A AS
TRANSCRIPT
Public Meeting
on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976;
Subtitle C, Hazardous Waste Management
October 17 and 18, 1977, Scottsdale, Arizona
These meetings were sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-27p) 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 Haste Management
October 17 and 18, 1977, Scottsdale, Arizona
These meetings were sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-27p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
l THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2
3
1
PUBLIC HEARING
£ **
SUBTITLE C OF THE RESOURCE§"cONSERVATION RECOVERY ACT
Safari Hotel
Convention Center
4611 N. Scottsdale Road
, Arizona
October 17, 1977
2:30 P.M.
BEFORE:
ALFRED W. LINDSEY
and
WM. SANJOUR
-------
INDEX
SPEAKERS: PAGE:
OPENING REMARKS - Alfred Lindsay, Chief 3
Implementation Branch, Office of
Solid Waste
ALAN CORSON - SECTION 3001 12
Program, Manager, Hazardous Waste
Guidelines, Office of Solid Waste
WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE PANEL 26
ORAL QUESTIONS 59
HARRY TRASK - SECTION 3002 69
Program Manager, Pesticide Waste
Management, Guidelines Branch,
Office of Solid Waste
WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE PANEL 81
ARNIE EDELMAN- SECTION 3003 110
WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE PANEL 119
JOHN SCHAUM - SECTION 3004 139
Chemical Engineer, Technology Program,
Assessment and Technology Branch,
Office of Solid Waste
WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE PANEL 148
ORA.L QUESTIONS 192
-------
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IS
17
21
22
PROCEEDINGS
MODERATOR LINDSEY: I want to welcome you to this
public meeting to discuss the ^hazardous waste regulations
under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, which you'll hear many of us refer to as RCRA over the
proceedings the next few days.
We're really very glad you could attend and help
us out with this effort and we hope that the meeting will be
productive for all of us.
My name is Alfred W. Lindsey, Fred, and, in addi-
tion, let me introduce Bill Sanjour to my left who will be
assisting in the chairing of this set of meetings on a rotatinj
basis.
First, I would like to briefly discuss the history
of these regulations and guidelines and then describe the
procedure that we want to follow in conducting this meeting.
There tws been extensive public participation in
the development of these regulations since RCRA became law
on October 21, 1976. Initially eleven public meetings were
held in each EPA region and in Washington to discuss the
provisions of RCRA geierally. Throughout the spring sad summei
over 80 invitational public meetings were held around the
country with potentially affected parties which included
industry, environmental groups, ,?nd State and local government
representatives and others, to discuss the various possible
-------
regul?tory options.
- i] Additionally, public comments were requested re-
' :l garding regulatory options i : the Advance Notice of Proposed
i! (.&tMet&Ui*£)
' 'I Rulemaking'which was published in the Federal Rppistpr on
"' I' May 2, 1977.
'' i Recently, some early drafts of proposed regulations
• i were sent outside the Agency for review and comment. The
I
:| external reviewers included affected industries, State and
i
; Federal agencies, environmental and other public interest
1 ', groups.
, '[
' ,j This series of three identical meetings -- this is
the third-- is a continuation of that process of public in-
' '
; volvement in the development of the regulations. The main
purpose of these meetings is to describe the probably content,
~i
on o section-by-section basis, of the regulations as we see
them at this time and to gather an initial set of reactions anc
7 ''
ii comments. So, we re seeking your input to the preliminary
s
; thinking that we have at this point.
') i1
It is important to emphasize to you that the regu-
!, lations as described can, and probably will, change substan-
j1 tially both as the result of your response as well as due to
further deliberations among the various program offices and
working groups within the Agency.
\
A second purpose of the meeting is to outline for
you our plan to develop environmental and economic impact
-------
information on these regulations. The meeting will also
include a case study discussion where we can kind of "thread
through" the various regulatory requirements using several
examples - kinds of affected companies. We'll be doing that
|| tomorrow.
i The regulations that are being discussed will be
,| published as proposed in the Federal Register for formal
public comment over the next several months. After this
''• comment period and public hearings, they will become final
]'! regulations next summer. Then we'll go into effect six
months after that.
i Before summarizing the regulations for you, let
j me remind you of their overall purpose. We are discussing
today the development of national standards for hazardous
; waste management that would be Federally enforced.
However -- and this is important, I think--Sub-
I title C contemplates State programs to regulate hazardous
' waste, wherever that is possible. If a State applies and is
j authorized to conduct a program, and this would be under
guidelines that we're preparing under Section 3006 of the
Act, then that State's regulations would apply as long
I as they were no less stringent and equivalent to the Federal
'l standards.
Thus, States are not assuming the Federal standards
when they are authorized, but they are creating the equivalent
-------
programs in lieu of the Federal program. Now, this is
equivalent in degree of control, as we see it.
Therefore, our discussion today revolves around
national standards that will apply in cases in which States
are not authorized. Where States are authorized, their regu-
lations are primarily applicable.
Let me begin by giving you an overview of the inter-
relationships of the sections of the Act, and then briefly
discuss the procedure for these meetings, before beginning
individual consideration of the various regulations.
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 waste presents "special
dangers to health and requires a greater degree of regulation
than does non-hazardous 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 States
do not choose to operate this program, EPA is mandated to do
so.
Seven guidelines and regulations are being developed
and proposed under Subtitle C to implement the hazardous waste
management program, and they are the ones to be discussed at
this meeting.
-------
i| it is important to note the definition of solid
i, waste in the Act encompasses garbage, refuse, sludges, and
ii
! other discarded materials including liquids, semi-solids and
|i contained gases, with a few exceptions, from both municipal
', and industrial sources.
Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set of all solid
\ wastes, md which will be defined by regulations under
1 Section 3001, are those which have particularly significant
:| impacts on public health and the environment.
Subtitle C creates a management control system
which, for those wastes defined as hazardous, requires a
.' "cradle-to-grave" cognizance including appropriate monitoring,
*£"
YccoTdQkeeplng, and reporting throughout the system.
Section 3001 requires EPA to define criteria and
1' methods for identifying and listing hazardous wastes. Those
i|
!' wastes which are identified as hazardous by these means are
ji then included in the management control system constructed
1 under Section 3002-through-6 and Section 3010. Those
1 that are excluded will be subject to the requirements for
ji non-hazardous solid waste being carried out by States under
]| Subtitle D under which open dumping is prohibited and en-
vironmentally acceptable practices are required.
Section 3002 addresses the standards applicable
to generators. EPA's regulations under this section describe
! the classes of generators for whom some requirements may vary;
-------
_8 ,
for example, the Agency does not interpret the intent of
Congress to include regulation of individual homeowners due
to the small quantities of hazardous wastes which they may
generate,
Section 3002 also requires the creation of a mani-
fest system which will track wastes from the point of gener-
ation to their ultimate disposition.
Section 3003 addresses standards affecting trans-
9 !j porters of hazardous wastes to assure that wastes are care-
I
111 j1 fully managed during the transport phase. The Agency is
II
" |i exploring opportunities for meshing closely with proposed
l-
ll
transportation area
' and current DOT regulations to avoid duplication in the
ll
11
I;
To this end, let me call your attention to the
\\
ln j joint public meeting with DOT which is planned for October 26
in suburban Chicago, and that will be begin at 9:30 a.m.
at the Ramada O'Hare Inn in Des Plaines, Illinois, which is
not too far from the airport for those of you who might be
interested. There is an announcement out on the table to
that effect. That will cover the regulation of transportation
Section 3004 addresses standards affecting owners
and operators of hazardous waste storage, treatment, 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 State officials
-------
will measure applications for permits. Facilities on a
geierator's property, as well as off-site facilities, are
covered by these regulations and do require permits; geierator;
and transporters do not otherwise need permits. 1 d 1'ke
j
| to emphasize that. It's something that a lot of people have
|
jl trouble keeping in their mind.
:i
The only people who require permits are those who
treat, store, dispose of hazardous wastes, not generators
and not transporters.
Section 3005 regulations describe the scope and
coverage of the actual permit-granting process for facility
owners and operators. Requirements for the permit appli-
cation, as well as for the issuance and revocation process,
I
ij are to be defined by these regulations.
|| Section 3005 (c) provides for an interim permit
|i during the time period that the Agency or the States are
r
' || reviewing the pending permit application.
I
18 ^
Section 3006 requires EPA to issue guidelines for
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
State programs and the procedures by which States may seek
both full and interim aughorization to carry out the hazardous
waste program in lieu of the EPA-administered program.
Section 3010 regulations define procedures by which
any person generating, transporting, owning or operating a
facility for storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous
wastes must notify EPA of this activity within 90 days of
-------
9
10
11
12
13
promulgation of the regulations which define hazardous waste.
That's the regulations under Section 3001.
EPA intends to make provision in these regulations
for States to be delegated this function upon application to
the Administrator. It is significant to note that no hazard-
ous waste subject to Subtitle C regulation, may be legally
transported, treated, stored, or disposed unless this timely
notification is given to EPA or a designated State.
The Agency intends to promulgate final regulations
by mid-1978 under all sections of Subtitle C. However, it
is important for the regulated communities to understand that
the regulations under Sections 3001 through 3005 do not take
effect until six months after promulgation, which will be
14 |j in late '78.
lo ji Thus, there will be a time period after final
j
H
j promulgation during which public understanding of the regulatic
i can be increased. During this same period, notifications
| required under Section 3010 are to be submitted, and facility
i permit spplications required under Section 3005 will be
distributed for completion by applicants.
Let me now discuss the procedural aspects of our
,
: meeting. This afternoon's session will run from 12:30, now,
i
! through, ?pproximately, 8:15 or so this evening. We'll have
1 a break at approximately 2:15 and we'll recess for dinner at
! approximately 5:15 o'clock.
-------
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
11
Each section of the regulations will be discussed
for about an hour and a quarter including a 20-rainute intro-
duction by the people who are primarily responsible for the
writing of those regulations, and then about an hour for
questions and comments from the floor.
Due to the time limitations, the chairman reserves
the right to limit lengthy questions, discussion, or state-
ments. After each presentation, we will take prepared state-
ments on the section under discussion. And, we would ask
those of you who have a prepared statement to make on a given
section, to please limit this to five minutes so we can get
through this in a reasonable time. The written statements
will be included in their entirely in the record.
During this time, blank cards will be available and
will be passed out. Please list your questions on these
cards, and then the panel will respond to them. If sufficient
time remains in any one section, questions will be taken
directly and answered from the floor.
Prepared statements which relate to all of the
regulations, as opposed to one section, will be taken at the
end of each day, and I might also point out that written
statements which you may not want to give verbally, can be
accepted, also.
The court reporter is present here today, and he's
sitting over here on my right, Mr. Shermos. The questions
-------
12
and comments will become part of the public record and this
2 record will be available for public inspection by November 1£>,
3 1977 in the Docket Section, Room 2111, Hazardous Waste
1 Management Division, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 401 M. Street, S. W., Washington,
D. C.
In addition, and approximately shortly thereafter --
I'm not sure exactly when--each of you who has registered
9 j here today will receive a printed copy of the transcript.
If you have need to obtain a copy soon, very soon,
11 like within a week or so, you can contact Mr. Shermos over
12 here and talk to him about getting a transcript immediately,
i ^
and you would then get it about the same time we would which
is five days or so from now.
By the way, the price on that would be approximately
.75 cents per page, I understand, but they will be distributed
to you free of charge within six or eight weeks.
Now, I'd like to introduce -- if I can find him,
I'm sure he's here someplace-- Mr. Alan Corson, who is the
Program Manager for the Guidelines Program in our Hazardous
Waste Division. He will discuss Section 3001.
MR. CORSON: Thank you, Fred.
In reviewing our work on Section 3001, I will, in
general, follow the handout material. That's the piece called
"Summary Materials for Public Meetings". I will kind of go
-------
13
thi'ough tt in the order in which it's listed on that sheet.
First, I will briefly review the authority of the
Act, the mandate under which we are developing the regulation,
then a short discussion of our present thinking on the
definition of hazardous waste -- that is, the content of our
draft reg.
Finally, we will briefly cover some of the key
unresolved issues.
OatL.
Section 3001 of RCRA, P,esource Conservation^Recovery
Act, contains three sections. The first tiro of these re-
quires the agency, within 18 months, to develop and promul-
gate criteria for identifying and listing hazardous wastes;
and regulations identifying the characteristics of the
hazardous wastes and listing particular hazardous wastes.
In "jhort, we must establish criteria for, and
provide lists of, hazardous wastes. We'll have more on this
later.
The third paragraph of RCRA Section 3001 allows a
Governor of the State to petition the Environmental Protection
Agency to identify or list a particular material as a hazardoui
waste.
The Administrator, then, has 90 days to act.
So much for our mandate. On to the content.
The first item I'd like to review in our discussion
on the content this morning are three areas where we are
-------
14
calling for out-of-the-ordinary treatment in these particular
areas. This relates to wastes which, although they might
meet the criteria we are developing, will not be included in
our regulatory program at this time.
In developing these three areas, or listing them,
our approach was to minimize any exceptions to control under
th\-: Act, recognizing that there are really only two ways
by which wastes are covered by the Resource Conservation
Recovery Act. Wastes which are not defined as hazardous
wastes mu'-t be disposed of in accordance with Subtitle D.
Those which require special management controls
are provided for in the regulatory section called for under
Subtitle C of the Act.
Our three exception areas: first, we will exempt
all household derived wastes. It's just an unmanageable probleci
to consider regulating some 70 million households. The only
exemption we are propoTing at this time.
Second, we mention here, although we discussed in
more detail under the Section 3002 area, small waste generator;
will h,?ve r. minimum set of requirements imposed upon them.
Third, the applicability of the regulations to
mining and milling wastes will be delayed until six months
after the special study required under Section 8000, or
different regulation"- are promulgated, whichever comes first
There are three sections: household wastes are
-------
15
1 ! exempted, a special set of requirements for small generators,
2 i| a delay of the applicability of the regulations for mining
j)
3 i[ and milling wastes.
4 j The burden with the mining and milling wastes still
ji
5 l| remains with EPA to take some action within six months after
6 " the study is completed on mining wastes, or the regulationj
M
7 promulgated on 3001 will apply.
8 [j Leaving these for a moment, let me go to a key
q ii definition which I think is important to our discussion. This
is a definition of when is a waste a waste.
The Act very nicely defines solid waste, defined as
Fred listed" fo:- you; but really didn't define a waste. We've
attempted to develop a definition which promotes resource
recovery while at the same time providing for protection of
the public health in the environment.
Our definition indicates that ? waste means any
solid waste which consists of any discarded or abandoned
material. That's case one. Any abandoned or discarded
material is a wa^te.
Secondly, it is a waste when it is not the prime
product of the process, and some significant percentage of a
national level is discarded. That's an "and" case. It is
not the prime product of the process -- some significant
percentage, for example four or five percent, is discarded
nationally., unless the generator of the material can substantiate
21
22
23
24
-------
1 that this iiuiterial has immediate utility 33 a by-product, or
2 the material will go to a permanent resource recovery facility
3 within three months. We'll deal with this issue a little bit
4 I more later.
Now, on to the definition of a hazardous waste.
Based on the legislation itself, any file of damage
cases which we have reviewed in our office, we are suggesting
n net of criteria for hazardous waste consisting of flammabilit|y,
coToiivenejs, infectious characteristics, reactive waste,
radioactive waste, and toxic waste.
As a catagory of toxicity, we are including bio-
accumulation and the tendency cause genetic change.
For each of the criterion listed, we shall have a.
definition and a test method, although there may be some for
which a test is not readily available, in which case we will
likely have a list. Carcinogens are one of those.
The test procedures we will propose, wherever we
can, will be standard test methods such as those developed by
jl the ASTM, American Society for Testing (an& Materials.
20 " Let me go to each of the criteria in turn; Flamm-
ability: For flammability, we are proposing that for a liquid
the measure will be flash point. The level will be a flash
point of 140°F. For those non-flud wastes, we currently have
21
22
23
•—?24 a V*e-!-s definition, but are working toward developing a
|! definitive test.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Corrosive waste: Again, one of two procedures.
For a liquid waste, or a saturated solution of a non-fluid
waste, a pH less than two, or greater than 12; or alternatively
a test similar to DOT's, Department of Transportation, which
calls for a corrosion Mte greater than a quarter of an inch
@P>e/
-------
18
and unless it can be shown that the waste does not have the
organisms of concern.
Reactive wastes: Reactive wastes are another one of
these areas that have baffled us for the moment, at least, in
trying to come up with a definitive set of tests. We are
/O4e>&e~
using a pro's definition, but again feel that before we
jj promulgate the regulations we will have a set of definitive
|l
tests.
i
| The definitions, though, do cover oxidizing reducing
/ /XftopAffUGA-
—Jj agents, pyrafairies, explosives, materials which auto-polymerize
Radioactive wastes: RCRA excludes source, special
.12 , -~J byproduct materi;
nuclear, and byproduct material covered by the Atomic Energy
A—
! Act of 1954. Conversely though, it does include, we feel,
those things which are not excluded by that definition.
Recognizing the exclusions listed, we are proposing
16 !
to regulate wastes with a radium 226 concentration of
picocurie per gram or greater. EPA's Office of Radiation
18
Programs is providing the major input to this part of our
19
definition, and with them we are interfacing with the appro-
20
priate offices within the Department of Energy.
21
Toxicity: I should have stated at the outset that
22
our concerns in this definition relate to the waste itself
23
and not necessarily to the feedstocks of the process, although
24
these feedstocks will provide some clues as to the material
25
contained in the waste.
-------
. , ___ 19-
Further we. are only concerned by the means by
which the contaminants or the pollutants may be released and
enter the environment. Thus, our interests lie in the portion
A.
which volitilize and enter the air, or those which lead to
&
runoff and enter the ground or surface water.
We will shortly define a standard leaching test, a
means to show those chemicals or substances, or materials,
which may be released from the waste if it were deposited in
the ground environment and operated on by rainfall and any
other water from any other liquid waste which may be there.
The toxicity evaluation we'll conduct on the waste
will be done on either liquid, if the waste is a liquid, or
on the leachate resulting from the application of our so-
called standard leaching test.
We will propose that the waste may be tested either
IK I'
of two ways. First, they may be analyzed or,second, they may
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
go through a bloassay method. We'll discuss these very brief1
j
1 in a mo me'it.
In either case, whether it's the bioassay or the
\ chemical analyses, the liquid waste or the leachate will fi-rst
be tested for geietic change potential using an Ames assay or
i
• something similar to it, which we will define, and a partition
| cocfficieit test to assess the tendency for bioaccumulation.
The malycis of waste for toxicity.
"here the ge lerator has, essentially, full knowledge
-------
of the waste, the waste is relatively simple. That is, it
only contains several compounds and the analytic approach
would probably be preferable.
For the moment, we are proposing that for those
materials of interest where a drinking water standard exists,
we have set a limit of ten t^imes that drinking water standard.
For all otner substances, we have set a toxicity
concentration relationship using some standard or some developed
9 techniques looking at the location of ground wells to the
10 discharge site; looking at some standard dilutions; looking
11 at the ingest ion; the intake of humans of the water that might
1 2 '
come from that well, all this translates to a recommended
definition on our part of .35 times the oral (mammalian)
14 'i toxicity number.
15 !| '
1 For example, if the substance has an LJ) 50 oral rat ;
i mammalian of 500 milligrams per Itillig1"am, then 175 milligrams
per litre of that substance in the waste would make the entire
18 '
wasteIpad a hazardous waste.
19 '
At present, we have set no cut off in terms of oral
LD 50's we were interested in from tte point that there is
21 '
j a concentration of a substance, no matter how mildly toxic
22 !
! it may be, which could render that waste hazardous. We
|l recognize from the more practical e"id, we probably do need a
'[ cut off because there's a limit as to how much you c?n absolutely
25 '
get into the drinking water.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
i
IB
18
19
20
7
21
22
23
i 7
immediately, or to a permanent resource recovery facility
_ . _ ZL
Bioassay: For tnpse wastes which say be more
complex, we suggest the bioassay method would likely be
more appropriate. Again, starting with the liquid or leachate,
remembering that we would have run the Ames test and a partiticn
coefficient test, that we will test for bioassay in the follow-
ing ways: we will look at the lethal concentration 50 for
fathead minnow; lethal dose 50 for oral (mammalian) for rat;
we'll look at JtiCEia magna and phytotoxicity using soy beans.
We've not yet set the threshold levels and dilutions
but these will be fine to make the bioassay method equivalent
to that using the analytic approach.
This is a very brief overview of the criteria.
Let me now review some of the key unresolved issues that
still remain in our development of the draft regulations.
First is the definition of a waste. I mentioned
earlier that it is a waste unless it goes as a byproduct
within 90 days.
We have two time elements in there which are still
of concern! Immediate uses of byproduct and 90 days storage.
The 90 days storage is coincident with the definitior
developed under 3004 and 3005, recognizing that when going to
resource recovery facility, or when being transported for a
ji
i' treatment or disposal, that you may need time to accumulate
an economic quantity to ship.
-------
22
il
1 :' So, you will find later on that we are allowing a
2 90 day storage for those purposes without requiring a permit,
3 although you must meet the storage conditions that are normally
1 j imposed in the permit system.
5 The seond issue there is whether or not it is our
fi j, authority to develop or to permit the resource recovery
7 facilities. In this case, we really are talking about a
3 materials recovery facility. Energy recovery would be a fully
9 permitted system.
'n ! The second unresolved issue is the implementation
11 strategy. We are presently going down the route that we
2 will promulgate a full set of regulations and implement that
| full set, as Fred indicated, in six months after promulgation.
4 | The question still remains, shall we actually phase
, the implementation or should we even consider phasing the
;, definition?
1 The bioassay test method which we are proposing;
''
another unresolved issue: what test species should be used.
We've mentioned several which we are suggesting for the moment.
Are these reasonable and valid? What threshold levels should
we set? How do we get data equivalent to single substance
LD 50's and LC 50's for the kind of mixture that wastes repre-
sent? How applicable are existing test methods when applied
to these mixtures?
The last issue that I'll raise, and you may bring
-------
1
23
up some others later, but certainly not the least, is the use
2 !| of the hazardous waste list. How should the list which we
3 !| will develop be used?
4 ;! As I indicated earlier, we will have both criteria
'
5 j and lists. One in extreme position might be to publish a
o ! criteria and have advisory, or red flag, lists, ^hese would
-p7 i be lists where we have reasonable confidence on our part
8 that the listed process could produce a hazardous waste or
Q that if the waste contains a substance listed, you should be
l(i , checking it because, again, we have high confidence that such
11 j! a waste might well be hazardous.
12 ',• The other end position though is to use a definitive
1; lists along with the criteria. By definitive lists, we mean
11 those similar to the rebuttal presumption approach taken under
15 !the Pesticide Act. This means that if your process is listed,
1(1 or if your substance is on the list, in the noted concentra-
'' •'• tion, your waste is a hazardous waste and the burden of proof
!, would lie on the generated offset list using the criteria
1' , which we are proposing. . f
' uvo uxriaLi,
'" Obviously, there are the inbetween positions where
11 one type of list is red flag and the other type is rebuttal
"2 : presumption and vice versa.
' ,! The key is that with the rebuttable presumption
j approach the burden is on industry to prove that they don't
j belong on the list; with a red flag approach, the burden is
-------
l || likely to be on the EPA to prove that your waste is a hazard-
ll
2 || ous waste. This would put the onus on EPA to take action
;i
3 j to get you there.
j
4 '; With each of these alternatives, there is a question
I
as to the extensiveness of the list. It's a little easier to
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
IB
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
make a long list of processes or substances - the lists are
j only red flag. But, if they are to be the rebuttal presumptive
type, that requires a high level of proof on our part to put
something on that list.
This, very briefly, has been an overview of the
contents of our regulation; some of the key unresolved issues.
I'll now turn it back to you, Fred, and for your comments and
questions.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Let me remind everyone again
how we expect to proceed at this point. We will, in a few
seconds, take any statements that anyone may have, that
refers specifically to Section 3001, that is the definition,,
Then, we will take questions on 3X5 cards, and you
see the gentlemen here around the room. If you just raise
your hand if you want a card, they'll bring you a card and
then raise it again and they'll pick up your card.
Then, if time allows, we'll take the questions and
answers directly from the floor.
Let me ask first off, does anybody want to make a
statement on Section 3001, specifically? We'll take general
-------
25_
1 statements later on at the end of today.
•2 !| Any statements on Section 3001?
3 ,| Seeing none, while you're preparing your questions,
4 ; I would like to recognize -- I see some of the people from
5 ! our Regional Offices and I'll let you all know who they may
6 i be. I see Hank Schroeder here from Region VIII, in Denver.
7 |j Hank, would you raise your hand so that people will
s 'j know who you are. ^tf^L
MeylajUL
^'' I see Toby Haggle from Region X, someplace. That's
i
l!1 '] in Seattle.
1' Chuck Bourns and Jim Stahler from Region IX in
; CLmdtttA^
l~ \' San Francisco, and Rick Auibiuugh over here on my right from
1J ;; Region VI in Dallas.
ii
14 j| I may have missed some. I'm not sure. I'm just
i
, scanning the audience here. If I've missed anyone, I'm sorry.
6 jj One other thing I would like to address, or mention,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's kind of late notice — no, it's not either, that's next
month, no, it's in two days. That is sort of short notice,
but there will be a public meeting for those of you who may
be interested the day after tomorrow, on the 19th of October
at 9:00 o'clock on the Federal Beverage Container Deposit
|| issue, which is a hot issue in many parts of the country.
The EPA is going to have a mass public meeting on
that issue at the U.S.' Department of Commerce auditorium at
14th and Constitution Avenue, N. W. in Washington for anyone
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
who is interested in attending that.
Do we have any questions?
MR. CORSON: I'll start with a couple of questions
that we've received so far.
| The first question: Does the mining and milling delay
include smelting?
i
{ The answer is no. Again, we do have a pretty good
handle, iijhouse, on the metals mining business. What we expect
jto gain out of the study being conducted is a lot more infor-
mation on the minerals mining.
The other thing we're doing is asking the contractor
doing that study to put some emphasis on what regulatory options
might be available to us when you consider the large amounts of
waste associated with the mining and milling industries.
I guess I answered the other question. I believe the
study goes to October of '78, as I recall the dates in the Act,
and the 3001 definition, as we did indicate, will not be
applied to those wastes until six months after that study is
completed, or we develop a separate set of regulations for
mining and milling wastes, whichever comes first.
We also expect,by nature of applying either these
same regulations, we would have to go out through the public
hearing process before we could make these regulations enforce-
jable.
The next question: What was the factor used for the
-------
27
rat LD 50, the toxiclty criteria?
That was .35, and that related, as I say again, to
3 the water well from the landfill site looking, as our last
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
resort or our last reconmfindation, to landfill waste. We
recommended, as we did in August of '76, with a position state-
ment on hazardous waste management.
The first thing we'd like to do is reuse the waste,
JujLMLlCjUUL,
going through, then, a higher bairaehy *hich includes material
recovery, energy recovery, destruction; and finally when all
else fails, going into landfill.
In any event, we do want to make sure that we are
protecting our water resources. You will get under Section
3004, a definition of a usable aquifers that we're concerned
with.
But, this does look at the dilution that could
occur between bottom of the site if it was a disposal, again
as defined legislatively. And, then the human ingestion of
water that came out through a whole series of numbers. If
somebody likes, we'll send them a background document, even
though it's only in draft stage it tells you how we got what
we got. But, it did come out to .35.
MODERATOR LIMQSEY: I have one here. What is the
specific authority for the use of criteria to define hazardous
waste? Then there is a statement. I thought the law required
EPA to develop a specific list of hazardous substances and that
-------
28_
regulation occurred only after the substance has been listed?
Well, that's not true. Section 3001 is the specific
authority for both of these and it requires both criteria and
the list. Section 3001(a) is the specific authority for the
preparation of the criteria.
Section 3001(b) is the specific authority for the
lists, and it requires both. We will have both.
Now, the lists may be as Alan discussed a little
9 |j earlier, may take one of two forms. It may be a set of
» example substances and/or wastes or sources of wastes by
industry process or by substance within a waste which makes
1 n li
1 that typically waste hazardous. It may be that kind of
13 I , ,.
example list.
14 < Or, it may take the other approach of being a
I
; substandard list such that if your waste falls in that list,
j then you are presumed to have a hazardous waste,unless by
•\ using the criteria and testing for the criteria, you can prove
' that you do not meet those requirements.
*' j, MODERATOR SANJOUR: The question is: Does mining
,' include phosphates?
The answer in yes.
2? M
! And, does mining include petroleum production?
>' The answer is no.
The question is: Do I understand that if a waste
is listed as hazardous, each area will have a definite set of
-------
29
criteria against which to so test :he waste to prove it is
non-hazardou s ?
Yes, definitely.
The second question is: Will such test criteria
be the same which RCRA will use to determine whether a waste
6 |! is hazardous?
I believe the answer is yes.
MR. CORSON: Say it again.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: If we come up with a definitive
list, will that list be made up from the criteria?
11 IS MR. CORSON: Yes.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: That's what I thought.
The next question is: Under what section of the
i!
14 ' proposed Act will animal processing waste be covered? This
ID j, includes liquid as well as solid matter.
1(1 ! Well, we doubt if this would be included under Sub-
!i
' j title C because we don't believe they would fail the hazardous
18 '
i| test under the hazardous waste criteria. So, that means they
19 |' would be covered by Subtitle D of the Act, which we won't get
j' into in any great detail here, but that states the provisions
j| for non-hazardous waste and there's no federal administration
2' :; of Subtitle D. The Federal Government just sets out the
standards and they're administrered by the States, themselves.
MR. CORSON: Will smelting residues that are stock-
piled for future minerals recovery be considered a waste?
I guess our intent would be apply some time to our
-------
. 30.
1 contractor there.
2 Our whole purpose, again, for looking at a price
3 factor in regards to material recovery was, one: to make sure
that where there are the problems where things can leach off,
we get them into the control system.
We're quite familiar with the fact that there are
many industries which tend to Store some things for long period
of time, and may, at some time in the future, develop -- use a
9 score of those.
10 Our intent would be, to hold for the moment, to the
11 90-day definition, although we do recognize that there are
12 some of these are the result of practices within the mining
1 o
industry which give us a need for certain exceptional cases.
14
We give concentrations on our hazardous waste sub™
lo stance list, if we end up with a list that consider to be
16 rebuttal resumption, the answer is yes. We will either do
17
that or we will reference a document such as the NIOSH
18 ' Registry or the Toxic Effect of Chemical Substances, which
19 I gives an LD 50 concentration for those.
Will there be a procedure for bioassay when all
21
species mentioned will not survive the native soil leachate
22 due to salinity or alkalinity?
OO
I think the thing we've got to be aware of here is
24
1 that we're separating. One, is the definition of a waste,
nr
or concerned with whether they survive in the soil. It is
-------
3JL
a site-specific problem which relates to the requirements for
the disposal sites.
Our intent in looking at the leachate or the liquid
waste a set of tests that is of a national standard, one that
can be used to define a waste no matter where it occurs in i
the United States as a hazardous waste. But, this is the only
way we can get into the control system.
Things that may happen to it in a specific site,
become a part of the product process. I recognize that there
are some cases where that product process may very readily
allow for disposal of certain waste at that particular location
I think we're sitting on one now. It's very difficult to
set up a site-specific characteristics to the national standardj.
You have to equate the land out here, for example, in Arizona,
which is rather dry, as opposed to what's going on in Washingtop
|
because now we're kind of wet there, at least we were last
night and this morning.
So, the site-specific,waste-specific interactions
will be accommodated in Section 3004, and Section 3005 in the
public process.
Would the Ames Test be performed in undiluted waste;
if not, how could EPA account for various pollutions before the
substance reaches any water, if in fact it ever does?
The last part of that, I think we wait for the site-
specific aspect again, as I did mention. Let me re-emphasize
-------
jj that we will come up with a standard diluation method for
2 I'
[I working with the leachate, or the liquid waste before we
O I
il conduct any of the tests on it.
4 ;, Again in the Ames area: Are we suggesting an Ames
0 '' Test for all waste?
1 \ The fast answer is no. The long answer is maybe.
' ; What we're saying here in terms of 3001, the definition
aspect, you do not have to do all the tests to determine whether
9 '
a waste is hazardous under Section 3001. As a matter of fact,
;i you don't have to do any of the tests under 3001. You can
if you're a generator and you know a fair amount about your
12 '
waste to really declare them to be hazardous, because you
.3
know enough about it to say they would fail one oE these tests.
There's other data that you will have to provide to
meet the requirements of Section 3002 in terms of generator
Iti
requirement. I'm sure there's other information you're going
to have, that you will need to meet your private contractual
l«
i arrangements with the storage treatment disposal operator,
! if that's of commercial value.
For 3001 purposes though, you could declare your
waste without doing any tests. We will suggest,and we have
started to prepare, a decision tree which says, do nothing
about your waste, this is the order in which we would suggest i
you might do some of the tests.
We think these logically go from those tests, which ]
-------
33
.
1 i| cost you next to nothing, to those which are more expensive.
So, the toxicity set of tests is the last set we
i | would recommend, because when you get to toxicity, you would
4 ' do the Ames Test. If you want something before that time,
5 you'd never get around to doing the Ames Test.
H If, on the other hand, you have survived all of the
7 i sort of acute things, the probability of corrosiveness, reactive,
» ' radioactive, and infectious waste, you would then have to do
9 j the Ames and the other test which we will define.
111 1, On toxic waste: representative or standard leachate,
11 j who has the option?
12 \ The answer to that one is the generator hcs the
"' optioo, for the moment at least. That's the approach we are
taking. We do suggest, in our minds, that you have to know
a fair amount about it before you take the analytical approach
as the way to go.
For those of liquid, then we suggest you do the test
right on the liquid rather than go through the leachate.
Will a standard leachate test unlock hazardous
materials that would not otherwise be released to the environ-
ment?
The answer to that one is no, if the waste were
land disposed in a fill that had a area width similiar to that
which we would be using in the leaching test.
I hesitate only because we have not defined yet what
-------
1 1 that is. Wa are looking at several candidates, one of which
;l
2 !| involves a synthetic garbage juice. The other extreme involves
:; ;| distilled water.
4 ;] It is conceivable, though, that the standard leaching
5 test would release — cause the release of something which
p ' would not be released in your specific site, because your site
7 ! has only a single waste in it, or a very restrictive set of
3 ' wastes.
'' Again, that's a site-specific problem. We think
it would call for a site-specific permit for the disposal of
i ' those wastes.
However, again, the only way we can protect the
environment shoud that site get filled with those wastes now,
li is go to a different site, drop the waste inthe system as a
'^ i hazardous waste.
H A question on toxicity: How will a layman determine
l' I toxicity of any material coming into a landfill without prior
ii
18 !| notice?
Bear in mind that the landfill foreman and waste
station operators are not schooled in chemistry. That would
!j be a great segue to the 3004 discussion. It is the responsi-
22 | bility of the generator to define whether or not his waste
23 || is hazardous according to the criteria we have defined.
