2 essence emulating the DOT requirements which say that
3 incompatible wastes cannot be loaded and stowed together.
4 There is a reference to a list of incompatible wastes
5 which is being developed on Section 3004 standards. There
6 is a preliminary--some of you may have seen the draft stand-
7 ards for Section 3003, and we have a preliminary list there.
8 Again, I would stress that that list is not final and it is
9 subject to change.
10 Basically, what we're trying to do here
11 is separate the different kinds of hazardous materials when
12 they go on the truck. And that is very consistent with
13 what DOT'S intent is.
14 In the section which deals with compli-
15 ance with the manifest system, we believe that we should
16 have this transporter certify that he has accepted the
17 waste, that he will obtain a receipt for the waste and he
18 will keep this copy of the manifest as his record.
19 In another section on delivery of all
20 of the waste, it shall be only to a permitted facility and
21 that is a facility which has a permit to accept that specific
22 hazardous waste.
23 And I would point out to you that under
24 Section 3008 of the Act that the first criminal penalty is
25 for one who knowingly transports a hazardous waste to a
-------
139
1 nonpermitted facility. Did I get that exactly right? I
2 sometimes have trouble with that exact wording.
3 Another section of the Act deals with
4 one of the questions which came up under Section 3002 and
5 that is what happens in emergency situations.
6 In an emergency spill, where a true
7 emergency exists, where there is a need for quick action,
we have written in the Section 3003 draft standards that
these requirements would be waived for as long as the
emergency exists. When the emergency has been declared to
11 be over, then there would be a responsibility of the
'2 transporter to notify either EPA or the Coast Guard or
some other local authority which has charge about the nature
of this incident and make a report on it.
15 Now the report can come later. I
16 believe that the DOT standard is that the report must be
submitted within 15 days. Whether or not that report would
18 be to EPA or to DOT is still up in the air. Currently, DOT
" requires these reports if hazardous materials are involved
20 in a spill, any quantity. What that does to our small
generator standard, I don't know. And whether or not EPA
wants a copy of that, I don't know. We're still dealing
with some of those questions.
Anothtr section o£ these standards would
deal with marking of vehicles, nnd I use the term marking
-------
140
1 advisedly because we want to stay away from the term
2 placards. In DOT parlance placards have very specific
3 meaning. In fact, their meaning is so specific that there's
almost a knee-jerk reaction, that some emergency personnel
5 in towns, counties, states react in an almost automatic
6 fashion to an emergency involving a DOT placard. If it's
7 flammable, they do a certain set of things. If it's
corrosive, they do another set of things.
9 We do not want to interfere with that
10 system. And to that end, if, again the wastes which meet
11 the DOT criteria for hazardous materials will be required
12 to be placarded with the DOT placard.
13 Now those wastes which do not meet the
14 DOT standards, in other words, the EPA hazardous waste
15 list, if you will, we may—and we are toying with the idea
16 of some other kind of a placard, for example, toxics--let
17 me repeat, for example, toxics kind of label of marking
that's not a placard per se.
19 The unresolved issue here, one of them,
^
20 of course, is what we do about this marking^ placard, what
21 you call it, for toxics. The size and the shape of this is
22 up for grabs. We do not want to go the diamond shape ; s
23 DOT is using. That would truly confuse the issue. We do
24 want some kind of marking on there to indicate that there
is some sort of a hazard involved in that.
-------
I 141
1 As Jack mentioned earlier at the intro-
2 duction of this, we held a number of meetings around the
3 country back in the winter and spring to get some input
4 from the generator and transportation communities. At one
5 of these meetings, it was suggested that the term hazardous
6 waste be placed on all vehicles. That is, all vehicles
7 that transport hazardous wastes should be marked hazardous
8 wastes.
9 We nearly got blown out of the room by
10 that one suggestion because everyone felt that if that were
11 the case, then no one would ever be able to dispose of any-
12 thing.
13 And another suggestion though is an
14 environmental contaminent. And that term has been used a
15 number of times. We are considering that at the moment, I
16 guess is the best way to put it because it is not fixed at
17 all.
'8 And the final unresolved issue here is
19 how to integrate with DOT as to which wastes are going to
20 be covered. Under Section 3003(b) we are authorized to
2' submit to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation
22 a list or information which could, for example, add certain
23 wastes to their lists of hazardous materials, thereby making
24 the DOT requirements broader. In other words, apply to
25 hazardous wastes. We may do that and we may not. We are
-------
142
1 currently dealing with or considering some of these issues.
2 And we are interested in your input as
3 to how this might come about or whether or not it should.
4 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you, Harry.
5 At this time, I'd like to call for
6 statements from the floor on Section 3003. Does anyone in
7 the audience want to make a statement on Section 3003?
8 (No response.)
9 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Evidently not.
10 At this time then, I'd like to go on to
11 questions, written questions, from the audience. If you
12 have any questions concerning Section 3003, please write
13 them on three by five cards and we'll pick them up.
14 O.K. We have a few questions left over
15 from last time, plus there are some others coming in.
16 Harry, would you like to go on?
17 MR. TRASK: O.K., here's an easy one.
18 Will Section 3003 apply to all modes of transportation?
19 The answer is yes, with the one exception
20 that Bill Sanjour has mentioned previously. And that is the
21 pipeline leading to a disposal facility as a solid pipeline
22 without any outfall.
23 MR. SANJOUR: A conveyor belt.
24 MR. TRASK: He said a conveyor belt would
25 do as well.
-------
143
1 Another question is--and this one was
2 submitted earlier: How does the manifest system apply to
3 shipments by rail?
4 As currently envisioned, since the rail-
5 roads use a computer management system and instead of shipping
» J
papers have wcigtf bills, I believe they're called, and the
basic manifest paper stays back at the railroad station where
the shipment originated. The standard is written such that
9 cither the manifest or the information contained on the
10 manifest must accompany this shipment at all times. And
11 in the case of railroads, when the rail car containing the
12 weights is delivered to the receiving facility and the
13 manifest is not there so that the receiver can sign it,
14 then the railroad or whoever may use a so-called delivery
15 document and get that signed since that would have essen-
'6 tially the same information as the manifest. It would not,
17 however, strictly speaking be the manifest.
Then that delivery document would be
19 returned—would be attached to the original manifest and
20 copies of that would be sent back to the generator to
21 confirm that delivery had actually taken place. Now that's
22 the way we currently visualize that system working.
23 A QUESTIONER: Where does the original
24 manifest start?
25 MR. TRASK: The original manifest starts
-------
144
' with the generator.
2 A QUESTIONER: How would the receiver
3 have the original manifest then in the case of i, rail ship-
4 rnent?
5 MR. TRASK: He does not.
6 A QUESTIONER: How would he send it
7 back?
8 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Well, we'll get the
' questions from the floor here in a second.
10 I have a couple of written questions
11 here.
12 MR. KOVALICK: If the generator tenders
13 a shipment of hazardous waste to a rail carrier at one point
14 for delivery to a point off the originating carrier's lines;,
15 how is the originating carrier to know that the disposal
16 facility has a valid permit?
17 Now this has several things built into
I8 it. First of all, the carrier is just that. He doesn't
" have any responsibility to know whether the waste listed
20 on the manifest can be accepted by the disposal facility.
21 That's the generator's responsibility. So if a carrier--!
22 would presume that a carrier who took a waste from a
23 generator and it turned out that the receiving facility
24 didn't accept that kind of waste that carrier wouldn't be
25 doing business with that generator many times more in the
-------
145
future because that would have to be hauled back to the
generator at presumably the generator's expense.
So this question if it relates specifi-
cally to the vehicle or the carrier's responsibilities, he
has the responsibility to take the waste to the facility
that the generator puts on the manifest. And as I say, if
he were so indiscreet as to put a facility that can't accept
that kind of waste, and that waste disposal facility will
not accept it for he would be jeopardizing his permit and
10 there would be many phone calls and possibly a shipment back
11 to the generator of that waste.
12 What is your definition of separate with
13 regard to incompatibles? For example, distance barriers,
14 contact.
15 We're talking about separation of
incompatible wastes and we'll get into that a little more
in detail in 3004. But basically, it has to do with not
being in contact with each other. The stowage and loading
19 requirements we're still evaluating under DOT. But
20 basically, if some of you are familiar with compatibility
21 lists that have been developed by the- States of California
22 and Texas for wastes, those kind of incompatible wastes are
23 the kind we're talking about that cannot be mixed with each
24 other or combined with each other.
25 Does the transporter have to verify the
-------
146
1 designated facility on the manifest is indeed a permit
2 facility or is it the generator's responsibility?
3 Again, that's the generator's responsi-
4 bility. And again, I believe that that generator is not
5 going to have much more business with that transporter if
6 that happens more than once.
7 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: We seem to have a
8 spirited discussion going on behind us here.
9 (Laughter.)
10 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I hope that's not
11 getting on the record.
!2 Question: If a transporter collects
13 hazardous wastes from several generators in bulk, using a
14 vacuum truck, how would responsibility be delegated if the
15 load was refused at the disposal facility and had to be
16 returned to the original generator?
17 Well, there's several points in that
18 question. First of all, as we envision our transportation
19 regulations, it is prohibited to pick up different kinds of
20 hazardous wastes from different generators in bulk in the
2' same truck load because otherwise the manifest system Is
22 invalid. In other words, you have a different waste than
23 what the manifest said because there could very easily be
synergistic or antagonistic effects taking place when you
25 mix different wastes together. This is one of the things
-------
I 147
1 that we're trying to avoid.
2 We have been made aware of several
'v*.c&u.&Uf*-i,
3 instances of truck -ino loci one (phonetic) as a result of this
4 very thing, where incompatible wastes are sucked up in the
5 same tank truck. And other instances where rapid deteriora-
6 tion of quarter inch steel wall talks place and so forth.
7 So it would be illegal to pick up different kinds of hazard-
8 ous wastes for starters.
9 If it was the same hazardous waste from
10 different generators which would be, I guess, highly unlikely
11 But let's just hypothetically assume—well, O.K., waste oil.
12 Same hazardous wastes from several generators that was
13 refused by the disposal facility and had to be returned to
14 the original generators. Where would the responsibility be
15 delegated? I don1t--that's a good posing question. I'd have
16 to think about that more. Perhaps some of the others have a
17 thought on that.
18 MR. KOVALICK: Well, again, this comes
19 back to business arrangements. If this transporter is offer-
20 ing the service of collecting waste oils for a variety of
21 generators, oftentimes he may provide the service and could
22 provide the service under this system of filling out a mani-
23 fest and allowing each generator to certify his share of that
24 similar, say, if waste oil were an example of the hazardous
25 waste.
-------
148
1 Now in this case, I presume this would
2 only happen once. In other words, if he's in this business
3 of offering this service to a variety of small generators,
4 he presumably is also in the business of checking out his
5 destination.
6 My answer to the other question had to
7 do with using the transporter as a common carrier. That's
8 quite a different kind of business to be in. But suppose
' that he were misled by his generators. I presume in this
10 particular case this waste would have to be analyzed. The
11 transporter would become a generator for this one load and I
12 presume he would not be doing business with those generators
13 anymore.
14 Let me continue. Do you plan to have a
15 reporting requirement by the generator who fails to receive
16 back a signed manifest for the designated permitted facility?
17 A simple answer is yes. Quarterly
W reports will list all the manifests for all the wastes sent
19 and there'll be a closing date. And, obviously, there'll be
20 some manifests for which you have not received back the
21 signed ticket. And those would be looked at on each succes-
22 sive report. But yes, all wastes shipped by manifest would
" be reported. ^ •
filOrri S
24 MR. MCRO!-'; I'd like to commtnt to what
25 Walt said. There is also a place on the report for comments
-------
149
1 in the case that you feel that the receiver of the waste has
2 had adequate time to send you a copy of the manifest back
3 and you haven't received. You could comment to that effect
4 on the report.
5 A question is: When the residue of a
6 hazardous material is transported by rail car to a cleaning
7 facility, is this material a waste during transportation?
8 And in order to answer it, I have to
9 change residue to a waste and cleaning facility to a dis-
10 posal facility, in which case the answer is that it is a
11 waste if it meets the 3001 definition. Hazardous waste,
12 excuse me.
13 MR. TRASK: Well, I think also, though,
'^ the waste from that cleaning facility clearly would be the
15 most hazardous waste. It may still be a material under DOT
'* considerations. And as long as the container is closed,
17 basically DOT is not concerned. If the container is open,
18 that is, if the hatch on the tank car is open, then they
1' would be concerned. .
MOTI&
20 MR. MORSE: Another question: Do you
21 feel there is any DOT hazard class that is environmentally
22 safe, that is, poison, flammable, et cetera? If not, why
23 try to detract and confuse tht placarding rules just
24 instituted by Title 49, Part 171.78?
25 O.K. We only use a EPA placard where
-------
150
1 the DOT lists and criteria don't apply. DOT does not
2 identify all hazardous wastes or hazardous materials. And
3 in those cases where they do not and they do fall under the
4 3001 definition, then we feel that there should be something
5 on that truck in the event there is nothing.
6 MR. TRASK: I have a question here
7 relating to labeling and it reads: What provisions are
8 being considered in labeling specifications to cover wastes
9 meeting multiple hazard criteria, i.e., a toxic, flammable,
10 carcinogenic, radioactive and corrosive waste?
11 I can't visualize what that waste would
12 be but it's bad, I guess. I should have mentioned during
13 my presentation that our consultant looking at the container
14 situation is also looking at labeling. And we have not at
IS the moment come down hard on any specific system of labeling
16 other than we believe that some name should be put on the
17 container to indicate what the waste is as well as what the
18 hazard is.
'9 There are provisions in the DOT regula-
20 tions for multiple placarding, to have as many as two differ-
21 ent placards on the same container or truck. We certainly
22 are going to be following that to the extent that we can.
23 And how we will handle this multiple criteria, I really
24 don't know. We're interested in any further suggestions you
25 have in this area.
-------
151
1 It doesn't seem quite right at the moment
2- --this is off the top of my head--it doesn't seem right to
3 have one, two, three, four, five separate labels on a con-
4 tainer because I'm sure someone would want to know which
5 one is the most important. DOT has been trying for about
6 seven years to order or give a priority order to hazards
7 and they have not succeeded. I wonder if we can in a very
8 short time. I don't see that we can.
9 MR. LINDSEY: Here's one that really has
10 to do with Section 3005, it's a transporter situation. If
11 transporter unloads a shipment at a terminal and holds it
12 prior to reloading it for shipment to a disposer, that is,
'3 this particular facility is a transfer station, must a
14 transporter, presumably the owner of the transfer station,
15 have a storage permit?
16 This same question came up in Rosslyn
17 and there was quite a bit of confusion on the thing. Our
^ tentative position on this is that the 90 day exclusion,
19 which is, I think, what is being addressed here, the 90 day
20 exclusion relates only to generators of wastes to give them
21 the opportunity to accumulate sufficient quantities for
22 shipment without EPA having to--and the generators having
23 to apply for an EPA hazardous process permit application for
24 those kinds of facilities which historically have not
^5 generated a great deal of difficulty.
-------
152
1 So that's a tentative discussion. We're
2 going to rethink that some more to be sure that's the way
3 we're going to remain. But tentatively that's it. If any-
4 body has any comments on that, why, we'd be pleased to have
5 them.
6 Will EPA publish a list of permitted
7 waste management facilities?
8 The answer is yes. In a technical
9 assistance mode, we'll certainly be doing that. We do that
10 now, by the way. They're not permitted facilities but we
11 publish a list of facilities that we know about that are in
12 the business of receiving and disposing or treating of
13 industrial wastes. But we'll be changing that to a list of
14 permitted facilities after the Act is implemented.
15 Then I have one here, a two-part question,
16 one of which I'm going to answer now and one which I'm not.,
!7 It says, the first part, which I'm not going to answer: Will
18 bans on interstate transportion of wastes be allowed?
19 This gets to a very controversial issue,
20 the issue of state importation bans which we will address in
21 some detail tomorrow under Section 3006. And I don't really
22 want to get into that at this point.
23 The second part of the question: When a
24 disposal vehicle is cleaned out, is that residue then a
25 hazardous waste?
-------
153
1 The answer is: It may be. That residue
2 would have to be analyzed or compared against the criteria
3 for hazardous wastes under Section 3001. And if it itself
is hazardous, then that material would be a hazardous waste.
5 The person who generates that hazardous waste would be the
6 person who cleans out the tank truck. And if he handled it
7 on site, he would in most cases need a permit. If he ships
8 it off site, then he's going to have to in some fashion
9 have a manifest there.
10 MR. SANJOUR: Thr question is: Will a
11 permitted facility who provides transportation--for a
12 permitted facility who provides transportation, when has
'3 delivery taken place for the generator?
Well, I would guess transportation is
15 completed when that--I'm not sure I know.
16 CHAIRMAN LnHMAN: Perhaps I can add to
that. I think the intent, as I mentioned once before, is
that the generator should be considered responsible that
" the waste arrives at the designated facility. So if the
20 transporter and the disposer are the same person, his
21 responsibility does not end at the loading dock on his
property, his responsibility continues until he is insured
that the w.iste actually arrives at the disposal site that he
24 has designated.
25 Mk. SANJOUR: The point here is, tht way
-------
1 a lot of people do business today, they deal with a transporter
2 who's also simultaneously a disposer. He's the collector.
3 He has the truck. Makes the decision of where to bring it.
4 Now this Act essentially ends that practice. No longer can
5 a generator turn a waste over to a truck driver who will
6 make the decision of what facility to bring it to. That: ends
7 with this Act and the generator will have to know where it's
8 going and make his own arrangement. And the truck driver,
9 he'll become a common carrier, unless he's also the disposer.
10 But he's still functioning as the carrier bringing it to the
11 facility.
12 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I have another question.
13 This relates to state relationships to EPA. If the states
14 are to be mandated under RGRA to carry out the program, why
15 will quarterly reports be necessary back to the U. S. EPA?
16 Shouldn't just those states wherein the material is generated
17 be concerned along with the states wherein the material will
18 be disposed?
19 O.K. Well, let me go back and say—maybe
20 we didn't make it clear at the beginning. What we're talking
21 about here are the regulations which will apply in those
22 states that do not take on the program. When we say quarterly
23 reports are required, et cetera, et cetera, we're talking
24 about operations taking place in states that do not have an
^5 authorized program.
-------
155
1 I also said that states that do take the
2 program do not necessarily adopt in toto the federal program.
3 They conduct their program in lieu of the federal program.
4 So there may be variations from state to state for those
5 states that do have an authorized program. Some states may
6 not require a quarterly report. If we judge a state's total
7 program to be able to accomplish the goals of the law and
8 give them full authorization, then they're free to conduct
9 their program, subject to oversight and we'll get into that,
10 from EPA, in the way that they feel they can best do it.
11 So this question makes a presumption.
12 If a state does have an authorized program and if the state
13 does require quarterly reports the same as EPA, then those
14 reports would go to the state and not to EPA.
15 I think that answers that.
16 MR. TRASK: I have another question here
'7 relating to the relationship of EPA and the states. And it
18 says, with reference to Section 250.38, and this refers to
-719 the draft standards for transporters: Why is everyone
20 notified of a spill except state authorities who are closest
21 to the scene?
22 It's not our intent to overlook the state;
23 here in this particular instance or to exclude them from this
24 kind of notification. I guess perhaps we may not have done
25 our homework quite as well as we should havt and we may have
-------
156
1 missed something here and I'm glad you called this to our
2 attention. We are still working on this particular--well,
3 we're working on the whole thing. And clearly this is one
we'll need to work into our standards here.
5 Thank you for that comment and that ques-
6 tion.
7 MR. KOVALICK: This is a comment that
8 says--the writer says: I believe under current DOT regula-
' tions that it's possible to have a total of 32 placards on
10 a truck carrying a hazardous material.
11 That's not my understanding. I under-
12 stand there may be that many placards but I understand that
'3 DOT has an outside limit of I think it's two or three that
any one truck will carry. He may have to select from among
15 poison and flammable or corrosive placards. But I thought
there were limitations. So we'll look into that. It's not
our intention to add a 33rd placard to the 32 that may be on
that vehicle.
fl?6/~s-/3
19 MR. MOBS.E; The question is: In the case
20 of a high volume consistent waste, for example, 100 loads per
21 week, will it be possible to complete a weekly manifest?
22 The way the manifest system is set \ip
now, you need a manifest with every system. But that doesn't
24 mean that it cannot be a copy. What we do require is that
everybody in the chain receiving the manifest, I mean the
-------
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
157
generator, the transporter and the disposer, all be aware of
what's going on. And the reason we'd like to see a manifest
with every shipment is with respect to spill incidents and
things of that nature. We're trying to provide for some safe
transport.
There's nothing to stop you from using —
in this case, where you have a consistent waste and many
loads, there's nothing to stop you from using a copy and
initialing the copy for the certification and redating it.
It's a fairly flexible system, I think, when you see it.
It will work in many different cases. It's not rigid at all,
in certain areas.
MR. LINDSEY: If a waste—and this is
another transfer question: If a waste is taken to a transfer
station and co-mingled, ^nixed\ does the transfer station then
become the generator, assuming there is a variety of differ-
ent wastes that are being mixed?
The answer would be yes. It's a new
llA<*Jȣ - SJLffXct
waste and if it's tyanohippad, then the transfer station
would be the generator. More pointedly, it may require a
permit. That process of mixing may be considered a treatment
process under the Act thus requiring a permit.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: That's all of the
written questions we have that are here anyway. We still
have some time, I'd like to at this point—excuse me, one
-------
L58
' more written question, we'll try to get that in. It looks
2 like a long one.
3 Why don't we open the floor briefly for
4 comments from the floor while we're addressing this question.
5 Yes, sir, right here.
6 MR. MIKOLAJ: Paul Mikolaj from T.osco
7 Corporation.
8 Just a point of clarification. Do I
9 understand that the generator is required to submit these
10 quarterly reports and not the transporter and not the dis-
11 poser?
12 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: O.K. Let me clarify
13 that. The generator is required to submit a quarterly report
'4 of all of the wastes that have been shipped by his facility.
15 The disposer is required to also provide quarterly reports of
16 the wastes that he has received. And as was indicated
17 earlier, there is going to be a lot of data floating around
^ there and it's going to require some type of data management,
19 ADP system, probably, to match these up.
20 But that is the intent, is to match those
21 two sources of information together using these identificatior
22 numbers and throw up red flags when there are discrepancies
23 between those two reports.
24 MR. MIKOLAJ: What kind of information
25 will be required on these reports? All of the information
-------
1
2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
159
that's contained on the manifest?
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: We're still developing
the reporting requirements. I would suspect that summaries
of that information would be required, yes. The required--
there are minimum requirements for what has to be on the
manifest that are spelled out in the law. A manifest is
actually defined by Congress in the law to contain certain
things.
I might read that. I'm reading directly
from RCRA: "The term manifest means the form used for
identifying the quantity, composition, origin, routing and
destination of hazardous wastes during its transportation
from the point of generation to the point of disposal, treat-
ment or storage." So that's an absolute minimum that is
required on a manifest.
And summaries of that type of information
would be required for the quarterly reports as we envision it
today.
Are you ready to answer that question?
Go ahead.
MR. KOVALICK: This is not only a ques-
tion, it tells me what I can't answer. In an instance where
a firm has disposed of the hazardous waste at a permitted
commercial site for a considerable period of time, it is
still possible for a driver of a transport firm to decide to
-------
160
dump the material in a convenient ditch and go do his thing.
The generator will know nothing of this until he doesn't
receive a manifest copy from the disposal facility, assuming
that the dump hasn't been reported in the meantime. Who has
ultimate responsibility? Parenthesis--(don't cop out by
saying it will be decided in the court).
7 (Laughter.)
8 MR. KOVALICK: I'd like to repeat the
responsibility-repeat the criminal penalty provision of
Section 3008(d) which says: Any person who knowingly
11 transports a hazardous waste listed under this subtitlt; to
12 a facility which does not have a permit under Section 3005
13 shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more
14 than $25,000 for each day of violation or through imprison-
15 ment not to exceed one year.
16 This is one of three examples that are
17 listed in here where there is a criminal penalty for kriow-
ingly doing it. So in this case, you're right the generator
19 might not know. I presume after at least one quarter goes
20 by and he hasn't received the copy back, he would become
21 suspicious. But we would be—and he might not pay the bill
22 yet which I presume impacts the transporter even more than
23 the fact that he didn't get the manifest copy—that we would
24 be in concert with the generator in following that transportei
25 and trying to determine what he does with those wastes,.
-------
161
1 And I think the transporter is running a
2 very--I hope he realizes he's running a very large risk
3 because this is, again, one of the few, not civil, but
4 criminal portions of the Act. And, admittedly, judges set
5 penalties at different rates. But it seems to me—you're
6 saying it isn't going to be decided in the court, well the
7 amount of the fine is going to be decided in the court. And
8 I think it would be just a matter of time trying to hook
9 that trucker up with that dump place.
10 MR. SANJOUR: I think the answer is
11 simpler than you gave it. I think so far as the Resource
12 Conservation and Recovery Act is concerned, the generator has
13 no liability there.
14 However, so far as common law is con-
15 cerned, as far as the suit for damages from that waste, it's
16 got nothing to do with this law. If someone is damaged by
17 that waste, they could still sue the generator by the common
18 law.
19 Does that clarify it?
20 MR. SANJOUR: The upshot is this law does
21 nothing to affect tort at all. It does not increase or
22 decrease the liability under common law.
23 MR. LINDSEY: As you can gather, we're
24 not a bunch of lawyers up here. Otherwise, we might be more
25 authoritative.
-------
162
1 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I can state for the
2 record that none of the people on the panel are lawyers.
3 We have time--! would like to open again
4 the floor for questions from the audience.
5 I have a gentlemen here, yes, sir.
6 MR. GOUHAS: My name is John Goulias.
7 I'm with Shell Engineering and Associates, Columbia, Missouri
8 I've got three general questions, The
9 first one deals with emergency spills to air, water or land.
10 Does this Act in any way impose any requirements other than
11 what's being done now under any other Act regarding emergency
12 spills?
13 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I believe I can answer
14 that. The answer is yes, to the degree that we're talking
15 about hazardous wastes that are not controlled under the DOT
16 system or under the new EPA spill regs, Section 311 of the
17 Water Pollution Control Act. In other words, it is
18 theoretically possible that there can be wastes which are
19 deemed to be hazardous under the auspices of this law which
20 do not fall under DOT regs or under Section 311 spill regs.
21 And in those instances, yes, there are
22 additional requirements placed on reporting of emergency
23 spills.
24 MR. GOULIAS: All right. Then in terms
25 of handling the materials collected during those emergency
-------
163
spills, does this impose any additional requirements on
handling of those materials?
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Well, let's say no more
than would be the case for any spill. In other words, I
think we covered this case. Let's say you were transporting
a hazardous commodity, not a hazardous waste, under DOT, and
that spilled. And then you would enter into an emergency
spill situation. And our first and foremost thought is to
contain that spill, prevent its movement into surface water
10 or ground water.
11 Once that containment is over and you
12 know basically have a hazardous waste. You've got to do some-
13 thing with that. Depending on the judgment of the spill
14 coordinator on the scene, he may do something short term with
15 that waste or that commodity that is now waste which would
not normally fit all of the requirements of going to permittee
17 facilities and so forth. We're allowing that flexibility of
18 judgment.
19 But once that emergency is over, we would
20 want to make sure that the material is, in fact, lodged in a
21 place that will not cause any further environmental problems.
22 MR. GOULIAS: I understand that. I guess
what I'm really wondering is: Does it impose any additional
24 requirement on the handling of the materials than are
currently imposed now in emergency spill collection. In
-------
164
1 other words, the Coast Guard or U.^S. EPA or others impose
2 certain requirements now. Will this Act impose anything
3 additional?
4 MR. TRASK: The answer is yes, it will
5 impose the manifest--the requirement for a manifest for record
\ 6 keeping for reporting, and labeling. In other words, all the
7 requirements for a generator.
8 MR. GOULIAS: The second general question
' I have is regarding criteria toxicity and testing which Alan
10 discussed briefly earlier today. And it mentioned a four
11 agency, four federal agencies, that are involved in developing
12 uniform testing procedures and criteria insofar as possible.
\£0 QfOJVL)
13 Is U.^J!. DOT and Graziano's group part of this four agency
14 group?
15 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: No, they are not.
16 MR. TRASK: Can I comment?
17 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Sure, go ahead.
18 { 9JOACCS ^R' TRASK: BoD Graziano is not part: of
19 U. S. DOT.
^**
20 MR. GOULIASi No, I understand. But: he
21 apparently developed a criteria and a lot of the work that
l,*><*>^
22 went into the development of the U. S. DOT regulations.
23 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Well, the answer is
24 that DOT—neither DOT nor Mr. Graziano are part of this other
25 group.
-------
165
1 MR. KOVALICK: However, I was at a meet-
2 ing last Friday where it was discussed. This point that
3 you're making was brought out. That even though the four
4 agency heads—FDA, U.S. EPA, OSHA and the Consumer Products
5 Safety Commission, even though they had agreed the purpose
6 of the group is when we take joint action on a chemical,
7 like fluarocarbons and aerosols. When we all do the same
8 thing at the same time, shouldn't we bring DOT into that
9 picture.
10 And so the coordinator for our agency
11 who was present at the meeting said, yes, they ought to at
12 least be inviting DOT to be an auditor to these meetings
13 even though they may not want to enlarge it to five. So we
14 are aware of the need to involve DOT in this.
15 MR. GOULIAS: Third question related to
16 economic impact of these regulations. I know that this will
17 be covered in general later on tomorrow. But I'm wondering
18 if on tomorrow's program you'll be able to get into some of
19 this documentation of the spills, various kinds of spills
20 that you've looked at or incidents that you've looked at?
21 Several times today you've discussed trucks that have had
22 various kinds of incidents. And I'm wondering if in the dis-
23 cussion of economic impact you'll be getting into any bene-
24 fits associated with looking at prevention of any of these
25 problems?
-------
166
1 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: We do not intend to
2 get into that detail tomorrow. We'll be glad to discuss
3 that specific point with you if you would like.
4 MR. GOULIAS: All right, thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Still lots of time. Do
6 we have any further questions.
7 MR. KOVALICK: I wanted to get back to
8 the question from the floor which we cut off on, on the
' shipment of a waste and the manifests and delivery document.
1° I caught the end of the question. But to try and clarify, we
11 were pointing out that railroads are different than trucking
12 lines and that there would be a way for--a provision for the
'3 delivery of a rail car to a siding on a weekend when the
14 facility is not in operation for the railroad to execute a
15 delivery document which would be the certification of arrival,
16 which, when combined with the manifest which was back at the
17 terminal where the waste was originally received or head-
18 quarters where it was originally taken into the system, those
19 two pieces together would make a completed manifest for
20 recordkeeping purposes.
21 So this is a provision being designed to
22 accommodate the receipt of waste through rail car when
23 acknowledging the fact that railroads are different than
24 trucking lines. I hope that helps some.
25 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Yes, we have another
-------
167
1 question.
2 MR. WALCHSHAUSER: Ron Walchshauser, ACF
3 Industries.
4 Assuming your discharge to a municipal
5 treatment facility would be considered hazardous, how would
6 you go about with a manifest system?
7 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: You're referring to
8 the municipal waste water treatment system?
9 MR. WALCHSHAUSER: Yes. You have a pre-
10 treatment system and then you. are discharging to a municipal
11 treatment system.
12 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: O.K. You're not talk-
13 ing about the municipal waste system itself but rather back
14 upstream at the industrial site?
15 MR. WALCHSHAUSER: Right.
16 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Well, let's start at
17 the ultimate end of the pipe and we'll work backwards to
18 illustrate this point. At the municipal waste water treat-
19 ment point, they are required to have an MPES permit to
20 discharge their effluent into receiving waters. So that
21 would cover that. And any sludge resulting from the
22 muncipal waster water treatment process that meets the
23 criteria for a hazardous waste would have to be handled in
24 accordance with Subtitle C. In other words, the municipal
25 waste water treatment facility would be a generator of
-------
168
hazarous sludge and have to go through the whole system, you
know, if it meets those criteria.
Now going back upstream, let's say you're
a generator who is doing some pretreatment on your waste
water and then into the sewage system. Any sludge resulting
from your pretreatment that meets the requirements for Sub--
title C as a hazardous waste would be, in fact, then a
hazardous waste and have to be treated, you know, records
kept. If you shipped it of^ite, a manifest. If you dis-
10 posed of it on site, you'd have to get a disposal permit and
so on.
12 Does that answer your question?
13 MR. KOVALICK: And the discharge to the
14 municipal waste water treatment manhole would not.
15 MR. WALCHSHAUSER: That would not be
16 considered a hazardous waste?
17 MR. KOVALICK: Not for purposes of RCRA.
18 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: O.K. We've got more,
go ahead.
20 MR. SANJOUR: First of all, if the waste
21 is not a hazardous waste, it's not covered at all under 3001.
22 If it's a hazardous waste, any discharge to a municipal plant
23 by pipe, there's never an outfall until you bring the outfall
24 directly into the sewer, and if that discharge is legal, then
25 you're out of this Act at all. We don't consider it a waste
-------
169
1 under this Act.
2 If that discharge is illegal, in other
words, the sewage treatment doesn't know what's coming, then
you're violating the law. Then it is a hazardous waste and
you're violating the law by illegally disposing of hazardous
6 waste.
7 O.K. Now is you're discharging to that
plant by something other than a pipe, by a vacuum truck,
let's say, even though they know you're coming, it goes by a
10 vacuum truck, then you are a hazardous waste and you do have
11 to comply with this law. If you send it in by pipe and they
12 know you're coining, you're not a waste at all. But if you
13 send it in by vacuum truck and they know you're coming,
14 you're a hazardous waste.
15 Not only are you a hazardous waste but
16 the sewage treatment plant becomes a treatment facility under
17 this Act requiring a permit. So both you and the sewage
18 treatment plant would be affected if you bring it there by
truck. But if you send it by pipe, neither one of you is
20 affected by this Act. Got it?
21 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: We have another ques-
22 tion. Go ahead.
23 MR. MURRAY: Your statement just raised
24 another question in my mind. If it goes by pipe to a treat-
ment plant, it is not a hazardous waste. Is this a direct
-------
170
1 line pipe from one source or does it have to be mainly
2 through a sanitary sewer sytem?
3 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: No. We consider a
4 sanitary sewage system to be a pipe.
5 MR. SANJOUR: If goes from your plant to
6 a manhole by pipe and the sewage plant knows it's coming,
7 it's legal. That is, it is not a waste at all under this
8 Act.
9 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Let me read directly
10 from the law and this may illuminate some points. And this
11 is the basic definition of solid wastes under RCRA. It says:
12 The term solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sludge from
13 a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant or air
14 pollution control facility and other discarded material,
15 including solid, liquid, semi-solid or contained gaseous
16 material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and
17 agricultural operations, and from community activities, but
18 does not include--and this is the point—but does not include
19 solids or dissolved material in domestic sewage or solid or
20 dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial
21 discharges which are point sources subject to permit under
22 Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
23 amended.
24 So the point is that if you're in a
25 sewage treatment system that is controlled under Section 402
-------
171
of the Water Act, it is by definition not a solid waste. And
since hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste, you're not
subject to Subtitle C. O.K.
4 Yes, sir, another question.
5 MR. O'CONNER: My name is Bill O'Conner,
Hennepin County in Minnesota.
It seems to me what you're saying is
you're providing a loophole for a generator in that if he
has a hazardous waste, all he has to do is simply dilute that
10 waste, put it down the sewer. For example, if he has heavy
11 metal in his waste which would make it hazardous under the
12 RCRA provisions, all he would simply have to do is dilute the
13 waste and send it down the sewer. The metals are not going
14 to be removed at the sewage treatment plant but are going
15 to pass directly into the river or surface water. And you
16 haven't made any provision for that waste.
17 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: First of all, the waste
18 water—as I mentioned, the waste water treatment plant
19 itself has an MPES permit under 402, Water Pollution Control
20 Act. So if this disposal by an industrial discharger
21 upstream causes that plant to violate its permit, you can
22 be assured that they're going to be trying to find out where
23 it came from. That's point one.
24 Point two is that the law has, you know,
25 EPA is developing now pretreatment standards for hazardous
-------
172
1 wastes or hazardous water discharges in the sewer system to
2 prevent this kind of thing, again under the Water Pollution
3 Control Act. So we're not unaware of the fact that it could
4 happen the way that you're talking about.
5 But under the pretreatment regs that are
6 under development, there would be some control of that
7 practice.
8 MR. O'CONNER: O.K. I was just getting
9 at that dilution would be the solution then to--
10 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: To pollution, yes.
11 MR. SANJOUR: I guess we ought to get
12 behind the purpose of all of this and that is a very
13 legitimate and environmentally sound planning for treating
14 industrial wastes is for a centralized treatment facility
15 if it works. If it doesn't work, then we have the effluent
16 limitation laws to prevent that practice.
17 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: One of the big issue's
1* in EPA right now is the matter of sludge disposal and its
1' relationship to the pretreatment standards because it is
20 becoming pretty clear that the sewage sludge from many
21 municipal waste water treatment systems contain high amounts
22 of metal which limits its availability for land disposal In
23 terms of soil conditioners, crop nutrients and so on.
24 And since this is one of the major
25 thrusts of EPA policy is to encourage land disposal of
-------
173
1 sludge at this point, the pretreatment regulations are being
2 keyed to that point such that the sludge from the municipal
3 systems will be safe to be used as a soil conditioner and so
4 forth. It's all tied together.
5 You know, one of the fascinating things
6 about it, not only as you'll see as we go through this, not
7 only are all of the regulations under Subtitle C very closely
8 interlocked, but also the entire RCRA is related to TOSCA,
9 it's related to the Water Pollution Control Act, it's related
10 to FIFRA, the pesticide law. There are a large number of
11 interfaces here and this is one of them, this interface with
12 the sewage treatment plant.
13 MR. SANJOUR: May I say one more thing?
14 The gentleman's comment was that it would pay a generator to
15 dilute his waste in order to get into a sewage treatment
16 plant. I think the experience is actually the opposite.
17 When a generator discharges into a sewer treatment plant, he
18 has to pay the treatment plant and he has to pay in propor-
19 tion to the volume of liquid he's discharging. So the
20 usual practice is, in fact, the generator to reduce the
21 volume rather than increase it. They don't pay by the amount
22 of hazardous materials, they pay by the volume.
23 A VOICE: Volume and concentration.
24 MR. LINDSEY: It depends on the sewer
25 treatment plant. Some are some way and some are the other.
-------
174
1 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: We have time for more
2 questions from the floor.
3 Yes, sir.
* MR. MIKOLAJ: Paul Mikolaj, Tosco
5 Corporation.
6 I have a general question about how Sub-
7 title C relates to Subtitle D, with regard to this open
8 dump, pits, ponds and lagoons and things. Supposing you
9 have a generator who in the past or currently is using on-
10 site disposal, but after the law becomes implemented then
11 he chooses not to continue to dispose on his own property
12 but instead hauls the stuff away. What does he do with his
13 existing material that he's been accumulating for years and
14 years? How do these regulations under Subtitle C impact
15 or affect that?
16 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: O.K. Good question.
17 If I can distill that question, you're asking whether there
18 is a grandfather clause in the Act or not. And we've asked
1' that question of our General Counsel and the answer is no.
20 In other words, our General Counsel has informed us, advised
2' us, that as far as they can determine in reading the Acl:
22 there is no limitation on how this Act applies. In other
23 words, if there is in existence, say, a storage lagoon that
2< has hazardous waste in it, then it is subject to the provi-
25 sions of Subtitle C.
-------
175
Well, Section 3004, either the disposal
or storage permit requirement. Now you raised the issue of
the relationship to Subtitle D and perhaps a few more words
on that would be helpful. Subtitle D is in its own right a
pretty powerful instrument for improvement of the environ-
mental and public health protection. Basically what it does
is it is a correlary to to Subtitle C in the sense that it
8 sets up via Section 4004 for EPA to define criteria for what
' constitutes an open dump, and by reference what constitutes
10 a sanitary land fill, an acceptable sanitary land fill.
11 Those criteria are currently in draft
12 stage and will be proposed very shortly. And then a
13 correlary to that is that it is against federal law, and
it's against RCRA, once these criteria are adopted, to
15 operate an open dump of any kind for any of these wastes
16 that I just mentioned.
I7 There are provisions for a five year
18 closure or upgrading of open dumps if its part of a state
1' approved plan to do so. If a state does not have a plan to
20 do that, these open dumps are not part of that plan and then
21 they are subject to closure under federal law immediately.
22 And then furthermore there's D for an inventory of open
dumps to take place.
24 So Subtitle D in its own right is a
fairly powerful instrument, as I mentioned. Any waste that
-------
176
1 does not come under the purview of Subtitle C, does come
2 under the purview of Subtitle D. One other major difference
3 is that all of the implementation of Subtitle D is to be
4 accomplished by the state as opposed to the feds. EPA does
5 not have any direct implementation of Subtitle D as thety
6 might have under Subtitle C should states chose not to take
7 over the program.
8 QUESTIONER: I just want to make svire I
9 understand what you said in the first part of your question.
10 If an industrial facility has been disposing of hazardous
11 waste, of course, it's going to depend upon what's hazardous
12 after the definitions come out, but if they had a pit, pond
13 or lagoon or something, and they chose to simply have in the
14 future their waste hauled off, that they will be required to
15 get a permit for their existing disposal site? They would
16 be required to get a permit for this as a disposal site for
17 material that has accumulated in the past years?
18 MR. KOVALICK: The reason there are nods
19 yes and nods no is that when General Counsel gave us this
20 thought we made specific reference to piles of wastes that
21 might be out in the environment or lagoons. And we asked
22 whether or not the date of the passage of the Act had any-
23 thing to do with whether or not those were hazardous wastes.
2< And the direct answer was no. That is, if they're hazardous,
25 they're hazardous.
-------
177
1 And so the place where we get into a
2 policy problem, of course, that you haven't asked about is
3 closed land fills, which cause a problem. That is, they're
4 all covered over and they seem to be operating just fine
5 and then they cause an environmental problem. Then does the
6 owner have some responsibility? So for that reason, there
"I isn't a final answer. But my understanding from that
8 opinion that we have so far is in the case of a lagoon or a
' mound or pile of waste is, yes, you would have to get a
10 permit for that what we would call disposal in the case of
" a lagoon.
'2 QUESTIONER: Even though it's not going
13 to be used anymore?
U MR. KOVALICK: Well, even though it's
IS not going to be used, it is a disposal of the wastes that
16 are in there. It may leak, it may evaporate, and so those
17 are the environmental effects that could happen from that
18 facility.
" CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: You raise a very
20 interesting point. And as you can tell, we're trying to
21 interpret a legal opinion and that's not always easy. We'll
22 probably get another legal opinion. You've raised a good
point. We'll double check on that though.
24 Yes.
25 MR. WILSON: My Name is Charley Wilson.
-------
I 178
-7! I represent the dreater Metropolitan Milwaukee area.
o
2 I'm a little bit fuzzy on this matter of
3 sludge after it hits the disposal plant. Is my understanding
4 correct that at the present time, since EPA is looking into
5 guidelines that will govern pretreattnent to keep it from
6 being a hazardous waste, that you're not even now considering
7 it in that light? Or did I miss something along the line
8 there?
9 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Do you mean do we
10 intend to postpone any action against sludge until pretreat-
11 ment regulations come into being, is that what you're asking?
12 MR. WILSON: Yes.
13 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: At the present time,
I4 no. In other words, if the sludge from a municipal waste
15 treatment plant, at the time these regulations go into
16 effect, which is a year from now basically, meets the criteris
17 for a hazardous waste as defined here, then they would have
18 to be handled in accordance with the provisions of Subtitle
19 C.
20 MR. WILSON: Is there a list at present
21 on sludges that fall in the category where they would be
22 considered hazardous wastes?
23 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: No, there is not
24 because we have not finalized the criteria yet. We've: made
25 some studies of the chemical content, the heavy metal
-------
179
content of sludges, typical sludges from around the country.
And some municipalities have high concentrations of various
metals and others have medium levels and others have low
levels. We are taking that into account when we set these
criteria. But there are equity problems here too in the
sense that if we say, well, an industrial pretreatment sludge
of a certain characteristic is a hazardous waste and a
municipal waste water treatment plant with the same character-
istics, shouldn't they be treated equally? And I think the
10 answer to that is yes, they should. You know, if we con-
11 sider one to be hazardous, then the other should be considered
12 hazardous as well.
13 MR. WILSON: Of course, if it becomes
hazardous, there'll never be any way you can apply it to
15 land, am I correct in that assumption?
16 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Not necessarily, not
necessarily. It may require more intensive management to
18 apply it to land. You may have certain restrictions as to
19 what you can grow on that land, for example, than you would
20 otherwise. But we're not eliminating land application as
21 a potential waste management practice under these regula-
22 tions.
—\ 23 We have last August before this Act was
24 passed published a hazardous waste management policy state-
7 ^ ss. fc. =
25
ment in which we say that we encourage resource recovery
-------
180
as a first option. And land application of sludges where
there's some beneficial use of that sludge would fall into
that category. So we would encourage that to the extent
that we can be convinced that it is safe, environmentally
safe, and safe for public health that that takes place.
So we're not precluding land application
but you may have to be a lot more careful about how you do
8 it if it's a hazardous waste than otherwise.
9 MR. WILSON: We have been in the business
10 of disposing of sledge on land for going on 52 years now and
selling byproducts that you're probably aware of. And I
12 would hope that the EPA in their deliberations would take
13 into consideration the rate of application and not just the
14 presence of a given amount of heavy metal in the product.
15 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Well, that's a good
16 point. But here again, let me reemphasize a statement. I
17 made earlier today that the distinction about whether a
18 material is hazardous or not should be separated from the
19 issue of how you manage it. O.K. In other words, we're
20 attempting to define a hazardous waste in such a way that if
21 that did not receive proper management would it affect in a
22 significant way the public health and environment in this
23 country.
24 MR. WILSON: I think you're arguing with
25 yourself a little bit there, aren't you?
-------
181
1 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: No, not really. Not
2 really.
3 MR. WILSON: Well, I mean you're admitting
4 if it's handled properly, which involves application, right?
5 1 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Right.
6 MR. WILSON: It's O.K. And then you're
7 saying but no, it's not O.K.
8 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: No, I'm saying by
9 including it in the regulatory system, you are insuring that
10 it is handled properly. By getting a permit for that
11 application rate, whatever. In other words, you work out
12 the proper management techniques for that waste which can—
13 very definitely would include application rates, p^ control,
14 whatever else is required.
15 MR. SANJOUR: We'll be discussing that
'6 after dinner.
17 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Yeah, that's one of
'8 the things we'll discuss.
19 MR. WILSON: I'm sorry I'm out of order.
20 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: No, you're not out of
21 order. I'm just trying to make the point and perhaps I
22 haven't made it well. But I'm just trying to say this: We
23 are concerned about hazardousness for uncontrolled wastes,
24 wastes that do not have proper management, wastes that do
25 not receive a permit. If they in an uncontrolled way can end
-------
182
1 up in the environment somewhere and cause a problem, those
2 are the conditions under which we would call waste hazardous.
3 Once you've decided that it could be
4 hazardous under those conditions, and that's the yes-no,
5 yes, it is in the system, no, it isn't in the system, once
6 you've decided that, then the next question is what is the
7 best way to manage that waste. And that might involve land
8 application. You still could do it but under controlled
9 conditions.
10 MR. WILSON: I'm going to stop. I'm
11 going to take you off the hook.
12 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Well, we've gone past
our time limits. It's an interesting discussion. I appre-
15 ciate your attention.
'6 We will break now for dinner. In view
of the fact that we ran over about 15 minutes, let's recon-
18 vene at 7:00 o'clock.
19 Thank you.
20 (Whereupon, at 5:30 o'clock p.m., the
21 hearing in the above-entitled matter was recessed.)
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
23
24
25
183
EVENING SESSION
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Good evening, ladies
and gentlemen. Let me reconvene the evening session of the
public meeting on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
My name is Walter Kovalick. And on my
right is Fred Lindsey and William Sanjour, from the Hazardous
Waste Division of the Office of Solid Waste, for those of you
who weren't here this afternoon.
We spent the afternoon going through
section by section the—several of the regulations and guide-
lines that we're working on under Subtitle C. And this
evening we're going to cover one more section which is
probably of paramount interest to some of you. So our plan
of action is to discuss Section 3004 which are the national
standards for storage treatment and disposal facilities.
Then I'll call for the questions that would normally be
affecting that section. And then any of the individuals who
have indicated that they want to give a statement, we can
give them an opportunity to make a statement on all the
regulations if they choose to do that today.
So at this point, let me call on John
Schaum who is a chemical engineer in our division and who is
the desk officer or lead individual on the Section 3004
regulations.
John.
-------
184
1
JOHN SCHAUM
2 Section 3004
3 Section 3004 authorizes EPA to promulgate
4 standards applicable to owners and operators of hazardous
5 waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. The
6 mandate further specifies that these regulations should
7 include requirements for the following areas:
8 Records of the wastes received and the
9 manner handled.
10 Reports to the permitting agency.
11 Monitoring at the facilities.
12 Inspections of the facilities conducted
13 by the facilities.
U Requirements as to where the facilities
15 are located.
16 Requirements for the design, operation
17 and construction of facilities.
18 Requirements for training of facility
19 personnel.
20 And requirements for ownership, conti-
21 nuity of operations and financial responsibility, and require-
22 ments for contingency plans.
23 Additionally, the mandate also states
24 that any other regulations necessary to protect the public
25 health and the environment may also be promulgated.
-------
185
1 Two important aspects of this mandate
2 which I'd like to discuss further are that, one, it applies
3 to all media, that is, the air, the ground water, surface
4 water and the land; and, two, the mandate specifies that these
be performance standards. Most people think of performance
?6 standards as being emissioi(f~Wpe standards. But since the
7 mandate specifies all the other areas, records, reports and
8 so on, operating design type, we are interpreting the
9 mandate to include these type of regulations also.
10 I'd like to discuss next the prospective
11 content of these regulations. Please remember that what I
12 am describing are the draft regulations. They're very pre-
13 liminary; some areas have still not been completed. However,
'4 due to the extensive mandate, they are very lengthy regula-
15 tions and I will only have time to highlight the major areas.
'6 The structure used in the draft regs
17 consist of a set of mandatory and a set of recommended stand-
18 ards. The mandatory standards must be followed by all
" facilities under all conditions. These include the environ-
20 mental objectives for each medium.
21 The recommended procedures will specify
22 how the mandatory standards can be'achieved. They are mostly
23 of the operating and design type.
24 A facility must follow the recommendation
25 or prove that an alternative meets all the mandatory standard
-------
186
1 Facilities which follow the recommendations will be considerec
2 in compliance initially but must always meet the mandatory
3 standards in order to stay in compliance.
4 In the area of ground water protection,
5 we intend to use the same approach as is used in the jander-
6 ground j.njection regulations proposed under the Safe Drinking
7 Water Act. Under this philosophy, only usable ground water
8 is protected. Although our current draft regs do not protect
9 unusable ground water, we're open to suggestions as to how
10 that might be done.
11 Usable aquifers are defined as any
12 aquifer with less than 10,000 milligrams per liter of total
13 dissolved solids. Additionally, the permitting agency may
14 designate certain aquifers as unusable if they are not
15 potential drinking water sources and after public notice,
16 public hearings, and approval from the EPA Administrator.
17 The environmental objective for usable
18 ground water is that it cannot be degraded such that it
19 would be necessary to treat it more than would have otherwise
20 have been necessary.
21 The air objective, as written in the
22 handout, is very misleading and I'd like to request that you
23 please disregard it. What we were trying to say was that our
24 objective for protecting the air is that facilities should be
25 designed and operated in a manner which complies with
-------
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
^8
19
20
21
22
23
187
existing EPA air standards and which does not degrade the
ambient air beyond one-tenth the level of OSHA standards for
air contaminants.
I'd like to emphasize that we would only
be adopting the OSHA standards on an interim basis for those
air contaminants not yet regulated by EPA. Any new EPA air
standards would automatically replace the OSHA standards.
Additionally, we intend to write this reg
in a manner which will allow the Administrator to use a dif-
ferent divider than ten if future research shows a different
number was needed. f/na y»/y\
Air, ground^water and leachate monitoring
will be required at most sites. Some form of monitoring will
be required at all. At sites where the potential for ground
water pollution exists, we will require ground water monitor-
ing. For example, land fills located over useful aquifers
will have to have ground water monitoring. We'll probably
recommend that they install lysimeters underneath the sites
to detect any leachate which may be escaping and to install
ground water wells adjacent to this site as a backup system.
Air monitoring will be required at
facilities with the potential for air pollution. For
example, we'll recommend that incinerators have stacked gas
monitors for things like carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, et
cetera.
-------
188
1 Storage operations must be conducted such
2 that emissions to the environment do not occur. We feel that
3 such a regulation is necessary in order for it to be con-
4 sistent with the Act which defines storage as an operation
5 during which the wastes cannot escape.
6 In the handout, we said all surface water
7 from active areas must be collected and confined to a point
8 source. Our thinking has changed somewhat on this issue and
9 we are now recommending collection but not requiring it.
10 Instead, we are requiring that point source discharges must
ll comply with the regulations under the Federal Water Pollution
12 Control Act and that nonpoint discharges, such as, surface
13 run-off, must be controlled to prevent the discharge of
14 pollutants to off-site surface water bodies.
15 The draft regs require that all facility
16 personnel be trained on an annual basis. The subject areas
17 much include contingency plans and we will recommend other
18 subject areas, such as, environmental awareness, sampling and
19 monitoring, waste handling and operating procedures. The
20 exact type and duration of training must be approved by the
21 permitting agency.
22 The draft regs have a number of require-
23 ments for recordkeeping and reporting, however, we are trying
24 to keep these to a minimum to reduce the paper burden to bot.h
25 government and industry. In the draft regs, we are requiring
-------
189
that facilities keep records of the types and quantities of
wastes handled, the manner in which they're handled, the
amount and location where they're disposed. The draft regs
require that facilities make reports to the permitting agency
on manifest violations, accidents, operating conditions, and
results of their environmental monitoring.
7 The draft regs will require that
8 facilities have contingency plans to cover accidents, such
as, fires, explosions, spills, and leaks. These will be
10 emergency procedures which describe what to do in the event
11 of an accident. For example, they will describe who shall
12 be contacted, what kinds of remedial actions to start,
13 evacuation procedures, et cetera.
14 The draft regs will require that facilities
15 demonstrate their financial capability to cover possible
16 accidents, closure costs and other liabilities. The exact
form of this regulation has not been drafted but we are con-
18 sidering requirements for such things as bonds, liability
19 insurance, trust funds, and insurance pools.
20 Thus far I've been discussing the manda-
21 tory standards. As I mentioned earlier, we also have operat-
22 ing and design recommendations. I'd like to discuss a couple
23 of those next. / .x
(ff*4, A>flu^)
For landfills over usable aquifers, we
25 will recommend that they have one of two designs. One, that
-------
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
190
they are constructed or located in an area with ten feet of
natural soil of at least ten to the minus eight centimeters
per second. The second design will recommend that where
natural conditions are not adequate, we will recommend
leachate collection. Now I said ten to the minus eight
instead of 500 year containment as stated in the handout
because the 500 year containment has created a lot of con-
fusion. A lot of people have interpreted this to mean that
we would be allowing pollution to occur after 500 years.
This is not our intention and so we have changed our wording.
($**.*>**
The design recommendations for landfills
will cover many more details, such as, site location, suitable
wastes, daily cover and many more, but due to time restrains,
I don't have time to cover those.
The design recommendations for inciner-
ators is one—is that they be operated at 1,000 degrees
Centigrade and two seconds residence time and that the}'
achieve a combustion efficiency of 99 percent.
I'd like to discuss next the unresolved
issues. 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 the way we are
proceeding is that the recomeendations will be promulgated
with the regulations to the extent possible.
Other detailed operating and design
-------
191
1 procedures, such as, ones for state of the art technologies
2 will be published as EPA reports after promulgation.
3 The next issue is what level of financial
4 responsibility should be required? As mentioned earlier,
5 this issue has still not been resolved. It's a very diffi-
6 cult issue because there is very little damage case data on
7 which liabilities can be estimated. Also, it is difficult
8 to know the costs associated with long-term care since that
9 extends into the distant future.
10 The next issue is: Is it legal to
11 require zero discharge? This issue is based on the fact that
12 disposal as defined in the Act allows discharge, allows
13 leaking. Therefore, it may not be legal to require zero
14 discharge at disposal operations. Our counsel tells us we
15 can promulgate any kind of regulations which we can prove are
16 necessary for the protection of human health and the environ-
17 ment. However, we do not think that a zero discharge approach
18 is needed and it is not the approach we have taken in the
1' draft regulations.
20 The next issue and the last one listed
21 in the handout is should the air standard of the Occupational
22 Safety and Health Administration be adopted? This is a very
23 controversial issue both inside and outside of EPA. The
24 criticism against this approach is that the OSHA regulations
25 were designed for workers and primarily for indoor environ-
-------
192
1 ments, and, therefore, they may not apply to this situation.
2 The supporting argument for adopting the regulations--the
3 OSHA regulations, is that that would establish air limits
4 for many more compounds than previously existed and thus
5 improve human health and environmental protection.
6 I'd like to briefly discuss one other
7 issue that's not on the handout but which came up at Rosslyn
8 and perhaps a few opening statements about it would help
9 solve some of the questions. The issue is: How should
10 waste water treatment plants that have ponds and lagoons
11 as part of their treatment terrain and which receive hazard-
12 ous wastes be regulated?
13 If the hazardous waste is trucked to
14 such a site, it's very likely that it would not be suffl-
15 ciently regulated under the MPES system, and, therefore, we
16 would want to regulate it. However, this is an issue we
17 have not resolved yet and we'll be studying further.
18 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Thank you, John;
19 While he's making his way up here, I'll
20 remind those of you who weren't with us this morning that we
21 do three things after each speaker. One is to take any
22 individual statements that you may have to make on that
23 specific section. Second is to take your written cards and
24 questions and respond to them. And then finally, the oral
25 questions from the floor. So all these gentlemen who are
-------
193
standing have blank cards and/or are willing to take your
cards with your questions and bring them up here.
So is there anyone who wishes to make a
statement of Section 3004 regulations or this subject of
5 standards for facilities?
6 (No response.)
7 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: All right. Seeing
none, we'll look for further questions which I see are flow-
9 ing in. While they're coming, let me introduce Howard Beard
10 who is assisting John in the development of these regulations,
11 among other people, and will be responding to questions as
12 well as John Schaum.
13 MR. SCHAUM: The first question I have
is: Who is supposed to accomplish the operator training for
15 a hazardous waste disposal site?
16 We have taken the position that this woulc
17 not be EPA. That EPA will not sponsor the training. So a
18 facility would have to look to a state or a private community
19 to find this training. Additionally, it could be conducted
20 in-house.
21 The next part of this question is: Is
22 anyone drafting such training material now?
23 Currently, I don't—as far as I know,
24 they are not. We have a contract which will put together a
25 training manual but that's like a year away from completion.
-------
194
1 There are some training courses available currently that we
2 think would suffice in the meanwhile.
3 Explain views of how EPA will approve
4 the training.
5 The facility will have to make a report
6 to the permitting agency outlining the kind of training he
7 envisions for each of the employees at that facility and
8 show how it's connected to the work he does and how it's
9 important to the facility. And the permitting agency would
10 have to make the judgment whether it was adequate or not.
11 As I said, the one subject area we will absolutely require
12 is contingency plan training. We'll also recommend some
13 other subject areas, such as, waste handling, monitoring,
14 sampling, things like that, but will not require those.
15 Here's another training question: I
16 operate one small land fill site for dry bulk materials from
17 car cleaning. What type of training is required?
18 O.K. I would think the minimum, which
1' would be the contingency plan training.
20 MR. LINDSEY: Could you review the
21 definitions of storage and disposal? What is the criteria
22 for determining what a site is doing?
23 First of all, let me make it clear that
24 one does not get a different permit for treatment for
25 storage or for disposal. One gets a permit for doing
-------
195
whatever it is he does at the facility and this will be a
site specific kind of a permit. It is true, however, that
certain standards under Section 3004 will relate to treat-
ment facilities and certain to disposal facilities and
certain to storage facilities.
Let me read from the Act briefly and
then discuss briefly the difference between storage and dis-
posal. This is from the Act: Disposal means the discharge
-^ 9 deposits, injections, dumping, spilling, leaking or placing
10 of any waste into or on any land or water so that such
11 waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment
12 or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters,
13 including ground water. O.K.
14 So the disposal then, first of all,
15 relates to land, into or on land. And it also carries with
16 it implicitly the idea that some constituent of that waste
17 is being released into the environment. That's disposal.
18 Treatment, on the other hand—if I can
19 find it--excuse me, storage. When used in connection with
20 hazardous wastes means the containment of hazardous wastes
21 either on a temporary basis or for a period of years in
22 such a manner as not to constitute disposal. Meaning then
23 in such a manner so that no constituent thereof is released
'24 to the environment, land, ground water, surface water or
25 air. That's the difference between storage and disposal.
-------
196
1 Basically, the regulation which relates
2 to storage relates to regulations on the container of the
3 waste, tanks and things of that nature. Whereas, disposal
4 relates to limits and ways of doing things so as to limit
5 the release of materials to the environment.
6 Hopefully, that's helpful.
7 MR. SANJOUR: The question is: Is an
8 individual water treatment plant which treats mostly
9 water from chemical process areas plus some spills of con-
10 centrated chemicals be considered a disposal facility and
11 require a permit?
12 Well, let's presume, first of all, all
13 the materials that you're talking about are hazardous under
14 the 3001 criteria. Then if these materials enter the plant
15 by pipe and the waste treatment plant has an MPES permit,
!6 then the answer is probably not. And if any of these
17 materials come to the plant by truck or some other means
'8 other than a pipe, then very likely that would be considered
19 a hazardous waste disposal facility.
20 The law specifically prohibits our
21 regulating discharges already regulated by MPES. The only
22 area of ambiguity which we've not yet resolved ourselves are'
23 lagoons associated with such treatment facilities, whether
24 or not those lagoons would be considered hazardous waste
25 disposal facilities. And we're still studying that issue.
-------
197
1 We don't have an answer for it.
2 The next question is: What position does
3 EPA air program take on the last unresolved issue?
4 They are adamantly opposed to our posi-
5 tion.
6 MR. BEARD: They're working with us.
7 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: I think it's fair
8 to say that we do meet continuously on this issue with the
9 air program and we do have different points of view. And,
10 obviously, there will have to be a resolution where are two
11 organizations are to meet in the agency.
'2 MR. SANJOUR: What position does OSHA
13 take?
14 OSHA doesn't take any position. I'm
!5 not sure that we've talked to OSHA. Have we?
'6 MR. BEARD: Yeah, we've talked to OSHA.
17 MR. SANJOUR: Do they have any position
18 on it?
19 MR. BEARD: They said they wouldn't be
20 opposed. Maybe I should answer this question. Can I take
21 this out of turn? It relates to the air standard of OSHA.
22 On what criteria has the air ambient
concentration of one over ten of OSHA air regulations? Did
54
we understand that this will be written so that it could be
25
changed at a later date to a factor of one over twenty, one
-------
198
1 over thirty, et cetera?
-^ 2 The air branch, in part, takes the posi-
3 tion of using the best practical technology. We've asked
4 them how does one justify performance standards based on
5 best technology approach to protect public health and
6 environment alone, without any other ambience or the type
7 of standards that are directly related to protection of
8 public health as opposed to best technology which may not
9 actually have a biological connection, if you will.
10 We think that you have to have best
11 practical technology. We're certainly not opposed to it. As
12 a matter of fact, that's what we talking about in terms of
'3 the recommendations. If you follow the recommended procedure,
I4 then you will get a permit. We hope that this will control
15 air pollutants.
16 As far as the OSHA divided by ten, why
17 divided by ten, as you know the OSHA standards are for
18 workers. We feel that an order of magnitude from the OSHA
-7 19 standards will be more protective on a 2^)iour basis for
20 all humans as opposed to workers who do not cover the
21 extreme for those people who are more susceptible to the
22 effects of air pollutants, the young and very old.
23 We didn't feel that OSHA alone was
2* appropriate. We wanted, however, a stipulation that it be
25 one over twenty or one over thirty because--somebody asked--
-------
199
1 the question here was: Do I understand it can be changed?
2 We wanted that stipulation. Nothing is better than a
3 pollutant by pollutant analysis. We would certainly favor
4 that. In 18 months, one can't do that. We want to adopt
5 those standards that we can that are appropriate. And one
6 over ten is a beginning. And for those pollutants that
7 require a different factor, especially those pollutants for
8 which OSHA is more recently reviewing and will be bringing
9 their particulars down, we would want a different factor.
10 MR. SANJOUR: I think Howard is being a
11 little bit modest. That one over ten is actually an
12 industry consensus standard.
13 MR. BEARD: Yes. I should also bring
14 up the fact that there is a precedent. The ventilation for
£
» 15 use in the standard ASHRAY (phinHi-feir), Standard 6273, which
16 is natural mechanical ventilation, defines that air for
17 ventilation use is one over ten. Actually, it recommends
18 that ACGIH TLV divided by ten. And, of course, these stand-
19 ards, the TLV, were what became the OSHA standards at a
20 later time.
21 MR. SANJOUR: Let me answer the next
22 question: Will the design and operational standards be
23 rigid engineering standards or flexible performance standards'
24 If rigid engineering standards are used and something goes
25 wrong, who is going to bear responsibility for the air?
-------
200
Well, this is a little bit of a beating
your wife question. I don't know why engineering standards
are rigid and performance standards are flexible. Let me
drop the words performance standards, drop the words rigid
and flexible, and substitute the words emission standards.
Now for the gentleman who asked the question, the way we're:
writing these regulations, you will have your choice, you
will decide whether you want to follow an engineering stand-
ard that is a design or operating standard or an emission
10 standard. The choice is yours to make. And you will apply
11 for a permit to follow one of those two kinds of standards.
'2 And we will give you a permit in either case. We have pro-
13 cedures set up for either, going either way.
If you choose to follow the design and
15 operating standard, there'd probably be much less work for
16 yOU in applying for a permit since we will provide the
17 engineering standards that have to be followed. So you don't
18 have to do the research to justify those standards. We will
19 justify them in advance if you like.
20 But on the other hand, if you're going to
21 follow the standard we recommend, you're going to have to
22 follow it and it's rigid in that sense. And if, in fact,
we provide a design and operating which you adopt and we
24 issue a permit based on that and it turns out to be in error
in that it does not protect the environment that we
-------
201
anticipated it would, then we, EPA, is in error. But you,
holding the permit, will have to have your permit revoked
because the bottom line is that you have certain criteria
to protect the environment and that's the bottom line. So
although you'd be in no legal jeopardy so far as punishment
goes, nevertheless, we would have to readjust the permit if
7 it turned out to be in error.
8 The next question is: Who would test and
license the operators on hazardous waste sites, that is,
—-p10 state or fed, if the states assume—are we talking about a
11 permit? If we're talking about a permit, then the state or
12 fed, whoever has the program. As for training--
13 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: It's a training ques-
14 tion.
15 MR. SANJOUR: If the question relates to
'6 training, then neither. However, when you apply for a permit
17 you will have to demonstrate that full, adequate, unquote,
18 training is being provided for. And that would be a judg-
19 mental question on the basis of the permit granting official,
20 whether or not he felt that training for the facility was
21 adequate.
22 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: I might add, I think
23 a state could have an approved program and could on its own
24 side have a certification, but that would be up to them.
25 MR. SANJOUR: Next question: Aquifer
-------
203
water does not meet interim safe drinking water £tandards, is
2 this .usable aquifer?
3 Yes, in the way that the regs are defined
4 The way that works is if one or more parameters exceeds the
5 drinking water limits, then essentially you cannot degrade
_« 6 the grouncTwater so far as the parameter is concerned at all
7 because that would require additional treatment. You could,
g however, degrade both parameters which are below the drinking
—j\ 9 water ^standards, at least up to the drinking water _standards.
10 And what's that, 10,000?
11 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: 10,000.
12 MR. SANJOUR: 10,000 parts per minute,
13 The next question is: Why not consider
— .7 14 direction of groundpwater flow at landjfills as well as
15 permeability?
16 I don't really understand the question.
y
17 We are going to consider the direction of the grouncjpwate c
18 flow. Perhaps during the period of oral questions, the
19 gentleman who asked this can elaborate on it.
20 The next question, which also I don't
21 understand: Under reports of manifest violations, et cetera,
22 what is meant by operating conditions? Do you know tliat one?
23 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: No.
24 MR. SANJOUR: The gentleman who asked
25 that can perhaps elaborate on it later.
-------
204
1 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: I have several here,
2 not all related specifically to 3004. As a generator,
3 transporter and destruction site operator of company wastes
on company property, even though one site is 17 miles from
5 the destruction site, will all three sections be necessary
6 and apply to our operations?
7 If I may interpret this, I understand
8 that this company generates wastes, has their own trucks,
9 hauls some to contiguous sites and at least one case they
10 haul away 17 miles to their own site. And this questioner
11 wants to know, do all sections that pertain to generators,
12 transporters and disposers affect him? The basic answer is
13 yes
Must all three of these areas within the
15 company keep records?
Well, areas—I presume he means the plant
itself, versus a separate transport section, versus an
18 operator of a centralized treatment facility. But the basic
registrant or the basic notifier is that company. So we're
talking about that company keeping a record of the waste it
21 generates. A company would not have to fill a report out on
22 the waste it generates because it's doing its own disposal.
23 And, therefore, there would be a disposal report from that
company.
25 So I guess the basic answer to your
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
"
20
21
22
23
24
25
205
question is yes. And I think you're trying to get at whether
you'd have to send an EPA report on the waste you ship and
an EPA report on the waste you accept. And since you're
sending them to yourself, we'll try and not have that happen.
If the owner or operator of a treatment
storage«or disposal facility reports a manifest violation--
by that I presume he means something is haywire with the
waste he's accepted and he does something incorrect—or an
accident is reported, as John was suggesting, what enforce-
ment action is EPA required to take?
Well, for the bottom line from this, if
you look again at the enforcement section in 3008, the
criminal act--one of the criminal acts is to falsify a
report or falsify a record. So that is the highest penalty
and the worst thing--one of the worst things you can do.
Whereas, giving the report, as this question suggests, would
put you in one of two areas, it seems to me. One of which
you probably would be involved with the EPA spill regulations
under the Water Pollution^tw) Control Act.
As you may know, they are soon going to
propose hazardous spill--repropose spill regulations as
opposed to the current oil spill regulations. So you would
have the basic responsibilities under that statute.
If there were other problems which you
reported on yourself, then the basic civil process in the
-------
206
1 enforcement section takes effect. This is not thoroughly
2 worked out, but basically it's cause for EPA to give you a
3 compliance order to make appropriate changes. So unless--
4 our policy is still evolving on this, of course. And there
5 would be an evolution of civil penalties over time. But
6 one would hope that as we develop the compliance order process
7 for the civil violations, like an accident or a spill, that
8 at least the first account of that could be remedied with a
9 compliance order whereby you guarantee to provide some
10 training or some additional protections. And it's only the
11 second and subsequent violations where you get into a civil
12 penalty schedule that goes up by the number of violations.
13 So I think the key here is that the
14 worst thing you can do is not say anything because then
15 you've created a criminal act, as opposed to saying some-
16 thing and you lessen your exposure.
17 From discussion earlier today, it would
18 appear that any livestock operation, including a farmer,
19 would have to report as a generator, as a transporter and as
20 an operator of a disposal facility anytime he cleaned out
21 the barn, the lagoon or household ceptic system. Assuming
22 that such wastes meet the criteria and characteristics. Is
23 this correct?
24 We've had the problem of the small farmer
25 brought to our attention. We thought about it, of course,
-------
207
1 plus it has been brought to our attention in Rosslyn. And
2 you have not heard much discussion of it because we're still
3 trying to analyze how to differentiate him from an agri-
4 business operation which uses hundreds of cans of pesticides
5 and other kinds of things that we would consider to be in
6 the hazardous waste potential category.
So one thing I can clarify is that
household septic tank pumpings are going to, we hope,
9 receive the same kind of exemption, if you will, that house-
10 hold trash and garbage is. So in that sense, the farmer is
11 not in the system at all.
12 We are open, I might add, for suggestions
13 on ways in which we can characterize the farmer, that is,
the individual farmer who has a seasonal use of pesticides
15 which probably would be his basic hazardous waste and the
containers. We do have some damage cases that demonstrate
that the irresponsible disposal of those containers is an
environmental problem and we don't want to let them completel'
19 out of the system, especially in things like aerial appli-
20 cators of pesticides, for example
21 Who will insure that truck drivers are
22 trained in proper actions during a spill incident because of
23 a wreck, malfunction of equipment, et cetera?
24 My understanding is that the Department
of Transportation has made an effort over time to inform
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
208
their constituents, which are the regulated transporters,
about the incidents reporting requirements that are already
in existence for hazardous materials. And likewise, I
believe EPA will have, when the hazardous material spill
regulations, which I mentioned under the Water Pollution
Control Act, are finalized over the next six or eight months,
we will also have some obligations to provide at least
information materials.
But as far as the actual training at
this moment, the only answer to that is that the trucking
firms themselves or the transporters themselves are going to
have to get information, which we have available and which
the spill office in EPA has available on how to deal with
spill materials. Some of you I know because you're involved
CJfctnl-f*t,c,
in it, are familiar with the ItaCTIlIOK (phemii.ti.fc) system
operated by the Manufacturing Chemists' Association.
Similarly, the EPA operates a computerized system called
-fi*Wj=I*"i*rtt^=*Bfcwj'"*- and that has information in it
on how to deal with spills.
So at the moment, it's the obligation of
the transporter himself.
Howard.
.. MR. BEARD: Some portions of municipal
(tru-Wicl)
lancT^fills have been designated as hazardous waste disposal
locations. Will EPA permit this land fill for hazardous
-------
209
1 waste disposal if it meets EPA requirements?
2 Yes, is the answer.
^
3 The second part is: And if the landfill
doesn't meet requirements, will it be closed for future
hazardous waste disposal?
6 The answer is yes also.
7 And if the landfill doesn't meet require'
ments, will it be closed for future hazardous waste disposal?
9 I think it can be either upgraded or it could be closed to
10 hazardous waste disposal.
MR. SCHAUM: Will disposal sites require
12 monitoring or maintenance for certain number of years or will
13 these services be ended after some criteria for environmental
14 acceptability are met?
This brings up an issue that we haven1t
16 completely resolved yet. We know that we want facilities to
17 be secured in a manner that does not constitute a threat to
18 public health and environment after they're closed. And we
19 know we want monitoring at sites where wastes will remain
20 at the site after they're closed. Sites that can be cleaned
21 up, such as, treatment facilities, incineration facilities,
22 for example, would only have to remove all wastes and
23 decontaminate the equipment and then would not need any
future monitoring.
25 But sites that have land fills or any
-------
210
1 site where a waste will remain will need some kind of monitor'
2 ing to check that it's not leaking at a harmful rate. Now
3 as to how many numbers of years this will be required or if
4 there's some criteria that we can identify after which
5 monitoring will not be needed, we don't know at this point.
6 If someone has suggestions—right now, we don't know how--
7 right now, it's open ended.
8 The only way we know to do it is to
9 require monitoring forever. And if someone knows of a way
10 that we can safely say you don't need monitoring after this
11 point, we'd love to have that suggestion.
'2 What reporting to EPA will be required
'3 for on-site storage?
14 O.K. The kinds of reports that would be
'5 required would be the amount, the types of waste and the
16 manner in which they're handled, reports of their environ-
17 mental monitoring, and the reports of any accidents which
18 may occur.
" I've got a number of questions about the
20 ten feet and ten to minus eight business. The first one is:
21 How did you, EPA, come up with ten to the minus eight centi-
22 meters as a standard? That's about five feet in 500 years.
23 Ten to the minus six to ten to the minus seven might be more
24 realistic.
25 O.K. We need to identify some kind of a
-------
211
design standard for land fills. And we looked over damage
cases and looked over the existing state regulations and we
have found no site at which pollution has occurred at one
with natural conditions of ten feet and ten to the minus
eight centimeters per second. And we have found precedent
in the State of Illinois recommending that those kinds of
design requirements. So that is what we are now recommending.
However, remember that this is only a
recommendation. And that any facility you can prove that an
10 alternative to this is O.K., is protective of the human
11 health and environment, would also be allowed. We tried to
12 write this in a manner that would allow as much design
13 flexibility as possible. So bear in mind, it is only a
14 recommendation.
!5 You said you dropped the term 500 year
16 containment because it implies allowing pollution after 500
17 years. What terms do you now use?
18 O.K. Now, instead of 500 year contain-
19 ment, we are using the ten feet and ten to the minus eight.
20 It's a wording thing. They're essentially equal.
21 Will ten feet of ten to the minus eight;
22 centimeters per second soil or leachate collection be requirec
—N23 without any regard to other geological or groun3^water condi-
24 tions?
25 No. There are other details in our
-------
212
— 1 UJA design recommendations, as I said. There are a number
on location. For example, they should not be located over
active faults. They should be out of the 100 year flood
plains. Not near wet lands, that kind of thing. So these
regs in this area are not complete either. There will be
6 more than just the ten feet and ten to the minus eight.
7 Are you differentiating between ground"-
water and aquifer or are the terms being used interchangeably
9 Right now we are using them inter-
10 changeably. I'll read you the definition that we are using
11 right now for ground water: Water beneath the land surface
in a saturated zone that is under atmospheric or artisian
13 pressure. Now the authors note: GroundQrater will not
14 include unsaturated--the unsaturated zone--or would include
'5 the unsaturated zone. And the way we are defining it now,
it would not.
17 If the storage tank is continuously being
18 filled and emptied but partially filled most of the time,
19 does it require a permit after 90 days of operation?
20 The answer will be yes.
21 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK,: The answer is
22 basically yes. And the way that we would know that the
23 amounts moving in and out of the tank is by the manifest and
24 the records of that particular generator. In other words,
25 there would be generator records for the waste you produce
-------
213
1 which would be inflow or some of the inflow to that tank.
2 And then there would be the manifest, presuming they are
3 shipped somewhere from that tank. And so basically it is a
4 storage tank and would be used—and we would have cognizance
5 over incoming and outgoing.
6 MR. SCHAUM: A couple more. In the
7 summary, the following is on the second page of 3004:
8 Reports of manifest violations, accidents, operating coiidi-
9 tions and monitoring.
10 O.K. I'm sorry there's been some con-
11 fusion about this. The question is: What were you referring
12 to as far as the operating conditions go?
13 In the—well, the best example I can
14 think of is: We are recommending that incinerators operate
15 at 1,000 degrees in two seconds residence time. This would
16 end up in the permit. And we would require that facility
17 report that they are maintaining the operating conditions
18 specified in the permit.
19 O.K., I hope that clears it up.
20 One more: Are explosives and explosive
21 devices, as defined by CFR 49, considered hazardous wastes?
22 Yes. If they are a waste and they are
23 explosive, they would be considered a hazardous waste.
24 If so, are they subject to Public Law
~"? ** 94g80 criteria for disposal as well as other regulations
-------
214
1 applicable to explosives?
2 Yes.
3 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Well, I speculate
4 that the concern may be that one of the few technologies
5 available for disposing of explosives is open burning and
6 maybe this person wants to know whether you can open burn
7 explosives under RCRA.
8 MR. SCHAOM: O.K. We are recommending
9 that no waste be open burned. But as I explained our
10 recommendations before, if you can prove that it can be done
11 safely, you're allowed to do it. If you do want to open burn
'2 explosives and you can prove it can be done safely, you'd be
13 allowed to do it. But we would recommend against it.
u MR. BEARD: It comes down to a cas^£>yQ
15 case basis.
16 MR. LINDSEY: I have several here, some
17 rather quick and others rather extensive. Sewage, sludge and
(
-------
215
1 number of hazardous waste facilities operating in the U.S.A.
2 to handle the increased volume of hazardous wastes regulated
3 under RCRA?
4 This is a—we loose a lot of sleep over
5 this question. Studies which we have done show that there is
6 probably not enough capacity now, as of this time, that would
7 be permittable, that would facet all the criteria and so on
8 that we're going to come up with. At this point, probably
9 not enough of that capacity to handle all the hazardous
10 wastes that are probably going to be generated.
" Those same studies, however, showed when
12 we made them that if—the basic problem is the profitability
13 of that particular industry, one of having to compete with
14 the substandard operations, things of that nature. Our
15 position on this has been tempered somewhat. The question
^ is, really, how quickly can this industry expand to handle
'^ the increased added volume--burden, assuming then that we do
18 eliminate the unsatisfactory competition. In other words,
19 make it so that these kinds of facilities can make a reason-
2" able return on their investment.
21 There are really two problems here as we
22 see it. One is the availability of capital. In that par-
23 ticular situation, the regulations should improve that situa-
24 tion because, first of all, it will improve the profitability
25 of the existing facility. And as such, it should make
-------
216
capital more readily available.
Secondly, the act of granting a permit
by EPA will be and is viewed by the public as granting to
that facility a certificate of health, if you will, a clean
bill of health. The public will view this as being an
evaluation by EPA of the potential health hazard associated
with the facility and our finding that facility to be clean.
That may help also.
9 The second problem, in .addition to
10 capital availability is the problem of citizen opposition
n and this is potentially more of a problem, I think, from
12 those who have been involved with siting of waste management
13 facilities. Even for perfectly acceptable facilities, it's
14 a serious problem. The local people simply don't want these
15 facilities anywhere near them.
Again, the fact of our granting a permit
17 to these facilities will be viewed by the public as a certi-
18 fication by EPA of the ability of this facility to operate
19 without a major problem.
20 I'm not sure, other than by way of grant-
21 ing the permit and trying to grant the permit in such a way
22 as to protect public health and the environment, how we can
23 impact the latter problem. If anybody has any ideas on that,
24 we've been asking for those kinds of ideas for quite a while.
25 What can EPA do to impact the problem. We're not even sure,
-------
217
1 really, what the long-term extent of the problem will be.
1 How difficult is this going to be to overcome local opposi-
3 tion or to site these facilities in areas where local opposi-
4 tion is not a problem. We're not really sure of that.
5 There is within the Act a provision for
6 the granting of interim permits, and we'll cover all of this
7 tomorrow. And the provision was put in the Act primarily to
8 allow EPA time to address the 20,000 or so permit applica-
9 tions that we expect to get. Basically, to get an interim
10 permit—and I don't want to go into this in depth—but the
11 criteria is a simple one. All you have to do is notify EPA
12 that you're in the business, and, secondly, have made an
13 application for a permit. And having done both of those
14 things, you're deemed to have had a permit without EPA doing
15 anything further.
16 Well, in terms of proceeding to evaluate
17 these 20,000 or so applications that we will be getting or
18 maybe something less than that, we will be judiciously look-
I9 ing at those in such a manner so that we'll be analyzing them
20 with cognizance of the availability of suitable alternative
21 capacities.
22 There's also another provision that's
23 now written in the Act where a temporary permit for facilities
24 which do not pose an imminent hazard but for some reason or
25 another cannot possibly meet all the standards. For example,
-------
218
they may be located in an area where we would not recognize
a fully permitted facility to be. And as such, if they
happen to be in that kind of an area but they don't pose an
imminent hazard, and on the other hand they're also in an
area where there's no suitable alternative, we have a provi-
sion for granting a temporary permit for a specified period
of time so that the facility owner and the people who use
that facility will have a reasonable length of time to find
9 a suitable alternative without having to resort to dumping
10 materials in fields and so forth, which would be a catas-
11 trophe.
12 So I guess in summary—that's a long
13 winded explanation of a rather complicated problem. And the
answer is that we don't really know. We feel there will be
15 a short fall of capacity in the beginning. But, however, the
16 provisions for interim permits will likely allow us to con-
17 tinue operating as we have been for some period of time.
18 The ability of the industry to respond and how long that's
19 going to take, given the two basic problems of capital
20 availability and public opposition, is not clear.
21 And we're studying that. And if anybody
22 has any ideas on that, we'd be glad to have them.
23 Next question: Are there any plans to
24 require a state to provide perpetual care for burial areas
25 of a hazardous chemical disposal facility within their
-------
219
1 border as has been done with nuclear sites?
2 The answer to that is no, in the sense
3 that we will not be requiring states to do that. A state
4 could do that, choose to do that, and still have their pro-
5 grams authorized if they chose to. There will, however, be
6 a requirance for perpetual care facilities--and I think John
7 touched on them and maybe he'd want to talk about them a
8 little more later—on the owners of such sites.
9 Please explain the type of regulation
10 and permits required of a rerefiner of used oil which pro-
" duces no waste whatsoever in the rerefining process.
12 We'll be getting into this more tomorrow
13 under Section 3005.
14 MR. SANJOUR: That same process.
!5 MR. LINDSEY: Yeah, sure, we'd like to
16 see more of that. Basically, such a facility would be a
17 treatment facility but it would be a product recovery
18 facility and as such would be eligible for a special kind of
19 permit which we'll be discussing in some more detail tomorrow
20 This kind of permit will be very simple to obtain.
21 On the other hand, you say generates no
22 waste whatever. If he were to generate waste, the sludge or
23 whatever it is that he generated, if it were hazardous, he
24 would be treated like any other generator. In other words,
~1 25 if he generated a sludge that is as a bjjgroduct of this
-------
220
_j 1 redefining operation, which in this case the person who
2 asked the question said it does not occur, but if it did, he
3 would be treated as a generator. And if he disposed of it
4 on-site, he wouldn't need a permit. If he shipped it off,
5 he'd have to start the manifest system and that kind of
6 thing.
7 We had a couple of other questions which
8 related to the liability issue and I'd like to introduce
—7 9 Mike Shannon, who is the program ^manager within our office
-^10 for jx>licy analysis and an economist who has been working
11 in this particular area. And while that particular area of
12 concern is less well developed. We haven't developed the
13 regulations to the extent that we have many of the others,
'4 he may be able to give you some preliminary ideas in this
15 area.
16 Mike, why don't you take the next couple
17 of questions.
18 MR. SHANNON: I have two cards. The
19 first card there are two questions and it says: What options
20 are you considering regarding the financial responsibility?
21 The options that are available to us and
22 are likely to be considered are several. The first one would
23 be evidence of liability insurance by a facility. That is
24 evidence of liability insurance for both sudden and non-
25 sudden accidents.
-------
221
1 The second alternative would be some kind
2 of mutual fund providing financial protection that would be
3 administered by a state or possibily an industrial associa-
4 tions, for example, completely, you know, unresolved at. this
5 point.
6 Self-insurance by a facility, evidence of
7 self-insurance, would be another alternative or other €:vi-
8 dence of financial responsibility that a facility could prove
9 such as, a surety bond, for example.
!0 There's another question that goes a
11 step further regarding financial responsibility that asks:
!2 Has EPA considered a suggested amount for financial
13 capability?
14 We have conducted research that would
!5 indicate from other requirements of other media, environ-
16 mental media requirements, and areas of special risks to
17 product liability, that the requirement could be something
18 along the lines of requirements for insurance that would be
19 equal to twice the amount of revenue generated by a particu-
20 lar facility. Or up to a maximum of "X" amount of dollars,
21 let's say, 50 million dollars or 75 million dollars. Obvi-
22 ously, twice the amount of revenue generated by a facility
23 could be, you know, in the billions of dollars. So that's
24 why you have the alternative of a cut-off at a figure that
25 might reasonably reflect the amount of liability to be
-------
222
1 incurred by a liability.
2 The next question is: Is the require-
3 tnent of financial capability to cover possible accidents and
4 closure costs going to include a performance bond?
5 The law actually deals with a number of
6 requirements in the overall area of financial capability.
7 One is the financial responsibility. And that we've been
8 interpreting to include or to cover requirements for pro-
9 tecting the public or facility in the event of a liability
10 suit, for instance, in case of an accident.
11 But when it comes to closure costs, we're
12 really talking about the requirements that deal with the
13 continuity of operation of a facility, which is another
14 requirement, another area for which the standard is required
15 in 3004. You're dealing with a situation that liability
16 insurance does not cover. You're dealing with something
17 where a situation you know is likely to occur. It's not
18 an accidental situation. We know that there will be
19 facilities that will be abandoned, for instance.
20 In the things that we're thinking about
21 there, to provide for continuity of operation mainly. Closure
22 assurance would be the requirement for things like a per-
23 petual care fee where facilities would contribute on a bio-
24 metric basis based on the volume they received to a fund
25 maintained for that specific facility or maintained on a
-------
223
1 statewide basts, for example.
2 Or another possibility would be the post-
3 ing of a performance bond either through cash or surety.
4 But as to what kind of detail in depth
5 we would go on the financial responsibility, continuity of
6 operation and ownership requirements, we have done research
7 but at this point the options haven't even been debated by
8 our internal working group. We're probably further behind
9 in that area than any other standards primarily because it is
10 a complex area which we have not done a lot of research up
11 to this point.
12 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Thank you, Mike.
13 Bill.
14 MR. SANJOUR: Would holding a hazardous
!5 sludge in MPES permitted waste water treatment facility to
'6 accumulate a truck load be considered storage under Section
17 3004?
18 Well, it would be either storage or
19 disposal and that decision would be based on whether or not
20 it's in a safe compartment. And let me remind you that, in
21 any event the generator of a hazardous waste is given a 90
22 day exemption from having to have a permit for storage. He
23 still has to comply with the regulations. And that would
24 apply to sludges.
25 The next question is: How difficult will
-------
224
1 it be to obtain a permit for refinery sludges assuming they
2 are determined to be hazardous?
3 Well, let me add two other assumings to
4 that. Assuming it is biodegradable and assuming you don't
5 intend to grow these things on the land, then I think it
6 would be very easy to get a permit. If those other two
7 assumings aren't there, then it becomes hard. It depends on
8 the actual circumstances of the case.
9 I have one more question here that
10 begins: I don't think the emptying storage tank is a simple
11 yes or no answer, and then proceeds to go into some long
12 calculations about why it isn't. And if the purpose of this
13 question is to determine whether or not this facility would
14 meet the 90 day exemption or not, then I think it's a much
15 too detailed question to be answered at this forum.
16 MR. LINDSEY: A couple of questions or
^7 maybe they're really comments about public participation and
18 public opinion and the effect it has on these kind of
19 facilities that I think we're already sensitized to but
20 we'11 addre s s them anyway.
21 One question says: Do you think a
22 company is willing to invest over $100,000 on a proposed
23 site and then run the risk of having to shut down because
24 of opinion?
25 I submit that this happens occasionally
-------
225
1 now, the way I understand it. I presume that the point of
2 making this statement would be that a company would not be
3 spending $100,000 or so that may be required to obtain
4 information on a given site for purposes of obtaining a
5 permit from EPA if they had not first determined whether or
6 not the local climate for siting of such a facility were
7 included. I would, of course, agree with that. I think, if
8 I were planning to site such a facility, the first thing I
9 would do--one of the first things, in addition to finding
10 out whether the site were environmentally and technically
11 satisfactory as well as marketable, within a marketable area,
12 would be to find out whether the local opposition or the
13 local climate were of such a nature as to permit such a site
14 to be put in.
15 Another question, and I'm not sure I
16 understand this. Perhaps the person—I think I'll read into
17 it what it says and then perhaps the person—if I don't read
18 it correctly, perhaps that person can give us another ques-
19 tion. Do you think that any company is dumb enough to try
20 to get a permit in view of the last 20 pages of Section
21 3005?
22 My first situation is this, first of all,
23 the last 20 pages of what? Of that I'm not quite sure.
24 Section 3005 is not in draft form that has been distributed.
25 And so I don't know what you're referring to precisely.
-------
226
We have some internal kinds of working documents. The last
20 pages of the last part of that would have to do, I think,
with the public participation aspect of the permit granting
process and which are placed on us by the regulations which
have already been proposed under Section 7003, I believe it
is, of the Act, which basically requires that there be a
public hearing.
If the person who wrote this is objecting
to the fact that a public hearing will in all probability
10 be required under Section 3005, all I can say is that the
public participation aspects of the Act require that, number
12 one. And number two, I don't think there's any way you're
13 going to site a hazardous waste facility without the public
being given a chance to address it. If you do, I think
15 you'd be in a great deal of difficulty.
16 But if that's not what the person is
17 referring to, then I'd be willing to take another question
18 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: John.
19 MR. SCHAUM: Another ten to a minus eight
20 question. There are low permeability clays ten to the minus
21 six to ten to minus eight. That's just a comment. Then he
22 asks: Have you checked nationwide distribution and avail-
23 ability of extreme ten to the minus eight centimeters per
24 second material?
25 We have a contract supporting us in this
-------
227
1 area and they are working on that but it's not completed.
2 I'd like to remind though, that whoever is asking that ques-
3 tion that, remember, this regulation as written, it would
4 allow someone to do—use different clays or leachate collec-
5 tion system if they can--a leachate collection system would
6 almost always be considered adequate. But lower permeability
7 clays may also be considered adequate if they can prove it
meets our ground water objectives.
How firm is the flood plain and wet land
limitation? What if this is the only available land for on-
site disposal?
Again, the flood plain, the 100 year
flood plain, and wet land recommendations are only recommenda-
14 tions. In other words, we're recommending that sites not be
15 --be not located in these areas. But if they can be engineered
16 against, then that would be allowed. Again, they would ha.ve
17 to demonstrate the adequacy of that design.
18 If a disposal site is located such that
19 the ten feet of soil—O.K. If a disposal site is located
20 such that the ten feet of soil of ten to minus eight
21 centimeters per second is not met, is leachate collection
22 required for both vertical and horizontal seepage?
23 Yes, that would be required. Leachatis
24 collection must stop both vertical and horizontal leaking.
25 You gave us the definition of ground
-------
228
water. How do you define aquifer?
They would be the same. We're using
them as synonyms. I can't see of^^iand a reason to distingui
between them. Maybe you have further comments on that.
5 MR. BEARD: Are you recommending that
6 all hazardous wastes be incinerated above a thousand
7 degrees C or only certain hazardous wastes be burned at
8 this temperatures?
9 No, I am not recommending that all
10 hazardous wastes be burned at a thousand degrees in two
U seconds. Generally, only organics are amenable to incinera-
12 tion. We're certainly not going to tell owners and operators
'3 of facilities how to dispose, treat or store. But the
14 recommendation that we have written that you've seen is in
15 short form and we apologize. It just says a thousand degrees
in two seconds.
The way we have it at present is that
18 We recommend that you use a thousand degrees in two seconds
19 or an equivalent. And that's been subject to controversy
20 often because it1— people first react just to the thousand
21 degrees in two seconds. The equivalent allows someone to
22 come and show us, for one, that perhaps a better technology
23 is appropriate and they can demonstrate that it is. For one,
24 we have data that demonstrates that some incinerators at
25 lower temperatures for certain wastes and different retention
-------
229
times are going to do just fine. We have the data and you
might have the data.
So the equivalency will either be data
that we have on hand. Or it might be that we might have to
require a test burn. It depends on the particular technology
that you're proposing. Our familiarity, though, at the
moment is a thousand degrees in two seconds. We don't know
what temperature and retention time for fluidized bed, for
instance, would be appropriate. We don't think that they'll
10 burn all hazardous wastes.
" This equivalency also would be appropriat^
'2 for those wastes that will--the equivalency in combustion
efficiency, I should say, to a thousand degrees in two
14 II seconds, would apply to hazardous wastes that are going to
'5 || destruct at lower temperatures and retention times, so that
if you can destruct them at these lower temperatures and
17 retention times, you wouldn't have to waste fuel.
18 The second question or another question:
19 Are on-site thermal oxidizers permitted through air pollution
laws and whose scrubber waters are controlled by MPES permit
21 II controlled by RCRA?
22 I Yes, we have a requirement to coordinate
23 with the Clean Air Act. But there's nothing in the Clean
24 Air Act that will conflict with RCRA in this regard. BecauseJ
25 firstly, limits under the Clean Air Act are first enforced.
-------
230
1 And then the OSHA divided by ten.
2 I don't know if that answers that
3 person's particular question. Maybe you might want to—
4 you might want me to elaborate.
5 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: I have one. Are you
6 considering phosphates and all commercial fertilizers con-
7 taining phosphores as potential hazardous wastes because
8 some contain as much as 256 parts per million of phosphores,
9 I presume.
10 Well, this is a question that could be
11 asked: Are we considering gasoline to be a hazardous waste
12 because it's flammable under 140 degrees F. The point is, is
13 it a waste? I would not call either of these things in
14 commercial channels; they are not wastes. They are shipped
15 and used as hazardous materials and we're talking about
16 things that become wastes. So the basic answer is no.
17 If you want more elaboration, all I can
'8 say is if you had a bad batch of a fertilizer and you were
'9 going to discard it, then it could be a waste.
20 Fred.
21 MR. LINDSEY: First of all, I should
22 mention that I've gotten one or two questions that deal with
) 23 Section 3006 guidelines on states and sjtate guidelines for
> ^4 Authorization of state grograms and we will deal with them
25 tomorrow.
-------
231
1 If a company's entire feed stream is a
2 hazardous waste, but such company produces useful and usable
3 product without producing any other waste, will such company1^
4 product be subject to regulation or have the stigma of being
5 a waste subject to regulation by the EPA?
6 We're still developing that. But I'll
7 give you our position as it stands now and we're subject to
8 comment on this. First of all, let me say that if you can
9 remember back in the discussion on Section 3001, if national!^
10 no major portion, that is, something more than five percent:
11 of the waste--not more than five percent of the waste
12 material on a national basis is discarded, in other words,
13 essentially all of this kind of material nationwide is
14 recycled into some usable product, then it is not a waste.
15 O.K.
16 On the other hand, if that's not true
17 and it's simply normally a waste material or frequently a
18 waste material, which in this particular case, is being used
S~
19 as a feedAstock by some other company, then there'll be a
20 determination made. First of all, if that facility, the
21 company that's reprocessing the waste, recovers the original
22 product, it will be deemed a product recovery facility and
23 subject to obtaining a product recovery type of permit. This
24 is a special kind of permit that will be addressed tomorrow.
25 And that would be a much, much easier kind of permit to
-------
10
'2
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
| 21
22
23
24
25
232
obtain and keep.
If they're going to recover another
product, our thinking is that we'll handle that on a case by
case basis depending on what the use of that product is. If
they're going to go out and dump it on somebody's horse arena
someplace, and it represents a hazardous material or a
hazardous waste in that sense, then our thinking is that
we'll continue to regulate that and that that particular
usage will require a permit.
In the case that it's going to be a
product, either it's not hazardous, first of all, or you
were to enter commerce as another type of a product so
there's no particular kind of long£j);erm disposal sort of
hazard, like dumping it on a horse arena or a road, then we
would not require that particular operation to have a permit.
That's our thinking as of this point.
And we'd be interested in any suggestions or comments you
might have on that.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: John.
MR. SCHAUM: I have a question that reads
After you collect the leachate, do you now reenter the
regulatory cycle as a generator?
Well, if this collected leachate is a
hazardous waste, which is likely, and if the collected
leachate is being discharged from the site in a manner not
-------
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
233
permitted under the MPES system, then you would become a
generator.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Bill.
MR. SANJOUR: This is the last one of the
night, this one. If a company has an old sludge or tar pit,
possibly covered over by dirt and vegetation and the material
is hazardous, what will the company be required to do? If
monitoring is required and if leaking of hazardous material
is discovered, what will then be required?
Well, this is, if you like, a logical
extension of the questions that were asked earlier on this
subject of old sites. I think it's best to put the whole
situation — just tell you exactly where we stand on the
situation. When this lawvfas passed, we in EPA did not read
the law as applying to waste generated before the passage of
the Act but only wastes generated subsequent to the Act or
even subsequent to the writing of the regulations.
Very recently we got an oral opinion
from a representative of the General Counsel's office which
said that there's nothing in the Act that makes any refer-
ence one way or the other about when the wastes were
generated. So that there's no distinction made in the Act
between wastes generated before the passage or after the
passage. Now that was an oral opinion by a member of the
General Counsel's office, which means that it's still a very
-------
1
2
3
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'4
15
16
19
2"
21
22
24
25
234
unofficial status.
However, if that opinion stands, after
having been looked at hard, comes down in writing and holds
up, taken to its logical extension, the old sites would have
to be regulated the same way as any other site. Now we
recognize that the logical extension there is a radical,
far-reaching, has tremendous impact on American industry.
In fact, I think if it stands up, it's back to the old draw-
ing board. We have to throw the whole problem back into the
lap of Congress is my personal opinion because I don't think
we're equipped to handle that kind of problem.
But all I can tell you, that is where
matters stand right now. We're waiting for subsequent
clarification and edification of the whole subject. And I
would strongly urge you, if you have any opinions on the
subject, to send your letters in.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: We have used all of
our written questions. I'd like to give you a chance to ask
oral questions. Let me remind you, first of all though, if
you haven't registered today, we'd appreciate it if you
would. The benefit you get out of that is that we would put
you on our mailing list and you would at least be notified
when we do mass mailings of the Federal Register and other
proposed rules. So please do register if you have not
already.
-------
235-249
Does anyone have questions now orally on
what you've heard so far today?
3 Yes, sir.
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
___ 7
8
9
10
22
23
24
25
250
MR. GOULIAS: I am John Goulias, Shell
Engineering Associates. I've got a number of questions relate
to maintenance of the ambient air quality and jfltu 'me., I guess,
conflicts with the Air Group at the present time and how you
think this is all going to shape up.
John, this written statement here regarding
the ambient air for _workars .exposed, you say to disregard
that particular statement?
MR. SCHAOH: Yes.
MR. GOULIAS: So this was not meant to be
the OSHA kind of standard applicable to workers exposed eight
hours a day.
Now your application of the one-tenth of the
OSHA standard was that an in-stack monitoring requirement was
a fense line ambient air quality monitoring requirement?
How would it be applied?
MR. BEARD: The one-tenth applies to
facility. It is an ambient objection, a goal, if you will,
dur ambient goals. A precedent to this kind of thing is
mercury, for instance, for which there are goals that eventual
ly became an emission standard.
MR. GOULIAS: Right.
MR. BEARD: They would be translated into
emissions standards for an entire facility, for instance,
including an incinerator.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
251
We will provide methodologies whether they
be nomagraphs or Ambient air models of the varieties that: EPA
uses now although we don't—we think that you could provi.de
your own models if you can show us that they are going to
simulate the atmosphere better.
It is the OSHA divided by ten, OSHA 1910.100
for air contaminants.
MR. GOULIAS: Now with regard to fence line
standards, are there any recommendations regarding the amount
of land from, say, an incinerator facility required?
MR. BEARD: So as not to get—
MR. GOULIAS: Any kind of reqairement,
either maximum requirement on the amount of land from any
disposal facility?
MR. BEARD: Well, what I envision one would
want to do would be to show that the highest ground concen-
tration of an incinerator would—the point for which the
ground concentrations would be the highest, the model proposei
or the model used would not be above the ambient objectives.
I should point out though that you might
immediately think that we've got OSHA standard No. 600 divided
by 10, what an impossible request. I think it is something
akin to OSHA's regulation whereby we have the goal or the
OSHA regulation, but they don't enforce every one. There are
not 600 monitors in this room. And OSHA doesn't go out to
-------
252
every facility to monitor or requdr e that you prove each of
these particular contaminants are not above the OSHA standard.
This has to be selective and it has to be done intelligently
by enforcement and it will be.
MR. GOULIAS: Will you require then no
monitors around the facility? Can you just—
7 MR. BEARD: No, because this is an ambient
8 objective and there will not be monitors around the facility.
9 MR. SANJOUR: Can I interrupt for a moment?
10 MR. GOULIAS: Sure, go ahead.
11 MR. SANJOUR: You will be applying for a
12 permit. We will not tell you what kind of a permit to apply
13 for. It is your choice.
14 You can apply for a permit that operates
15 purely on a design and operating standard, period. It
never gets into air quality or ambient emissions at all.
17 Only if you don't choose to do that, if you
18 do something else, the whole subject of ambient air or
19 emissions quality comes into play.
20 It is your choice. We won't tell you how
2i to operate.
22 MR. GOULIAS: Let's see if I understand
23 then. John had mentioned that there were sets of standards
24 applicable here. One would be mandatory and the other would
25 be recommended regulations.
-------
253
1 MR. BEARD: Yes, you follow the recommende'd
2 regulations.
3 MR. GOULIAS: Now under the mandatory would
be tne-ambient air quality regulations?
5 MR. SANJOUR: That is mandatory. That is
the bottom line of everything.
7 However, what would be controlling your
operation is the conditions on your permit. Now if you select
9 to be regulated by an operating—by a performance—by a design
,0 and operating standard that the conditions of that design and
operating standard are to permit in your permit such as
1,000 degrees, two seconds weld at a time and certain other
L
__13 cond£ions of operating your equipment.
14 It is those operating conditions that will
be on your permit that you will be required to live up to
16 and as long as you are in compliance with the permit, the
17 whole subject of ambient air monitoring becomes academic.
18 MR. BEARD: This 1,000 degrees and two
19 seconds operating and design, that is practical technologies
20 that we understand.
21 MR. GOULIAS: Now those are recommendeid?
MR. BEARD: Those are recommended.
23 MR. SANJOUR: They are not really recommend-
24 ed. That is a misnomer.
25
They are optional in the sense that you don'
-------
1
You can, in fact, choose to be regulated
254
have to use them if you don't want them.
2
some other way. You can propose how you wish to be regulated.
3
If you don't want to take the techniques that we have tried,
4
we have evaluated, you don't have to.