It is not the responsibility of the waste station
operator or the landfill operator to make that determination.
-------
35
1 i Again, as you'll hear 3002 -- and I don't want to
,i
2 | jump on his line, but the generator is going to designate
i
'> ;' where that waste goes. So, he will have picked the definition
1 |; for that waste for the storage,treatment or disposal that is
5 capable of accepting that waste.
j
H j Next question: Is a structured process now foreseen
7 '! with time limits for getting on or off the list?
8 j Part of that question I can answer, only depending
i
9 'j on the direction the lists go. If the lists go in the defini-
10 I! tive area, that is the rebuttable presumption approach, then
11 !'
, there will be a procedure whereby a generator can test using
12 i!
I our criteria to get himself out of the category as having a
' hazardous waste.
l
14 '
jl We've not yet determined the frequency of testing,
j! although I'm sure the tests we're looking at is something no
more frequent than what's here for relatively consistent
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
waste treatments: One is a small generator, and that's a
dandy that Harry Trask is going to define when he discusses
Section 3002.
Will this open a loophole for partition and cheaper
disposal of very hazardous waste?
Our answer is we think not, by nature of the defini-
tion we expect to use. I guess we do recognize how well we
write things. There are certain loopholes that are obviously
there. One that I can suggest, for people that like loopholes,
-------
36_
is that we've already said that we're not going to control
household wastes. You can always have your people take things
home with you at night, and put them in your home trash at
home.
5 |j We think, however, this would present certain problems
6 ' because the EPA could go in and show that that industry is
7 ] developing or producing a waste and using some things to get
8 I around the regulatory program. I think the Act does provide
il
3 ji for sufficient controls in that area.
10 I Doesn't tying the definition to hazardous waste to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
drinking water standards, present some problems? For example:,
dirt has a mercury concentration below .01 to 20 parts per
million, according to the Department of Interior. The EPA's
intention to classify dirt as a hazardous waste?
The answer is, no, it's not our intention to classify
dirt as a hazardous waste. Our intent is only to classify
waste as waste.
Let me just use a different category for my example.
People have pointed out to us, for example, the acidity
of vinegar or the corrosive characteristics, for example, of
coca cola, pepsi cola -- I guess all of the cola drinks.
I guess our answer is it's already disposing of
3,000 gallons of pure vinegar. We'd be pretty concerned
about the acidic nature of that waste and the metals that
might be released by just putting that into any ordaniry
-------
37
landfill.
So, anything that is being disposed of, or becomes a
3 |j waste, we are concerned it meets our criteria. When it becomes
a waste and meets the criteria, it will be a hazardous waste,
it must come under the control system.
MODERATOR LINDSEY; I've been asked to review, again,
(
" I one of the cards, which side is no smoking. That side is no
8 '! smoking and this side is smoking.
ji
3 :[ That side is smoking, and this side is no smoking.
10 j! What did I do, get it backwards?
11 jj Sorry about that.
12 ;j We've been at this four or five days and it gets
13 ' a little bit confused.
1; Does EPA have any views yet — actually I have
'' two questions on this matter, and this is the matter of oil
1 shale residues -- Does EPA have any views yet on how process
reported oil shale fits into the criteria section? In other
; words, is it going to be a mining and milling waste?
That's something we haven't focused on, specifically;
"' " and we will. Off the top of my head, I would say that since
" ! it will be included in the mining and milling study that's goin;
T> ''
1 on, that my impression would be, yes, we would have it fit in
that category for the time being.
We do have time to work on that, since the industry
is just now beginrg to get underway. But, that's a good
-------
2
3
point and we'll consider that further.
What section of RCRA will regulate those wastes
which are determined to be non-hazardous,under Section,Subtitle
A—
C, I suppose, but are still considered a hazard by landfill
- II
0 I1 operators? In other words, special wastes. These have not
been addressed by the sanitaty landfill criteria to date.
If they're not considered to be hazardous, I'm not
sure what you're talking about; but if they're not considered
ii to be hazardous under Subtitle C, then they have to be treated
under Subtitle D. Anything which is not falling under the
criteria of Subtitle C, does fall under the rest of the criteri|a
and would have to go to a site which exists under Subtitle D
guidelines and standards.
is the State plan prepared under RCRA required to
contain r hazardous waste element?
My reading on that is no, but I'm not certain of
that. I'll have to check that out further.
I see Chuck fending his head. The answer is yes,
Chuck?
Okay. I'm sorry about that, but I guass it is.
Here's a question that doesn't specifically relate
to Section 3001. How does RCRA relate to the Toxic Substances
f>c 6
Control Act, in general, and the regulation of -BW waste,
in particular? Will one take precedent over the other?
TOSCA is, primarily, a front end Act. It's primary
-------
10
13
3<»
provisions have to do with the regulation of the use of toxic
chamicals. It does, however, as this person realizes, have
some, or a provision which could be used to regulate the dis-
posal of certain chemicals and certain products on a case by
case basis.
flQ.&f
In particular, where PW-'s are concerned, there's the
mandate to come up with regulations for the disposal of *
-------
40
i! will be coordinated with our office and will apply.
, Here's a statement and I'll read it into the record,
' this is not a question but a statement.
"Municipally hazardous waste are of more concern to
, water quality and should not be included in hazardous waste
control, should leave to water quality control. Strong
emphasis on water quality protection is in the criteria now.
. I believe that more attention should be given in the definition
to inhalation potential and to the setting of criteria on
, this basis."
Thank you for that comment and we will take that
under advisement.
Can we declare very small waste quantities as hazard-
ous, without detailed analysis and dispose of it accordingly
without the cost of analysis?
The answer is, you can declare your waste hazardous
at any time, without any further analysis for purposes of
'• determining whether a waste is hazardous or not. You can
always do that. You don't have to analyze to determine whether
it's hazardous or not. You can declare it so. I don't care
what quantity you have, and handle it accordingly.
That is then the waste becomes into the system and
handled according tu the rest of the system which we haven't
discussed as yet.
There may be requirements, and I'm sure you will
-------
4L.
1 '! have to know something about the waste for other purposes
2 i under the Act, but to determine whether it's hazardous or not.
^ l| There is the whole provision for small generators,
1 ' which has now been alluded to and we haven't gotten into in
'•" depth yet, but will in the next section we'll discuss,
6 ! whereby small generators of waste, the waste that they generate]
' will be under a lesser degree of control and a lesser degree
'. of requirements for the handling of those wastes.
' „ That will be addressed some more in awhile.
Why not define a waste as only a material that is
of no value to the generator or a discarded material disposed
of at some final site with no recyleable or recoverable value?
Well, there's a couple of reasons for that. We've
considered that and have chosen, at least at this juncture,
not to go that way. There's a couple of problems.
You run into two things. First of all, there's the
potential for sham contractors, where I, as manufacturer X
set up a contract with my brother-in-law and he paid me a
penny a ton or something, and goes out and dumps it someplace.
There's that kind of problem that we get into if we use the
value definition.
There's also some legitimate-- some uses of waste
which would be sold or could be sold, which can create serious
hazards, serious problems. Just to give one example that's
been in the news not too long ago up in Missouri where there
-------
42_
was a very serious problem were waste oils, which had been
laced with industrial waste, they may have been industrial
waste oils to start with, I'm not sure -- were used, or sold
and used by a waste oil collector for the oiling down of
horse arenas to keep the dust down. This was a sold product anjd
a service is provided.
I don't remember the horses that were killed and
miscarriages that were conducted over a nujber of years --
ruined this lady's business, killed all dogs and cats and
birds by the hundreds and it took years to figure out what
the problem was.
This is the kind of problem that we sometimes get
into even where wastes are sold as a product. That particular
incident, as well as others like it, road oiling with
industrial chemicals and so on, have occurred -- it was one
of the main reasons why Congress passed this Act and we think
that we're under Congress'@ mandate to try and control those
kinds of things as well.
That's why we've chosen not to, as of this point,
go the route of no value.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: The question is: Regulations
promulgated hereunder, relations -- Well, the question is will
the results of the mining and milling studies supercede or
modify the regulations that are promulgated?
The answer is they will not supercede, they will
-------
_ 42-
modify. They will modify it as to include, in some way,
a mining waste, which will not be included in the initial
regulations.
It will not supercede the regulations that are
written for other substances. However, we do have a require-
ment under the Act to periodically revise all regulations
under this Act.
This question is: How does EPA classify waste
water lagoons that involve limited detention time? Do they
come under RCRA as storage facilities?
If these lagoons are not part of the system that is
,, j! E
—n ~ ; permitted under NPDS, the water act, then the lagoons would
naturally come under RCRA, as either storage or disposal.
i We'll get into that when we discuss 3004, the distinction.
—^ If they are permitted by NPIJS, then we are still
]i uncertain about how we're going to handle it. That's the
j| answer I can give you in a moment. We're still thinking about
I what to do about this lagoon.
The next question: Will EPA go beyond the intent
of Congress in the interpretation of this Act as it has for
others, particularly FIFRA, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
Rodenticide Act, and the Clean Air Act, and develop regulations
and standards that will severely damage various industries
and increase costs for consumers?
No.
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1 I The next question is: Will EPA list those hazardous
2 ; substances generated in large amounts that must be recovered?
3 , Well, if we were to do that, we would clearly be
1 'i doing just exactly what the gentlemen or the lady suggested
5 in the previous question, that is going beyond the scope of
(enui. $&****&)-, H the Act. Because^Congressglclearlyftdid not intend us to
require any kind of resource recovery techniques. It was
s considered by Congress. There was testimony heard on it, on
11 both sides of the issue.
i And, Congress, with malice of forethought, rejected
11 | the concept of writing into the law a requirement that EPA
" , require people to process their waste any specific way.
13 'i
They decided that they would treat it purely as a --
i
4 !; what's the term I'm looking for -- prescriptive regulation
ji where EPA is given authority to only regulate the environmental
16 t
i impact of the waste and has no authority to go into the
j
j factory and tell people how they should manufacture things
18
i and recycle things.
19
However, clearly, they also intended the Act to
20
j recover resources in some fashion, unspecified in Subtitle C,
91 '
j while it is discussed in other places.
22 t
| We are therefore taking the course that we are
23 I
going to encourage the recycling of industrial waste, hazardous
24
waste, through the techniquest that we use in the permits that
25
we grant, and dispensations from certain kinds of paperwork,
-------
45
in order to encourage but not require materials recovery.
2 j This will be discussed in greater detail with the
3 ' next speaker, because that will be in Section 3002. So, I'll
4 ; just hold off that question until then.
What is the status of the mining-mi11ing study?
It was just awarded and,what is the target date for
completion?
8 October, 1978.
9 MR. CORSON: Draft report in May.
10 ' MODERATOR SANJOUR: Draft report in May? Thank you.
11 | MODERATOR LINDSEY: I have one here which I will
; answer quickly.
Under what Section of the proposed Act will animal
14 ! processing waste be covered, this includes liquid as well as
i'
13 |i solid matter?
i You want to answer this?
l' MR. CORSON: Yes.
18
I know half a dozen or so whom I asked what is a
19
partition coefficient, what does it test for. Partition co-
20
efficient is a measure of the ratio of comparative solubilities
21 !
in two different solvents.
22 Donn
n My expert over against the wall, BOB BlvlUilZ.
23
We would use it as an indication of bioaccumulative
24
potential because it does indicate those substances which are
25
liquid soluble, which generally turn out to be those that are
-------
1 ! bioaccumulatlve.
1
2 ; What are the references — another question -- for
ii
3 ! the basis of references for multiplication factors being used
4 | for defining levels permissible in the thousands of substances
"> j in the NIOSH Registry?
6 Again, this was a thing we stated earlier, looking
i
7 at locations of wells with respect to landfills, or some
"* minimum set of requirements. The kind of dilution you might
;> expect, and then again, they adult consuming two litres of
11 water a day in things, should get more than a thousand, a
J' ; lethal dose in that two litre portion. That comes up to the
12 .35 number.
1 ' Will .35 times the lethal dose 50 give consistent
' ; values in relation to lethality? It's my understanding that
mortality curves are very unpredictable below the LD 50 area,
so you could have waste with ID 40 value, or LD 10 value be
considered—not being considered non-hazardous. How much safety
factor has been figured in and why is lethality not a fact
been used?
Let me make clear that we are not doing any manipu-
lating of the LD 50 number. The .35 applies to a concentrationL
It's .35 times the LD 50 number as a concentration in the
i
waste load.
For example, we pick a substance which has an oil
Mf
-------
i 47
l If the substance is present in the waste at 350
2 milligrams per litre for the waste, then the entire waste
3 ! load is considered a hazardous waste.
The substance is still whatever it was to start with.
5 |] Question: Will human organs from hospital operations
i
6 j be under the generator will be considered a hazardous waste?
7 !' We will be including, and are including for the
ii
8 ,: moment, in our sources with the health care facilities, the
j
9 j emergency department, surgery department, including patient's
10 |i rooms, morgue, pathology department, autopsy department, so
11 |i on, unless the waste does not contain micro-organisms of
19 '
z ,! concern.
i
13 !! We are using the Center for Disease Control lists.
-tsiltA
'4 Ii I believe it's fchci-r CDE list, or maybe its DCD. I forget
'n which the three lists are that we are using. So, it's only
if you suspect that -- if you're reasonably confident that
' there are not bacteria there that you're worried about.
' •<
ii The other thing you will hear, I guess in the 3005
i discussion, does relate to our approach on the permitting of
health care facilities.
I think, just to jump on Sam! answer a little bit,
' if the hospital is already operating with its pathologic
incinerator, or its autoclave under a State permit, we are
not going to impose further permit restrictions on them.
1
If they are not operating with State control, then
-------
1
2
3
they will need an EPA or state authorized program.
Question: How many plant managers know that the
NIOSH Registry exists? How many would know how to use it if
4 jj presented with a copy?
Bill says the answer is 12 or 14.
I'm sure that's not the right answer, Bill. I
guess the right answer is, at least from my point of view, I
don't know.
The thing that we will do, and this is something th.at
10 'I will be happening, , for example, under -- as we develop our
11 \ mailing lists for Section 3010, and from it for the other
12 i! sections of the Act, is that we will make some strong efforts
on our part to make sure that the sections of concern --
14 ] regulations of concern, get through as many -- get the entire
affected community if we can.
' There's nothing we can do by nature of any lists
' ', or set of criteria to make sure that people understand and
have the capability to use them.
1 , If we think that referencing standard sources, as
'" '" the NIOSH Registry, indicating its availability, we'll even
": indicate you where that list is to come from. j
j
~ j Or, if we use some other such standard reference, and |
~" : we well might, the ability to use it may just make things good
, for the consultant.
1 But, if that's the direction of criteria, I think
-------
n 49
l • we could extract from it, with help, the 20,000 substances
2 ; that arc listed and print them on separate pieces of paper.
'' ; We just think it's easier and more advantageous to you as
4 taxpayers for us not to spend all that money on paper if it's
,'j . the same list of substances.
H ' Next question: Is it intended that uranium mining
T ! tailings qualify as radioactive waste?
H Your uranium mining waste, or to qualify as radio-
q active waste, if less than .05 percent. So,it may not be
10 ; deemed as source material.
11 The whole area of uranium mining and milling, we
12 are working at with our Office of Radiation Programs and with
lo i the nuclear regulatory commission. We have two areas of con-
14 ; cern. One, is those things which are not covered by the system
Ll ! those which may sneak through. There are those which may be
l) below the number, as indicated here, and if they're not source
" 1, material, then they sure do fall into our definition.
' ; The other area of concern we have is that when a site
! : is closed and no longer operating under ARC license or permit,
~° ' our understanding now is there are not many controls imposed
"' on the future monitoring or control of that site.
I
'" |j It is our intent that the site would operate where-
1
ever we can with a single permit. So, one of the options that
, is available to us when we want, we will be pursuing this;
! perhaps, authorizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to act
-------
50
;]
1 ii agent in imposing the requirements of our Act coupled with
2 ! their permit requirements.
•; , Question: Will the generator be able to declare his
4 waste non-toxic if the site-specific situation limits the
:-> | waste mobility? Example, metal waste in the basic soil.
t; , The answer to that question is no. We do have the
7 option to declare it is hazardous, but not as non-hazardous,
8 .1 because of a site-specific situation.
') As a matter of fact, if it's just site-specific
10 accommodation, such as the one given in the example, the
1; acid waste in the basic soil, I guess it further exemplifies
12 ij the need for a national standard for the definition of waste
'-' : allowing for the accommodation of site-specificity in the
14 i permit process.
ll Question: When will criteria be available for
Ib determining whether or not a waste is toxic?
' ;] Our present goal is to have those definitions which
'I
lfl pertain to toxicity defined within the next month.
''' j Question, and I already know the answer to this.
-" i; The question starts and says: Did Corson say that mining and
21 i; milling waste will be subject to 3001 after the 3002 stage
22 1 is completed for six months, or the 3001 definition, when
23 ; they're promulgated, whichever comes first.
24 || Why would EPA want the 50's waste into 3001 definL-
2l1 tion, before the 3002 study is available?
-------
51
I guess the answer is, of course it's been stated
very well. What we are intending is the 3001 definition
would apply six months after the mining and milling study
is completed. It would apply to the mining and milling wastes
six months after that study is completed, or new regulations
6 would apply when they are promulgated, depending upon whether
7 or not we need them.
Now, we're not applying that any 3001 definitions
to mining and milling wastes the same time the 3001 regulation
10 are promulgated. We try it with numbers.
11 We expect to publish our regulation in draft form
12 at the end of the year. If we are to meet our schedule, they
13 are to promulgated in final in April of 1978. They would
14 take effect in October of 1978.
ID If there were no special requirement needed —
1(1 The mining and milling study would be completed in October, 78
There are no changes needed as the result of that study, then
18 ;' the 3001 criteria would apply to mining and milling waste in
19 '{ April of 1979, that is six months after the mining and milling
20 jl study is finished.
21 Again however, as I did mention we feel because of ttjat
22 delay in time we would probably have to go to the proposed
23 procedure for a public hearing on the record just because of
24 the delay.
or
We will take all the questions from the floor when
-------
52
we get finished with this part and then we can get into our
^ nice dialogue.
I have one last one: Do I understand that if waste
is listed as hazardous, the generator will have a definite
set of criteria to test the waste to prove it is non-hazardous?
Second question: Will such test criteria be the
same as those which RCRA will use to determine whether waste
is hazardous?
To take the Bill Sanjour approach, yes, yes.
We will be looking at the criteria when we put some-
thing on the list. If we go to the rebuttable presumption
I approach it is those criteria which the jury will have to
' ' test against to show that a waste is non-hazardous.
I
14 MODERATOR SANJOUR: The question is: If a certain
-si <=>
—/ , material is a process byproduct, and say only 50 percent of
that material has a market outlet, do I understand the other
ii
! i| 50 percent will be considered a hazardous waste, this will
1 ' mean it meets hazardous waste criteria?
14 ' That assumption is correct.
!
2l) ! If so, will the 50 percent sold be subject to the
same requirements as the 50 percent which is a hazardous waste?|
And, the answer is no, not exactly. There are
different requirements for that 50 percent and let me go over
what they are.
If that waste has a market use and is put to that
-------
53
use immediately after its manufactured, then it would be
exempt from any provisions of the Act even though its a
hazardous waste type of material.
The other alternative is that if it goes to a
permanent materials recovery facility, and this will be dis-
cussed in more depth with the next speaker what we mean by
materials recovery facility --it goes to such a facility, then
it will be exempt from some of the provisions of the Act,
namely the requirements for a manifest and reduced paperwork
(ff*£ ti)auO
and record keeping.
ll If it doesn't meet any of thos conditions, then it
12 will be considered as any other waste.
All sources of Informate seems to come from federal
agencies. Have industries have any input before these
meetings?
Well, the federal agencies are the ones who are
I
17 | writing the regulations because we're the ones hired by the
liJ people of the United States to do so, but almost all the
19 | information, the technical information, does, in fact, come
I
20 | from industry.
21 Since the passage of the Act, we've had over 100
22 meetings with industrial people, and many others; but, chief1)
23 the technical input comes fron industry. They're the only
24 ones who know anything about the subject for the most part,
25 aside from a handful of college professors.
-------
Before the passage of the Act, we've been studying
someting like three, four or five years, some of us, working
II
.i on hazardous waste questions, and I would say most of our
input during that time does, in fact, come from industry,
5 both from industry manufacturing hazardous waste and the
6 industry that disposes of it. Because again, they're almost
7 the only ones that know anything about it.
8 MODERATOR LINDSEY: I would just like to reiterate
9 a little bit on that. We have, as I think I mentioned in the
10 opening, something over 100 meetings and these meetings have
11 dealt with specific parts of the Act, or specific subparts --
12 subsections of the Act, in some cases. j
13 They have included representation in these meetings,
14 not only with industry, I should point out, but also in the
15 environmental community, states, local governments and the
ifi academic community where we've been able to identify people
17 who are an expert in a given field.
18 i I have a couple of questions: If C02, carbon
—) 19 | dioxide, is now going into the atmosphere as a byproduct of
e. *•
-^20 some process, how is that catagorized? Is it hazardous?
21 Is it a waste to dispose of same?
22 First of all, the Act identifies a solid waste and
23 hazardous waste,or a subset of solid waste,as including con-
24 tained gases. These would be gases in containers.
25 The purpose here o'f the definition, or the way in
-------
2-1
which the definition came about is that Congress is looking
at those kinds of wastes which are, or could be, lan^flisposed
in some unacceptable manner, and that's the basis on which
they proceeded, then, to write the regulations.
So, it applies to contained gases, not to emissions
from manufacturing processes.
If smelting is excluded from the mining and milling
study, are smelting wastes covered by the Act at this time?
As we have it now, the answer is yes, if they are
hazardous. That is, if the waste material meets the criteria.
There's a statement here then: Smelting may include
pyro and hydro processes with different wastes.
MR. CORSON: I've got a couple.
How are spills of products which are unregulated
treated under RCRA?
Part of that you'll hear in the discussion of 3003,
which will relate to spills during the transportation mode;
but in general, it will depend to some extent on what's
happening to the spill. You will hear that discussed by the
clean up materials being disposed, now it is treated just
as though, or any other waste controlled by RCRA.
If it meets the hazardous waste criteria, then it
must be disposed of in accordance with the regulation under
3002, 3003, 3004 and 3005. And, that will covered at some
length.
-------
56
1 The other things for you to be aware of 18 that
.2 office within EPA which has published the proposed regulations'
3 back in December, 1975 to cover spills and materials other I
24
—r' than oil, does expect to repropose a set of regulations
5 within about the next month.' If it goes the way it did the
6 last time, there will be some 300-some-odd substances on
7 that list, each of which has associated with it an amount
8 which would make it a reportable spill.
9 Question: How are wastes with several hazardous
10 evaluated on a concentration basis?
11 If you are doing an analysis of the waste, they
l~ are treated individually. It is based on an individual
!li substance meeting the criteria. We think that if we go the
14 bioassay approach, one thing we happen to like about it is
—J 15 that it is looking at the toxic Affect of the whole waste.
~~? It is accommodating, already, by definition the orum'feijtic
'' effects of the mixtures of substances.
18 We are not able at this point, to get any good handle
1
-------
57
1 as a tank car of material?
2 The only exception we are making for quantity has
3 to do with the small waste generator. Now, we do recognize,
4 and you will hear some of that In Harry Trask's discussion
5 of 3002, we know there is a category of people that have
6 more quantities of waste that we have to do something about,
7 like laboratories that are testing representative samples.
8 The collection of those samples does present a problem, perhap?
9 which require some special management controls.
10 We do recognize that they will be having small
11 quantities and we will have to come up with some way of
handling the aggregation of those small quantities.
/-)
MODERATOR SNAJOUR: The question is: PL 02.500 —
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Ifi
is !
i
21
22
23
24
25
58^_
for regulating industrial processed waste.
lant or of^^lant. It makes no difference.
I don't understand the connection with the Clean
Air Act, because that is all stuff that goes on in the plant
boundaries. Maybe I don't understand the point of that
question.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: A question concerning pesticides
Will unusable pesticides and containers be covered under RCRA?
-------
59
The answer is yes, when they become a waste.
How will RCRA regulations -- Will RCRA regulations
interfere with established state and local pesticide programs?
Not that we know of. You'll hear -- and I guess
this gets at to established state and local pesticide programs
6 for the disposal, whatever they may be. You're going to hear
7 a little later about the regulation for generating waste
or transporting waste, or labeling waste, or treating, storinj;,
9 j or disposing of waste, for getting permits on those kinds of
10 things.
11 If the person who asked that question is not clear
i- after those presentations, then maybe he can, at that time,
phrase his question so that it would be more specific. I
14 think that's the best approach.
15 We have a few more minutes here, about ten. Does
1!; ,i anybody want to ask a question from the floor? Would you
17 || come up to the mike and identify yourself and your affiliation
, II
18 |: for the reporter, if you would.
19 ji MR. RIDINGER: I'm Dave Ridinger, Magma Copper
211 I Company. My question is in reference to the question I asked
21 before. Would this Act regulate, as does the Clean Air Act?
The S(>2 standards, for example, do not apply in
plant, nor, as I understand it, does the 92.500. If you have
1 24 a discharge under 92^500, it must be a discharge into a
25 navigable stream; again as I understand, beyond your property.
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
60
MODERATOR SANJOUR: Well, 94y580 applies to waste
only. So, if it's in your plant there are probably other
regs to apply to the disposal and treatment, and storage of
waste, regardless of whether or not disposal is on your plant
site or not. That's immaterial as far as the Act is concerned
In other words, if you're dumping your waste in
your own backyard, you still have to have a permit under thin
Act.
MR. RIDINGER: Which appears to be different than
the other two acts I just mentioned.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: I guess I don't quite under-
stand that, because the Clean Air Act -- if you're sending a
discharge from your plant that's completely within your fence,
and you're discharging into the air above your plant, you're
still covered by the Clean Air Act.
MR. RIDINGER: The standards are not applicable if
a_
the area is not assessible by the public.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: I think I understand what you're
19 [
saying, and you'll hear about the standards which apply to
treatment, storage and disposal under Section 3004. In that
21
22
23
24
25
sense, some of those standards, the baseline standards as we
call them, will become effective at the fenceline. But, the
permit to operate such a facility, is a permit to operate it
in a lot of facets and there will be standards on equipment
and things of that nature, location and things of that nature.
-------
21
22
23
24
25
61
MR. RIDINGER: Then, I think you're telling me, if
we his the storage within the plant it will still be regulated
under this law.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: That is correct.
MR. RIDINGER: Okay. Thank you.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Are there any other questions
from the floor?
fl\ faz.mfi«.E.W
MR. KAZMAREKj My name is Skip Kamuariik, I'm with
Georgia Pacific.
I'm still a little bit unclear about the relation-
ship between a hazardous material and a hazardous waste.
My understanding is almost anything will have an
LD 50, even sugar probably has an LD 50 -- welli I'm sure.
It might be two or three kilograms per kilogram, but it
still has an LD 50. Now, does that make sugar, if it's
sufficiently concentrated, a hazardous waste? It's something
that's a byproduct of a manufacturing operation?
MR. CORSON: I did indicate that we had not yet,
at this time, set an upper limit on the oral LD 50 of concern.
I do recognize that we probably need one, because if you
look at the translation, as this gentleman has indicated, of
how much you would have to further move this down the line,
to propogate it, on into the equation we have developed, you
just have to get a super saturated solution and couldn't
ingest it.
-------
19
2f1
21
22
23
24
25
62
So, we will probably have some cut off probably
above 1,000 milograms per kilogram. I'm guessing at this
point in time. We've not found that out.
I do have a question from the floor, if I may.
Will dilution of the hazardous level of waste exempt
the generator from control?
I guess my answer is that anytime we stick numbers,
we are allowing for dilution to get below that number to make
it a non-hazardous waste. We attempt, as we have with our
number, to build a certain level of safety into them. Suffi-
cient dilution gets to the point where you're going to spend
a lot of money transporting those wastes and you'll pay just
as much to transport the water as you pay to transport the
hazardous portion.
Will Subtitle D deal with management of household
quantities of hazardous waste?
Subtitle D relates to, or at least among the other
things it says, it outlaws open dumps and does allow for
sanitary landfills; and what it further does, it translates
the earlie1: words of that section to an environmentally
acceptable manner.
So, we will describe a set of requirements for pits,
ponds, lagoons, landfills, what have you, constituting an
environmentally acceptable manner.
Among other things they expect to talk to in that
-------
-r
10
u
14
15
If,
17
1H
19
63
area Is the fact that water treatment, after they do it,
there was a leaching water treatment after the waste is dis-
posed could not require any more than it would before it was.
It's going to also end up,very likely, with lined sites and
so on. So, they will provide for a fair amount of protection
in all disposal operations, but they do not specifically
relate with the word hazardous at all.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Another question from the floor?
ft
MR. MILLIGKN: I'd like to make a point in regards
to an answer that was given by the panel a few moments ago.
o_ H&-r-fr)c.&e.z_
My name is Glen Millig^n, and I'm with 'Pormagatc
Nuclear Corporation.
There was a question concerning the effects of this
regulation upon radium tailings piles, and one of the answers
was that, apparently at this time NRC, and other regulatory
bodies, didn't have too much control over uranium tailings
piles after they were shutdown.
I would take exception to that answer. I know of no
uranium tailings pile, or any milling operation currently
20 j| asking for a license or renewal to a license which is not
21
22
23
24
25
being required to place very long term controls on the uranium
tailings piles, either leaching into ground water, or the
ability to be blown away into the surrounding territory.
The NRC and state regulatory agencies who are con-
cerned with regulatory matters of radiation are requiring
-------
_«
very extensive measures such as total encapsulation of these
piles.
I would suggest that the EPA should communicate
very closely with the NRG and find out what the current policy
is because it is the industries understanding that we will
no longer be allowed to simply shut these mills down and walk
S^KAjW"
away from these piles without taking some very strident
measures in their control.
Thank you.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Thank you for that. We will do
that.
Other questions?
MS. BRENCKLE: I'm Mary Brenckle with Exxon. I'm
sorry that I asked a question a few minutes ago, but I'm
still unclear as to how marketable byproducts will be treated
when over five percent of the total production of that parti-
—7 i; j| cular byproduct is not marketable.
'. r~
i - ! You said the product will not be considered a waste
i" \ if it can be shown it has immediate utility as a marketable
l]
•j s | product.
Well, you also mentioned something about adding
provisions to store the product until economic quantities
can be approved. Did that apply to this type of byproduct?
24 Will there be provisions for storing these types of products
25 until economic quantities can be accrued, or if, say, 90
-------
65
1 percent of a product is sold and it's not sold immediately,
2 it is going to be considered a waste?
3 MR. CORSON: Let me start on it and my compatriots
4 here will try to correct all my errors as we go.
5 What our intent was there is if the material has
—96 immediate use as a byfSroduct, it is not a waste. Or, if it
is going to a permanent materials recovery facility within
90 days, it is not a waste.
Now, that latter case would not require a storage
permit. It would still end up needing the storage requirements
the standards that will be established under Section 3004.
Our feeling at this point is that the storage is
longer than 90 days before it has its utility, before there
is a reasonable quantity to be used as a byproduct, it then
requires a fully permitted facility.
MS. BRENCKLE: Okay, but let's say that you have a
e>
byproduct which, of which ten percent is not marketable, or
50 percent, or some percentage over five percent, you do have
a market outlet for the remainding, say, 90 percent; but it
is not economic to ship that product as it comes off the
production lines immediately. It is more economic to store
it until certain quantities are accrued and then ship it.
My question is, what is the time limit for storing
it beyond which it's considered a waste, even though it has
the contractual market value, market outlet?
-------
66
MR. CORSON: 1 think the position we've taken so
far is that if under other circumstances it would be a waste
but you are not shipping it, we would consider it such it
would require a storage permit if it's going to be beyond 90
days.
MS. BRENCKLE: If it's going byond 90 days?
MR. CORSON; Yes.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Within 90 days, the generator
does not require a storage permit, although it has to meet the
substantive requirements of Section 3004, but it does not
have to go through the procedure of getting a permit.
MS. BRENCKLE: So, there is a 90 day period?
MODERATOR LINDSEY: There is a 90 day time.
MS. BRENCKLE: The regulations says immediate
utility, and that is --
MR. CORSON: There are two, immediate or 90 days.
We raise both of them in the unresolved issue area because
we are concerned that immediate have specific dictionary
""? 19 || meaning otherwise you can't ship in an online basis. We do
feel we want to confine it to a omall period of time so that
21
22
23
24
25
we don't end up with this business of unbounded accumulation
prior to shipping.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: I think there's some confusion
here about this point. If you're going to wait more than 90
days to use a waste, it is a hazardous waste. Whereas if
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Hi
17
21
22
2,1
24
25
62L
you use it immediately, it's essentially, for all intents
and purposes,never becomes a hazardous waste. But, if you
wait 90 days, it's a hazardous waste, and will have to comply
with all the provisions of the hazardous waste act, even if
it is sold.
MS. BRENCKLE: Yes.
My question was what if you can ship it within 30
days, 60 days, is it still a hazardous waste?
MODERATOR SANJOUR: Still a hazardous waste.
MS. BRENCKLE: So, a product will have to meet the
requirements of a hazardous waste, then. Is that what you're
saying?
MR. SANJOUR: Except for two exceptions. The two
exceptions were immediate use, or sent to a materials recovery;
otherwise, it is considered a hazardous waste even if it is
sold.
MR. CORSON: Let me add one thing, and I think this
should be for our benefit.
If there is some number that is better than immediate
we would appreciate hearing your thoughts. So, we can construct
this definition in some fashion which encompasses the goals
we're trying to piece it out to accomplish, and at the same time
may not be overbearing and seems practical.
MS. BRENCKLE: Okay, because under your present
definition or under your present regulation, you could have
-------
68
essentially 100 percent of a product, of a byproduct, having
a marketable value, suddently for some reason ten percent oir
the market drops out, so now 90 percent of it is marketable
and ten percent is not. Under your present regulations,
over five percent of it would be a waste and therefore, the
other 90 percent would be a waste unless it is online market-
able.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: Those are very dangerous
materials because I can cite you many cases of damages with
just those kinds of materials. Those are the kind of things
I]
11 ij that we do want to keep controlled.
MS. BRENCKLE: Absolutely. But, what I'm saying is
the part of It that's a waste should be regulated, I agree.
<£>
But, if it is sold, there are many things that are byproducts
f'
that aren't sold that are hazardous but are sold under very
21
22
2°.
24
25
-^ 14
15
"' ij controlled conditions. Their uses are well known.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: There are many that are sold
under very uncontrolled conditions.
lq |i MS. BRENCKLE: Absolutely.
ij
20 || We just need to be --
MODERATOR SANJOUR: Basically, we have to keep them
in the system to determine whether or not the use is environ-
mentally adequate or not, and to prevent those uses that
are not environmentally adequate. That's the reason why
we have to --
-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
69
MS. BRENCKLE: Absolutely, but we need to know what
those products — whether the products are going to have to
meet hazardous -- RCRA requirements, insofar as manifests,
et cetera, as well as DOT regulations, Consumer Safety Act
provisions, Hazardous Materials requirements under the Clean
Water Act, and so forth. Those need to be made very clear.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: I think the answer is yes but
if you want to talk about — in some more specifics, we're
going to take a break now and maybe you can talk a little
bit more specific there.