5
MR. GOULIAS: No, no. I am not saying that
6
at all. What I am trying to do is understand the recommenda-
7
tions.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Suppose we do take, for example, this
1000 degrees in two seconds or an equivalent. The equivalent
could be, for example, 400 degrees in five seconds, that—I
mean, at the half a second, 2,400 degrees Fahrenheit in half
a second, 1,800 degrees in two seconds. It could be any
range assuming that we can substantiate that the affluent
coming out, that is, the air coming out through stack emission
tests meets your requirements.
MR. SANJOUR: Yes.
MR. GOULIAS: Now what I am trying to
determine is what those requirements are?
MR. BEARD: My understanding at the moment
is it would be easier to—it would be easier for you to show
that the 2,200 degrees P, one half second is equivalent to
the 1,843 degrees F, two seconds rather than try to prove that
selected pollutants are going to be—
MR. GOULIAS: So if we took, say, 1,000
-------
255
1 degrees Centigrade at two seconds, we would not be required to
2 do any testing at all, but substantiate the fact that we ares
not—that we are fulfilling the requirements1
4 MR. SANJOUR: That is correct.
, MR. BEARD: That is correct.
MR. SANJOUR: We have already predetermined
6
that they are working.
MR. GOULIAS: All right.
Now would we, in turn, be required to do
»v—10 ambient air quality monitoring under those conditions? It
would also fulfill that requirement?
12 MR. BEARD: No.
13 MR. SANJOUR: No. You would have to
14 monitor your stack emissions to determine that you are, in
15 fact, operating under those conditions
16 MR. GOULIAS: All right.
17 Now let's get into the stack monitoring.
18 The requirements for stack monitoring then John mentioned woulc
19 be carbon monoxide, the six criteria pollutants, I assume,
20 plus the seventh one that is coming along which is lead.
.. Now what else would be required in mortitor-
ing the stack?
.- MR. BEARD: That has yet to be resolved.
First of all, we would like the carbon
25 monoxide and carbon dioxide monitored to determine combustion
-------
256
efficiency. That is how we are defining combustion efficiency
the 99 percent.
3 MR. GOULIAS: All right.
4 MR. BEARD: As far as whether we are re-
quiring monitoring of the pollutants for which there is a
National Ambient Air Standard, that hasn't been resolved.
7 Because I think some should be and some shouldn't be.
8 MR. GOULIAS: What you are really requiring
is some kind of an efficiency test to demonstrate you are
10 meeting 99 percent combustion efficiency?
11 MR. BEARD: That is right.
12 MR. GOULIAS: Now are there any requirements
13 on the other pollutants such as lead, for example, by this
14 particular Act?
15 MR. BEARD: That hasn't been resolved yet.
16 MR. SANJOUR: I would think if you could
17 demonstrate that it is not in your stock then you are not goin j
18 to be required to sample for it. If you don't have lead in
19 the stuff you are putting in the incinerator, then nobody is
20 going to require you to sample for lead.
21 MR. GOULIAS: The question of sludge
22 incineration will definitely be monitored by the air group
23 within EPA? For example, let's take the question of lead and
24 sludge incineration. The OSHA standard now is approximately
25 150 and they have been talking about lowering it. At one time
-------
257
1 it was 200 micrograms per cubic meter. I think it is at 150
now. One-tenth of that would be 15.
3 MR. SANJOUR: No, no. Lead is already
4 regulated by EPA, is that right?
5 MR. GOULIAS: It is in the process.
The air quality criteria document is in
_ draft form now, but it has not been sent. O.K.?
0 MR. SANJOUR: Yes.
o
9 MR. GOULIAS: So one-tenth of it would be
10 15 micrograms per cubic meter.
MR. BEARD: I'd like to address that too.
MR.GOULIAS: Sure, go ahead.
13 MR. BEARD: That is one prime reason why we
14 wanted the stipulation that one-tenth not be locked into law.
What is different about OSHA than the American Conference of
,, Governmental Industrial Hygienists is OSHA took over the
17 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
jg and it was 1968. And they slowly evaluate each pollutant.
First NIOSH gives them criteria, then, they
2Q develop the standards. As they look over the criteria care-
2, fully on a pollutan£^>^pollutant basis, the standards seem
22 to come down. And they start approaching something perhaps
23 that we would have for human health environment.
24 Perhaps it would require something less than
3S one-tenth. A good example is carbon monoxide, for instance.
-------
10
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
258
Carbon monoxide for workers and carbon monoxide for human
health and environment is getting very close. Tha t wouldn't
require one-tenth. So we do--we would want that stipulation.
So for lead, we would want not to have a
one-tenth of value.
MR. GOULIAS: Right, because of the probable
standrad which will come out and probably be more on the order
of, say, one-thirtieth, or one-one hundreth in terms of Ambient
_air quality.
Now who will enforce that particular regula-
tion on sludge incinerators? Would that be the .air groups
within EPA?
MR. BEARD: I hadn't carefully thought out
the lead in stack question and that's why I said we hadn't
evaluated it because the_air group, for one, is going to have
to describe who is going to have to monitor and who isn't.
MR. GOULIAS: O.K.
MR. BEARD: But—so that is why I was holdinc
that in abeyance.
Ambient monitoring for lead again, we don't
propose any ambient monitoring for air any more than our
standards are ambient standards. They are ambient objectives
for which one develops an emission standard.
MR. GOULIAS: O.K., so the air groups will
still be responsible, say, for lead, mercury, the other
-------
>>2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
259
pollutants which they've already designated either under air
quality criteria documents or under other documents of some
sort?
MR. BEARD: That is correct.
MR. GOULIAS: Thanks. That clarifies it
so that in terms of developing an incinerator on a hazardous
waste disposal site,as far as you are concerned, there are
no monitoring requirements necessary as long as the incineratox
meets this—both the 99 percent combustion efficiency as
determined by stack gas monitoring measuring both carbon
dioxide and carbon monoxide as well as meeting the residence
time requirements of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit at two seconds?
MR. SAJEfOUR: If you've got heavy metals, for
example, in the stuff you are burning, then it may be necessary
to monitor for heavy metals because the combustion efficiency
is not going to affect that. I can't give you a hard arid
fast answer.
MR. GOULIAS: No, I understand. But assum-
ing that the heavy metal monitoring is required, how would
that be done?
MR. SANJOUR: I would have to ask Howard that.
MR. BEARD; As you know, the No. 3004 regs
are still in draft form and we are talking about the general
even though the recommendations that represent our view of the
best practical technology have not been given complete
-------
260
exposure.
2 And we are hoping that a draft of the No.
3 3004 and No. 3005 regs will be out by the end of the month
and they include some things other than 1000 degrees in two
5 seconds. It's not fair for me to have to say that only the
things that we discussed so far are part of the recommenda-
_ tions. Because these recommendations are a bit longer.
g For one, they require treatment before
9 incinerations.
10 MR. GOULIAS: No. I understand that it is
still in draft form. I was trying to understand how far along
.- you are in the procedure process.
13 MR. BEARD: It is still under development.
]4 MR. GOULIAS: O.K.
15 Now with regard to the establishment of the
1,800 degrees Fahrenheit in two seconds, you mentioned a nurabei
17 of tests that were conducted in order to establish this. Now
]8 are these available in some kind of documentation or are they
]9 still in draft form?
MR. BEARD: The facility by facility tests
are available. A final report is due very soon.
22 You might want to comment on that?
MR. SCHAUM: Yes. Most of those reports are
available. If you want to give us your card afterward, we'll
send them to you.
-------
1
2
, them.
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
21
22
23
24
25
261
MR. GOULIAS: Fine.
MR. SCHAUM: Or anybody else that would like
MR. GOULIAS: Fine, I appreciate that very
much.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: The reports we are dis-
cussing are we conducted over the last year and a half a
orograra where we matched eight or so industrial incineration
like process with 35 or so industrial wastes and the results
of each process are being published as an individual document
And all of our documents are available through the National
Technical Information Service in Springfield, Virginia.
So if you get their summaries, or if you
contact us, we'll direct you to them when they are available
for purchase.
MR. GOULIAS: That would be very helpful.
With regard to the question of financial
capability, I am just wondering if, in terms of the economic
impact late statements later on, John, have you incorporated
^_n0 this information into the economic impact statements so it will
be discussed tomorrow?
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: I think the basic answer
is yes and we should hold that out for tomorrow, but, yes.
MR. GOULIAS: O.K., fine. That's all I need
to know in terms, well—and the other clarification was that in
-------
262
terras of $50 million—and you mentioned twice the amount of
2 revenue. When you were talking about revenue, you were not
3 talking about yearly or annual revenue? You were talking
4 about revenue over the lifetime of the facility?
5 MR. SHANNON: Annual revenue.
6 MR. GOULIAS: Annual revenue?
7 MR. SHANNON: Right.
MR. GOULIAS: O.K.
But that subject will come up tomorrow in
greater detail?
11 MR. SHANNON: Not that particular subject
12 regarding financial responsibility.
13 MR. GOULIAS: Well, in terms of financial
14 responsibility then, have you determined that a facility
15 such as this could achieve or could obtain the equivalent of
product liability insurance through the bonding or these other
17 things that you are requiring, or the options that you are
18 suggesting be done?
19 MR. SHANNON: We are attempting to determine
20 if they can. That is part of the difficulty deciding on an
option to implement that.
22 MR. GOULIAS: But you are not certain at
23 this time whether insurance companies will—or bonding compan-
24 ies will, in fact, underwrite such policies?
25 MR. SHANNON: We are not certain.
-------
]0
,,
14
15
18
,n
19
2<}
2^
22
23
24
25
263
MR. GOULIAS: O.K.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: The studies that Mr.
Shannon is referring to are the inquiries of the insurance
industry to see if they can get into that.
MR. GOULIAS: I understand.
We trie d to get product liability insurance
before and up to certain amounts can no longer be written
and above other amounts, the cost has risen as most everyone
is aware of.
MR. LINDSEY: You experience on that might
be helpful.
MR. GOULIAS: Now in terms of emergenc
.
response plants , you mentioned both Ohemtoaak and OiuLuBS .
I am not familiar with, what is it, Omtabs,
the U.S. EPA system?
Q^ CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Well, it's a computer-
ized data^/ system that is available to our on-scene coordina-
tors at the moment. If my memory serves me correctly, it has
1,000 chemicals in it. And on each chemical, it maintains
£_
26 datt^bits. And each data bit goes from things like chem-
ical properties of that substance, how to dispose of it--that
is, how to chemically or otherwise react with that substance.
The issue at hand, of course, is that we are
talking about spilling wastes and the Omtabs and Chemtrack
Systems which are data supplied by their manufacturer, usually
-------
264
1 or for substances.
2 MR. GOULIAS: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: So the problem, when you
spill an oil laced with PCB's on the soil, what do youlsve?
MR. GOULIAS: And if you happen to choose th
wrong chemical to bring up out of the computerized system for
a waste, you can end up—
8 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Doing more damage.
9 MR. GOULIAS: —undergoing the wrong emer-
gency response
,, CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: You will be interested,
12 we have just let in the last 30 days, a contract to study
13 the various emergency response manuals and systems that are
14 available and to determine the gaps in terms of waste manage-
15 ment.
16 MR. GOULIAS: So you are surveying that now?
17 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: We are surveying. We
18 know there are a jillion systems. The point is they don't
19 tell you what to do with the waste. They tell you how to run
20 a boom and clean up the spill and gather the material. And
2i the end of the book comes before you find out the rest of the
22 story.
23 MR. GOULIAS: I see.
24 Now in terms again of the governmental
25 coordinating committee which Alan mentioned before, the Coast
-------
2(55
1 Guard is involved; DOT is not, but they could be as a fifth
2 member; Food and Drug Administration is involved; yourselves
3 and who is the other member?
4 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Consumer Products
5 Safety.
6 MR. GOULIAS: Consumer Products Safety.
~ 7 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: The Cost Guard is part.
8 of DOT. They are not involved—I mean, they—
9 MR. GOULIAS: They are not involved. So in
10 terms of their responsibilities in terms of oil spills and so
,, on they are still...
12 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: They'd be a part of the
j, DOT observation squad.
14 MR. GOULIAS: Now you mentioned that the
15 10 feet, 10 to the minus 8 centimeters per second was based
16 on ths State of Illinois information.
j. Could you give me the background on that,
18 if I understood you correctly?
1? MR. SCHAUM: The State of Illinois recommend
2Q that landfills be designed to achieve 500 year containment.
21 And by use of some formulas, 10 feet and 10 to minus 8 eenti-
»22 meters per second permea^bility work out to 500 year con-
23 tainment. That is what I meant by that.
24 MR. GOULIAS: Now was this based on Illinois
25 EPA regulations? Or was it based on U.S. EPA sponsored
-------
.
266
research at Illinois State Geological Survey by their per-
2 sonnel?
MR. SCHAUM: One reason for picking that
number is simply on the fact that there's precedent for it in
the sense that Illinois already recommended it. That was one
reason for using it.
Some of the other reasons--another reason
for using it is in our studies, we have not found any land-
fills that have used a design like that and have contaminated
ground.
MR. GOULIAS: No. I understand, but
specifically, what was the State of Illinois recommendation?
Was it the State Environmental Protection Agency?
MR. SCHAUM: Yes.
MR. GOULIAS: O.K., that's all I wanted to
know. Because, in fact, U.S. EPA has sponsored numerous
leachate studies as wall as emergency response plans with the
State Geological Survey with their grounds/water geologists
going. And he has a little different idea in terms of the
various—he has look at over 100 land pollution incidents which
occurred in terms of problems. And he has a little different
idea in terms of the amount of clays and so on required.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Who is the he you are
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
22
23
24
25
referring to?
MR. GOULIAS: Dr. Karras Cartwright, Ground
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
267
Water Geologist, Illinois State Geological Survey.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: I don't want to cut you
off, but there was a gentleman waiting patiently behing you.
Why don't we give him a chance and you can come back?
MR. GOULIAS: I apologize to everyone. But
my questions are very real because we are trying to develop
a permit for a hazardous disposal facility.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: I think everyone thinks
they are very thoughtful. I just wanted to give this other
man a chance here.
MR. PRICE: My name is Don Price. I am from
the Chicago Area.
I have kept track and watched the develop-
ment of the proposed .regulations ovar the last year and as
this thing kind of shapes out, you recognize the most diffi-
cult problem will be the siting of the facilities.
All I can say is a recommendation on the
term hazardous we started with and it has continued to carry
on. If somehow hacking back to those states will develop
their own regulations, if they would be allowed to have the
ability to really come up with terms like special wastes,
really low-key the emotional impact of the word hazardous.
This is a very real thing. People are shaking their heads in
agreement. This is our recommendation.
MR. IiINDSEY: Thanks for that comment.
-------
268
I guess your question is will states be
allowed to do that? And the answer is yes. They can call it
what they want.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Someone else?
4
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I am Forest Kirkpatrick
from Black and Veatch Engineers.
6
It concerns me that ground water and aquifer
are being considered synonomous and also that the definition
8
of usable water is based only on periphyton contents
which is very high and it wouldn't be very usable water.
It is true that aquifers contain
11 >
«ateg, but aquifers have another characteristic and that is
-712
that they are open enough that a well can be drilled in them
' J
and they will produce a usable quantity of water.
14
There are many sites where tie soils are so
tight and they also contain ground^water, in fact, the packing
>16
soils which make them desirable as disposal sites also make
them contain water. But it would be impossible to develop
18
a usable quantity of water from such sites.
I think if we ruled out sites just because
20
they contained grounq^Jwater without any consideration for
where—for how that water can be used will eliminate a lot of
22
good disposal sites.
MR. SCHAUM: Agencies will be able to
24
designate other ajuifers as unusuable other than the ones that
-------
269
over 10,000 milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids.
In order to do that, they would have to
prove that they are not usable or potential drinking water
sources and they would have to give public notice ad hold
4
public hearings and have the approval of the EPA Administrei-
tor.
6
So if a state or agency can make a good
case for doing that, designating an aquifer as unusable, why,
8
they it can be done.
MR. SANJOUR: Let me make two additional
10
comments in that area and that is, there are lots of pesople
who are drinking purged water, households. And also, the
rate of flow that would be considered insignificant or in-
consequential in the East is the very lifeblood of soma people
in the West. So I don't know of any rate of flow that is too
small for practical use somewhere.
16
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Any other questions?
Yes, sir.
18
MR. PALLANICH: I am Paul Pallanich from
19
Mobay Chemical Corporation.
The present levels of sludge and so forth
seem to be one of the things that brings sludges and so forth
into the categories of hazardous wastes.
I am wondering if the disposal of heavy
24
metals, chromplated materials and copper containing materials,
-------
270
1 if this is going to cause these materials to have to go to
2 the hazardous wastes landfill or whatever?
3 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: If I understand your
4 question, and you can correct me, I think we are getting at
5 the nature of the kind of leaching tests we are going to use.
6 In other words, if you had a chromplated
7 bumper, for example, if the leaching test,that we ended up
8 to try and get such solids into a solution so we could test
9 thenj were using distilled water, as we mentioned this morning,
10 then it is not likely that you'd get any chrom out when you
11 leached the bumper.
12 MR. PALLANICH: The analytical option of
13 analyzing the waste as a whole.
14 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: O.K., but you—I think
15 the same logic applies. You have to get solids into a solu-
16 tion and the way you could do that would be you could use the
17 same leaching test.
18 So even if you went the analytic option—
19 MR. PALLANICH: You say that if it has been-
20 if it is an inside material, it is not going to be considered
21 from the standpoint?
22 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Yes, because we are try-
23 inc to recognize chemical fixation type processes which can
24 do just that, which can lock up in some kind of material, and
25 they are not available.
-------
1
7
•7*
9
10
CHAIRMAN KOBALICK: Anyone else? Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: I am Charley Wilson from
Milwaukee.
4
You know those questions were kind of leading
ones and I apologize and ask the indulgence of the audience.
I was the one that asked the one on parts per million in
cad/n/l
phosphate and it wasn't phosphorous. I left out toyalum
purposely because I can't write the word anymore.
12
right.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
25
271
MR. PALLANICH: Thank you.
flow there are as much as 256 parts per
6Q.elfniu.fr)
million of tagniinn in phosphate rock. And all I am trying to
get over here, I think, is, you know, what is kind of fair etnd
Earlier this afternoon or this evening, I
think I got the impression that your guilty because it is
there no matter what rate you apply it. So I would jus,t like
the EPA to know that we are not alone in having fcagMLum in a
product, O.K.?
So maybe they shouldconsider other sources
If they are going to condemn nMMp*«U:e as a hazardous wastes
because it has 70 parts per million of tagn4«m, what are they
going to do to the 256 parts per million phosphate rock that:
grows all the lettuce we eat from now until next summer some
time when we start growing our own back in this part of the
country.
-------
272
1 That was a statement, I guess.
2 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: I know Bill would like
3 to comment on that and maybe you would like to stay and...
MR. SANJOUR: The phosphate fertilizer is no
5 a waste. Now perhaps it should be regulated, if in fact, the
6 tagnium from phosphate fertilizer gets into our lettuc^crop.
7 But it cannot be regulated under this Act. There is no auth-
ority to do so.
MR. WILSON: Is milorganite -(ptaMtem) a
1° waste?
11 MR. SANJOUR: Yes.
12 MR. WILSON: Why? What distinguishes one
13 from the other.
MR. SANJOUR: The «M£ sludge, that is waste
15 MR. WILSON: How about tailings from rock
phosphate mines?
MR. SANJOUR: Those are wastes.
18 MR. WILSON: Those are wastes. They would be
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: But you missed—I hope
20 yOU didn't miss this morning that mining and milling wastes
21 are one of the ones that were selected for postponement, do
22 you remember? And after we finish the study under Section
i
No. 8002 which is due within one year of the Act, within six
months after that, we have to take action either to regulate
25 mining and milling wastes or not.
-------
273
The reason had to do with the fact we know
very little about the mineral mining industry.
We know a lot about the metals mining
industry.
So it is possible that 18 months or two
years from now we would again address the mining and milling
, wastes of the kind you are describing. Some of them are
radioactive, by the way.
MR. WILSON: Really, I am not trying to
make, you know, two wrongs to make a right. I don't think
there is any damage at all from the phosphate rock that is
12 used out in the West to grow lettuce, O.K.?
13
But I am saying again that we have got to
14 take into consideration, not just the percent that is in a
15 produce, but the rate it is being applied to the land.
. And the way we feel that we have been abused
17 and misused is where the Department of Agriculture has
lg applied milorgahite at 25 tons per acre in one application,
lg 80 tons per acre in one application.
2Q They can't even grow anything on the land
21 for two years after they do this. Are you aware of this?
just because of the nitrogen content of the product.
You know, you could, well, an inch of water
24 a week will grow a good crop, three inches you are in trouble.
That is a factor of three. You double it again and you kill
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
274
everybody under the underpasses in Kansas City, right?
So anything could be misused is what we are
talking about. And I really think, really, that you should
always consider rate of application any time you are talking
about percent because it is meaningless. It only means part
of a hundred and it doesn't mean anything until you say how
much you are going to put on a given square inch, a given
acre or whatever of land.
MR. SANJOUR: Well, I guess our regulations
will be addressed not so much to rate of application as to
uptake. If there is no uptake there is no problem.
MR. WILSON: But you are going to get a big
uptake when you grossly misapply a product, right? This is
slugging it.
MR. SANJOUR: The regulations will be aimed
at uptake. In other words, if there is no uptake, then you
can apply as much as you want to, if there is no uptake.
MR. WILSON: I don't think you understand
my point on this.
In other words, if you misuse the product
you are going to get more uptake than if you apply it at the
rate, you know, the nitrogen level is needed to grow in the
crop, if you will. Then your uptake is negligble , whether is
is the phosphate rock, or...
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Well, I think we have al!
-------
,
2
3
4
5
,3
14
15
20
22
23
25
that—
275
MR. WILSON: We are being condemned o.n these
excessive rates is what I am saying. And all sludges are.
They are being misused.
In other words, you know, you folks in EPA
want to find ways to apply sludge to the land, right? And
some of us have been in business for years doing this, we
think, in a rather nice way.
But if we have got some people out here in
the boonies someplace or other misusing it, you know, nobody
is every going to buy it.
Now I don't know what the next step is, I
guess it is flushless Tuesdays, that is all I can figure.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Well, I think we have a
sense — well, we have more than a sense. We know your concern.
It is on the record. And please, don't consider the WE tter
closed here. We would like to consider this opening up
channels and you know what our phone numbers are if you didn't
know us before.
Yes, sir?
&
~.j MR.KUNKBB: I am George Kunk«, Jones and.
Henry Engineers.
I offered the question that dealt with
direction of grouncQwater movement. I think that that should
be one of the criterras as well as thickness of the barrier
-------
1
II have seen state regulations which deal with thickness and
9C
with permeability and which, in fact,the grounoywater is movin*
4 ii into the landfill and not out of it. I think the direction of
s
-1
.. to protect aquifers.
1
As an example, some of the hard problems
develop from landfills and groundnwater comtamination—I have
been involved personally in a case where we have documented
Or
H at least to my satisfaction a change in groundnwater qualities
I due to the movement of gases in which case the landfill be-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
276
as well as permeability of the barriers. In many cases, I
g^
groundnwater movement should be considered if you are trying
came an n»ehie site «cbe and actually sucked in oxygen from
J^
II the groundnwater and created a reducing environment in the
aquifer beneath.
This changed a high sulfate water into a
sulfate reducing condition that caused black water beneath
n^ifer
the ocxftn.. There was no actual transfer of a contaminant
but yet the quality of the water was changed and would require
additional treatment for use.
You had mentioned that septage -faiM&aUc:)
probably would be exempted in the same manner that solid waste
from households would be exemptage.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Homeowners' septage.
MR. KUNKEL: Homeowners' septage.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Homeowner*', not
-------
277
1 industrial.
/C.
2 MR. KUNKHt: All right.
3 The question is would the transportation
4 of the septage and ultimate disposal of it be regulated?
5 Homeowners as a generator are being exempted, but what about
, the transportation of homeowners' disposal?
7 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: What we are trying to
>l V
8 do, of course, is to prevent the honey wagon from going
o around and going to both homeowners and industrial septic
3ce**
-------
278
1 CHAIR!IAN KOVALICK: Are there any other
comments from the floor? I would like to—oh, yes, sir?
3
While you are coming to the microphone, I
would like to read tha names of people who have said they
would like to give oral statements and give them the opportun-
6 ity to do that both tonight and also tomorrow. But let me
read their names in case they would like to get ready this
evening.
9
Betty rfilson of the League of Women Voters,
Webster Groves, Missouri; Scott Miller of the Illinois EPA;
Robert Alderson of Vaxhaul Corporation, Kansas City, Kansas;
C. L. Robertson of Ensco, Eldorado, Arkansas and Glen Getting-
13
er. Midwest Oil Refinery of St. Louis.
14
If any of you would like to make a statement
tonight, we would like to have you do that after this
gentleman.
Yes. s ir.
18
MR. MORGAN: My name is Jim Morgan, an
19
attorney from Madison, Wisconsin,, I represent the Liquid
Waste Carriers in Wisconsin and several solid waste industries
21
in Wisconsin.
22
My first few comments, I would hope that we
would not use the term, honey wagon and we would not use the
24
term hazardous in the future. We are liquid waste carriers.
25
My second comment would be I have served on
-------
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
279
the Wisconsin Legislative Council Hazardous and Toxic Waste
Committee. We did not change the name. I am sorry and we
should have.
I would comment to the comments that were
made to perpetual care, long-term care. It's got several
names. I have heard the terms bonds, insurance policies,
liability policies.
I attempted when we studied this in Wisconsii
to call one of the larger insurance companies in Wisconsin. I
said, we have a small problem and would like a bond, call it
what you like. And it is a small problem. We need it for
400 or 500 years. I haven't heard from him. The last I heard
he was still on the floor laughing at me.
Some of the things we are talking about in
terms of long-term care, they come down to what we in Wisconsin
felt would probably be a tipping fee of some sort and I believi
you are on that track now in your research. Well, I hope that
type of thing will continue because in our zeal to inact a
federal mandate here, I think we find ourselves in the
incongrous position of imposing civil standards on the industry
which, by the same token, will pull a lot of them out. And
on the other side of the coin, we are saying we will need a lot
more. It is going to be a very difficult balance to keep.
I don't envy your job in wrestling with those
problems.
-------
280
But I lave one question as a result of all
of this and that is this I believe I heard April of '78 we
(LlMi.
were going to see some rules. And I believe I IE ard amhjla
ago that we were going to see some rules a year from now. And
my question is this are we prepared in this country, and
certainly is the EPA prepared, to bite the bullet and come up
with a bad set of rules based on that which we do not know?
Or has there been thought by the EPA in asking for some time
extensions to come up with some valid answers?
10 It appears to me from what I am hearing—and
11 I am not putting anybody down—but that there is more we don't
12 know than we do kna? at this point.
13 And has there been thought to some type of
14 interim policy before we get to the major rules so that we
15 don't have bad examples or in my opinion, create complete and
16 utter chaos a year from now?
17 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Well, the—first of all,
18 we recognize that 18 months is not very long also. Of course,
19 we don't set those rules as you know. And we do have an
20 opportunity and it turns out to be roughly every six months
21 when Congress calls us in, the committees of Congress and asks
22 for a report on how things are going. We had such a session ii
23 April. Of course, we were just getting under way then. And
24 we expect very soon to be called back up to the Hill to report
25 on how we are doing.
-------
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
281
In addition, the committees are—have
requested—as a matter of fact, the law says we must send them
drafts of everything that we send out for public scrutiny.
So they are getting more and more aware of the things that we
don't know—the ones you are citing—as well as the things
that we do.
So I think—I must say this evening we have
focused more on things we don't know. I happen to beliesve we
know a lot about transportation regulations, as a matter of
fact, most that we need to know. And we know a lot about
ways in which to get states to be involved in this program.
So I think our strategy at the moment is to—
first of all, let me straighten out the dates. The things
that we are going to hopefully finalize next April, May, June
then become effective six months later. So if everything was
finalized in June, the presumed effective date is December then
of '78.
But as you pointed out, everything isn't
going to click into action then because some subject may not
be finished. And so what we may have, as an example in this
set of regulations, is a fairly comprehensive look at the
environmental, the contigency plan, the emergency plan portions
of the regs and have to go with what you suggest, some kind of
interim measures to deal with long-term care where there is a
great deal of uncertainty.
-------
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
282
I don't think we are planning to go to
Congress and say we can't do—since we can't do it all, we are
not going to do anything. As one of my colleagues said, the
best is the enemy of the good.
And so what we usually do in these cases—
and if you have followed some of EPA's problems in No. 3007(a)
o
toxic pollutant regs which have never come out, we have been
three years working on them—we do those things—the difficult
immediately and the impossible takes awhile, of course.
And I think that is the case here. We are
going to try and do what we do know in the April to June time
frame and as you suggest, probably have some interim measures
to get us out into the future.
MR. MORGAN: I am glad that is being
thought about. I feel a lot better knowing we will maybe have
something in the interim.
I was looking at the Act and seeing it
talked about some very specific type constraints. That is
why I asked the question how you proposed to overcome that if
you had to.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Thank you.
Any other?
I think I will move to these persons who
indicated they might want to make a statement. I will give
them the same opportunity at the close of day tomorrow.
-------
283
Is Betty Wilson from the League of Women
Voters present and does she wish to give a statement now?
3 (No response.)
4 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: I don't see her.
5 Mr. Scott Miller from the Illinois EPA, do
you wish to give your statement now?
MR. MILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: No.
9 Mr. Robert Alderson of Vaxhaul, Kansas City,
10 Karas?
MR. ALDERSON: When I registered, I request-
12 ed the opportunity to submit data within a reasonable time
13 What would you propose is a reasonable time?
14 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: As Jack Lehman mentioned
)5 this morning, I think by the beginning of next week if you wan
it in the printed record of this meeting.
17 Obviously, anything you send us will be i.n
18 the docket that the public could inspect. But anything by,.
say, Monday or Tuesday would then go to the printer and be
20 in the printed version.
21 I am sorry, you did say only a submission,
22 so excuse me.
23 That is also true for Mr. Robertson.
24 So the other person that wanted to possibly
25 make a statement was Mr. Gettinger of Midwest Oil, did you
-------
28
1 want—
2 MR. GETTINGER: That also qualifies for me.
3 I want to submit a written statement after the meeting.
4 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Good, collect your
5 thoughts?
6 MR. GETTINGER: Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN KOVALICK: Thank you very much.
8 I would like to adjourn the meeting for this
9 evening and we will reconvene tomorrow morning at 8:00 o'clock
10 for registration, 8:30 we will begin the Section No. 3005
11 which is the permit regulations.
12 (Whereupon, at 9:15 o'clock p.m.,
13 October 13, 1977, the hearing in the above-
14 entitled matter was recessed until 8:30 o'clock
15 a.m., October 14, 1977.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
285 - 295
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CERTIFICATE
II
9
10 II I, DAVID L. ARGIE, do certify that I appeared
at the time and place first hereinbefore set forth;
12 that I took down in stenomask the entire proceedings
13 had at said time and place; and that the foregoing
Pages 1 through 295 constitute a true, correct and
15 I complete transcript of my said stenomask notes.
16
17
18
19 I, ,«../'
, , - - L <--
20
ti REPORTER
21
22
23
24
25
-------
STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ON BEHALF OF VACSOL CORPORATION
(To Be Included In Record Of Proceedings Of The Public Meeting
Held In St. Louis, Missouri, October 13 and 14, 1977,
On Hazardous Waste Management Guidelines/Regulations, Pursuant To
Subtitle C Of Resource Conservation And Recovery Act Of 1976)
I am W. Robert Alderson, Vice President of Vacsol Corporation,
which owns the rights to several pending patent applications
and the supporting technology for a process of re-refining of
used oil. This process is currently being utilized by Coral
Refining Corporation, a used oil re-refinery in Kansas City,
Kansas, and negotiations are in progress for the construction
of several additional re-refineries using this process.
Vacsol1s re-refining process (styled as the O'Blasny Process)
is a continuous flow method of re-refining used oil which
achieves significant environmental advantages over other exist-
ing re-refining methods. Because the O'Blasny Process depends
upon the mechanical separation of contaminants from used oil
and does not require the use of any solvent pretreatment of the
used oil and, more importantly, does not require the use of
acid to remove the contaminants, re-refineries using the O'Blasny
Process do not generate any hazardous waste. In fact, the
O'Blasny Process does not generate any significant amount of
waste, whatsoever.
Because used oil constitutes the feedstream utilized by re-refin-
-------
eries employing the O'Blasny Process of re-refining, Vacsol
Corporation is concerned about the potential effect on the
supply of used oil of regulations to be adopted by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency to implement Subtitle C of
P.L. 94-580 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976),
and I offer the following comments for your consideration in
preparing these regulations.
1. The most important point that I want to make with respect
to the regulations being drafted by the EPA to implement Sub-
title C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
is that great care should be given in drafting these regula-
tions not to subvert or dilute the other expressed purposes
of Congress in enacting this legislation. Specifically, sub-
section (c) of Section 1002 of the RCRA expresses the congres-
sional intent with respect to resource recovery and conservation.
In that subsection. Congress has recognized that valuable, use-
able materials can be recovered from solid waste and that the
recovery and conservation of such materials "can reduce the de-
pendence of the United States on foreign resources and reduce
the deficit in its balance of payments." In addition. Subtitle
E of RCRA directs the Secretary of Commerce to stimulate broader
resource recovery technologies and to encourage' the development
of markets for recovered materials.
Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but it is apparent that the
recovery of high quality lubricating oils from used oil is pre-
-2-
-------
cisely the type of resource recovery envisioned by Congress.
In fact, under P.L. 94-163 (Energy Policy and Conservation
Act) Congress specifically has encouraged (1) the recycling
of used oil, (2) the use of recycled oil, (3) reducing con-
sumption of new oil by promoting increased utilization of re-
cycled oil and (4) reducing environmental hazards and wasteful
practices associated with the disposal of used oil. Further,
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the Environmental
Protection Agency is vested with certain duties and responsi-
bilities with respect to achieving these objectives. Therefore,
I strongly urge that the EPA insure that the regulations promul-
gated to implement Subtitle C of RCRA are consonant with the
stated congressional objectives concerning resource recovery and,
specifically, with respect to used oil.
2. I also want to express Vacsol Corporation's concern with
respect to the identification of hazardous wastes pursuant to
Section 3001 of the RCRA. In particular, I strongly urge classi-
fying the acid-sludge produced in an acid/clay re-refining process
as the hazardous waste that it is. Admittedly, if environmentally
sound re-refining technology were not in existence, resource re-
covery considerations might compel a closer scrutiny of this en-
vironmental hazard. However, substantial progress has been made
in the last few years in developing alternative re-refining pro-
cesses which reduce the detrimental environmental effects of the
acid-clay process.
-3-
-------
Similarly, Vacsol Corporation does not view the identification
of used oil as a hazardous waste as having any unfavorable
effect directly upon the operation of a used oil re-refinery.
In fact, Vacsol Corporation supports the identification of used
oil as a hazardous waste in the regulations promulgated under
Section 3001 of the RCRA, but I also want to urge the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to weigh carefully the unique charac-
ter of waste oil, as a particular class of hazardous waste, in
the promulgation of regulations to implement subsequent sections
of Subtitle C.
In drafting these regulations, it should be recognized that a
vast quantity of used oil (an estimated one billion gallons
annually) is collected from an equally sizeable number of rela-
tively small businesses. Secondly, used oil is distinct from
most other waste materials in that the generator of used oil is
paid a reasonable price by used oil collectors for the acquisi-
tion of the used oil, whereas generators of most other types of
waste materials must pay to have such waste material removed
from their premises. Finally, used oil represents the source
of valuable natural resourceswhich can be recovered and reused,
and in this connection I want to suggest the applicability of
my previous comments regarding the statutorily expressed congres-
sional policies regarding resource recovery and used oil recy-
cling.
With these considerations in mind, I want to suggest specific
-4-
-------
objectives for the regulations to be promulgated under Sub-
title C. First, I support the proposal to create a separate
classification of hazardous waste generators to include "small
generators," and I urge that this particular class of generators
be established on the basis of a volume of hazardous waste gen-
erated that will include service stations, garages, automobile
dealers and other businessmen who comprise the vast majority of
used oil generators. It is my understanding that the purpose of
establishing such classification is to recognize the relatively
small volume of hazardous waste generated by these businesses
and to correspondingly lessen the burden of their regulation.
If this is not accomplished on behalf of used oil generators, I
am seriously concerned that these businessmen will be overwhelmed
by the regulatory process.
In furtherance of this particular objective, I also want to urge
that the regulatory burdens imposed on hazardous waste generators
be substantially lessened for the generator of used oil who dis-
poses of his "hazardous waste" by having it transported to a
"materials recovery facility." Implicitly, therefore, I am in
support of the proposal to create a subclassification of "re-
source recovery facilities" to be styled as "materials recovery
facilities." As I understand this proposal, it, too, would al-
leviate the regulatory burden imposed on the generator of a
hazardous waste which contains a recoverable resource, if such
hazardous waste is transported to a facility which, in fact, re-
covers such resource. I think that this is essential if the
-5-
-------
congressional mandates regarding resource recovery and used
oil recycling are to be realized.
My underlying concern is that the relatively small business-
men who generate used oil in the course of their businesses
will be discouraged from continuing to generate this recover-
able resource if regulations become too burdensome. It is an
established fact that the number of small businesses (e.g.,
service stations) which provide motor oil changes for automo-
biles is declining. If the regulations promulgated under the
RCRA become too oppressive, I foresee a further decline, and
the environmentally sound disposal of used oil will be thwarted
as a result.
I do not believe that "dilution is the solution to pollution,"
particularly where the pollutant is a potentially recoverable
natural resource. If fewer businesses provide motor oil changes
for automobiles in a manner which can be reasonably controlled,
it will encourage the disposal of used oil in a manner which is
detrimental to the environment. That is, if an increasing num-
ber of people change the motor oil in their own automobiles,
there will be no way to regulate effectively the disposal of the
used oil generated thereby.
I understand that one of the provisions proposed for inclusion
in these regulations is the exemption of wastes generated by
households. Certainly, the used oil generated by an individual
-6-
-------
who changes the motor oil in his own automobile would fall
into this classification. Therefore, the disposal of this
used oil would be uncontrolled, and it would find its way
into sewer systems, landfills, backyards and waterways. Even
though the dispersal of this pollutant would be "diluted,"
such disposal practices are, nonetheless, detrimental to the
environment, and the loss of a potentially recoverable resource
is even more significant.
3. Finally, Vacsol Corporation wants to be on record as sup-
porting the opposition of the re-refining industry to the burn-
ing of used oil. When used oil is burned as fuel, the contami-
nants contained therein become pollutants of the ambient air,
which also is the subject of congressional concern in the RCRA,
as well as other federal acts administered by the EPA. Further,
the burning of used oil as a fuel represents an unwarranted dis-
position of a potentially recoverable natural resource, which
can be viewed as contrary to congressional policies regarding
resource recovery. The irretrievable loss of lubricating oil
resulting from such burning is magnified by the fact that not
all crude oils can produce a significant percentage of high
quality lubricating oil.
In addition, it is significant to note that the burning of used
oil as fuel represents a tremendous loss of energy. This fact
was substantiated in a report prepared for the Resource Recovery
Division, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U. S. En-
-7-
-------
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., by the
Energy and Environmental Engineering Division, Teknekron, Inc.,
Berkeley, California. (See A Technical and Economic Study of
Waste Oil Recovery, Part IV: Energy Consumption in Waste Oil
Recovery.) The conclusion of this report was that the total
energy lost by burning used lubricating oils and the replace-
ment of such lubricating oils by crude oil refining is greater
than the amount of energy required to re-refine such used oils,
thereby reducing the amount of virgin lubricating oil production,
In terms of monetary savings, based on then current crude oil
prices, this report also found that:
"Re-refining the 221 million gallons per year of
waste crankcase oils burned as fuel plus the 290
million gallons (1972 volumes) disposed of by
methods not involving energy recovery would result
in an annual savings of at least 1.5 million barrels
of crude oil equivalent. This is equal to an annual
savings of fuel oil expense and currency outflow for
foreign crude of about $18 million." (Page 1)
Notwithstanding the detrimental environmental effects and nega-
tive conservation consequences of burning used lubricating oils,
Vacsol Corporation recognizes that it would be impractical to
prohibit immediately the burning of used oil. An immediate ban
on the burning of used oil would create an enormous amount of
waste oil to be disposed of as a hazardous waste; and at this
point in time, the re-refining industry does not have sufficient
capacity to re-refine all of the used oil being generated, which
would promote environmentally detrimental methods of disposing
of the used oil. Even though the burning of used oil as a fuel
is an undesirable practice, it still represents a usage of used
-------
oil that is far superior to the other alternative methods of
disposal.
Nevertheless, despite the practical fact that the burning of
used oil cannot be prohibited at this time, plus the question-
able authority of the EPA to do so under RCRA, the regulations
promulgated to implement Subtitle C of the RCRA certainly should
not promote an increase of this practice. In recognition of
this objective, I support the proposal to distinguish between
"materials recovery" and "reuse of a hazardous waste" in the
regulations drafted to control the disposal of hazardous wastes.
Under this proposal, the disposition of a hazardous waste would
be facilitated if such waste were accepted by a materials re-
covery facility, as opposed to a facility which merely accom-
plishes the reuse of a hazardous waste. Thus, the recycling of
used oil into lubricating oil and other useful byproducts would
be encouraged, while there would be no stimulus for increased
burning of used oil.
I also suggest that, since the processing of used oil for sub-
sequent sale as a fuel is merely the reuse of a hazardous waste,
all purchasers of such fuel be required to obtain a permit as
hazardous waste treatment facilities. The processing of used
oil to be burned as a fuel does nothing to remove the hazardous
contaminants contained in the used oil, and businesses which
use it as a fuel should be regulated, so as to control the
emission of such contaminants as hazardous pollutants of the
-9-
-------
ambient air. It is reasonable to view this utilization of used
oil as a means of disposing of a hazardous waste, and it should
be regulated as such.
I appreciate very much the opportunity of presenting the fore-
going comments. The other officers of Vacsol Corporation and I
stand ready to provide any additional information or assistance
that may be needed in the process of developing reasonable regu-
lations to carry out the provisions of Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Alderson
Vice President
Vacsol Corporation
-10-
-------
297
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
PUBLIC MEETING
ON
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES/REGULATIONS
PURSUANT TO SUBTITLE C
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT of 1976
(PUBLIC LAW 94-580)
October 14, 1977
Khorasson Room
Chase Park Plaza Hotel
212 North Kings Highway
St. Louis, Missouri 63108
-------
298
PANEL MEMBERS
JOHN P. LEHMAN, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (HWMD)
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
WALTER W. KOVALICK, JR., Chief
Guidelines Branch, HWMD
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
WILLIAM SANJOUR, Chief
Assessment and Technology Branch, HWMD
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
ALFRED W. LINDSEY, Chief
Implementation Branch, HWMD
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
\l '
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
4
INDEX
Chairman Sanjour
Sam Morekas
Program Manager, Assistance Program,
Implementation Branch, HWMD,
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
Question & Answer Period (Cards)
Matt Straus
Environmental Engineer, Assistance Program,
Implementation Branch, HWMD,
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
Scott Miller
Question & Answer Period (Cards)
Afternoon Session
Chairman Lindsey
Timothy Fields
Program Manager, Technology Program,
Assessment and Technology Branch, HWMD,
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
Question & Answer Period (Cards)
Question & Answer Period (Oral)
Michael Shannon
Program Manager, Policy Analysis Program,
Implementation Branch, HWMD,
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
Question & Answer Period (Cards)
Question & Answer Period (Oral)
Request for Statements
Case Examples
Close
299
PAGE
300
300
308
370
383
381!
442
442
443
457
487
488
499
507
524
525
549
-------
300
1 PROCEEDINGS!
2 CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: Good morning!
0/V*K
-£73 I'm glad to see some jrou yum stayed
4 around. If any of you haven't registered, just check In
5 at the desk. We would like to have your name and your
6 company.
7 Jack Lehman had to go home, back to
8 Washington, last night. I'll be sharing the session this
9 morning. My name is William Sanjour, the gentleman next
PreJ.
_»10 to me is toon Lindsey and the next is Walt Kovalick.
11 As I recall, the procedure we are
12 going to follow to have the agenda: We will first have
13 a speaker from EPA speak on one section of the Act, start-
14 ing with Section 3005, and then if there is anyone who
15 wants to give a presentation, you will be allowed to do
16 so, a five minute presentation, then we will ascertain
17 written questions, and if time allows, we will have oral
18 questions after that.
19 The first speaker this afternoon will
20 be Mr. Sam Morekas, who will speak on Section 3005 of
21 RCRA, which deals with the conditions for granting permits.
22 MR. MOREKAS: Thank you.
23 Good morning, everyone!
24 For those of you trying to spell ray name
25 it1s M-o-r-e-k-a-s.
-------
301
1 As Bill indicated my topic is Section
2 3005 of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, whose
3 title is "Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal of
«_.
_=*4 Hazardous Waste."
5 I'll follow the same process that the
6 speakers used yesterday. And covering briefly the require-
7 ments of the Act—and you do have that in your hand outs--
8 and discuss the prospective contents of the regulation
9 implementing that section of the Act. And then discuss
10 some of the unresolved issues that are still facing us.
11 Briefly the section, Section 3005(a)
12 certs that any person owning or operating a facility
a-
—p 13 for treatment, storage, or disposal of haz.erdous waste
14 is required to have a permit. And we are obviously writing
15 the regulations to indicate how this is to be done.
16 The regulations again, as indicated
17 yesterday, will take affect six months after they are
18 published in final form.
19 Section 3005(b) outlines the informa-
20 tion that is required to be submitted with each application
21 and is to include: estimate of composition, quantities, and
a—
—a 22 concentration of hazardous waste, the time, frequency, or
23 rate of treatment, transport, storage,or disposal, and
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ft 302
Section 3005(c) authorizes the jidminisi-
trator to issue or to modify permits in compliance with
requirements of Section 3004 standard that were discussed
yesterday evening. For any modifications to permits a
time period shall be identified for how long these modi-
fications are--or how long an applicant will need to per-
form the modifications.
Section 3005 (d) authorizes the _adminis-
trator to revoke a permit for noncompliance with any of
the standards under Section 3004 or 3005.
Section 3005 (e) authorizes the grant-
ing of interim status or interim permits for those facil-
ities that existed prior to the passage of the Act in
October of 1976, who have notified EPA in accordance with
Section 3010 that will be discussed this afternoon, and
who have applied for a permit under this section.
Now those facilities, that I just
described, will be considered as having a permit until
such time as final administrative action is completed on
their pending applications.
I would like to get in now into the
prospective contents of the regulations. One of the first
things that we are attempting to do- -and I must say that
it is not totally worked out yet — is to develop those
specific—a specific language, if you will, that will
-------
303
1 integrate any requirements under this section of the Act
2 with requirements that either exist now under other en-
^"~
^3 vironmental laws, such : The Federal Wa^ber Pollution
4 Control Act, The Clean Air Act, The Safe Drinking Water
5 Act, Pesticides Act. And try to avoid the duplication
6 that may occur because of the same facilities requiring
7 one, two, or three permits.
8 So that work in ongoing. We are work-
9 ing as closely as we can with the other offices of EPA
10 that have responsibility for those laws to make sure that
11 we work out those arrangements that will avoid the dupli-
12 cation. And where possible to integrate any require-
13 ment that can be integrated.
14 Briefly, generally stated, all facil-
or *#»-fi/V£.
15 ities--whether oigpite nrfn flffiil'' of the point of genera-
' O_
^i6 tion--that either treat, store, or dispose hazardous waste
17 will require a permit in accordance. And will be issued
18 in accordance with the standards that will be published
19 under Section 3004.
20 Now we do recognize that there are
21 some cases or situations that exemptions to this general
22 rule must be made in order to make the program function
23 properly. And so far we have identified the following
24 categories that will not require permits under Section
25 3005 r
-------
304
1 Sanitary landfills that do not accept
2 manifested waste—as described yesterday under the require -
3 ments of Section 3002—will not require permits under this
4 section.
5 Hospitals or other health care facili-
6 ties that either store or treat on site--by treatment I
7 mean either autoclaving or some type of pathological
8 incinerator on the premises and that are under some type
9 of state regulation--will not require a permit under this
-?10 .section.
!, And storage facilities that store
12 hazardous wastes for a period of 90 days or less would
13 not require a permit as we, I believe, discussed yester-
14 dfly-
15 We are developing a category that we
16 are for the time calling special permits that will have
17 either reduced requirements than the—what's called the
18 general permit or will receive expedited handling. And
19 these categories that we have are for the research re-
2Q covery facility that I believe we discussed pretty much
21 at length yesterday. For those facilities that receive
22 waste either for storage treatment or disposal that
23 resulted from the emergencies that again we discussed
24 yesterday--when you have an accidental occurrence.
25 We are developing these special permits
-------
305
1 to handle those type of facilities that happen to be near-
2 by that the person who was in charge of the on the scene
3 coordinator deemed it necessary for protection of public
4 health or the environment to have the facilities taken
5 there. We are developing this special permit to handle
6 those type situations.
7 And another category is what we call
8 experimental facilities. That's to handle those facilities
9 that either are pilot plants or come into being, hopefully,
10 to advance the state of the art, all of the treatment of
jl hazardous waste that we will handle in an expedited manner
12 or through the special permit mechanism to assure that we
13 do have some growth in the technology for handling these
14 materials.
15 The rest of the regulations or prospec-
16 tive content of the regulations deal with the requirements,
17 more detailed requirements of what is to be contained in
18 each application.
19 And we are hoping that it will be
20 sufficient information to insure efficient and expedient
2i determination by EPA in reviewing and passing on these
22 applications.
23 The regulations will require time
24 limits for submission of applications and for EPA to act
25 on these applications. They will establish procedures for
-------
30(3
1 maintaining confidentiality of any trade secret type of
2 information that the applicant indicates must be so handled.
3 We will establish procedures for re-
4 voking or for modifying permits insuring that all due
5 process considerations are met and will require a compliance
6 schedule to be mutually agreed on. That is for those
7 existing facilities that come in for a permit that a
8 compliance schedule will be worked out to bring the facility
9 up to the Section 3004 standards.
10 At the moment we are--our current
11 thinking is that this compliance schedule time frame will
12 not exceed four years. And it can receive one extension.
13 The regulations will also impose con-
14 ditions in a permit to insure compliance with the standards
15 of the Section 3004. And they will provide the opportunity
16 for public participation prior to EPA's decision to issue,
17 modify or deny a permit.
18 Some of our unresolved issues at the
19 present time involve a—kind of a technical issue—legal
20 more than technical, I guess — that the way the Act is
21 written it accommodates only existing facilities as of
<£.
—^22 the date that the law was inacted on October 21, 1976.
23 And we are struggling with the concept
24 of what to do about those facilities that have begun
25 operation or are under construction since October 21, 1976.
-------
307
1 And we are leaning towards the way of handling those is
2 assumed that they existed prior to October 21, 1976, and
3 treat them as existing facilities.
4 ""\ Another issue that is fairly controver-
(&*'
5 siai^within EPA, is whether to have one permit cover those
6 new facilities. That is issue one permit at the time that
7 the application is approved or whether to have two permits.
8 That is a construction permit that will be issued in order
9 for the design to be approved and the facility to be con-
10 structed. And a separate permit which we call the operat-
11 Ing permit when the facility is, in fact, constructed and
12 desires to begin operation. So that's another issue that
13 we haven't really come down on one way or the other yet.
14 We are also, as I indicated in the
15 beginning, still working on the details on how to reduce
16 the requirements for the special permit for the resource
17 recovery facilities for the sites that receive emergency
18 type hazardous waste and for the experimental facilities.
19 Another issue that has yet to be re-
20 solved is the potential need for an environmental impact
21 statement to be prepared prior to EPA's issuing of a per-
(apaaO
22 mit--on any given permit, I think,tp recognize what the
23 implication for that type of issue is.
24 Another issue that again is still up
25 in the air deals with the concept of whether to have site
-------
308
l life type permits. That Is permits that are forever. Or
2 to have a finite period specified what we call a renewable
3 permit concept for these facilities. Oar thinking now
4 Is leaning towards the renewable type of permit. And we
5 are using a period of ten years as the maximum that a
6 permit will be Issued. But again as I say It Is still
7 under some debate anyhow.
8 That completes my presentation.
9 Back to you, Bill.
10 CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: Is there anyone who
li wants to give any prepared statements for five minutes in
12 length?
13 (No response.)
14 If not, we will take any written ques-
15 tlons. The cards are being handed out.
16 Just raise your hand If you would like
17 to give a question.
18 The first question: "Will a hazardous
19 waste management facility which has an incinerator inter-
20 mittent discharge from lagoons and handles manifested
21 hazardous wastes have three permits or one permit issued
22 under RCRA7"
23 Out thinking now is that it will be one
24 permit. However, on the conditions on the permit we will
25 identify these independent separate prosthesis and impose
-------
309
i whatever requirement needs to be imposed on these. But the
2 idea is that it will be one piece of paper, one permit, if
3 you will, but will identify these unit prosthesis on this
4 facility.
5 MR. KOVALICK: I have a question:
6 "Please clarify the statement made yesterday that a facility
7 which at sometime in the past disposed of waste that is now
8 considered as hazardous but is no longer practicing on site
9 disposal is required to obtain a permit?"
10 How let me review again what Bill
11 explained yesterday. When the law passed we asked our
12 general counsel for an opinion about whether or not the
13 date of signing of the law made a difference in deciding
14 whether something was a hazardous waste.
15 And he explained that one member of
16 his staff gave an oral opinion that there is nothing in
17 the legislative history that speaks to the fact of the
18 date of the passage of the Act in the cutoff point. That
19 is that before that date things that were—that had hazar-
20 dous properties were not hazardous waste. So that is the
21 only base we have at the moment.
22 But if you carry that opinion to its
23 logical extension then storage piles, lagoons, and even
24 closed facilities would potentially require permits.
25 Since we haven't concluded our inves-
-------
310
1 tlgation of how general counsel feels about that knowing
2 the implications of It, we are still under development on
3 that subject. But the point was that the date of the
4 passage of the Act appears not to have anything to do with
5 whether or not a waste is hazardous, you know.
6 There may be some other—there are
7 other policy ways of trying to work around that which we
8 have to explore.
9 MR. LDfDSEY: I have a couple here.
10 Another waste oil question: "if waste oil from service
11 stations is declared to be hazardous waste, will the station
12 operator have to get a storage permit or is he considered
13 a generator of such hazardous waste or can he be exempted
14 as a small generator?"
15 To begin with he would be considered
16 a generator of hazardous waste. He might be considered
17 a small generator if his generator rate is less than
18 whatever the cutoff turns out to be. That's questionable.
19 If he sends his waste material—assum-
20 ing he is not a small generator now--if he sends his waste
21 material to a product recovery facility, then he would not
22 be—he would net have to enter into all of the record
23 keeping and manifesting activities that a regular generator
24 would have to enter into.
25 As far as getting a storage permit goes,
-------
311
i he wouldn1t have to get a storage permit under any condition
2 provided he doesn1t hold the waste oil more than 90 days.
3 O.K. That covers several different basis there.
4 It is very difficult now to get permits
5 for ordinary municipal landfills because of public reaction
6 to a facility In their neighborhood.
7 "With a continued emphasis on the
8 hazardous nature of the waste under discussion here, what
9 do you think the odds are for ever obtaining a permit for
10 a commercial disposal facility?"
11 This again gets back to the question
12 we discussed, I think, in length yesterday concerning the
13 availability of adequate capacity—the availability of
14 enough adequate capacity to handle all the waste and how
15 that may very well be a problem and how the problem is
16 two-fold relative to the ability of the industry to
17 expand, mainly being capital availablity and this public
18 opposition to—local public opposition to the siting issue.
19 I'm not sure that the passage of ROSA
20 will make it more difficult to site such facilities, more
21 difficult than it has been. I think for those of you who
22 are in that business can bear me out it's been becoming
23 more difficult for some period of time.
24 It may, in fact, the passage of the
&.
25 Act and the Implementation of the regulations may, in fact,
-------
312
l make it somewhat easier in that the public, from all the
2 indications we have, will be looking on an EPA permit to
3 operate or build such a facility as a clean bill of health.
4 That is that at least somebody with the authority has taken
5 a look, a detailed indepth look, at the safeguards and the
6 design and the operations—projected operations of these
7 facilities and has concluded that is, in fact, an adequate
8 safe facility.
9 We think that that nay help to—may
10 influence the local citizenry at least to accept these:
11 kinds of facilities. We don't know that for certain. And
12 we won't knew that until it goes into play. We don't really
13 know how serious a problem the public opposition aspect is
14 going to be to development of adequate capacity.
IS We think it will be * problem. But we
16 don't know whether it will be the kind of thing that can
17 be overcome through public education, through adequate
18 siting, through locating iri places where the opposition is
19 not severe or what have you. So I don't know the answer
20 to that.
21 Another question along the same line:
22 "Do you think that the policy of issuing temporary or
23 renewable permits will inhibit investment?"
24 Now that really gets to two questions,
25 two different kinds of permits.
-------
313
l First of all, the temporary permit.
2 The temporary permit will be issued only to those facili-
3 ties who are in existence, who for one reason or another
4 do not meet and probably cannot meet all of the criteria.
5 Maybe because they are located in an area that the criteria
6 may not allow for full permit, yet they don't pose an
=^7 Immanent hazard. In other words, a demonstratable immediate
8 kind of problem.
9 They will also only be issued where
10 those facilities are necessary in an area. That is where
11 there is fto adequate alternative facility available to--
12 for the user* of that facility to go to.
13 It is a mechanism for allowing orderly
14 Implementation. That is for not shutting down facilities
15 that have been operating without any demonstratable imme-
16 diate problem, without shutting those facilities down before
17 there is an adequate alternative.
18 If we do shut those facilities down,
19 where is the material going to go? A lot of it may end
20 up in the fields and streams which is certainly a much
21 worse hazard.
22 So that's the situation with temporary.
23 There won't be a great number of them. There probably will
24 be some.
25 Relative to renewable permits, that's
-------
314
l a regular permit we're talking about new—the fact that
2 every ten years, as it's new written, each permit will come
3 up for review by EPA. Whether or not there has been any
4 problems, complaints or anything of that nature identified
5 EPA will review the permits to be sure that it1s up to date
6 and continues to be adequate.
7 This is—what we have actually done here
OA4L-
> 8 is come down somewhere in the middle. There £• two poles.
9 The first pole is that we do it—we renew—we have these
10 permit* Iwrited at very often, every six months, every year,
11 every two years. The idea being there that you exercise
12 a maximum amount of control. Ho facility is left to operate
13 without being continuously scrutinized by EPA, whether or
14 net there has been a demonstrated problem. And there is a
15 group of people who feel very strongly that we should do
16 that.
17 There is another group of people who
18 say, "Look, you know,we can't get adequate investments
19 type of capital if we are not assured or reasonably assured
20 that providing we don't have any problems, we are going to
21 be able to operate for relatively long periods of time."
22 And that group, of course, argues for
23 a life-time permit. A permit which runs the life of the
24 facility.
25 From the indications we have is that
-------
315
1 the ten year limit is kind of in the middle there. It
2 allows a sufficient time period to operate for the obtain-
3 ing of investment capital. Ten years is a fairly long
4 time.
5 On the other hand, it does net permit
6 a facility just to operate ad infinitum without any
7 review by the Agency. That is that no facility will be
8 falling through the cracks permanently.
9 And so that is why the ten year limit
10 is choosen. That's not cast and concrete at this point.
n And if we here somemere cogent arguments that are different
]2 than the ones we have heard, why, we can—we will consider
13 theK-
)4 MR. MOREKAS: O.K. I have several here.
15 Question: "Will a permit cover each piece of equipment or
16 will it cover various operations a facility has?"
17 I believe I attempted to answer that
18 earlier. Let me try again: That we invisiem one permit
]9 being issued to a facility that would cover all the pro-
20 thesis on that facility. But within the specific condi-
21 tiens outlined In that permit, we may have different re-
22 quirements for a given operation or process.
23 And whether it means a separate finite
24 piece of equipment, it would be toe early to tell at this
25 point just exactly how the—It will vary from facility to
-------
316
facility obviously.
The second part of the question: "Are
solvent recovery units to be permitted?"
il £-
Mre invision those to fall under the
category of the resource recovery special permit require-
ment, as I indicated, that we are developing.
C!
Question: "We are operating deep well
Injection sites in Texas and California with state permits.
Will these require EPA 3005 permits?"
As I indicated that's one of the areas
that we are working with those folks who are developing
the regulations for the Safe Water Drinking Act, DIG Program,
And I knew this is a tricky question in that the state is
issuing the permits the way the regulations are coming out
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, UIC Program will allow the
states to continue issuing the permits.
As we go down the read in developing
the specific language I expect that our permits requirements
will attempt to insert the language that will allow those
14
16
18
19
states, who are now issuing the permits for the de'ep^jrells
to continue to do so provided they agree to insert any
requirements that we deem necessary.
The idea again is to avoid having to
issue two permits for one deeg^well. And this is what
we are attempting to do. To work out in advance those
-------
317
i things we need to work out so that you only need to get one
2 permit and it covers all the laws.
3 A follow-up te that question: "Is new
4 sites—will new sites require both EPA and state permits?"
5 Now I assume this is past the deep well
5 question earlier.
7 Again the answer to that is dbviously
8 if a state is authorized to run the program in lieu of the
9 Federal Program, there will not be a Federal permit for a
10 site.
11 However, we can invislon the situation
12 where a state such as California, as an example, right now
GKAute*
>13 do have an ongoing hazardous waste program. They issue
14 permits. And assuming that they decide not to seek authori-
15 zation under RCRA then we would be forced--we would be in
16 a position of having to issue a Federal permit on top of
17 the state oermit, which I don't believe anybody wishes.
18 But this is the position we would be in.
19 Hopefully we will be able to work out
20 the overlapping requirements at that point.
21 Question: "If you stay with the idea
22 of two permits, will you have a public hearing for only
23 the construction permit with the operating permit only to
24 be handled by the staff?"
25 Good question!
-------
318
l We have struggled with that. And we
2 have come up with this concept that once the construction
3 stage is completed and the applicant has certified to EPA
4 that he has completed the construction in accordance with
<2.
-y> 5 the dififn that he submitted and was reviewed by EPA and
6 nas >et all the conditions, we expect the staff to visit
7 the site prior to taking an action on the operating—on
8 isffuiag Cm* operating permit. And if they are satisfied
9 that all c«Mtruction has been performed in accordance with
10 the dislgn submitted, the applicant will be also required
n to certify that no knew conditions have been encountered
12 that were not anticipated earlier.
13 And if we're talking about a disposal
u site in geology/hydrology, that varied fro* whatever was
15 permitted initially, then a second public Waring will not
16 be required, If no hew condition has been uncovered in
17 the process of the constructing of the facility.
18 Hojrever, if there is any new information
~=t 19 that in the opinion of the staff and the regional adminls-
20 trator is considered significant knew information that was
21 not submitted during the review of the application say,
22 that a public hearing will be conducted to issue the
23 operating permit.
24 Question: "Assuming our refinery has
-=> 25 spent caustic tanks, which we are continuously, dally,
-------
319
i putting caustic and trucking caustic out of, we cannot sell
2 this caustic and must dispose of it. Do we need a permit
3 because of these tanks?"
4 I suppose the only way that you would
5 not need a permit,if all of these can be categorized as
»M MJU I
6 a 9q0U]rstorage facility. But this is happening over a
7 long period of tine. And I see the potential of needing a
g storage permit for these tanks.
9 Question: "Under 3005 will a facility
10 established prior to October, 1976, but whose process has
been modified be classified as 'new or old?"
12 I assume that it has been modified
13 between 1976—October,1976, and now. And I would classify
that as in the category of "old" and not a new facility.
15 Question: "Has the Agency considered
—i-,i6 issuing special permits for closed oolite storage facili-
17 ties?"
18 Frankly, no. And I think that's a very
19 good idea. That's something that we need to consider.
20 "Will the adjudicator^ hearing right be
21 included in this system?"
22 The answer is, yes. We w^ll have the
23 adjudlcatory hearing right in these regulations.
24 "State again the different kinds of per-
25 mits under which existing and new hazardous waste disposal
-------
320
l facilities will be permitted?"
2 Again the three kinds of special permits,
3 that I mentionedlweTe: the resource recovery facility, the
4 facilities that accept waste from an emergency, from a spill,
5 the experimental facilities for demonstrating advances to
6 the state of the art. Those are the special permits.
7 And what I stated earlier were the
8 facilities that would be excluded from a permit were the
9 hospitals or health care facilities that store or treat
10 waste on the premises would not require a permit provided
n that they are under some state regulation, which most I
12 believe are.
13 And the sanitary landfills that do not:
14 accept manifested waste, would not vequire a permit.
15 And the storage facilities for less than
16 90 days, would not require a permit.
17 Question: "Will an EIF be required for
18 a facility existing before the passage of the Act?"
19 Again as I Indicated,we really haven11:
20 arrived at the final decision in this. But as of the moment
21 our approach is that only new facilities would fall under
22 the EIF requirement and what is considered major modifi-
23 cations to existing facilities. And that obviously is an
24 ambiguous term. And it's a judgment called what would be
25 considered a major modification. But that's the two area*
-------
321
that we are considering now.
2 Question: "When do you expect the final
3 decision will be made as to how previously existing disposal
4 sites since abandoned will be treated?"
5 I think I better let the Chairman
6 attempt an answer to this. I think it's within the same
7 vein as was answered, I guess, yesterday and earlier by
Walt Kovalick. It is a legal matter. We have an informal
9 legal opinion at the present time. Hopefully there will
10 be a written opinion before we publish these regulations
and propose the form I would think, in order to let—before
12 February. So that, I guess, is as good a target date as
13
14 Question: "Don't you think that iden-
1S tifying so many relatively common wastes as 'hazardous' is
16 counterproductive? There probably won't be enough permitted
__ 17 sites merely because of 'dilution'of this calssification."
18 It seems to me that'e more «f a 3001
19 question. But again that's probably a reasonable expecta-
20 tion. If we have too many of these things to handle, pro-
bably there won't be enough sites, as we indicated, to
22 handle them.
23 So I don't know how to get out of that
24 box.
->>25 CHARIMAN SANJOUR: Well, I think that's
-------
322
l kind of an assumption in the question that we are going to
2 do that. Since we haven't defined the hazardous waste yet,
3 I don't know how that assumption can be made.
4 MR. MOREKAS: That's my last one.
5 CHAIHHAK SAHJOTO: I've got two ques-
6 tions here dealing with the same subject.
7 Let me read them first: "An existing
8 hazardous waste management facility has an operating permit
9 from the vtate will the EPA issue a new permit? And If so
10 will the facility now hold two permits?"
H And the similar question is: "What
12 benefit accrues to the public by requiring an EPA permit
13 for an incinerator that is already permitted by an air
14 control board?"
15 Well, if the state elects to have Its
15 own hazardous waste program, then the state will be issuing
17 the permits and presumably they will not Issue duplicate
18 permits.
19 However, if the state does not elect
20 to take over the program, the Federal Government must.
2i There is no option. And the Federal Government must permit
22 the facility. I admit it is rather stupid and silly to
23 have duplicate permits. And the way to avoid it clearly
24 is to have the state take over the program, which is what
25 Congress intended and what we would encourage.
-------
323
l The next question is: "How would a
2 resource recovery facility be defined to make it different
3 from a treatment facility?"
4 First of all we have changed the word
5 resource recovery facilities, Sam. As of yesterday we are
6 not going to call it that anymore. And the reason we are
7 not is because it seems that the Act only defines the term
8 resource recovery facility. And we are using it in a
9 slightly different sense. So we are not calling that a
10 materials recovery facility.
11 And our concept is that that would be
12 a subset of treatment facilities. All materials recovery
13 facilities are treatment facilities but not all treatment
14 facilities are material recovery facilities.
15 And we would define it as follows: —
A.
•o^i6 we wrote this yesterday morning too—Definition of materials
^A 17 .recovery: Treating a waste for purposes of restoring it to
18 the original product, whereas reuse means using waste, the
19 waste as is.
20 Other uses which do not fit into either
2i category would be handled on a case by case basis. Now it's
22 only the material for recovery facilities that we intend to
23 give these special permits, not for materials reused or any
24 other treatment.
25 And I have some examples here of material
-------
9
10
1 1
,,
13
14
^7 16
_-,
IS
19
20
2i
22
•A 23
'
_- 24
->
25
324
recovery facilities. They would be: a waste oil reroflnery,
'*-
for example, solvent — waste solvent distillation, mercury
reprocessing .
Some examples of reuse which is not
materials recovery would be: using waste oil for fueft or
for road Ailing or blending oil for that purpose, using
pickle liquor in sewage treatment plants, land farming of
S&uAte-
sewage «4Mgfand energy recovery of waste. So these are
the examples of reuse which is not materials recovery and
would not be eligible for that special materials recovery
permit .
I hope that clarifys that question..
£&u40£j_
Next question: "If hazardous singes
from an HPDES waste treatment system API separated and
9—
dissolved in air floatation, et cetera, are ponded in the
lagoon by pipe and truck transport oolite for further
1 (
-------
325
Mow that's still an issue that we are
l studying somewhat. And, in fact, this sounds like an
3 excellent case study for us to cut our teeth on. And if
4 the gentleman who submitted this question is interested
5 in our taking a close look at his particular facility so
5 that we ourselves can figure out where we want to cut the
7 line on this, I would appreciate him getting in touch with
8 »e.
9 The next question: "in the manufacture
10 of phosphoric acid from sulfuric acid and phosphate rock,
n you produce gypsum that is sent to a gypsum pile. The
12 water discharge from the dark pile is discharge under an
13 NPDES permit under regulations for ECFR 418. Will the
14 pile also need a permit under RCRA?"
15 It's manufacturing, it says in the manu-
16 facture of phosphoric acids and phosphate rock that is not
17 mining and milling.
18 I guess if the gypsum itself is a
19 hazardous waste then it would be covered by RCRA, yes.
20 The water discharge would not be because that would be
21 covered by NPDES. But the gypsum pile nevertheless would
22 require a permit from RCRA, if it's a hazardous waste.
23 Do you have any questions?
24 MR. LXNDSEY: "What provisions are you
25 considering for permit modifications if a disposal site
-------
32!6
i being—begins a new process, example: chemical landfill
_r) i expands to land farming,Incineration or whatever?"
3 The approach would be an amendment
4 to the existing permit.
5 "If a modification is issued and one
6 part of the operation violates the permit, would the other
7 permitted operation be affected?"
8 Well, the—any enforcement action would
9 be oriented or order or what have you would be oriented
]0 toward the problems that existed. The permit for the whole
n facility could be revoked. On the other hand, we might
12 revoke just part of it or cause new conditions to b* pl»«9tf
13 on the permit as a result of the source of the problem.
14 So it could go either way.
15 "The permit system appears to grant
16 permission to operate?"
17 Thct's basically correct, to operate
18 a treatment or storage disposal facility. I guess the point
19 is it doesn't grant permission to generate a waste. It
)20 permits operation of a treatment storage or disposal
( i 7
21 facility.
22 "A closed site which contains what would
23 now be defined as hazardous waste does not wish to operate.
24 Hew then—is there a difficulty with the date of the law or
25 a need to obtain • permit? Also how could such sites be
-------
327
1 tested to determine hazardous content?"
2 Well, we keep coning back to this issue
3 of preexisting sites which are closed. And we have been
4 over, I think, the problem there that we don1t have a
5 definitive answer for that.
6 The only thing that I can say, relative
7 to the permit, is that in the Act under 3005 it says that
8 regulations will require each person owning or operating
9 a facility to have a permit. So if it turns out that the
10 legal interpretation is that such existing facilities are
n required—somehow fall under the Act—then one could make
12 the extension that they would require a permit, I suppose.
13 That is a serious problem, as we have been indicating. I
14 don't know hew we would handle that.
15 "Are permits required for materials
16 that are stored in a staging area?"
17 In other words, as part of an incinerator
18 operation you may store materials in bulk or drums to be
19 disposed of at a time when enough material is on hand to
20 make disposal economical, at some later date. As a result
21 you may create a 90£)lay limit. O.K.
22 Storage permits are required in such
23 Instances—would be required In such .Instances probably
f&kft
24 even if the--yon are not under 90 .days, even if you were
25 under 90 days.
-------
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
328
The storage exemption — the
storage exemption applies, at least as we have it now, only
to generators of waste for the purpose of obtaining enough
waste to economically ship it. O.K. So it applies only
to the generators of such waste to obtain enough material
to economically ship it. And that's got a 9<^day cutoff
on it.
Now if you are an incinerator, the
storage of whatever your bringing in at the front end
would require a permit, just as your incinerator would.
And you would get one permit for the whole works.
If on the other hand you have a residue
that comes out of that incineration, which in itself is
hazardous, then the incinterator operation becomes a
generator of that waste and would be eligible then for the
SflQlay exclusion for that particular operation, if they
want it.
"Is there a way for process whereby a
hazardous waste site operator can obtain Federal funds to
conduct research and develop new handling techniques for
methods to obtain— excuse me— -to better treat some waste
streams? "
First of all there is no construction
grant of moneys in this operation in this Act. There is no
provision for that.
-------
329
l On the other hand, that is not what
2 is addressed in this question. This question addresses
3 research development and demonstration kinds of funds.
4 And, yes, there is authority for that kind of thing under
5 Subtitle H of the Act. And the Act is out there and it's
6 kind of long and Involved. And it gives some examples of
7 the kinds of things that can be done.
8 And there is money appropriated for
9 research and development kinds of activity. And you would,
10 in this case, the money for that kind of work is administered
n out of EPA1s office of research and development. The
12 laboratories are for that or headquarters in our Cincinnati
_pi3 _office. And some of the people are here from that o_ffice
14 now, Don Staning I see in the back.
15 And Don, why don't you raise your hand.
16 If somebody has any questions, why, you can--stand up, Don,
.o 17 so everybody can see you. Don is with our^ffice of
18 jresearch and development. And he may be able to talk with
19 anybody who is interested in that later.
20 Additionally there is authority for
21 demonstration operations. Now these are full scale demon-
22 strations of new technology. Unfortunately we don't have
23 enough money to do any of that at the moment. We are
24 conducting one project in that area now, which is a chemical
25 waste landfill which is development of and operation of a
-------
330
l chemical--£ull scale chemical landfill In the Twin Cities
2 area.
3 That, I guess, Is the only hazardous
4 waste demonstration going on at the moment. But there Is
5 the authority for that but at the moment we don't have any
6 new funds for that kind of thing.
7 "If one concedes the retroactive permit-
8 ting requirements or a logical extension of the law as
9 written—" and this interpretation creates a significant
10 Impact on Industry. The person here has in parenthesin
11 ridiculous. "—would not there be the same case for now
12 requiring manifest to have been made also, retroactive?"
13 I don't know if one can make that
14 logical extension going back or not that we would have to
15 manifest everything for the last 50 years. I guess I have
16 no comment on that.
17 "How many permits do you estimate will
18 be Issued?"
19 We have made estimates, contractors
20 made estimates, and w* have backed into estimates based
21 on our knowledge of the waste coming out--directly coming
.£ „ VPOK
_A 22 our, of industry and out of the HPEDS process. And the
23 number we keep cooing up with is somewhere In the order of
24 20,000 permit applications, nationwide.
25 That does not mean to say that 20,000
-------
331
\ facilities art going to be Judged to be fully permittable,
2 right off or anything of that nature. That i« Just the
3 number we expect to get.
4 Mow the secondary questions here is:
5 How laag vill it take to get to then all? How long will it
6 EPA to pass Judgment on all these applications?
7 lear in mind now that anyone who Bakes
8 application and has notified us will be presumed to have
9 an interim permit to operate until EPA does act on that
10 permit. So nobody is shut down by this. They keep operat-
n ing until we get around to acting on the permit.
12 O.K. How long is it going to take us
13 to get through all 20,000 permits? Well, that depends on
.-> 14 two things: No. 1, it depends on how many states seek and
\ 15 are authorized to carry out the program. The more states
16 that do it the quicker that it will get done. We don't
17 know how many states will be in that position. We will
18 hear more about some of the things that may prevent some
19 of the states or encourage some of the states to take the
20 program in the next session.
21 Another factor in this is how many—
22 how ouch resource we are going to have to carry out this
23 program in the regional office. Most of the impact and
24 most of this permit granting activity will begin in the
25 fiscal year '79. It's not clear yet Just how many re-
-------
332
l sources we will have. The fewer states that play the game,
2 that take the Act, the state authorization under the Act,
3 and the fewer resources we have the longer it is going to
4 take. It may take several years. I just don't know.
5 MR. KOVALICK: A follow-up to the
6 question of quotec dilution unquato of the title hazardous
7 waste. "So when there are enough permitted facilities to
8 accept the waste, what then?"
9 And the parenthetical comment is if you
10 don't know, please give me your address so I can send my
11 materials to your office.
12 My personal view is what is going to
13 happen is something like the following: If you remember,
14 we said that about 80 per cent of the—70 to 80 per cent
^15 of the hazardous waste.that we know of, we have studied, are
_3\16 disposed or treated on^pite, by the generator.
17 So I think one of the intial things
18 that is going to happen when the appearance of a shortage
19 of sites becomes clear to the state and local and municipal
20 officials there will be a number of additional permits of
21 a variety of calibers issued for using portions of the
-o 22 back forty of certain industrial plants for onj~site treat-
_A 23 ment.or disposal.or storage. That is storing the waste,
24 which we happen to know goes on today.
25 The other thing that will happen is
-------
33A
-^> l that the pressures on c_ity counsels and mayors and county
—=> 2 commissioners will suddenly increase rapidly, in terms
3 of conversations like, "We can't find a place to put our
4 waste and we are going to find another place to do business."
5 So it is my personal view that finding
6 waste disposal sites is going to become as critical as
7 transportation costs and raw material input to firms who
8 are in this business of treating and manufacturing products.
9 So, I think, as is not unusual in many
e.
^ 10 of these situations when crisis' appear and it's already
n appearing to the planners who are divising probable waste
12 plants, and when the crisis appears to the political controls
13 in various municipalities in these states, then accommoda-
14 tions will be made.
15 And as we mentioned none of the facili-
16 ties that are currently operating will be shut down because
17 they will have this interim permit that allows them to stay
18 in business. So that's my summarial personally about things
19 that might work out. And we are not going to give you our
20 guess for that purpose.
21 CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: If you have ever
22 seen our office, it's already a hazardous facility."
23 MR. KOVALICK: "Will existing dumps
24 that contain hazardous substances,once this is published,
25 be subject to reclamation procedures, such as: removing
-------
335
1 removing materiel from the site in addition to the scheduled
2 disclosure requirement? If this i» true will reclamation
3 procedures be applicable to sanitary missiles landfills
4 containing hazardous substances?"
5 We think that1 s very unlikely. I think
6 the intent to those of you who are familiar vith Sub Title
7 D is that the open dumps will be closed. And if they do
/
have sane particularly harmful environmental effects that
9 are identified during the open dump inventory, there may
10 be some remedial action needed for a few of those sites.
. But we do not speculate, at least from
not?"
12 our view of Bub TiLtt D work which is not our prime purpose,
13 that reclamation is going to be the order of the day.
14 Here Is a review question for those of
15 you who were with us yesterday: "Who will make the final
16 decision on what will be kept confidential and what will
17
18 As we discussed yesterday about confi-
19 dentiality of business Information, basically the holder
20 of the Information makes that decision. So in th« private
21 sector the generator or the transporter and the treating
22 disposal firm have contractural arrangements with each other.
23 We would presume, deal with the subject
24 of what happens to the manifest data each of those parties
25 keeps or their EPA records. So what I am about to discuss
-------
336
l has nothing to do with private sector arrangements and how
2 that data Is guarded or not guarded under th«e contractual
3 arrangements .
4 In terns of the public sector, I
5 mentioned yesterday that—let me be specific, obviously
6 if EPA were running the program you are going to be—and
7 you're a generator disposer you're going to be sending
g quarterly reports with manifest actions on them.
9 If you're a disposer, you will be sending
10 environmental monitoring reports. And your notification
H will be on file telling us what kind of business you are in,
12 what kind of waste you generate.
13 And as I pointed out yesterday, any
u smart marketing person would then find that a nice place
15 to spend the day and discover where all the wastes are
16 that he should be interested in, if you were in the disposal
17 business or the transport business.
18 So what I explained yesterday was that
*L
"In
^"
20 And right now those regulations cover th« Clean Air Act,
21 and the Water Act, and several other of our statutes.
22 In the next, I would say, 45 to 90 days,
23 there will be proposed In the Federal Register amendments
4.
24 to the Freedom^Information Act requirements or regulations
25 that extend those regulations to cover RCRA.
19 EPA has a set of Freedom "Information Act& regulations.
^" \J
-------
337
! Now if that happens, then what will
2 occur is that all the forms that you use that come from EPA
3 will have a box on the bottom of them where you check off
4 if you believe that the date you are submitting should be
5 treated &e confidential information. In other words, we
give you the right to make a declaration or not on the fora
7 that you are sending in.
g Then if someone comes to our office,
9 we have to run through the procedures that are outlined in
1Q these regulations—and they are about two or three pages
n long—but basically it involves our ascertaining specifically
]2 what data that person wants, verifying whether you have been
]3 offered the opportunity to call it confidential information.
14 If you have, then it's a negotiated process to see whether
it is confidential information.
16 And the basic test, as I recall, although
17 I don't have those regulations with me, revolves around
18 is it possible to get that kind of information about your
19 firm from public sources and other sources of business
20 information, like Dun's and other places.
2] I would be happy to discuss that more
^ 22 but that's the basic grlpft. The thing I didn't mention is
23 what happens if the state takes over the program. Now if
24 the state takes over the program all the data that I have
25 just been discussing, the manifest or the reports, I should
-------
338
l say, will be going to them.
2 If they have—and you will hear in a
3 few minutes about what the requirements are for a state
4 taking over the hazardous waste program—but as it stands
4
•^5 now, the state's current FreedomTnfonnation Act require-
6 ments would apply. So if they have none, if you are in a
7 state which has no procedures by which information is
8 guarded until such time if you have been notified that
9 it might be released, then you might want to take a very
10 careful look during public hearing process of making that
n happen in that state, if you think it's important.
12 In other words, when the state takes
13 over the program if the only thing they don't have is the—
%14 some kind of Freedomrtnformation Act controls^it1s not
' ^ ?
15 likely that they will be denied the program for that reason.
16 So that is a possible problem from your point of view that
17 you should be aware of if the states take over the program.
18 "An amendment to RCRA has been proposed
19 by representative Finley of Illinois to require hazardous
20 waste facilities to be on Federal land, existing or newly
21 acquired. Will this resolve siting problems?"
22 This question refers to—I believe it's
23 HR'8538 I'm not quite certain of that number, which was
24 introduced by representative Finley. It has a number of
25 provisions in it which do regulate basically making sure
-------
339
i that there is at least one hazardous waste disposal facility
2 in every state. And making provisions for those sites to
3 meet Federal standards when they are selected.
4 The Bill does not have a funding pro-
5 vision in it of any substantial size. And it does not--
6 basically says that the land can be obtained by public
7 specter meaning the states or the Federal Government. And
8 then the operation contract about the private spector. We
9 are not at all sure that this is going to solve the pro-
10 blen even if it were funded and passed, which neither of
C
ll which has taken place. Because the publid hearings would
12 still be required to site the facility.
13 And even though many people feel that
-------
340
l you will bear with me while I read them, and then I will
2 try and go back and deal with then one by one.
3 Oh, I'm sorry, It's HR-8637, let Be
4 correct the record. It's the Flnley Bill, It's HR-M57.
5 These are the three questions: "We
- 6 recover our own spent soluble oils ot£^ite and burn recover
' 3&«tt_
^»7 ells for fuel. •ftfetg'fVom that process goes to waste to
g water treatment process covered under our HFDES permit.
9 Do we need a 3005 permit?"
10 Let me try and deal with that. It's
11 related--let me repeat for some of you I know that the
]2 hotel gave out that information when the meeting began
13 yesterday. The definition that we are using for when is
14 the waste a waste. We are currently considering that all
15 discarded and abandoned materials are wastes. Then the
16 definition of waste goes on that a waste is something that
17 If it is not a prime product of your process and If some
18 significant percentage is disposed of nationwide like at
19 the rate of 5 per cent. That's an and statement. If it
20 is not the defined product and if some percentage is disposed
21 that is in your part of the country it may be totally
22 recycled but in other parts of the country it is disposed,
23 it is a waste unless it has immediate reuse as a by-product,
24 this thing we are discussing, this material, or unless it
25 goes to material recovery within three months.
-------
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
il
12
-?13
14
is
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
341
And remember Mr. Sanjour just ran
through, in detail, our current split on the difference be-
tween material recovery, meaning solvent reclaiming,
»ef«6iJtnfr,! nP versus reuse. Like burning for fuel, road
oiling and so forth.
So, it's two and statements. If it's
prime product and if some smidgen of percentage is dis-
posed of in a national view, then, it is a waste. And then
you would apply to have the squeeze test. Unless it had
immediate reuse as a by-product or Is sent to research ma-
terial recover within 90 days.
Now, he ran through yesterday, the fact
that the 9(Qlay number is one that we' re still evolving on
and that obviously the word "immediate reuse" is a negotiable
item that we need to examine.
So, in that context, I'll try and an-
swer this question again.
This follow recovers soluble oil onQite
and burns the recovered oils for fuel and sludge goes to an
n>poe£
'NDEO' permitted treatment facility.
We're assuming here, then, I would as-
sume that this--let us assume, I should say, that everything
is tight and connected. If that were the case, and he's re-
using that oil or recovering it immediately, it's not a
waste. So, he's not covered from that point of view, that
-------
342
1 particular recovery operation. And the burning of the oil,
2 which may also be piped, would not be covered. If any of
3 these conditions, other than the immediate utility is broken
4 or the recovery within three months is broken, or the con-
5 nections by pipe is broken, then, it would probably flop in-
6 to permit site assistance.
7 I'd also like to repeat that generators
8 do not get permits. Only the treatment or disposal facili-
9 ty gets permits.
10 This question was phrased, "Do we need
11 a 3005 permit." We're only talking about the treatment and
12 disposal. Not the fact that you're producing waste.
13 A similar question or a related ques-
14 tion is: "Will storage permit be required for hazardous
15 materials held in excess of 90 days, but intended for future
16 processing in the finished products."
17 Okay, the manufacturing unit does not
18 consider these to be abandoned or discarded. What steps,
19 if any, would be required to certify that these are not
20 waste materials. I hope, again, that you see that this ques-
21 tion relates to the fact we're using--we're still working
22 on it, we're using that 90 day definition to reflect whether
23 or not it is a waste. And that 90 days also coincides with
24 the start date for permits for generators.
25 So, as this is--a permit for stores,
-------
343
1 excuse me, permit for stores. So, if this is phrased that
2 since the product is held in excess of 90 days, and as our
3 regular currently concedes, then, this would require a stor-
4 age permit, as it does not have — it is not sent to material
5 recovery within 90 days.
6 Another one: "Used oil collected by a
7 service station is stored and sold to a scavenger for re-
8 search recovery. Is this a hazardous waste?"
9 Well, as we said yesterday, we're still
10 evolving a definition of hazardous waste, but I think there
11 is some likelihood that used oils will either be flammable
12 and/or possibly fail the toxicity test because of there me-
13 tals contents. So, let's assume for a moment, this oil has
14 hazardous properties.
15 "What permits will be required front ser-
16 vice stations selling about a hundred gallons used oil per
17 month."
18 Well, first of all, no permits for this
19 generation of the oil are required. What we're talking about
20 might be permits for storage. But I would say, this pro-
21 bably is in the category that I was discussing, of immediate
22 reuse, I'm sorry, shipment to resource or material recovery,
23 within 90 days.
24 it sounds as if this kind of facility
25 could be in the category where it not a waste, because it
-------
344
1 is sent to material recovery within 90 days. That would be
2 the case, except it is likely, as I think about it, that
3 much of--not 100 per cent of waste oil is researched re-
—*) 4 covered. Remember the and*statement, it's a combination of
5 not being the prime product of whatever you're doing, and
6 also have some significant percentage being disposed.
1 In this case, some used oil, as a mat-
8 ter of fact I know some is used for used like road oiling and
9 so forth.
10 So, if'we assume he is a waste genera-
11 tor, and if we assume that he's not a small waste generator,
12 then, he would fall unto their record keeping of how much
13 he had, I would presume in this business the transporter, we
14 are aware the transporter supplies this service, he would
15 probably come with the manifest which the service agent
16 would just sign on the bottom. The transporter would handle
17 all the paper work for this facility to get it to its use or
18 coverage.
19 It's very complicated area and it's
20 hard for me to run through all the ifs, ands.and buts. So,
21 perhaps this person ought to nail us down afterwards. But
22 I think it's a good chance for us to try and run through this
23 definition of when is a waste, a waste again. And the fact
24 that recovery versus use is an important distinction.
25 MR. SANJOUR: Walter, considering all
-------
345
the interest in this area of gas stations—service stations,
2 perhaps we ought to write some kind of issue paper pointing
3 out all the possibilities for service stations.
4 MR. KOVALICK: It's a complicated area
5 and there are a lot of people involved in it too.
6 MR. MOREKAS: At the last count there
7 are 289,000 service stations in the United States. You can
8 see it's a significant issue.
9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Don't forget the
10 question>
_j>ll MR. KOVALICK: "if a landrill or some-
12 thing has its waste prior to publication of the regular re-
13 gulations, but the operator decides to stop and qualifies
14 a sanitary landfill in the future, would they have to comply
'
with 3ub Tlfc4e C or Sub Title D or both,?"
16 Well, were it not for this headache that
17 we run through three or four times this morning, about the
18 time at which waste is being created is not a factor, we
19 would have viewed this as a Cub Title D problem.
20 Now, if this facility wants to gel: out
21 of the hazardous waste disposal business and would not be
22 covered. And the only remaining issue is, how are we going
23 to cope with these facilities that had accepted in the past.
24 And that as we explained, is a policy matter we're still
25 wrestling with.
-------
346
1 "Do you have an estimate of how many
2 industrial plants don1t have the back forty that Walt men-
3 tioned."
4 No.
5 MR. LINDSEY: I have a couple here:
6 "Solvent recovery operations are often a standard and intri-
7 cal part of petroleum refineries and petro-chemical plants.
8 Would such operations require a permit under RCRA?"
9 If you can remember the discussion yes-
10 terday about the integral piping, if it's connected integral-
11 ly to a--by pipe or conveyor, to a manufacturing operation,
12 and the answer is, it doesn't become a waste. Doesn't be-
UuiuOjt
13 come a waste •***• it exits the pipe and is carried by truck
14 or some conveyance such as that, to a non-integrally at-
15 tached treatment facility.
16 So, in this case, I presume that we're
17 talking about a situation where it would not become a waste.
'8 it would not, then, need a permit.
19 A suggestion, which I think is a good
20 one, and I'll read it into the record: "When you implement
21 the permit program, consider staggering the permit expira-
22 tion dates, in an effort to help distribute your work load
23 for the permit renewers." The people that will be renewing
24 the permit.
25 1 think that will probably happen. In-
-------
347
1 cidentally, just purely by the fact that we are not going to
2 be able to process all the permits at once. So, the expira-
3 dates will also be staggered. But that's a good suggestion.
4 "What is the procedure for amending a
5 permit, to add new hazardous waste, say, at a disposal fa-
6 cility, and how long would it normally take to get it?"
7 "What does the generator have to do if
8 he is storing the watte while he is waiting for the disposal
9 facility to get a permit?"
10 He's storing the waste waiting for the
11 disposal facility to get a permit.
12 That's several questions. Procedure
13 for amending a permit. We're still developing this and I
14 think this is a. thoughtful question and one which we have
15 not fully addressed as yet, is for minor modification!! to
16 a permit. Is, in fact, the full procedure going to be re-
17 quired, as it would for a major modification.
'8 A major modification would be the add-
19 ing of an incinerator or something of that nature. Whereas,
20 the monor modification might be a moving the storage facili-
21 ty someplace or changing the conditions or maybe adding a
22 waste, or something of that nature.
23 We haven't fully thought that through.
24 And we will. And so, I'll take that as a very good sugges-
25 tion.
-------
348
1 In talking about the adding of new
2 waste, first of all, it will be possible for an applicant
3 for a permit to come in,in his application for the ability
4 to handle broad classes of waste.
5 For example, I want to be able to handle
6 all clorinated hydrocarbons except X, Y, and Z perhaps. If
7 he wants that, as opposed to coming in and saying I want a
j 8 permit to handle
9 waste from X, he's going to have to provide more informa-
10 tion, presumably, on how these materials are going to be
11 stored and handled, et cetera.
12 So, it may be more difficult to get a
13 broad base permit than a narrow permit. But that will cer-
14 tainly be allowed.
15 "How long is it going to take to get a
16 permit."
17 That depends to some extent on the de-
18 lays, et cetera, that are necessary to obtain all the data
19 we think we need to make the proper decision and so forth.
20 It will depend on the hearing situation, whether or not as
2i a result of the hearings, or whether or not as a result of
22 our position, an adjudicatory hearing may be required. Those
23 kinds of things.
24 I'm not sure we have, at this point, a
25 firm feel for just how long it's going to take on the aver-
-------
349
1 age to obtain a permit. It's—and that will also depend, to
2 an extent on whether or not the system,which is developed
at the facility, or is planned at the facility, is going t:o
be designed along the, what do you call it, suggested stan-
dards, now? Along the lines of the suggested standards,
6 3004, or whether it's going to be some totally new kind of
7 facility for which much more analysis is going to be re-
8 quired.
9 The last question: "What does the ge:n-
10 erator do if he is storing the waste while he is waiting for
the disposal facility to get a permit?"
12 Now, if this is an existing disposal
13 facility, the disposal facility will have an interim permit.
If, in fact, he has made application and has notified us.
,5 Okay?
16 The storage provisions, the same thing
17 is in effect. If a person is storing waste for more than
18 90 days, now, and if he has made application, and if he has
19 notified us that he does that, then, he will have an interim
20 storage permit. Okay.
If a company is planning to develop a
22 new waste, et cetera, there going to have to have the permit
23 before they can begin storing or treating, or whatever,
24 waste.
25 Missouri has already passed a law to run
-------
350
1 the hazardous waste program. Has Illinois done so already?"
2 I don't know that Illinois needs a
3 special law which says they can seek authorization under
4 RCRA. Perhaps whoever asked this question, would get with
5 Scott Miller, or one of the other Illinois people who are
6 here.
7 Scott, would you raise your hand, so
8 that whoever asked tha.t question can speak with them. I
9 don't really know what kind of authorization or authority
10 they would need from their legislature.
11 "For those of us latecomers, would you
12 please discuss the 3005 NEPA interplay. The need for EIS's
13 statements."
14 As Mr. Morekas indicated, this is an
15 area which we have definitely not made a final decision on.
16 And were not really certain at this point, what our options
17 really are. There's a legal matter involved here, but let
18 me see if I can run through it anyway. To kind of give a
19 feel.
20 As I understand it, at this point, the
21 Agency is not required by law to issue EIS's. The Agency
22 has voluntarily agreed, after some--a lot of hassle and
23 court battles and arguments and this and that, the Agency
24 voluntarily agreed to write these EIS's on major actions.
25 Now, major actions would include a
-------
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
351
broad varity of things, Including the passage of regulations,
like we're doing here. And we are writing an environmental
impact statement on these --the development of these re-
gulations.
We're not sure how all that reflects
on the granting of permits under this Act. We believe we
could adopt an EIS position, if we choose to. It's done for
example, on new sources under an NDPD& program, some new
sources.
It's done in the Ocean Dumping ACT for
refining of sites onC^sites for ocean dumping. But on the
other hand, in those Acts, as I understand it, it's re-
quired.
This Act does not require, it's ssilent
on the issue. So, we're not sure what we're going to do
with that. First of all, we're not really sure what our
options are. Second of all, we're not really sure, at: this
point, given a range of options, which one we would choose
to take.
We're interested in the pros and cons,
provided we do have the ability to make a choice in this
area. And if somebody wants to tell us what they are,, we
know some of them, I think, but we not have all the infor-
mations that's needed here. We would be interested in hear-
ing that too.
-------
352
1 "Why the total emphasis on transfer by
-~p 1 pipe onOpite? Tank wagon transfer to an incinerator is us-
3 ually much more economical on large plant sites. It would
4 appear to be equivalent. The vehicle is usually not licensed
5 to leave the site."
6 The whole emphasis on the pipe line
7 thing, is we would like to internalize or encourage the in-
—78 ternalization of the handling of waste o^fC^ite, to an extent.
9 The reason for that is an environmental
—^10 reason. If it's handled directly on^ite, by a pipe that
11 doesn't move, or a conveyor or something similar to that,
12 there is very little chance for that material to be dumped
13 in a field someplace.
14 There is very little chance also for
15 an accident, such as trucks, whatever, having a wreck.
16 Therefore, the environment is better
17 served. And for that reason, that's one reason why the pipe-
18 line concept is being encouraged.
19 Another reason is, that it's necessary
20 to draw the line someplace, to get the bonafide recycling
21 operations within a plant, and those of you who are in pro-
22 cess operations are familar, there are many many recycling
23 operations directly within a process. And somewhere the line
24 has to be drawn, to get these kinds of direct recycling,
25 routine recycling operations, oppose no danger to the en-
-------
353
1 vironment, out of the system.
2 And the connection, the direct connec-
3 tion in feeding, by pipeline by conveyor or what have you,
4 is a convenient way to do that. These kinds of operations
5 that we want to get out of the system, because they pose no
6 evnironmental danger and because they are an integral part
7 of the system, are usually piped directly.
8 And so, this is the reason for that.
MR. SANJOUR: The later we stay here,
'° the tougher the questions get. I hope you people don't come
out to Phoenix.
12 "Under Section 3004, will waste materi-
als, liquids, paste, solids, having flash point less than
140 degrees Fahrenheit, be accepted by hazardous waste, land-
'5 fill for burial, or must they be recycled or incinerated. If
16 approved for burial, what conditions or regulations will be
17 specified to protect workers in handling and burial of the
18 low flash point materials? Will this be specified before a
permit is issued?"
20 Well, our standards are such that we
do not approve of landfilling these volatile or flammable
22 materials. There is not a blanket prohibition, but what it
23 boils down to is that if you do--if you want to landfill
24 such materials, the burden of proof will be on you, to prove
25 to the permit granting official that you can, in fact, do it
-------
354
1 safely and meet our environmental goals. So, therefore, you
2 would have to devise a way of doing it. And then prove to
3 the permit granting official that your procedures meet our
4 over-all objectives.
5 If the permit granting official accepts
6 your arguments, your proofs, your materials, then, those
7 procedures would be your permit conditions. So, basically,
8 the ball is in your court, if you want to landfill these
9 volatile or flammable materials. We, in general, don't
10 approve of it.
11 The next question is: "A solvent is
12 used to clean equipment after a product run. A year later
13 another product run is made and the solvent is processed for
14 residual product recovery. Assuming the product is a hazard-
15 ous material, would this activity be considered materials
16 recovery and, therefore, require a permit? Would a storage
17 permit also be required?"
18 Well, I'm not really clear what the
19 question is, and I'm going to take the same position that
20 the Supreme Court always takes, I'm going to assume the na-
21 ture of the question and the form that's the easiest for me
22 to answer.
23 And that is that you're using the sol-
24 vent, and after it's used it's stored, it's cleaned and then
25 reused, and stored and cleaned. If that's the case, it's
-------
355
1 never really the waste, under any sense that we're using.
2 So, it wouldn't come under this Act at all.
3 Now, if I'm misunderstanding the ques-
4 tion, please get back to me.
5 The next question is: "Would a waste
6 water treatment system which disposes of water by evapora-
7 ting, no discharge, be covered by RCRA?"
8 The waste water treatment system would
9 not be. However, if there are lagoons, which—well, first
10 of all, if there is a final discharge lagoon, and that la-
11 goon contains a hazardous waste, then, such a lagoon would
12 be covered. Regardless of the discharge or not, if it con-
13 tains a hazardous waste.
14 If it's an intermediate lagoon, that is
15 material is pumped in, pumped out, as part of the waste wa-
16 ter treatment system, and is covered by NPDES, then, we are
17 not clear yet, on whether or not it'd be covered by RCRA.
18 And we're still investigating that situation.
19 The next question is--the next half of
20 that is: "If the same facility has an NPDES permit, but does
21 not use it, or he reports no discharge?"
22 Well, the fact is, if it has an NPDES
23 permit, it's covered by the Water Act, and whether or not
24 they use it, I think, is immaterial. I mean, I don't think
25 the fact that they're not reporting any discharge is rele-
-------
356
1 vant, at all. If they have a permit, they have a permit.
2 All right, now, I have a whole fistrra/
3 Juki of questions here which go back to the same issue that
4 Walt Kovalick was just addressing at some length on the
5 whole issue of recycling waste, and our waste waste if they
6 are sold and recycled.
7 And the fact that we're still getting
8 these questions after Walt's answer, I guess, I'll have to
9 try a different approach to answering the full range of ques-
10 tions.
11 So, what I propose to do, is first read
12 the questions. I'm not going to attempt to answer them in-
13 dividually, but to try to give you the philosophical back-
14 ground and base for why we're doing what we're doing, in the
15 hope that it would be clear after I explain why we're taking
16 the steps we're taking. And let me first read the questions.
17 "How can you categorize or do you have
18 refuse to fuel as recycling the claim that burning or dust
19 control of waste oil is not recycling?"
20 First of all, as far as we're concerned,
21 neither one of those is materials recovery. Both of them are
22 recycling, but neither one is materials recovery.
23 "Yesterday, waste was defined as "aban-
24 doned or discarded material". Does this mean that materials
25 which are sold and bought are not waste, are not subject to
-------
1 RCRA?" For example, scrap and slag sold by the generator
2 to a material secondary refinery or refineries."
3 The next question is: "Should the de-
4 finition of waste recovery or by-product be broad to encour-
^ age recycling, reprocessing or developing of new uses for
6 item which may now be considered hazardous waste? If the
7 definitions are too conservative you may hinder such develop-
8 ment."
' The next question is: "Does waste oil
10 used on site for road dust control, need a permit?"
11 The answer is, yes.
12 The next question is: "We purchase a
13 waste chemical which becomes a minor chemical input to a un-
14 related process. Are we a disposer needing a permit?"
15 On this the answer to use of waste oil
16 in in-plant roads is permit needed. I think the answer is
17 yes. No manifest—permit yes.
18 Let me get into what we're driving at
19 here. We have spent an awful lot of time on this subject as
20 yOU Can tell by the talk. We spent a lot of time amoung our-
21 selves discussing this and we probably will continue to spend
22 a great deal of more time.
23 What it boils down to, is there are two
24 conflicting needs in the Act. The conflict, and when two
25 things conflict over the same subject you have to draw a very
-------
358
1 fine line, and that often is a very complicated line.
2 Let me point out what our left hand and
3 right hand problems are.
4 On the one hand, a great deal of the
5 environmental problems caused by waste, hazardous waste, are
6 caused by the reuse of such waste. Such as, right here in
7 Missouri, there was a famous case of a scavenger, a waste oil
8 scavenger, who collected waste oil, and then, amoung other
9 things that he did with it was to sell his services for road
10 oiling.
I] There was a horse arena here, that hired
12 his services, he came in and he oiled the horse arena, and
13 over the course of something like three or four years, that
14 place went through hell.
15 Horses died, miscarried, brood mares
16 that were there, that were leased, people sent out their
17 brood mares to stable there, died, miscarried, dead birds,
18 dogs. Children who slept in the barns sometimes, got violent
19 ly ill, were brought to the hospital.
20 This went on for a period of years, un-
21 diagnosed. The place was eventually bankrupt, the woman who
22 ran it had to close up the business. All the brood mares
23 she rented were killed, I think, eventually. And she her-
24 self took a one person struggle to try to find out what had
25 been going on there.
-------
359
Samples, she suspected the road oiling,
2 she sent samples to the state to bt *»*tt*r«l it came back
3 with a clean bill of health, several time, something like
4 that. I'm not sure of all the details. In fact, if some-
5 body is here from the Disease Control Unit, they perhaps
6 have more detail.
7 But she herself pursued it, even after
8 she was wiped out. And eventually she found out what hap-
9 pened, was that that road oil was contaminated with dioxane,
10 which is about one of the most poisonous substances known
11 to man.
12 It was picked up as the waste oil from
13 part of a manufacturing process. Okay. Yes, that was sold
14 as a product in commerce. That was one of the reasons the
15 Act was passed in the first place.
16 This case is a rather classical case
17 of the misuse of hazardous waste. So, clearly Congress; in-
18 tended us to control such misuse. Even if it's sold as a
19 product. That's on the one extreme.
20 On the other extreme, Congress intended
21 us to encourage resource recovery and recycling of waste.
22 Clearly they called it a Resource Conservation & Recovery
23 Act.
24 So, on the one hand, we want to encour-
25 age the recycling of waste. On the other hand we've got to
-------
360
1 prevent the misuse of recycled misuse of waste.
2 So, that's the introduction of what we
3 have got to achieve. They're obviously conflicting goals,
4 because the same philosophical aproach of recycling could be
5 either good or bad, depending on the environmental end.
6 Recycling is good, so long as it doesn't
7 damage the environment. It's bad if it does. And we have
8 to draw the line between the bad and the good uses of recyc-
9 ling.