I'm not sure that you're not confused and we're not
confused in your question. We can address it.
Let us take -- we're over the time limit, but let's
keep it to a ten minute break. We'll try to start back on
schedule at 2:30.
(A short recess was taken.)
MODERATOR SANJOUR: I'm going to be chairing the
session until dinner time.
Our next speaker is going to be Arnie Edelman —
No, our next speaker is going to be Harry Trask to talk on
Section 3002 of the Act which are the standards for generators
MR. -TRASK: Thank you, Bill.
After that mix up, what's happening here is that
£>
-------
70
'(
• ' is going to give 3003. I guess I didn't make that very clear
2 to Bill.
My presentation on 3002 will begin first with the
1 requirements of the Act. We'll first look at the requirements
! of the Act, what the Act requires us to do in terms of writing
standards for generators, then to then look at the approach
we've taken up to this point and then to discuss some of the
problem areas that we have.
' Section 3002 of RCRA requires that the Administrator
of EPA promulgate regulations to establish standards respecting
(grx£ icoaD
-p ' record keeping,to identify what wastes have been produced;
labeling, to identify the wastes when they're in storage and
trr. isport ?nd for disposal; the use of appropriate containers;
furnish! ig of information as to the content of those waste;
the establishment and use of a manifest system to track these
waste:; during their journey from the point of generation to
the point of disposal or storage, or treatment; and finally,
reporting of how much waste was generated, and in cooperation
with Section 3004 working group, we have designed a system
to match the reporting from the final disposal site.
Let me start with our current definition of the
—°) generator^ We believe that a generator is any person whose
act or process produces solid waste composed in whole or in
part of hazardous waste as defined by criteria developed under
25 '
Section 3001.
-------
We do not intend to have separate criteria for
hazardous waste under Section 3002.
(tf>A
-------
72
1 i It does give time enough to handle the waste at a
2 || disposal site for transfer, storage, or disposal sites.
I (fr*& uxr&C)
-^' i Bear in mind that on the record keeping, that the
4 i storage treatment or storage site also will be keeping records.
0 ' So, once that final disposition has been made at. the disposal
^ , site, then that would take over and the generator would be
—O' releived from his record keeping requirement.
* In the area of labeling and containers, both, what
'' ' I m going to tell you now is what our current position is,
10 ' however, this may change because we do have a contractor working
n in this area to help us determine how the DOT standards and
; requirements fit into this Act.
1 j '
The Act's stated purpose for the labeling standards
" is to identify the containers that are used for storage,
transport, and disposal. We are further interpreting this --
not interpreting, but we are further using this particular
aspect to furnish information to those who handle transport
or treat, store, or dispose of the waste.
We propose that at the present time, to use the DOT
hazard labels when those are appropriate. That is if the
hazardous waste is either on the DOT list or fits the DOT
criteria, then the DOT -- that particular DOT hazard label
should be on the container.
For those cases where the waste does not fit the
DOT criteria, or is not on the DOT's list, then there would
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1 be an EPA identification label to be used.
2 | The names on the labeling would match the name of
3 i the manifest so that a particular container could be identified
4 ' from the manifest.
i|
5 ! In cases where the DOT nomenclature has an NOS name,
6 |! for example sulphuric acid NOS(not otherwise specified), then
7 ! we would require that some further name be attached to that
i
s I DOT name to give us a better handle on exactly what that is.
For containers, the purpose is to write a standard
to require the use of appropriate containers for storage,
transport, or disposal. Three specifically different things
are required here.
In the area of transportation, we have no choice,
whatsoever, except to follow the DOT's standards for those
wastes which meet the DOT criteria.
DOT is already well established with their container
specifications. Those are rules that have been promulgated
and in effect for a number of years and we will not tamper with i
that at all.
In the area of storage, however, the initial reading
that we have from our consultant contract, seems to indicate
that we might want to have even more stringent specifications
for containers used for storage.
On the other hand,in the area of disposal it seems to
fit the spirit of RCRA which is, after all, the Resource
-------
1 Conservation Recovery Act, that we use less stringent standards
2 '[ for those containers that are going to be used for disposal.
3 | However, let me stress that we are still working in
4 ! this area. We're still flexible here. We should be in better
shape in a month, when we get our consultant's first draft
report in.
i The requirement to furnish information has, as its
8 purpose, to alert those downstream. That is those who are
transporting, treating, storing or disposing of a waste, to
give them information on exactly what is in that waste so
n that they may handle it properly.
' The Act requires that the generator furnish the
general chemical composition of that waste. We are proposing
that he do this by means of the manifest and the labels, as
I mentioned earlier.
1 However, in the case of those wastes where there are
mistures and perhaps several hazards involved, it may be
i necessary to have further backup in the records so that if
1 called upon, the generator would be able to furnish further
20 !!
; information on that waste.
21
Basically however, it is our belief that in the
22 '
normal business course of events, that a generator does nego-
23
tiate with a disposer and that the disposer requires that
a certain amount of information be furnished to him; otherwise,
he will not be able to properly deal with that waste.
-------
'0
— ^
So, we believe that the furnishing of information
is mainly — with the exception of the manifest and label,
is mainly between the generator and the disposer.
The manifest system's purpose is to ensure that all
wastes have been designated for a permitted disposal facility--
disposal treatment, or storage facility.
Further, the intent of Congress is that ort~^ite
disposal is exempt from the manifest system. It doesA't make
much sense to make out a paper shipping something to yourself.
So, we are saying that there would be no manifest, whatsoever,
for on site shipment.
Onsite is defined as a property which is -- maybe
you can second guess me on this, Arnie -- property which
is contiguous to the site of generation, is that correct?
It may or may not be bisected by a public highway
or a public rightgoigsray.
The manifest system, as we visualize it now, would
have the generator filling out a piece of paper,or being
responsible for filling out a piece of paper, which would
include the name of the waste, the quantity, the hazards in-
volved, the name of the transporter, the name of the destinatioi,
and the destination, by law is the Act requires that the
destination on the manifest be a permitted facility.
I think we will get into that more either tonight or
tomorrow morning, but it's my understanding that a list of
-------
76,
il
permitted facilities will be available at some time in the
future.
The manifest system does identify the waste, that
is in terms of exactly what kinds of waste it is, and also
the hazards involved. It further will have a space for the
generator to sit down a source of information that can be
easily reached in case of an accident during transportation,
or during the handling phase.
We propose to give the generator an option, he can
put that information on the manifest if he wishes, or he can
furnish these source of that information, whichever he wishes
|to do. We know that in one case, for example, in England, we
have copies of a series of information sheets which drivers
carry along to match the different kinds of wastes they have.
• This may be something that we'll want to consider as time
i
'^goes on, but for the time being, we propose that the information
iican be put directly on the manifest or the name and location
'of the source of that information can accompany the manifest.
We propose that this manifest will use existing paper.
i|We do not propose a second form or a third or an additional
'.piece of paper to accompany this hazardous waste shipment.
j We propose that the exi;ting bill of lading, which
>3 '
I can already be adapted to the hazardous material shipping
papers, be further adapted into a hazardous waste manifest.
25
We will shortly be officially proposing to DOT a
-------
77
1 ,| couple of minor modifications to their hazardous materials
2 | shipping papers format, which will accomplish this fact.
3 i We further propose that the manifest would not
l leave commercial channels. That is that the generator would
5 , fill out the manifest, would give it to the transporter who
ti ,i would take it to the disposer. Each of them would sign, In-
7 dicating that he had received the waste, and then a copy would
a flow back to the generator. Each of the three would keep a
<"> copy of the waste as his record of the transaction. And, that
''' would complete the system.
': Under the national system, as we see it now, a copy
l- ' of the manifest would not go to the government. That does
'''' not mean that states might not want to do it, themselves.
14 We already know that some states do.
!l However, they may have different purposes.
''' Finally, we have a requirement for reporting. The
purpose is a control tool. That is, that a government agency,
be it EPA or the authorized state agency, will know what is
'"' , happening out there in the waste industry.
A report from the generator can be matched with a
~* ., report from the disposer and this will verify as to what
~z , happened to all of the waste that is being generated.
"' ;' As we see it at the moment, the report format which
~4 ' we propose would have a column where the generator's identifi-
! cation number would show in one column. The kind of waste that
-------
'! he generated and the quantity would show in another column,
2 ,j and the disposition, that is the place where he shipped it
'I
3 ; to,and the transporters identification number would show on
1 '; the report form.
3 We've proposed to use automatic data processing
° for this and the disposer's report would have the same infor-
' / mation with the exception that he would identify the generator
8 '
on separate lines. So the two can be matched, and when red
'i flags pop up, that's when EPA gumshoes get started.
10 I
We propose that the data on these reports come from
the manifest. That is that the generator and disposer would
12
each take the data from the manifest copies which they are
13 !•
keeping as a record; summarize it quarterly and send the
14
report in to the appropriate government agency.
We believe that the quarterly report has a lot of
advantages . Mainly, it has a good deal less paper involved
17 '
!] and it does spread the labor.
1 Those are the six requirements that the Act requires,1
1'' • i
i or lays out for us. Unlike one of the other sections of the
20
' Act, this section does not give us any latitude for any
21
I additional standards. So, we are limited to those six, with
the exception of the definition of what a generator is and
the Act sort of helps us there, too.
The unresolved issues here, and when we say an
unresolved issue we mean exactly that, that we are still early
-------
79_
1 i in the formative stages and that we are seeking input. The
major unresolved issue here is the small generator, which
" | Alaa Corson mentioned to you briefly.
Householders are exempt clearly, but what about j
everyone else. What about small retail and commercial establish-
ments that have small quantities of hazardous waste which now
generally goes into the municipal waste stream but which the i
state and local municipal waste people tell us is not good.
They would like to see something done with it.
Vie're not sure that we know exactly how to handle it.
We know that a quantity may be important in some cases, and
i
yet again as Alan mentioned, with some wastes, such as infect-
ious waste or perhaps toxic wastes such as the carcinogens,
quantity may not be as important as the very nature of the
waste, itself.
One of the approaches we have looked at here, and
we have not discarded it yet, but we're not very pleased with
x
it either, and that is to use SIC codes. That is, everyone in
certain SIC code would be a small generator unless proven
. otherwise.
Or another approach along that same line is to say
i ,
that everyone using a certain process would be expected to be
!
• a small generator unless proven otherwise.
I
The generation rate seems to be more favored at
: the present time. One of the approaches we can use with
-------
80
generation rate is to give some local options. That is if
there are some cases where some wastes which may be considered
to be hazardous are being generated in rather small quanti-
ties, the local conditions may provide for disposal of that
waste under those conditions and we perhaps could write the
standard so that the state or local, or Regional _office !
official might have some input into this. They might want to
modify this to fit their own situations. :
Another major unresolved issue is what to do about j
those generators who sent waste to resource recovery plants.
Clearly RCRA was written to foster resource recovery, or j
conservation of resources; but should we exempt these generatorp
from all requirements of the Act.
As Fred Lendsey mentioned to your earlier, there is
a very well documented case in Missouri which would argue
against doing that.
We propose, at the moment, that we would exempt --
I hate to use that word -- we would not require generators
who send waste to resource recovery to do anything except
keep records and to furnish information on that waste to that:
resource recovery plant.
In other words, he would not be required to fill out
a manifest or to report on the waste. However, you may second
guess me on this, Fred, but I believe the resource recovery
plant will be keeping records, also. Therefore, there would
-------
81
some record of what's going on — how much waste is going
that route. So, it's not entirely uncontrolled.
Another control that we do have here is that some
sort of a permit will be required for that resource recovery
facility.
That completes my formal presentation. We are
prepared to answer some questions here, if we can, and to do
8 :' this, I'm going to ask Arnie Edelman to accompany me.
;, ' MODERATOR SANJOUR: This morning we'd like to give
10 a five minute oral presentation on Section 3002 of the Act.
ll ,i Now we will proceed to the written questions,and we will
12 :, accept any written questions on the 3X5 cards, and if time
u permits, we will take oral questions later on.
U The last gentleman to appear on the podium here is
r> the famous Arnie Edelman.
HI , MR. TRASK: One question here: Oi^ite disposal
17 >, operations are exempt from the manifest requirements?
lf< ! That's correct, oqQite disposal operations are,
19 ' as well.
>2u That is correct. Generators that dispose oigpite
2' 'i are not required to fill out manifests.
22 < Another question is: Can quantities be estimated
r
2'? ' for the purposes of the required reports?
24 !j The answer is yes, that reports will be required for
-° ! the disposal facility. I'm not sure why this question was
-------
asked, reany, because the answer seems very obvious to me.
2 Perhaps whoever asked this question would like expand on it
3 a little.
4 li MR. EDELMAN: A question here: How does the
5 '] generator certify that materials are properly packaged, marked,
fi | labeled, or in proper conditions for transport if the shipping
i
r container is offered by the transporter?
t . Basically, the tranport regulations also affect the:
* generator/shipper regulations are a mere image of the Depart-
i(' ment of Transportation regulations.
:! Under DOT, if the transporter offers a container,
-': he has to tell the generator what type of container he is
1 offering. That container has to be marked according to his
specificatiops.
~? • The generator has the ultimate responsibility to
a
assure that the container being offered is indeed the proper
container. There is, in a sense, a dual responsibility. The
generator must certify on the manifest that it is a proper
container but the transporter must also indicate to the gener-
ator that it is 3 proper container.
MR. TRASK: Question: Would the definition of a
-•' .Tmall generator be based on total waste generation or on the
"'' generation of hazardous components alone?
;' , The general attack we're taking here is whether or
, not those hazardous components can be separated from the rest
-------
83
of the waste. If it cannot, then the total waste is what
counts. If it can be separated, then it should be.
Another question: Would EPA be prepared to accept
computer input for quarterly reports?
I guess the general answer is yes. Again, I'm not
sure what the questioner h^s in mind here.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: I have several questions here.
If manifests are not required for or^ite disposal,
O9 ': what record keeping, if any, will be required to establish
i! ^
10
.( quantities and types of wastes disposed?
1 !, Outside disposal will require a permit just as any
" j other disposal, and that will be discussed under Section 3004
«: by John Schaum.
The next question is: Can a generator designate
! by name and address two or more permanent disposal facilities
instead of only one to afford the transporter some operational
; flexibility.
For example, is one site is rained out or rejects
,i load for order, et cetera.
The answer is no. This Act intentionally puts to
an end that era of waste disposal wherein the generator turns
22
overhis waste to a transporter who makes his own decision
about where it ihould go. Basically, under these regulations,
i a transporter would simply be a common carrier. It's up
o-
to the generator to make his own arrangements with the disposer
-------
84-.
or treater and the transporter simply becomes a person who
brings it there. That's the only role he plays under this
Act.
The next question is: Is the transportation of a
ii
_ •
D jj slurry via pipeline for a distance of several miles to dump
!! considered as transportation under the Act?
' ! The way we're interpreting the Act, no it will not
ft i
; be considered transportation.
9 !, MODERATOR LINDSEY: I have a couple here.
('i
|| If materials are produced and disposed of on site,
do they even come under Section 3002?
12
J I think the answer is yes,they come under 3002
u :•
but some of the criteria, such as the manifest system,
u
would not apply. More importantly, they would be covered
p l under 3004 aad 3005 and thus need a permit to dispose of on£)
ii(
site.
! 7
What will be the requirements of the manifest system
1~ .,
when a hazardous waste is shipped out of the country for
recovery?
;o
We haven't, as an Agency, focused on this yet to
come up with a decision as to policy, I should say, on inter-
2'^
national movement of waste. It does happen. It happens with
2 i
Mexico and it happens with Canada and it may happen with
24
others; I'm not quite sure.
Our policy, generally, over the movement of hazardous
-------
85
1 , waste is that they should be handled where they can be handled
2 best, both from an environmental and an economic standpoint.
i
1 , I'm not sure of what our -- when we wrote that or
* il when we came up with that policy, we were thinking interstate
^ ' movement of waste and we'll address that, quite a bit more,
h tomorrow morning.
How the agency will view the international movement
of hazardous waste, I can't say. We don't have a policy on
9 that.
If no manifest is required, by waste going to a
' i' resource recovery facility, how will transport thereof be
regulated?
By the DOT regulations.
When in resource recovery really resource recovery?
In other words, in the terms of percent recovery. Is it ten
11,
percent, 50 percent, 90 percent or what?
Basically, a resource recovery facility won't be
i8 1
judged as that provided it does recover some product. It's a
/) i
product recovery operation and treatment operation only.
For those product recovery operations which also
')_':
i dispose of waste, they're going to need a permit for that
22 |
disposal. They're going to need a permit for the treatment
! part as well, but it's going to be much easier to get such a
, permit and it's going to be a special kind of permit and we'll
discuss that tomorrow morning, also.
-------
86
I guess my point is that in briefly responding to
this, that the amount of recovery -- that the efficiency of
the recovery process in a resource or product recovery plant
is not what determines that plant as being a product recovery
operation.
MR. TRASK: I think this is more of a comment than
a question. It says: Suggest that the quarterly reporting
date be the 25th day of the month. This date is currently
used for discharge reporting by EPA.
It continues: Suggest that proper DOT shipping
name be used if there is one.
That is the route we're following. If not, then
use EPA's name. You should not use both. That, generally,
is the approach that we're pursuing at the moment.
MR. EDELMAN: I have another question dealing with
containers. I think Harry had addressed this in the remarks
about the container study currently being done for us.
Those wastes which don't meet the DOT criteria of
a hazardous material, right now we have not developed any
specific container standards.
The contractor is looking into this area and will
report to us very shortly.
Our thoughts for those wastes that don't meet DOT
is that some performance standards be developed. For example,
the co ntainer under normal use conditions shall not leak.
-------
87
But, we are in the process of getting information
and at this time, we really don't have a detailed national
base. We're looking into performance standards for those
packagings.
If an intermediate broker is involved, what role
does he play in the manifest procedure?
The intermediate broker can play many roles in the
manifest procedure. If he is designated on the manifest
as the end line for the waste movement, he then is the desig-
nated facility and must have a permit.
If he is in intermediate where he takes waste and
' he consolidates it off the vehicle, he will have to comply
with_the 3004 standards that are developed for storage
facilities.
If he mixesthe waste as an intermediate broker, he
then becomes a generator because he has generated a new waste,
If the broker takes one drum from one truck and puts it on
another truck and sends it off to the designated facility,
he plays no role except to consolidate, if it doesn't leave
the transport vehicle.
Basically, he can play many roles. He could be the
designated facility, an intermediate, or he could be the
generator.
MR. TRASK: There's a question here relating to
resource recovery and it says: With a spent acid, that is
-------
813
with a pH with less than 2.5 -- I think it was Less than two,
but let's accept that for the moment--would a spent acid
shipped to an oil re-refiner be exempt from the manifest,
and would the re-refiner be considered a resource recovery
facility?
The basic answer to both of those is yes, that he
would be required to keep some records here because,that is
the generator would be required to keep a record, and the
resource recovery facility would be required to also keep
records, and also be required to have a general permit, which j
|
you'll hear more about tomorrow. j
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Does the EPA, or do any proposed ;
regulations preclude a state, or local government, from
prohibiting importing waste fx'om a generator from outside the
boundaries of the state, or the local government entity?
Will a generator have a method of knowing of such
bans and prohibitio is?
This gets to a very controversial piece which we're
going to handle tomorrow under the Section 3006 regulations.
It's a long involved story but to give a brief answer at
this particular point, I would say that we cannot legally,
at this moment, prohibit a state from having an importation
ban.
: I
' On the other hand, which is what we call this issue--!
23 ii we, at the moment, intend to not authorize states which have I
-------
89
IT ~~ ~~
l|
l i! those kinds of ban. States -- not localities.
•
•- '' Will a generator have a method of knowing of such
-! ! bans and prohibitions?
l ' Not under RCRA, but I suspect that we'll be publish- i
5 ' ing this kind of information.
s i Will reports from generators of hazardous waste be
" ' required by EPA is the state is receiving this information?
8 Again, this gets to the state program aspect and I
9 , want to make it clear here, that today, tonight and first
thing in the morning, we're going to be discussing the federal
program, not the state program. This is the program that
we're going to conduct, where we conduct it, and how.
' On ther other hand, we will be setting up a procedure
u and we'll talk about that some more, for authorizing some
states to run their own programs in place of the federal
, program.
j
| Now, the answer to this particular question, will
; EPA require reports if the state is receiving reports.
I; In the case where a state has been authorized to
ji
!| conduct their program, their own program, the answer is no,
"' 'I EPA will not be requiring information.
l
; Where EPA is conducting the program in the state,
!| whether or not the state is also doing a similar one; the
|. answer is yes.
] Homeowners on septic tank systems generate and store
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
sewage sludge, a hazardous waste -- this person's conclusion—
in these tanks. Will each homeowner require a storage permit
and how will this affect the septic tank pumper, the transporte
who will initiate the manifest?
Homeowners are exluded from the system, as it is
written now. Therefore, homeowners who have a septic tank
are not generators and the waste would then go, essentially,
u nc ontro1led.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: If a resource recovery facility
does not require a manifest, can he then dispose of a non-usabl
fraction on site without a manifest?
I think there's some confusion between manifest and
permits, but let me try to answer the question without address-
ing it exactly.
The law requires that anyone who treats, stores, or
disposes of a hazardous waste have a permit, not a manifest
but a permit to do so.
Now, a resource recovery facility can then be both
a treater, a storer, and a disposer of a hazardous waste.
For example, an oil re-refiner treats waste oil to recover
the oil. He will also store waste oil, and he will also
generate an acid sludge which is a hazardous waste.
What we are proposing is to relieve him of the
necessity of having a treatment permit by issuing him a
resource recovery permit which essentially would be a mail
-------
91
order permit exempting him from a lot of the requirements
2 that would go into most of those permits, and also the storage
3 permits.
4 However, he will not be relieved of any of the burde|i
for the hazardous waste which he generates, that he disposes
of them oi^ite; he will need a full scale disposal permit
just like any other generator and disposer of hazardous waste.
—rp s If he generates a hazardous waste and sends it ofS^_
9 site, he will be required to fill out a manifest just like
10 any other generator of a hazardous waste.
11 The waste which he receives, the oil which he receives,
'2 || will not require a manifest.
In other words, we're making it easier to send the
waste to such facilities, to open such facilities, but we're
not making it one bit easier to generate waste from such a
facility.
I hope that's clear.
The next question is two parts, One is: Who is
]" '! going to control the data processing system?
!i
2'1 ,i For the states that take over the hazardous waste
21
25
implementation, the Act, they will control it. Otherwise,
the federal government through the EPA's Regional Office
will control it.
Two: If government is not going to be in the loop
for resource recovery bound waste, how is the government going
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lu
17
21
22
23
24
25
92
to get information on materials, that is for enforcement need?
There is a certain loss of information for enforce-
ment needs in tnis system we're proposing by not requiring
a manifest in such facilities. If you like, that's the trade-
off we're making for encouraging the recovery of such resource
However, remember though that wastes that do not go
to such facilities, do require, a manifest. So, the manifest
exemption is only an exemption for materials going to a
permitted facility. The facility will still require an EPA
permit.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: tet me just expand on that a
minute. I don't think that the loss of the amount of infor-
mation is as great as might otherwise seem to you.
There will be standards under Section 3004 of the
Act for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, whereby
they will have to report on what they do.
Now, these requirements under Section 3004 will
still be incumbent upon the treator or disposer of the waste.
]l So, that kind of information will still come in.
ll
MR. TRASK: Another question here relating to kinds
of waste and where they're generated and where they're dis-
posed.
It is: A railroad tank car containing muriatic acid
has a lining malfunction. The product is contaminated by
steel in the outer tank. Contents are pumped from the tank
-------
car and returned to the manufacture for disposal.
"
-------
94
He has not intended that material to be disposed of.
When the manufacturer of the muriatic acid gets
the material and they decide what they want to do with it, if
10
they want to dispose of it, then it needs a manifest.
I think by putting the term in that they were re-
turning it to the manufacturer for disposal, indicates that
the transporter has determined it's a waste.
If the transporter did not know what to do with it,
in the transportation back, in my terms, it would not be con-
sidered aa hazardous waste.
A question about the manifest system: Is the EPA
current thinking to pattern criteria and reporting for the
manifest after existing state programs? If yes, which states?
In the development of the current thoughts on the
manifest, you spend many hours talking with federal authorities
the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce
Commission, and those states which have existing manifests
systems: California, Texas, Kansas, and some ot the states
Ij
19 !] that are developing a manifest systems, for example: Minnesota
20 and New Jersey.
We try to take the best elements from all systems,
and we're also concerned with not putting too much burden, or
increased burden on the transportation community and also on
the shipping community by requiring additional paperwork, but
also requiring additional sets of paper.
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1,1
11
15
Ib
19
2'}
1\
22
23
24
25
95
Therefore, as Harry mentioned, we took the best
of the ICC and DOT requirements and in terms of developing
the reporting system, we had examples of Texas where a
manifest was sent in on every shipment, and also, in Texas,
where a summary report was developed, which is reported monthly
It was our thought that the monthly reporting, or
a periodic reporting would be much easier to use than the
states or the federal government getting hundreds of thousands
of copies of the manifest.
Therefore, I would say, to specifically answer the
question, we are somewhat patterning the manifest system
after the existing state of Texas' manifest, but also taking
elements of the California system in consideration.
I have a question here that also relates to trans-
portation regulations, and I'll wait to answer this question
after I have discussed our thoughts on how we would be regu-
lating the transportation of hazardous wastes.
MODERATOR UNDSEY: The generator makes a manifest--
initiates the manifest attesting to what is in his load of
waste. Who enforces compliance? State? County? Municipality
If the State is authorized, the state will do the
enforcing unless the state has redelegated it and if they
are going to do that they will have to have it approved in
their authorization application to EPA.
If the state is not authorized, then EPA will do it.
-------
96
1 j Is this an honor system with periodic checks, and
2 i again, who does the checking?
The answer is yes, it is an honor system, and the
answer is we, the same people will do the checking.
That is, if it is a state authorized program, the
state will do the checking; if it's a state with a federal
program that's being run, then we will do it.
It is an honor system and there will be periodic
9 checks, as this person points out. However, there are going
1° to be some self-recording in a way in that if transporters
and disposers run into trouble as the result of being told
12 something wrongly by a generator, they're liable to scream
about it, I would imagine.
14 If a state does not implement RCRA and the EPA
—^lj regional office regulates — or implements would be the proper
word-- will EPA delegate to lower levels, that is to counties
and municipalities?
No, probably not.
)i
Can any generator of a hazardous waste obtain a per-
11 mit to dump any hazardous material on his own site?
21 Yes, he could do that.
22
Or, must this waste be disposed of in a Class A
OQ
dump, that is in a permitted facility? Offsite, I guess, is
24
what the person is getting to.
25
And, the answer is he could do it on his own. He
-------
97
1 | could accept waste from anywhere and dispose of them on his
il
own site if he chose to do that. You have to have a permit
for it.
Will wastes collected from runoffs, loading and
unloading areas, spills, et cetera, which are collected and
later used in a process qualify the facility as a generator,
storage facility and onsite disposer?
That's a nifty question. If he's using the water
back into his own process, I'm not sure -- and right back
ji
10 into his own process, and the material is never disposed of,
ll
11 |j et cetera, then it wouldn't be a waste, in my opinion.
In your opinion, has RCRA preempted the states
from (a) regulating hazardous waste?
The answer is no, as a matter of fact it encourages it.
(b) Banning out of state waste from being disposed
1
'"' j| of in a permanent site in that state?
I
'• I! Again, that gets back to the importation ban issue
, i!
• which we'll cover in detail tomorrow. The quick answer is
Iq ' not legally, not on a constitutional basis. We'll cover that
•'" " in much more detail tomorrow.
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TRASK: I have a series of questions on this
card. I think they're all somewhat related here.
First, will the return copy of the manifest as the
disposer to the generator certify legal disposal and disposal
by the contract? I guess according to the terms of the
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
contract is the meaning here.
The answer is no it will not certify that the dis-
poser actually disposes of it legally, whatever that means.
All it will certify is that he receives all of the waste, or
it will certify how much of the waste he receives.
The next question is: If the disposer mixes waste,
is he then responsible for records showing the origin of
the waste?
I think the general answer to that is yes, however,
that subject will be dealt with at greater length in the 3004
standards tonight.
The next question is somewhat similar. Is the
disposer who has mixed wastes then responsible for the environ-
ment effects of the resulting product?
Again, the general answer is yes. Again, that will
be dealt with in greater length tonight because that has to do
with the operating standards for, and performance standards
for disposal plants.
Another question: What penalty provisions will there
be for transport or disposal not in conformance with the
generator's contract, in other words, at a facility designated
on the manifest?
The first criminal penalty listed under Section 3008
of the Act is for anyone who knowingly disposes of a waste
at a non-permitted facility, who transports a waste for
-------
99
1 I disposal at a non-permitted facility.
2 So, I think that is very clear what the penalty
3 for that is. However, I think the transporter also would
be of possible liable for a civil penalty because he violated
the manifest system. In other words, he didn't do what it
6 said he had to do on the manifest system.
7 The last question says: Finally, in such a. breach
of contract, would the generator be held liable in any way
9 l| for environmental damages?
10 The general answer here is no, providing he had
11 furnished correct information on that waste. If, however,
12 he had not furnished correct information, some little thing
13
he had forgotten to tell them about, then the courts might
14 not find him innocent of all charges.
15 MODERATOR SANJOUR: Fred, can I modify that a bit?
1H I MODERATOR LINDSEY: Sure.
17 MODERATOR SANJOUR: I think the answer is correct
in the contents of RCRA, but it would have no liability under
19 this Act. However, nothing in this Act releives the generatoi
20
of any liability under common law.
2 MR. EDELMAN: Does RCRA apply to shipping hazardous
byproduct materials from one location to another for process-
23 ing?
24
I really don't like to confuse the when-is-a-waste-
-S25
-> 25 vO
' a-waste issue. So, assuming that a hazardous byproduct
-------
material is not a hazardous waste right now, there would be
2 no requirement under RCRA.
-1QQ-,
However, if that hazardous byproduct material meets
the definition of a DOT hazardous material, all the applicable
transportation regulations would apply. So, you may not have
to follow RCRA's standards, but you'd have to comply with the
existing DOT standards for transportation.
9
10
1!
12
13
14
In
16
MODERATOR SANJOUR: We still have some time, so if
anyone would like to ask some questions from the floor, just
step up to a microphone.
Would you give your name and your affiliation?
MR. TINNAN: My name is Leonard Tinnan, BKK Corpor-
ation. One of my questions, I think, was not read or read
completely and I believe there are a couple that I'd like
further interpretation on.
One, I asked the question is a vacuum considered
a chipping container? And, if the answer is yes, then how
and why should each of 500 generators who might use that
particular vacuum truck during the course of the year, so
certify that it is a suitable shipping container as opposed
• to, for example, having the EPA license, permit or register
2'>
!• that vehicle that it becomes clear that it is suitable?
1
MR. EDELMAN: First, a vacuum truck would be con-
2, !l
I sidered a container for hazardous waste, if the operator
25 r
i picks up hazardous waste.
-------
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 :i
12 i
13
14
15
1H
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I
24
>
25
Your second point about the permitting registration
of transporters, right now EPA is not developing those type
of requirements. The standards, that we can develop under
Section 3003 for transportation, does not specifically state
that we have the authority to develop a permit system.
Also, under Section 3005, which is our permit
• ;
requirements, transportation is not mentioned.
I think, basically, the generator has a certain
responsibility, and as stated in the Act, and we are going by
the Act, the generator must certify that is a proper shipping
container.
MR. TINMAN: Again, I think I've not stated my
question properly or you've misinterpreted. I haven't asked
why transporters shouldn't be licensed or permitted. I said
why not the idea of a system where the vehicle, not the trans=
porter company, the vehicle that carries the sticker that
says this vehicle has been certified by the EPA for transport
of waste acids, or of — et cetera?
MR. EDELMAN: Well, going along with your comments,
which are very good, I think what will happen when we come up
with container specifications, there will be a listing; say,
for example, a vacuum truck that can hold so much waste and
f*i (&HWI cau£\
has certain PS4, can acceptr these kinds of waste.
There would be a listing, for example, like a 55—
gallon drum that meets the standard would be an acceptable
-------
102
1
2
3
8
container.
So, there will be a basic listing of the container
type. At this time we hadn't thought of issuing a sticker,
per se, to say this is an acceptable container.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: We'll take your suggestion under
advisement. Thank you.
MR. TRASK: I think, though, it's important to note
that for transportation purposes, we have no choice and DOT
9 I standards will apply to all containers used in transportation.
10 i; MR. TINNAN: Oh, I understand that. And, as one
11 J of the largest vacuum truck operators in the western United I
12 '! States, my concern is simply how do I prove to the waste
13 i
generator that the truck is certified. Does he run the vacuum
14 pressure test each time, or can I give him some sort of
certificate that I get from some government agency to satis-
fy that problem.
MR. TRASK: All right. I understand you.
MR. TINNAN: Another question that I asked and
j, Mr. Sanjour answered is can a waste generator specify more
, than one permitted facility. And, the answer was no because
|i
;l you want to get away from the procedure which kind of existed.
|i For some regions, for example Los Angeles County,
I! has three Class 1 facilities which I would expect under the
i federal permit system may get an equivalent permit to handle
! a certain kind of waste.
-------
2
3
101
If the generator cites just one and the transporter
take it to that site and is turned away for some prevailing
local or weather condition or some other minor problem not
concerned with the permit, per se, must the transporter take
it back to the waste generator and get a new manifest or ,
may he carry two manifests, one made out for each of the
permitted facilities?
8 ij MODERATOR SANJOUR: Well, I think the way I answered
9 ' your question the last time, I'll stand by it, but I'll pass
1 it on to Mr. Trask and Edelman to see if they don't quite
!| agree with my answer.
12 ! •
!i MR. TRASK: I can't remember what your last answer j
13 '' !
was. j
I
MODERATOR SANJOUR: My last answer was that no, [
he can't do that. He Has to have just one manifest to one
site and if that site won't take it, he has to turn around
and take it back.
That's the answer I gave and now if that's wrong
let the gentlemen know.
MR. TRASK: The language in the Act says that it
must be taken to the designated permitted facility, and we
have had long and somewhat acrimonious arguments about this
whole area.
I think our general feeling is to support Bill's
position on this.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-------
(
1 i MODERATOR SANJOUR: That's not Bill's position.
2 !i That's your position.
I
3 |j MR. TRASK: But we are open to reasons why we should
• j
1 ''< not.
i
5 ]! MODERATOR LINDSEY: Presumably you're suggesting,
* ' and see if I'm getting to what you're getting at, if a
t
" 1 company or, in this case it would be Los Angeles you're
8 , talking about, the county, owns more than one permitted
9 facility, then you're suggesting that he be allowed to take
10 ' it to any one of the three, two or four?
i
11 >j MR. TINNAN: I'm saying, if there are two or more
12 i facilities which hold valid EPA permits, but any given day
!| one cannot take it, for some reason such as inclement weather
14 prohibits the trafficing, can he take it to another?
ln !| And, the answer is no, he's got to take it back to
the generator who again would have to write a new --
'' ! MODERATOR SANJOUR: We believe that's the way the
!
] law is written and that's the intention of the law. We will
Ij reread it as the result of your suggestion.
"' •; MR. TRASK: One possibility here might be that he
could put two names on the manifest.
22
i, MR. TINNAN: That's my suggestion, originally, Harry,
U i': MODERATOR LINDSEY: We'll have to rethink that.
MR. TINNAN: It's a real operation requirement in a
2." ''
; region where there are multiple facilities.
-------
105
|
!
MODERATOR LINDSEY: It's obviously something that
we haven't focused on.
13 MR. TINNAN: Another question dealt with onsite
4 permits and I asked the question if there is no manifest is
,^5 there any record keeping. The answer that Mr. Sanjour gave,
again, was no but there will be a permit.
I believe, and it has been our understanding that
8 a facility permit will include conditions that will limit
9 :] types, quantities, et cetera that may be disposed of within
ID 'I that facility.
11 If that assumption is correct, how can you know
12 jj when the types or quantities have been exceeded without the
; record keeping?
14 ;! MODERATOR SANJOUR: I didn't think I said that
>'"' i resource recovery facilities would be relieved of
! 'Kuiipiu^* If I said it, that was wrong.
1' " MR. TINNAN: No. I'm talking about onsite disposal,
1H !' MODERATOR SANJOUR: Resource recovery facilities
are required to meet the identical requirements for onsite
disposal as anyone else.
MR. TINNAN: I'm not talking about recourse recovery
facilities; I'm talking about onsite -- waste generators on
site disposal facility.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: They'll have to keep the same
[
;' kind of records as anyone else, too.
-------
106
p
1 || MR. TINMAN: Well, I misunderstood your answer. I
\\
2 jj thought you said they would not have to.
ll
3 |j MODERATOR SANJOUR: The manifest is what they're
4 'I relieved of, the shipping ticket.
11
!l
"' ;: MR. TINNAN: They will be required to keep records?
I
6 ,. MODERATOR SANJOUR: Identical records that you have
i
' ' to keep.
8 j MR. TINNAN: One last question and this wasn't
9 ,; addressed before and it's kind of philosophical. Whether or
il ' not EPA is delegated to a state, the enforcement action --
that's not really necessary here-- may state standards --
19
" ,i may a state apply standards that are more rigorous than
the federal standards?
; For example, in the State of California, they
' currently require a much broader use of the manifest without
I exemption. For example, if it's transported to resource
i| recovery facility, it can't ride without a manifest as it
j
IK ji
] would under the federal system. And, that may lead to two
I1) '
j| manifest systems in some states.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Again, the question is can a state have standards
that are more rigorous than the federal?
MODERATOR LINDSEY: The answer to that is yes,
whether or not they have been authorized under the federal
system.
If they're going to be authorized, however, under the
-------
1 'I federal system, there are some limits on that which we'll get
2 : into tomorrow. The answer is yes.
' ij MR.EDELMA.N: May I add something to that?
n
Under the Department of Transportation s Hazardous
'' '; Materials Transportation Act, Section 112, if any state has
" a standard that is more rigorous, more stringent than the j
DOT requirement -- for example, this would be shipping paper--
" and that requirement is deemed by DOT to be an interference
i
'j to commerce, that standard could be pre-empted by the Depart- (
ment of Transportation. |
So, it can be more stringent but only to a certain
12
point.
! MODERATOR SANJOUR: Would anyone else like to ask
, a question from the floor?
i MR. FEHSENFELD: I'm somewhat confused and maybe
ih
you can straighten me out. I'm Fred Fehsenfeld with ILWD,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Industrial Liquid Waste Disposal and we also recover oil.
It seems like you're going to run into a problem.
! For example, we use spent acid. I was the one tKat asked the
i! question to the acid crack in our oil recovery system.
On the other hand, we bring in spent acids and treat them in
ji an environmentally safe manner and then dispose the residue
in an industrial waste disposal site which is permitted by
! the State of Indiana.
i
How will you know if I have a competitor someplace
-------
1 and he says he's taking it and he's going to use a hazardous
2 j material in processing and then you have no manifest require-
I
! i| ment for that, if I understand that correctly.
4 ![ Sometimes we use the acid we bring in for treatment; !
5 j! sometimes we do not, but we treat it, nevertheless.
i
6 j! MODERATOR SANJOUR: I'm not sure I understand the
_ il
' |j question.
8 '! MR. FEHSENFELD: Let me repeat it.
9 ! If I bring in spent pickling liquor into my plant,
I
1 I can use it in oil processing and acid cracking and pre-
12
13
14
IT
IK
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
treatment of the oil.
As I understood the conversation, we don't require'
a manifest for that, if I understood the gentlemen.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: No, spent pickling liquor
certainly would require a manifest. That is not a resource —
The resource recovery is only for materials recovery,
when you're restoring a waste material to its original form.
So, pickling liquor wouldn't even apply.
MR. FEHSENFELD: On the other hand, there are some
oils we get that would be considered hazardous.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: It would apply to oils which
are restored to their original properties, or re-refined to
restore it. That kind of thing would apply.
But using a waste oil, for example for fuel, would
not apply in this materials recovery and treatment operation.
-------
109
P
1 jl Are there any more written questions?
2 ! MODERATOR LINDSEY: Who will generate a list of
3 jj permitted disposal sites?
4 |j We will; EPA.
And, when will such a list be available to the public
At some point after we have granted permits, the
list of permitted facilities. You may not realize that at
the present time we do have a publication which lists some
8
9 ii 100-some treatment, storage and disposal facilities who are
I in the business of receiving, or under contract."Hazardous
1 Waste for Treatment, Storage and Disposal". That'sa published
list which we've had and been adding to and modifying and
updating for several years.
However, the companies that are on that list at
prese'itly, do not have EPA permits. We haven't gotten to that
yet. They may or may not be acceptable. We don't know that
| either.
There's a second part to this question. A generator
i >
in State A,disposal 3ite in State B. State B has an accepted
id
1 program, that is has been authorized. How governs the gener-
ator?
Whoever is runni.ig the program in State A would
govern the generator. That might be an authorized state or
it might be EPA.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: Are there anymore written
-------
13
no
1 questions?
2 ! Are there any more oral questions?
3 Well, we're actually ahead of time. We'll go right
into the next speaker on question 3003, and this time it is
for real, Arnie Edelman.
MR. EDELMAN: Now that we all know what is a
hazardous waste and what the shipper and generator's responsi-
bilities are, I'd like to go and talk about the standards
that will be applicable to transporters of hazardous waste.
I'd first like to briefly mention the authority
11 ''
! that we have for developing these standards and then discuss
12 1 the perspective content of the regulations as of this date.
i Section 3003 of the Resource Conservation and
i Recovery Act requires the Administrator of EPA to develop
standards to include, but need not be limited to -- and let
i me just say that again -- the standards shall include but
,! need not be limited to.
EPA has a broad authority under this Section to
develop more standards than those listed. Specifically, EPA
; is to develop standards concerning record keeping, the source
'• the quantity and delivery points of the hazardous waste;
; develop standards concerning the transportation of properly
i labeled waste; develop standards for the transporters compli-
1
ance with the manifest system that has been developed under
Section 3002; transportation of all the hazardous waste picked
-------
_ 111
up from the generator or shipper and delivered to the hazard-
i)
2 |: ous waste management facility.
3 |! Section 3003 (b) of the Act requires a coordination
I
4 ' with the Department of Transportation in developing these
0 standards.
„
0 ' One: The standards shall be consistent with the
' I existing Department of Transportation standards and also the
6 \ Administrator is granted authority to make recommendations to
ii the Department of Transportation concerning a listing of
i
i| hazardous waste and also the regulation of hazardous waste
under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.
— 9 1- I
• ; Out on the front table there s a copy of the Federal
li
Register dated September 29, 1977. This is a joint meeting
as proposed between the Department of Transportation and EPA
on October 26 at Des Plaines, Illinois to discuss the develop-
i ,,
merit of the standards for the transportation of hazardous
waste.
It is our hope, and we are recommending to DOT, that
• ' hazardous waste be included in their regulations so that all
the major regulations we are thinking of developing where they
have authority will be covered under the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act.
"""r ' DOT does not have authority, however, for r
Kue [J ilig requirements, compliance with the manifest requirements
arid also notification requirements under 3010 for hazardous
-------
112
i|
1 waste transporters.
2 ; Concerning the respective content of the regulation,
1 right now we are contemplating certain general requirements
4 that all transporters must meet before they transport hazard-
' ous waste.
'' First, is the compliance with Section 3010 of the
' ' Act, which requires that anybody who transports, treats,
s i stores, or disposes or generates hazardous waste notify EPA.
In lieu of the permit system, we are requiring this
notification. Once notified, EPA will produce a list of
, transporters that have notified us and will make this list
JO
. available to the public that will indicate to them transporter
'
13 '!
! that have read, hopefully, the standards and that have
- notified us and,therefore,hopefully,are somewhat reputable.
In addition, as I had stated, transporters, when
transporting a hazardous waste, must comply with all existing |
i DOT requirements for the shipment of such waste.
1H ij I
The standards will not apply to onsite transportation.
_^> |' The definition of orfslte, as Harry had mentioned, is the
M
, property -- contiguous property that is crossed by public or
1 private right of way.
1 If there is a facility a few miles down the road,
> it
, we will comply compliance with these regulations. However, I
J4
i would like to point out that if a state has existing transpor-
2,"
tation regulations, or if the DOT regulations are applicable,
-------
113
they must be followed.
~~? •- ! So, just because we define oasite to allow for a
r*
^ public road crossing the property, if the state requires that
4 . those vehicles that go on the public highway be labeled,
! p£ajc.Qside.cL-
—'"X" ' placquered and have shipping papers, the transporter or the
n shipper must comply with those standards.
We are also developing standards for the acceptance
b of waste. These are somewhat patterned after the DOT require-
i ments for acceptance in the transportation of hazardous waste.
Basically, a transporter cannot accept a hazardous
,' waste unless there's a signed manifest accompanying the ship-
„ ment. Let me stress the word "signed manifest". I'm not
saying that the generator has to fill out the manifest, only I
that he has to sign the manifest.
The transporter wants, he can offer a service to
the generator. He can fill out the manifest as along as the
generator certifies the information is correct.Before acceptingl
i
or transporting waste, he can properly label the waste and I
^containerize the waste. He can even take a sample and tell |
the generator what the waste is contained in.
In addition to acceptance of waste and transportation
• of waste, there is a concern with the incompatibility of loading
i
and storage of waste on transportation vehicles.
Again, we are basing these requirements on existing
DOT requirements for loading, storage and compatibility.
-------
114
j
In addition, Section 3004 is developing a list
criteria of incompatible wastes that I think, as this time,
are somewhat similar to the California requirements.
So the transporter, and also the generator, will be
responsible to make sure that any incompatible waste do not
come into contact in that transportation vehicle.When loaded
by the transporter, incompatible waste should be separated
so they would not come into contact.
Section 3003 develops a standard for compliance
with the manifest. We spent many hours talking with trans-
porters of hazardous materials by all modes, the air, the
rail, motor carrier, and by barge to look at how they handle
existing shipping paper requirements; how they accept papers;
how they carry them with their vehicles; how they deliver
these documents to the consignees.
There's a concern of ours that we do not want to
disrupt current handling procedures in the different modes.
Specifically in the rail mode of transportation, the system
is becoming rapidly computerized and there are no shipping
papers being carried with the train or with the cargo tanks.
So, we are trying to develop compliance with the
manifest regulations to allow that the original copy of the
manifest not be with the shipment of hazardous waste.
However, the information must at all times be with
that shipment of waste. So,this would allow not only the
-------
___ _____ 115
1 i railroads to use a computerized system but if the transpor-
2 tation by motor vehicle, if these companies want to get into
computerizing their system, they could use the computer
1 information rather than the original manifest.
To assure delivery of the waste to the designated
11 facility, we arc requiring that the manifest be signed on
the instance that the information is with the vehicle rather
1 than the original manifest, that some sort of document be
issued which would require certification of receipt by the
designated facility.
' This document with the signature receipt would then
be attached to the manifest and kept as a record.
In developing the record keeping requirements, we
?re basically mirroring the ICC and the majority of state
requirements for record keeping which is a three year period.
We did receive many comments saying that we should
follow the statute of limitations, but to avoid confusion
and to allow transporters to use the existing practices, we
picked the three year period.
In terras of regulations concerning the delivery of
hazardous waste, the transporter must delivery all the hazard-
ous waste picked up to the designated facility specified by
, the generator or certified by the generator.
'
If the transporter unloads a transport vehicle on
the process of taking the waste to the designated facility,
-------
Ufj.
this unloading must be done at a facility that either has a
permit or is incompliance with Section 3004 standards.
In addition to the mandated standards, EPA is con-
sidering developing standards considering emergencies, marking
5 of motor vehicles and placarding of all transportation
'"> vehicles.
Concerning the development of regulations under
8 i emergency situations, again we are looking at the DOT require-
9 , ments for emergencies. First of all, the regulations in the
event of an emergency will be suspended for transporters.
'' We feel that it is very important that when a spill occurs
, and a material has to be removed immediately -- and I'm talking
of wastes right now-- that any vehicle that can take the
' ,' waste and not have to worry about notification, containerization,
a£QjcaM>ti#ja,
lr> , labeling, plaguing ana, et cetera, that the waste can be
moved to where it can be, then, packaged and all these stand-
|! ards followed that are developed under the Resource Conser-
18 :
vation and Recovery Act.
In addition, we would like to have a reporting and
notification that an accident or spill has occurred. Under
9}
the existing DOT regulations there is no quantity limit for
il
^•j i
reporting of accidents or spills. There is a property damage
2^ '
value limit, but also they have no quantity limits.
;! We are proposing that any quantity of hazardous
25 !,
: waste that is spilled in transport be reported to EPA.
-------
117
I] "
1 j| If you notice on the handout, it says notification
2 ' of emergency U.S. Coast Guard.
1 ' As stated earlier, Section 311 of the Federal Water
j
1 ,' Pollution Control Act is developing reporting procedures for I
5 ,, hazardous substances. Under 311 all spills of hazardous
'< t substances must be reported to the U.S. Coast Guard.
7 Initially, we had hoped to use the similar reporting
, (fro 8fxuu,y
•*&) » : procedure, give an 800-number 24-hour-a-day phone call that
9 would then go to the Coast Guard and then the Coast Guard
111 would be able to notify EPA.
11 '; At this time, the Coast Guard is not able to
I receive notification for hazardous waste spills because of the
' burden that may be placed upon them.
14 ' So, we are proposing that in lieu of the Coast Guard
lr> •; that the EPA Regional Spill Offices be notified of a spill
Hi ii .
incident.
!' In addition, under the Department of Transportation
V^
/ 'i ^regulations, an incident report is required to be filled 15
days after the accident. We are proposing in the draft regu-
lations that not only for hazardous wastes which meet DOT
criteria, but also for hazardous wastes which do not, be
reported to the DOT. Once notified, they would notify EPA
and give us copies of these incident reports.
We're also considering the marking of motor vehicles.
25 |
,, Throughout our meetings where we met with concerned citizens,
-------
118
1
1 jj industry and transporters, there was a concern that unidenti- (
2 j fled transporters were taking wastes and illegally disposing.
I!
„ .I
d ' We are developing in this area a requirement similar
* to the Interstate Commerce Commission requirements that the
3 ' name of the transporter be on the door of the tractor and
D that his primary terminal area be also included.
it
7 Under placarding of vehicles, again the DOT regu-
1 lations will apply.
The hazardous waste meets the DOT criteria of a
hazardous material, it must be placarded.
We are hoping to discuss with DOT at this October
19 ''
' meeting, multiple placarding of hazardous waste and also
the development of a new placard or marking that would identify^
those wastes which are not currently under the DOT require-
ment.
What are some of the unresolved issues? Basically,
the unresolved issues, at this point, are concerned with the
integrr.tio'i of DOT and EPA regulations, which not only involve
placarding the vehicles, it involves the emergency reporting
i1
system; it involves the loading and storage of hazardous
waste; it involves, somewhat, of the notification Requirements
because they can require registration of transporters.
We are hoping that at this October 26th meeting to
have representatives from all segments of the industry
dealing with transportation and hope to hear from you on your
-------
3
4
119
thoughts on the specific discussion tdpics listed. It is our
thought that unless DOT is made aware of the problem, DOT
iwill not react and will not include hazardous wastes under
their current regulations.
5 !| That's all I have to say. Thank you.
ij
6 :i MODERATOR SANJOUR: Would anyone like to give a
prepared statement on Section 3003 of the Act?
8 '! If not, then, we are open to any written questions
9 :; on 3X5 cards that you may have.
ji
10 !j MR. EDEIMAN: I have a question right now. It was
11 '
!| given to us during the 3002 discussion. I will hopefully
[9 I1
;! attempt to answer it right now.
13 j
'. Government regulations are written to confuse rather
j than to clarify. Hopefully we can clarify the situation.
Since DOT has the basic regulations for the trans-
16
portation of hazardous wastes, why not leave this part to them
', with necessary expansions rather than have the confusing factor
ix !
', of EPA getting into the act?
:9 ]
I would agree with the question. We are hoping —
•>c\
DOT willing-- to have hazardous wastes covered under the
il ;
""/ .Hazardous Materials regulations,
; Again, as I mentioned, thei'e are certain areas where
Ji DOT does not have authority to regulate transportation and
2\
we would have to develop regulations specifically in the record
;5
keeping and compliance with the manifest areas.
-------
120
9
10
11
12
MODERATOR SANJOUR: I have a question that's
actually left over from an earlier presentation, although
the question was just asked.
Would a spent acid, pH less than 2.5, shipped to
a re-refiner be exempt from a manifest, and would the re-refimr
be considered a resource redovery facility?
Let me answer the second half first, and the answer
is yes. A re-refiner would be considered to be a resource
recovery facility, because he is recovering a material or
restoring it to its original form.
Now, as to the spent acid, spent acid sent to the
re-refiner, if it was part of the feedstock, in other words,
1,1 !|
j oil was being reclaimed from it, then yes, it would be exempt
!| from the manifest.
15 :j
jl If it is spent acid that is used as part of the
18 Ij
process of recovering oil from some other material, then the
answer is maybe. That kind of thing would have to be considered
!| If it is a waste produced by the re-refiner, then
20 !'
:' a manifest would be required.
21 j
i1 So, the answer is yes; maybe and no, depending on
22 '
j what particular spent oil we're talking about.
MR. EDELMA.N: Is there a precise list for summary
24 ','
of DOT regulations applicable to hazardous waste transport,
delivery and storage? If so, how may this be obtained?
-------
121
There is Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
P
parts 100 through 189 that deal with hazardous materials
transportation.
It is DOT's interpretation -- this was in an Office
of Hazardous Materials' newsletter of April of this year --
that waste or not, if the material meets the criteria, it
7 jl must be transported according to the regulation.
8 |j In addition, there are also Title 49 requirements
'-> Ij 390 through 397 which are the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
;i
'" || which also apply to the transportation of hazardous materials.
•i
11 ! To get a copy, it would probably be best to contact
^ I the Department of Transportation, or the Government Printing
lr> ij Office. They should have copies there. It's a fairly
14 j| lengthy text. It's not something you can just pick up and
I
Ll ; read in about a minute. I think DOT is still interpreting
'" Ij the regulations.
11 i; MR. TRASK: I have a comment here. It's a somewhat
i
8 i lengthy example and then asks a couple of questions.
!
11 It says a product, for example lanate, which is
"'' !] methylmil, highly toxic and flammable, goes from DuPont
>"" i1 to the manufacturer tofche warehouser; from the warehouser to
,., 'I I
', the distributor; from the distributor to the retailer; from
"' I; the retailer to the customer or farmer; and from the customer
"' ) to the commercial applicator.
!: The question is, who is responsible for the empty
-------
122
container disposal?
The answer to that question is, who owns the con-
tainer at that point. It could be either the customer, the
farmer, or it could be the commercial applicator. I'm not
sure of the circumstances there. I know that both situations
could be possible. It depends on the contract between the
farmer and the commercial applicator.
The basic answer there is the owner of that contains:
is responsible for disposal.
The second question, under what conditions can empty
containers be transported and disposed of?
Generally speaking, DOT has taken the position that
an empty pesticide container can be transported if the bonds
are still tight. In other words, all closures are still
closed.
There's been some confusion on this point in the
past because some people have been using a special tool have
put some punctures in containers to facilitate drainage.
DOT, under those conditions, does not want those
containers unrinsed being transported on public highways.
They are a very definite hazard because of the fumes which
come out of those holes.
But, the general situation here is if containers
are rinsed, it's much easier to transport them for disposal.
The last part of that question says : Under what
-------
123
conditions can they be disposed of?
! The general answer is that if the containers have
.
iJ been appropriately rinsed, many municipal landfills, or
; ordinary sanitary landfills, will accept rinsed pesticide
ij
containers for disposal.
, Most municipal landfills will not accept unrinsed
'i pesticide containers for disposal.
i I don't know if that answers that kind of question.
! This is an extremely involved question. It deals with the
i
' interface between RCRA and FIFRA, which gets very involved,
!; as well.
H
!i One of the things here which should be mentioned
i
|| is that the direction for disposal on the label of the pesti-
l!
i cide container have to be observed.
1 MODERATOR SANJOUR: Let me take this next thing,
Arnie, you've got a lot of things to think about there.
Please state the definition orT^ite" as it applies to
both disposal and transport?
From the point of view of the generator, a property
is "onsite" if it's contiguous to the property that generates
the waste: contiguous, adjacent, next to, if it s the same
property or next to the property which generates the waste
and it's onsite.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Coast Guard and EPA notification
only apply to navigable waterways. What emergency spill
-------
124
notification and procedures must be followed for an inplant
spill, for instance, at night with gasoline?
' 'j As far as RCRA goes, now, this Act, there will be
' i two things involved. First of all, at each treatment, storage
' and disposal facility will be required when they come in for
" I a permit -- application for a permit-- to develop the contin-
1 [ gency plan for what they're going to do for various kinds of
p ^ , accidents. This will be approved as part of the permi(£*grantir.g
' ' application.
However, I gather here that we're not talking about
; treatment, storage, disposal facilities where this problem
; is occurring, but perhaps in the manufacturing operation.
The way in which we're handling this is that under
' emergency conditions when an imminent hazard is presumed to
i,- '
| exist and a need exists to do something with a waste material --
and it might be a bad batch; it might be a spill on the ground
17 '
ii and the stuff is dug up or whatever -- whoever it is on site
i Is ''
1 that is in charge, may , as the result of his analysis that
i-) !|
: an imminent hazard exists, proceed to do what he things it
;0 '<
i| is necessary to do with it, until he gets that waste in such
•i a condition and/or in such a place where there is not an
' imminent hazard presumed to exist.
!, For example, if the stuff is giving off fumes or
24 ,
something, and he says, we've got to move this stuff now and
25 ||
I we've got to move it someplace and put it somewhere before it.
-------
l ji wipes us all out, he can do that. He can move it. He can
'2 i do whatever he thinks is necessary. And, he gets it and maybe
i i( he buries it someplace, for example.
, ! Well, once he's buried it and this imminent hazard
"•> ! no longer is presumed to exist, then he must notify us and
ri J we'll decide and we'll come out and take a look, and decide
7 ' what has to be done with that waste from that point on.
* ij If it's going to be moved after that point, it will
a ]} require a manifest, and it will require all the controls.
1 ,i But, during the period when an imminent hazard is presumed to
exist, the person in responsible charge can do with it what
he thinks is necessary. And, we'll pick up the pieces, as it
were, later.
Each state sets up emergency notification groups
under their Hazardous Waste Management system, because the
federal system still requires recording. If not, who will
establish reporting for spills on borders like dividing water-
ways.
Let me take a whack at this and maybe one of you two
gentlemen, if I hit it wrong or run the wrong way with it,
ji
21 j you can add to it.
The way I understand it is we're not going to be
setting up new regulations for reporting for discharges into
waterways. In other words, those regulations for reporting
and so forth come under Section 311 of the Federal Water
-------
12(5
Pollution Control Act, and there are regulations existing for
i those. And, they will continue to exist. We're not writing
| new regulations for those spills which are covered under that
j Act.
i
I MR. TRASK: I have one here which may be somewhat
dangerous to answer, but I'll try it anyway.
I gather from your statements that DOT has been
less than cooperative with EPA. Is this assumption correct?
Rather than answer that directly, I have this to
say about that: Looking at it from DOT's standpoint, DOT
regulates the transportation of hazardous materials. EPA
has been asked to regulate the transportation of hazardous
ii
!
ii ', wastes. Wastes make up a very small percentage of the total
\\
u ': materials.
n ' If DOT were to willy-nilly change their standards
1(1 |j to do everything that we wanted without very carefully con-
i
1" |j sidering the impact of those changes on the total transporta-
|| |
ls |l tion community that handles all of these materials, then they ,
19 ! clearly could be in the wrong, because there may be some very
20 j| good reasons why some of the things we think are needed for
21 .I waste might not be needed for all of the hazardous materials,,
I
22 j and vice versa.
23 !| DOT has been slow, let me put it that way, slow to
.
24 i, react to some of the suggestions that we've been making; however
11
25 i| we will be putting some of these in writing before long and
i|
iL
-------
. 121
then there will be some official reaction.
It's interesting to note, though, that in the first
letter that we sent over to DOT telling them who we were
and what we were up to, we got a very quick response, one that
',! was almost unheard of. I think it was about a week later we
had a letter back from them saying, of course we'll help you.
MR. EDELMAN: DOT has just changed placards on --
concerning hazardous materials. Will EPA use the same placard
or will we have to buy new placards from EPA?
We're following the DOT placard requirement. If
you want to buy brand new placards; that's fine, as long as
it's a DOT placard, we see no problem.
Can a generator divest the responsibility for identi
fication, labeling, et cetera, when contracting with a firm,
i.e. hauler, disposer, for those specific services? Would
the generator not then sign the manifest?
I think the way the generator standards are written,
the generator is not alleviated of the responsibility for
proper labeling, containerization and designating a facility.
A hauler or waste management facility could offer
these services to him but the generator must still certify
that they are properly labeled, packaged, described and
designated to the proper facility.
The manifest does not stay with shipment, what
information form would it take?
-------
12&
I think there's a slight misunderstanding. What
2 we are trying to do is either require that the manifest be
3 with the shipment, or in case of computerization of the
handling documents, that the information contained on the
manifect -- I'm saying all the information as required on
the manifest--must be with the vehicle at all times. It can
take any form. It could be on computer printout; it could
be transporter's bill of lading; it could be the generator's
bill of lading. It makes no real difference, as long as the
H
10 information is there, and as long as the transporter,upon
11 || delivery of the waste,gets a certification of receipt either
12 jj on the manifest or on some other type of document.
IS ji Can you clarify what the disposing reporting process
14 i would be, who must be called and who must be notified in
13 | writing?
Also, there's a question that goes along with that:
•j1'
-^fiere's a hazardous material spill and EPA has an authorized
state regulatory system, do we need to report to EPA, or
report to the state would be enough?
2U i First, in the event that a hazardous waste spill --
21 i not a hazardous material spill--has taken place, the transporter
must notify EPA as soon as possible, the Regional Spills Office.
!'•> '« In addition, he must fill out a DOT Hazardous Materials
j
-l jj Incident Report and send that within 15 days to the Department
i
2* |l of Transportation, if they will accept reports, hopefully.
-------
So that, basically, is the responsibility of the
transporter.
If a state has an authorized state regulatory pro-
gram, Since we are developing national federal standards, if
the state takes over the program, it is our feeling that the
reporting to the state would be sufficient as long as the
state notifies EPA that a spill had occurred.
Another question: Will exporters be required to
j
I' have spill response plans and training?
At this time, no. That's Section 311. They may be
required to have contingency plans, but under our requirements,
we are not requiring that.
Will the generator have to be notified in the
event of a spill?
!l
| We considered putting that as a federal standard but [
i;
i! felt that this was an area where this should be a normal
ii business practice that if a spill occurred the transporter
;|
|l should naturally notify the generator and it doesn't have to
• be a federal requirement.
!, I think this is a question. I'll go through it.
Electric utilities have to handle capacitors con-
AlG'a tf"A*°L
taining BWs. These^nil capacitors are typically removed
from poles or capicitor banks, containerized and hauled to
collection points in the system for storage prior to disposal
by a licensed hauler to a certified disposal site.
-------
13
-------
131
a specific facility has to be designated on the manifest.
As I said before, we will rethink the question since
it was asked, but that's the reading we have to date.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: This is a long one.
Consider the case of the small shop owner who, with
his own pickup truck, arrives at the gate of a permanent
hazardous waste disposal facility with a single drum of
hazardous waste, but he has no manifest, no generator I.D.
number, no transporter I.D. number. What should the operator
of the permitted facility do?
Then, I've been given several options, multiple
choice here.
Number(A):Reject the delivery. Yes. That is an
option he can do and might want to do in order to protect
his permit.
(B): Accept the waste without worrying about the
manifest and I.D. number?
No. He might be endangering his own permit, or
it's specifically illegal.
(C) Or, accept the waste and complete an after-the-
fact manifest?
;l Well, this is kind of an option and I think if I
23 i]
j were, personally -- this is what I would do. I would tell the
21 ;,
guy, hey look. You're not allowed to do this and bring this
25 'I
! stuff down here the way you're doing it. Here's a manifest.
-------
122.
Why don't you fill that out. You might also have to notify
EPA.
There is another item. If he is, in fact, a small
generator and meets the criteria under small generators, what-
ever that happens to be, there's another option. In that
case, he can take it anywhere. It can take it to the local
sanitary landfill if he is a small generator.
]'
8 !| So, that would be item (D). Tell him to take it
9 || there, so you don't fill up my facility and so that you don't
i
10 j| create a lot of paperwork.
i (~~)
n If a generator spills a hazardous waste onsite,
19 !l
i| and subsequently collects the material and disposes of it on
n [I
site in a permitted disposal facility, does the generator
14 " have to notify EPA of the spill?
This is, again, the same kind of question as before,
in that the 311 spill regulations don't relate to this.
Now, as we indicated a little earlier, generators —
excuse me, treators, storers or disposers, in getting a permit,
and maybe application for a permit,which this generator would
do since he's talking about disposing of it in a permitted
facility, would have to identify what you're going to do if
there's an accident at his facility.
That is, he's going to have to come in with a con-
tingency plan, as it were. Now, that CD ntingericy plan may
require notification to EPA in certain instances. If that's
-------
133
' ]] the case, then he would; but that's not required, per se, as
- ;j of this moment.
j]
•! ; And, the regulations, as of this time, do not
i
• : require that each contingency plan require notification to
:
, EPA in all cases if they're implemented. It may, ultimately
' I but not at this point.
• MR. TRASK: Question: It says: if a generator
—}* and transporter are the same and the disposal is onsite, is
the manifest the only requirement waived?
'" , The general answer there is yes.
1 Then the question goes on. What about labeling?
'- [ Labeliiig is not waived.
What about placards?
11 Placards are not required. The only requirement
'' we have on placards is the transporter --
;, MR. EDELMAN: You can't transport.
~? ' ;| MR. TRASK: You can't transport off site without
using the DOT placard, where applicable.
MR. EDELMAN: A question along the same line: A
generator, while transporting a waste using his own hauling
equipment to his own storage facility experiences a spill.
Is he required to report to EPA?
First, I just want to be clear that the transpor -
1 tation regulations apply to all private, contract and common
25 !•
i| carriers. So, regardless if you're transporting your own
-------
-1-34,
waste or not, these regulations apply.
~9 < If the storage facility is offgite, he would be
: l( required to report to EPA the spill of EPA has authority in
1 j' that area.
' > MR. TRASK: This is a question gettiag back to
1 'I small generators. It say: What exceptions are anticipated
' i for a small generator?
The current position we have is that small generator
9 j! would only keep records, if they dispose of their waste out-
:! side of the hazardous waste system.
" i In other words, if we can come down with some
;j quantity generation rate, or what have you, that would define
11
! what a small generator is, then if he disposes, or if he
,i furnished information and disposes of that waste at a regular
!l municipal sanitary landfill, in other words a 1980 or a RCRA
ifi l'
i sanitary landfill, then he would not be required to do any-
17 ii
:j thing except keep records and furnish information to that
| landfill.
i
11 !,
If, however, he came into the hazardous waste system
20
in other words took his waste to a permitted facility, then
he would be required to do everything that the large generator
does. There would be no exceptions there for him.
What is the current thinking regarding the criteria
for establishing the small generators?
I'm not going to give you a number. We did that
-------
135
in Rosslyn, Virginia and we spent the rest of the day dis-
cussing that number.
As I mentioned earlier, we have dealt or considered
using the SIC code,that is exempting certain industries saying
these could normally be expected to be small generators, but
we've also looked at certain processes. We don't really
like either of those very well because there are too many
exceptions that you can find for each one.
We do sort of like a generation rate, but we can't
agree on what that level should be.
Again, there's also some question as to whether or
not we can write a regulation saying that the small generator
has this waste, can take it to a non-hazardous waste landfill.
I think you can immediately see the problem of
doing that. Yet we know that under today's existing practice
that small quantities of hazardous wastes do go to regular
landfills, not Class A landfills, but to other kinds of
i
landfills. We know that is happening.
In talking with the state and local people who
deal with these landfills, the general feeling I got was they
"' !| would be willing to have these wastes come if they knew what
~~ | they were and when they were coming.
i
l; In other words, if the generator is willing to
separate out the hazardous portion of his waste; if he would
take the quart can of paint, or the broken carton of pesticidei
-------
136
or whatever, and sec those aside and tell the sanitary
landfill operator that he has that, then the sanitary land-
fill operator could dispose of it separately in a different
part of the landfill.
It seemed to make sense following that approach.
So, we've had a lot of flak with it, so that's still one of
the unresolved issues here.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: I have the same question, once
again: re small generators.
EPA seems to be encouraging hazardous waste disposal
at sanitary landfills. And there are two boxes checked off
there, yes or no.
I kind o£ feel like I'm being cross-examined.
We have a very real practical problem that we have
to deal with and that is 200 million Americans generate
hazardous waste in very small quantities -- fluorescent light
bulbs when you throw them away from your house, which, in
large quantity would be a hazardous waste .
There's not a person in the United States that
does-i't generate a hazardous waste in small quantities. And,
as a practical matter, you can't put every one of them under
Subtitle C, nor -- and this is most important -- is it
necessary to do so to protect human health in the environment.