10 The way we try to do this, is first of
11 all, define the concept of materials recovery. Materials
12 recovery is just a subset of the whole set of recycling. It
13 is one way to recycle a waste. Materials recovery means re-
14 storing the waste to its original use.
15 If we're talking about waste lube oil,
16 that means making a lube oil out of it. If we're talking
17 about waste solvents, that means making of it, essentially
18 a virgin solvent out of it.
V&>SS&|^_
19 In Ru&tilatffl, I ran into a gentleman who
20 takes waste, PVC, disolves it into some kind of a solvent and
2i restores it to essentially a virgin PVC. And then, it's
22 used as any other PVC. That is materials recovery.
23 Now, this is clearly unambiguously a
24 beneficial resource recovery, because you're restoring it
25 back to the original product. So we never have to worry
-------
361
1 about the environmental effect of such products. So, there-
2 fore, we've isolated that as a subclass of resource recovery
3 and given that special treatment. Because it's clearly the
4 one way of resource recovery that we never have to worry
5 about. That doesn't mean that we always have to worry about
6 any other use. But it does mean that we never have to worry
7 about this use. So, that's why we've given that category
8 special treatment, in that facilities that practice materi-
9 als recovery, will be exempt from the full permit require-
10 ments. They will be getting special permits.
11 And anyone sending their materials to
12 such facilities, will be exempt from the manifest require-
13 ments, in order to encourage such facilities.
14 Now, does mean all other reuse of waste
15 are environmentally unacceptable? No, it doesn't. But it
16 does mean, that we have to look more closely at those other
17 uses, to see whether or not they are environmentally unac-
18 ceptable.
19 And in order to do that, we've created
20 this elaborate structure of when is a waste not a waste, if
21 you recycle within 90 days, this whole--! call it the Corson
00(lif_
22 Manifesto, because it's Mien Corson that wrestles with all
23 these ifs, ands, and buts. And if you talk to Allen Corson,
24 you'll find the change is almost daily.after you've talked
25 to a whole new set of people like yourselves, you come up
-------
362
1 with a whole new set of conditions.
2 And the one you just heard a few hours
3 ago, if you were to come to Phoenix, I have no doubt you'll
4 hear something slightly different as a result of this meet-
5 ing.
6 But that's the fine line we're trying
7 to draw here, without actually drawing it for you, I'm try-
8 to explain what the background is.
^ 9 CHARIMAN SANJOUR: Let's take a break.
10 (Short recess.)
-}11 CHARJMAN SANJOUR: We're slipping our
12 schedule. I'm going to allow 30 more minutes for questions
•^13 under_section 3005, then we'll get into 3006, and just hope
I4 there are fewer questions there, but I doubt it.
15 We're not going to accept any more cards
16 for 3005, but we will attempt to go through the ones we have
l7 and I'll encourage the panelist to try to answer them as a
18 group, rather than each question individually, if they can.
19 Mr. Morekas.
20 MR. MOREKAS: I have several which I
21 don't believe fall in a category as a group, but I will try
22 to give a concise an answer as I can.
23 The first one is a lengthy question that
24 deals again with the potential need for environmental impact
25 statement under NEPA, I believe both I and Fred have answered
-------
363
1 the situation there as being one still tentative and just
2 say that much about it in trying to answer this question.
3 However, the second part of the ques-
4 tions, I want to clarify in the mind of the questioner. He's
5 asking: "Whether environmental statements will be needed
d for transporters who receive permits and whether DOT or EPA
7 would be the lead agency."
8 Now, the point that should be make clear
9 is that transporters do not receive permits. So, obviously
10 there is no need for an EIS transporters, unless they store
11 it.
12 But, the questions was asked for traris-
13 porters and whether DOT would be the lead agency.
14 The question is: "Would a manufacturing
IS plant need only one permit for storage, for example, if its
16 facilities in a city were not contiguous?"
17 The answer is, yes. Conceivably when
18 the application is submitted, I would think, if these faci.li-
19 ties store the same waste in the same manner, that an
^20 arangement can be made with the regional office, at least to
21 keep down the paper work, that they can be described on one
--722 final permit. But, I believe, that is kind of a cas^h)^)
23 case decision on the permit granting authority. But obvious-
24 ly, there are in different parts of the city, different sites
25 a specific requirements would have to be described for these
-------
364
l different storage facilities.
2 The question is: "Alternate permitting
3 will be determined by the local community. Anticipating the
4 emotional aspect and the certain opposition at public hear-
5 ings for site permits, has the EPA addressed the issue of
6 public education? That is for shows, films, news media, et
7 cetera."
8 Yes, that's a very good question. And
9 we have been thinking of the type of public education, if
10 you will, that will be necessary in order to educate the
11 local communities about what we are attempting to do and
12 what the implications of the permit system.
13 We are planning, and I guess, the latter
14 part of fiscal '78 to have a seminar conducted throughout
15 the country with local or state elected representative, to
16 try to upgrade and update their knowledge in the system. So,
17 this is part of the over-all scheme that EPA is attempting,
18 to educate the local citizens.
19 Question: "How often will a storage
20 permit have to be renewed?"
21 Again, that falls under that issue that
22 we have not resolved yet, the life-time versus the renewable.
23 At the present time, our thinking is the same as we indica-
(*^&V^
724 ted, a IQ^rear renewable period for all permits.
25 The question is: "Would an industrial
-------
365
1 waste water impoundment, which receives leachate from a non-
2 hazardous land disposal site, where the leachate is hazar-
3 dous from the non-hazardous land disposal site, and the
4 leachate is permitted by NPDES, need a hazardous waste faci-
5 lity permit?"
6 Again, I think the person who asked this
7 question—we debated a few minutes earlier, so, I'll say I'll
8 stick by my answer, the one I gave you. Instead of trying
9 to go through it again.
10 CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: What was the answer?
H MR. MOREKAS: Maybe, depending on you
12 resolving this lagoon issue. I think that's how we re>solved
13 it.
14 But if that leachate is deemed to be
15 hazardous and if the final impoundment does have an NPDES
16 permit and if the lagoon--
17 CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: If it's coming there
18 by pipe, the answer is no. If it's coming there by truck
19 the answer is yes.
20 MR. MOREKAS: Well, it's not. We deter-
2i mined that it's trucked.
22 The question is: "Are you seriously
23 expecting to permit municipal sites as hazardous waste
24 sites? Most have a difficult time with garbage or demoli-
25 tion."
-------
366
1 I believe I try to make it clear in
(fftJL ttxruti
__j 2 my presentation that municipal sanitary land fills do not--
3 will not be permitted, if they do not accept the 3002 mani-
4 fested type of waste.
5 So, we do not envision those facilities
requiring a permit, unless they accept waste that have been
deemed hydrogenous and do have a manifest.
Question: "Assume that a facility has
9 obtained an interim permit. What obligation do they have
10 to upgrade their facility prior to the time that EPA gets
11 around to reviewing the details of their permit application?"
12 And the answer is, they have no obliga-
13 tion, so long as they have received that interim permit,
14 and EPA then has the responsibility of reviewing and passing
15 on that application as early as possible.
16 Question: "Can one expand a hazardous
17 waste storage facility, right now, without getting a federal
18 permit? Would any federal notification be required?"
And the answer is, you can go and do
20 whatever you wish until our regulations are published and
become effective. Unless there is a state requirement, ob-
22 viously, but the question dealt with the federal permit.
Question: "Does the US EPA issue per-
u.s.
24 mits in a state that has no programs, must or will, the
25 EPA get state agreements to permit conditions prior to is-
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
12
13
14
'5
25
367
sue? This situation exists as a problem in the NPDES sys-
tem."
At this point, I would say, that if the
U.S.
state has no program, tJS EPA will proceed and issue the per-
mit. However, in our regulations, that we are drafting, we
are sending, the process will include sending the applica-
tion material to the state agency for their information and
c omment .
But as we envision, if the state has
U.&.
no program, the W6 EPA program will apply.
That's all I have.
MR. KOVALICK: I have a comment. Many
of these issues are still evolving, and one of the questions
which Sam just answered was, "Do you have any obligation to
do anything while you have an interim permit?"
And very recently, we have been having
£
Of f ice~E
16
a number of discussions with the Of f ice~Enf orcement , as to
18 whether in the public way, EPA can afford to have nothing
19 happening at those facilities while we do get around to the'
20 various applications.
21 So, I think it's fair to say that that
22 is still evolving too, in that we're not the final—we're
23 not the only word and the only input on that question.
24 Another amendment to an earlier dis-
cussion, had to do with the question on treating phosphate
-------
368
1 rock to produce phosphoric acid, I guess. And we gave a ra-
^2 ther mattei^jpij^act answer that, yes, it would be covered.
3 But we have. I was reminded that perhaps,one of our members
4 of our working groups today, that we had discussed that in
5 a working group as being a possible—being classified along
6 with milling waste, because of the huge quantities of this
(JL#&^
3\7 gyaCliKe material that is accumulated when the process takes
8 place.
9 Plus the fact that the major problem
10 of these waste is radio-activity in addition to their water
11 pollution detention.
12 So, 1 just wanted to highlight the fact,
OL.
^ 13 for the record, that is not^losed issue either, and it may
14 well end up in the mining clean category.
15 My questions 1 have is: "Will EPA or
'6 the state being in charge of hauling hazardous waste by
ti>OMJUiX>ug&?
•^ '7 barge or on inland water waycTY"
18 If the state has an authorized program
19 then, the state regulations for transportation would apply.
—} 20 So, on the case where there are on instate waters they would
' A-
21 be affected by state regulations.
22 "Will the barge towing company be re-
23 quired to have a hauling permit?"
24 Definitely not. There's no such thing
25 as a transportation permit at Federal EPA. Now, as to whe-
-------
1
2
3
4
5
-A
f
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
369
ther there are new key requirements or state requirements,
that's another matter. But we're not designing any trans-
portation permits.
MR. LINDSEY: I guess this is the last
one.
"For so many materials for section 3004
%
say, storage must be zero discharged. Does RCRA require this
by law or is this a new -86 EPA goal like the Clean Water Act
1985 Goals?"
The definition of storage and disposal
is written right in the Act under the definition section,
which is Section 1002, excuse me, 4, and it identifies what
disposal is. And that is that disposal is a condition of
placing something into or on the land in such a way, that
some constituent of that material can gain access to the en-
vironment , through leaking, through air emission, or what
have you.
And on the other hand, storage is the
opposite of that, that is doing something so that it doesn't
constitute disposal.
So, the answer to that is, yes, it's
a goal. And no, we will not be outlawing disposal. We will
not be absolutely forbidding --absolutely requiring zero dis-
charge.
CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: I'm not sure you an-
-------
370
1 swered the question, exactly that was asked. I think the
2 question that was asked is: "Is this something that the law
3 requires or is this something that EPA is requiring?" And
4 our intrepretation of the law, is that the law requires this.
5 That the law is saying that storage means zero discharge.
6 That's how we read the law, and we don't have the option to
7 say it means anything else.
8 Well, that completes then, the discus-
9 sion of 3005. Let's get on to Section 3006. Matt Straus
10 will give the presentation.
11 MR. STRAUS: Good morning, Ladies and
12 Gentlemen!
13 For the next 20 minutes or so, I would
14 like to describe our current thinking in developing guide-
15 lines under Section 3006 of the Resource Conservation &
16 Recovery Act.
17 Now, Section 3006 of the Act, requires
18 that EPA promulgate guidelines to assist state in the de-
19 velopment of state hazardous waste programs. These guide-
20 lines are to be promulgated, not later than 18 months after
21 the date of enactment of RCRA, which would take it to April
H
—? 22 21, 1978, and after the .administrator has consulted with the
23 various state authorities.
24 Now, the Resource Conservation and Re-
25 covery Act required that a hazardous waste program be con-
-------
371
1 ducted and operated in each and every state jurisdiction. It
2 is our judgement that Congress intended that the states would
0--
—»?3 develop^ and operate the hazardous waste program.
4 However, in the event the states choose
5 not to assume the program or EPA does not authorize the
6 state, EPA is required and mandated to conduct the program.
7 For the past day, day and a half, we
8 have been talking about the Federal program that will be
9 carried out, in the event that the state does not choose to
10 assume the program.
11 For the next hour, or hour and a half,
12 we will be talking about the state hazardous waste program.
13 Now, in the Act, the state can receive
14 one of two types of authorization. The first type, full
15 authorization, describes an authorization without any fixed
16 beginning and of unlimited duration. And a state will be
—^ 17 granted full authorization in lieu of the Federal program,
^2 18 ihat is- the state will be conducting the program in its
19 entirety^ t~
/ ^^^s^ ^
20 ^—« the state is found to be equivalent
21 to the Federal program, consistent with the Federal program,
-=^ 22 or other applicable state programs, and can provide adequate
23 enforcement.
24 Now, unfortunately.Congress did not tell
25 us what an equivalent, consistent and adequately enforced
-------
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
372
program means, so, one of our tasks was to deftne these three
terms .
Now, the term equivalency has been de-
fined in terms of seven separate elements. And these ele-
ments are as follows: State must have the legislative au-
thority to control hazardous waste. This authority must in-
clude both on-site and off-site management authority.
The state must have published criteria
and standards related to hazardous waste management. And in
all cases the states criteria and standards can be no less
stringent than those promulgated by EPA, as stipulated in
Section 3009 of the Act.
Now, this does not mean the states cri-
teria and standards can not be different. We are just say-
ing they can be no less stringent.
The state must also have a permit-like
mechanism which provides an administrative,legal and resource
framework to issue, revoke and deny permits.
The state 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 sufficient or
adequate resources in which to conduct and operate the haz-
ardous waste program.
Now, the sixth element applies only to
-------
373
those states which have more than one state agency involved
in the administration and enforcement of the hazardous wastte
0^
program^. And for those particular states, in the applies-
4 tion to be submitted to EPA, the state must explicitly de-
5 lineate the responsibilities of each state agency, as they
relate to hazardous waste management.
7 In addition, a lead agency should be.
8 or shall be designated, so as to facilitate communications
9 between EPA and the various state agencies.
10 The seventh, and final elements in de-
11 fining an equivalent state program, is that the state must
include a public participation plan or program in their ap-
13 plication. And this public participation plan must comply
14 with the public participation guidelines which will be pro-
$~-l/*.C IfxtCt)
15 mulgated under Section 70040(b) of the Act.
16 Now, the second criterion in evaluating
17 a fully authorized hazardous waste program, is whether the
18 state program is consistent with the Federal program or other
19 applicable state programs.
20 On all our meeting and all our discus-
21 sions, we were only able to identify one issue dealing with
22 consistency, and that pertains to the free movement of hazar-
23 dous waste.
24 And this particular issue was the most
25 controversial and the most hotly contested issue in the de-
-------
1
2
3 issues.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
374
velopment of these guidelines. This particular issue, free
movement of hazardous waste can be subdivided into two sub-
The first sub-issue deals with legisla-
tive importation bans, and in the guidelines, we have taken
the stance, that a state which has a legislative importation
ban will be considered inconsistent with the Federal pro-
gram, and, therefore, will not be elegible to assume a fully
authorized hazardous waste program.
The second sub-issue deals with the
similarity or dissimilarity of standards of the states—that
the state will have promulgated, to those promulgated by
EPA. And the stance that we have taken in the guidelines is
that a states criterion standards shall be evaluated by EPA
as to their consistency.
Section 3009 of the Act, stipulates that
a states criterion standards can be no less stringent. How-
ever, they were silent in the area of more stringent.
However, we still feel, that to get some
consistency, from state to state, the states' criterion /stan-
dards have to be evaluated.
Two tests will be applied by the EPA
to determine the consistency of the stat Js'criterion/stan-
dards .
on/s
The first test is; are the states' cri-
-------
375
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
y 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
terion/standards justified on grounds of public health in the
environment.
Secondly, is there any discrimination
of the states criterion/standards by geographic origin. That
is, is there a different standard for in-state waste, as
there are for out-state waste.
In using these two criteria, we hope to
be able to determine the consistency of those criterion
standards.
Now, the third criterion, in evaluating
J
fully authorized hazardous waste programe__, is whether the
state program provides adequate enforcement.
Now, our initial intent, was to put
quantifiable standards into the guidelines, such as, the
state must make so many inspections per number of permitecl
facilities. They must take so many samples per visit. How-
ever, in the meetings that were held, it was quickly pointed
out that putting hardened fast numbers into the^guidelines,
would make it very difficult to determine the adequacy of
enforcement, since each states program may vary all over the
map.
So, therefore, what we decided to do
was to write the guidelines, so as to allow the^regional ad-
ministrator, who will be authorizing the state program, max-
tr> Q,
imun, fluyibility to take into account any individual charac-
-------
1
2
3
6
7
9
_ap 10
-?'1
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2) 25
376
teristics, any bureaucracy, any efficiency or inefficiencies
the state might have, to determine the adequacy of the state
enforcement program.
However, we will be assisting the _re-
gional administrator, by putting out a guidance ^document
which will address this whole area of adequacy and enforce-
ment .
This guidance document will be available
to anybody who wishes to see it, the states, industry or any-
body else, and we hope to get some consistency from region
to region, by using this document.
Now, that fairly well describes a fully
authorized hazardous waste program. The second type of au-
thorization that is described in the guidelines, is called
partial authorization.
Now, as I indicated earlier, there are
two types of authorization stipulated or indicated in the
Act. Partial authorization is not one of them. Partial
authorization came about as a result of our meetings, and
several of the state meetings that were held, several indi-
viduals indicated to us that states might not be able to take
over the full hazardous waste program because they may lack
certain legislative authorities or certain resources. And,
therefore, they have urged us to make a provision in the
guidelines, that the state can assume part of the program or
-------
377
! partial authorization. Therefore, there is such a provision.
2 Now, under partial authorization„ the
3 state would be conducting part of the program, and the Fed-
4 eral EPA would be conducting part of the program. You
5 would, in a sense, having two regulatory agencies conducting
6 the hazardous waste program.
1 Now, the discretion of whether to grant
8 partial authorization will rest entirely with the EPA office
9 who will be evaluating the state program.
10 In addition, the determination of whe-
,, ther to grant partial authorization will be limited such
J2 that a state will only be able to apply for partial authori-
13 zation, where they lack specific legislative authority. And
14 in all cases, the combination of the state hazardous waste
ls program and the EPA hazardous program must meet the substan-
16 tative and procedural requirements of a fully authorized ha-
Yi zardous waste program, which I just previously described.
18 Now, the second type of authorization
19 that is discussed in the Act, is called interim authoriza-
20 tion. And the state will be granted interim authorization.
2] if they are found to have a hazardous waste program in exis-
22 tance by July 20, 1978, and if the state program is found to
23 be substantially equivalent to the Federal program.
24 In addition the state will be conducting
25 the hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal program
-------
378
1 for a maximum of 24 months.
1 Now, it's important to know that this
3 interim authorization is a limited time authorization. A
4 state can only apply for interim authorization in a specified
5 time period, that being July 20, 1978 to October 20, 1978,
6 and a state can only operate the hazardous waste program
7 under interim authority for a definite calendar period.
8 That being October 21, 1978 to October 20, 1980.
9 After that date, there will be no such
10 thing as interim authorization, and you'll just have full or
11 partial authorization.
12 Now, it appears that Congress intended
13 that this interim period be kind of a grace period for the
14 state to assume the hazardous waste orogram, while at the
15 same time building up their program without EPA being in
16 there conducting a parallel program.
17 Therefore, we see the major difference
18 between the equivalency defined under full authorization and
19 substantially equivalent which is defined under interim, is
20 that this latter program may lack certain legislative and
21 statutory authorities.
22 We think that this relaxation of the
y
-^23 strict equivalence is consistent with Congress1^) intent to
24 maximize the number of state to get into the program under
25 interim authority, get their program up to par to a fully
-------
379
1 authorized hazardous waste program and untimately assume the
2 program under full authorization.
3 EPA supports this viewpoint and, there-
_^ 4 fore, has structured the guidelines as follows: For a state
5 to be considered substantially equivalent, the state must
6)
5 have e«e; the legislative authority to control at a minimum
7 either on-site or off-site disposal.
8 The state must have some resouces in
9 which to conduct and operate the hazardous waste program.
10 The state must have a permit like mechanism to control at
11 a minimum, either on-site or off-site disposal and the state
12 must have some surveilance and enforcement program.
13 Now, the adequacy of the surveilance and
14 enforcement and the resources to run the program, will be
•\ 15 based entirely on the ^regional administrator's own judgement
16 and experience.
17 Now, in addition, when a state applies
18 for an interim authorization, he will submit a document,
19 which we are calling an authorization plan. And the authori-
20 zation plan will lay out any additions or modification, which
2i have to be made to the state program, so as to get them in
22 line with a fully authorized hazardous waste program.
23 The authorization olan will also lay
24 out the schedule in which the state proposes to meet these
25 deadlines.
-------
380
1 Now, that basically describes the vari-
2 ous types of authority the state must have for both full and
3 interim and partial.
4 Now, in addition, there will be three
p 5 sections in the guidelines. One, which will describe the
6 substantative and procedural requirements for states apply-
7 ing for authorization. One, describing the substantative
8 and procedural requirements for the withdrawal authorization.
9 And one section describing EPA1s oversight of the state
10 hazardous waste program.
11 And due to time constraints, I will not
12 be getting into these particular sections.
13 Now, in addition, there is certain
'4 elements that we are calling them, which will not be required
15 by EPA for a state to have to get the program, but we will
16 be recommending them.
17 And these recommended elements are:
«_
18 ^ technical assistance program, a hazardous waste inventory
19 and confidentially provisions, privacy acts or a public re-
20 cords law.
21 Now, the last thing I'd like to go over
22 is the unresolved issues. As I indicated earlier, there is
23 basically one unresolved issue although we have taken a
24 stance for the time being, that deals with importation bans.
25 Just to remind you, we have taken the
-------
381
1 position, that a state which has an importation ban, will be
2 considered inconsistent with the Federal program, and, there-
3 fore, will not be eligible to assume a fully authorized
4 hazardous waste program.
5 Now, we have taken this position for
6 several reasons. First of all, we have always espoused the
7 philosophy that waste should be managed at the best possible
8 facilities with regard to environmental, economic and tech-
9 nological reasons, regardless of states or any borders or
10 bounderies.
11 Furthermore, the hazardous waste inan-
12 agement in this industry, usually requires large generating
13 districts. That is, they usually need to receive waste from
14 a large area, out of state waste also, to meet an economic
IS scale on equipment cost. So, therefore, we feel that If we
16 do not take this position that we might be hurting the ha-
17 zardous waste management industry.
18 Some people have indicated that if we
19 do not take this position, more and more states would be im-
20 posing importation bans, til eventually you might have 56
21 separate importation bans, and then, each state would have
22 to have a facility which could handle the hazardous waste
23 generated within that state. We really don't think that this
24 is the way to go. There would be a lot of duplications, a
25 lot of redundancy.
-------
382
1 In addition, one of the intents cited
2 in the Act, is the regional management of solid waste which
3 includes hazardous waste.
4 Now, some of the arguments given, by
5 not taking this position and being silent, that right now
-^76 there is a legal case occurring. The £ity of Philadelphia
—f)7 has sued the _s_tate of New Jersey for imposing an importation
8 ban for all waste going into New Jersey for final disposal.
9 This will probably not be heard for
10 another year or two at the Supreme Court. It already was at
11 the Supreme Court and was remanded back to the State Supreme
tt.S.
>^ 12 Court, and is going back to the #&• Supreme Court.
13 But, basically, they say since it is a
14 legal matter, that EPA can not get involved and should let
15 the Courts decide what the outcome is.
16 I would like to just make one point
C.
—^ 17 here, that the Courts are deciding a Constitutional matter.
c.
•^ 18 That is, whether it restricts interstate Commerce. We are
19 not debating the constitutionally of importation bans. We
20 are looking at them purely on a management standpoint, whe-
21 there they are part of a sound national management program.
22 Another argument that has been presented
23 that since the drafters of the legislation intentionally left
24 out this point of out-of-state ban, that we don't have the
25 authority to use the existence or non-existence of a pro-
-------
383
1 gram, to--as a requirement for full authorization.
2 And one of the final arguments that has
3 been presented, is that legislative bans, or keeping waste
—9 4 ou^bf(^tate, can be done by other means other than legis-
na^n
—^ 5 latively, such as local and county bans, discriminatory s*&e
6 restriction on landfill operations, things like this.
7 And therefore, it would not be fair and
8 equitable to penalize only those state which have gone to
—f 9 the trouble of actually imposing oujr^ofgfctate bans, legis-
10 latively, and not to those others.
11 That concludes my presentation, thank
12 you.
_a 13 CHARIMAN SANJOUF: Does anybody wish to
14 give a formal statement of no longer than five minute dura-
15 tion?
16 Yes, sir. Would you come up to the
17 microphone and state your name and affiliation?
18 MR. MILLER: Scott Miller, Illinois
19 EPA.
20 I'm going to address the that was just
^- (AoI
^21 talked about. It's 250.622$(b) .
\ 22 The tax payers in Illinois paid salaries
' /Jw£fcCA.07V_
_\ 23 to the employees of the Illinois EnvironmentaVAgency, and
24 are thereby, paying for the entire permit system that our
25 state operates under. And we receive no Federal monies now
-------
384
1 that we are operating under, and we are doing this entirely
?2 from tax payers'monies.
3 It"s safe to assume that 15 per cent
4 of the special waste disposed of disposed of in our state,
5 are from states outside, or neighboring states, in effect as
6 far away as the East Coast.
7 And since we believe we are the only
8 state in the Midwest to address our special waste probeltns
9 to the extent that we are capable of handling any and all
'° was^e generated in our state, and as such, we have become the
11 dumping ground of the Midwest.
12 I propose the statement be changed to
13 read this way:
l4 The jregional administrator will find a
T5 state program which includes a ban on the importation of
16 hazardous waste from other states, inconsistent for the pur-
&-fat>Sf*tcC)
17 poses of Section 30060(by, unless the state or states on
18 which the ban or tariffs are imposed have failed to address
19 their problem of hazardous waste regulations, whether by
20 total lack of regulations or by inavailability of permitted
21 disposal sites that are able to accept the majority of the
22 waste generated in their states.
23 We have no intention of detering waste
24 from outgof^gtate. We feel we should have the right to im-
25 pose tariffs, to reimburse the tax payers of our state for
-------
385
1 the monies that they are outlaying to receive waste from
2 states who do not wish to address their problems.
3 We feel we should also have the right, to
4 selectively discriminate against certain waste frames coming
5 into our state. If nothing else for self-defense reasons.
6 It has come to light lately that Courts
7 from other states have, in their proceedings, said to the
8 extent, that waste will be removed, that waste that have been
9 buried at illegal disposal sites will be dug up and moved to
10 the state of Illinois.
11 I mean it's nothing—you can't address
12 an issue any less than that.
13 We feel that we should not have to take
14 the heat from the private sector, for those states that
15 don't want to address their problems.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: Any other statements?
18 (No response.)
19 CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: We will now take
20 written comments on cards.
2i MR. LINDSEY: I have a few left over
22 from yesterday. Two of them are kind of quick. I think
23 Matt may have addressed these, so I'll just quickly go
24 through them.
25 "Under an authorized state program
-------
386
U.S.
•f 1 would generators report to H* EPA or to the state agency or
A-
2 both?"
3 "And similarly,the state runs its own
4 program, will records be sent to both the State and EPA?"
5 And the answer is, if the state if au-
6 thorized, the records will go to the state.
7 "Will bans on interstate transportation
8 of waste be allowed?" This is the same issue which Mr.
9 Miller was addressing and which Mr. Straus addressed a lit-
10 tie earlier.
" Depending on the outcome of that Su-
'2 preme Court case, it may be legal to do it--in other words,
13 to have a ban on imports. Depending uii till uuLtume u£ Llmt
14 auiuaiue OuuiL laht!, U may be lugal tu Ju it. In other
'5 words, to have a ban on import, depending on the outcome of
'6 that case, which is being decided on whether or not those
<2_
—^ 17 bans represent a hindrance to the interstate commerce.
'8 On the other hand, the way our regula-
(Sk^
19 tions are written—or our guidelines are written now, such
Wl
20 states which have such bans will not be found to be consis-
21 tent with the purposes of RCRA and thus will not be author-
22 ized. Which means, in those states that have bans, the bans
23 may be legal and they still exist, but EPA will be running
24 the program, as it stand now.
25 This is a long one: "Where states have
-------
387
1 solid waste disposal regulations and have a hazardous waste
2 class in existence and active sites have met and are meeting
3 current regulations, what will the effect be of EPA regu-
4 lations when they are promulgated? Modifications may very
5 well be impossible or difficult since—well, may be well
6 nigh impossible, and since in installation were made in good
7 faith may meet with some degree of chagrin."
8 Now, I'm sure that's true. The situa-
9 tion is, that under Section 3009 of the Act, the Federal
10 standards are minimum standards. No state or any other go-
11 vernmental entity can develop standards which are less
12 stringent than the standards being developed in Sub Federal
13 C. This is written right in the Section 3009, and you'll
14 see that.
15 State regulations and standards , on the
16 other hand, may be different than the federal standards, but
17 they can not be less stringent, they must be judged to pro-
18 vide an equivalent degree of control over the waste or over
19 the situation involved, in order to be judged to be equiva-
20 lent.
21 On the other hand, within limits, as
22 Mr. Straus indicated, the state regulations can be more
23 stringent than the Federal.
24 If a state elects not to administer the
25 EPA regulations--!111 will get back to that, that's not ex-
-------
388
1 actly a correct way of stating it, but if a state elects not
2 to be authorized, will the EPA regulations preempt and take
3 precedents over such state laws and regulations concerning
4 hazardous waste disposal or will hazardous waste generators,
5 transporters, disposers be faced with complying with comflic-
6 ting and potentially irreconcilable laws and regulations?"
7 Okay, this kind of is the same thing
8 I just addressed. The Federal standards are National mini-
m
? 9 muns, no state regulations or any other kind of regulations
10 Can be less severe than the Federal ones.
11 If a state decides not to seek authori-
12 zation and has a program, we have no choice, we will have to
13 institute a Federal program in parallel with the state pro-
14 gram. It's certainly undesirable, and is one of the main rea-
15 sons for the state taking over the program—the state seeking
OL.
l6 suthorization, as it were. Because there would be duplica-
17 ted programs, that would be a possibility.
18 MR. STRAUS: I have a few questions here
19 that relate to the same question, and that is, I will read
20 them. One says: "When will EPA begin granting full authori-
21 zation? Sometime before October 20, 1980 or by October 21,
22 1978?"
23 And the other one says: "What is the
24 earlies^date that a state will have enough information from
us.
25 the ti£ EPA to know all the requirements upon it for full
-------
339
1 authorization?"
2 Well, as I indicated, the state could
3 apply for full authorization at any time. By definition of
4 the Act, the state could have applied for full authorization
5 the day the Act passed, October 21, 1976.
6 However, since the states requirements
7 can be no less stringent, we will be not be able to authorize
8 a state for full authorization until all regulations, that
9 is Sections 3001 through 5, are promulgated.
10 So, saying that the regulations are--
11 will be promulgated final by October--! guess, mid-year of
12 '78, sometime after that—sometime very soon after that, a
13 state can start applying for full authorization and start
14 accepting it.
15 Full authorization does not have to wait
16 until—that is, the state does not have to get interim au-
17 thorization before it can take full. The state can go to
I8 full authorization if they can meet all the requirements.
'9 Next question is: "Many states screen
20 all waste entering their states. If the state deems the
2' hazardous waste material unacceptable, the material is not
22 allowed to be disposed of in the states hazardous waste man-
23 agement site. Is this not a ban in a sense?"
24 Well, basically, we do not want to dic-
25 tate to the states, how they should run their business. If
-------
390
1 they feel that the facility itself is not capable of handling
2 the waste, we certainly don't want to put a hazardous waste
3 into a--for example, you do not want to incinerate an organic
4 waste, so, to say this, I want to take my waste to your in-
5 cinerator, if you can not burn it and destroy it, we wouldn't
6 want to do that.
7 So, it might be a ban in a sense, but
8 we are taking the, I guess, the viewpoint, that the state
9 should decide which waste they can handle, out of which
10 facilities they should go to.
11 Then it says: "Doesn't placing restric-
12 tions on a permanent facility, as to what hazardous waste it
13 can accept, in fact, which waste can be handled in a state?"
14 Well, I guess that's pretty much true,
IS but again, you do not want to take waste to a facility that
16 can not adequately handle it.
17 And then: "Won't the problems, ad-
18 dressed by the person from Illinois,be resolved as neighbor-
19 ing states receive full authorization by 1980?"
20 The answer is, yes. I'm not sure if
21 all the states neighboring Illinois will receive the full
22 authorization. We don't know which states will receive the
23 full authorization. So, we'll have to wait and see.
24 Next question is: "What is EPA's com-
25 mitment to provide adequate resources, that is, Federal grant
-------
391
1 funds, in fiscal year '79, and future years to state pro-
2 grains? It appears justified that EPA should fund state
3 hazardous waste programs at the 90 per cent to 100 per cent
4 funding level, when you consider that EPA must operate the
5 program, if the state does not. The present funding level
6 and 75 per cent limit, is inadequate."
7 Well, the 75 per cent limit is for fis-
8 cal year "78 funds, and all funds are being, I guess, dis-
_
9 tributed under 4008. There is a section in Cub Title C,
10 Section 3011, which provides funds to be distributed to the
11 states, for the hazardous waste program.
12 We are planning on distributing fund«j to
13 the states in fiscal year '79, under Section 3011. Those
14 regulations have not been promulgated yet. We don't know
15 what the matching requirement will be, whether it will be
16 75 per cent or 90 per cent. Probably will not be 100 per
17 cent, there's only one case in which 100 per cent funding has
18 been given in the past, and that's been under 2008, and that
19 was specifically mandated by Congress.
20 So, that still is up in grabs, we;1 re not
21 sure what the funding level will be. And as far as the fund-
22 level, it will--a lot of it will depend on the amount of
23 money that Congress appropriates to the grant program,
24 "Will full authorization be granted to
25 portions of the state or only to the entire state?"
-------
392
It will only be granted to the state.
There will have to be a state program.
"With states whose hazardous waste pro-
grams are not authorized, does EPA have enforcement funding
4
to enforce a Federal hazardous waste regulation activities
through RCRA?"
6
Interesting,fair questions. Since
Congress intends that the states will be taking over the
8
program th!ey are not giving us very many resources because
they expect all the states to take over.
So, if we had assumed all the programs,
then, 1978, if very few states applied for authorization,
12
we would have to do the job. We probably could not do the
job as good as we did if we had additional people.
14
So, I guess the question really relates
to the number of states that will take over the program. If
16
Congress fines that the states are not accepting the program,
they might give us additional resources in which to conduct
18
the program.
19 g
MR. LINDSEY: "The state of Louisiana
P>»20
has passed a law giving the Louisiana State Health Depart-
ment the authority to determine what waste they will allow
to be imported into Louisiana. In your, EPA1s opinion, how
does this fit with your intended descrimination program,?"
24
It depends, really, on how and why this
-------
393
1 position is taken. If the state has regulations relative Co
2 certain kinds of waste or all kinds of waste, which are based
3 upon public health in the environment, which don't descrimin-
4 ate between in-state and out-of-state waste, for which the
5 basis of and public health and environmental protection can
6 be substantiated. And the result of all that is to lead to
7 a conclusion, in that there is no facility within the state
8 that can handle these materials. Then, that will be allowed.
9 "In a state with an importation ban,
10 will this ban stand even if the Federal Government runs the
11 state program?"
12 Again that gets back to the decision,
13 really, in the state court, in the New Jersey versus Phila-
'4 delphia case, as to whether or not such bans are constitu-
15 tional. If there are found to be constitutional, then, the
16 answer is, yes, the state ban would stand, even if the Fed-
17 eral Government were running the program.
'8 We wouldn't be enforcing it. The state
19 would have to enforce it.
20 "Will the state without permitted dis-
21 posal site, be able to receive full authorization?"
22 They can call them something else. It
23 would have to be a facility permitting mechanism. They could
24 call it a licensed, you could call it whatever you would like
25 to call it. But there would have to be a control mechanism
-------
394
1 based on standards for permitting, in essence, of facilities.
2 Mr. Sanjour addressing—oh, I see, I
3 see, okay. I can interpret this two different ways. The
4 one way that I did interpret it, whether or not they have a
5 permitting program for sites. And the second one, is whether
6 or not they have any sites, which are permitted.
7 The answer is, to the former, is no.
8 The answer to the latter is, yes. Just because they have no
9 sites would not preclude a state from receiving authoriza-
10 tion.
U "If a state has a program, but does not
12 participate—is not seeing authorization, but already has a
(JL.S.
~ 13 program, will the -tfS EPA issue permits that violate state
14 program requirements?"
15 Just let me say this about that. Under
16 the law we will be carrying out the Federal program accor-
17 ding to the standards that are developed. If a state has
18 other standards, first of all, they can not have standards
19 which are less stringent than ours, they could have standards
20 which are more stringent than ours, if they do not seek the
2, program.
22 And they can have them in any event,
23 even if they do seek it, to certain limits that we discussed
24 before.
25 If, for example, there are—and it's
-------
395
1 conceivable that there may be standards--state standards and
2 Federal standards, which are irreconcilable, and there be
3 parallel programs.
4 If that were the case, we'll carry out
5 our own program, and if they're irreconcilable, then, one
6 would expect that there would be a Court battle over that,
Xa4^.
^7 as to which «s primacy. I'm not sure how I could answer
8 that.
U.3.
^ 9 "When does -H6- EPA plan to enforce RCRA
10 6000 series RE state local permits for Federal installa-
11 tions?"
12 For those of you who may not be familar
13 Section 6001 is clear, that Federal facilities are to be
14 treated for purposes of this Act like any other generator of
15 hazardous waste.
16 We're talking here about coke-coal
17 plants (pliuuliallj) and things of that nature. As such,
18 whether the Feds are running the program, they will be treat-
19 ed like any other generator of hazardous waste. That is,
20 they'll have to have permits and so on.
21 But the Act also indicates, that such
22 facilities must also meet the procedural and and substanta-
23 tive requirements of state and local laws. Just as any
24 other facility.
25 "What are the incentative to a state to
-------
396
u.3.
l have their program authorized by •BS EPA, for example, is
2 there substantial money involved in the state?"
3 Under section 3011, there is 25 million
4 dollars appropriated for each of two years that are ad-
5 dressed--no, authorized--authorized, not appropriated, by
6 Congress for this exact purpose, to carry out hazardous waste
7 programs. Congress seldom appropriates all the money they
8 authorize and in this case, they probably will not.
9 On the other hand, there will still be
10 substantial federal funds. Under Section 3011, which we will
11 commence distributing under a formula, that we have yet to
12 develop, in 1979.
13 In 1978, state program development will
14 be fundable under Section 4008 of the Act, and there is
15 money available to do that. Whether that's sufficient money
16 to encourage or to support all state activities that might
17 be required is questionable, since we don't know particularly
18 in '79 how much funding that will be, and also, I should
19 point out, that there is and will be a state matching re-
20 quirement, which for fiscal year '78 activities is a 25 per
21 cent match.
22 Under 3011 and fiscal year '79, it's
23 not been decided yet. So, the availability of funds is one
24 reason why the state may want to take over the program, on
25 the other hand, it's been pointed out to us, that the match
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
n
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
397
requirement may be a reason why some state may not be able
to. They may not be able to get the state matching require -
ments from their legislature. A problem.
"What may be other incentives for a
state to take over the program?"
One of the big ones is home rule. Many
state governments and people in states would much rather de>al
with issues that relate to their local wel^being. They'd
much rather deal with the state officials then they would
with Washington or the ^regional offices of EPA. And that's;
a very strong incentive in some places.
The lack of duplicate programs, that we
just talked about, and the impact that it'll have on indus-
tries and on the people within the state, to have two pro-
grams addressing the same thing. Industry, and to an extent
the environmentalists in many places, would much rather deal
with local people than with somebody in Washington or Chicago
or Kansas City, or wheregver.
Further, if the state assumes the pro-
gram as we indicated, they don't really assume the Federal
program. Their program, that is the state program is found
to be equivalent to the Federal program, and we authorize the
state to carry out that program in lieu of the Federal pro-
gram, which gives quite a bit of leeway to the state to taLl-
or its program to the needs and concerns and conditions with-
-------
398
1 in that particular state. And that's another reason why a
2 state may want to assume the program and not be stuck with a
3 Federal program, which is not tailored to the local concerns
4 and needs of a given area.
5 And I apparently made a comment earlier
6 which bothered one of our other people here, and he gave me
7 a note. I apparently talked about records being sent to the
8 state.
—ej 9 Under the Federal system, the raaord
10 ketpiug requirements or requirements for the generaters and
11 disposers. There are the ones who keep the records. They
12 don't send it to EPA. Reports are sent to EPA. Okay? And
13 reports will be sent to the state.
14 Now, the definition of what is a report
15 and what is a record—you know, we can get into that, but
16 basically, a report is something that's made to the state
17 or EPA, but a record is something that is kept by the company
18 involved. So, I wanted to clarify that for the purpose of
19 others.
20 CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: Okay, I've got one
21 I can answer, then, I'll give it to you, Matt.
22 "Under a state authorized program, who
23 would regulate the waste generated by a Federal facility?"
us.
Like an army base? tfS EPA or the state?"
25 The law clearly states that the state
-------
399
1 would regulate such facilities. Section 6001 discusses that.
2 MR. STRAUS: Here's another one that
3 deals with Federal facilities. It says: "I assume EPA will
n
4 be regulating Federal facilities' disposal sites, since these
5 would be outside state authority?"
6 Well, he said he just answered this, so
7 you have the answer.
8 0 /i .i/./ But then another question is: "Will EPA
duJH<ju
be doing 9qb Title D inventory of federal dumps.
10 And as I understand it, the state will
11 be performing the open dump inventory, including both private
12 and federal facilities, I imagine. Am I right? Will the
13 state be conducting the federal open dump- -any open dumps on
14 federal facilities?
MR. LINDSEY: That's a sub title D
16 question and frankly, we're not the ones who are involved in
17 that.
18 The way it's set up now, the agents,
19 and I'm speaking for the people who are involved with this,
20 the states are being encouraged to carry out the open dump
21 inventory and if they do, I presume, it's like the rest of
22 the Act, that the Federal facilities would be treated just
23 anybody else. And the states would be conducting the Lnven-
24 tory there as well. I presume that, but I'm not certain
25 that' s the case.
-------
400
1 MR. STRAUS: Okay, the next question is
2 a little complex. It says: "if the state has a program and
3 seeks authorization, with the states classification scheme,"
4 and I'm not sure if he's talking about hazardous waste or
5 what, "is different in terms of some tests of leads, what
6 guidelines will EPA use to determine technical equivalency?"
7 Well, we've written the guidelines to
«-^8 allow as much flexibility to the ^regional .offices to make
9 this determination of what is equivalent, what is consistent
10 and what is adequate enforcement. And it's going to be part
-s-vll the states responsibility to show where the testSare equiva-
12 lent, and it's going to be part EPA"s responsibility to make
13 an evaluation.
14 Now, I'm not sure that we could ever
15 put out a set of guidelines that would cover every case,
16 every particular situation. I'm not sure if we are going to
17 be putting out guidelines or if we're just going to count on
-^18 the regional offices judgement.
19 However, there will be instances where
-^ 20 the regional offices will probably give us a call and say,
21 well, do you think this technically equivalent, and we will
22 probably get into the ball game.
2~
23 But let me just reiterate. The states
•} 24 will be authorized by the regional offices of EPA, not
•*) 25 Washington ^{eadquarters .
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~-\ 17
18
19
•w) 20
21
23
24
25
401
If I did not answer that question ade-
quately, he can come up to the microphone or send another
card up.
"if a hazardous waste is transported
across several states, and the generator is in a state which
is authorized, and the disposal site is in a state which is
authorized, does the manifest of the waste need to be filed
with the in-between states, for their information?"
Well, there's two answers. The first
is, if the states in-between are the state program—or I
should say, the program is operated by the Federal govern -
ment, then, a manifest will not be sent to those in-between
states. As I understand it.
If the states in-between have their own
state program, it would be up to--for that state to make
that determination, whether they want any manifest for waste
>' / *
transported through the state. So, it's an either /or, de-
pending on who' s conducting the program.
"I believe you stated that a state can
U.S.
ban importation but, if it does «* EPA will administer RCRA
in that state. The end result is that the ban still stands.
US.
What then, is the purpose or result of 86 EPA denying author-
ization? If the state has an otherwise acceptable program
it will result in a dual permit and reporting system."
Well, basically, it's a good question,.
-------
402
And one we wrestle with a lot, but the whole question of ca-
2 pacity, whether there is going to be sufficient capacity, has
3 come up time and time again. And we feel, and other feel,
4 that we do not take this stance, even though some states,
5 about 10, presently have some type of importation ban, that
will not be able to accept the program, we feel that if we do
not take this stance, that more and more states will be im-
posing these bans.
9 More and more states will say, well,
10 they are imposing bans, so, I don't want to get all the ha-
zardous waste, so eventually you get 56 state bans. Or may-
12 be not that many, but somewhere around there.
13 And we feel that each state would then
14 have to have a hazardous waste facility to manage the waste.
15 Well, the problem with generating capa-
16 city would be greatly impaired if we did not take a positive
17 stance, I think. I think that whatever the outcome of whe-
18 ther we take this position, whatever EPA1s position is, will
19 be a difficult decision to make. But I think that the—well,
20 I'm not sure there is anything else I can say. Well, let's
21 just stop it there. I've already said everything I can.
22 MR. LINDSEY: Let me expand briefly on
23 that if I could. The bottom line in all this, in implemen-
24 ting this act, is going to be the availability of facilities.
25 If we don't have available adequate facilities, then the Act
-------
403
1 is not going to be implementable. Now, that's clear.
2 And anything that is going to impact
3 upon the ability of an adequate industry to develop, is some-
4 thing we're going to have to address. And we see this im-
5 portation ban issue as bearing on that.
6 We have direct input from a number of
7 states which indicates, for example, the states were quite
8 vocal on this, both ways, and they take a position. Some
9 states are totally opposed to the position we've taken, other
10 states are quite vocal in support of our keeping it, the
11 provision as it exists or some modification perhaps.
12 We heard the position that, gee, no mat-
13 ter--even if you take this position, it's not going to ef-
14 feet anything whatsoever, and your just going to be excluding
15 states from assuming authorization and your going to have to
16 run more than you otherwise would have to.
17 On the other hand, we've also had sts.tes
18 tell us, on the record, that if you do not maintain this
19 ban or this approach, simply all states in our region will
20 have such a ban very soon. And this is the only thing, per-
21 haps one of the major things that stands between some states
22 and the imposition of these bans.
23 So, we get it from both ways. Probably
24 be sued in either event. Okay, here's a couple.
25 "Can a state receive interim authorise-
-------
404
l tion, if they have no authority to run, for example, a mani-
2 fest?"
3 Now, in the case of a manifest, the an-
4 swer is yes.
U.S.
5 "If so, would US EPA run that part?"
6 And the answer to that is, that during
7 this interim period, which is a maximum of two years, the
8 state will have to develop that manifest capability. And the
61.3.
^ 9 answer is no. -tfS EPA, during the interim period is not going
10 to come in and run a parallel program. However—what I'm
ll saying is, though that for the interim period up to two
12 years, there would be no manifest system in that state.
13 Now, as 1 say, sometime during that
14 period, the state will have to develop such a thing, other-
4<»MjiL
15 wise, they're going to forfiet their interim authorization.
16 As you may recall, Mr. Straus adressed
17 the issue--not the issue, but the proviston for an authoriza-
18 tion plan, which says, this is the things we have to do, the
19 state proposes this.
20 These are the things we have to do to
21 get from where we are now, to where we need to be for full
22 authorization. And this is the time schedule by which we're
23 going to meet those things.
24 So, there is this plan, and the plan,
25 is, if you will, an implementation plan, a compliance sche-
-------
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
405
dule, or whatever you want to call it. Okay.
"If a state has its own hazardous waste
program, but this program is unable to receive authorization
would not your attempt to carry out the program against the
wishes of the state, violate the states rights?"
Well, that's very interesting and that's
a constitutional issue and I'm not going to address that.
I have no authority with which to address that.
Clearly we have our marching orders.
The state is not authorized, we have to do it. It says so
in the Act. Congress has spoken.
"If a state is operating its own pro-
gram, will quarterly reports from generators and disposers
a.S.
still have to be sent to the -86- EPA?"
No, if that state program is author i2;ed.
Let me just further elaborate. The state might not have
quarterly reporting, they might require that the individual
manifest be sent in. Again, the state will not adopt the
Federal program, they will adopt their own program. And that
program can be different.
This is rather long, and the question
is --and we did address it yesterday and maybe we' 11 have to
address it again.
"Sometime before the end of the program
please review the schedule of activities by EPA through pro-
-------
406
l mulgation and regulations and the time table for activities
2 by persons requiring permits."
3 The next step is for us to put these
^4 standards and guidelines out to the public through the Fed-
?5 eral register as proposed regulations and guidelines. The
6 first of these, Section 3006, will—this will be done, hope-
7 fully, in November. The other sections will be done, hope-
8 fully, one at a time. First, Section 3010, then, Section
9 3003 through roughly February.
>!0 There will then be a 60©lay comment per-
il iod, during which hearings will be held. Probably in several
12 places for each section. Some of the sections may travel
13 together. For example, the regulations under Section 3004
14 and 3005, you can't discuss one without discussing the other
15 very readily. And they will travel together, and they will
16 be joint hearings
17 And this may be the case for others.
18 For example, 3001 and 3002. That's the next step. After the
19 comment period and the hearings, then, we will do our thing
20 again and we will go back out with the final regulations.
21 Now, the Act specifically identifies
22 what happens then. Once the regulations are promulgated,
23 that is, made final, the clock starts. Most of them are
24 geared to Section 3001, and most of the regulations go into
25 effect 180 days after that point.
-------
407
1 I don1t think I want to get into each
2 individual regulation, as to how that--how each one is de-
3 veloped. I think from reading the Act itself, under each
4 section, you can see what the time limits are there. If
5 there are any individual questions or misunderstandings on
6 that, that would take an inordinate amount of time for me
7 to go through them all here. Why don't you ask them indi-
8 vidually or something like that. We'll see if we can clear
9 them up.
10 MR. STRAUS: It says: "How many peo-
11 pie do you anticipate EPA will employ just to administer
12 RCRA, such as handle permits, inspections, review quarterly
13 reports?"
14 Well, that a question, because a Lot
15 of it will depend on the number of states which will seek
16 authorization and which will be authorized. For example, if
17 most of the states are authorized then, EPA will not probably
18 have to hire to many additional people.
19 However, if very few states seek au-
20 thorization and are authorized, I imagine that there will
21 be a lot more hiring in EPA and maybe some job opportunities
22 for some of you. But, 1 really can't answer it, it all de-
23 pends on the number of states that will seek authorization.
24 Now, here's a legal question, I don't
25 think we can answer it, but it says: "Even if the Supreme
-------
408
1 Court says that bans are illegal, does not a state have a
2 right to ban the importation of those items which can be
n
3 considered a hazard, much like the Western States baning the
4 transportation of plants, fruits and vegetables, because
5 they may represent a hazard."
6 Well, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know
7 if anybody else here wants to take a crack at it, but as I
U.S.
—"|8 understand it, the--if the US Supreme Court says that bans
9 are illegal, such bans are illegal. But, I'd talk to a law-
10 yer about that.
11 MR. KOVALICK: One comment on that.
12 A nuance on that is that the Supreme Court case, as we under-
13 stand it, has to do with the use of the police power or
14 health power, as to whether waste is a commodity, and so
15 if they were to decide that the bans on waste are illegal,
16 then, you would not be a'jle to have such bans, because they
17 would be calling waste a non-commodity, and therefore, not
18 subject to those powers.
19 I have four seconds to answer this
20 question—it' s from yesterdays'session.
21 CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: I was just going to
22 say, I think we're going to close any more questions, be-
23 cause we are running overtime. We'll just complete the
24 ones that we have at the desk.
25 MR. KOVALICK: If I may, back to 3001
-------
409
1 (b), identification and listing, would you speculate on the
2 hazard of (IT) flash, (?) bottom ash,$) scrubber sludge,,^
small capacitors,(0 boron."
The same answer applies for flash, bot-
torn ash and scrubber sludge, which is we know that some oC
them contain metal and it's possible that upon leaching and
7 using that leachate in our toxicity test, it could be ha-
8 zardous. But the basic answer, we don't know.
9 Small capacitors, as you may know or
1° may be regulated under toxic substance control act, because
11 of their PCB content. So, they are product, and it's likely
12 they will be dealt with under that Act as a specific product.
13 Not impossible, but as a waste it could be controled under
14 RCRA.
15 Boron, we did a bit of consulting; on,
—) i^ itxs hazardous properties and apparently it could be both.
17 It has some explosive properties and/or some fibre toxic
18 properties. It's more of a yes than no for waste contain-
ment.
20 MR. LINDSEY: These are the last two,
21 I guess. "What if a state, not having an importation ban,
22 included a nearly impossible condition in hazardous waste
disposal, a standard. For example, a 20Qgfoot thick clay
liners, that is in effect forcing all hazardous waste out of
25 the state and baning importation for disposal. Would the
-------
410
1 state still be eligible for full authorization?"
#.f).
-02 First of all, the thing the ftA will do,
___? 3 the^Regional Administrator will do, is determine whether or
4 not the effect is to force materials out of the state, and
5 is inhibiting free movement of waste.
6 If that were the case, then he would
7 apply two tests. Number 1, does the standard descriminate
8 between in state generated waste and out state generated
9 waste.
10 Number 2, he would make a judgement on
11 whether or not the standard can be substantiated on the basis
12 for the need for public health protection or environmental
13 protection.
14 Now, this is his judgement call, and
15 he111 compare that against the Federal standards which are
16 being developed to protect public health from the environ-
17 ment.
18 If, however, special conditions within
19 that state make it clear that some more stringent standards
20 can be supported, then, he would find in favor of allowing
21 that to happen. Now, if it's a nearly impossible condition
22 and one that is clearly arbitrary, then, he's going to find
23 it not consistent.
24 It's going to be a difficult judgement
25 call, if that happens, and it's going to take a lot of work
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm afraid.
411 - 441
"Do you have a feel, at this time, how
many states will run their own program and how many state:;
EPA will have to do it in?"
And the answer is, not really, it de-
pends on a great many things. Now, there are a lot of things
that impact on a states assuming.
Our thinking, at this point, is that
something better than 40 of the 56 jurisdictions, including
the territories, will be eligible for interim authorization.
Okay, I think that's about all I can
say.
CHAIRMAN SANJOUR: We'll adjourn for
lunch now, and reconvene at 1:10 o'clock.
-------
442
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Would everybody take
3 their seat, please, so that we can get underway it's time.
4 Let me welcome you again to the last
-?5 session of this public meeting of the Resource Conservation
6 and Recovery Act.
7 This afternoon we are going to cover
8 the notification procedures under Section 3010. The pre-
} 9 paration of the environmental and economic impact _state-
10 ments which we are doing on that regulatory development.
11 We are going to go through a series of case examples of
12 typical kinds of conditions that a variety of different
13 firms might find applicable to them.
14 Again we will be taking general pre-
15 pared statements, five minutes in duration, into the record.
16 Our intention is to conclude this by
17 5:00 o'clock. And I know many of you have plane reserva-
18 tions, et cetera, to catch. So I expect there will be
19 people in and out all afternoon.
20 I am Fred Lindsey. And I am going to
2i be sharing this particular session, to my right is Bill
22 Sanjour and to my left is Walt Kovalick. And they will
23 be sharing the answering of questions along with 'the people
24 who will be making the presentations.
25 Now just like the other sessions here,
-------
3
-f\
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
443
for those of you who may not have been here, we will have
the desk gfficer, that is the person who is in charge of
a particular portion of the regulation and presents
approximately a 2Q9ninute summary.
And then that will be followed up with
the opportunity to make a prepared statement of five minutes
in length or less on that portion or on that section of
the Act.
And that will be followed then by
written questions. And if time allows, questions from
the floor.
With that I will turn the podium over
to Tim Fields, who is our .technology jgrogram manager and
is the d_esk officer for 3010, which deals with the notifi-
cation regulations.
MR. FIELDS: Thank you, Fred.
What I am going to discuss right now
is the process or procedures that are being established to
initiate the notification program that is tied to the 3001
regulation.
Ninety days after the 3001 criteria
identifying a listing of hazardous wastes, all people who
handle the hazardous waste, that is generators of hazardous
waste, transporters, and operators and owners of treatment
-------
444
l storage and disposal facilities will have to notify the
2 EPA for an authorized state program that they are in one
3 of those five categories or one or more of those five
4 categories.
5 As stated in the law the notification
6 must state the location, general description of the activity,
7 and the types of hazardous waste that are being handled
8 for that activity.
9 The notification must be filed either
10 with the state or,as stated in the law,an authorized state
11 hazardous waste program under Section 3006.
12 Again, at this critical point, there
13 probably won1t be any authorized state program under Section
14 3006 at that time.
15 The reason we are promulgating regu-
^\ 16 lations in this section—or we feel that: No. 1, proce-
17 dures must be set up to receive and process the notices
is that are going to be received by EPA or the designated
19 state agency. Certainly we feel that affective parties
20 will be made more aware of the notification requirements
21 by us publishing a regulation in the register.
22 By, you know, publishing something
23 there, we will issue press releases at the sane time and
24 advertising the trade. We feel that this is the way of
25 making people aware of the requirements of Section 3010.
-------
445
1 Thirdly, we want to assure Chat there
2 is non-ambiguity about, you know, what the law specifies.
3 Certain terms like general description of your activity,
4 we feel there would be a lot of questions about what that
5 really means unless we promulgate a regulation specifying
6 what we mean be a general description of an activity, both
7 for the prospective party and for the EPA and the state
8 that has to receive that notice.
9 And finally we need to promulgate a
10 regulation under Section 3010 because we want to get the
11 state involved, the state involvement in the notification
—=712 process. Because of the timing of the Section 3006 ^uide-
_913 lines, as Matt Straus talked about earlier this morning,
14 there won't be any authorized state probably during the
_*15 initial 9001ay notification period. So the procedures
16 need to be established to allow states to get authorization
17 to handle the notices that are going to be submitted during
-4 is this initial 9
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
-P 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
446
The regulations themselves are broken
down in two major sections. The first major section is on
the whole procedure for a state acquiring a term- -what we
call limited interim authorization—this is a special
authorization that only applies to Section 3010. You
shouldn' t confuse this with the authorization of partial
?t&*t
and interim and full, which Ma* Straus discussed this
morning.
This is a special authorization which
allows the state t* receive and conduct notification acti-
vities. This allows the state to receive the notices from
affected parties in their state. And the state can conduct
support activities, in support of the EPA regional office,
in implementing and assuring compliance with the Section
3010 procedures.
The certain authorities that are
reserved to EPA though, under this limited interim authori-
zation, EPA regulations must be adhered to both by the
state and affective parties in those states for this noti-
fication process.
They can1 t define affective parties
differently than EPA. If we are going to exclude mining
operations from notifying, a state can't require that mining
operation to notify in that state. So there has to be a
certain amount of aomsistaaiLi.
-------
447
l state to grant exemptions from the notification process,
-j2 daring this initial 9G&lay period and thereafter.
3 Enforcement will have to be done by the
4 EPA. State Legislative Mandates don1t generally have any
5 notification provision. So if people identify people who
6 are not requiring the notification requirements the states
•^7 will then have to notify EPA--the EPA jregional _offlee, In
-------
448
l The second major item is that the state
2 must submit some sort of implementation plan for how they
3 plan to implement Section 3010 under their jurisdiction.
4 That is a mechanism for notifying effective parties in
5 their state. A mechanism for how they intend to receive
6 the notices and what they plan to do with them, and that
7 kind of thing. This has to be in their implementation plan.
5 8 Once the Regional .administrator receives
9 this application which contains these agreements as well as
10 the implementation plan, he then must review it. And it
ill is his decision. The regional administrator makes the
12 decision based on a technical review by his, you know,
13 technical people there as to whether he is going to accept
14 or reject that application.
115 If the £egional administrator decides
16 to accept an application, he has to make that decision
17 within a certain period of time, 30 days, as is in our
}18 current draft of the .regulations. That's what we are
19 thinking about.
20 The state, by the way, has 30 days to
121 get that application in to the £egional administrator from
22 the time the final regulations en 3010 are promulgated in
—^23 the Federal Register. It is a whole process of 60 days.
24 The state has 30 days to get their
application in. And the EPA regional administrator has 30
-------
449
l days to make his decision.
-2 Once the regional administrators make
3 their decisions about what states under their jurisdiction
4 will be allowed to handle notices from affected parties in
•~->5 their states, then the EPA regional administrator notifies
6 the EPA headquarters. We then will probably publish another
^« 7 notice in the Federal Register identifying those states,
8 so that everybody will know about them, those states that
9 are being granted authority to handle 3010.
10 Those states that have not been granted
n this special limited interim authorization—the notices in
^ 12 those states will have to be sent to the EPA regional
^"913 $£fice. So it will be a dual notification process. Some
14 notices, depending on which state you are in, will be s«nt
15 to your state. Other notices, in another state, might be
_ol6 sent to EPA regional office. We plan to make people aware
17 of that pretty early. O.K.
is The notificatlon--the second major part
19 of the regulation addresses the actual notification proce-
20 dure. This is the part of the regulation that applies to
21 the affected parties, the people who have to file notice.
22 First of all each individual facility
23 must file notification. Individual companies—a company
24 can't file notification for all of his facility. For
25 example, you have a company and you have a facility in 30
-------
1
2
3
4
6
__^ 7
8
9
10
11
„.> 12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
450
states, you know, you can't file one notice—each
individual facility that you operate will have to file
notification. The one exception is in the case of trans-
porters of hazardous waste. Where are going to allow —
in the current drafted regulations anyway — we are consider-
ing allowing transporters of hazardous waste to file noti-
fication via the headquarters of.fi.ce.
However, a copy of that individual
overall notice will have to be sent to every jurisdiction
that you own or operate a terminal in. For example, you
have a headquarters office in Washington, B.C., you might
have terminals in St. Louis or wheregver. St. Louis — the
facility in St. Louis wouldn't have to file notice but the
^eadquarters should send a copy of that notice to the _state
of Missouri, if the jitate of Missouri has authorization to
handle 3010. O.K.
We also are going to institute a eon-
tinuing notification project. The need has been identified
for EPA and the state to be aware of all new people who
come into the hazardous waste arena.
So the law states that 90 days after
the hazardous waste criteria are promulgated all existing
facilities are required to notify EPA as to whether they
are in one of those five categories I addressed earlier.
After this initial SOQiay period all new
-------
451
1 facilities will then also have to notify EPA or the state
2 agency. They will have 90 days from the commencement of
3 their hazardous waste activity to notify EPA or the state,
4 One point I would like to make here to
5 make this a little clearer: Section 3005(e), which Sam
6 Morekas discussed earlier this morning, allows notification
7 to be one of the three conditions for an interim permit.
8 This interim permit provision only
9 applies for those people who file—who are existing facili-
^10 ties and file notification within the initial 9Q3lay period.
11 If you are not an existing--«you don't file notification
•w-^12 within this initial 903day period, you do not qualify for
13 an interim permit. You will have to go through the regular
14 permit application procedures, et cetera. You can't get
15 an interim permit as if you were an existing facility
16 although you might notify us later.
17 The notifications must be sent to EPA
7 18 regions or states. The notices should not be sent to EPA
wj 19 headquarters. O.K.
20 All right. We provide an alternate in
2i our regulations for filing notification. We are going to
22 publish at the same time that we publish our final regula-
23 tions a suggested or model notification form. If you fill
24 out that notification form accurately and completely, you
25 will have to fill all requirements for notification.
-------
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
452
If you decide not to use that form for
some reason or the state decides to send you an additional
or alternative form for some other reason, you can still
file notification in some alternative means and just ignore
our form.
However, you will have to send in the
mandatory minimum amount of information. And that infor-
mation will be specified in the regulation. Some standard
items I can name: name, address, phone number, technical
contact located at that facility.
Some of the crucial items are: that
you should specify the waste types according to the six
criteria which Alan Corson discussed yesterday, as well as
any lists of hazardous wastes that we might promulgate,
those waste types that you are handling should be identified
in that notice that you file in this initial 9Q^ay period.
All right. We are also asking that you
specify the type of hazardous waste operation you are. If
you are a generator, you might dispose oolite, well, you
should indicate that you are a generator and also that you
are a disposer of hazardous waste. O.K., in your notifica-
tion.
Some sort of verbal description on the
hazardous waste should be provided. You might say that the
hazardous waste that I have are still bottoms from Perclo
-------
453
Ethylene Manufacturing, you know, for example, if you are
2 an organic chemical plant. So some sort of description
> 3 should be provided, you taw, a general description in this
4 notification.
5 Just one more point I would like to
6 point out about the actual submitting of the criteria--
7 complying with the criteria identifications. All we are
g requesting—if you are in the five category of flammability,
9 et cetera, you know, those first five categories, you have
to make a decision within the initial 9Q9day period as to
whether you handle—you are handling hazardous waste or
12 not and let EPA or the state know.
13 If you are handling a waste that falls
14 into the topic category and you can* t make a determination
-y 15 within the initial 9(GHay period, we will give you the
16 option of saying you don't know or it is undetermined
17 whether I have a hazardous waste or not.
18 However, you will have a—you will be
given a--if we get that notice in within the initial 9QSBay
—>v 20 period, you will be given an additional 90Qday period to
make a decision and determination, yes or no. Well, if we
22 don't hear from you we are going to assume that you are a
23 hazardous waste handler for notification purposes. But if
24 you find out—if you analyze or determine that your wastes
2s are not hazardous, you can indicate and we will take you off
-------
454
1 oar list of hazardous waste handlers.
2 One key thing on this notification is
3 those people who identify themselves, of course, as treat-
4 ment storage and disposal facilities, will automatically
5 we mailed a permit application. So this is kind of a kick-
6 off for, you know, for getting permit application to people-
7 getting them in the hands of people who need it.
8 We are doing certain things that impact
9 upon this—I think I need to go over a couple of these.
—3lO We are developing a statqfjjj^tate directory of potentially
11 affected parties, you know, people who we think—now this
12 is being done by contract—might be generating hazardous
13 waste, people who might be transporting hazardous waste,
14 and people who might be receiving hazardous waste. This
^ 15 will be made available to our EPA regions and jgtates in
16 implementing their notification programs.
17 We are also developing a list of labs
18 and test facilities that are available to analyze, to test
19 peoples waste to determine whether the waste are in com-
20 pliance with the Section 3001 criteria.
21 The model form that we are developing,
22 by the way, and the instructions are going to have to be
23 approved by the Office qf Management of Budget and the
24 General Services Administration, since they also apply to
25 Federal facilities to make sure that the implemation
-------
45*
1 requirements we are Imposing are the minimum amount of
2 information that is needed to fulfill Section 3010. And
3 that it is not going to impose a great economic burden
4 upon those people who have to comply with the requirements.
5 So we are trying to make sure that we
6 have a good balance here in terms of notification require-
7 ments. O.K. Some of the issues that we wrestled with in
8 getting to our current version of the regs. were the old
9 is sure, first of all of sample versus mandatory form. We
10 decided to go with the sample notification form to allow
11 for a certain degree of flexibility.
12 Certain states have indicated that they
13 want to send out notices to affective parties on their own
14 letterhead, use their own form, and we at EPA don't have
15 any problem with that, as long as the same minimum anovint
T6 of information is submitted. A state, however, might
17 request some additional information in notification that
18 they might want.
19 So we are just going to allow—we are
_J20 publishing a sample form in the Federal Register and people
21 can use it if they want to. The mass mailing of notifica-
22 tion forms*originally we thought about doing a nationwide
23 mailing of notification forms to everybody in the country
•~f 24 that might be effected by these regulations. We at
25 quarters don't think we need to do that.
-------
l
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
«ul2
13
14
15
16
17
—^18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
456
Some of the regions, however, and some
of the jtates have indicated they might want to do so.
This issue still hasn't been resolved. We don't know yet
how we are going to go on this issue. In any event, if
the ^regions and the ^states indicate they need these forms,
EPA Headquarters will print the required number of forms
that are needed by affected parties that have to comply
with the requirements.
There is a need, of course, for EPA
and a state coordination on the whole notification process
to discuss the application procedures. There is a need
for us to promulgate these regulations earlier than the
rest of the regulations because states have to submit these
applications, we have to review those applications and make
decisions about what states are going to be allowed to
conduct the activity.
So there is a timing problem here. We
have to go early on these regulations in the Federal Regis-
ter . So we are going to make you--well, people who are
affected by these requirements aware of, you know, who you
have to send your notices to, and what information should
be in that notice. O.K.
One final issue was the issue of Iong3>
going hazardous waste programs. About seven or eight
states already have hazardous waste programs. They already
-------
457
l say that they are aware of their--the people who are handl-
2 Ing hazardous waste in their state And they say why should
3 these people be required to notify again. Well, you know,
4 Section 3010 requires that, you know, that people notify
5 and we don1t have much to say in that matter.
6 Our position has been that every indi-
7 vidual facility should notify whether people know about: him
8 or not. Because our Section 3001 criteria for hazardous
9 waste might be different than the state criteria. You might
10 be excluding certain people that are not going to be excluded
11 on the 3001. You might be including some people that might
12 not be included, et cetera.
13 So our position has been that—on this
14 issue that everybody whether we know about him or not should
15 be required to file a notification.
16 O.K. With that that completes my pre-
17 sentation. So I'll turn it back to Fred.
18 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Thank you, Tim.
19 First of all are there any prepared
20 comments on statements on Section 3010?
21 (No response.)
22 Seeing none, we will take questions on
23 cards. That is the next phase. If you have a question,
24 raise your hand and we will give you a card. Tim Fields
25 has some left over from before. So, Tim, why don't you go
-------
l
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
458
ahead and answer those while we are waiting?
MR. FIELDS: O.K. I have a few ques-
tions. The first one is: "Suppose a disposer takes more
than 90 dajtSto comply with Section 3010 as authorized by
your regulations, is the interim permit valid?" The second
part of his question is: "What if a citizen sues to
have a disposal facility closed because it does not have
an interim permit as defined by Section 3005 (e)?"
I guess I have answered the question,
you know, since the question came before the presentation.
But I will try to address it again. Basically if a disposer
takes more than 90 days and he is in business — I assume
this is an existing facility. If he is in business ad
he fails to notify, he will not have complied with the
requirement of Section 3005 (e). He will thus not be
eligible for an interim permit under those conditions.
So, you know, the question is the
interim permit valid, he doesn't really have an interim
permit, O.K., if he hasn't done those three things that
are specified under Section 3005 (e).
The second part of the question is,
what is a person sues. Well, you know, the person who
sues that guy has a valid complaint because the person
doesn't have an interim permit and, you know, shouldn't
be operating under those conditions.
-------
459
1 I might add here that we are going to
2 make—EPA and the states are going to make sure—are going
3 to try to make every attempt to make sure people are aware
4 of the notification requirement. And there shouldn't be
any reason for a disposer who Is In business as a waste
disposer not notifying within, the initial 9CQday period.
7 We are going to make--we are going to have a public infor-
8 nation campaign and publish geatuCOfams in the Federal
^^^*W*™^^p*^^^^*** ^•^^^•«^^^^»
9 R£gJLs£er. We are going to make every attempt to make sure
10 people are aware of the requirements.
11 MR. SANJOUR: Excuse me, Tim. Didn't
12 you say there was some provision for people who have toxic
13 wastes to take more than 90 days.
14 MR. FIELDS: Yes, the point there is
15 that, you know, If—except for toxlclty, you have to make
that determination within the Initial 9Q@Uy period.
17 However, you can make that determination as to whether
18 your wastes are toxic or not. You can indicate you don't
know in the Initial 9QQJay period. And then you will then
20 have an additional 90 days to make that determination.
21 So you have really got six months to
22 make that determination as to whether you have a hazardous
23 waste, If your waste is toxic. O.K.
24 "If a new source of hazardous waste
25 begins operation after the Section 3010 limit of 90 days
-------
12
13
14
I 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
460
• notification ends, how does this source comply with
regulations regarding notification?"
O.K. This question was asked before
the presentation. So I think I have answered it already.
We will have a continuing notification process. And new
people who come into the business, after the initial 90S?
day period, will be allowed to notify. And they can comply
with the requirements very easily.
MR. KOVLICK: This is somewhat related
"What role do the Section 208 under Public Law 92500, Water
OU- ' *•
Quality Management Agency have ta hazardous waste manage-
ment?"
Some of you—first of all, the section
we are discussing today, of course, and yesterday is -Sub
Tttle C. However, part of the Ouh Title D work under
RCRA is devoted to setting up of planning of districts,
both by state in constitute with local governments. And
that set of guidelines for planning districts has already
been promulgated as a way to give states an early start on
their planning.
Now the planning done by the — under
RCRA, is at the discretion of the government in terms of
what agency you would have do that planning for him. That
is whether he wants to use some existing planning districts
or whether he wants to use 208 type agencies and whether
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
in the planning process under Sub fifcte D.
And likewise, that would be up to the
SuJ&tJLt^
,*io Governor to reconcile the use of SUB Title D authorities
with 208 agencies that already exist out there today.
_j
*
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
he wants to use state government.
However, under RCRA there is local
involvement in the decision of the Governor to do that
planning. So in the case where there are some 208 agencies,
who are involved in the planning for the disposition of
the hazardous waste sludges usually—but they normally
end up in going to water—they may very well be involved
I am also aware that 208 agencies, some of them are pre-
sumed to be not only in planning but management agencies,,
So that they will actually handle or contract the handling
of sludges and material.
In this case they would be getting
into the operational business and start calling in the
number of requirements that we have been discussing in
the last two days. So that's really kind of a general
discussion of the planning and possible implementation
responsibilities of the 208 agencies.
MR. SANJOUR: The question is: "Will
all waste hazardous, nonhazardous,undetermined be required
to notify?'
The answer is: No, only hazardous waste
-------
462
1 "What if a state has authority to
2 implement 3010 and it sends out its own form but a gene-
3 rator sends back in the EPA form, is he in compliance?"
4 Well, I think that's a moot question
5 because I don't think we will allow any states to send
6 out their own form, different than the EPA form.
7 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Yes, they can.
8 MR. SANJOURN: They can?
9 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: They have to have the
10 same basic information but they can add more to it, if
11 they have authorization.
12 MR. SANJOURN: Well, nevertheless,
13 though if a generator sends back an EPA form, I would think
u he would be in compliance. Wouldn't you agree?
15 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Yes.
16 MR. SANJOURN: The next question is:
17 "What criteria will be used to develop a list of recommended
18 laboratories?"
19 I thought we weren't promulgating a
20 list of laboratories.
21 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: They won't be recom-
22 mended. They will be a list of labs, just a list.
23 MR. SANJOURN: What's the criteria,
24 Tim? I believe it's anybody that says they can do it.
25 MR. FIELDS: That's the criteria.
-------
463
1 We have had a contractor in Washington, a consulting firm,
2 to develop a list of labs that are available to do certain
3 types of analysis on industrial waste and by SA tests and
4 local tests, et cetera. That list of labs is being gathered
5 by a contractor on a state by state basis. He is doing a
6 mail questionaire to a list of available labs and people
7 are sending back the kind of capability they have. So
8 this will just be a list of labs to find what their capabil-
9 ities are . And that's all it will be. It won't be an EPA
10 certified list or anything like that.
„ MR. SANJOTRN: Will EPA promulgate that
12 list to the public?
13 MR. FIELDS: The decision hasn't been
]4 made. If someone called in and requested it, we couldn't
15 very well withhold it.
16 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: "How many states, if
VN 17 any,do you expect to have moi£ stringent standards than EPA?"
18 I have no idea at this particular time.
19 "is it possible to obtain a transcript
20 of these hearings? And if so, how?
21 Well, there are several possible ways
22 of doing that. The first one would be to make arrangements
23 with the folks here who are doing the transcribing and then
24 presumably that would cost some money. I can't say how much.
25 If you are interested in that perhaps you can get with this
-------
464
l gentleman over here at break time or whatever. And that
2 should be available probably within a matter of days. By
3 the end of next week we will have—shall we call It an
•) 4 unedited version In the docket system in Washington. And
5 one could stop by there, if they are in that area, to take
6 a look at it.
7 On the other hand, everybody that1s on
8 the attendance list here, has registered here, will get a
9 copy of the transcript when they are published which we
10 expect to be about the end of November.
ll "Row can we get a list of all the
12 speakers and the panel members?"
13 How first of all, of course, that will
]4 be in the transcript when you get it. But if you want it
15 now or soon, I have a list here. I don't have copies of
16 it but I have a list. And what I will do is leave it right
17 up here on the table and anybody who wants to take a look
18 at it during the break time is welcome to come up and copy
19 it or whatever they want to do.
20 "Can interim permits be modified? For
21 example, after the initial notification and apparently
22 application for the permit, If a facility decides to
23 accept new waste, changes its operations, et cetera, must
24 the facility submit an amended notification?"
25 Well, this really gets to two things.
-------
465
1 First of all, I talked about the notification and every
2 time you change your process you are going to have to
3 renotify, particularly if you change or add a storage or
4 treatment. And I think I'll let you answer that, Tim, and
5 then get back to me.
6 MR. FIELDS: All right.
7 Well, if you start generating a new
8 hazardous waste or treating a new hazardous waste at your
9 facility, you should notify EPA that you are accepting
10 a new waste for purposes of notification.
r\
11 CRARIMAN LINDSEY: For purposes of
12 notification.
13 MR. FIELDS: Relative to the permit, in
14 terms of a regular permit. O.K. You would have to
15 obtain a modification to the permit. But the question had
16 to do with interim permits. Now in interim permits EPA
17 takes no action on these. In other words, you have a
18 permit or deem to have a permit, if you have made applica-
19 tion and if you have notified.
20 Now the question comes up—it may take
2i us some period of time then to get around to acting on the
22 application. And during that period of time, the interim
23 permit, as it were, will be in effect.
24 Now suppose during that period of time,
25 after you have made application and after the cutoff date
-------
466
1 for interim permits, you change the process. That's the
2 question. Or add waste to the process, how is that handled?
3 And I must answer that I don1t know.
4 That's a new wrinkle, one that we haven't thought through.
5 And I'm glad that's been raised and we will address that.
6 I don't know whether one would come in, for example, and
7 with an amended permit application or whether he would not
8 be able to start that until we had acted at least on that
9 part of the operation. We will have to think that through
10 and see where we go.
11 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: I have a few more
12 here. First of all: "An existing generator is not notified
13 by mail that he might come under 3010, where does this
-4 14 place him after the 9QQf»J period?"
15 O.K. making several assumptions here,
16 first of all, I guess we make the assumption that this
17 person who is not notified as a hazardous waste generator.
18 If he is a hazardous waste generator, he is in violation
19 of Section 3010. That's where it places him.
20 I understand the point, you know.
21 That's the reason we are promulgating these regulations.
22 We are promulgating these regulations although we are not
23 specifically required to in the Act. Because one of the
24 objectives is to let people know about the notification
—25 requirements by publishing in the Federal Register, advertii
-------
467
l ing in the Trade Press, advertising, 7*0 knew, in the media.
_-s2 Seme states andj;eglens are going to do mailings. So it's
3 net really our obligation to put that form in your hands.
4 So even if yen den1t receive a netificatiea form whether
5 yea are a generator, transporter, whatever, you still are
6 assumed to, you know, if you are handling a hazardous waste,
7 you are assumed to have to comply with the notification
8 requirements.
9 It's not EPA*s or the state's job to
10 put a notification form in your hands.
n MR.KOVALICK: San I follow up on that?
12 I have a similar question here which is:
13 "What is the penalty for not filing notification?" I
14 guess that's kind of a follow up, in other words. So what?
15 This relates to the discussion I went
16 through at least twice yesterday on how the hazardous
17 waste listing be used. If you—let's take the case where
18 yon do not notify even though the conditions of existing
19 generator are met. If you were silent then and we did not
2Q have an item, your waste on a list, then when EPA or the
21 state discovered you and took examples of your waste,as
22 allowed under 3007, and tested it and gave you a copy of
23 the results and we had a copy of the results.
24 We would then write you a letter
25 giving you notice that we had found your waste to be
-------
468
i to be hazardous and that you have 30 days to comply with
2 the basic requirements of the Act. At which time we then
3 can issue a compliance order to see that you do that.
4 Now if we have a list of hazardous
5 waste, you will remember my example yesterday where I said
6 waste from a certain process, and we, using the computer,
7 for example, find that eight of ten beryllium casters in
8 one state had sent us a notification and beryllium foundry
9 wastes are on the list. Then we would send you a letter
10 immediately that says, "We find that you are in the cate-
11 gory of listed waste. And you have 30 days in which to
12 comply."
13 This gets at the point that I described
14 yesterday, the burden on us versus the burden on you once
15 we get into this system that we are operating. It is
16 Illegal to transport, store, treat, or dispose of a hazar-
17 dous waste without notifying.
18 So once we did establish that you did
19 have that waste, whether we took the sample ourselves and
20 did it or whether it would take a little longer, or whether
21 we used the rebuttable presumption list, then we go through
22 the civil penalties of the Act, in terms or going to
23 District Court and so forth.
24 So there is one other wrinkle, however.
25 Whis is: If you are a generator who also stores, treats and
-------
469
l disposes en your mm property. Remember yesterday and
2 this mcrning I cited a statistic that about 70 or 80 per
3 cent of the waste we believe are disposed of on generators
4 property. If you do not notify that you are both the
—^ 5 generator and the disposer daring the 9QSUy period, you
6 have lost your right to an interim permit because your
7 risks are much higher.
8 That is when we discover you either
9 by running the computer against the listed waste that are
10 rebuttable presumptions or by testing your waste. And
11 when we prove that you have it, you have lost the right
12 to have an interim permit. And you are out of compliance.
13 And you are operating that disposal facility without a
14 permit.
IS So we believe the logic argues for
16 those who store, treat or dispose on their own property to
17 notify even if they are in doubt because they have pre-
18 served the option to get an interim permit. But by not
19 notifying you loose that option. And once you are discovere<
20 you are out of luck, as it were, because you have no place
21 to legally dispose of your waste on site. Sorry.
22 MR. FIELDS: I have several other
23 questions here. The first one is: "If the state has its
24 own notification form and It requires more information than
25 EPA, than the EPA format, can the generator choose the EPA
-------
470
, format?"
2 O.K. A logical question.
3 First of all, I guess, we will go back
4 through procedures. This is a thing we are going to have
5 to rethink because I had another similar question earlier.
, But basically the EPA administrator, the
~)/ .regional administrator will make a decision. He will
9 approve or disapprove every states notification system
9 implementation plan, which, I assume, will include what
10 the state recommends should be the states notification form.
n That means the state will have all the
^12 authority of the EPA .regional administrator and will have
13 all the authority to act in lieu of EPA. So the state can
]4 then send that form to affective parties in the state.
15 But in turn, if that generator decides
16 not to use the state form and send back the EPA form,
17 under Section 3010, since states don't have any enforcement
18 authority under notification, I don't really know what the
]9 state could do about it. I think this generator would
2Q still be in compliance with Section 3010. And that's my
21 current feeling. We are going to have to rethink this
22 issue. But I still feel that the generator would still
23 have to comply with Section 3010.
24 MR. KOVALICK: It would be possible that
25 he might delay the issuance of his state permit because
-------
471
_^! he sent the notification to the regional_pffice. And that's
2 going to have to be matched up with the State Capital's
3 receipt of a permit application and so there is going to
4 be a delay.
5 MR. FIELDS: The state might not like
6 it too much if you, you know, did this. But that's one--
7 especially if you are a treatment, storage, disposal
8 operator you might not want to do this. If the state
9 requires something, you might just want to send it in to
]0 make sure you get an interim permit.
n The next question is--I guess some
12 confusion about what I said maybe: "Ninety days after--"
13 The statement is: "Ninety days after 3010 announce add
14 90 days to days to determine toxicity or bioassay tests.
15 This may be insufficient time depending upon date of 3001
16 and extent of criteria tested."
17 Well, it's not really 90 days after
18 3010 is announced. It's really 90 days after the 3001
19 criteria are promulgated. So you will have a lot more--we
.20 plan to promulgate the 3010 regulations in the j*edgral
«r>21 Register probably four months before—you know, final
22 regulations for 3010 about four months before the 3001
23 criteria for hazardous waste are promulgated. So it's
24 really 90 days after the 3001 criteria that you have to
25 notify.
-------
472
1 But the basic point, I guess, is you
2 still asking is 180 days sufficient? One hundred-eighty
3 days after 3001 criteria, is that sufficient to do the
4 tests and, you know, the bioassay test, whatever, for
5 toxicity. I don't know. And we think it is but we are
6 not sure.
7 MR. KOVALICK: Would it be helpful to
8 run through the months right now just to see what is—in
9 other words, sometime in February or January we are going
10 to propose Section 3001. So you will have your first
,1 official look at what we might have as criteria.
12 Sometime in March or April we will
13 finalize 3010. So you will know the kind of waste we are
14 thinking about in February. You will know the kind of
15 format we are thinking about for sure in March. And then
15 sometime in June we will finalize the regs. for 3001.
17 So you have really all of the time
18 from February, assuming that there are some changes, but
19 the bulk of the time from February to June plus the 90©
jo dayf minimum to comply with 3010. If you also need another
2i 903days toxicity.then you will have July, August, into
22 almost December to get the final word back.
23 MR. FIELDS: O.K. The next question is:
24 "On notification, would a rail carrier be required to make
25 notification on waste shipped by others?"
-------
473
l The second part of that question is:
2 "How do we determine we are shipping a waste before a ship-
3 per gives us a shipment?"
4 O.K. The first part of the question is:
5 Yes, if you are a carrier, a rail carrier, of hazardous
6 waste you are required to notify us that you are shipping
—^ 7 somebody elaes hazardous waste, you know. If you are taking
8 hazardous waste from a generator, you will be required to
9 file notification that you are a carrier of a hazardous
10 waste on your rail system.
11 How do we determine we are shipping a
12 waste before a shipper gives us a shipment? You can't
13 really. But, you know, we assume that if you are--the
14 generator will have to know whether his wastes are hazardous
15 or not. And I would expect he would most likely tell you.
16 And it would be your obligation to find you. If you are
17 potentially affected by the 3001 criteria and you are
18 transporting some waste, it's your job as a rail carrier to
19 determine in some manner whether you carrying hazardous
20 waste. Once the guy gives it to you, you still have to make
21 that determination.
22 So if you are shipping hazardous waste,
23 you have to notify. But, of course, you can't do it until
24 you get the waste from the shipper or make some arrangements
25 to rail carry his waste.
-------
474
j Next question Is: "Under Section 3005
2 permit conditions, there is a requirement for new facilities
3 to apply for permits between 150 and 90 dajrs to start-up.
4 Is the notification requirement for new facilities which
5 you have described totally redundant and unnecessary con-
6 cerning the Section 3005 provisions?"
7 Some I wasn't totally aware of—it looks
-)8 like it might be redundant if that's in the 3005 regs. for
9 a treatment storage and disposal facility. It still would
10 apply for generators and transporters because the notifica-
n tion is the only way we are going to know about new genera-
]2 tors and transporters.
13 So I guess we are going to have to
14 rethink this for our treatment, storage, and disposal
,5 facilities. You know, we might just have to modify
16 notifications for that. So I appreciate the comment and
17 we will consider it in our next version of the regs.
18 This is a comment: "Question their
19 evaluation of the labs. It may be recommended that you
2Q consult the states as to which labs they (the states) are
21 willing to accept analysis from. Illinois has a lab
22 certification program. And they will only accept analysis
23 from a certified lab."
24 Good point!
25 And I assure you that those states that
-------
475
1 are given the authority to handle Section 3010 will only
2 be given this list of labs as a service from EPA. You can
3 do with this list whatever you want to.
4 So, you know, the state will have an
5 opportunity to review this list of labs that we come up
6 with. They can add to it, subtract from it, do whatever
7 they want with it.
9 So, sure, if the state has a lab certi-
9 fication program I would advise that you use the labs that
10 you are already aware of in your state. We are only doing
M this as a service for those states who really don't know
12 where labs are or for those affected parties in certain
13 states, who don't know where labs are that they might go
14 to-
15 The next question Is: "If we have a
16 Class 1 site, which takes many hazardous wastes, will they
17 have to include every one of the hazardous wastes by
18 generic name in their notification? This would be nearly
19 Impossible and for what useful purpose?"
20 I agree with that. We are trying to
21 make notification as simple as possible. If you are a
22 complex treatment facility or Class 1 landfill, you might.
23 be accepting hundreds of wastes annually. We are not going
24 to require you to list the 200 wastes that you are accepting
25 You have to indicate that I'm a hazardous waste handler.
-------
476
l I dispose of hazardous waste on my Class 1 site. And I
2 accept petroleum refining waste, you know, some sort of
3 general description.
4 We are not requiring a generic name
5 for each individual hazardous waste that you handle.
6 Question on 3010: "Paragraph A on the
7 3010 clearly states what information is to be sent in as
8 notification. Asking for phone numbers, SIC's number, names
9 of persons, or signatures is clearly outside the scope of
lO the law and EPA will be subject to penalties provided for,
P.L. 4V-&0.
11 under Section 3008 of BE.94-580. Why would EPA risk that
12 much by not following the law as written in Section 3010?"
13 O.K. I will try to address the first
14 part first. We don't think, first of all, that asking for
15 SIC code, phone numbers, et cetera, are outside the scope
16 of the law. We think that—if the law says that the loca-
17 tion, a general description of that activity, et cetera, are
18 to be provided. The SIC number is clearly a part, you know,
19 if you are a petroleum refinery and you are identified as
20 a generator we would like to know that. That is part of a
21 general description of your activity.
22 The state or EPA,and I would think the
23 affected party, would want to provide a phone number and
24 the name of a person that could be contacted in case EPA or
25 the state has questions about the information that is
-------
477
1 submitted.
2 So we think the Information is quite
3 reasonable. And we don't have any, you know, we don't think
4 it is outside the law, first of all. So, you know, I would
5 be happy to talk to the person who sent this question in
6 about this issue at the break or whatever. But, you know,
7 I don1t agree with the comment.
8 O.K. I'm just reading this but it says:
9 "Mr. Fields stated that state interim authorization relative
10 to Section 3010 should not be confused with interim authorl-
n zation under Section 3006. I cannot find this distinction
12 in Act. Please, explain."
13 O.K. Fred might want to pick up on
14 this. The term I addressed was limited interim authorization
15 This is a special authorization which is not discussed any-
16 where in the Act. And we are instituting this limited
17 interim authorization because there won't be any authorized
18 state hazardous program during the initial 90 day notifies-
19 tion period.
20 So in an effort to give states an
21 opportunity to receive notices from affected parties in
22 their state and to allow affected parties, you know, who
23 might want to deal with the state as opposed to EPA, you
24 know, we are instituting this limited interim authorization
25 as a special authorization so the states can accept and
-------
478
1 conduct a notification program.
2 After this period, the limited authoriza-
3 tion--I'm sorry—interim authorization, which Matt Straus
4 discussed this morning, will then, you know, you will be
5 sending applications in and you will be applying for and
6 EPA will be granting this authorization to the states.
7 And so this limited interim authoriza-
8 tion is just to get states involved before 3006 takes
9 effect. O.K.
10 CHAIBMAH LINDSEY: You know, that's the
11 basic point here that it's clear from 3010 that the states
12 are to be allowed to do this, if they are authorized. But
13 whoever wrote this section of the Act didn't check his
14 dates out carefully because it won't be possible for a
15 state to have received regular authorization by the time
16 it is necessary to be prepared to carry out this section.
17 So that's why we are developing a
18 special kind of an authorization for the states to comply
19 or to be able to handle this. Otherwise that wouldn't be
20 possible to do because of the difference in timing in the
21 Act.
22 These two don't really address the
23 section but I don't know where else to put them so I will
24 address them now.
25 "Will you at the EPA investigate the
-------
479
l citizen* complaints of alledged failure to notify by a
2 facility?"
3 I guess this does relate to this section.
4 "In other words, if a facility calls up
5 EPA and says, 'Save these people notified you?1 And we say,
6 'Gee, we don't have anything yet.' And they could possibly
7 say they generate a hazardous waste we want you to look at
8 it."
9 Well, our ability to do that will depend
10 on the resources we have. No. 1 whether we have enough
ll enforcement in these resources to go out and track these
12 things down. And it will also depend on our enforcement
13 priority.
14 In addition to enforceing the notifica-
15 tion part of this, shortly after this notification proce-
16 dure the permit systems will be cranking up. And there will
17 be the need to go out and catch the midnight dumpers and,
18 you know, things like that.
19 So a lot of this will depend on the
.020 enforcement personnel that we have and on the priorities
21 which we set or which have been set for doing this.
22 "Assuming you are destroying minimal
23 amounts of chemicals and research compounds as waste from
24 a research lab, will it be necessary to list all of these
25 chemical compounds as hazardous on your permit application
-------
480
l In many instances you don't know what the research compound
2 may be as it was just synthesized."
3 Now that's a very special kind of situa-
4 tiOtt. First of all, let me address that. It's quite
5 probable that most, at least very many, laboratories are
6 going to qualify as small generators in one fashion or
7 another. And if you are receiving then only waste from
8 small generators, then you don't have to have a permit,
*-y 9 if you are receiving nonmanifested waste. That is one of
10 the provisions.
n This, of course, gets the sanitary
12 landfill on your home town out of the system because he is
13 receiving hazardous waste from home owners. But they are
-9 14 nonmanifested waste. The samething with small generators,
1
15 So that would be one possible solution.
16 On the other hand, if you are receiving manifested waste,
17 then you would need a permit. Now the permit application
ig can be made in such a way that you request the permit to
19 be able to handle classes of waste, not individual substances
20 if that be your rathers. For example, chloronated hydro-
2) carbon perhaps with certain'exceptions.
22 To get a permit like that you are going
23 to have to demonstrate your capabilities to handle those
24 kinds of waste. And probably to a greater extent than yea
25 would if you were only going to handle say one or two kinds
-------
481
l of waste.
2 So that's the situation. In other
3 words, in coming in for the permit application you would
4 have to give us sufficient information to know what the
5 kinds of waste are you are going to handle. And it would
6 seem to me that if you are handling and destroying waste
7 from your own safety standpoint you are going to need to
8 know what is in them.
9 You are not going to be receiving waste,
10 I wouldn't imagine, that you have no idea what it is.
n That's about all I can say on that at this point. We would
12 have to take a look at it in an individual situation.
•O13 MR. SANJOUw): The question is: "Am
14 I correct in assuming that the generator is responsible,
15 once notified, to classify his waste according to 3001 as
_-) 16 hazardous or nonhazardous and would only be required to
17 submit the notification to EPA only if his determination.
18 about the waste classified is as hazardous?"
19 Well, the statement is almost correct.
20 It's incorrect in the sense that EPA is not going to notify
21 someone to notify EPA. I mean we will take out advertise-
22 ments, et cetera, but essentially within 90 days after
23 regulations are promulgated on the 3001, a generator is
24 required to make his own determination of whether or nol:
25 his waste is hazardous and notify EPA based on his determina-
-------
482
l tlon. That Is correct.
2 The next question is: "Why is there a
3 discrepancy between names used on a waste stream? Why not
XUPfKL
•— ">4 use either the HUPAC* name or the generic name? Preference
' *
"
,— ">5 is given to the RUBAC name system.
6 Well, I would say either one of them
7 would certainly do for the purposes of notification on the
8 3010.
9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: You are using both
10 the 3001 specified as a transportation on this action,
11 specified to generic?
12 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Why don't we hold
13 that question and you can make that after we are done with
14 these written questions. We can talk back and forth from
15 the mike as from the floor. We will complete the written
16 questions, I think, first.
17 MR. KOVALICK: This is a follow-up to
—718 my comment on 208: "Which Federal Register promulgated
19 planning district guidelines and Agency rates?"
~^2Q That's the May 16th Federal Register.
21 Line 42, Ho. 94, May 16th.
22 "Company A generates a hazardous waste.
23 And Company B transports it to a disposal site operated by
24 Company C. Do all three have a notification requirement?"
25 Yes .
-------
483
1 "If company A files a notification on
2 the 90th day, and Company 9 «nd C aren't aware of that
3 hazardous classification until that time what can they do?"
4 Well, I--if we assume that Company B
5 and C have been asked to begin hauling and disposing of
6 this hazardous waste,they should notify if they are going
7 to be in that business. This is a continuing notification
8 requirement that Tim was talking about.
9 As a footnote, presumably Company C
10 went and got a permit to handle the kind of waste he is
11 going to accept. So notification should ba--perhaps it's
12 kind of late for all of that. He already would have been
13 through that process to get his permit.
14 If Company B and C has been hauling it
15 all along and disposing of it all along, and do not notify,
16 I think the generator would be able—well, the generator
17 would be reluctant to use them because they are going to be
18 out of compliance. And I think that he should suggest that
19 they immediately notify.
20 This is another question—two sets of
2i questions related to the size of generators and notiflca-
22 tlon: "Do you anticipate all 286,000 service stations to
23 file notification in that they may generate hazardous waste?
24 Also what about numerous waste water districts which may
25 have secondary treatment sludges which must be disposed of?"
-------
I 484
1 This question gets at the subject of how
2 to deal with massive numbers of small generators, service
3 stations in that case, and we are trying to cope, as you
4 heard yesterday, we are coming up with a definition of
5 "small" that would get people out of the system. Certainly,
6 I think we have all been listening to this question and
7 agree that would be a very large number of notifications
8 received and probably not that useful because the data
9 would be so overwhelming.
10 As far as the waste water treatment
11 sludges, again, it's not it's not entirely clear that all
12 of them would be hazardous waste. And they are a more
13 finite set and I think it1s less out of the question that
14 they might be in the notification system. But we are
15 still evolving the subject of a small generator.
16 MR. FIELDS: I have one final question
17 here: "l believe mention was made yesterday that generators;
13 transporters; and disposers would be assigned identification
19 numbers. Will a corporation generating waste in a dozen
20 states and is a common carrier required to transport
2i hazardous waste can operate for its own convenience several
^-22 disposal sites for hazardous waste be assigned a signle
23 I.D. Number?"
24 Well, the—I didn't address this in
25 my presentation. I guess I should have. The answer is:
-------
485
l No, he would not be assigned a single I.D. Number for the
2 whole corporation. We plan to provide, you know, for a
3 corporation that Is generating hazardous waste in a dozen
4 states, we hope that each Individual generator will have a
5 distinct I.D. Number.
6 As a part of the notification, one
7 element that I dldn1t address was requesting that people
8 submit to us their Internal Revenue Service Employer Iden-
9 tlflcatlon Number. In the case of a Federal Facility they
10 are a nine digit number, General Services Administration
11 I.D. Number, several transporters already have a public
12 utilities permit number.
13 We are requesting that some sort of--
14 we haven't really worked this out yet in our regs. but we
15 are going to be requesting that a Identification number be
16 submitted In the--as a part of the 3010 notice. And if
17 an employer, for—if a large corporation, for example, has
18 a one single employer identification number that applies to
19 all his facilities—we haven11 really worked it out yet but
20 we might have some sort of indexing system where each indi-
21 vidual facility has a little different number.
22 So we are not—the simple answer, I
23 guess, is that, you know, no—we don't plan on assigning a
24 single I.D. Number for all the facilities in a single
25 corporation.
-------
I 486
l MR. KOVALICK: I think the statement
2 goals here helps a little- We are trying to know the
3 reporting system we described yesterday Is going to be
4 managed by ADP system. There will have to be a coding of
5 that. And rather than have us invent a new coding system
5 for every generator, transporter, and treater storer disposer
7 we want to use existing numbering systems.
8 And what we are trying to do is use
9 those syvtttns and yet still have a way to identify the
10 difference between a Company A plant in Llnchburg, Virginia,
ll and Company A plant in Sioux City as I determined in their
12 originating waste.
13 The goal is to use these known numbers
14 and somehow adapt them to the data needs of the quarterly
15 reports.
16 MR. SANJOUR: I won't read the whole
17 question. It has to do with whether or not householders
18 would have to comply with the provisions of 3010 and
19 whether or not people who haul municipal trash and garbage
20 would have to comply.
21 And the answer is: No, they would not.
22 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: And one final one
23 here: "Who is the contractor developing the list of labora-
24 tories?"
25 Wapora is the name of the outfit. They
-------
487
l are in suburban Washington, actually in the Maryland suburbs
2 out there. I have forgotten What town.
3 O.K. We have just a few seconds here.
4 Does anybody have a question they would
5 like to address from the floor?
6 Here comes one. Your name and affilia-
7 tion, please?
8 SCOTT MILLER: Scott Miller of Illinois
9 EPA.
10 I would Just like to answer the question
11 that I wrote and sent In. The question being: Why do you
12 use two different names waste streams. Why not either use
13 one or the other?
14 MR. KOVALICK: Well, Scott, I think
15 you are reading both drafts of one notification system and
16 the other is the system to find the manifest. And the
17 implication of your remark is that there is some devastating
18 problem with having those different. That may be and we
19 will look Into it.
20 But I think the basic thrust of it is
21 that the notification is a much more general indicator not
22 intended to supply the detailed kind of data that one would
23 hope to find on a manifest.
24 So I think there is a different purpose.
25 Different purposes sometimes have different systems. But
-------
l
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
>17
18
19
20
_=?2
-022
0
23
24
25
488
this doesn't mean that we are going to end up that way.
But that could be a reason that they are different.
SCOTT MILLER: I have Just brought out
the point because I thought it needed clarification, as a
chemist it's much easier to work with an IB?A. I am sure
that none of you would be able to understand the generic
names that are used because they usually don't Indicate
what the waste actually is.
MR. KOVALICK: It depends on the use
you are going to make of the notification data.
SCOTT MILLER: That's true.
CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Thank you, Scott.
O.K. We have one last question or comment, which the panel
doesn't understand. And what we are going to do here is
try and move on to the next section. So if the person who
sent in this last card—I'm sure you will remember who you
are—if you would come up at the break time or else resubmlt
It In another section, we will try to address it in that
way.
The next section has to do with the
environmental and economic impact assessment. And Michael
Shannon, who is our pjrogram manager for quality Analysis
and our desk officer for environmental and economic Impact
assessments, will address this point.
MR. SHANNON: Thank you, Fred.
-------
489
1 At the outset what I would like to do is
2 to point oat that the EIS that we are conducting is not the
3 site specific kind of EIS that has been discussed particular-
4 ly with reference to Section 3005 permitting. Which those
5 EIS1 s did have to do with specific permit applications deal-
6 ing with new facilities as I understand it.
7 But the EIS that I am going to talk
about now deals with a programmatic or regulatory action
that EPA is conducting. Namely the implementation of the
Sub Title C regulations. It will be an EIS of the total
11 aggregate impact of the regulations, you know, across the
12 nation.
13 But, of course, it will touch on, deal
14 with specific sectors and problems. The EPA position for
a
•»»15 doing EIS1 s stems from a 1974 decision by the administrator
16 to conduct EIS's. Basically he made the decision to do
17 this on a voluntary basis. The National Environmental
18 Policy Act of 1970 does not require EPA to conduct EIS's.
19 However, he did make the decision to
20 do EIS's basically to improve the overall decision making
21 process. The economic analysis that we are conducting
22 stems, at least in part, from the EIS requirement, itself,
23 which does require that economic considerations be taken
24 in promulgating the regulations.
25 In recent years there a number of
-------
490
l additional requirements that come into play regarding
2 economic analysis. I guess the most significant of those
3 is the fact that the executive office requires jconomic
4 JLmpact^analysis of Federal Government regulatory actions.
5 And the Office of Budget and Management has issued implement-
6 ing guidelines for the executive agencies having to carry
7 out these analysis.
8 In addition it has been EPA's policy to
9 conduct these analysis even if the criteria—the 0 & B
—•710 criteria for conducting economic impact analysis were not
•~-y 11 met. In other words, the administrator wants to know what
12 the economic impact of an action are regardless of how small
13 they may be.
14 Regarding these prospective comments, I
15 would like to cover it in three parts. Generally talk about
16 the background and description in a general way of what the
x*7i7 EPA—the economic impact analysis requirements will do.
18 And then specifically talk about the
19 EIS process and what will be in the analysis.
20 And then do the same thing for the
—7 21 economic impact analysis.
*_i 22 The purpose of the impact analysis, first
23 of all, is to present the environmental and economic conse-
24 quences of the regulatory action to all the government
25 agencies that would be involved, the public, President,
-------
491
1 Congress.
2 The EIS, In particular, Is to be
3 written so that extensive scientific or technical expertise
4 is not necessary for the reader to understand evaluate the
5 action that is being taken. The EIS is to be written for
6 a general audience.
7 So that the first thing the EIS parti-
8 cularly will do is simply lay out the problems associated
9 with hazardous waste. How much hazardous waste is generated
10 by industry specters. And will go on to discuss the trans-
n portation problem, treatment storage and disposal of hazar-
12 dous waste.
13 In addition it would discuss the—
14 generically that is the criteria that are used for defining
]5 hazardous waste. It will discuss the environmental and
16 public health problems associated with hazardous waste
17 management. Air and water problems and the public health
18 hazards.
19 The next part of the EIS—the more
20 difficult part deals with the analysis of the action being
2i proposed and the alternatives of that action. But before
22 the analysis proceeds to that point what has to be done is
23 the state, the rationale for seclusion of some major
24 regulatory alternatives that have been dropped from the
25 analysis.