Remember what the law requires us to do, protect the human
ctnvHi&n&teti.
health in the environment, not to nnmmnnrh' nrr every last
-------
137
ounce of hazardous waste infche world. Now, we know for a
fact, that it's not necessary to gather up hazardous waste
from small generators in order to protect human health in
the environment. The human health inthe environment is not
threatened by these small quantities of hazardous waste.
We have never run across a single case of any
damage to human health or the environment from somebody
throwing out a fluorescent light bulb or a ballast; notacase.
Not one.
That's what we're being charged with, is protecting
human health in the environment. We feel that it's not
ij necessary to encorporate these small people aad we're trying
1,1 ;l
| to find someway to get them out of the system. It's as
j simple as that.
i Are there any more written questions?
,j Would anyone like to make any oral questions from
i - ji
;| the floor?
i
Perhaps we could take advantage of this additional
10 ;i I
! time that we have. Does anyone have any prepared statements I
•20 •
concerning the entire Act. This is a good opportunity for
21 J
them to be presented.
22
; Mr. Larson, would you care to give your prepared
' statement now?
0 |
! MR. LARSON: Not right now.
25
MODERATOR SANJOUR: You can either read it into
-------
138
the record sometime in the next two days, or you can send it
in by mail and we'll just have it put inthe record.
Is Mr. Von Weidleln here?
(No response.)
MODERATOR SANJOUR: I've received several requests
that we reconvene for Section 3004 at the scheduled time
because some people left early, so if we break early we're
still going to come back at the same time.
In that case, I will adjourn for now and we will
reconvene at 6:45 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m. the meeting was recessed
to reconvene again at 6:45 p.m. this same day.)
-------
139
AFTERNOON SESSION i
MODERATOR LINDSEY: We have Jim Stabler down here
from Region IX to listen to the RCRA Program.
There is Bill Sanjour and Harry Trask to my left
who will be sitting on the panel in this session.
Tonight we're going to be discussing Section 3004 j
which has to do with the standards and regulations for treat-
ment sources and disposal facilities. Our speaker tonight,
to lead off, will be John Schaum, who is a chmical engineer
with our office and is the desk officer in charge of the
development of these regulations.
MR. SCHAUM: Section 3004 authorizes EPA to promul-
gate standards applicable to the owners and operators of
'l hazardous waste treatment .storage and disposal facilities.
,'i The mandate further specifies that these regulations
shall include requirements in the following areas: records
17 '!
' of the waste received and the manner in which they're handled;
l* ii
! requirements for facilities to make reports to permitting
: agencies; requirements for environmental monitoring at the
20 ! M/'J A"
facilities; requirements for inspections of the £ac
|! the facility; requirements as to where facilities can be
I located; requirements for the design, operation, and construct-
','• ion of facilities; requirements for the training of facility
!
; personnel; requirements for ownership, operation and construct-
! ion of facilities; and requirements for contigency plans.
-------
JM.
3
1 jj Additionally, the mandate also states, that any
!|
2 ; other standard necessary for the protection of the public
i health and environment can also be promulgated.
J!
4 ij I'd like to point out two important aspects of
;i
J jj this mandate. One, is that it applies to all media. That is,
!
h | the air,the ground water, the surface water and the land.
;
' ; Secondly, it mandates, specifically, and says these
8 , shall be performance regulations. Most people think of per-
j formance regulations as being emission type standards, but
', since the mandate specifies the other kinds, like design,
location, construction, we are interpreting performance to
12 '
' include those, also.
I'd like to discuss next the prospect and content
14
of these regulations. Please remember these are draft regu-
,' lations, and are still in a very preliminary stage and in
Ifa
some areas incomplete. However, due to the broad mandate,
f they are relatively extensive and I will not have time to
18 i'
!j cover all the details. So, I will just be highlighting the
19 !l
; major areas.
20 i
,| The structure used in these regulations consists
21 '
,' of a set of mandatory standards and a set of recommendations.
22 ',<
jjThe mandatory standards apply to all facilities under all con-
23
ditions, and they include the environmental objectives for
24
each medium.
The recommended procedures will specify how the
-------
-141,
l
mandatory standards can be achieved. They are mostly of the
2 ! operating and design type.
, I!
6 'i The facilities must follow the recommendations or
i
4 ' prove that an alternative meets all the mandatory standards.
Facilities which follow the recommendations, will be considerec
in compliance, initially, but always must meet the mandatory
standards in order to stay in compliance.
In the area of ground water protection, we propose
to use the same approach as is used inthe underground injectior
regulations proposed under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Under this philosophy, only usable ground water is
protected; although our current draft regs do not protect
unusable ground water, we're open to suggestions as to how
this might be done.
Usable aquifers are defined as any aquifer with
less than 10,000 miligrams per litre of total dissolved solids.
Additionally, the permitting agency may so designate
certain aquifers as unusuable if they are not potential
drinking water sources and after public hearings and approval
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1 from EPA Administrator.
21 H
|| The basic environmental objective for usuable
22
23
24
25
ground water is that it cannot be degraded such that it would
be necessary to treat it more than what has been otherwise
necessary for drinking purposes.
The air objective,as written in the handout, is
-------
1 |j very misleading. I would like to request that you please dis-
j
2 : regard it.
''• : What we wanted to say is that our objective for
i protecting the air is that facilities should be designed and
"i ' operated in a manner which complies with existing EPA air regs,
'° i and which does not degrade the ambient air beyond one-tenth
7 '. the level of OSHA standards for air contaminants.
v ': I'd like to emphasize that we would only be adopting
!' ' the OSHA standards on an interim basis for those air contami-
•" ; nants not yet regulated by EPA. Any new EPA air standards
l! would automatically replace the OSHA standards.
l~ Additionally, we hope to write this reg in a manner
which will allow the Administrator to use a different divider
'•' than ten if future research showed this was needed.
*' Air, ground water and leachate monitoring will be
b , required at most sites. Some form of monitoring will be
'' j, at all .
At sites that have potential for ground water
' i pollution, we will be requiring that they have some form of
20 ': ground water monitoring. For example, landfills over usable
21 ;, aquifers will probably be required to have lysimeters under-
22 :| neath the site to detect any leachate which may escape and
ji
' < to have additionally, groundwater wells adjacent to the site
"' ,! at the backup system.
Air monitoring would be required at sites with
-------
.JL43-
potential for airlpollution, for example incinerators will
2 i probably require that they have stacked gas monitors for
ii
3 ' things like carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, et cetera.
^ i! Storage operations must be conducted such that
5 ]! emissions to the environment do not occur. We feel such
, 'i cy^
f>° i a regulation^) is necessary because the Act defines storage
' as an operation in which emissions do not occur.
i| In the handout we said all surface water runoff
9 !| from active areas must be collected and confined to a point
i source. Our thinking has changed somewhat in this area and
11 ] we are now recommending collection but not requiring it.
j Instead, we're requiring that point source discharges must
i comply with the regulations under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, and non-point discharges, such as surface runoff,
'! must be controlled to prevent discharge of pollutants to
Hi '! *.
-7 ' of^yite surface water bodies.
The draft regs will require that all personnel have
!•< ii
i training on an annual basis. Additionally, the draft regs
-
19 i. n i
; will specify that this training must include contigency plan
20 !| I
training. We will recommend other areas such as environmental
2\
22
23
24
23
awareness, sampling and monitoring, waste handling and operating
procedures, but we'll not be requiring those areas.
The exact type and duration of training must be
approved by the permitting agency.
In the draft regs we have a number of requirements
-------
1 ji for record keeping and reporting. However, we are trying to
2 ji keep these to a minimum in order to reduce the paper burden
3 II to both government and industry.
In the draft regs we say that facilities must keep
records of the types and quantities of waste handled, the
6 i1 manner in which they're handled, and the amount and records
i;
of where they're disposed. Additionally, we'll say that
facilities must make reports to the permitting agency of
manifest violations, accidents, operationg conditions and the
results of their environmental monitoring.
Draft rpos have requirements for facilities to keep
or make contigency plans to cover accidents such as fires,
explosions, spills and leaks. These are emergency procedures;
1 which describe what to do in the event of an accident. For
i
; example, they'll tell who should be contacted, kind of retnedia
J
| actions to be initiated, evacuation procedures, et cetera.
i;
17
Draft regs have requirements that all facilities
demonstrate their financial capability to cover possible
accidents, closure costs, and other liabilities. The exact
form of this regulation has not been drafted, however we're
considering requirements for such things as bonds, liability
insurance, trust funds, and insurance pools.
Thus far, I've been discussing the mandatory type
standards in the draft regs. As I said, we'll also have
recommendations. I'd like to discuss a couple of those now.
19 :
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
For landfills over usable aquifers, we'll be reco-
mmending two kinds of designs. One, is that their location
3 is in an area that has ten feet of natural soils, or 10 to
4 -8 centimeters per second. The second is where these natural
conditions are not adequate, they install a leachate collectior
system.
I said ten feet of 10 to -8th instead of the 500
year containment as is stated in the handout because we've
9 || decided that the 500 year wording implies we're allowing
10 , pollution to occur after 500 years. This is not our intention,
11 |i so we changed our wording.
12 | The design recommendations in the draft regs will
i1 have many other details as to how landfills should be designed
14 such as the site location, suitable waste, daily cover and
l' ; others; but I don't have time to cover those now.
Our design recommendations for incinerators is
' I1 that they are operated at 1,000° Centigrade and two seconds
residence time, and achieve a combustion efficiency of 99
percent.
I'd like to discuss next the unresolved issues.
The first issue is listed in the handout is how should the
detailed recommended procedures be promulgated?
!• We have now taken a position on this issue and the
ii way we're preceding is that the recommendations will be
promulgated with the regulations to the extent possible.
-------
146
i
2
3
4
5
Any other detailed operating and design procedures,such
as ones for the state of the art technologies, will be publi-
shed after promulgation as EPA reports.
The next issue is what level of financial responsi-
j bility should be required?
As mentioned earlier, this has not been resolved.
It's a very difficult issue Because there's very little
damage case data on which liabilities can be estimated, also
9 ' it's difficult to know the costs associated with long term
care since it extends past the foreseeable future.
Next issue is, is it legal to require zero dis-
charge?
This issue is based on the fact that disposal, as
! defined in the Act, allows leaking into the environment.
i Therefore, it may not be legal to require discharge for dis-
;| posal operations. Our counsel tells us we can promulgate
any kind of regulations necessary for the protection of the
public health and environment, however we do not think a
zero discharge approach is needed and is not the approach
we have taken in the draft regulation.
The last issue in the handout is: Should air
standards, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
be adopted?
This is a very controversial issue, both inside and
outside EPA. The criticism against this approach is that
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
14Z
the OSHA standards were designed for workers In indoor environ-
ments and therefore may not apply here.
The argument in support of it is that adopting the
OSHA standards would establish air limits for many more
compounds then have previously existed and thus improve human
health and environmental protection.
iM like to bring up one other issue that is not
listed in the handout and that is how should be regulate ponds
and lagoons which treat hazardous waste and are already regu-
lated under the Water Pollution Control Act?
A good example of this kind of facility is an
i| industrial facility which has an onsite waste water treatment
; plant and sends some of its hazardous waste to that waste water
i
j treatment facility,
i
,! The concern is that the existing water regulations j
! do a good job on the affluent discharges on the surface, but
il may not adequately regulate any discharges to the ground
j'
i water. So, that issue has still not been resolved.
l|
!, MODERATOR LINDSEY: Thank you, John.
•
j; We 11 follow the same procedure tonight that we did
j:
this afternoon. Namely, that we will accept now any formal
I'
|| statements that have to do with Section 3004 specifically.
i!
,1 Let me call for that. Do we have any formal statements dealing!
'i
jj with Section 3004 specifically?
|!
I (No response.)
-------
1413
1 ii MODERATOR LINDSEY: Seeing none, we'll proceed to
2 i take questions, then, on 3X5 cards. If there is sufficient
i
3 I, time at the end, we'll take verbal questions from the floor.
While we're waiting for the questions to come up,
I'd like to repeat a call for a Mr. Jeff Vella. Is he here?
I guess not.
MR. SCHAUM: The first question I have is: Do acid
evaporating ponds require a permit under this Section as a
disposal site?
If they are receiving hazardous waste, they would
be required to have a permit for either disposal, treatment,
or storage, depending on what it was doing.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: This question is: Where can
one obtain draft regs for 3004, also who must I contact to
be kept up to date on progress of the draft?
See John Schaum before the meeting is over and give
him your business card.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Okay. This will generate some
discussion, I feel sure.
Do all of the pits, ponds and lagoons containing
hazardous waste on owned property that are not receiving wastes
presently come under the Act?
Let me broaden that for purposes of answering the
![ question. What about sites that exist, have received hazardous
i,
l|
waste, of which there are hundreds of thousands, and are
-------
1 I currently closed down, that is not receiving hazardous waste.
2 i. Do they come under the Act?
„ i
J I Okay, when the Act was passed we were of the opinion
I!
"* i; "we" meaning the also solid wastes, those of us that are
3 'j represented here now -- that these old facilities were not
6 • subject to the same standards, et cetera, under the Act.
' i However, very recently, we have received what I
3 i call a verbal opinion from someone in our counsel's office,
J> ,: the General Counsel's c^ffice, who said that may not be the
1 i case. And, if it's not, there's some serious problems, as
ll ,' ,
1 guess you can be aware.
12
Just exactly what the final disposition on this is,
13 '
, I'm not sure. We're currently trying to get a formal opinion
^ ; from our General Counsel's £_ffice concerning pre-existing sites
I MR. SCHAUM: What about UIC regulations under the
Safe Drinking Water Act? Isn't ground water control going to
, be adequately controlled by the program? What communications
ji
[ s i
effort by your department have been affected with the EPA-
j' UIC people?
w \
Let me take these one at a time.
21 ,i
The first question is: Isn't ground water control
22 i
going to be adequately controlled by this program -- meaning
23 |:
; the UIC program?
24 ij
| That program will only regulate deep well injection
25 j|
operations. That's the only kind of ground water protection
-------
that they're involved in right now.
So, the ground water protection needed for landfills
3 ji and other inground disposal operations will not be protected
t
M
and we feel that we need regulations in this area.
What communication effort by your department is
being affected with EPA-UIC people?
We are, of course, coordinating with them, as I
said. We are adopting their approach almost word for word.
The same regulations they use for protecting ground water and
underground injection regulations is almost precisely the
same basic approach as we're taking in protecting the ground
water in landfill operations.
MR. BEARD: This is rather a long question. OSHA
and METHA regs are a comprehensive method for mining regs -
are comprehensive for protection of inplant environment. Is
not any EPA consideration of inplant environments a direct
-O
infringement of the RCRA law and that these areas covered by
in
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other laws is not the responsibility of RCRA? This would
include record keeping and personnel training, et cetera?
That's a good question, although part of it seems to
be a comment and similar to the one that was asked this
I
morning. The ambient air standards in the Clean Air Act is
that portion of the atmosphere which the general public has
access, exclusive of buildings.
If the Clean Air Act of 1970 was, alone, comprehensive
-------
151,
1
enough to cover the air environment, perhaps there wouldn't
have been a Clean Air Act of 1977.
In the case of the Act of the regulations which we
are promulgating, to a large extent 3004, we have to adopt
other standards.
As John pointed out, this is, of course, a contro-
versial issue concerning this manner, but the regulations
reads in 3004 -- the law reads, performance standards necessar,
to protect the public health and environment. We have a two- [
tiered system whereby we will be protecting -- we feel that
to protect public health and environment, we would need to
cover those contaminants for which OSHA protects workers
in order of magnitude.
The Clean Air Act, as you know, under the jimbient
_air standards only covered six pollutants and the Hazardous
"/I!. ~ ~"
Emmissions Standards, four pollutants. The Clean Air Act
17
i; covers a few pollutants for the entire air environment and
it doesn't focus on hazardous waste facilities. It may cover
19
but not, perhaps, efficiently or just narrow the way. It
!! doesn't focus on the hazardous waste facilities as the regu-
21 i|
I' lation we are proposing would.
22 j1
j! If you have any suggestions in this regard, we'll be
23 .'
happy to hear them.
24
25
MODERATOR SANJOUR: The questions is: Why not have
pits, ponds and lagoons meet similar standards, that is
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Hi
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1 |! ten feet, 10 to -8 centimeters per second, or the equivalent
|i
2 | with liner?
si
3 ;| They will. Pits, ponds and lagoons will have to meet
the same standards as landfills, essentially.
The next question is: Will liners be acceptable?
If so, who will specify, EPA or industry?
The way we've written this, either way. EPA will
specify liners for materials that EPA has data on, and one
can apply for a permit using EPA's data; or, if one wants to
apply for a permit for materials that EPA has no information
on, then the permit applicant can supply the information.
In other words, do the testing himself.
The next question is: Are you going to establish
guidelines for injection wells in 3004?
The answer is no. This is covered already by the
underground injection regs. However, facilities which do
inject hazardous waste will, nevertheless, have to be per-
mitted under this Act. We're working out with the Office
of Water Supply, now, how to handle this joint present arrange-
ment where both — they have permitting -- they have specific
things under their Act that they have to permit and we have
specific things under our Act that we have to permit and we
have to work out some mechanism so as not to -- so you don't
have to worry about permits all the time.
The next question is: Why are ambient air standards
-------
1 i' established at one-tenth OSHA standards?
i
1 !
2 i| I think the question was already answered but let '.
me just try and handle that.
First of all, let me point out that we're not talkingj
about ambient air standards in the same sense as the air i
office. What we're talking about is, basically, design |
. ii I
' ii standards. These are standards for designing facilities.
!
8 ,j It's not standards for enforcing air standards on facilities.
9 'j And, the one-tenth of OSHA level is a level that
I is already accepted and used as an industry concensus standard
! for designing indoor spaces for 24 hour exposure. We're
12 II
j basically accepting it and using it as an interim standard
|i for those pollutants which EPA does not have standards on as
! yet, which their office hasn't promulguated standards.
—1 ' As the ^jir o.ffice promulgates their own standards,
i they will replace these interim standards we're proposing.
The next question is: We currently collect some
18 i|
I waste products in a lagoon, gradually reintroduce them into
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
| the process stream. Are EPA's squalled performance standards
for design, geographic location, and operation, going to
interfere with this process?
Well, this is clearly one of those borderline cases
that I don't quite know how to deal with at this juncture.
If the lagoon is already covered by an NPDS permit,
then the answer is probably not.
-------
. __^ 154
If the lagoon does not handle waste,under our
definition of waste, then again the answer is no. But, it's
kind of a borderline area and I'd be interested that the
gentleman who asked this question would come up after the
meeting and give me some more details on what this includes
because we're always interested in these borderline cases.
ji
1 ,j We have to design all our regulations around borderline cases
8 !j is what it boils down to.
9 il What is the status under RCRA for waste already
I
10 ' covered by NESHAP?
They are specifically included by legislation from
i o
1 this Act. We can not regulate any waste or deregulate it
n i| f
_•) ,, under the NPDS system.
' ' *»
14 i MODERATOR LINDSEY: Is that the same as NESHAP?
MR. SCHAUM: No.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: What's NESHAP?
17 '
j MR. SCHAUM: National Emission Standards for
;i Hazardous Air Pollution.
'" ' MODERATOR SANJOUR: Oh, that's air pollution.
We are adopting the air pollution standards where
'they are app!5_cable. So essentially, we will be, under this
,i Act, enforcing those standards where applicable.
2> '. MODERATOR LINDSEY: Will EPA offer training programs?j
If not, which programs do you anticipate will be approved?
: That's one option. I know there are several options
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Hi
^___ 155
In this whole area of training. Ope of them, on the one
hand, is to require the applicant, who knows a great deal
about his own facility, to design his own training program
which, then, would be approved or suggested for modification
by the permit granting authority.
That is, the applicant would design a training
program; tell EPA what it ip and EPA would say yes that looks
good, or you haven't covered these phases or what have you.
That, on one hand is one option, and is the one we,
I think, plan on following at this point. Although, there's
no final decision been made.
On the other hand, there's a full blown certification
program. We certify boiler water operators. Should we
certify operators at hazardous waste management facilities?
In the middle is the possibility of somebody
designing a training program or some sort of a course, if j
you will, and that's another option. We're looking at those.
This is partially a statement and partially a
question, I suppose.
Because of the need for industry to comply with the
many laws for environmental protection, we have a good per-
spective on the interrelationship of regulations under the
various laws. It is apparent that regardless of what EPA
says, there is a serious difficulty of communication and
interpretation on expansion within.
-------
156
1
2
3
Isn't there some better means that could be set
internally to solve this problem?
up
For those of you who don't follow that, I think I
understand what he's saying. He's saying that among the
5 various parts of EPA there is, particularly where there is
overlapping of regulation -- of the requirements of the
various acts, there gets to be disagreement among the various
family members within the EPA: the Solid Waste Office, and
9 i
j some of the others. And, isn't there some better means of
10 '
' set up to internally solve the problem?
,j Well, for those of you who may not know, that is
12 !!
j true. Of course, each group has its own ideas of what its
13 |!
area of concern is. And, under the various acts where there's
14 i:
; overlap, we have disagreement at times.
15 .1
! The way that's worked out, is at first, that the
16 'i
;; first organization, other than the office that has primary i
i? i: :
-J ]] responsibility for the .act, is something called a working group.
I* I'
; A working group is made up of a variety of members -- members
19 !•
jl from various -- all the various parts of EPA, including the I
20
/ : .regional .office.
21 ! ~~ "~
ij In this particular case, ue have some states sitting
22 i1
'j on some of the working groups because they re very helpful.
23 :;
It's the function of the working group to work out j
24 '!
!| and be sure there is an overlap that can't be lived with.
25 ij
Then, there's another group, after the working group
-------
___ 15.71
I
and after a set of regulations has been put together and the j
working group has had its input to those regulations, it goes
to what is called a steering committee.
j
4 i1 A steering committee is made up of more senior
;
D ; people within the organization and they take a look at the Act
j
'i and again, each of those people looks for overlap.
^ [ Finally, there's a signoff by all the heads for
-^8 ]! all the offices and if any one of them disagrees with anything
9 il that's in the Act, or disagrees that there's a problem with
i their area, or overlap in their area, then that holds things
|! !
jj up. So, that is one of the reasons, frankly, why it takes a [
12 i!
!' long time to get regulations put together. On the other hand, j
i[ it does preclude overlap among the regulatory aspects of
14 il
j what the agency does. j
'i
, Should existing and operating ponds and lagoons
be treated differently under the regs than new facilities
so as not to improve --impose burdens and requirements retro-
actively?
The existing facilities and new facilities will be
handled in the sense of the standards that they have to 1
live with. In other words, facilities that are already in
operation, will have to meet the same standards as new facili-
ties.
The reason for that is we can't justify — all our
25 li
: regulations have to be based on the protection of public health
17
18
10
20
21
22
23
24
-------
158
in the environment. That's what we're mandated to do. We
can't justify why some regulations have to be more stringent
for new facilities than they would be for old and vice versa.
In other words, we see no justification for having,
a different set of standards, not when the basis we're living
with is public health and the environmental protection. And,
that is what Congress has told us to do.
There will, on the other hand, be the opportunity
under the permit granting operation, for some phasing in of
requirements, for example existing facilities which do not
meet the regulation, there are some provisions for granting
interim permits for conditioning permits, that is the placing
of compliance schedules and the like on some of the facilities.
So, in a way, the answer is yes. There will be some
slightly different approach to how the standards are met, but
the standards are going to be the same standards.
It is the present understanding that the draft stage-)-
Let's try that again.
It is the present understanding,of the person who is
asking this question, that in the draft stage, the Safe Drinkirg
Water Act people -- that's our .office of water supply, is
considering regulating pits, ponds and lagoons under the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Have you an agreement that this is now in your
-------
|i The answer is no. There is no agreement -- is there1:
j| I take it back. I'm informed that there is an
'! agreement. I didn't know that.
We come under the same Assistant Administrator
ij
i for Water and Hazardous Materials, and he is the one who will
; make thr.t decision of who does it.
i I'm informed here by Mr. Sanjour, who is apparently
, closer to it than I am, that that decision has been made and
! that we will be handling pits, ponds and lagoons.
! Please repeat your schedule for issuing guidelines
', and standards.
Basically, we are still in the stage of writing them
—« ' and we expect to go to the Federal Register with proposed
u i Regulations'! That's the next step. We will take draft
^j' '' regulations and we will propose them in the jTederal Register.
:. Now, they'll be staggered over a period of time.
„ ' :i The first one to come out will be the ^guidelines for _state
• j Authorization, we believe. They should be published in the
—j ,'. Federal Register next month.
j After that, probably the next one will be the
~>\ i
notification regulations under 3010; probably, also late in
,i November or early December.
The regulations for transporters, Section 3003,
probably by the end of the year.
The others, then, will trail along into February
-------
in the proposed form. , j j v.
There will be then a 6Q*day comment period, formal
comment period, and during that formal comment period we will
be holding a series of public hearings, formal hearings,
on those regulations.
Then, we'll go back and take all the comments we
received at the hearings and in writing and we'll modify or
do whatever we think is needed and we will then promulgate
the regulations in final form beginning, probably, with
Section 3006 in February, or early March, and the others
into June.
Mo3t of the regulations take effect six months after
they're promulgated, to give you a brief rundown, anyway.
There is a seris of questions we've received on
financial responsibility and insurance requirements and that
sort of thing. For purposes of discussing that, I'm going to
I introduce Mike Shannon, who is an economist with our staff,
l* 'I
i who is, I think, better able to handle that than any of us
that are on the panel here now.
20 i'
j| Mike, would you answer that series of questions?
|! MR. SHANNON: This question is as follows: How
j about financial responsibility? And, there's three points
under that: Current operating responsibility; performance
, bond.
The second point is after closure, how long?
14
IT
Hi
-------
161
The third point is, assuming five years after
closure, what kinds of reasonable financial responsibility
should be called for and to what extent should the government
be involved?
As it is currently impossible to get liability
insurance for a hazardous waste disposal site, should there
be a federal insurance program for hazardous wastes disposal
sites funded by a tipping charge?
Well, in terms of RCRA standards, there are two
standards that are talked about here, at least the way we've
been interpreting it up to this point. And, those are the
standards for financial responsibility and for continuity
of operation.
We're looking at a number of mechanisms for imple-
menting each of those standards.
The bonding possibilities come into play regarding
the continuity of operation where you're talking about site
operation; something to back up operation of a site; something
like financial resources to close the site; and then to
provide some kind of routine maintenance, et cetera.
These are the possibilities for continuity of
operation.
When it comes to financial responsibility, that has
been interpreted, both in the record of the Congress leading
up to this law, and in other laws.
-------
For the financial responsibility, the discussion
leads to a requirement for liability insurance. Generally,
this liability insurance includes not only the sudden,
accidental kind of occurrence, but the non-sudden accidental
occurrence.
So, that's also a complicated factor -- to what
extent do we want to cover or provide protection for financial
responsibility.
Congress, I believe, intended that protection for
non-sudden occurrences be included.
The possibilities for financial responsibility thai:
we are looking at right now, are liability insurance, either
provided by the facility that would be getting the permit
individually, or through some kind of group, mutual trust
fund or a liability pool, self-insurance, financial assets,
tests, for instance.
The time element does become complicated since it's
after the site is closed. And, it appears to us that reason-
able ways of dealing with that would be to have some kind of
state-run trust fund into which permitted facilities would pay
for the right of having the facility protected over a long
period of time. They would pay on a volumetric basis, and
this fund would assume responsibility for -- in this case,
both the routine monitoring,maintenance of a facility, and, if
necessary, liability in case of law suits for damages.
-------
Let me see if I hit all of those.
Oh, the federal insurance program regarding financial
responsibility: that is something that the law does not
authorize EPA or another federal agency to do. It was con-
sidered in the backing of this bill, but dropped. So, EPA
really does not have the authority to develop an idemnifi-
cation program for financial responsibility. I'm sure the
states could do it. Some states may be thinking of doing that.
Another possibility, and one last point, is it
could be a requirement, or the states to be required that sites
be deeded to the states. At this point, it's completely
wide open as to the standards that would be proposed for
financial responsibility and continuity of operation.
MR. SCHAUM: Question: What would be the distance
of secure landfills, or pits, ponds, or lagoons from water
table, both drinking water and natural shallow static levels?
For those kind of facilities where usable aquifers
are, the only requirement we'll have is that they be an
adequate distance above the water table to allow monitoring.
In our recommendations, we'll make a specific dis-
tance recommendation such as five or ten feet. We haven't
decided what number to use in our recommendation, but it
will be more of a specific number there.
The next question is: How is containment of leachate
to be achieved in a net precipitation area?
-------
First of all, we're not requiring absolute contain-
ment. You should realize that.
In a net precipitation area we think the objective
for ground water can be achieved by using a cover over the
completed landfill to prevent infiltration.
What liner do you recommend to prevent leakage for
500-plus years?
Again, we've changed our wording. We're not saying
9 | 500 years now in the draft regs. We've changed our minds
lil j since the handout was put together. Instead, what we're
11 | recommending is ten feet and 10 to -8 centimeters per second,
12 jj So, that's the kind of liner conditions we're
11 j recommending. It would be ten feet of natural soils to the
14 j] 10 to -8 centimeters per second.
lo j Why don't the 3004 regulations address the protection
1 j' of ground water that may be suitable for uses other than
l' jj public water supplies?
'j They will address other sources -- other uses,
!| such as private wells will also be included in our basic
, ground water objective.
21 > The next part of this question is what about ground
— Ij water use for watering stock?
~' ' That ground water would be considered usable if
"' it were less than 10,000 miligrams per litre of total dissolved
solids or it was designated by the permitting agency.
-------
.^___ _ Ifii.
That's the way we would call that, according to our current
draft regs.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: Let me just add to that.
I think that the EPA standards for watering stock,
or whatever it's called, are the same, or very similar, to
the drinking water standards. Therms not that much difference.
MR. BEARD: When are the UIC regs to be promulgated?
That's a good question. They're two and a half
years late right now. So, it's a little tough to predict.
They're just being reproposed. So, your guess is as good as
mine on that.
<2 j| Do I understand the use of ten percent of OSHA, TLV
~-J^ i for ambient a_ir would apply to hazardous waste sites as
V7
14
- _
follows -- I think it was benzine, I'm not sure. Benz_ine
has a TLV of a part per million because it's considered a
lh '' carcinogen.Would a hazardous waste disposal company handling
'' ®-
— ^ ' ' '] benzjLne be regulated to maintain a tenth of a part per million
'- ' of this hydrocarbon for their workers?
i
•' The answer is no, not for their workers. The OSHA
M ;' standards, of course, apply only to -- I think the question
21 i earlier, I perhaps didn't answer adequately, because we do
-- .' not apply the standards to the facility. OSHA applies it to
'] || the facility. We, and our regulations, apply to the fenceline
~4 i in terms of an ambient objective for which emission standards
"' ]' are to meet that objective.
-------
A tenth of a part per million, I don't think would
be so unreasonable if at the -- on the facility, itself, a
part per million is to prevent workers from exposure to a
carcinogen, and that exposure can be met by wearing-- or
decreased by wearing a gas mask, but off the facility, perhaps
children could be playing.
One might ask is one-tenth so unreasonable a
standard.
Under the Clean Air Act or NESHAP, as earlier
brought up, the National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants, there presently is no standards for benzine.
"-"'
There's a standard for vinyl chloride; there's a standard
for mercury, berylium, and asbestos that at the regulation,
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act that is for hazardous
air pollutants, is essentially a different law and they've
got four pollutants.
For this particular facility, we at this time feel
that there are a variety of contaminants for which we have
to have some exposure of limits.
I would like to make it clear though that nothing
is better than a pollutant by pollutant analysis in setting
standards; but the TLV -- or actually, it's time weighted
average for OSHA-- is something by which we can start.
The next question is: Do the air pollution regs
address odor problems?
-------
167
We're not so certain how to regulate an odor problem.
Perhaps, this OSHA divided by ten at least might begin to
put names on some of the odors. We did not plan to have an
odor standard under Section 3004.
Referring to incineration at 1,000 degrees, just
for two seconds, how many such units are now in operation, if
there are a list of these? If that's reasonable for hazardous
waste, what are the cost implications?
I understand your chagrin. I think that when we
write 1,000 degrees and two seconds for this public meeting,
it really shortens the whole issue and how we wanted the
regulations to look.
One of a number of recommendations by which those,
treat, store and dispose of hazardous waste might follow,
otherwise they would approve, through the permit system that
their facility will not degrade the ambient air above the
objectives we've been discussing.
' The regulation of 1,000 degrees in two seconds, we
! wanted it to read it would be 1,000 or equivalency, and one
I could either show that their facility is either 1,000 degrees
: in two seconds, or it will not degrade the ambient air,as
il we've been discusing, or it's equivalent to 1,000 degrees in
two seconds.
There are main facilities that might have weather
,j temperatures, more retention time well time, or more temperatuire
-------
168
and less well time, which might be perfectly adequate for
the waste that you're burning, but we have to -- from our
data, we have to feel that we'll look at that on a site by
site basis. We don't, at this time, know how to set reco-
mmendations for that.
As far as -- I'm really skirting the issue, I'm
afraid.
How many such units are now in operation?
I could count some on both hands, but there aren't
more than that. There's maybe less than 100 hazardous waste
incinerators, or less than 50. The last I counted it was
something like 33.
How many units burn 1,000 degrees in two seconds,
I really don't know. I know some that do, but we will
|j certainly need to know because the question was: is this
I] reasonable for all hazardous waste.
I think the regulation I've just discussed and
the equivalency, as part of the regulation, will cover incin-
erators and allow a system whereby those that are adequate
will be able to continue to burn, incinerate hazardous waste,
'] and those that are not adequate, won't.
22 !{ MODERATOR LINDSEY: Can I add to that?
" !| It's apparent to me, from that question and from
i' a couple more that I've got here, that the basic principle
! here did not come through to everyone. Maybe just taking a
21
-------
169
1 j! few more seconds to expand on that might help.
i|
The basic standard is the primary standard. This
is,if you will, a fenceline ambient standard of goal. We've
used those kinds of terms -- this will be so many parts per
million of the OSHA standards or drinking water standards,--
those kinds of goals.
Then there's what the group here calls by various
names, I think the one that's being used primarily tonight
is a recommended standard. I'm not sure that wording will
fly permanently, but the idea is that these are design and
operating standards, primarily, which we know,through research
will meet the fenceline standards, the ambient, the baseline
the benchmark standards which are the primary standards.
We know that if you use this kind of technology,
you will meet those standards.
Therefore, if you use that kind of technology, you
will, in effect, get a permit without a great deal of pain.
On the other hand, if you don't want to or are
unable to, for whatever reason, follow those design operating
standards, you are welcome to propose to the Agency a differ-
ent design and operating process.
All you've got to do is show that you will, in fact,
meet the benchmark primary standards, that is the fenceline
standards.
So, maybe that's helpful. I hope.
-------
170
MR. BEARD: The OSHA, in fact, has 600 standards,
you might say, for each of the air contaminants. Of course,
they don't enforce that uniformly in every place there are
workers. There aren't 600 air monitors in the building to
ensure that the workers here are within the standards.