-------
492
1 For instance, In this case — this isn't
2 definitely decided but it seems apparent that we will not
3 be regulating setting out specific regulations on industry
4 by industry basis, for example. We would have to document
5 why we are not doing that.
And then go on to test the remaining
7 alternatives for reasonableness. In viewing this process,
a we will have to determine which options increase the
—i 9 attainment of the objectives of Cub TlLrL C and the Act
!0 in general.
O.K. At that point we select a reason-
12 able and manageable set of alternatives for the actual
13 analysis of impact. The intent of doing an alternatives
14 analysis is to require us to do an enter disciplinary anal-
15 ysis of the alternatives.
16 We are looking at not only the technical
17 aspects but social, economic, political aspects too, for
18 example.
19 Then the next step would be to begin
20 the discussion of the actual impacts of the action that is
2i being choosen, the preferred action, the base line action,
22 for instance, that we have been primarily discussing up
23 to this point.
24 And then what the impacts are of the
25 alternatives to that particular base line action including
-------
493
! an alternative of no action, doing nothing. Other alterna-
2 tives that have been defined and we are trying to develop
3 for the analysis are alternatives that enhance the public
4 health plus environmental aspects of this base line action,
5 say by 50 per cent or a less stringent alternative that we
6 will be analyzing is one that would decrease the public
7 health and environmental protection.
8 Also an alternative that explicitly
9 enhances resource recovery and conservation. The impact
10 that we will evaluate fall into several categories. The
,, primary impact that we will have to document are: What
^2 is the pollution reduction associated with the base line
13 and the alternatives to the base line? What kind of
14 procedural or structural changes are to occur in the manage-
15 ment of hazardous waste from the point of generation to
16 ultimate disposal? The resource recovery conservation
17 benefits will also have to be addressed.
18 In addition the secondary kinds of
19 impact that will be discussed are changes in the social/
20 political aspects of hazardous waste management. Community
21 Impacts, for instance. For instance, the public opposition
22 to siting problems will have to be evaluated and accepted
23 at that point in the analysis.
24 Another secondary impact is what are
25 the cross or are there crosa^nedia impacts related to this
-------
494
1 particular environmental action. Will we be creating anothe:
2 pollution problem because of hazardous waste management
3 control.
4 Other considerations that are analyzed
^»5 In the Impact analysis are longQcerm adverse Impacts,
6 Irreversible, Irretrievable Impacts and the relationship
7 between short term uses or goals as opposed to let1s say
8 sacrifice of long term objectives or we sacrifice the long
9 term—short term gains.
10 Going on to the economic analysis,
11 there are really two--three major parts of that at this
12 point. The first part is to deal with the total cost of
13 compliance with the regulation. And our primary data on
U that and primary Impact, of course, comes from the technical
15 cost of control. How much does It cost to—for incineration
16 the technical aspect of incineration, disposal or physical
17 chemical treatment process.
18 In addition, we are—we have just
19 recently begun a study of what are the remaining costs of
_-)20 compliance with these regulations. Namely the nontechnical
21 administrative costs. Such as the testing, record keeping,
22 reporting, and things like insurance, for example.
23 As that work proceeds we will take the
24 cost and begin to translate them into the broader economic
25 impact of how those increased costs will impact generators,
-------
495
1 transporters, and disposal firms, and the public in general,
2 for instance, will the increased costs lead to an increase
3 in price that someone cannot pass on, have to absorb com-
4 pletely. What impact will it have on the production of
5 goods and cervices. Will there be employment impacts in
6 that people will loose their jobs, lay-offs in particular
7 industry sectors.
g What is the Impact of increased capital
9 cast on the ability of the industry or firm to generate
10 productive capital for his main business.
n O.K. The next step in the economic
12 anaylsis is really a little complex because what we are—in
13 the analysis as it is described we are looking at individual
14 sectors. We are looking at organic chemicald Industry,
15 inorganics, electroplating, et cetera, all kind of in a
16 static sense.
17 But what's going to be happening is
18 that there are likely to be shifts in the amount of business
19 that is done or the amount of hazardous waste that are
_—20 managed on&ite as opposed to the amounts that are managed
_}21 offfieite. More may be managed off£cite than is now managed
22 ofigjBite. What kind of Impacts will that have, you know,
,•23 sectoxgjby^ector impact.
24 O.K. Regarding the unresolved issues,
25 most of the issues that we are dealing with are actually
-------
496
1 problems that we face in the analysis due to the fact that
—} 2 the standard of •Sub Title C itself are changing or have
3 been changing a lot to this point. And they are likely to
4 continue to change somewhat.
5 So, you know, it is difficult to get a
6 good understanding of what the impact will be because of
7 the definitions of hazardous waste are changing.
8 Other problems — one that I touched on
9 was the nontechnical cost date problem. Another aspect of
10 that is — would be a data gaps really on those who will be
11 effected. We have fairly good information on the primary
12 industrial generators of hazardous waste. We don't have a
13 good handle on those outside of that area. For instance,
14 you know, small industry that may generate minor quantities
15 of hazardous waste.
16 However, there still could be some
17 adverse or significant impact, both environmentally and
18 economically on those sectors. Well, gasoline stations are
—^19 nonmanufacturing sectors, for instance, or dry cleaning
20 establishments. Those are the kinds of areas where we don't-
21 where we need more and better data.
22 A difficult problem too is looking at
23 alternatives. The EIS and economic analysis actually require
24 us to look at and evaluate alternatives. The problem that
25 we face is actually trying to translate the goals of the
-------
497
1 Act and the Agency Into meaningful alternatives. What can
2 we do to encourage resource conservation and recovery. The
3 office has basically tried to include all of these things
4 into this base line action as we see it now.
5 But we are attempting to do things that
6 specifically will lead to other goals. Then in the final
7 analysis the ultimate decision making on the environmental
8 and economic impact is a difficult issue that will have to
9 be faced.
10 In other words, the balancing of the
11 economic impacts with the technical and environmental aspects
12 trade-off analysis or trade-offs between those considerations
13 yo» know, if there are adverse impacts, will likely have
14 to occur.
15 Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN LDJDSEY: Thank you, Mike.
17 Is there anyone who would like to make
18 a statement which directly relates to the environmental
19 Impact or economic impact work directly?
20 (No response.)
21 O.K. Seeing none, we will take questions
22 on this area.
23 Mr. Kovalick will say a few words about
24 the data management system which we are putting together.
25 MR. KOVALICK: We made several references
-------
498
l In the two days to data processing. And I wanted to give
2 you an Idea of what Is happening along that line while
3 Mike Is reading the questions.
4 We have let a contract to contract to
5 develop a system, a data system that would be used by our
^_~6 regional offices and software from It will be available
7 to states. So let me just talk as If the system were just
_=j used in a regional office.
9 The major principal would be to basically
10 manage the three files of information that we are developing.
n A file of information relating to those people who notify
12 as opposed to those people for whom we had an idea that they
13 should notify. The file of people who are prospective
14 permit applicants and those who actually do file for permits.
15 And the file of people who actually do report on waste
16 shipped and waste received.
17 Now if you just think a minute,you can
18 see how we can make and match all of those lists. That is
19 someone who has notified that he is a generator one would
20 expect to start receiving reports on their manifest shipments
2i Someone who is not applying for a permit and yet has notified
22 would obviously be another kind of signal.
23 So what we are designing here is manage-
24 ment by exception system to be used in our regions—would
25 be used In our regions for the state for rearranging programs
-------
499
1 And It would make software available to states if they wish
2 to use it. So that they can natch these various files.
3 And I just wanted to give you a flavor
4 for hdv we were going to simplify what some people view is
5 a fairly large problem in only looking for the items that
6 are outside the system.
7 Mike has some questions.
8 MR. SHANNGH: This question says--Well,
it Starts off with the comment, "Because the EIF, and the
10 EIA are being developed at the same time as the regs. it
11 would appear that the effort will do nothing more that Jnsti-j
$
fy the r«gs. (A white wash) Just how will the EIF and EIA
13 process be used in the decision making."
14 That you could presume is a possibility
ft™ 41 office standpoint we are not approaching the analysis
with that in mind. In fact, it has been pointed out we are
17 only one—no, several offices that—well, although we are
18 the lead office, there are other offices that have decision^
making voices in the regulations that are being developed
20 and will ultimately be proposed, promulgated.
21 And we know that some of these offices
(0WA*MO
") 22 have differing view points. There are, you know—there are
23 offices that think that we should go with, you know, a very
24 definitive, mandatory type of list, for instance, or that
25 ve should phase the regulations
-------
500
l In other words, what's happening Is that
2 we are being forced In our analysis of the alternatives to
3 look at the environmental and economic considerations of
4 those particular actions. We, you know, as an office have
5 a preferred position at this point and you have heard what
6 It Is at this point. It's changing, It's evolving from day
7 to day. In fact, that Is one of the difficulties of doing
8 the EIS and the EIA analysis.
9 So, for Instance, when we get Into the
10 decision making process, If a particular faction of EPA
11 says, you know, what we think you should pursue. This Is
12 your alternative. Hopefully we will be—well, we will be
13 open enough to consider that and evaluate.
14 We will also at the same time will have
15 economic and environmental Information to say these are the
16 Impacts. At this point we hope to have three drafts, EIS's
17 and e_conomlc impact analysis prepared when we go into the
18 Internal decision making process. When the regs. are
19 proposed, the draft EIS will be published.
20 The further point on this question is
21 that at that point the public will have formal opportunities
22 to comment throughout a 6Q0Jay period. So I hope that
23 answers at least part of that question.
24 Another one is: "Do you personally
25 feel that you will be able to make a representative estimate
-------
501
1 of what the actual economic Impact implementation of RCRA
2 regulations are on industry? And will you consider industry
3 individually or as a group?"
4 We have done some—we have completed
5 one industry economic impact analysis. We did it for the
6 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals Industry. If all of that--
7 whatever that SIC code is--but In conducting the analysis
8 the industry was segmented, categorized to a great extent.
9 We categorized it based on geographic
10 location, plant size,raw material, input, etcetera. Because
11 those are the factors that determine the ability of an
12 individual firm and the industry to deal with increased
13 costs, to pass them on or their inability to pass them on
14 to have to absorb them.
15 We are--that study is completed. We
16 are doing additional industry studies on, I guess, about—
17 well, about ten or twelve other industries. Those primary
18 generating industies that have been the subject and I don't
19 know if they have been mentioned up to now or not.
20 Starting three or four years ago this
21 office conducted a series of assessment studies. What was
22 the waste problem, the technology available to deal with
23 the waste, and what were the internal costs impact of the
24 regulations. It was on those 15 industries that we are
25 now doing the economic Impact analysis.
-------
502
1 At this point we are concentrating
2 particularly on those small firms or let1s say those sectors
3 that we can identify as having a more significant implemental
4 cost impact. So we are considering industries, firms, small
5 firms, specific segments of the industry as opposed to large
6 broad categories.
7 CHAIRMAN LHJDSEY: O.K. I have a
8 couple here. This is a long one: "Although domestic
9 hmsehold garbage generators have been exempted from the
10 RCRA Act and Regulation—"
11 They are not going to exempt It from
12 the A^t. We have exempted them from the regulations.
13 "—what would be the expected per cent
14 tonnage of waste delivered to sanitary landfills that would
15 be comprised of hazardous waste.material, one the list is
^16 published, based on a percapita^per day basis? And will
17 such a study be undertaken to assess this situation and
18 the total toitnage of hazardous waste materials generated
19 by domestic households delivered to landfills? And could
20 this evaluation be expanded to determine what per cent of
21 hazardous waste, once the list is published, is presently
22 exists at all landfills? And a per cent tonnage of
23 hazardous materials present at landfills versus total
24 tonnage of all waste present at 'landfills?"
25 I get the question. I get that. Will
-------
503
l we have In the EIS, which is what this specifies, an analysi
2 to the comparative impact of allowing home owners not to
3 be in the system, as it were. That is the comparative
4 impact of exempting them.
5 And I think we will address that in
6 some manner. I should point out though that the reason—
7 one of the primary reasons for exempting home owners is
8 the uncontrollable nature of these kinds of things. First:
9 of all, if each home owner had to generate a manifest,
10 each garbage truck had to carry that manifest, each sanitary
•6
pll landfill, ex cetera, had to get a permit and so on, it would
12 be clearly unmanageable.
13 Secondly, the damage assessment work,
14 which we have done quite a number of case studies, et cetera
15 do not indicate that significant—that home owners—that
16 waste generated by home owners are a serious source of
17 environmental damage.
18 So part of it—a good portion of the
19 reason for our decision to exempt home owners is one simply
20 not being able to control it. I should point out that the
21 preliminary information that we have on home—on informa-
22 tion we have from one state indicates that the generation
23 of hazardous waste by home owners is something on the order
24 of under one pound per day per household of materials which
25 might be considered as to be hazardous. Just to give you
-------
504
1 some kind of an idea there.
2 Now here is a question that has to do
3 with the NEPA requirements not for the kind of HEFA
4 environmental impact ^statements that w* are doing here but
5 rather relative to the permit granting: "Within the meaning
6 and intent of the NEPA 1969 requirements will the issuing
7 of the permit by EPA to facilities or hazardous waste
8 landfill operations constitute a major Federal action
9 significantly affecting the environment?"
10 I addressed before, I think, in some
n detail before lunch the interplay of and our uncertainty
12 concerning what the impact of the—and what our options are,
13 relative to NEPA, relative to this granting of permits.
14 I don't really think 1 want to go through
15 that again. If there is somebody that has a specific
16 question on that again, let me know. However, this specifi-
17 cally addresses whether or not we think that the granting
18 of a permit constitutes a major Federal action.
19 As I say, and we still are not sure
20 legally, what our alternatives are. And so, I guess, my
21 answer to that is: I don't really know at this point.
22 MR. KOVALICK: This is a general ques-
23 tion related to definition: "I believe background or
24 justification documents were prepared for each criteria like
25 flanmability for Section 3001. Are these completed and if so
-------
505
1 how may a copy be obtained?"
2 We have draft versions which are avail-
3 able to you of the document except for the toxicity dpcu-
4 ment and the radioactivity may be available by the time we
5 get back. But flammability, reactivity, corrosiveness are
6 available. I think the easiest way would be for those of
7 you who have given Mrs. Wyer outside your card to get a
8 copy of the draft read, indicate on there which criteria
9 documents, if you know, or all of them that you would like
10 to have. These are not final but they are drafts.
11 "Regarding my management information
12 system discussion,how do you plan to act on the generators
13 that produce hazardous waste under 3001 but do not notify?"
14 O.K. Running through our options again,
rmJkujytaJL,
_»15 if we have a list of rebutal-t presumption waste, it would
16 be a very easy matter to take the SIC codes of industry
17 for which, and using the notification list that Mr. Field's
18 mentioned, run the kinds of industries through the machine
19 that have those kinds of waste and figure out who we didn't
20 hear from. That would be one place to start.
2i If we did not have the rubuttable
22 presumption list, we would look for exceptions in that SIC
23 code. Using my example earlier, if you heard from eight of
24 the ten beryllium foundries in that area, you would naturally
25 go out and look at the other two. After finishing all of
-------
506
l that work you would go out and using a prioritized list of
2 industries that we think are good targets, start running
3 those through comparing the directories of possible affected
4 parties that we had, that the contractor is developing as
5 Tim mentioned under the 3010, against those we have heard
6 from.
7 So it would be a very easy matter to
8 get print outs of the exceptions as I mentioned before.
9 MR. SHANNON: This question says,
A 10 "Both impacts, environmental and economic will depend
ll principally on 3001 criteria. Are impacts being considered
12 in 3001 criteria development?"
13 The impacts that were—I'm going to
14 start off a different way. The definition or the ultimate
15 position on the 3001 criteria and the Using are, of course,
16 primary significance in that they define the waste, hazardous
17 waste that will be included in the net that will have to
\is comply with the other regulations.
19 So from that standpoint, you know, we
20 place a difficulty in understanding what the impact will be.
21 We are beginning to understand what they are as the definiticfn
22 is now constituted. And we are also considering the--one
23 of the alternatives is the phasing of the levels of criteria
24 under 3001.
25 In the particular phasing alternative,
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
507
we are looking at phasing of things other than the levels of
criteria too. We are not specifically looking at a phasing
of Just the levels.
So the answer to the question is: Yes,
we are considering — in this development process, will be
considering Impacts of various wastes as defined in 3001
criteria.
In addition, let me say that the Impact
analysis are of the total, you know, instrumental impact of
all of the 8ub Title C. To a generator, he is being — the
start of the impact begins with how waste is defined. But
he is being impacted, you know, in part by 3002, in part by
3003, and the initial Impact of 3004, and the other Sections
too.
And that- -you know, we are analyzing
the total Impact of the Snh Title C regulations.
CHAIRMAN LZNDSEY: O.K. That being the
last written question. Does anybody have any questions
from the floor?
JOHN GOOLIAS: I really have so many
questions that I better defer to anybody else who wants to
speak first.
else?
CHAIRMAN LDTOSEY: All right. Anybody
MR. BORMAN: My name is Bert Borman.
-------
508
1 I have a quick question. Cg£ you tell me why when you are
2 talking about contractors doing studies on waste, why it
3 is in this law that contractors are not authorized to get
4 information but EPA employees are or his designated contrac-
5 tor?
6 MR. KOVALICK: No, I don't think we
7 can. I don't think we know the answer to that.
8 MR. BORMAN: There must be a reason for
9 it, I would think.
_n 10 MR' KOVALICK: I'm not sure our general
—}11 Counsel has interpreted that. The last thing in here means
,2 that we couldn't do that. In other words, if we came to
13 your plant and asked for information under our procedures
,4 and you had to let us in. The question: Why shouldn't
15 our contractors be allowed to do the same thing. So we
16 may end up having to accompany him to a facility that denied
17 that contractor entry. But if the facility would allow
18 our contractor to come in that would simplify it. I think
19 that's where we are at the moment.
20 There are more problems, I think, with
2i contractors frequently than there are with EPA people.
22 MR. BORMAN: Thank you.
SS SS
23 MR. M^OLAJ: Paul Mi^colaj. I have a
24 general question. It was estimated that sometime earlier
25 today or maybe yesterday that you are expecting about
-------
509
1 20,000 interim permits to be granted. What kind of prioritl
2 will be set as far as how these will be evaluated? And
3 do you anticipate that there will be any deadline as far as
4 how long.these interim permits will be valid?
5 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: O.K. Let me take
6 the second part first. There is no closing date on interim
7 permits. They are—and we don't, EPA, doesn't take any
8 action to grant an interim permit. All a person has to do
9 is notify and make application and he has an interim permit
10 until EPA gets around to looking at it.
11 So we take no action. And the only way
12 of ending an interim permit is for EPA then to act on the
13 permit application. If we act on it and deny it, then that
14 is the end or whatever.
15 The first part of the question was—I
16 have forgotten, I'm sorry.
17 MR. MIKOLAJ: Priority, how—
18 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Oh, how are we going
19 to get through the stack. Clearly it will fit priorities.
20 And it will be partly regional option. There will be
^21 guidance from Jjfeadquarters, from our Headquarters feforcement
^22 <£roup who is not represented here today, and from us as to
23 what those priorities should be.
24 So I can only speculate at this point.
25 That won't be set out in regulations. That will be something
-------
510
1 that the Agency will do. Clearly the squeaky wheel is going
2 to have some effect. O.K. Where there is a group or some
3 people who are adamant that some facility should not exist
4 or have questions about it, they are going to raise a lot
5 of fuss about it and EPA is going to look at that applica-
6 tion pretty soon, I would imagine.
7 Other than that, I would tend to—from
8 a personal manner to take a look at the very good facilities
9 first that we know are good facilities and get them into
10 the system to encourage them so that they can gain adequate
11 capital to expand. And I, of course, would take a look at
12 those facilities that I thought were very poor—that the
13 facilities were very poor or very marginal. So as to get
U the worst factors out of the system. And then maybe work
15 toward the great middle ground.
16 But there are a variety of other scenar-
17 ios one can concoct of how you should do that. And as I
18 say it will be something we will do later on in terms of
19 sending out guidance to the regions for doing that.
20 I guess you are next.
21 MR. GOULIAS: John Goulias, Columbia,
22 Missouri.
23 I guess I should explain the thrust of
24 my questions first so you will understand. I am trying to
25 think through this process with you and that I'm not
-------
1
^x
3
4
5
6
9
10
,~ll
^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
511
eet
necessarily casting disput£.ons on the whole process of bot:h
environmental Impact jstatement and economic Impact state-
ment development. Having personally been Involved In the
Initiation of the economic impact statement program and in
the development of about 15 to 20 of these and I feel for
you. And so that my questions are related also to develop -
ing an environmental Impact statement and economic impact
= -llXMjUf ~ '
statement that can be grunly meaningful.
I guess In a sense I believe that they
become as Important as the thought that has gone into them
and the interaction between both the draft of the gregula-
tions and the statements and obviously you are under the
same time pressures as we were under. And all of this has
to proceed at the same time. And I am trying to work with
regulations that are continually changing.
And, of course, this brings problems in
terms of both the environmental impact and economic impact
as such. So this whole area I believe is extremely important
toward f oca a ing in on those part of the regulations which are
JTuJLu,
fccu«l/ helpful to society. And even though the tools are
very vague, and very exact, often times they tend to fall
out from the regulatory portions. Certain aspects of regula-
tions which become more meaningful than others from a cost
and benefit standpoint.
In other words, some portions of the
-------
512
1 of the drafts will be much more meaningful that others.
_^2 Also in evaluating the alternative^ strategies it will
»3 become clear as to which ones become most cos<£)effective,
4 if both processes are done in a meaningful way.
5 John, you did not get into benefits
6 very much because I know that this is a most difficult
7 portion. I am just wondering in terms of the contractors
8 how they will proceed with regard to both benefits and
9 damage assessment.
10 MR. SHANNON: You are right that is the
n most difficult part. What our contractors will—well, our
12 contractors are doing the, you know, the information gather-
13 ing for us. It will be up to EPA to do the ultimate
14 analysis of those benefits cost of the alternatives. But
15 the approach that we, in reality, are going to have to be
16 taking is that the benefits will have to be described very
17 generically.
18 The Agency recognizes this as a weakness.
19 It's not only—it's a weakness because the concept of doing
20 the benefit cost now is very, very difficult. And, in fact,
21 the value is in serious question within the regulatory
22 world. In fact, in the recent past EPA in doing the true
23 benefit cost analysis—basically they have not done it and
24 that omission has been recognized by the agencies that are
25 responsible for reviewing our statements, The Counsel and
-------
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
,8
19
22
23
24
25
513
Environmental Quality, The Office Management and Budget,
and the counsel on ways and price stability. What we do
"^
is we, you know, broadly discuss or generically discuss
the kinds of adverse economic impacts that are likely to
occur under each alternative.
In other words, you know, with the
avoidance of damages In a particular area, you know, that11 s
a kind of benefit. Beyond that, in terms or establishing
a benefit cost ratio we, you know, I don't believe we will
be able to do it.
You made a comment earlier about, in
your experience, focasing on certain aspects of a regulations
that you think that the analysis shows to be really helpful
in dealing with the solution. I would like to talk to you
about your experience after this particular session. I
think it would be helpful.
MR. GOULIAS: May I make some suggestions
along these lines. I am wondering how much you have looked
into or will be having contractors look into the damage
assessment reports available at all local state and Federal
a_ ' /
Agencies.
MR. SHANNON: Yes, our ERS contractor
will begin that, yes.
MR. GOULIAS: Fine.
MR. SHANNON: They are categorized so
-------
514
1 that we can tie them into possibly, you know, the types of
2 contrdl on the transporters, for instance, or the broader
-------
515
1 not be part of TSCA, I don't know. But I believe it's part
2 of the total U.S. EPA picture and how this will be done,
3 I don't know.
4 But at some point there are a number
5 of emergency response activities under way within U.S.
EPA now as you well know. And part of them will be regulated]
7 I! trader TSCA in the future. I understand there are guidelines
II
8 I mt now, interim guidelines issued by—I think it was some-
body* office at the time. I'm not positive. As to how
10 I emergency responses will be handled, but under your Act, if
it should turn out that many of these incidents are in some
way related to an emergency response situation, and I think
13 I that this needs addressing because it'a very strongly tied
14 || in with the economics of insurance liabilities and civic
15 liabilities.
?16 CtiARIMAN LDJDSEY: In that regard, there
17 will be continuance plans in the way of self emergency
18 response, a planning provision which is being written in
19 Section 3004.
20 On the other hand if you are talking
about the kind of emergency response reaction in teamsthat:
22 occurs when there is a spill, Coast Guard or EPA teams
23 occur when there is a spill. We would not look to duplicate
24 that.
25 As a matter of fact, I'm not sure thai:
-------
516
i
2
3
5
6
7
8
14
15
16
18
19
20
24
25
the Act that we have gives us really the authority to do
that. But the Agency, within the past month maybe five weeks,
has been looking at ways of consolidating the emergency
4 response needs and ability to react In the more comprehensive
fashion. So that Is being done.
that.
MR. GOULIAS: Well, I am glad to hear
CHAIRM&N LINDSEY: I don't know whether
9 It's going to be simple but they were working on It.
10 MR. GOULIAS: It Is an extremely dlfflcul
11 I! problem. So along those lines let me proceed, John, to get
12 into the liability insurance aspects. You mentioned pre-
13 viously that you thought in terms of a hazardous waste
disposal facility might require twice the annual gross
revenues In terms of either insurance or bonding or what-
ever. And that the various guidelines had not been develop
17 by you or by the contractors as yet, but you are thinking
in terms of a $50,000,000 figure. Did I Understand that
correctly yesterday?
MR. SHANNON: No, the question that I
21 responded to yesterday said what kinds of protection have
22 been suggested to us. And what I mentioned was a—it
23 was suggested as a possibility based on other risk areas,
both environmental and product liability and other kinds
of things. It's not an EPA, even an office position at
-------
517
l this point.
2 MR. GODL1AS: Will this figure be
3 determined by your contractors?
4 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: No, contractors don't
5 choose those kinds of things. They may study options for
6 us. But they don't make choices.
7 MR. GOULIAS: But they will be making
8 studies that vill be related to helping you choose the
9 option?
10 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: That's a fair state-
n ment, yes.
12 MR. GOULIAS: Along those lines will.
13 they also be looking at the economics of those various
14 waste disposal sites that are in existence now?
15 MR. SHANNON: Are you tying that ques-
16 tlon into financial responsibility?
17 MR. GOULIAS: Yes.
18 MR. SHANNON: O.K. Let me put together
19 what I think you are saying. What our contractor who is
20 doing this managerial issue study,including financial
21 responsibility, is doing is estimating the Individual cost
22 of the specific option that he is evaluating. One of them
23 is liability Insurance. You know, we know how much each
24 of these particular options will cost. Then what we do is
25 we take that cost along with all the other costs of the
-------
518
yi Whole Act, including the administrative or nontechnical
2 costs, and factor them into the economic impact analysis.
3 It could be that the costs of financial responsibility by
4 themselves are somewhat significant and they will require
5 a closer look at the alternatives for financial responsibil-
6 ity will be required, based on economic cost impact.
7 MR. GOULIAS: Well, maybe I can get
8 more specific, John. We are in the process of developing
9 a hazardous waste disposal site. How much bonding, how
10 much liability insurance would we require?
11 MR. SHANNON: Ultimately, presuming
12 the state picks up the program, whatever the state would
13 require. As long as it has been determined that provisions
u in that particular area were good,substantial, consistant,
15 but we can1t tell you what we will be recommending in those
16 particular areas yet. We don't know. I have given you
17 some indication.
(r
•«jl8 MR. fOULIAS: Well, let me give you
19 some figures in return, from fellows that have been in
20 business some 20 - 25 years related to nuclear waste dis-
21 posal, which I think is even more difficult than a hazardous
22 waste disposal. The gross revenues generated, from what I
23 understand, are approximately—now this would be the gross
24 revenues—are in the order of say $200,000 - $300,000 an
25 acre. So assume a site would fill in, at a maximum, 15
-------
519
1 acres a year and most sites would be on the order of say
2 3 to 5 acres. That would be on the order—say 4 or 5 acres
3 would be a million to a million and a half dollars gross
4 revenue before expenses.
5 Now are you saying or were you indicat-
6 ing yesterday that such a facility would probably require
7 $50,000,000 bonding based on that annual gross revenue?
8 MR. SHANNON: This is a facility that
9 ha* an annual gross revenue of $1,000,000 you said?
10 MR. GOULIAS: Yes.
11 MR. SHANNON: Well, what--I was auggeut-
12 ing based on the information study that has been done today.
13 That facility would be required to have a total liability
14 coverage. We are talking about financial responsibility of
15 $2,000,000 twice the annual revenues not $50,000,000.
16 MR. GOULIAS: O.K. Fine. I wanted to
17 get a clarification of that. Whatever the annual gross
18 revenue would be.
19 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: That's not a very
20 hard number though. 1 mean that1s just an idea of a concept
21 or the way it might go.
22 MR. GOULIAS: Whatever I said was con-
23 siderably more. But nevertheless the $50,000,000 is certainl|y
24 staggering and well beyond the •mall operator. O.K. This
25 I'm sure you understand.
-------
520
l In terms then of the rating--let's forget
2 that line. I guess, in terms philosophical importance of
3 human error on transportation incidents and other things
4 related to that the—it seems to me that it would be very
5 helpful to look into a total emergency response system
6 involved in both industry and government. I know it exists
7 now to a certain extent. But from industries point of view,
8 they have many problems in responding to more than their
9 particular product.
10 The industry attorneys would say, as a
11 particular manufacture facility, to your emergency response
12 team that goes out in the field must limit its activities
13 to those chemicals that you produce and nothing more.
14 And often times there is a tendency to give the good industry
15 team involved more than what their public attorneys often
16 times would want them to get involved in. Which gets back
17 to the problem of civil liabilities and cost of insurance.
18 Now assuming that our waste disposal
19 site was also equiped to handle materials from an emergency
20 response systems collected during emergency responses, I
21 guess, what I am wondering about is if the cost of any such
22 liability insurance amount and, if, in fact, it is available'
23 Now where they will be addressing will
-•> 24 this particular economic impact statement be getting that
' ~ * "^
25 involved in addressing the emergency response issue and the
-------
521
1 collection of those materials for hazardous waste disposal
2 sites?
3 MR. SHANNON: What you are doing is,
4 you know, really defining a specific situation in terms of
5 what a facility is receiving as I understand it. In terms
6 or insurance for financial protection of that facility, I
7 believe it would make no difference as to where or how ttiat
8 particular waste arrived at the facility.
9 MR. GOULIAS: Not only the facility.
10 I'm talking now about insurance going out to the scene to
11 handle those materials in terms of response.
12 CHAIRMAN LBTOSEY: No, I don't think
13 that addressable under RCRA. Now it may be--I think that's
14 something that the still response people under Section 311
15 of the SWPCA has to address under that area. I don't think
16 that is coverable under RCRA.
17 MR. SHANNON: No, financial responsi-
18 bility deals strictly with the hazardous waste management
19 facility site under 3004.
20 MR. GOULIAS: But there would be addi-
21 tional cost associated for collection of materials that
22 would be under RCRA, under emergency response that are not
23 present now.
24 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: But the collecting
25 of those materials and the cost associated with the doing
-------
522
l of that would be handled under the spills regulations as
2 opposed to under RCRA. I think that's fair to say.
3 MR. GODLIAS: O.K. Now in terms of
4 looking at the insurance companies and the availability of
5 liability Insurance, will your contractors be looking at
6 this?
7 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Yes.
8 MR. GODLIAS: What I might suggest here
9 is that,in ewaw Of the insurance companies I have contacted,
10 no such insurance is available. And the reason for this,
ll at least up to a certain dollar limit, even for a very large
12 company, I would say for the first million to two-million
13 dollars could not be covered at the present day. Any thing
14 above that is very, very expensive. So that—and the
15 insurance companies say that the only thing they worry about
16 are the statistics of Incidence and the existence increase
17 or decrease.
18 They are not concerned about the impact
19 of safety response teams on reducing the incidents they
20 want the record to speak for itself over the long term,
21 which might mean you may have to have anywhere from a five
22 to ten year history of records that would show that as a
23 result of emergency response plans the number of instances
24 have, in fact, decreased before the insurance company
25 actually can, in fact, write insurance that will be reduced.
-------
523
1 CHAIRMAN LINDSET: O.K. Thank you.
2 I think It might be worthwhile for us to talk with you in
3 tome more depth. We are kind of running over here. So
4 I think—
5 MR. GOULIAS: I apologize for taking a
6 long tine. Bat I have a lot more in terms of safety. I
7 view this as really an extension of industrial safety.
8 Bat •Cfetn times people best equiped to handle the problem
9 can't get involved because of several liabilities and their
10 own ladfcridoal liabilities that would be incurred. It has
11 nothing to do with any of the EPA legislation at all. It
12 has to do with several liabilities and company response
13 teams that are best able to do the job and their own product
14 liability insurance becomes enormous including those that
1S are self written requires So much deposit in the bank and
16 so on. But we can go into that in more detail.
,7 CHAIRMAN LIHDSEY: I think that we would
18 like to do that on a one to one basis. And we will look for
19 your assistance, if that's possible. We are just about on
20 schedule at this point. We have two major things to do.
2i We are going to take a short break. The two major things
22 to do after that are run through of some case examples and
23 John Schaum over here has copies of the case examples we are
24 going to go through if you haven't picked them up yet.
25 And then we have an opportunity for the
-------
524
1 those who have requested to make statements, general state-
2 ments on the Act as a whole. Let us take a 15 minute break
3 and be back and ready to go at 3:30.
4 Thank you.
5 (A short recess was taken.)
6 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Will everybody take
7 a seat again, please. We will get back underway here.
8 We have decided to change the schedule
9 very slightly to take the requested statements at this
10 time. As I have Indicated we are going to limit these
ll statements. So we are going to ask those who want to make
12 the statements to limit them to five minutes. We would
13 also like to ask that the written transcript or the written
14 statement be given to the Court Reporter at the time we
15 give the statement, If that's possible. If not, we would
16 like to have them post marked and In the mall by Tuesday
17 at the very latest.
18 Let me go through the list here of
19 people that I have. First of all there Is a Mr. Glen A.
20 Gettlnger of Ml4west Oil Refinery Company here. Would you
21 like to make a five minutes statement at this point?
22 MR. GETTIHGER: I am here but I will
23 pass on the statement.
24 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Fine, If you
25 could do that by Tuesday, It will get Into the transcript.
-------
525
1 If not, it will still get Into the record and be In the
2 docket. O.K.
3 Thank you.
4 Mr. C. Clark from Illinois EPA.
5 Charlie, do you want to make a five
minute statement now?
MR. CLARK: Ho, I will just let it
go and mail mine In.
9 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Let me just say
10 again that If you can do that, post mark it by Tuesday,
it will get into the written transcript. If not, it will
12 go into the docket but won't be in the published transcript.
13 MR. CLARK: Either that or I'll mail
,4 it In.
15 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Thank you.
16 I guess that's it. Everyone else has
17 made their statements.
18 Therefore, we will press on to the
19 discussion of the case examples. The object here is to
20 go through several kinds of alternatives scenarios. We
have more or less been doing that on a question and answer
22 basis for the last couple of days. But we have some
23 published examples which we think represent different
24 approaches. And we think it might be worthwhile to investi-
25 gate them.
-------
526
1 John Schaum here in the middle has
2 copies of what we are talking about here. And we will
3 proceed to do that. Mr. Kovalick will be summarizing.
4 MR. KOVALICK: The format to this is
5 I would like to read one example at a time and take any
6 oral questions that you have from the floor or thoughts.
7 And if you have none, we will move on to the next one.
Since this was an experiment to try
9 and thread through for you what all the regulations that
10 affect one party, and we went through this and Rosslyn
discovered some additions and corrections. So let me
j2 read you the additions: Item A, we need to add the word
13
on the third line where it says "send to commercial disposal
14 firms", we need to add the words "via common/contract
15 carrier." We need to add on the third line "via common/
16 contract carrier."
17 So now the first example would read like
18 this: "The Organic Chemical Company produces significant
19 quantities of hazardous waste, sends those wastes to a
20
Now we are going to run through what
22 we believe that company's obligations to be. We need
23 another caveat here. When we write hazardous waste in the
24 initial description of the waste a person has—I used this
25 analogy in Rosslyn perhaps not successfully, but if you are
commercial disposal firm via common/contract carrier."
-------
527
familiar with the statement: If a tree falls in a forest
and there is no one there is there a sound?
3 Well, in this case if a hazardous waste
4 has the property and we are assuming that the hazardous
5 waste, in all these cases, has the property that make it a
hazardous waste whether EPA knows it or the generator knows
7 it. we are still assuming that it has those properties if it
g says a significant quantity of hazardous waste,that is what
9 we mean.
10 O.K. So this organic chemical company
under 3001 will dtt one of two things depending on the way
12 that the regulations turn out. I have been over this
13 several times in the last two days. If we have a rebuttable
14 presumption list, as you remember that waste whether it's
15 by processing or by the name of a chemical in that waste,
16 would be a hazardous waste. And that company would not have
17 to test its waste unless it believed its particular process
18 did not produce a hazardous waste. In which case it may
19 use our criteria or test to prove that it* s not in the
20 system.
For example, if you had a waste that was
22 on the rebuttable presumption list, but because of its
23 special kind of treatment that you have built into your
24 process you are sure that it is lockq/up, the hazardous
25 properties are locked up in there, you can run the toxicity
-------
528
1 test on that waste to demonstrate to EPA that it is not
2 hazardous. That would be the scenario if we had a rebuttabL
3 presumption list,
4 If we do not have a rebuttable presump-
5 tion list or if your wastes were not listed at all, which-
ever way it turns out, you may declare your waste as a
hazardous waste without testing at all. Now we got into
that yesterday somewhat. And pointed out that the decision
9 about being in or out of Sub Title C regulatory system is
10 independent of any decision you want to make about how to
11 containerize it, how to meet DOT container spec, how to
12 treat and dispose of.
13 All we are talking about here is you
14 may not have to test it to determine it is a hazardous
15 waste. I mean you may declare it as a hazardous waste
16 without processing. You may declare it a hazardous waste
17 without testing. Or, as it shows here, you may test the
18 waste against the criteria. You might decide that it is
19 likely that this waste is corrosive and that is a very in-
20 expensive test to run to see if it is a hazardous waste.
21 So your first obligations are outlined
22 there in either/or statement, because we don't know how
23 the regs. are going to turn out.
24 No, 2, under 3002 you, as the generator
25 must then properly label, provide placard instructions or
-------
529
1 placard to the transporter,containerize, enter the data
2 about the waste on the manifest, as we discussed yesterday,
3 including designating the permit facility to which this
4 waste would go, keep records, and report to EPA or to the
5 state quarterly.
6 That is you would summarize your mani-
7 fest actions on this quarterly reqport. Finally you have
8 an obligation to notify EPA in 90 days of the publication
9 of Section 3001 as to whether you are a generator.
10 So that, taking this kind of facility,
11 you are threading through the obligations you have. I
12 might add the reason we added the amendment was pointed
13 out to me that if you ran your own trucking firm and you
14 were a private carrier, you would also have to comply with
15 the transportation regulations under 3003. That's why we
16 added that amendment on the third line.
17 Does anyone have any questions on that
18 example?
19 (No response.)
20 If not, I will go on to Example B: A
2i petroleum refinery producing hazardous sludge and disposing
22 in a lagoon on his own property, that is property contlgu-
23 ous to the generation. You remember my discussion about
24 the about a public highway cutting through contiguous
25 property is still on site. His obligation, this petroleum
-------
530
1 refiner, are the same tinder 3001, either/or a scenario. He
2 only record keeps because he is disposing on his own
3 property. And no manifest is required because he is not—
4 he is disposing on site.
5 And under Section 3005 he is required
6 to get a disposal permit. Remember this is a lagoon and may
7 evaporate into the air and, therefore, it is disposal and
8 not storage. And he must meet the standards of Section
9 3004, including a report quarterly to EPA or the state.
10 Finally, Section 3010 applies. And
ll the refiner would notify EPA in 90 days of publication
12 that he was a disposer, generator and a disposer and even
13 potentially a transporter. I presume that's possible but
14 since he had no transportation obligations that may be
15 peripheral.
16 Anyone?
17 Yes, sir.
18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: That contiguous
19 generation—what would be the difference if the property
20 was not contiguous but the waste was delivered by pipe
21 lines? That is a question that was asked previously. You
22 can deliver your waste by pipe lines through your own
23 property and not have this contiguous requirement. But
24 that contiguous is resented.
25 MR. KOVALICK: You are correct. The
-------
531
1 same rules apply. The pipe line example was developed
2 within the last three days as an example. The reason it
3 is worded this way is that if you own a piece of property
4 a half mile down the road and you truck it there that is
5 when you are getting into the transportation system, the
6 manifest, and so forth. That is the reason. But you can
7 truck it on your own property, you know, contiguous property.
8 MR. MIKOLAJ: This goes back to Example
9 A and the 3001. It says you may declare hazardous waste
10 without test. Now the declaration part of that fits in
n to the 3010.
12 MR. KOVALICK: Right. We are trying
13 to associate what yon would do though. And I gave these
14 two options.
15 Anyone else?
16 (No response.)
17 O.K. Example C: A photographic lab
18 generates a small quantity of hazardous waste and sends to
19 a commercial disposal firm—this also I should say via
20 common/contract carrier but I guess you would assume that
21 would be known. This is an example that would be the same
22 as A.
23 Now you may ask why is that small
24 quantities would be sent as that. The reason for that is
25 that only manifested waste can be accepted at permitted
-------
532
o i storage.treatment and disposal facilities. And so these
2 kinds of waste would have to go via the normal system. Now
3 it doesn't mean that the disposal facility could not provide
4 service to such a lab in terms of manifest forms made by
5 this client or something like that.
6 The basic problem Is—the issue here
7 is that these wastes, in order to be accepted, have to
come in on a manifest so that the disposer can balance his
9 books, if you will. What is not stated here is that it
10 would be possible for a small generator, a small quantity,
a small generator of waste to use municipal sanitary land-
12 fill for that small quantity, which we ran through very
13 briefly yesterday. If he provided Information to the owner
14 of t^at facility, that he was bringing it.
15 You may remember Harry was talking about
-»>16 bringing some paint thiner to a sanitary landfill. And if
17 you say this is flammable, then that's a nonmanifested
© Ju&4£U,
18 waste and is taken to a nonpermitted Cub Title C facility.
/c«
19 That would be possible,given that the information is pro-
20 vided to the disposal facility.
21 Yes, sir.
22 MR. GETTINGER: I have a question for
23 you. Now we accept waste oil from home owners. We have a
24 tank that sets out in front of our plant. They bring it
25 and dump it in there. Do I have to put them on manifest
-------
533
1 because I accepted their hazardous waste?
2 MR. KOVALICK: No. We have definitely,
3 from the beginning, said home owners are out all together.
4 They are not small. Tney are not large.
5 MR. GETTINGER: I can take their waste
6 without any problem?
7 MR. KOVALIC: Right. How you're storing
waste, I presume, it may stay there over 90 days. And
9 then we are into another discussion. But as far as the
10 home owner is concerned, no.
ll MR. GETTINGER: How does he know he is
12 not getting oil from a service station instead of from a
13 home owners?
14 MR. KOVALIC Well, if the service
_\ 15 station ends up being inotatant — and I spent a few minutes
16 on that earlier today about how many there are and whether
17 that's reasonable. Then the service stations has obliga-
18 tions which he is not following. In other words, he is —
19 but we are not saying that he is definitely in the system.
_v 20 That is not this gentlemans problem. That is an illegal
21 act if they were in the system by the service station.
22 Anything else?
23 (No response.)
24 Example D is going to need several
25 corrections — additions I should say. Pesticide aerial
-------
534
1 applicators generate small quantities of hazardous waste.
2 And soil incorporates the waste on its own property. As
3 our thinking goes now, he would be record keeping in terms
4 of his generator requirements. Notification is required,
5 that's admitted here. In other words, 3010 notification
5 would be required. And a footnote is that even though that
7 Section 3004 standards apply to this person—even though
8 there isn't a permit, there is no paper Involved, if he
9 were violating the national standards and it were necessary
10 to enforce against him, those standards could be applied.
11 Usually the question I get immediately
12 after this is what about the small farmer. So I will ask
13 it myself. And we have recognized that they are a problem
14 to themselves. And we are trying to find a way to draw a
15 line in between the individual farmer, who uses a seasonal
16 basis moderate amounts of pesticides and this kind of waste
_- 17 generator who has maybe hundreds of cans—five£gallon
18 containers of pesticides, and residues for other kinds of
19 waste.
20 So we solicit your help on that problem.
21 But it is not an easy line to draw between agri-business
22 and aerial applicators and the individual farming.
23 Are there any questions on this one?
0-
24 MR. RElQmGTON: Would you classify a
25 golf course, who uses quite a bit in the way of pesticides,
-------
535
1 as an individual farmer?
2 MR. KOVALICK: No, we wouldn't classify
3 him as a farmer. This gets into the small generator ques-
4 tion. Would he generating a small quantity outside the
5 basic requirements of this category here. In other words,
(gkAUXHOL)
6 record^ keeping. by the way, could be bills that you keep
7 to speak of your purchased pesticide. The number of cans
8 purchased could be records of how many cans you have disposed
9 of on your own property. In this case it really applies to
10 bags or rise solutions.
n Yes, sir.
12 MR. WILSON: Does this small quantity
13 of hazardous waste have to be specifically under the small
14 generator?
,5 MR. KOVALICK: Well, this means that
16 the aerial applicator would be a small generator because
17 of his small quantity. So as it is written now, small
18 generators are not a category of people who do nothing.
19 Small generators are a category of people 'who do a lot
20 less than a regular generator. In this case a small
21 generator has to keep records and it may be the fact of
22 bis purchases. And he has to notify. I don't know if
23 that helps but we are wrestling with what, you know, who is
24 a small generator.
25 Do you want to ask me something else?
-------
536
1 MR. GASPER: He is generating a small
2 quantity of waste, right? Does that make him a small
3 generator?
4 MR. KOVALICK: Right.
5 Yes, sir.
6 AUDIENCE MEMEBER: Maybe I missed your
7 reason and your discussion but why is it—he is disposing
g of this small quantity of waste on his land—why does he
9 need a disposal permit?
10 MR. KOVALICK: Well, we are trying to
JL
n design the Section 3005 permit regulations to be compatable
12 with the small generator number, you know, tonnage or SIC
13 codes that fit under 3002. So if you have a small quantity
14 and a small generator under 3002, you don't need a disposal
15 permit for that small amount under 3005. We are trying to
16 thread through both of them to make them come out the same.
17 O.K. The next item is about transporters
18 not about generators, per se, a transporter picks up hazar-
19 dous waste pumpings from several manufacturers' lagoons.
20 And these are the obligations of the transporter, as far
2i as we can see them now.
22 He must have a manifest certified by
23 the generator as to the destination for those wastes. He
24 must have placarding from the generator and other informa-
25 tlon. Now Harry described yesterday, it's not unlikely
-------
537
l that the transporter provide this service for generators.
2 That is they know what placarding belongs on that kind oE
3 waste. They may well be in the disposal business and they
4 know what their normal spill response is and they write
5 that down.
6 So in this case all the generator does
7 is sign on the bottom line along the purchase order that
8 he gets with this waste. At any rate the manifest must be
9 certified. And under 3003 that transporter must certify
10 that he accepted the waste to the signature and delivered
11 that waste only to the place noted on the manifest. That
12 is it can't end up anywhere else, which is where we get
13 out the enforcement if it ends up in a ditch.
14 And finally the transporter, which is
15 not on here, should notify under Section 3010.
16 Any questions on that?
17 (No response.)
18 All right. Now we are getting into
19 recovery. A electronic firm has etching solutions which
20 are a hazardous waste. Half of them are sent to commercial
21 disposal firms--and again via common/contractor carrier--
22 and half are recycled.
23 For the disposed portion. The portion
24 that our sense of the disposal firm, Example A applies,
25 just as if we were running through that whole scenario
-------
538
under Example A. That would be 3001, 3002, 3010.
2 For the recycled portion — let me just
, wrap up one — the recycled portion is not a waste pursuant
bJAM^
4 to 8%*b Title C. Now the way that this firm would demonstrate
5 the fact that that half is recycled, you know, recycled
within 90 days sent the material within 90 days or is
immediately reused, he would have to keep his records of
. a bill of sale or his shipment records to show that the
9 half that went out is not covered.
]0 And finally the generator needs to
notify EPA under 3010.
Now the first man in the back, who
.. has been waiting, and then we will rest.
3 1/VeA/e.
14
15 EPA, Region VII.
MR. RITOIDg: I am Kenneth JULtohey,
16 I would like to address the pesticide
17 applicator. Let's say he had numerous cans that he is
]g applying the material. The cans give you the disposal
]9 instructions. Why would he be in the system?
20 MR. KOVALICK: The triple rinse con-
21 tainers would not be a hazardous waste. The rinsing
22 solution, if he does what he is supposed to, which is put
23 in the rinse, he wouldn't have any hazardous waste. This
24 could be a motivation to get people to follow what are not
25 regulations but are really guidelines. This triple rinse
-------
539-40
1 and their reuse.
2 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Just merely because he
3 is an applicator he is going to have to file just in case he
may not do this?
5 MR. KOVALICK: The question is just be-
cause he was an applicator he would have to file in case he
6
may not do this. Like most of the regulations, there may be
times when the--there may be times when in the system strikes,
8
Acts of God and other problems happen.
If your normal expectation is that you
always triple rinse and you always reuse the rinsate, then
the one time that doesn't happen is the exception. So I
expect that you would not have a hazardous waste.
Now let me give you a specific example.
^> 41 wj Xfl
~~~> There are several wastes that we are am* of where 100 per
cent nationwide is used, is never disposed--some slags are
16
in that category—in which case it is already out of the
waste system. In this case some etching solutions, as a
18
matter of fact in this very firm, are disposed and some arc;
recycled. So it does not jump out of the system because of,
that rule. Where this one jumps out of the system is on the
21
22
23
24
25
unless statements. So the and statements where it is not the
prime product of your process and some significant percentage
is disposed in this category unless you have immediate reuse o
the by-product, which does not apply here or it is material
recovered within 90 days.
-------
541
1 That is where this one falls out. It
2 is material recovered within 90 days and,therefore, falls
3 out as a nonwaste under S«h TlLtl C.
4 MR. GETTINGER: Waste oil by nature is
5 a recyclable product. Now I am disconnected somewhere to
6 the fact that if it's a recyclable product why does it have
7 to be classified as a hazardous waste?
8 MR. KOVALICK: The connection is that
9 100 per cent of that waste oil is not recycled. You are
10 very familiar with here in Missouri, in Verona, Missouri,
n where It was spread on the horse arena and—
12 MR. GETTINGER: It was recycled. It did
13 not wind up in a recycling plant but it was recycled.
14 MR. KOVALICK: Well, the test is did
15 it actually arrive there?
16 MR. GETTINGER: You can say that about
17 anything, about your slags that you say are recycled. How
18 do you prove that they get back to the recycling?
19 MR. KOVALICK: The information we have
20 so far is that 100 per cent of it is sold.
2i MR. GETTINGER: Possibly.
22 MR. KOVALICK: So that doesn't mean that
23 the oils couldn't be used—material recovered within 90
24 days. And that would be out of the system also. I don't
25 think that gets those oils out of the system but the facility
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
_vi2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
542
go on. The facility that receives them would need a permit
but they still are out of the manifest systems.
MR. GETTINGER: Yes, but the terminology
of oil is going to remain as hazardous waste as I under-
stand it?
CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: You are presuming
that. The presumption has been that it might and that's
possible.
MR. GETTINGER: It' s a very strong
presumption as I get it.
CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Maybe, I don't know.
MR. SANJOUBgT I think there is a
strong presumption that some, some waste oils will be a
hazardous waste. There is not a strong presumption at all
that all waste oils will be hazardous waste.
MR. KOVALICK: Anyone else?
Yes, sir.
MR. MAXSON: I am Bill Maxson of 01 in
Corporation. Under Example F, if all the solutions were
recycled, would they have any requirements to meet under
Gttb Tit*€ D?
MR. KOVALICK: Well, this is written
here in the example that it wouldn* t be a waste under 6eb
«*te C. They would not have any Sub Title C obligations,,
It doesn't mean that they can take it out and dump it.
-------
543
AM T _~_*..f_~*l n--«- ••- - - T\ .££.*.*._
_-^i As I mentioned Sub Tllib D effects the
2 future of open dumps and sanitary landfills.
3 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: This gets to the
4 point, the main purpose behind all this is to get out what
5 the recovery, recycle activity which is an integral part
6 of very many manufacturing processes. And we don't want
7 to get into that business of trying to regulate those
8 kinds of things, which are integral parts of the process.
9 So that's, I think, the basic purpose of all of this or
10 a lot of this kind of thing that you see.
n MR. KOVALICK: Example G: A solid
12 reclaimer accepts waste solvents from a variety of manu-
13 facturers and produces clean solvent and hazardous waste
14 residue. These later residues are sent somewhere for dis-
15 posal.
16 Now what we are going to discuss is
17 what are the requirements on that reclaimer. With regard
13 to the hazardous waste residues, he falls into the same
19 scenario as Example A. He is a generator of hazardous
20 waste for the residues.
2i His other obligation as, if you will,
22 a king of treatment facility or a material recovery facility
23 is that he will require a special permit under Section 3005
24 meeting the standards of 3004 including the reporting. We
25 spent some time on that in the last two days.
-------
544
1 He also then would be notifying EPA
2 within 90 days of the publication 3001 because he is one
3 of those types of treatment facilities. The note at the
4 bottom is no manifest is required for incoming waste to
»5 this reclaimer. This goes back to this gentleman? ques-
6 tion that it is not a waste as far as the sender is con-
7 cerned, and, therefore, a hazardous waste. So it does
8 not require manifest.
9 Again our logic here is that since
10 it's valuable we believe that between the solvent reclaimer
n and the original waste solvent owner there will be enough
12 motivation to make sure it is not lost along the way. So
13 we are trying to reduce the requirements on that tender Co
14 the solvent reclaimer.
15 Yes, sir.
16 MR. GETTIMGER; That is the very thing
17 I would like to see happen with service stations.
18 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: He is saying that
19 is the very thing he would like to have happen with regard
20 to service stations and they waste oil recycling it.
2i Does anyone have any questions from the
22 floor?
23 My colleagues have made up a question.
24 Does anyone have any other questions from the floor?
25 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: Off the record.
-------
545
1 (Discussion off the record.)
2 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: O.K. That's the
3 last of the examples. Does anybody have any last questions
4 they would like to bring up before we break this up and
5 take off?
4 a-
_a6 MR. POLLANICH: Paul Pollanlch from
7 Mobay Chemical Corporation. I notice that at the tops—
8 the standard covers specifically in the law with the
9 small generator and the householders and their status,
10 existing sites and so on. I also note that EPA has taken
11 the liberty of establishing certain specifications which
]2 do not appear within the law, where they say I have the
13 right to do this even though it's not in the law. And
14 in some other instances they say "Gee, that's not in the
15 law I can't do that." The philosophy that seems to underlie
16 at the times when EPA says "I can do that" is when it
17 causes them a great deal of study. At times when they say
18 "I can't do that" is when it doesn't cause anyone any
19 trouble but it causes perhaps industry some trouble.
_»20 Coula you comment a little bit on what
21 philosophy you feel underlies this, the times we can take
22 liberties with the law or subtract from it and the times
23 when you can't.
24 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: I will take a wack
25 at it.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
546
First of all, we don' t think we are
taking liberties with the law In anything we do. Basically
most of the area, when we get Into question on this kind of
thing when there comes up a question as to whether we hive
the authority or not to do that, we go to general counsel.
and ask about it.
We don' t do that unless we have a reason,
first of all, for saying to ourselves, you know, this is
the way we think we need to go. And we think we need to
go that way because It makes sense. It makes the whole
thing easier, more straight forward, clearer or because
we have some basic interest by way of protecting public
health and the environment or by way of encouraging recovery
or some of the other goals of the act.
In other words, based on that we see
some way to do one or the other of these things, we proceed
on that basis. You may think that we do it to make things
harder for people but I just want to assure you that clearly
is not our intent. Our intent is to further some goal of
the Act.
And in so doing if we think we have a
question on whether or not we have the authority to do that
we take It up with general counsel, who are the legal
»£ —
people within the Agency. And they tell us whether we have
the authority or don't have the authority. That's the way
-------
547
1 we do it.
2 Any others?
_3 Oh, I have one thing here. I am asked
4 to remind everyone of—I would like to remind you again of
5 the meeting we discussed that is going to be held on October
6 the 26th, in Chicago with U.S. Environment Protection Agency
7 and the Department of Transportation to discuss the develop-
8 ment of regulations for the transport of hazardous waste.
-}9 Basically the 3003 £eg.
10 This will be held at the Ramada Ian.
11 And there are some fliers for this out—I think still out
12 on the table out there. If you are interested in that, I
13 would urge you to attend if you can.
14 Any other questions before—oh, here is
15 on«-,
16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: The written correspon-
~yi7 dence in reference to the 3000 series regulations, do you
18 have a particular mailing address that we should in fact
19 address comments and attitudes toward this series of
*y 20 regulations?
21 CHAIRMAN LIHDSEY: Yes, I think you
22 can write to the Docket Section—attention to the section
23 yon are interested in like the Docket Section, Attention:
24 Section 3001 or 5, if you have a particular section. U.S.
25 EPA, Office of Solid Waste, and then in parenthesis after
-------
54?
J*
l that. WH-465, that Is our mail code, 401 M Street, M as in
2 mother, Southwest, Washington, D.C. 20460.
3 MR. SAHJOUBN: Can I make a comment
4 on the docket number? I think there is a certain amount
5 of confusion about the docket and its purpose. Any comments
6 that you submit to the docket now are advisory to us. There
7 is no legal obligation for us to consider them. Once our
8 regulations are proposed formally in the Federal Register.
' any comments you make in that docket then, within the
10 formal period of six days--60 days, after publication we
ll are required by law to consider and address.
12 Therefore, if your complaints are in a
13 nature of advice, fine, send them now. But if the complaints
14 are legal ones, like if you really think we are going in
15 the wrong direction and you want to try to change us, force
16 us, in other words, require us, then you better wait until—
17 do it now but also specifically make sure you get that in
18 after we formally propose the regulations. Otherwise it
19 doesn't have the weight.
20 CHAIRMAN LINDSEY: It has also been
21 pointed out to me, I didn't want to—I want to make sure
22 that I didn't overlook somebody who wanted to make a formal
23 statement. And I did go through the list of people I
24 thought wanted to make a formal statement and who hadn't
25 told us they had retracted it.
-------
549
1 Is there anybody here now who would like
2 to do that? As I say It is still possible to get a formal
3 statement, a written statement Into the record, into the
4 transcript, if you can post mark it by Tuesday night. On
5 the other hand, you can send them at anytime and it will
6 go into the docket record.
7 O.K. If there are no more business
8 then this meeting will be declared adjourned. Thank you.
9 (Whereupdn, at 4:15 o'clock p.m.,
10 October 14, 1977, the above-entitled public
11 meeting was closed.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
550
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
CERTIFICATE
9
10 I, DAVID L. ARGIE, do certify that I appeared
at the time and place first hereinbefore set forth;
12 that I took down in stenomask the entire proceedings
13 had at said time and place; and that the foregoing
]4 Pages 296 through 549 constitute a true, correct and
15 complete transcript of my said stenomask notes.
16
17
18
19
20
21 REPORTER
22
23
24
!5
,
C^ls-*-
-------
HOLSTON FUEL COMPANY,
ROl'TE 1. Rt)\ 2H - WAVNESVILLK, N C 2«78t
rELbl'HON'K 7
-------
As a result. We propose an alternate classificiation of used lube oil as an
HEiEifii_8i3yisl!££LEi£CQie.U!!!-i¥lEC2£!y£t•" Such a modified classification
should be aimed at full recycling to fuel or lubricants and minimize in
descriminate dumping and burning.
We appreciate your review of the proposed regulations and solicting pre-
regulation input in this matter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
James L. Breece Ph.D.
Vice President Quality
Control and Purchasing
JLB/kdb
-------
Monsanto
MONSANTO CHEMICAL INTERMEDIATES CO.
po^rpnnnr-^
I ' "I
r MOV -71977 '||
LllJto!LLiU L_J
P O Box 1311
Texas City, Texas 77590
Phone f713> 945-4431
October 28, 1977
Mr. Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.
Chief, Guidelines Branch
Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH465)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Re: Texas Chemical Council Comments,
EPA Regulations Subpart A
Section 3001 of RCRA
Public Meeting 10-13-77
Dear Mr. Kovalick:
Pursuant to the discussions at your St. Louis public meeting on Hazardous
Wastes Management, we submit for your consideration the following impressions
and comments.
In general, we find that the proposed criteria for hazardous wastes in
Subpart A are extreme and, therefore, include relatively common and non-
hazardous substances (Coca-Cola, vinegar, livestock drinking water, etc.).
We believe this is contrary to the intent of the Act and, specifically, the
definition under Section 1004 (5). Furthermore, the stringent standards in
Subpart D, intended to be applicable to a narrow spectrum of hazardous wastes,
will consequently be extended to the general classification of solid wastes.
We submit that this dilution of the hazardous waste classification is contrary
to trie desirable isolation of these materials and counterproductive to an
effective solid waste management program.
The following comments address the meeting discussions of Subpart A (RCRA
Section 3001) with references to the September 14, 1977, draft of these regu-
lations. Generally, the criteria are so broad that innocuous common substances
will be included as hazardous waste. This is contrary to the language in the
Act which defines a hazardous waste in terms of "an increase in mortality or
an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness;
or...etc." As an example df over-control, a 1050 mg/1 sodium chloride solution
would be classified in th6 prdposal as a hazardous waste; even though a salin-
ity level of 3000 mg/1 is acceptable for livestock drinking water (EPA Proposed
-------
Mr. Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.
Re: EPA Regulations Subpart A
Section 3001 of RCRA
Public Meeting 10-13-77
October 28, 1977
Criteria for Water Quality - Volurie I, page 76, October 1973). In previous
comments to EPA at various public hearings, Texas Chemical Council has taken
the position that the desirable effective segregation of hazardous wastes
could be accomplished by a rational system of identification of these
materials. Conversely, the program could become unmanageable by dilution with
non-hazardous substances.
250.12 CRITERIA
(b) Corrosive Wastes (page 5)
(1) A waste would be classified as hazardous if its pH exceeded 12.
The inclusion of corrosion as a criteria for hazardous designa-
tion was for the purpose of protecting steel transportation and
storage equipment as verified in the second section of this
criteria. Alkaline materials are not generally corrosive to
steel and the upper pH limit is an incorrect specification.
The use of lime as a filter aid and disinfectant is a common
practice in conditioning municipal and industrial biosludge.
This results in an approximately 12.5 pH sludge which is not
corrosive to steel.
We do not believe that tissue damage, as discussed in EPA
background document, was the intent of the reference to
corrosiveness in Section 3001(a) of the Act.
(f) Toxic Waste (page 9)
The criteria discussed in this section should refer only to standard
leachate or entrained liquor in the waste and not to "a representative
sample" as stated in the introductory paragraph. In a properly
operated disposal site, aquifers would not be affected by 'insoluble
materials in the waste.
(2) Analysis Test Method
(B) As shown for the case of sodium chloride discussed
previously, a concentration of 0.35 times an oral mammalian
LD50 does not describe a hazardous waste. The considera-
tion of concentration is mandated by the Law, but the
0.35 factor is much too low. Texas uses a 1.0 factor in
its Hazardous Index calculation, and even this results in
relatively innocuous materials included as Class I waste.
As an alternate approach, we would recommend that all
substances with an oral mammalian LD50 of greater than 50
be excluded from hazardous waste designation per page 4 of
EPA/530/SW-171 of December 1975.
-------
Mr. Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.
Re: EPA Regulations Subpart A
Section 3001 of RCRA
Public Meeting 10-13-77
October 28, 1977
(C) The aquatic toxicity LC50 values are not contained in
the "Registry" reference.
These comments represent the viewpoint of the member companies of the Texas
Chemical Council, an association of seventy-two companies all operating one
or more plants in Texas and employing over 60,000 Texans. A formal position
statement on implementation of the Act was presented for the record of the
Public Meeting in Dallas, Texas, on March 9, 1977, and additional suggestions
were offered at subsequent meetings in Houston and New Orleans. We are
vitally interested in the development of an effective program for management
of hazardous wastes and submit these comments towards that goal. We
appreciate the opportunity to participate in these proceedings.
Sincerely yours,
., • '
P. E. Brubaker, Chairman,
Water Conservation Committee
Texas Chemical Council
-------
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
October 17, 1977
Mr. Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Chief
Guidelines Branch,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, OWHM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington,- D.C. 20460
Hazardous Wastes/General
Dear Mr. Kovalick:
Attached is our written testimony relative to Title
40, Chapter 1, Part 250, Hazardous Waste Guidelines and
Regulations, Subparts A-E , for inclusion in the" transcript
of the Public Meeting held in St. Louis, Mo., on October
13 and 14, 1977.
Very truly yours ,
:. E. -Clark, PE, Mgr.
Technical Operations Section
DL/NPC
Region V, USEPA,
Attn: Mr. Jay Goldstein
National Governor's Assoc.
Attn: Ms. Terry Grasso
John Moore
Scot Miller
Division File
CEC;sae
. 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706
-------
Statement for the record regarding Issues pursuant to Sub-Title C of RCRA
as prepared for the public meeting in St. Louis, Missouri the 13th and
14th of October 1977
Hazardous Waste GuidelInes and Regulat ions
Subpart A - Criteria, Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste
Section 250.'0 Authorization and Scope
(c) Persons exempted from Subtitle C
(2") Small quantities of waste as defined in Subpart B of
Part 250 of this Chapter - Delete
Section 250.12 Criteria
(a) Flammabili ty
(1) Any liquid waste which has a flash point less than
140 F (60 C) determined by the method cited in
section 250.!3a of this Chapter.
(la.") The use of the quantity 140°F (60°C) is
bewiIdering especially in 1ight of 3004's sect. 2.21
proposed regulation that materials wi th a f'ash point
less than 65 C not be disposed of at a d isposal
site. Since municipal refuse can decompose at:
temperatures jn excess of 160 F a more realistic
approach may be to classify flammable material into
-------
two separate categories - the highly flammable (f.p.
100°F) and the flammable (f.p. 101°F to 180°F)
The 180 F to allow for a margin of error.
Cb) Corrosive Wastes
(1) Any liquid waste or saturated solution of non-fluid
waste having a pH less than 2 or greater than 12 as
the method cited in section 250.13b of this Chapter.
(la.) Percent alkalinity or acidity may be a more relevant
approach since there are a number of pickling liquors
that are corrosive with a pH of 3 and white vinegar
is relatively innocuous with a pH 2.
("2) A corrosion rate greater than .25 inch per year on
steel (SAE 1020) at a test temperature of 130°F as
determined by the method cited in section 250.13b(2)
of this Chapter.
C2a.) Why 1/4" of 1020 steel at 130°F for one year - it
i s doubtful the bulk tanks wil1 have walls 1/4"
thick. Why not use a more realistic material - say
skin. We are more interested in the possible
ramifications in the advent of a spill than we are of
the integrity of a tank for one year.
fc) Infectious Waste
(3) Sewage treatment plant sludge
(3a.) Sewage treatment plant sludge would have to be
autoclaved in order to be classified non-hazardous.
-------
(d) Reactive Wastes
To include this point that was overlooked
(4) Wastes that in corabinat ions with one or more
heterogeneous or homogeneous waste streams undergoes
violent chemical change, frees potentially toxic
gases, detonates, or has flame as an end product to
the reaction.
(e) Radioactive Waste
With the levels set at 3 picocuries/gm many of the STP
sludges from the so called radium belt will have to be
classified radioactive waste, Since the value used is
simply an extrapolation from the water quality standard
it is recommended that the value be increased one order
of magnitude or 30 picocurles/gm.
(f) The definition of Toxic Wastes as set forth in this
section along with the analytical protocol used to arrive
at this definition are unusable to this state for the
following reasons:
fI) Of the approximately four mi 11 ion compounds in the
chemical universe and the geometr ically progressing
number that would result in the combinat i on of these,
your definition may address as many as five
thousand. The majority of the organic compounds
received in this state, ear-marked for disposal, are
chemical intermediates, many of which exhibit
properties totally divorced from those properties of
the final product, of the reaction.
-------
(2) One of the premises used in the defining of toxicity
regarding a waste, is the use of a Standard Leaching
Test. The use of a S.L.T. pre-disposes that a
landfill will allow Che formation of leachate that
wilI escape then the problem is a design problem of
the landfill.
The point here is that we would rather know what is
in a waste as opposed to what might not leach-out
under the condit i ons set forth in a leach test;
however close or divorced this test is from reality.
It is our recommendat i on that not only the ac Ld
digest be used but the all water be evaporated fromm
the samp]e so as to allow a comparison to be made
between samples. This will allow a more accurate
correlation between samples regardless of attempts to
dilute to achieve compliance. By using the original
weight one can still an accurate concentrat Ion on the
sample as originally received (un-dryed).
f3) Rather than attempt to quant L£y or quaIi fy those
substances and wastes that are toxic, it may be more
realistic to assume the all wastes be classified as
speclal (hazardous) was te (with the except ion of
household refuse) unless it can be proven otherwise.
-------
6 (4) The analytical protocol starts with an assumption,
continues with more assumptions and terminates with what we
were told was the product of a logical progression. Aside
from the fact that logic has little to do with your "guess"
this method of determining toxicity could very well set the
hazardous waste program back three years. Answer for us
these questions with your logic: why a 154 Ib. man and not
a 10 Ib. infant - why a one hundred fold dilution factor
when some wastes actually bio-accumulate (Endrin) - and why
use the LD50 values for a rat when a rat cannot vomit and
man can and there are LD50 values for such a small number
of chemicals.
Subpart B - Standards Applicable to Generators
Section 250.22 - Small Generators: The classification "small generators"
should be eliminated completely from the subject guidelines. The
original draft defines such a small generator as one who generated less
than 27 pounds of hazardous waste per month. This was grossly
ill-informed In that it did not establish any levels of toxicity or
concentrate ons. It is understood from various discussions that the
inclusion of reduced requirements for small generators is intended to
relieve some of the load on small businesses. However, it is our
-------
impression that the entire act is aimed at reducing or eluminati ng the
impact to the environment, and consequently the public, from the disposal
of hazardous waste. This cannot be done by elimi nat ing any generator of
hazardous waste. The small volumes of highly concentrated and extremely
toxic hazardous wastes can have a tremendous impact on the environment
and on the puhli c when improperly disposed.
Appendix B, the requirements for smal1 generators, should be eliminated
totally from the Guidelines regardless of the disposition of small
generator classifications.
Section 250.22B taken in context with Appendix B presents the following
scenario: a small generator may follow the requirements set down for
other generators, or he may wrap his hazardous waste in newspaper and
send it to an unlicensed (illegal) dump provided that he notifies the
hauler that the material wrapped in newspapers is hazardous waste. A
large part of Public Law 94-580 is aimed at the elimination of open
dumps, not the encouragement of their use for the disposal of hazardous
waste.
Section 250.23A and B: It is again recommended that all reference to
small generators be deleted.
Section 250.24 - Manifest System: In general, the following comments are
provided regarding the proposed mamfest system: several states
-------
incl tading 111inois has in effect or nearing complet ion a mani fest
system. These systems are tailored to the needs of the states, and jn
the case of Illinois, will be keyed to our present permit system and our
data bank. It is strongly recommended that the requirements contained
herein be sufficiently flexible to allow incorporation of certain facets
of the existing state manifest systems. One important point from our
viewpoint is the number of copies of the manifest and the final
disposition. We believe that the manifest system is almost totally
useless unless we receive a copy of the mani fest as originated by the
generator and a copy as received by the disposer. We have a list of
5,000 potent i al generators in the State of 111inoi s and it would be an
impossible task to have to contact everyone of those generators to look
at their manifest records. It would be even more difficult and
imprac t i cal to obtai n information in this matter from out-of-state
generators who ship hazardous waste into Illinois. In general, the
sample manifest form would meet our needs, however, the distribution and
fi nal disposition of copies would not be compatible with the program
which we have ready to place in effect. The following additional
comments are also presented:
1. The type and number of containers could very well be eliminated from
the form as useless information. It i s envisioned that the descriptions
wi11 be such as drums, barrels, and boxes. The practical use of such
information is not clear.
-------
2. It is strongly recommended that all volume reporting be limited to
the English system. The use of english or metric system will only create
unnecessary complicati ons •> n any future use of the information provided.
Section 250.25 - Reporting System: It is strongly recommended that a
copy of any and all reports required herein be forwarded to the state
authority in whi.ch the generator is located, as well as the state to
which the waste is designated for shipment. Even though a state may
elect not to participate in this program, it is imperative that they
receive thi s information. It is even more important that partic ipating
states receive the information on a direct basis from the generator.
Subpart C - Standards Applicable to Transporters
Section 250.35A - Loading and Stowage for Transport - It is recommended
that this requirement be expanded with regard to separation of wastes
which are incompatible. It is doubtful that it is adequate to state that
they should be separated from each other or protected from contact during
transport. This could easily be construed by a transporter to mean that
they should be placed in separate containers side-by-side on the truck.
One incident has occurred in the State of Illinois wherein hazardous
materials t namely liquid bromine, freon cylinders and aerosol containers
were all placed in the same trailer presumably in accordance with DOT
Regulations. Leaking or spilled bromine containers resulted in a fire
and the explosion of a number of the freon and aerosol containers. Large
-------
amounts of free bromi ne were re leased and it was fortunate that no one
was injured.
Section 250.36 - Compliance With the Manifest - It is recommended that
subparagraph ]A and B be deleted in entirety. The alternates contained
therein are unnecessary and only weaken the system.
Section 250.38 - Emergency Situations - Subparagraph B: It is strongly
recommended that the state authority controlling the hazardous waste
program be included in the subparagraph 1 for not ification in the event
of an emergency situation. Regional representatives of the state
authority can be on the scene of an emergency before any of the other
persons included in this subparagraph with the possible exception of the
local fire department.
It is difficult to understand the reason for requiring a reporter to file
a report in writing with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the
Hazardous Materials Regulations Board, and not with the State Hazardous
Waste authority. If such a report is to be made, the state hazardous
waste authority should at least be included with a copy of the report.
Section 250.39 - Marking/Placcarding - Subparagraph D: The U.S. DOT
criteria for hazardous materials and placcarding is questionable at best
for hazardous materials. It is believed to be totally inadequate and
tinsat is fac tory for the placcarding of hazardous wastes. It is our
-------
further belief that the excessive use of poison labels on waste hauling
trucks will only lead to increased public objection to the location of
disposal sites.
Subpart D - Performance Regulat i ons for
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Paragraph 1.2 - It is our recommendation that paragraph 1.2 be deleted in
its entirety. Subparagraph A utilizes a leachate criteria which is based
upon several quest ionable assumptions, not the least of which are that
all landfills leach, all leachate will be diluted by a factor of 100, and
that all persons who drink water weight at least 150 pounds.
Subparagraph B requires that the facility demonstrate to the permitting
agency that it can meet certain objectives. Such a demonstration would
require an in-place test of several to many years duration, after which
there is little to no chance of correcting the damage caused by a failure
to meet those objectives.
Paragraph 1.32 - It is recommended that the subphrase "or engineered" be
deleted from this paragraph. The President has dictated a national
policy to save the wetlands and floodplains, Considering all the space
whi ch is available in this country, we see no acceptable reason for
engineering a hazardous waste site such that it can be placed in the
floodplain without being inundated.
-------
Paragraph ] . 33 - It T.S noted that the term "impoundment" has been used in
this paragraph as well as several others apparently synonymous with
landfill. It is suggested that landfill and impoundment are not
synonymous and that impoundment should be rede fined or the term changed.
Paragraph 1.35 - The requirement that all wastes which are to be
landf LI led be pretreated to reduce solubility, water content and overa11
toxicity to the greatest extent possible is unreali st LC and
unreasonable. All of the prestated objectives are or may be desirable in
specif i c c ircumstances, but as stated, are unreasonable on an
across-the-board basis. Many of the hazardous waste streams being
landfilled today in the State of Illinois are the result of pretreatment
of Industr i al wastes. Many of them are already pretreated to the maximum
degree of practicality. Such an open ended requirement is an invitation
for extensive abuse.
Paragraph 1.36 - This outright ban on landfilling of wastes with a flash
point of less than 65 C is also unrealLstic and extremely unfair. Many
solvent waste streams wh ich fall with in this category are sraal1
quant ities of polluted solvents which wi11 cause more environmental
problems when burned due to the contaminants and which are not acceptable
to solvent reclaimers due to the pollutants, mixed nature of solvents, or
their practice of only handling solvents for reclamation on a consignment
basis. There are several ways in which they can be safely disposed in a
landfill, inluding containerization and injection in old cells of the
-------
landfill. In addition, the temperature which is established is not
realistic. It is much higher than necessary considering ambient air
temperatures, and is lower than the temperature which can normally be
expected from the decomposition within the landfill.
Paragraph 1.37 - This is an example of a less than desirable method of
attempting to reach a desirable position. If the geology of the site is
such that a landfill will leach to the point that leachate could be
monitored beneath the landfill and above an aquifer, then the landfilI
should not be permitted in that location. We believe that it is much
more desirable to establish a minimum aquaclude standard between the
landfill and the aquifer and establish monitoring points in the aquifer
immediately upstream and downstream from the landfill. Any means of
monitoring between the bottom of the landfill and the top of the aquifer
is less than desirable. Lysimeters have not been proven effective in all
types of soil and monitor wells drilled through the bottom of the
landfill are subject to accidental contamination caused by poor drilling
and well construction methods. Such wells may also be an actual physical
hazard to the aquifer.
Paragraph 1.4 - We are in agreement with the location of monitoring
equipment up-gradient and down-gradient from all landfills. However, we
question the feasibility of in stalling equipment capable of collecting a
representative sample of any leachate which may escape a landfill on a
nonpoint basis,
-------
Paragraph 2 1 - It is recommended that subparagraph A and B be deleted in
entirety. They are unnecessary and are believed to be unworkable.
Paragraph 2.21 - Please refer to paragraph 1.36.
Paragraph 2.23 - It is believed that 1000 C is not an adequate
operating temperature for PCBs and possibly numerous other chlorinated
hydrocarbons.
Paragraph 2.24 - Wet scrubbers are desirable from the standpoint of
controlling air pollut ion from an incinerator. However, some provis ion
should be set up in the requirements for disposing of the heavily
polluted hazardous residuals from the scrubber.
Paragraph 2.26 - Heavy metal bearing wastes should not be inclnerated in
any concentration. We fall to see the difference in burning 100 pounds
of waste at 10,000 parts per million and 1,000 pounds at 1,000 parts per
mi 1lion. Addi tionally, mercury, lead and arsenic and others will
vaporize during incineration and the other heavy metals will be converted
from a relatively insolub]e state to soluble salts during the
incineration process.
Sub part E - Standards for Perrni t s
Section l.l(e) closure - expand to include perpetual or long term care -
precisely defined
-------
(x) storage - expand definition to clarify that a "zero
discharge" S.L.F. is a storage site and a clay
"containment" site utili zing the ion exchange
capacity and slow "leachate movement is a
treatment fac ili ty. And if the above is true!
What is a disposal site?
(y) treatment - where the term "change" is noted, use
"non-reversible change."
Section 2.1fd) two part permit system - 1. construct, 2. operate is
execellent! This concept has been proven in Illinois.
Limiting public participation to the construction permit
phase has much merit.
Sec tion 2.4(c ) permit applicat ion submitted 700 days before construction
permit. Unreal istic!
Suggest: 1. Technical review - 90 days
2. Public Participation - 60 days
3. Review of (2) above - 30 days
Total = 180 days
4. Construction permit issued/denied
Section 2.4(g)(l) "including maps" - more detail - scale
sufficient to evaluate (1" 200") etc.
('gX2)(vii) "period after closure" - perpetual or long term
care?
fg)(4) insert -30'below the lowest invert of the
lowest trench.
-------
Section 2.6(a) applications "shal1 be available to the
pub lie". How about several hundred requests for
these documents from the pub]ic? Define' who
pays, who makes the reproductions, who
processes. Feds , State, Applicant17
(b) "trade secrets" - further define - is a list of
customers (generators) a trade secret?
Section 3.l(a)(3) "the high water times of the year". Ground
water elevations vary: day to day, month to
month, year to year, and are cyclical. Lets be
more precise.
Section 3.Kb)(3) "store vs. dispose (see comments 1 .1 (x) above) .
Section 3.Kf) add requirements for long term (perpetual)
responsibility.
Section 3.1(i)(2) "impervious artificial or natural material" -
define impervious: (see comment 1.1(x) above).
Section 3.2(a)(13) "recoverable" - most waste is recoverable! The
key to recycling is markets. The R.A. can force
separation and recovery - but he cannot force
the market place to purchase and use the
recovered materials. Our experience has been
"separated" materials end up in landfills for
want of a market - obviously making disposal
more expens ive.
-------
Section 3.5(f)
Section 4.1
inspect facility "at least once each calendar
year" is too loose - suggest not less than once
per quarter.
public participation: should somehow be limited
to two public hearings within a 60 day period,
(See comment 2.4(c) above). Definite ground
rules for the hearing should be spelled out,
i.e., submittal of written statements prior to
hearing, limit time for verbal statement, etc.
CEC:ma/787a
-------
REITZ 8c JENS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HENRY M REITZ,».«SIDENT III SOOTH M E R AM EC AVE N U C
STIFELW JENS.SEHIOR VICE PRESIDENT ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63105
A JOZWIAK. VICE PRESIDENT (31*1 727-O*O3
D S ESKRIOGE.SECRETARY
October 17, 1977
Mr. Harry Trask
Hazardous Waste Management Division (AW-465)
Office of Solid Haste
EPA
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, B.C., 20460 Re: Section 3002
Hazard I.D. System
Dear Mr. Trask:
This is a followup of our conversation on October 14, 1977, at the
St. Louis meeting of the EPA Review of RCRA subtitle C.
It is recommended consideration be given to using the NFBA Hazard Iden-
tification System which is more complete than the existing DOT marking system.
This diagram identification system provides planning guidance to fire depart-
ments for safe technical procedures and emergency operations, gives on-the-spot
information to safeguard the lives of firefighting personnel and others that
may be exposed and provides plant design engineers, plant protection and safety
personnel with a means of identifying hazardous materials. This identification
system can also be used for the same purpose by operating personnel of hazardous
waste management facilities.
Attached for your review and file are copies of pages 49-20, -21, -22 and
-23 of "Recommended System for Identification of the Fire Hazards of Materials
and EPA No. 704M" and the Hazard I.D. Summary Sheet from back of manual. The
diamond-shaped diagram for each chemical shown, gives at a glance the general
idea of the inherent hazards of the chemical and order of severity of hazards
under emergency conditions such as spills, leaks and fires.
Basically, the DOT System marks the most severe hazard of a material. Many
materials have several types of hazards. The NFBA System recognizes this fact.
The diagram identifies the "health", "flammability" and "reactivity" (instability
and water reactivity) of a chemical and indicates the order of severity of each
hazard by use of 1 to 5 numerals from four (4) indicating the severe hazard or
extreme danger to zero (0) indicating no special hazard. In the diamond-shaped
diagram health hazard is identified to the left, flammability at the top and
reactivity at the right. The bottom space is primarily used to identify unusual
reactivity with water. The bottom space may also be used to identify radiation
hazard. Oxidizing chemicals are identified in the bottom space by OXY.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
REITZ 6. JENS, INC.
DEM/rs DAVID E. MURRAY
-------
I
19*
-•111
•-I O
II
-------
I
J«h S«I15 It*
Ifff 111 S3 iii
•*?«! -siPs-§ ?.i
H^ A|i? *r'
in ^NJ Hi
s~l mm t!
ii;^ miiH
?si«
^§i*
iir1
Isl-S 3;JgS^? 9!-E*i:EJ
ssa i Win
CM
-------
I I I
-------
INDUSTRIAI/CHEMICAL WASTE DISPOSAL REQUEST
GENERAL INFORMATION
Bob's Home Service, Inc.
Rt. 1. Box 116F. Wright City. MP 633PO
745-3158
Reitz g Jens, Inc.
Ill S.
727-04
0403
Meramec. .St. Louis. MO
A. Name of applicant:
Address
Telephone
B. Name of technical consultant:
Address
Telephone
C. Name of waste generator:
Address
Contact Person
Telephone
D. Name of waste hauler:
Address
Telephone
II. WASTE MATERIAL INFORMATION*
A. Quality
1. Name of waste (include as many chemical names as possible):
Xylene, dichloronethane, chloroform, ethyl acetate
2.
General description (If available, include chemical and physical char-
acteristics, composition, and amount of each component. If applica-
ble, include percent solids, ability to be pumped, etc.):
Xylene (NFPA 70LK Rating; Health 2, gjSS, Reactivity 0)
uichloronethane (tit'VA. 70^1 Rating: Health 2, Fife~0. Reactivity 0)
Onloroform tMFFA 70inTHating :
Fjre 1. Reactivity Oj
t/tnyl Acetate ^NFFA
fiating: Health 1. <5aflT3. Reactivity 0)
3.
Known hazards associated with this waste(toxic,explosive, flammable,
hazardous metal component, gas producing constituents, etc.):
Health and fire hazards as in the NFPA 70UM Ratings given above.
B. Quantity
1. Amount of waste on hand for niL-nediate disposal:
Xylene, g gallons
mchloromethane, chloroform, ethyl acetate, 2x5 gallons
2. Frequency and amount of disposal if waste is generated on a periodic
basis (is the disposal "one-time" or "periodic"?):
Periodic' monthly
Aylene, /Q gallons per month
Hiehloromethane, chloroform, ethyl acetate, 5 gallons per 3 months
* Use additional pages to supplement blank spaces if additional space is necessary
-------
Public Works Phone 935-3381 320 Washington Av South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
H
HeNNGRN COUNTY
18 October 1977
Mrs, Gerri Wyer
Public Participation Officer
(WH-462)
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mrs. Wyer:
Hennepin County of the State of Minnesota requests that the fol-
lowing statement be entered into the public record as part of the
proceedings of the "Public Meeting on Hazardous Waste Management
Guidelines/Regulations Pursuant to Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976", which was held October 13-14,
1977 at St. Louis, Missouri.
In 1974 the Minnesota State Legislature passed a law providing for
the establishment of a hazardous waste management program. Addi-
tional legislation mandated the program for the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and the metropolitan area counties, and set April 1,
1977 as the effective date for Minnesota's hazardous waste rules
and regulations. However, due to the technical, economic, and
legal ramifications of a hazardous waste management program, the
effective date of the regulations will be delayed, optimistically
speaking, by one (1) year.
The State of Minnesota has spent in excess of $300,000 and devoted
three (3) years into the development of this set of regulations.
This arduous struggle to develop a set of rules and regulations,
which will guarantee the safety of the environment and public health,
minimize the economic impact upon industry, and be legally sound can-
not be proclaimed a universal success. It is not possible to develop
a perfect set of regulations. It is possible, however, to implement
a set of regulations which contains the best available technology,
weighs the significance of the economic impact, and most importantly,
initiates controls on heretofore uncontrolled hazardous wastes. Such
a set of regulations is needed and needed today! We cannot afford
any more time delays trying to develop the perfect set of regulations
while the problem related to the mismanagement of hazardous wastes
continues to remain unattended.
Minorities, Women and Other Protected Classes are Encouraged to apply
for Employment at Hennepin County
-------
Mrs. Gerri Wyer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page Two
Therefore, Hennepin County strongly supports the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's proposed timetable for implementation of the
Federal rules and regulations of mid 1978. Hennepin County further
urges that all necessary actions be taken by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to avoid any future time delays.
The County supports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
position on importation bans of hazardous wastes across state lines.
The State of Minnesota has a very limited number of acceptable
hazardous waste facilities and will probably never be able to dis-
pose of all its own hazardous waste within the State. If Minnesota
is not allowed to ship some of its hazardous wastes across state
lines to environmentally safe hazardous waste processing or dis-
posal facilities, the implementation of a hazardous waste manage-
ment program would be impossible.
Sincerely,
Luther D. Nelson, P.E.
Department of Environment and Energy
LDN/lp
-------
Help Scop Stream and Air Pollution ( v —j, .1—)^in _,
isc HE-REFINED LIFE MOTOR OIL | f) ji flQ..J I Ull '•'
OCT 25
MIDWEST OIL REFINING O " "
A,ca Code 314 1900 WALTON ROAD
St. Louis, Missouri 631U
October IS, J97/
Statement for the record on proposed guidellnee/regulatlons pursuant
to Subtitle C - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 -
Public Law (94-530)
WASTE OIL
Oil today la one of our cast vital resources aart s'leuld be cor*>erv«d
In every way possible. The recycling of oil In tb» U.S. for over iifff
years has proved the practicality and potentiality of this used pro;U.,-r,
Throogb the recycling and reuse of oil, several benefits aze achieved;
1. Conserving a vital resource.
2. Protecting £o» anvlrocxtsnt froa pollutlaa-
3. Lessening our dependency on foreign oil.
4. Providing a substantial savings to the consumer.
If you triab. to recycle any uaed product, several obj^ccivetf ra-£i ,<
aet:
1. Education of the public to the fact that the
product is recyeluble.
2. Sociological encouragement of Its reuse.
3. Econndc incentive to the generator •)€ rtv« used
product to save it for storage collection.
4. Profit for the collector and recyelar luproving rstutn
on investment and capital for growth.
5. Savings to the consmer to encourage its r«u8*.
6, Protection of the environment by reuse instead of
dunpiag and di^cardl^^, which will ba oubgtaiitlally
r -ducml, 1.1 not altalaiced. Thij say possibly 'ua '»
to ba tb* laaaoi* or two -,vl]j; --:-," -•.niv i ,v->- ' ir' J.i ' • uc
re-jae versus reduced pollution by --euse.
7. Harket potential for tha recovered product.
It Is ay opinion that most of these objectives and all incentives
will be rcajoved if x:j«d oil ?a classlf.'sd .1 "3J-»r_Jouj '"ista h^ciuse tha
word "hazardous" creataa ;i .ie"ta. Ive af.ituiU ':u-->rd 3'ori^a, tx-.icjrv - -itlon,
processing ard reaala. I r^ccar.*sii«^ that -:j?i ol: ^'.d < *">->r -~'*-*r! r ^t^"1 ? t:set
handled proparly, b'S claajifl ;d -. i a S^^-clal U-\j j! or better ye-, cr , .-d
'a ^T^duc".. Tboa* j-^1 pro''.'.^-"^ ~ .•- ' J '.;<»va.
-------
-2-
1. Due to th* added coat of complying with th*. regulations, tlw»
generator will not b* paid for th« oaed oil bat raKlue cherjed for baisliag
It which wlli cocoon;* dumping mate oil rather th*a recycling it.
2. Thasa will be added coct to th* collector* and, txanaportera to
upgrading all tank truck equipment to cooply with Department of Transportation
regulation* governing Uazardou* Waste. Insurance for (pill and trsnr;srt*tlcns
of Hazardous Waat* la n**t to lmpo**lbl* to get, mi. th* eo*t la ottt of
raa*h fe» email bBalneaaaa.
3. Finding a aita for a new oil recycling plaat could ba ea difficult
•a finding aa» for a Hazardooa Wa*ta dtmp. Tha publle will not wane it la
thai? ana. Coat of conatroetloo will laczaeoa, n&kiaf It ulffi'-.alR if-
attract a*v lavaatrara or vorklng capital.
4. Today la the U.S. there la approximately 1 blllioa gaUcRus t.f used
oil collected each year for reuae. It ie uaed for road oil, re-rafiead into
lubei aad bumeJ aa Industrial fuel. Road oiling ai>4 re-reflnlag '5to lob*
ua* laaai thaa two hundred million galloaa, leaving Rpproxtmataly jtga*; hundred
allaaa ta he uaed sue iaduatrial fuel. If tha> r*—T«ilni.\^ l*vV£2-£?y etsv', ?c
today, it vonld tak* ten y«ara or nora to reach th* 1 Mlllon gelJ^u
par year level. When you produce lube from uaed oil, approximately 15 to 202
la loat a* • by-product. Thla by-product consist* of still bottom* or pra-traat
alndg«a vbieh should be donced into Haxardwas Suwpe bacauae of "-trtxlj hljh
conceacntlona of toxic heavy aetala, etc. Tha coec today to Ju..;> ihia ir/p«
of hamardoua aaterial in th* St. Loui» area will be. 500 pax gallon of «**te
or aore depending aa which haaardou* waata donp la evailabla to ba u«3-J _-ht.^it th* uae of uaed oil aa *lnduAtrial fuel, unleee
it la blended Kith 903 or noro virgin, ii or tf> f«>'l all.
j>. Csflfid oil 3hotild a«iat the ?oHtj»iau«otji Jroa U3*d oil, I could cot cosop»<-i Sa >;he O'le.-j swrtst
bacauae I vould L>>* 202 or nore in recovery, plu* the cost of dlapo*ing of
the ZOX waata at 50<; per gallon or core.
-------
-3-
6. What If 800 million gallons of re-refined lab* oil hit the
lube oil market? It could cause In one year a big lapact. However, if the
sam* thing happened to the industrial fuel market, I billion gallon* would
only be a drop in the bucket, causing very little impact.
7. If all the contaminants were reamed frt»» 300 million gallon* t«r
year of u*ad oil, we would not have enough Class I dump* to put it in, so I
recoonend leaving it to be burned with oil as a o«an< of dispocal. It
is the lessor of the two evils. By burning at a 102 or lees ratio, the
harmful effects la any on* area will be held to e miniwau
I feel that the pro;x>ied Haxardona Waste Maug«aeat Guidelines and
Regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C, will drastically hamper the u«ed oil,
re-refining and recycling industry and thus defeat the purpose of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Public Lew 94-580).
Glea Gettlnger
Midwest Oil Refining Co,.
St. U>ui*, Miaaouti
-------
Attendees --October 13-14, 1°7"
Basile, Frank J., Jr.
Senior Engineer
Mosanto Company
Route 3
Sanget, Illinois 62201
Beierle, Fred P.
President
P. O. Box 473
Livingston, La. 70754
Bertresford, Charles E.
Corporate Attorney
Oxirand Corporation
4550 Post Oak State Drive
Houston, Texas 77027
Besalke, Robert E.
Manager
A.P. Green Refractories
Green Blvd.
Mexico, Mo. 65265
Beshack, Richard
President
Keenan Oil Co.
2550 Seymour Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45212
Brenneman, Bill
Land V Set Const. Supervisor
Illinois Power Company
500 S 27th Street
Decatur, Illinois 62525
Buckner, Dowell N.
General Manager - Chemical
Division
Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc.
9200 Shelbyville Rd.
Suite 526
Louisville, Kentucky 40222
Buntrock, Clay
President
Keeling Disposal Service
Company, Inc.
1805 S 3th Street
St. Joseph, Mo. 64503
Burke, Gail F.
Environmental Engineer
Commonwealth Edison Co.
72 W. Adams Street
Room 1700
P. 0. Box 767
Chicago, Illinois 60690
Callaham, J. T.
Corp. Environment/Energy
Director
ACF Industries Inc.
620 N. Second Street
St. Charles, !"o. 63301
Clark, Charles E.
Manager
Land ^ech. Operations
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Curran, Carol f,.
Attorney
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
231 W. Michigan Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Darrah, Dorothy A.
College of Law; Research
Association in Environmental
Law
University of Illinois
209 Law Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Dayhuff, George h.
Environmental Consultant
^echnosolve
R.P. 1 Box 197A
Zionsville, Indiana 46077
Dial, Clyde J.
Dir. Program Operations, IFRL
U.S. EPA
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Dillow, John W.
Manager, Chemical Landfill
Browning - ^erris
3150 N 7th Street
Kansas City, Kansas 66115
-------
Eby, D. L.
Environmental Director
Mosanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh
St. Louis, ;'iissouri 63166
Ferrand, P. J.
Assistant to Tech. Manager
Freeport Chemical Co.
Uncle Sam, La. 70792
Fresh, R. VI.
Environmental Advisor
O.M. Scott & Sons Co.
Ilarysville, Ohio 43040
Frisbie, Lee
Environmental Coordinator
Chemagro Agricultural Div.
Mobay Chemical Corp.
P.O. Box 4913
Kansas City, Missouri 64120
Gallo, Jo
Manager
Coalition for Environment -
Alent Comn.
1204 Craig Road
Creve Coever, Mo. 63141
Gasper, Bob
Assistant Manager Environmental
Affairs-Mid-South Region
Weyerhaeuser Co.
810 fc;hittington Ave.
Hot Springs, Arkansas 71901
Gaye, Thomas J. Esquire
Assistant Executive Director
The Ferroalloys Assn.
1612 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Goldstein, Jay
Waste Management Branch
USEPA
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Gornan, C. P.
Director, Environmental
Affairs
EL Lilly S Company
307 E. McCarty Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Goulias, John K.
Shell Engineering & Associates
P. 0. Box 1091
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Hanchar, Thomas J.
Vice President
Anthony Home Ser.
537 Southview Avenue
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46808
Handleman, M.
Texas Chemical Council
1411 West Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701
Haney, Bud
Vice President
Clayton Chemical Co.
10 S. Brentwood Blvd.
Clayton, Mo. 63105
Hanson, Michael L.
Environmental Scientist
Phillips Petroleum CO.
10 C-l Phillips Bui]ding
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004
Horn, David S.
Supt. of Sanitation
City of Alton, Illinois
101 F 3rd Street
Alton, Illinois 62002
Irlam, Derek
Manager Special Projects
Waste Management Inc.
Oak Prook, Illinois 60521
Jurczak, Hllen J.
Environmental Engineer
US EPA
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
Johnson, Charles P.
Supervisor Hazardous Materials
& Control
McDonnell Douglas Corp.
P. 0. Box 516 Lambert
Field
St. Louis, Missouri 63161
Kelly, W. G.
Manager
Atlantic Richfield Co.
515 S. Flower Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
Kirkpatrick, F. E.
Project Manager
Black S Veatch
1500 Meadow Lake Parkway
Kansas City, Missouri 64114
Klenpinger, E. W.
E.W.K. Consultant
9143 Tordham Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46268
Knight, Bruce L.
Technical Coordinator
Marathon Oil Company
539 S. Main Street
Findlay, Ohio 45840
Kunkle, George R.
Senior Scientist
Jones & Henry Engineers Ltd.
2000 West Central
Toledo, Ohio 43606
Latina, n. D.
Environmental Protection
Specialist
Mosanto Company
1700 3. 2nd Street
St. Louis, Missouri 65401
Lauer, Elmer J.
Waste Management of Wise.
W124 N8925 Boundary Rd.
Menomonse Falls, Wisconsin 53051
Linn, Charles H.
Chief Solid Waste Management
Section
State of Kansas Der>t of
Environment
Forbes Field
Tcpeka, Kansas 66606
Linzmaier, Rich
Senior Planner
McDonnell Douglas Corp.
P. 0. Box 516
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Lynch, Dennis
Resource Recovery Dept.
Mallinc Krodt Inc.
3600 North 2nd Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63147
McCombs, Max W.
Environmental Protection
Engineer II
Mosanto
1700 South 2nd Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63177
Malovrh, S.E.
Assistant to the Director
of Governmental sffairs
The Hanna Mming Company
100 Erieview Plaza
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Mason, James
Manager Waste Control
^he Dow Chemical Co.
Box 68511
Indianapolis, Indiana 46268
Manthe, Richard t'..
Director of laboratory
Services
Milwmetro Sewerage District
P. 0. Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Maxson, L. W.
Director
Olin Corporation
Cast Alton, Illinois 62024
-------
McCourt, James E.
Engineer
National Council of the
Pulp and Paper Industry
for Air and Stream
Improvement
West Michigan University
Kalamazoo, Mi. 49008
McGuire, Michael E.
Environmental Engineer
Deere & Company
John Deere Road
Molin, Illinois 61265
Mesler, Bob
Dow Chemical
Building 2020
Midland, Michigan 48640
Mikolaj, Paul G.
Manager
Tosco Corporation
10100 Santa Monica Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90067
Mills, George P., Jr.
Senior Engineer
Kerr-McGee Corporation
P. O. Box 23861
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73082
Monahan, F. w.
Field Service Representative
Dow Chemical
7733 Forsyth
St. Louis, Missiour 63105
Morgan, James W.
Attorney
Box 4184
Madison, Wisconsin 53711
Murray, David E.
Vice President
Reitz & Jens Inc.
Ill S. Meramec
Clayton, Mo. 63105
O'Conner, William A.
Senior Environmentalist
Hennepin County
320 Washington Avenue, S.
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Olah, J. G.
Plant Engineer
NL Industries Inc.
5548 Manchester Avenue
St. Louis, Mo. 63110
Ouellette, Raymond F.
Senior Engineer
Shell Oil Company
P. O. Box 2463
Houston, Texas 77001
Pallanich, Paul J.
Manager Waste Treatment
Mobay Chemical Corp.
P. 0. Box 4913
Kansas City, Missouri 64120
Patterson, Harry P.
Manager Energy & Environmental
Systems
Union Pacific Railroad
1416 Dodge Street
Omaha, Nebrasks 68179
Poland, Virgil I..
Group Manager
SCA Services
1135 Balmer Road
Model City, Sew York 14107
Price, Donald
General Manager
Chemical Paste Management
P. 0. Box 214
Calumet City, Mo. 60409
Rausch, Carl J.
Kraemer Hauling
P. 0. Box 6
Kimnswick, Mo. 63053
Redington, M. F.
Engineer
Olin Corporation
427 Shamrock Street
East Alton, Illinois 62024
Reinholz, J. M.
Project Manager
Johnson & Anderson Inc.
P. 0. Box 1156
2300 Dixie Highway
Pontiac, Michigan 48056
-------
Ritchie, Kenneth S.
Environmental Scientist
EPA Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Robichauz, T. J.
Director of Safety Health
& Environmental Affairs
Petrolite Corporation
100 N. Broadway
Saint Louis, Missouri 63102
Robertson, Charles
P. 0. Box 1975
El Dorado, Arkansas 71730
Robinson, Robert M.
Director, Solid Waste
Management
Mo. Department of National
Resources
P. 0. Box 1368
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Rueppel, Melvin L.
Group Leader
Mosanto
800 11. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Rychman, Mark D.
Vice President
REACT
689 Craig Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63141
Schaffer, William R.
Manager
Mosanto Company
800 K. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Schell, Norman E.
Division Director
Division of Hazardous
Material and Waste Management
Capital Plaza Tower
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Schimming, William A.
Chief Environmental Engineer
of Industries, Inc.
P. O. Box 1480
Bartow, Florida 33930
Scotese, Tom
Geologist
Illinois EPA
4500 S 6th Street Rd.
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Shell, Harvey D.
Shell Engineering Associates
1804 Vandwer Drive
P. O. Box 1091
Columbus, Missouri 652"!
Shell, M. W.
Chief Solid Waste Piv.
Dept. of Env. Control
Box 94877 Rtatehouse Station
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Smith, Charles H.
Quality Control Department
Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
St. Louis, Missouri 63160
Space, Roy
Director
Agrico Chemical Co.
One Williams Center
P. O. Box 3166
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74017
Smith, Chuck
Resource Recovery Dept.
Mallinckrodt Inc.
3600 North 2nd Street
Box 5439
St. Louis, Missouri 63160
Stath, L. V.
Solid Waste Division Sales
Schuchman Metal Inc.
P. 0. Box 88427
Indianapolis, Indiana 46208
Streng, David R.
Vice President
Environmental Enterprises
Incorporated
11750 Chesterdale Road
Suite 804
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
-------
Taylor, John
Technician
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
4500 S. 6th Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Tierney, L. R.
Fire & Sanitary Engineer
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
1416 Dodge Street
Omaha, Nebraska 681T9
Tiorney, Timothy J,
President
Vacsol Corporation
3115A Merriam Ln.
P. 0. Box 5157
Kansas City, Kansas 66119
Twitcl.ell, Mike
Process Environmental
Engineer
Charter Jnt. Oil Co.
P. O. Box 5008
Houston, Texas 77012
nalchshauser, Ronald C.
Senior Plant Facility
Engineer
ACF Shippers Car Line
620 K. 2nd Street
St. Charles, Missouri 63301
Wallace, William H.
Attorney
McDonnell Douglas
P. O. Box 516
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Weise, Timothy J.
Environmental Engineer
REACT
689 Craig Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63141
Killet, J. Brad p.r.
Project Fngineer
American rynanid Company
P. 0. Box 817
Hannibal, Ko. 63401
Willford, Allen H.
Senior Geologist
Texas Utilities Service
2001 Bryan Tower
Dallas, Texas 75201
Wilson, Betty
3 Robin Hill La.
St. Louis, Missouri
63124
Wilson, Charles G.
Director Agronomy & Marketing
Milwaukee Sewerage Comm,
P. 0. Box 160
Oak rreok, wi. 531S4
Wright, W. V?.
Texas Chemical Council
P. 0. Box 2633
Seer Park, Texas 77536
York, David V!.
Associates
Envirodyne Engineers
12161 Lackland Road
St. Louis, Missiouri 63141
Yust, Jon H.
President
Allied Disposal Inc.
P. 0. Box 13510
St. Louis, Missouri 63138
Mr. Glen Gettinger
Midwest Oil Refining Co.
1900 Walton Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63114
-------
-------
------- |