It has to be a selective type of process. So, as
far as being able to prove, it would have to be based upon
the kind of wastes that you would most probably be handling
and the kind of facility you have.
The primary standard, or air objective, is somewhat -
it's an objective for each of the media, because the Act
> reads -- as the Act is written for 3004-- it's performance
i standards to protect public health and environment. It's
clearly a best practical technology alone, somply would not,
ii alone, protect human health and environment in regulatory
ifi <
I mode.
I Our next question was: What is your source for
1S i! *•
—3 | saying benzine is a proven carcinogen?
m '!
Well, I have it right here on one of these cards.
•10 '
IJ Benzine has a TLV of one part per million. Because
21 ';
I of it, it is considered a carcinogen. Would a hazardous waste
j' •
! facility -- I just read the card.
!' As far as it being proven a carcinogen, we might use
24 i
! the NIOSH data to see what they say and review that.
n
25 !
|j Another question is: Can incineration temperature
-------
-Ill
IB
It'
19
20
21
22
of 1,000 degrees C. be obtained using coal as a fuel,
recommended by Carter's energy group?
—\ 1 ! MR. SCHUAM: I have a question: Explain further
the 10,000 miligram per litre TDS standard.
We are defining usual aquifers as those aquifers
_ i|
~ i: which have less than 10,000 miligrams per litre of total
* f dissolved solids. The approach that we're taking is that
ji
;) i] we are only protecting those aquifers which are considered
'" usable.
h
11 || The question goes on: What is this basis?
'" '! This was taken from the underground injection regu-
,i lations that are proposed under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
14 ,i They got it from their Act. It was specifically mandated in
' the Act from Congress that they use this 10,000 miligram per
litre definition.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: I think that's close, John.
Just so there's no misunderstanding. It came, as I understand
it, not directly in the Act but under the legislative history
of the Act where Congress explained what they mean by various
things.
So, while I don't think that 10,000 parts per millior
l! is stated specifically in the Act, it was Congress" intent
24 i!
I that that be the criteria for usable versus non-usable drinkirg
25 |
i| water.
-------
I£ there is an agreement between UIC, they mean
the underground injection standards group, and the RCRA group
on pits, ponds, and lagoons, can the public be appraised of
this agreement, presumably a policy memorandum at EPA by
seeing its publication in the Federal. Register?
I don't think there's ever really been any dis-
j!
1 |! agreement within the agency on the regulation of hazardous
8 i' waste in pits, ponds, and lagoons under RCRA.
;l ;i The disagreement as I remember it, was largely
'" 'I whether or not those pits, ponds, and lagoons which do not
1 ; contain hazardous waste would be handled in which way.
l~ ' But, the point is that the decision for this --
M "
,; Well, I should back up a minute.
11 i Since the Act was passed, we have been moved from
_)'' !| the office of Air and Waste Management, to the Office of
, Water and Hazardous Materials, which places us in the same
: basic office with the Office of Water Program Operations --
:| that's the construction grant people, and the Office of
a ! £
—>j ' Water Planni-ig and Standards, which is the Affluent guidelines
people, and also with the Office of Water Supply, which means
that we both have the same boss.
In the end, he makes that decision. I'm pretty
|! sure the decision h?s been made. We will be permitting these
facilities, as far as I understand it.
'^ ''
- Relative to the Federal Register, can the public be
-------
-7*
in
—7
ii
12
13
U
In
173
appraised?
First of all, I don't think there's anybody on this
staff that's really absolutely sure that the decision has been
made. There are those in our office that have been involved
(.ffxj-tixndL)
in that, but they don't happen to be here tonight.
If we could, we would appraise you right now. As
far as I know, the decision has been made and I'm thereby
appraising you.
Being in the Federal Register. I doubt that kind
of thing would be publishable in the Federal Register.
Here's one that I'm going to delay addressing until
tomorrow: What will be the fate -- Well, basically, it deals
with the permit granting operation. The particular question
has to do with the existing facilities and how they will be
handled with regard to permits.
That really is a permitting question and we're going
to discuss that in a great deal of detail, and the question
is such thatlcan't address it with a simple answer. So, I'll
put that off until tomorrow morning and we'll take that up
then.
Here again are some questions which lead me to believe
that the discussio'i I had concerning the primary standards,
and the design standards if you will, is not fully understood, j
How can you write a uniform distance of 10 to the -8
centimeters per second, or ten foot standard for the entire
-------
LZ4.
U.S. when geologic conditions are variable?
The basic standard is the drinking water standard
which says that as the result of operating a facility of this
nature you can't degrade the ground water of a usable aquifer
beyond what would otherwise be rtecessary -- beyond drinking
water standards, if you will?
That's the basic fenceline standard. Now, the 10
to the -8 and ten foot is a design standard. If you meet
that standard, you will get a permit. If you doa't meet that
j standard, you can't meet that standard, or would rather meet
i
11 [
!| some other standard, whatever, you can show to the satisfactior
19 i
i of the permit granting official that the operation that you
w :!
; have, or would like to have, is not going to exceed the
•y ' Drinking water standards, as it were. That is the basic
benchmark standard.
Hi i
; What happens if an existing lined pond is not the
I minimum distance from the ground water?
Agai'i, this is the same kind of question. It's an
n '
existing pond, but it doesn't meet the design standard which
'2(}
is ten to the -8 and ten feet, or ten feet. Then, you're
21 :>
i going to have to show to the satisfaction of the permit
22
i; granting official -- and this is going to be rattier involved
where there's hydrogeology involved, I would expect -- that
there is no possibility for exceeding the ground water standards
Section 3004, as applied to pre-existing facilities
-------
175
l | both out of use and in use, can they be required to be
ii
1 I relocated, redesigned, et cetera? Whatabout the economics
> \', of all this? Would the regs take economics into account?
i ii Pre-existing facilities, those that have already
!
"i ;i been closed down -- I've already been mentioned that we're
i
i; ] not quite sure how they fit into this act as the result of
j
~ ' a last minute, or recently received verbal opinion. And that,
fc " we've got to get a formal opinion.
i|
'•> j Obviously, economics and difficulties are involved
111 |, with that. So, I can't give you an answer to that.
11 I; Existing facilities which are in use, the answer
l- , is clearly yes. They must have a permit, and if they do not
n S>
j 'I meet the standard, they are going to have to be redesigned
11 ;i or they'll go out of use. It's that easy.
What about the economics of all this? Will the
; regs take the economics into account?
] Yes. We are doing economic and also environmental
1
i impact statements on the regulations which we re preparing.
'
| That will be addressed tomorrow, the procedures which we're
using.
1 So, yes, economics will be involved, but you must
remember now that the basic charge that we have is protection
of public health in the environment. Within our ability to
protect public health in the environment, other things will
be considered, including economics, but we must do that.
-------
1 Ij That's what the charge from Congress is.
2 I1 MR. TRASK: I have one here which is partially relatec
i|
•' Ij to another section that also involves small generators. So,
• I1 I think we might start it tonight and finish it tomorrow.
i
' ; The question is can the permitting agency or other
fi
" j local control agency ban small generators from certain land-
7 'I fills even if they have hazardous waste?
" , The basic answer to that is yes, they can because
9 'i the permitting agency or the other local control agency will
11 ', have the control over the -- I assume that they're referring
here to the municipal sanitary landfill or the RCRA, 1980
sanitary landfill.
Control for that will exist with the local group.
The basic standards, at least the first time through when
EPA did this a few years ago, the standards clearly said that:
hazardous waste should be excluded from such landfills.
So,the authority does exist there to do that.
The second part of this question: Or, does this
become too stringent for a state permit system to be approved?
I think that the answer to that would probably be
it would not be too stringent. I think EPA, basically, would
want to approve that, or would be inclined to approve such
a situation. But that may addressed at greater length under
3006 regs.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: The question is: If the principall
-------
12
177
concern of the Act is performance standards, why not leave
the training to private industry management as long as
performance is met?
Well, it was my impression that is pretty much what
we were doing. It is my impression that we were, in fact,
leaving the training provisions up to industry themselves
to determine and that the only thing -- we're not certifying
training and we're only requiring some proof that training
is being done in certain areas, that the nature of the train-
ing will even help industry, is that correct?
MR. SCHAUM: Yes. The direct nature and duration
of the training would have to be approved by the permitting
agency, and the only requirement that we have is that it be
u . on an, annual basis,that it include contingency plans.
J'' ji MODERATOR SANJOUR: I have a fouigjiart question here
'lf, ij
j| and I'm going to answer one and four and give you the other
|| two.
I s
H Number one is: Will the state be responsible for
ground water protection?
|l The answer is, if the state has its own program,
: then it will be responsible; otherwise, the government will
""' I1 be.
Number four: There are several established procedures
'4 I
i; for developing air quality standards. Why should you addi-
l tional slipshod method be imposed on top of the Clean Air Act?
-------
_178
Well, I'm sure that our friends in Research Triangle
Park will be pleased to know that you don't think their
methods are slipshod.
The Act requires -- let's review what the Act calls
for. It calls for standards to protect human health and the
environment, under Section 3004. Under Section 3005, it
calls for permits to be granted which use those standards uiide
3004.
In other words, EPA has to write a permit to all
facilities which dispose of hazardous waste. E?A has to issue
.1 permit. That ipermit has to guarantee to the people who
live :iext door to that facility, that that facility will
protect their health and their environment.
Now, we're talking about hazardous waste facilities.
We know that they have -- such facilities -- hj've lagoons
which contain every kind of volatile material known to man,
manufactured by man, which contain the whole gamut of noxious
and poisonous things that can be admitted into the environment
And, we know that such facilities will incinerate
hazardous wastes generating all kinds of noxious posionous
vapors. We know that. They're doing it today. Anything from
e
phosgene to dioxin to vinyl chloride to benzine, carcinogens
and toxic materials.
Now, EPA has to protect human health and environ-
ment and issue permits to such facilities telling the people
-------
179
it
1 j living next to such facilities that their human health and
- !i environment are being protected. How can we possibly do that
i
! i with a list of only six toxic or hazardous wastes which are
: I presently promulgated under the Clean Air Act when there are
1 ii hundreds of such materials, perhaps even thousands.
" j The simple answer is, the Clean Air Act simply does
1 v not regulate anywhere near enough hazardous materials. Sooner
s i or later they will, I suppose. But, in the meantime, I don't
' ' see how we can issue permits to protect the human health
' , and environment without regulating most of these hazardous
11 ' materials, otherwise any citizen living next to a facility
J^ •' which is emitting, let's say, benzine or vinyl chloride --
• well, vinyl chloride is regulated now -- phosgene, could
1 ,. simply go to court and under a citizen's suit have the facility
i closed down because it's emitting a known hazardous material.
We have to regulate them. I don't see what alter-
native we have.
That's a long answer, I'm sorry.
The next question is: Due to the way that 94^580
was introduced and passed by the Congress, how can you say
there was a legislative history?
Good question. Obviously the person who asked the
question knows something about how PL 94j(580 was passed. It
was a very peculiar act in the way it was passed. It was
almost done surreptitiously, over a weekend.
-------
180
There's no legislative history in Che formal sense,
2 ! There was no joint committee of the two houses which met
I
3 | end wrote up a legislative history, because there was no
joint committee.
But, there is a legislative history in this sense:
There were hearings held by both houses of Congress, so that
a great many issues -- one could look at the legislative
history and know that certain issues were addressed. There j
were testimony on it. You can't say that Congress was ignorant
of this, that or the other fact. In fact, they had hearings
on that subject. So, there's a legislative history in that
sense.
Also, in both houses, or in the Congressional Record
when the bill was introduced on the floor, there was several
pages of testimony given by the sponsor of the bill. So,
there's a legislative history in that sense.
There is some legislative history, although not the
usual kind.
The next question is: For zero discharge from
storage containers, does this mean no detectable discharge?
This would seem reasonable since EPA cannot enforce
standards less than the limit of detectability. If yes, does
this mean that design standards will keep changing with improv
ment in detection technology?
I would give that answer as yes, and let me read
-------
181
what the Act says.
The term disposal -- this is disposal and not dis-
charge, or storage -- the term disposal means that the dis-
charge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or
placing of hazardous wastes, et cetera, et cetera.
Notice the words leaking, discharging, dumping and
spilling. We're talking about the emissions into the environ-
ment.
It says -- any wastes into the land or water such
that solid wastes or hazardous wastes or any constituent
thereof, may not enter the environment -- may enter the enviror
ment, beg your pardon, or be emitted into the air by discharge
into any waters including ground water.
In other words, the term "disposal" is defined as
emissions into the environment. That's what disposal means.
i
'' i1 Now, the term storage is defined in the Act -- the
]" |i term storage, when used in connection with hazardous wastes,
]" ' means the containment of hazardous wastes, even on a temporary
11 basiij or for a period of years in such manner as to not con-
20 stitutc disposal.
Now, if disposal means emission into the environment
and storage means containment so as not to constitute disposal
then our reading means zero discharge. That's what storage
means under the Act.
So, I guess the answer would be, as far as I can tel
-------
is that the law says that design standards would have to keep
changing with improvements in detection technology. That's
how ~L read the Act.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Can a disposal operator utilize
alternate but permitted disposal locations or procedures not
specified by the generator in the disposal contract?
The contract, as worked out between the generator
and the disposer, is up to the two of them. The disposer
can do with the waste, as far as RCRA is concerned, anything
that he's permitted to do with the waste.
Now, if the generator has him under contract to do
12 a specific thing with it, then that's between the two of them,
13 it doesn't enter under RCRA.
14 A disposer may have a variety of different options
15 wihin his process that he can use whichever ones he's permitted
lfi to use for that kind of waste.
17 Will the ultimate ownership and responsibility for
j disposal sites be regulated or specified?
!
ls il I'm not sure I understand this but I'll give it a
try at what I think it means.
Does that mean —if I'm interpreting this question--
that EPA will or will not approve all changes in ownership,
or specify changes in ownership, or that kind of thing?
The answer is no. The regulations will not do that.
The owners of facilities, whoever the owners are, will be
-------
183.
bound by the standards. Otherwise, they'd lose their permit.
Will the generator continue to have responsibility
for the waste, and if so, for how long?
Under RCRA, if a generator properly follows all the
procedures that a generator has to follow, which is starting
the manifest and providing adequate information and accurate
information, et cetera, et cetera, all the way down the line,
and a problem develops somewhere which is the fault, or caused
by somebody other than the generator -- the transporter or
disposer, or treater, or whoever -- then the generator is
not going to be liable for anything under RCRA. He's done
everything correctly. He's provided accurate information.
On the other hand, under common law, RCRA doesn't
relieve anybody of anything under common law, which holds
that if your waste, as a generator, ends up damaging somebody
through no fault of your own, you may be still sued.
The question will be what that reasonable prudent
man, called a judge, will think of all this. RCRA really
doesn't address the common law issue.
So, the answer is that in terms of that, the answer
is you will probably never get rid of all the liability.
MR. BEARD: How will EPA monitor for violation of
air regulations?
The regulations are essentially performance standards
25
emission standards to be applied to the facility. They're
10
11
12
13
14
].")
Ifi
17
19
20
21
22
23
-------
184
i| not ambient standards, so we wouldn't be monitoring around
i!
the facility. So, therefore, we wouldn't be monitoring it.
MR. SCHAUM: Will requirements for a leachate
collection, or ten to -8 centimeters per second permeabilit}'
be applicable to land farms?
The answer to that is no. We are putting together
some design recommendations for land farms and they do not
include the 10 to -8 requirement.
We haven't decided exactly what they will be, but
they will not be a liner type of design requirement for land
farms.
There's moj-e to this. The question goes on to ask:
Will it be applicable to conventional -- Will 10 to -8
permeability recommendation to applicable to conventional
land farms where waste is merely stored?
Yes. Any landfill which receives hazardous waste.,
that is our recommendation for the design, it's either 10 to
-8, or leachate collection, whether it's being used for
disposal or storage.
One more: How will EPA monitor for compliance with
ground water regulations?
Facilities that have potential for ground water
"' '! pollution in our usuable aquifers, will have to have some
'i form of ground water monitoring.
~' , Let's say it's a landfill that uses the leachate
-------
185
collection recommendation, they have a leachate collection
ii
2 j design. They will have to have a lycimeter system installed
i ,i underneath and ground water wells adjacent to the site.
i ,; Since a leachate system is essentially a containment
i(
"i system, if any leak is detected, then that system is not
working a-id it would be considered a violation.
" MR. BEARD: I don't think I answered this one question
'•* i adequately. How will EPA monitor violations of air regulations
M ' The answer -- the question after that was there
''' ' are federal established procedures for developing air quality
11 ;| standards, why should this additional slip shod method --
'-' ! MODERATOR SANJOUR: I've answered that one.
i
11 i MR. BEARD: I could have pulled the question out of
14 context.
11 I How would EPA monitor for violations of air regu-
1(1 'i lations?
1 . For one, we're not requiring facilities to monitor
i the ambient air. The question was will EPA monitor, and that
14 may be to ensure that the standards are to be met, perhaps
-_s' . by the _air branch of that portion of the monitoring technology
21 >; part of EPA.
" I think maybe it gets back to the question somebody
! asked earlier: Do the air pollution regs address odor problems
And, it's clear that one of the biggest problems
around hazardous facilities is the odor problem, and this
-------
186
OSHA divided by ten, being able to monitor, for many of the
pollutants, at least, begins to set standards for those
pollutants that are part of the odor problem.
The public around such facilities might want to know
what some of the contaminants in the air are, and if not a
rendering plant, they can, at least, identify this isn't the
kind of contaminant that might not have any effect on the
public health.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: I just have one question which
focuses on the same issue, and that is: Do you anticipate
self-reporting for air quality?
Well, I think by now it should be clear that we
don't anticipate measuring air quality at all, directly. That.
the standard we have on air quality if a design standard;not
a standard that will be monitored against the most part,
except in rare exceptions when people want to do it. It's
a very fenceline standard.
We anticipate that air quality will be controlled
by design standards and equipment standards. That the air
quality will be monitored by monitoring that the design
standards and equipment standards are being met, not by
monitoring the air.
Perhaps we ought to just close this up and not say
any more because I think we may be confusing people more than
we are enlightening them.
-------
187
MODERATOR LINDSEY: We have a question which
deals with a Section 208 requirements -- that's the regional
planning requirements under the Federal Water Pollution Contro
Act. Unfortunately, our expert in this area really isn't here
tonight, but we have a fellow who is familiar with it and
he will try to address it. This is Matt Straus of our staff.
MR. STRAUS: The question is: how does the FWPCA
208 program relate to RCRA's control, specifically as relates
to pits, pondj and lagoons?
Basically, as I understand it, 208 is strictly a
planning process. That is they a?:e to plan water quality
mangement and that will include both solid and hazardous waste
Now, if a state wants to take over the program,
and these planning agencies are strictly state planning agenci
if the state wants to take over the program, the 208 agency
may be the agency in charge of administering the hazardous
waste program, depending on who in the state -- the governor
or other entity choses to take that position.
But, an far as I'm aware of, 208 has no implementa-
tion powers. They are strictly a planning agency. They plan
water quality and management.
Chuck, did you want to say something?
MODERATOR LINDSEY: This is Chuck Bourns from our
.regional office in Region IX, who I also think is familiar
with 208 processes.
-------
188
II
i;
jj
;! MR. BOURNS: If you think you're confused now, wait;
'!
;i until I get through.
Subtitle B of RCRA calls for a couple of things.
One is designation of planning areas, and the other is the
I, designation of agencies which will both do planning and imple-
j
; mentation.
Along further in the same subsection, it says the
i 208 agencies may be designated as the planning-implementation
j agencies if it turns out that they have this power.
' Well, the only way a 208 agency can get the power
| to implement is to have a joint powers agreement or something
,' like that with the entities within the boundaries, for which
they do planning.
'I So, I would think, and I'm pretty sure, that a 208
ji agency will not be designated to do the planning unless they
; have some kind of agreement with the entities within their
!> planning boundaries to do the implementation.
is i
i: Now, planning calls for both hazardous and non-
19 >
i| hazardous wastes, so that, I think, is a relation of 208
^0 !|
j planning to the hazardous waste portion of the Act.
21 jl MODERATOR LINDSEY: Thank you, Chuck.
2<> '!
!j Will guidelines call for a zero discharge for
2i '
I storage?
94 '
11 Not the standards, but in the guidelines that call
25 !
for that. It's really the Act, as we interpret it,that require
-------
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that.
As Bill Sanjour mentioned a few minutes ago, the
definition in the Act for disposal indicates that disposal
constitutes any activity where the waste is placed in or on
;|
" il the land where a constituent of that material or waste enters
il
<> I] the environment in some way. That is, it leaches or comes
off into the air.
Whereas storage, on the other hand in the Act,says
when used in connection with hazardous wastes, means the
containment of hazardous wastes, in such a manner as not to
constitute disposal.
To us, that means that storage is zero discharge
1 i| in all cases, and disposal is the action of placing it in or
i) on the land so that some constituent may enter the environ-
;| ment.
Then there's a statement here which I will read into
the record which says: If so, it could make -- if zero
discharge is required for storage, which we say is the case,
based on the Act, then it could make recovery from storage
uneconomic and encourage disposal rather than recovery of
hazardous waste.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: Perhaps I should comment on that.
|;
] You have to distinguish between the english language
!
II use of the word "disposal and storage" and the legal use of
i
the word. What you may be currently calling storage, we can
-------
just change in the Act and call disposal, and you just keep
on doing the same thing. We just change the word. We don't:
have to change the actually events.
MR. TRASK: In relation to the earlier question that
Bill responded to on this same subject, I think it's important
to note that even though technology may change and the base
of zero discharge may change, it also is the responsibility
0 ;] of EPA to review each regulation every three years and change
i it, and that would seem to provide appropriate vehicle for
catching upwith those new developments in technology as we
<'< go along here.
1 MR. SCHAUM: I have a question: In the development
LI '|
, of RCRf protection of ground water standards and regulations-,
have you relied, to any substantial extent, on the New Mexico's
1 State recently promulgated ground water protection regs?
We've only recently received these regs and there's
not time to use them in the development of the draft regs
that we have now. So, they were not used in those.
However, we will take and review them and will look
for a:iy application they might have.
If anyone has any specific suggestions as to how
they might be used, Gee me afterwards.
What recommendations arc you contemplating regarding
disposal of leachate collection from hazardous wastes in land- j
fill sites?
-------
191
Our current draft regs do not really recommend
any technologies for treating collected leachate. The basic
environmental objectives for the disposal and treatment of
them would still apply, but we do not have any recommended
operating design procedures for the treatment of it.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: Please define facility? Is it
t
(a) a single process unit, (b) an integrated contiguous
unit, (c) an integrated non-contiguous unit?
Well, when we came to this meeting, it was (b);
that is, an integrated contiguous unit. Several people have
raised the question they would prefer it to be (c): that is,
an integrated non-contiguous unit.
We're going to take that suggestion into advisement
and take it home with us and Harry Trask is going to rethink
the whole issue.
You have indicated that RCRA will have jurisdiction
over its ponds aad lagoons. Does this mean that the Safe
Drinking Water Act will not apply to pits, ponds, and lagoons?
Well, I think we've indicated that RCRA will have
jurisdiction over pits, ponds and lagoons containing hazardous
wastes under Subtitle C.
The Safe Drinking Water Act may, indeed, still have
a role, and I'm not exactly sure what that role is, but it
does not include pits, ponds, and lagoons containing hazardous
wastes.
-------
-U12-,
8
How do you reconcile EPA's mandate for protecting
human health and the environment from insult from waste
Cot-He.
disposal with Mr. Costel s stated intention of encouraging
sewage sludge disposal -- havey metals, pathogens and all,
on farm land?
Well, it's precisely our job to make that recon-
ciliation, and that is we ought to write standards by which
sewage sludge can be disposed on farm land in such a way as
9 ; to not insult the human health and environment.
' ' ;! In other words, we're going to write a standard
i
1 i we're presently doing it, for just that very thing, so that
12 'i
! sewage sludge which meets our standards, which is used to
1 grow crops, will not damage the environment.
14 i MODERATOR LINDSEY: That presupposes, of course,
!' that sewage sludge will be a hazardous waste. I think it is
'', clear that some sewage sludges will be. I'm not sure it's
' clear that all sewage sludge will be a hazardous waste.
1
'! MODERATOR SANJOUR: Under Subtitle D of the Act,
| standards will also be written for all sewage sludges, not
!! just for hazardous wastes.
2! '!
i! MODERATOR LINDSEY: We have one more question which
;i)
;• Mr. Sanjour is addressing here and we'll look at in a minute.
Let me ask if there's any questions from the floor.
i
-1
i Does anybody want to give us a question from the floor?
25 ,',
MR. DYER: My name is Robert Dyer and I'm with
-------
u
193
the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority.
Back to air. I don't know o£ anywhere that there's
enough data to where you can get any design criteria for
proper air. If you have any data on air quality around
landfills, or hazardous waste disposal, or land farming
for petroleum products, I'd like to see it. I do'i't know
what you're -- We're trying to design something right now,
and if you've got aay data on that I'd sure as hell like-to
see it. I don't know of any,
And, if you're talking about this one part per
million -- not you, but OSHA, they're talking about one part
e.
K per million of benz_ine, that's not very much. And, if you
have one gallon of gasoline, it's not very hard to get one
fi-
parts per million of benzene in a 90 degree Texas sun, if
you happen to break a can out there, which you should do befor^
you put it into the ground, I think. At least, our agency
would make us do that.
I don't know of any data that you've got on that
and if that is a design criteria that you're supposed to have,
not monitoriag, do you have data like that now?
MODERATOR SANJOUR: Well, it's basically the respon-
sibility of the person applying for a permit to supply the
data, not the responsibility of the permitting agency to
supply the data for your permit application.
I mean, we're supplying the standards and it's up
j
-------
„
.
il
to you to supply the data on whether or not it meets the
•^ !| standards.
.! 'i MR. DYER: I thought you were designing an operating,
i . criteria?
T \- MODERATOR SANJOUR: We will.
MR. DYER: The criteria that we're supposed to meet.
MODERATOR SANJOUR: We will.
For those situations that we have design criteria
'» ; on, we will promulgate those, and if your permit application
;| fits that bill, then all you have to do is follow our design
i
il criteria. That's correct.
' But, if you wish to do something which is beyond
what we have in design criteria, then the burden of proof is
: on you, the applicant.
n Now, as far as land farming goes, as you know, the
ii whole subject is very new. Nobody has much data. We don't.
i What little date we have, we will certainly make available
! to anyone to use; but we certainly don't have enough to cover
,| most of the situations that are going on, especially in Texas.
i Basically what it boils down to for land farming,
I until we get more data, is that people who are applying for
•; land farming permits will supply the data. As they supply
i data, their data will be incorporated as ours. We will
I:
i adopt it and use it.
' If we grant a permit to somebody based on certain
-------
195
data, then someone else using the same situation can then
'•i ' come along and get a permit for the same situation. We won't
•' [j have to reprove it over and over again.
• i But, it's a new subject. What can we do?
T !] There's another question here that -- Did you want
i; | to answer that?
" j! MR. BEARD: Yes. I just want to say that I'm glad
t* I1 you brought that up. You are showing how really difficult
ij
'' |! it is for setting air standards.
"' ; MR. DYER: Well, this is a whole new deal.
i
:i | I mean our State -- other than the air report,
[- and we know what their rules are --
M :i MR. BEARD: I think you can understand it.
14 '! MR. DYER: Yes.
:° ; MODERATOR SANJOUR: How about a written question.
! If odor is not to be covered as for public protect-
!! ion, will performance standards be satisfactory?
Well, odor is not really a health issue, and the
i law does say human health and the environment. It is an
' environmental issue. It has traditionally not been regulated
by EPA because EPA does >iot know how to regulate it in any
),
i way that EPA can handle.
We-don't know of any way to do it that doesn't
involve human noses, which doesn't make for a very good
federal regulation. Therefore, the traditional policy of EPA
-------
196
is to leave the regulation of odor to local authorities
and the nuisance laws and to just keep out of the subject
and we're not going to change that policy for this Act.
That's what it amounts to.
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Any other questions from the
floor:
MR. BAKER: I'm Don Baker. I work for Titanium
Metals Corppration out of Henderson, Nevada and I would like
9 to elude a little more here to clarify -- In other words,
10 when you develop these design criteria, they will prevent—
11 for the degradation of the health and environment from s.
12 solid waste disposal. Is that basically what you said?
13 MR. SANJOUR: We are doing research on different
14
disposal techniques and as we do research on a specific
lc) technique and we learn that the technique is environmentally
adequate, 'we will promulgate that technique.
Yes. When we promulgate that technique, we will
be saying, essentially that this will protect human health
and the environment under the meaning of this Act if ypu
9Q
follow this technique.
21
But the ones that we are able to promulgate at this
22
time will certainly not cover the broad range of disposal
23
techniques that are available.
24 MR. BAKER: Right.
25
What you're saying is that if we follow your
-------
1 guidelines, then, we will be protecting the health and
2 the environment?
3 MODERATOR SANJOUR: That's correct.
4 MK. riAKER: Okay.
I assume -that under this you are developing data
6 along with these guidelines?
7
MODERATOR SANJOUR: That's correct.
8 MR. BAKER: Is there a possibility that the general
q
public, the industry, can obtain this data as you develop
10 it?
MODERATOR SANJOUR: Everything we know is available.
12 MR. BAKER: Okay.
13
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Other questions from the floor?
14
Then, I'm going to ask the two folks that have
indicated that they'd like to make a public statement con-
16
cerning the overall -- make a prepared statement relative to
17
the overall act, I would like to ask them if they want to
18
do that at this time?
19
Mr. Larsen?
20
MR. LARSEN: I'm going to do it in writing.
21
MODERATOR LINDSEY: You're going to do it in writing
22
instead of --
23
MR. LARSEN: When I'm less angry.
24
MODERATOR LINDSEY: Mr. Von Weidlein, Solid Waste
25
Recycling Corporation?
-------
198
Not here? 0); ;•.
We'll try dim again tomorrow.
Okay. Is there any other final questions on
Section 3004?
(No response.)
MODERATOR LINDSEY: We will then recess this until
tomorrow morning at 8:30 o'clock, when we'll begin with
the discussion of the permit operations, and then go into
the state programs, the notification, the environmental
and economic impact analysis and conclude with a discussion
of case examples.
Thank you very much.
('..'hereupon, at 8:30 o'clock p.m. the meeting was
recessed to reconvene at 8:30 o'clock a.ra. the following day,
October 18, 1977 at this same place.)
-------
RESOURCES T^ RECOVERY
SOLID WASTE RECYCLING CORPORATION
Corporate Offices
October 17, 1977
TO: Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D C 20460
FROM: C C von Weidlein
REFERENCE: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 -
Public La-w 94-580
SUBJECT: Request that ALL SQLIDWASTE5 be classified as HAZARDOUS
In many cases a cease and desist order should be
issued at once.
and to ELIMINATE the ILLEGAL acts of all those violators
World Trade Center, San Francisco, Ca 94111 • (415)397-8797
-------
-------
251
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2
3
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING
ON
SUBTTTLE C OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
9
10
11
12
13 j Safari Hotel
Convention Center
14 4611 North Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, Arizona
October 18, 1977
8i30 A.M.
22 ALFRED W. LItlDSEY, Chief
Implementation Branch, HHMD
23 Office of Solid Waste, EPA
24 WILLIAM SAW JOUR, Chief
Assessraent and Technology Branch, HWMD
25 Office of Solid Waste, EPA
-------
252
PAGE
Opening Remarks by Mr. William Sanjour 253
Remarks by Mr. Sara Morekas, Program Manager,
Assistance Program, Implementation Branch,
HWMD, Office of Solid Waste, EPA 254
Questions to the Panel 264
Recess 308
Remarks by Mr. Hatt Straus, Environmental Engineer,
Assistance Program, Implementation Branch,
IIWMD, Office of Solid Waste, EPA 309
Question to the Panel 321
Luncheon recess 352
AFTERNOON SESSION
Remarks by Mr. Lindsay 353
Remarks by Mr. Timothy Fields, Program Manager,
Technology Program, Assessment and
Technology Branch, IIWMD, Office of Solid
Waste, EPA 354
Questions to the Panel 369
Comments by Mr. Alan Gray, Public Participant 387
Remarks by Mr. Michael Shannon, Program Manager,
Policy Analysis Program, Implementation
Branch, HWMD, Office of Solid Waste, EPA 390
Questions to the Panel 399
Remarks by Mr. Lindsay and the Panel, and questions
from the floor on Case Examples Under
Subtitle C 407
Adjournment 430
-------
253
PROCEEDINGS
1 =
MR. SANJOURi We are about to reconvene
2
the second day's meeting of the Resource Conservation and
3
Recovery Act.
4
I am William San-jour of the EPA. On my
5
right is Fred Lindsay, and on my left is Alan Corson.
6 7
As you will recall from yesterday, the
7
way we will proceed is to have someone from our staff give
8
a briefing on a section of the Act, and then we will enter-
9
tain prepared statements not exceeding five minutes on that
10
section; then, written question, which we will answer hore.
11
And, if time permits, we will have oral questions from the
12
floor.
13
Today we are going to discuss Sections 3005
14
and 3006 and 3010; the first two before lunch, the latter
15
after lunch, and then, in the afternoon, we're going to do
16
something which we've experimented with before, and that ia
go through several case examples of how the Act might be
18
implemented so as to better illustrate the things we've
19
been discussing for the past day.
20
With that, let me kick off the 3005 session
21
that will be given by Mr. Sam Morekas. Mr. Morekas is the
22
Program Manager for -— what's the official title, Sam?
23
MR. LINDSEY: Assistance Program.
24
MR. SANJOUR: Which is the program that deals
25
-------
-7
15
16
17
j!8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
254
with — that is our window to industry and to the states,
and Sam has that program.
MR. MOHEKASt Thank you. Bill. Good morning.
The section that I am going to discuss this
Gn&&MM»Lur>\_
morning is Section 3005 of the Resource neouvury and
n Act - Permits for Treatment, Storage or
of Hazardous Waste.
1 will follow the same procedure that the
speakers yesterday followed; that is, to describe briefly
the contents of the section, to cover some of the important
features of our proposed regulations, and than to discuss
some of the unresolved issues that are still pending.
The first subsection, 3005 (a) of the section,
requires or authorizes the administrator to promulgate
regulations requiring each person owning or operating a
facility for the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous
waste to have a permit. These regulations, just like you
hear
-------
255
Section 3005(c) authorizes the Adninistrator
or a state, if applicable, to issue or to modify permits
in compliance with the requirements of Section 3004 Stan-
3
dards that wore discussed yesterday evening.
4
For any modification as to permits, the
5
permit shall indicate the amount of time allowed for a
6
facility to complete the modifications.
Section 3005 (d) authorizes the Administrator
8 £^U#£*J)
to revoke a permit for nonconpliance with the standards
'9 **
issued under Section 3004 or for any noncorepliance with
Section 3005 regulations.
Section 3005 (e) is the authority given to
grant interim status to existing facilities. Now, there
are three requirements that existing facilities must meet
14
in order to obtain the interim status. One is that they
15
must have been in existence prior to the passage of the
Act on October 21, 1976; must have complied with the noti-
17
fication requirements, required under Section 3010, which
18
will be discussed this afternoon; and must have applied
for a permit under this section. Section 3005.
20
Now, these facilities will be considered as
21
having a permit until administrative disposition of their
22
application is nade.
23
That concludes the brief outline of what
24
Section 3005 requires.
-------
256
How the prospective content of our regula-
fci nnn j
2
1
tionsi
One of the first things we are attempting
O
to do is to integrate requirements of this section of the
Act for permits with other acts that may be interfacing
5
with RCRA, and I think we discussed some of these briefly
6
yesterday. They include the Federal Hater Pollution Control
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the
8
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticicte Act, and
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, which
is commonly referred to as the Ocean Disposal Act.
How, we are, as I say, working with the
appropriate offices of EPA that have responsibility for
those Acts in order to develop the specific language that
14
will clarify the procedures and will avoid wherever possible
duplication in the various conflicting permit requirements.
Another requirement of the regulations is
,. that all sites that treat, stora or dispose of hazardous
lo
waste, whether on site - that is the site of generation -
or off site, will require permits.
Now we have developed some current thinking
on facilities that will be excluded from these requirements,
22
and we'll cover these briefly.
23
First that we feel will be excluded are thosie
24
sanitary landfills that do not accept manifested waste, as
-------
257
1 discussed yesterday tinder Section 3002.
, Hospitals or other health care facilities
3 that store on the premises or treat infectious waste}
4 that is, those facilities that do have on-site incinerators,
. pathological incinerators and the like, provided that these
D
g hospitals or health care facilities come under some form
of state regulation for the proper management of these
wastes - does not require a permit under this section.
And, as you heard yesterday, we're also
10 excluding from permits those storage facilities that store
n waste for less than 90 days.
12 We're also developing a category of permits
13 that we are calling special permits that will have reduced
requirements and will receive expedited handling by EPA.
At the moment, these are the following!
16 As you heard yesterday, I guess, we had quite
17 a discussion on the resource recovery facility, those
18 facilities that take in waste for material recovery, will
lg be receiving a special permit.
20 The sites that accept for storage or disposal
21 wastes that are the result of emergencies. I think we had
some discussion on that area. Those facilities that have
taken those wastes due to the emergency will be receiving
special permits after the occurrence.
And another category we have is the, what we
-------
258
call experimental facilities, facilities that may be coming
on line later, or someone wants to try something new to
advance the state of the art of hazardous waste treatment,
3
those will be receiving these special permits.
4
The regulations will require that all appli-
5
cations must contain sufficient information to insure efficient
6
and expedient determination by EPA. They will set time
limits for submission of applications and for EPA to act
8
on these applications. They will establish procedures for
9
maintaining confidentiality of any trade secret type of
10
information that the applicant will show in his application.
They will establish procedures for revoking
12
or for Modifying permits, insuring that all due process
1 3
considerations are met.
14
For existing facilities, a compliance
15
schedule will be developed - mutual agreement between the
IB
applicant and EPA - to insure that the site will reach or
17
meet the standards within a specified period of time. Our
18
current thinking is that this time will not exceed four
19
years for those existing facilities that must be brought
20
into compliance, and there is a provision for one extension
21
to be granted to those facilities to meet the standards.
22
The regulations will also impose conditions
23
in a permit to insure compliance with the standards of
24
Section 3004, and will provide opportunity for public
25
-------
259
participation during the permit-issuing process. Our
2 n current thinking is that the time that the public will have
3
13
18
to comment on pending applications will be during the same
II period that EPA is reviewing the applications. Opportunity
will be given for the public to review any data and to sub-
rait written comments to EPA prior to a tentative detemina-
b
II tion is made.
Once the Regional Administrator makes a
tentative determination to either issue or deny or modify
a permit, opportunity for public hearing will be given, and
a public hearing will be held after which the EPA will make
I, the final determination.
The regulations will also have provisions
II for an adjudicatory hearing if one is requested.
., n That's briefly the proposed content of the
15 ||
,,. regulations.
17 n How to some of the unresolved issues thai
we are still debating.
II One is more of a legal, I suppose, issue that
II we are trying to resolve on how to handle those facilities
„, n that came into being after October 21, 1976. As I indicated
I
II earlier, the law is pretty clear about existing facilities
prior to the passage of the Act, and this is kind of a
,, hiatus type of situation. Our current thinking is that we
24 |
will handle these facilities that came into being after
-------
260
October of '76 as though they existed prior to the passage
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
of the Act; in other words, treat them as existing facili-
ties.
Another issue deals with new facilities, we
are debating a two-step process for permits; that is, to
issue a construction permit when the application is approved
and then to have a separate permit which we call the operat-
ing permit to be issued after the facility has been con-
structed and is ready to go into operation.
The issue here is whether to do this which,
with the obvious implications of expanding the time that it
will take to get a facility in line, or to issue one permit
at the time that the application is approved.
1 o
We also have not resolved all the details
14
that we need to resolve in order to issue the special permit!
15
,„ that I indicated earlier for resource recovery facilities
ID
for experimental facilities and for the emergency — the
handling of the emergency type of waste.
lo
Also another issue deals with the potential
of having environmental impact statements required prior to
EPA1s issuing a permit. Those of you who are familiar with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 know what thei
22
implications of that requirement way be. That issue still
has not been resolved, whether Eis's will be needed'for nev
24
facilities.
25
-------
261
Another issue that is still up in the air
whether or not to issue what we call site of life per-
mits; that is, indefinite permits, or to have a finite
O
period indicated on the permit - in other words, requiring
4
permits to be renewed periodically. Currently we're think-
5
ing that we will go with the renewal type of permit, and we
6
are indicating a time frame of 10 years that the permits
7
will be issued and will have to be renewed at the completion
8
of the 10-year period.
9
10
11
12
13
ie
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That concludes my presentation. Back to you,
Bill.
MR. SANJOURi Thank you, Sam.
Before we proceed, I would like to introduce
the EPA £egional representatives who are here today, in case
you'd like to corner them during the break or lunch time.
15
From Region~5^7San Francisco, we have Jim
o Ombe*. 2Z
Stahler. Chuck Burns is also here. Rick teawr from Region *
in Dallas. Toby llogh^al from Region S3 in Seattle, and
TSL
Hank Schroder from Region "9 in Denver.
Is there anyone I missed?
(Ho response.)
'1R. SA11JOUR: Now, would anyone like to give
a formal presentation, or a statement rather, on Section 300
at this time? i; not, we'll take written questions on that
section. There are gentlemen on the aidelines passing out
-------
262
1 cards if you'd like to write up your questions.
MR. LIMDSEYi I have one left over rrom
yesterday, and I'll go ahead and handle that one while you
all are filling out the other cards.
4
What will be the fate or required actions of
5
existing hazardous waste facilities which have a condition
6
which cannot reasonably be brought into compliance?
Ten to the minus eight or ten-foot layer
8
or something like that is the example the person used nere.
Each facility that's going to continue operat-
ing will have to meet the standards. OK. Now, within the —
11
we do have some flexibility. To start with, for example,
any facility which has made application for permit and has
notified us that they are in existence will be deemed as
14
having a permit until EPA gets around to acting formally oil
15
the permit application.
16
Now, this is whether or not such a facility
17
now meets or may ever meet the standards, what that means
18
is that EPA — we expect, for example, some 20,000 applica-
19 , —^
"~=) tiona nationftwide for permits of some form or another -
20
treatment, storage or disposal - somewhere in that ball park
21
Now, it's going to take EPA a long time to go through that
22
many permits. As far as how long it will take will depend
23
on how many resources we have, how many people we have in th<
24
_•* regional offices, number one; and number two, it will depend
-------
263
on how many states are authorized to carry out the program.
So what I'm saying is that some of these
interim permits may exist for a long time. They're opan-
O
ended. There's no cut off, no one has to do anything
4
relative to an interim permit. ' It's been put into the Act
5
directly by Congress as a means of preventing the whole
6
system from coming to collapse while EPA tries to handle
all the permit applications. So, that's the first thing.
8
The second thing is where a facility which
does not now pose -- is in operation now, but does not now
pose an imminent hazard — in other words, there's no
identifiable damage occurring at the moment, and which can
never meet perhaps one or two of the standards, for example,
maybe some of the locational standards or something like
14
that, there is the provision, as Mr. liorekas discussed, for
the granting of a temporary permit. The purpose of the
16
temporary permit is to allow those kinds of facilities
17
which do not present an imminent hazard now, that are in
In
existence, and for which there's no other alternative, no
permitted facility in the area, to continue operating for
an identified period of time such that the people who are
using that facility and the facility owners can locate and
build additional capacity.
23
This is being done so that we don't close
24
off all the alternatives that exist in an area and thus
25
-------
264
force these kinds of wastes into streams and fields and
1
whatnot.
2
But ultimately, each facility is going to
3
to meet the standards or close down.
4
MR. MORKKAS: I have one.
5
For a facility where hazardous wastes are
6
stored for less than 90 days, is it necessary to apply for
7
an exemption or is no action required?
8
Assuming that we're talking about a facility
9
on a generator's site; that is, thegenerator stores these
10
for 90 days or less than 90 days for, as we indicated
11
yeaterdav, foe recycling either inplant or elsewhere, the
12
only action that I can recommend at this point is the record-
13
ing of that, the generator recording requirements as described
14
under Section 3002. As I indicated in my remarks, there i»
15
no permit required by that facility or the generating plant.
16
MR. CORSON: He have one question.
17
Why are you proposing special permits for
18
material recovery facilities only?
19
The answer to that lies in the fact that th»
20
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act — while the Act
21
speaks to resource conservation and recovery, it does not
22
make very many special provisions. The approach we have
23
been taking is to try to develop an approach to the total
24
regulatory program which would encourage material management
25
-------
265
and recovery from resources.
So to this end, we have said that this
special permit, which essentially is merely a letter-type
u
application — however, it does require that you meet the
operating standards that are imposed for normally covered
u
„ facilities as described in Section 3004. But, for the
D
moment, this is the specific case that we have singled out
„ for that type treatment, and as Sam did indicate, there
o
are other special considerations being given to things like
hospital or health care facilities where they are already
controlled.
12 MR. SAHJOUR: The question is:
lg Is notification in Section 3010 as an appli-
cation for permit?
,, The answer is no. When we receive your
to
lfi notification, and if you are — if you indicate that you do
17 dispose, treat or store hazardous waste, then we will send
18 you an application for a permit.
19 The next question is:
Will permits be required for facilities that
are no longer active?
? Our general counsel's office has given us an
informal opinion to the effect that since -- it amounts to
saying that such permits would be required. We realize that
24
the implications of that kind of decision, if taken to its
-------
266
logical conclusion, are very far reaching and devastating,
2
1
and we are looking into the whole question right now, so I
would aay, as of right now, the whole subject is up in the
o
air.
4
MR. LINDSEY: Will small generators who
treat/ store or dispose of hazardous wastes on site be
6
required to go through the same permitting procedures?
OK, now, this is a bona finde small generator
8
I mean one who meets the criteria for a small generator that
we discussed yesterday under 3002, and if that's the case,
the answer is no.
What is procedure for making applications
for permits - and this is the same quite, I think, that Bill
just answered - and where are the forms available?
14
The procedure is that there will be an
15
application form which will -- probably will be a form —
16
we haven't worked out the form design as of yet. We will
certainly do that before the next year is out when these
lo
things will be needed.
The forms with the notification to submit
20
and directions for just exactly how to do that will be comin
from the regional offices where EPA is running the program.
122 =- :r
As a result of the notification activities we will be sendin
23
annlications for permits to those people who have indicated
24
in the notification that they treat, store or dispose of
25
-------
267
hazardous waste, and so those people will get one automati-
cally. Everyone else will have to request such a thing.
If you choose the construction permit route,
that is the two-phase construction/operating permit route,
will there be a public hearing prior to issuing the construc-
tion permit?
Let me take this in two forms, two approaches
The whole question of construction and operat"
8
ing — the next question really deals with the sane thing —
What is the rationale for a two-stage permit system,
construction and operation, and does this enhance environ-
mental protection, or does it simply delay operation of the
13 facility? — it could be a variety of things.
For example, the one-phase permit system has
the single permit which you get before you build the facility
and has the advantage of being quicker - no question about i :
There's less red tape on our part, there's less a problem
in obtaining the permit, it takes less time.
On the other hand, the two-phase permit,
there are a group of people who think this is essential in
order to first of all check that the construction has been
completed according to plan and that if there is any changes
- there frequently is during the construction phase of the
operation, of building such a facility - that this can be
evaluated and the permit changed.
-------
1
268
Also, there is a group of people who think
that in the ensuing period for construction, which may take
several years by the time all the equipment and so on is
O
obtained and the facility put together, that there may be
significant new information which comes to light which might!
5
then alter the Regional Administrator's view of whether or
6
not the permit should have been granted to start with.
Now, that all, of course, gets into the whole
8
question of, "Well, I spent a lot of money to get a construe}-
tion permit, and now am I going to be denied getting the
operating permit?" And that's, of course, an interesting
question.
13 On the other hand, a facility will always
have to meet the primary standards. Whether or not there*n
14
a two-phase permit, whether or not there's a one-phase
15
permit, the guy gets a permit to operate even under a one-
phase permit, and that permit is good for 10 years provided
the standards are met. If, after starting up, the standards
lo
are not met, the permit is going to be modified.
19
So, I'm not sure that the same degree of
control -- this is as Sam pointed out, this is still a matte
that's under discussion, and we have not decided whether or
22
not we're going to get adequate — or whether or not we're
23
going to get a significant degree — significantly more
24
control out of a two-phase permit than we will out of a
-------
269
one-phase permit. And actually the two are not mutually
exclusive. We could, for example, take the route of having
a one-phase permit with a release to operate, where the
3
release is simply a letter which is sent from EPA after we
4
make an investigation to find out if the facility has been
5
built according to the specs and so forth, and then just
6
write a letter saying, "OK, you can go ahead and start it
up," which would be a relatively quick thing, much quicker.
8
How, the second part of one of these question
was, Will there be a public hearing prior to the issuing?
Yes, the main hearing, or the only hearing
really, will occur prior to the granting of the first permit
unless someone, in the case of the two-phase permit, unless
Ii5
someone comes in with aome significant new information which
14
would have impacted on whether or not the decision should
15
have been made to grant the permit, in which case there is
lb
administrative discretion the way we see it now. That would
,„ be available to have another hearing. OK?
lo
MR. SANJOURj Can I interrupt a second?
I have a wallet here. If you tell me whose
20
name is in it, it's yours. There's no money in it.
Also I would like to know if Mr. Hagen or
22
Mr. Bollea of the Department of Transportation are present.
23
Would you meet with Mr. Stabler over there? He'd like to
24
see you.
25
-------
27&
MR. MOREKASj I have a couple of questions
that -- T w
-------
271
l the proposed regs do have, and I guess some people have
2 seen those, although they have not been distributed out-
3 side of EPA. That 700 requirement is in there on the
4 assumption that an environmental impact statement will be
5 prepared for a facility. As I indicated, we still have
6 not resolved the issue.
7 Our law, which is not similar, say, to the
8 Water Pollution Control Act, does not speak to the need
9 for environmental impact statements, although some people
10 in the agency have indicated that it is existing EPA policy
11 to prepare environmental impact statements for major actions
12 by the agency. We see some problems, particulary this
13 extended period of time that will be needed in order to
14 prepare, process and review and all the other steps that
15 go into an environmental impact statement.
16 We are considering a type of environmental
17 impact statement that we are calling, for lack of a better
18 term at this time, a functional equivalent of an EIS. That
19 will address all of the major areas that the typical
20 environmental impact statement addresses, but without hope-
21 fully the long time that, is needed to process the environ-
22 mental impact statement.
23 I hope that that answers both of those
24 questions. Basically that we have not settled on any
25 specific time period for KPA to process applications, and
-------
1 we still have not resolved the environmental impact state-
2 mant need.
3 Question! Will the operator of an approved,
4 permitted public waste facility have to accept a hazardous!
5 waste, or will he have the op.tion of refusing to handle a
6 particular waste?
7 I have to assume that the question deals
with an approved, permitted public waste facility that is
g accepting nonhazaraous waste at this time that is permitted
10 by local jurisdiction. If that is the case, the operator
11 does have the option not to accept hazardous waste. If he;
12 does accept hazardous waste he must obtain a permit from
13 EPA to do so.
14 MR. SAHJOUR: Sam, I think possibly the
15 question may also mean, is a permitted facility required
16 to take in anybody's hazardous waste.
17 MR. MOREKAS: Oh, one that is permitted by
18 us. OK.
19 MR. SAHJOURi That's another possible ques-
20 tion.
2i MR. HOREKAS: Yes, that is another possible:
22 question. That's right.
23 And the answer to that is that he still has
24 the option to refuse it if for some reason it does not meet
25 the permit requirements of that facility or because of other!
-------
273
1 reasons that the operator may have. We see the arrange-
2 ment that must be made as between the generator and the
3 operator of the permitted site facility.
4 Example: An industrial plant has a waste
5 treatment plant which discharges the liquid effluent to
6 the city sewer and it collects the sludge, a hazardous
7 waste, and sends this to a disposal site within 90 days.
8 Question: Does this industrial plant require
g a permit?
10 No, the plant, the industrial plant that
11 generates this sludge does not require a permit, lie would
12 be a generator as described yesterday, assuming again that
13 the sludge is a hazardous waste, that he will have to
14 manifest this waste to send it to — assuming that this
15 is an offsite disposal facility.
16 Question: Compliance schedules. Four years
17 plus one extension. What will be the length of the exten-
18 sion period?
19 Currently, we're thinking that the one
20 extension period will not exceed two years, up to two years.
2i Question: Is it true that a hazardous waste
22 hauler can operate a transfer/accumulation station or
23 terminal without a permit or registration, holding nothing
24 longer than 90 days? One, at any location; two, handling
25 any materials in any wayt three, with no spill control
-------
2T4
1 facilities; four, no monitoring or record keeping; five,
2 no emergency response, knowledge or training; six, in short,
3 no supervision whatsoever?
4 I think the short answer to that isi It's
5 not true. And if I can kind of lump all the questions into
6 one answer, assuming again that he's accepting waste from
7 many sources, and he blends them or stores them in such a
8 way that they're not the same as received, he, in ray
9 estimation, would become a generator if he is in fact a
10 true transfer station where they are sent somewhere else for
11 either treatment or disposal, so he would have to meet all
12 of those requirements that are being asked.
13 Question: Will pfermits be issued by site
14 or will each storage plant disposal unit at each site
15 require its own permit?
16 Permits will be issued by site. In other
17 words, it will be one permit for each facility. However,.
18 in conditioning the permit, individual processes or oper*i-
19 tions performed, such as storage or disposal or treatment:,
20 will be identified, though not as a type of condition for
21 the permit, and whenever specific requirements are placed
22 on these unit operations will be shown on the permit.
23 In other words, as I indicated, one permit
24 but separate operations will be individually identified on
25 the permit.
-------
275
1 Question: If a site has applied for a
2 permit and is therefore deemed to have a permit until
3 action on his application is taken, what authority will
4 a state authority have in a state without an authorized
5 program?
6 Assuming again that this state does have
7 some kind of hazardous waste management program and it
8 has not been authorized, I would think that they would
9 have whatever authority they can exercise. We expect and
10 hope that we will be able to coordinate the timing and any
11 other requirements with a state that has not yet been
12 authorized so that we will avoid this overlapping and
13 duplication, but RCRA does not preempt any existing state
14 programs per se, so it's a question of either bringing
15 the state on line before EPA begins to implement the pro-
o
_* 16 gram or trying to avoid a duplication with an ongoing state
17 program while EPA also puts on its requirements.
18 The second part of that question: If an
19 environmental impact statement is not required for a
20 disposal site, what is the justification for this position?
21 Again, as I indicated, RCRA is silent, and
22 it does not directly require that an environmental impact
23 statement be prepared. As indicated, other laws do. So,
24 it's a question of trying to resolve the existing EPA policy
25 regarding environmental impact statements on laws that are
-------
I silent. At the same time, we are very much conscious and
2 aware that some of the requirements that an environmental
3 impact statement requires or NEPA requires are very impor-
4 tant for considering before a permit is issued. So it's
g not a question of trying to avoid - if that is the right
6 ! term - addressing those environmental issues that the
7 regulations themselves do not. It's a question of trying
8 to resolve the legality of the issue and also to avoid
9 j some of the long, drawn out processes involved, or in
1() hearings with an environmental impact statement.
li MR. CORSON: I have a question.
ij
12 | Would you explain the conditions, if any,
13 an existing facility must meet under the interim permit?
14 As Sam explained, the Act rather clearly
,- states there are three conditions that a facility must meet.
1H One, it was to have been in business on the
17 date the Act was passed, October 21, 1976. At the moment
18 we are interpreting, or our approach is to say that facili-
19 ties which were started between that time and now we are
20 considering as though they existed at that time.
21 Condition two: The facility has complied
22 with the requirements of Section 3010; that is, they will
,3 have prenotified.
And third: They have applied for a. permit.
25 Now, those three conditions are all that are
-------
277
j required.
MR. SANJOUR: A questioner says: Public
3 hearings for existing disposal permits? check one: Yes
4 or No. We check yes.
MR. LINDSEY: Yesterday your answer to a
O
question concerning prohibition of import by a state or
D
local entity was that the state would not be designated ~
would not be authorized to carry out the hazardous waste
8
program if it had such a ban.
1() Does that mean if any of the 500 or more
— U local government entities in any state prohibit import
12 to that entity, regardless of state approval, that the
.,-j state would lose its autonomy?
,, The answer is no. We'll cover that more
14
,, in the next section on 3006 on state authorization, but
ID
lg the reason for that is that the Act clearly does not give
17 us the authority to become involved in local hazardous
lg waste operations. In other words, we're not authorizing
lg local governments.
When will EPA classify all open dumps? Before
classification can we still use existing dump sites for
hazardous wastes?
Now, this gets that Subtitle D of the Act
£d
which is being carried out by another part of the agency,
but let me tell you what it says, for example.
-------
278
I The first thing they must do is, under
2 Section 4004(a) of the Act, they must come up with criteria
3 for sanitary landfills which they must -- are supposed to
4 have done within one year of enactment of the section, and
5 one year is three days from now, and I can tell you they're
6 not going to make it.
7 They are due to be proposed soon in the
_8 Federal Register. And what do I mean by "soon"? I think
9 it's within the next month or six weeks. I'm not exactly
10 sure of the date. Anyway, once those are promulgated,
u which would be at least several months down the road, then
12 the next thing that happens is the inventory. EPA or the
13 states in this case must conduct then an inventory of all
14 sanitary landfills, et cetera, et cetera, which receive
15 waste, and these are not only hazardous wastes. These are
16 all kinds of wastes, and identify themes either an open dump
17 or a legal facility; that is a sanitary landfill.
lg Now, there is no federal enforcement of
19 that. In other words, even if a facility is classified as
2Q an open dump, that facility is illegal under federal statute
21 but there's no enforcement mechanism. The only enforcement
22 mechanism is either through the states or through citizen
23 suits.
24 In any event, as far as hazardous wastes are
25 concerned, "vibtitle D doesn't differentiate between
-------
__ 279
hazardous and nonhazardous waste. So, presumably, until
Subtitle C Regulations come out, which is what we're doing,
one can continue to send hazardous wastes to any of those
facilities, either before or after the inventory is done.
Will existing state approved facilities be
required to start over, get another permit, if the state
&C.AO
accepts the w;^* program?
This would depend on whether or not the
8
state program which granted a permit to that facility is
the same state program that we authorize, and we'll be
authorizing a state program to be operated in lieu of the
federal program.
How, a lot of states are going to have to
adjust their activities in order to be authorizeable,
either through the interim authorization, which we'll talk
about later, or through full authorization.
If tha state's facilities were permitted
under the set of criteria and standards that were approved
by liPA, the answer is no. Otherwise, the answer very well
may be yea.
Please define a construction permit. It
seams silly to issue a construction permit if you won't
issue an operating permit.
Yeah, that would certainly be silly. We
would not intend to issue a construction permit unless we
-------
280
1 also fully intended to issue the operating permit. Even
2 under the two-stage system, which is one of the options
3 we're considering, the operating permit would be granted
4 de facto unless there was either some change during the
5 construction program or some new material came to light
6 relative to whether or not that facility should have been
7 granted a permit in the first place.
8 So, the answer is we would certainly not
9 intend to issue a construction permit if we were not also
10 going to issue the operating permit.
11 For existing facilities, which have already
12 gone through several public hearings, will EPA back those
13 facilities to keep that fooling around to a minimum?
14 I am not sure whether I understand in this
15 case you're talking about an existing facility that's been
16 granted a permit, for example, by a state, whether or not
17 EPA is running the program, or whether you're talking about
18 a facility that we have permitted or that a state has
19 permitted under an authorized program.
20 The answer is that if a facility is granted
21 a permit, either by us op by the state, we will certainly
22 support our decision to grant that permit.
23 That's one of the advantages of the permit
24 system, I think, for a facility owner. Why not have a
25 | simple modification of the existing permit instead of going
-------
281
! the construction and operating permit route?
2 I presume the person is talking about
3 facilities that already have a permit under some state
4 operation or state hazardous waste operation.
5 That's a — I don't know whether that would
g work or not. That's an interesting suggestion, and we'll
-, think about that, some sort of a modification procedure
g as opposed to starting over ful£)>lown.
9 Of course, if it's been issued, typically,
10 if was an old state issued permit, and EPA is running the
n program, which is what we're talking about here under 3005,
12 the standards are likely to be different, and so it may be
13 just as easy to go through the federal permitting system
u as it would be to try and modify and change things around.
,- But this suggestion has some merit, and
16 we'll think a little about that.
IY We presently are operating a hazardous waste
18 processing plant which has a resource recovery unit. This
,,, is done in conjunction with an industrial waste disposal
9Q site. We now are moving the processing unit to a more
21 advantageous location in regards to environmental and
22 economic factors. Will this processing unit be under the
23 grandfather clause?
24 OK. If you move it before the 3005 standards
25 become effective, and then you make application for a permit;,
-------
282
you will be deemed to have an interim permit until we act
2 on the application.
3 If you don't move it until after the 3005
4 standards go into effect, then you won't be able to start
it up until a permit is granted by EPA.
Now, if the state has an authorized program,
and the state program that is authorized is the same one
under which a permit has been granted by the state to carry
out that, then you would not need to do anything.
The second part of the questions All
processes have been approved by the state authority. We
plan to continue the industrial waste disposal site.
13 Well, that's kind of a statement, but I —
14 the industrial waste disposal site is going to need a per-
13 init, either under the authorized state program or by EPA
16 if the state is not authorized.
,: Also, one other point I should make, the
18 _Resource Recovery -- wait a minute now. the resource
19 recovery unit which, as I understand it hero, is part of
2[) the processing unit, OK, that resource recovery unit, if
it is a product recovery unit, may be eligible for one of
the special product recovery permits which is a very much
simpler, much more streamlined, almost mail order permit
to obtain — in fact, it is essentially a mail order permit.
But that particular part of the facility may
-------
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
283
not need a regular permit.
OK. Section 7002 allows citizen suits
against any person in violation of any condition or require-
ment of the EPA regs, apparently even in the perraant
application process. Does this mean that industry can look
forward to environmental groups tying us up in court for
OL,
years over the adequacy of an EIS or whatever or whatever?
First of all, let me address the EIS busi-
ness. As you heard a little earlier, we're not quite sure
where the whole EIS thing leaves us, whether or not -- we
don't know what our options are at this point. It's a
legal concern and our general .counsel is consulting with us
on that, and we have addressed that. He can address that
more if somebody still has some more questions on it, but —
MR. SANJOURi They do.
MR. LINDSEY: They do? Why don't we address
that now then?
OK. The agency, the NEPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act, requires that on all major federal
actions that an EIS be prepared.
How, it's my opinion that they were looking
largely toward the building of dams and highways and things
of that nature. However, it's been interpreted widely by
almost everyone that there's also ~ that this also applies
to the development of regulations and standards.
-------
284
Now, EPA has never been convinced that it
applies to EPA'3 regulations and standards because EPA is
in the business of protecting the environmentj thus, any
regulations or standards that we do prepare, one would
presume to be in the best internet of the environment. OK.
Nonetheless, after a lot of hassle several
_ 7 || years ago, the agency decided that it would voluntarily
prepare the EIS's on the development of regulations and
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so on. And in this particular Act, as you'll hear a little
bit later, we are doing that, and this will be the first
ff>
major prograraatic, that is, regulatory development EIS on
a comprehensive set of regulations that has been done,
which is interesting to start with, but that's another issue
Now, the question becomes, well, what about
the granting of permits? Now, there are, under NPDES, and
under the Ocean Disposal Act, EPA does do EIS's on the
selection of sites for ocean dumping and on some of the
new source permits under NPDES.
But, on the other hand, it specifically saya
in tne Act, those two acts, that EPA must do that. It
doesn't say that in our Act. So, where does that leave us?
The agency nan said that it will do voluntary EIS's on
major federal action. Where does that leave us? We're not
quite sure where that leaves us. We don't know whether we
have the option, whether we have to, or whether we don't
-------
285
1 have to, and we're considering all that, and we'll be
2 making a decision on that relatively soon. So, that gets
3 to that.
4 Mow, back to this other question about citi-
5 zen suits, because that could have — the citizen suit could
6 have to do either with not meeting the EIS requirements, or
7 it could be not meeting any other of the EPA's regulations.
8 ! Each facility must meet the substantive and
9 procedural regulations that EPA is setting up here under
10 this set of regulations. Otherwise, they're subject to
ll j citizen suit. OK? If a facility has a permit from EPA
12 and they're meeting that permit, then they're not subject
13 to a citizen suit. Otherwise, the Act is pretty clear
14 under Section 7002, and it could be the source of suits.
15 That's the way the Act is set up. I don't know what else
16 we can say about that.
17 MR. CORSONi Just let me add a couple of
18 things, Fred.
19 I think concerning 7002, the Act is fairly
20 clear that you can't just start a nuisance suit. Under
21 7002(a), it indicates the conditions, and then it does
22 indicate sorao actions prohibited. The government or the
23 state of the administrator as well as the alleged violator
24 has to be notified 60 days prior to the suit taking effect,
25 so that's case one for the first part of it, somebody's
-------
286
1 just starting a suit for the heck of trying something to
2 try and impede it.
3 The other thing I think which is kind of
4 important is that in looking at the cost aspect, the court
5 may award, in any final action, the costs of litigation to
6 either party, so that's kind of some protection for industry
7 we think. They feel they're being picked upon, and they
8 end up coming out not being denied their rights.
9 The third part, I think, is that if a
10 preliminary injunction is sought, the court may require
11 the filing of a bond or equivalent security in accordance
12 with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
13 So, we think that the way this section is
14 constructed, the Act does provide for some reasonable
15 amount of protection against just nuisance suits.
16 MR. LiNDSEYi OK. Thanks, Alan.
17 How will you deal with process unit changes
18 in existing permitted process facilities? For example,
19 more storage tanks, a larger distillation unit, a new
•&«-
20 technology unit, such as an electroiyphlc cyanide destruct
21 unit to replace a chemical destruction unit?
22 OK. Yeah, we'll handle it by an amendment
23 to the permit, a modification to the permit. We're con-
24 sidering at this point the need for a speeded up, rather
25 simple approach for modifying, for small modifications. I
-------
287
1 think number one might very well fit into that category!
2 that is more storage tanks. Number two might, if it's not
3 a completely new kind of an operation. Number three would
4 probably require the same steps as a new permit. It doesn't
5 mean that anything*s held up in the present operation. It
g just means that the new activity would require major modifi-
7 cation.
8 We're considering now how that would work,
g but we'll probably have a relatively streamlined procedure
10 for obtaining modifications.
11 Will permit revocation be an adjudicatory
12 proceeding or an EPA state administrative action?
13 Basically, it'll be an adjudicatory proceed-
14 ing, and I think, Sam, you're going to address that along
15 with that other one I gave you.
16 Is there any chance of a simplified permit
17 application for short-term storage? In other words, greater
18 than 90 days, but less than two years. This would solve
19 many problems for resource recovery plants that must store
20 materials for longer than 90 days but are definitely planninc
21 to make use of the material.
22 Permits for storage operations may not be
23 all that difficult to obtain. We're talking about tanks
24 and things of that nature. They're pretty straightforward.
25 The standards that relate to those types of things are
-------
_^___ 288
1 pretty straightforward. It may be a very relatively simple*
2 operation to obtain those kinds of permits. The permits
which are going to be difficult to obtain, frankly,M*e
4 going to be the disposal permits in the ground where hydro-
5 geology is a major factor, because it's difficult to assess
6 the potential for ground water damage in those kinds of
7 facilities.
Also, storage permits, et cetera, are not
likely to invoke the public's interest to the same degree
10 as some of these other kinds of facilities, so it may be
11 a very relatively simple thing to do. However, we'll
12 consider this suggestion, and we'll rethink it as we write
13 that paicicular part.
14 MR. MOREKASi A question dealing I guess
15 with an answer I gave earlier.
My question o^^ite/facility permitting was
17 not clearly answered. If we had two lagoons and a storage
is tank for blending waste prior to discharge to the lagoons,
19 will we need one or three permits? If one permit, what
20 happens if we decide to add another lagoon prior to permit
21 expiration?
22 I guess I still will stand with my earlier
23 answeri That this Is one facility that does these three
24 things; that is, takes waste and blends them in a storage
25 tank and then discharges them into one, two, three or four
-------
1
289
lagoons. So long as these operations - that is the
storage operation and the disposal operation into the
3 lagoon - are identified on the permit, there's only need
for one piece of paper, one permit, and when you do come
along and add a third or fourth or fifth, it will simply
5
become a modification to the existing permit to show the
6
new operation.
So, the answer is still the sarae. One
8
permit ao long as the various operations are well identi-
fied on the permit.
Question: Will the same people at regions
11 a
who administer the NPDES permits administer the RCRA permit
13 system?
I don't believe I can give you a very
14
definitive answer at this point, but at least I can give
you the Office of Solid Waste's position at this time,
lb
which we hope will prevail at the end.
,a That is that the permit application reviewing
lo
and awarding or issuing of the permit activity will be
handled by the Office of Solid Waste regional staff. Aa
—i> we indicated, several of the _regionB are represented here
today. That staff will be doing the review of the appli-
cations and the issuing of the permits.
23
Now, when it gets into the enforcement,
after the permits have been issued, and enforcing of the
-------
290
various permit conditions must be met, then that moves over
—p2 to another element of the EPA regional ^fflees, the onforou-
3 ment side, which may be the same side as the NPDES permit7
4 program is enforcing at this time. But this is our answer
6 to that question at this time; obviously pending whatever
decisions are made later, but we see the reviewing and
issuing of permits being handled by our staff, which is
the Office of Solid Waste regional staff at this time.
9 MR. SAN JOUR i Let me make that a little bit
10 more clear.
ll What Sam is saying is that that is,the
12 recommendation of the Solid Waste Offices to the Administra-
13 tor of EPA. However, the decision on who will be administer--
14 ing the permits in the regional offices will basically be
15 the decision of the Regional Administrator, and the
IB Administrator of EPA will make certain recommendations to
him, and he may or may not accept the recommendations of
18 the Solid Waste Office.
19 MR. MOREKASt Thank you, Bill.
20 Question: Will new modifications or new
21 equipment to be added to a permit-holding facility require
22 a new permit? If a disposal facility has a treatment
23 section or vice versa require a new permit?
24 We see this as a modification to an existing
25 permit. It's not a new permit, per se. A modification to
-------
291
1 an existing permit.
2 Question! Do you anticipate any provisions
3 in the permitting procedure or in some other section of
4 the law to insure that facilities are operated and raain-
5 tained properly? Will surveillance and/or monitoring be
6 conducted by EPA or a state which is authorized to run the
7 program?
8 The first part of the question, we do
9 anticipate that provisions will be inserted in the permit
10 requirements, and I think we discussed some of those
11 yesterday under the Section 3004 standards, as to,what or
12 how the facilities will be operated or maintained, and those
13 will be the types of standards that the permit will identify
14 and the facility will have to meet.
15 The second part of the question is, yes,
16 surveillance and annual monitoring will be conducted either
17 by EPA - if the states are not authorized, and if the states
18 are authorized, by the states, with some oversight type of
19 action by EPA on the state programs which Matt Straus will
20 discuss on the next section.
21 Questiont Disposal site tract is open for
22 use on a parcer-by^parcel basis. Mould opening of new
23 segments be classified as a new or existing facility?
24 Again, the way we would approach this ia,
25 let's assume that this is a new site, an application for a
-------
_ 292
1 new site is made, and so long as all of the investigations
2 and all of the data that is needed in order to approve the
3 entire site, or all that material is included in the appli-
4 cation and our review, the possibility of -- I have to hedge
-,5 a little bit on this, because this will be made on a case^i
_»6 byQaae basis —- that there would probably be no need for ei
7 new permit or a modification to a permit when you open the
§ new parcel for disposal.
9 However, I need to hedge on that because it
10 would depend,on an individual case. If the hydrogeology
11 and all the data is sufficient to make a decision ..on the
12 entire site, we would certainly do that, but it may be
13 possible or more than likely that all of the hydrogeologic
14 information is not submitted for the entire site on, say,
15 the first number of acres that the developer wants to use
16 initially, and there may be need to get this additional
17 information several years down the road when he is ready
18 to move to a new parcel.
19 So, I guess the answer is that it will vary,
2o depending on each particular application.
21 Your permit program, construction permit and
22 an operating permit, appears to copy the the Nuclear Reactor
23 Permit Program of the Nuclear Regulatory commission. This
24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission system has strangled the
25 nuclear power program with endless red tape and public
-------
293
1 hearings. Have you not considered, in line with President
2 Carter's committment, to evaluate permitting systems with
3 less red tape?
4 I guess that's one of the reasons why we
5 haven't really got settled on that issue. As I indicated,
6 it's still one of the unresolved issues that we still are
- debating, and this is one of the reasons for it - because
g the obvious additional red tape or delay that is inserted
9 into the permit granting system, and I frankly don't know
u) that much about the NRG power plant, but from what I read
n in the papers and so forth, they're a very, very Complex
12 type of operation, and I don't believe our sites would be
13 that complex.
14 But, again, the answer to the question is
15 that we are considering that as one of the problems, and
16 that's why we have not settled on the two permanent or one
17 permanent system.
lg MR. SAN JOUR j However, it should be pointed
19 out that anyone who is in existence and notifies EPA has an
2Q interim permit. Unlike a nuclear power plant, you have a
21 permit until EPA gets around to issuing you a formal permit,
22 or denies a formal permit.
23 MR. MOREKASi I answered this on the basis
24 that these were new facilities.
25
Hill an operation which both recovers
-------
_JO t
_Al
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
294
resources materials and disposes of nonrecoverable waste be
eligible for a special resource recovery permit?
Assuming that this latter part of the opera-
tion - that is, the disposal of the nonrecoverable waste,
that waste, if that is a hazardous waste, then they will
require a separate permit for the disposal. I guess the
analogy that Bill Sanjour gave yesterday of the re-refinery
operation is probably the correct reference. That is, for
the re-refinery portion of the facility they would receiver
a special permit.
But, if they do have an onsite disposal of
the acid sludges, then they would require a disposal permit.
This is the due process questions. Let me
read them.
One is i Do you expect that some type of
variance procedure will develop or is contemplated now?
And the second part of the question is: For
revocation or modification of permits, what are your due
process considerations?
On the first part regarding variances, the
only area that we're considering now for some type of
variances where we indicated wastes that had baen deposited
because of an emergency and in most cases we envision that
this will be a disposal operation at the nearest available
site which may or may not be, or let's say would not be a
-------
295
, permanent facility, that we need to give some relief to
2 thie local operator that in good faith accepted these kinds
of waste because of the result of the emergency, that type
of variance will be granted.
Regarding the due process considerations -
and this other question is also asking the same thing -
whenever revocation or modification of permits is made
the due process we want to make sure is available to the
g facility so that EPA does not take arbitrary or capricious
1() actions in modifying or revoking a permit, and it will be
the adjudicator/ process that is allowed for any of the
12 regulations so that that site is protected against any
13 arbitrary and capricious acts on the part of the Regional
14 Administrator.
15 MR. SANJOURt We're running very short of
time, and we still have a great many questions to cover,
17 so I'll ask the panel to keep their answers extremely short,
18 and if you need further elaboration, please see the panel
19 members personally during the break or during lunch time.
20 MR. CORSOHi I have three questions. I'll
21 start with an easy one.
22 Is there some easy way to receive Federal
23 Register notifications pertaining to RCRA?
24 The answer is yes. if you'll leave your
25 name out at the desk with Pat Savage, we will add it to
-------
296
that mailing list that gets these things, which would mean
that we would mail reprints probably within a week after
-_-)3 the publication in the Register.
4 Question: A waste storage facility such as
a large, oil-soaked clay pile is permitted as a waste
disposal facility, with slightly changing unuseable ground
water, not an aquafer, will the disposal permit impair
the pile's possible use as feedstuff for the oil recovery
facility?
10 This introduces a rather complex problem,
n but the answer is, no, it would not impair the pile's use.
12 The other part of the problem is if we have a permanent
13 condition — we'll talk to later. Or, on the side, if you
14
15 The last question i Will EPA require a permit
16 for a facility located on an Indian Reservation? This
17 facility would be used for decontamination of pesticide
18 containers that we use in other industrial areas.
lg The answer to the question is, yes, it would
2Q require a permit. There's no exemption in this Act for
Indian Reservations.
22 This does introduce one thing I'd like to
23 emphasize just very briefly. That in Section 6001 of the
24 Act does require federal facilities must comply both sub-
25 stantively and procedurally with requirements of the Act,
-------
297
j So, federal facilities would require a permit for treat-
., roent, storage and disposal of hazardous waste.
3 MR. SANJOURi I have several questions about
4 permits. Let me make three points.
- First of all, public hearings are not
g required at all for interim permits.
7 Second, public hearings for permits are at
„ the Regional Administrator's discretion; they're not
o
g required. He will hold them as he feels necessary if there
1Q is enough public interest in holding a public hearing.
jj And thirdly, they will apply equally to
,12 applications for permits for onsite disposal, or generators
I ^
s, such as incinerators, storage tanks, et cetera.
14 Next question i If a hauler operates a
)5 warehouse terminal for accumulating loads, but holds nothing
lfi longer than 90 days, combines nothing, not a generator,
j- would he need a permit for storage? Would he be regulated
18 in this operation in any way?
]9 I The 90-day exemption of the storage applies
9Q only to generators. It does not apply to haulers. There-
fore, in this case, the hauler would need a storage permit.
One more: Company X collects chemicals from
Company Y. Company X mixes the chemicals with another
24 chemical for the purpose of detoxifying or making less
2- hazardous, e.g., making biodegradable, but in turn produces
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~"/20
21
22
-%
24
25
291!
a hazardous waste. Is Company X a'generator or treator
of hazardous waste?
The answer is, both. He is both a generator
and a treator of hazardous waste in that case.
MR. LINDSEV: Mill Arizona be an EPA
authorized state regulatory system/ or will the EPA
monitor directly?
I don't know at this point. Arizona will
have to make application like any other state, and we'll
evaluate it.
Will a facility permit periodically expire
and thus require a full new permit application procedure?
OK, it's still under discussion. Our
thinking at this point is that it'll be a 10-year expiring
permit. At that time, EPA will take a look at the facility,
if it hasn't done so in the interim, and decide whether
or not modifications need to be made to that permit appli-
cation -- excuse me, to the permit itself.
If there is no need for a modification, then
G>
we will simply reissue the permit, and that will be that.
4Ls
If there is a modification that amounts to anything, a major
modification, et cetera, which needs to be made as a result
T
of changes, standards not begjing met, or whatever, then the
whole procedure will start over again.
Will there be requirements for self-monitorin'
-------
299
1 similar to NPDES permit monitoring and recording?
2 The answer is, Yea. I think we addressed
3 that yesterday under Section 3004 regulations. There will
4 be recording requirements. These will relate to two basic
5 areas.
6 One area will be the information on the
7 manifests; that is, the quarterly report on the manifests.
8 The receiver of waste will have to provide that information.
g And secondly, there will be self-reporting
10 for monitoring kinds of information. For example, ground
11 water samples analysis and things of that nature as well as
12 identification of what has been done with the hazardous
13 wastes that have been received.
14 Can you give any insight into which states
15 already have programs that could be authorized or very close
16 to acceptable programs?
17 We haven't addressed yet - and we will in
18 the next session - the full and partial authorization and
19 the different kinds of authorization and so on, and there
20 are several different kinds of authorization involved.
21 Our thinking is now, to give a short answer
22 to this at the moment, that probably only two or three
23 states, perhaps as many as a half a dozen, would qualify
24 at the moment for full authorization. Something better
25 than 40 would qualify for interim authorization.
-------
300
1
2
3
4 down?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hill existing state-approved facilities
which do not qualify for an interim permit be given some
time to make necessary modifications so as not to get shut
Well, that question doesn't follow. OK,
all you have to do to qualify for an interim permit is to
notify EPA that you're in existence and to make application.
That's it, period. You do those two things, you have an
interim permit. EPA does nothing. You automatically have
it until EPA either acts on your -- well, until EPA acts
on your permit application, which may take some time. OK?
So, everybody qualifies for that as long a
you do those two things.
Will a permit for a disposal facility
explicitly identify intake quantity limits? If so, will
A^
quantities be stated for each type of hazardous waste, or
for a total of all permitted types?
Each kind of facility is different. OK?
I mean, they're all going to be different. There's no ~
there will be the standard design kinds of things that 3004
permits are coming up with, but they're going to be put
together in different fashion and so on, so that the issuing
and writing up of a permit and the submitting of an applica-
tion is going to probably be different for almost every
facility.
-------
301
1 So, permits are going to be handled on a
2 case-by-case basis, and the application is going to come
3 in and we're going to review it, and we need more invor-
4 raation here, or you haven't covered this, or you need to
5 give us this information as well, or whatever.
Relative to waste one of the things that
will be required is an identification of the kinds of
waste that are expected to be received. Now, this can
(, be done at the discretion of the guy who wants the permit.
10 If he wants a permit to handle a specific waste, he's going
o e.
an to identify that he wants to handle hexachlorabenzine
12 containing waste, for example, or sludges, or whatever.
13 If he does that, that's a very simple kind of a permit.
14 He's only going to have to show to us that he can handle
15 that kind of waste satisfactorily.
16 On the other hand, if he's a multi-purpose
operation, he's going to be receiving all kinds of waste.
18 He may, for example, wish to get a permit to handle all
chlorinated hydrocarbons, which he could do. He wouldn't
20 have to spell out each one.
21 We would then review that application to
22 whether or not that facility can handle all chlorinated
23 hydrocarbons which may require some additional information
24 or some additional safeguards.
25 But yes, they're going to have to identify
-------
302
] the kinds of waste, either generically or individually,
2 that they want to receive, and then the capacity, the
3 treatment or storage capacity for that facility.
4 MR. MOREKASt I have a long question that,
5 by necessity, I'n going to have to give a short answer to,
6 cut it is a good question.
- If there is no variance procedure as to
8 the general requirements of Subtitle C, then EPA must
g expect that at some tine, sooner or later, a facility will
l() be forced to shut down because it is impossible to comply.
H Such a result will have social and economic consequences
12 which ultimately will be resolved in the political arena,
13 perhaps to the detriment to the purposes of RCRA. Isn't
14 it better to anticipate the necessity of variances for
15 extraordinary compliance situations?
1(5 How, again the short answer to a complex
17 issue is that we don't believe that the law gives us that
18 kind of authority to issue variances if it is necessary
}19 for noncompliance facilities to shut down. By necessity,
20 they will have to shut down.
21 MR. SANJOUR: And the temporary permit
22 though.
23 MR. HOREKASj And the temporary permit --
24 you mean the interim permit.
25 MR. SANJOUR: No, the temporary permit.
-------
303
1 MR. MOREKASi For the compliance schedule.
2 Right.
3 11R. SAN JOUR j Well, I think I've got to
4 modify that to some extent then. I mean, we could choose
5 when we want to issue the full permit. We can allow an
6 interim permit to run for as long as we think it's con-
1 venient for it to run, and that, in a sense, is a variance.
8 It's not called a variance, but it could be used in the
9 same way as a variance.
1
10 MR. MOREKASj It can be used as a variance,
correct.
12 MR. SANJOURt Let me try to go through two
ji
13 | very quickly.
14 j I am distrubed concering the mail order
15 resource recovery permit. The facilities could have large
|
16 storage facilities which would require more than a mail
17 order approach. Comment.
18 This mail order concept does not relieve the
facility of complying with all the standards. They still
must comply with all the storage and every other standard.
What it basically does is to shift the burden of checking
22 up on that compliance more towards the government. However,
23 we will take your comment into consideration.
24 How will these permits be handled in air
25 quality maintenance areas in light of the new Clean Air Act
-------
304
-
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
& 4-
amendment nondegredation clause?
(r? CL-
I believe that nomiegredation only applies
to expended particulates and sulphur oxides and maybe a
few other of the ambient air pollutants, and basically
they would have to comply with that nondegradation. But
those are not really the pollutants of principal concern
to us. We're more concerned with the hazardous air
pollutants, the toxic pollutants which are not covered
by the Clean Air Act.
Hell, if there are no further questions then,
are there any questions that anyone might like to ask from
the floor? He still have about eight minutes.
If you'd care to come up to the microphone.
Would you please state your name and affilia-
tion?
MR. WEISE: My name is Dick Weise, and I am
representing the Proctor & Gamble Company, and I'd like to
direct some questions to Mr. Morekas, I believe it is.
Number one, are you not assuming in these
various regulations that a generator does in fact have the
best knowledge of the materials being disposed?
MR. MOREKASt Are we not assuming it?
MR. WEISEi Yes.
MR. MOREKAS> I think we are assuming it.
MR. WEISEi You are assuming that.
-------
30S
MR. MOREKASt Under 3002 conditions, that
2 he must indicate on the manifest what it is and make the
3 arrangements for its proper treatment.
4 MR. WEISEi OK. And if I understand it
5 correctly, you are not now in any way requiring haulers
or disposers to handle these materials as specified in
the generator's contract with these people?
MR. MOREKASi It is, again, between the
generator and the ultimate treator or disposer to make the
ln necessary contractual arrangements on how it's going to be
n treated or disposed of.
12 However, when we issue a permit for a
13 facility, the applicant will identify the type of waste
]( that he expects to be receiving and how they will be
15 treated or disposed of- so those will be identified items
1,; on the permit.
17 MR. WEISEj Are you then expecting, in
18 effect, generators to take over the job of protecting the
19 environment by prosecuting haulers or disposers who are
20 operating within permits and within regulations, but who
21 happen to take exception to written contracts?
22 MR. MOREKAS: I don't believe we are going
23 to -- Well, I think the question is that we expect the
24 generators to prosecute. We don't think that's the term
25
to use.
-------
30 (i
1 MR. LINDSEYi I don't think RCRA gives us
2 any authority, really, to interfere with the contractual
3 arrangements between the generators and the disposers.
4 The disposer ia going to have to treat storage disposed
5 in accordance with his permit. Other than that, the
g arrangements he works out with the generator are between
7 him and the generator. If the generator doesn't like the
8 way he handles it, he has two options. He can either go
9 someplace else, presumably, or he would have recourse in
10 the courts I suppose if there's a contract that's been
11 breached.
12 MR. WElSEt My concern, of course, origi-
13 nates with material such as proprietary materials,
I ( materials where the generator has some knowledge that
15 he either doesn't see fit or doesn't see the necessity
16 of divulging, but does indicate to the generator what
17 specific disposal ia environmentally safe.
Iti MR. LINDSEY» Well, if, for example, a new
19 ! kind of waste, for example, comes up and the generator
20 faela that even though a disposal facility is permitted
II
91 to handle it in a given manner, but the generator feels
j
,2 that that's not a safe approach, maybe he should come to
i;:j jj EPA, and we would then consider a modification to the
,4 permit to handle that waste specifically, if the generator
25 has sorae specific information along thoae lines. That
-------
307
1 would be another option.
2 MR. WEISEi OK. Thank you.
3 MR. SANJOURi I have one more written
4 question here, and then I think we'll adjourn for break.
5 The question 1st How about the public
6 utility concept?
- I presume the questioner means the public
8 utility concept of hazardous waste disposal facilities.
9 That concept was considered by Congress and rejected.
10 A previous version of this Act, EPA was
n asked to investigate the concept and to prepare a report
12 to Congress. In that report to Congress, we did not think
13 much of the concept.
14 Fred will elaborate, but basically, in this
1;- current law that was considered, and it was decided that
IB that was not the way to go.
17 MR. LINDSEYi Just so there's no confusion,
18 though, we're not taking exceptions to cities, counties,
19 authorities - like, the Gulf Coast is represented here,
20 or the County of Los Angeles - we're not taking exception
21 to those people owning and operating facilities. What
22 Bill was relating to was the institution of federal dis-
23 posal site systems. OK? So I just wanted to make sure
24 there's no misunderstanding there.
25 MR. SANJOURj With that, why don't we
-------
-g
m
ll
,2
13
14
15
ie
17
18
19
2Q
21
22
23
24
25
301)
l adjourn until lOtlS.
2 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
3 MR. LINDSEYi Can we take our seats, please.
We are a few minutes beyond schedule now.
— 5 The next section of the act that we're
going to deal with is the authorization of £tate programs,,
We, by necessity, have dealt with a few of these question*
earlier because they relate to some of the other activities,
but this is the authorization of the state program*.
Recall that up till now we've been talking
about the federal program, whereby if we are conducting
a program in a given state, this is the approach we're
going to use. Now, a state program, in order to be
authorized has to be judged by us to be equivalent to the
federal program. Equivalent in degree of control, not
identical. It does not have to have the same regulations,
but so long as they are equivalent. And if that program
is judged to be equivalent, they can operate in lieu of
the federal program. OK?
Now, I'm going to introduce to you Matt
Straus, who is the Desk Officer for the development of
the guildelines for state programs, and this particular
section identifies the procedures which we'll go through
to authorize the state programs.
Hatt?
-------
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ig
20
21
22
23
24
25
309
MR. STRAUS i Thank you, Fred.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For
the next 20 minutes or so, I would like to describe our
CL*
current thinkingg in developing guidelines under Section
3006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Now, Section 3006 of the Act requires that
EPA promulgate guidelines to assist states in the develop-
ment of state hazardous wastes programs.
These guidelines are to be promulgated not
later than 18 months after the date of enactment of RCRA,
which would take it to about April 21st of 1978, and
after the Administrator has consulted with the various
state authorities.
How, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act requires that a hazardous waste program be conducted
in each and every state jurisdiction. It is our judgement
that congress intended that the states would be developing
and operating the state hazardous waste program. However,
in the event the states choose not to assume the program,
or EPA does not authorize a state, EPA is required and
mandated by Congress to control the hazardous waste program.
For the past day or so, we have been dis-
cussing and describing these federal programs that will
be carried out in the event the state is not authorized.
For the next hour or hour and a half, we'll be describing
-------
310^
1 and discussing the state hazardous waste program.
2 Now, in the Act a state can receive one of
3 two types of authorization. The first type, full authori-
4 zation, describes an authorization without any fixed
5 beginning and of unlimited duration, and the state will
6 be granted full authorization in lieu of the federal
7 programj that is, the state will conduct the program in
8 its entirety if the state is found to be equivalent to
9 tha federal program, consistent with the federal program
10 or other applicable state programs, and the state provides
11 adequate enforcement.
12 Now, unfortunately, Congress did not define
13 or tell us -'bat an equivalent, consistent and adequately
14 enforced state program is, so one of our tasks was to
15 define these three terras.
16 Now, the term equivalency has baen defined
17 in terms of seven separate elements, and these elements
18 are as follows:
19 The state must have legislative authority
20 to control hazardous wastes, and this authority must
21 include both onsite and offsite management authority.
A~" A*
22 The state must have published criteria
23 and standards related to hazardous waste management, and
24 in all cases, the state's criteria and standards can be
25 no less stringent than those that will be promulgated by
-------
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
[,,
20
2i
22
24
25
311
EPA, as stipulated in Section 3009 of the Act.
Now, this does not mean that the state's
criteria and standards cannot be different. The only
thing we are saying is that they cannot be anv less
stringent.
The state must also have a permit- like
mechanism which provides and administrative, legal and
resource framework to issue, revoke and deny permits.
The state must also have a manifest system which will
track the waste from point of generation to the point of
final disposal.
The fifth element is, the state must have
sufficient or adequate resources in which to conduct and
operate the hazardous waste program.
The sixth element applies only to the states
who have raoro than one agency involved in the administra-
tion and enforcement of the hazardous waste program. And
for these states, in the application to be submitted to
EPA, the state must explicitly delineate the various
responsibilities of each state agency as it relates to
hazardous waste management.
In addition, a lead agency will be desig-
nated by the governor or other entity within the state
responsible for tills task to facilitate any communications
that will occur between EPA and the state agencies.
-------
312
1 The seventh element in defining an equiva- |
j j
2 ^ent state program is that the state must submit a public
~J-R ^participation _plan with their application, and this pjublic
_ 4 participation £lan or program must comply with the gublic
participation cjuidelines which will be promulgated under
Section 7004(b) of RCRA.
- \ Now, the second criterion in defining a
I
s |j fully authorized hazardous waste program is that the state
Si i rauat be- consistent with the federal program or other
i
10 ,j applicable state programs.
!1 j In all our discussions dealing with con-
12 j siatency we were only able to identify one issue pertain-
13 ing to consistency, and this deals with the free movement
U of hazardous wastes. This has been the most controversial
15 and raost hoatly contested issue in the development of
Hi these guidelines.
17 ' Tills issue can be further segregated
|j (5) ©
—)18 into two subissues. The first suBlssue deals with legis-
' ] A- A-
19 j lative importation bans, and in the guidelines we have
20 taken the stance that a state which has a legislative
2i importation ban will be considered inconsistent with the
22 federal program, and therefore, it will not be eligible
23 to assume a fully authorized hazardous waste program.
.024 The second subissue deals with any criteria
f t*~
25 and standards which the state night promulgate as to their
-------
313
1 similarity or dissimilarity to those promulgated by EPA.
2 And in the guidelines, we have said that a
3 state can promulgate criteria and standards which are more
4 stringent than those that EPA will promulgate as long as
5 they are consistent, and the regional office will use two
6 tests to determine the consistency of these criteria and
7 standards.
8 The first test is, is the state's criteria
9 and standards justified based on the need for public
10 health and environment?
11 The second test, is there any discrinina-
12 tion of the state's criteria and standards by geographic
e?
)13 origin? That la, is there a higher standard for instate
' e> *•
14 wastes or a lower standard for instate wastes as there is
15 for out-of-state wastes?
16 Using these two tests, the regional office
17 should determine the consistency of the state's criteria
18 and standards.
19 The third criterion in evaluating a state
20 program is whether it allows adequate enforcement. Our
21 initial intent was to write specific or quantifiable
22 standards into the guidelines dealing with adequacy of
23 enforcement, such as, the state must conduct so many
24 inspections for permitted facilities, or the state must
25 collect so many samples per visit.
-------
314
However, in the meetings that were held,
2 both with the states and the regulated community, it was
., urged to us that putting quantifiable standards in the
4 guidelines might make it very difficult for the regional
5 office to consider any variations in the state program.
That is, if you put hard and fast numbers
in the guidelines you may not consider all the individual
characteristics which a state program might have. So,
therefore, we have written the guidelines so as to allow
maximum flexibility so that the regional office can con-
n sider any individual characteristics, any bureaucracies,
12 any efficiencies or inefficiencies the state might have
in which to conduct the enforcement program.
However, to assist the regional administra-
15 tor, we will be putting out a guidance p_aper dealing with
16 this whole question of adequate enforcement which will
17 hopefully assist the £eglonal administrators in making
18 their final decision.
19 Now, the next type of authorization which
20 is described in the guidelines is called partial authori-
21 zation. And, as I had indicated earlier, there are two
types of authorization which a state can apply for.
23 Well, partial is not one of them. Partial
came about as a result of our meetings. In the state
25
meetings that were held, several of the states had indicated
-------
315
] to us that there might be certain instances where states
2 could not apply for full authorization because they lacked
g certain legislative authorities or certain resources. So,
4 therefore, they urged us to make some provisions in the
, guidelines for a state to assume part of the program, or
0
partial authorization.
_ So, therefore, there is a provision in the
„ guidelines for a state to assume partial authorization.
o
9 Now, it must be kept in mind under partial
]() authorization the state would be conducting part of the
i! program and EPA would be conducting part of the program.
12 ! You would be having two regulatory agencies conducting
13 the hazardous waste program.
]4 Now, the decision of whether to grant partial
?15 I authorization will rest entirely with the ^regional £ffice.
ii; Furthermore, the uses of partial authorization will be
- [I limited. States will only be permitted to apply for
i
x I partial authorization where they lack certain specific
]9 ] legislative authorities, and in all cases the combination
,,0 of the state hazardous waste program and EPA1 s hazardous
I
,n waste program must meet the substantive and procedural
jj requirements of a fully authorized hazardous waste program
which I just finished discussing a couple of minutes ago.
e.
The third typd_ of authorization which is
described in the guidelines and discussed in the Act is
-------
316
1 called interim authorization, and this is described and
if (_/)u> SfOAX?)
.—-~>2 discussed under Subparagraph£)(c) of Section 3006 of the
3 Act, and a state will be granted interim authorization if
4 they are found to have a hazardous waste program in existenc^
- by July 20th, 1978, and if the state program is found to
g be substantially equivalent to the federal program.
7 In addition, the state will conduct the
8 hazardous waste program under interim authority in lieu of
9 the federal program; that is, the state will be conducting
](] the program in its entirety for no longer than two years.
u Now, it's important to keep in mind that
12 interim authorization is a temporary authorization which
13 Congress intended. A state can only apply for interim
14 authorization in a specified time period. That time
15 period ia July 20th, 1978 to October 20th, 1978, and a
I,; state can only operate t*e hazardous waste program under
17 interim authority in a definite calendar period, and that
18 period is October 21st, 1978, to October 20th, 1980. Afteir
19 that date, states will only be able to apply and operate
20 the hazardous waste program under full or partial author!-
21 zation.
22 tlow, it appears to us that Congress intended
23 that this interim period be a grace period for the states
24 to assume the program, get their program up to a fully
25 authorized hazardous waste program, without EPA being
-------
317
9
10
11
12
—=>]:)
14
15
<-^ie
17
18
— *>ig
f
20
21
22
—7 23
24
25
there Conducting a parallel program.
Therefore, the major differences we see
between the equivalency defined under full authorization
and substantially equivalent, which is defined under
interim authorization, is that the latter program may lack
certain legislative and statutory authorities.
Now, we believe that this lack of stringency
of the equivalency is consistent with Congress' intent to
maximize the number of states to assume the hazardous
waste program under interim authority, build the program
up, and ultimately assume the full hazardous waste program.
EPA supports this viewpoint and, therefore,
has structured the guidelines as follows:
For a state to receive interim authorization
they must have: One, the legislative authority to control
© ©
at a minimum either onsite or offsite disposal. They must
have some resources in which to conduct the program. They
must have a permit-like system to control at a minimum
<=> ©
either onsite or offsite disposal, and they must have some
A. A—
surveillance and enforcement program.
Now, the adequacy of the resources and the
surveillance and enforcement program will be based on the
^regional administrator's own judgment and experience. In
addition, when a state applies for interim authorization
in the application to be submitted to EPA, he will submit
-------
318
1 a document we are calling an authorization plan. The
2 authorization plan will lay out any additions or modifi-
3 cations which will have to be made by the state program
4 so that they can assume the fully authorized hazardous
5 waste program at the end of the two-year period, and it
will also lay out the schedule in which the state proposes
to make these additions or modifications.
That basically describes these various typeu
of authorizations that a state can receive.
10 In addition, there are three other sections
_AII in the Act -- in the guidelines, excuse me. One describes
12 the substantive and procedural requirements for states
13 applying for authorization. One describes the substantive
14 and procedural requirements for the withdrawal of authori-
15 zatlon, and the fourth and final section describes the
16 EPA's oversight of the state hazardous waste program.
17 How, due to time constraints, I will not be
18 getting into these three sections.
_v19 In addition to the guidelines and the
_r>^o preamble to the guidelines, there is a section called,
recommended elements. And in the meetings that were held
22 with both the states and the regulated community, several
23 individuals felt that other activities or responsibilities
24 should also be included as required elements for a state
25 to receive authorization.
-------
319
1 However, in evaluating these elements, we
2 felt that the state program could adequately control —•
3 obtain the same degree of control over hazardous wastes
4 without these elements and, therefore, are not requiring
5 them, but are recommending them.
6 These three elements being: A technical as-
7 sistance program,to conduct a hazardous waste inventory,
8 and to include some type of confidentiality provisions,
9 public record laws or privacy acts.
10 The last thing I would like to talk about
11 are the unresolved issues, and there is basically one
12 unresolved issue that - as I indicated earlier - deals
13 with legislative importation bans.
^14 In the guidelines we have taken the position
15 that a state that has a legislative importation ban will
16 be considered inconsistent with the federal program and,
17 therefore, will not be eligible to assume a fully authorized
18 hazardous waste program.
19 We have taken this position for several
20 reasons. EPA has always espoused the philosophy that
21 hazardous waste should be managed at the best possible
22 facilities from an environmental, economical and techni-
23 logical basis, regardless of states or their boundaries.
24 Therefore, we have always discouraged importation bans.
25 Further, the hazardous waste management
-------
320
1 industry usually requires large generating districts; that
2 is, they usually need to collect waste from out of state
3 to meet an economy scale on equipment costs. Several
4 commentora have indicated to us that if we do not take
5 this position eventually every state or state jurisdiction
6 would promulgate some type of importation ban, and you
7 would have to nave a facility in each state to handle all
8 different types of hazardous wastes that might be generated
9 in that state. We feel that this is not the way to go.
10 One of the intents of the Act is to foster
ll the regional management of hazardous waste. The arguments
12 on the other side of the coin - that is, we should not take
13 a position - first of all, there is a legal case presiding
14 right now - it will be going to the Supreme Court in, I
15 guess, the next year or so - the city of Philadelphia has
16 sued the State of New Jersey from imposing an importation
17 ban on all waste going into New Jersey for final disposal.
18 Many people feel that since this is a legal
19 matter that we should let the matter be up to the courts
20 and not get involved. I would like to point out that we
21 are really arguing two different points. The Supreme
22 Court is arguing a legal matter, a constitutional matter.
23 We are not. We are looking at it, whether it ia part of a
24 sound, national hazardous waste management program.
25 Another argument that has been thrown at us
-------
321
is that since the drafters of tne legislation specifically
2 ! excluded out-of-state bans in the legislative history,
., whatever there is of it, that we have no legal existence
, to use — no authority to use the existence or inexistence
of importation bans as a requirement for full authorization.
„ The third and final argument is that states
b
7 may achieve the importation of waste by other means, other
than legislatively, such as local and county bans, discrimi-
ii
„ natory rates, limited hours of landfill operations.
S
ln | Therefore, they feel it is unfair to penalize
M only those states who have gone to the trouble of imposing
j
j, || an outright ban and not those others.
13 j That concludes ray presentation. How I will
H i turn it back to you, Fred.
j- i MR. SAllJOURt While we're collecting ques-
tions on this section of the Act, I think we'd like to
clarify some issues that were raised previously by both
Sam Korekaa and myself on the whole issue of variances
from the permanent conditions for facilities which cannot
meet the standards, and I'll turn the mike over to Fred
Lindsey.
22 MR. LINDSEY« This apparently generated a
lot of heat, and I want to see — I think the heat comes
24 about, at least partially, from a misunderstanding, and I
,g want to see if I can square this away
-------
322
j The question had to do with whether or not
2 there is a variance procedure, and - call it what we will -
3 there is, in a sense, a kind of procedure in this regard,
4 and let me see if X can square it.
5 We're talking about now facilities which,
g in the opinion of the applicant, do not meet and may never
7 meet all of the substantive requirements under Section 3004.
8 For example, they may be located on the edge
g of a flood plain, for example, but they don't represent any
I,, imminent hazard, that is, any demonstrable danger, immediate
n danger or near-term danger, to someone.
12 Now, the question is, how will those facili-
13 ties be handled?
l, First, let me say that such a facility who
15 believes they're in that condition would in all probability
H; have the option, but one of the things they could do is
17 Apply tor an interim permit. They apply for an interim
18 permit simply by making application and notifying us that
19 they're in existence.
2Q How, they're going to be one of some 20,000
21 or so permits that we're going to have to deal with. Now,
22 in dealing with 20,000 permits, EPA is going to hav» *-o set
23 up some prioritization scheme.
24 Now, there's two things that'll impact on
25 that, how many people we've got and things of that nature.
-------
323
1 But, what we'll do is - or we haven't made
2 a final pronouncement on what this prioritization scheme
3 will be, but it would seem to me as a reasonable person
4 that the way we would proceed is to take the facilities
5 that we feel are good facilities, OK, and act on those
6 permits first so as to get those facilities into the
7 system, grant them permits so that they can be encouraged,
8 so that they will be able to gain financing and capital,
9 et cetera, to expand and so forth, to encourage those
10 facilities.
11 We would also at the same time take a look
12 at the facilities which we believe to be on the other end
13 of the spectrum; that is, the really bad ones that we think
14 exist. We would then deal with those applications early on
15 in the system in order to get the really dangerous operations
16 out of existence, and then, presumably, we would work toward
17 that great middle ground.
18 in working toward that great middle ground,
19 we would also be cognizant in whether or not to deal with
20 an application, of whether or not there's an adequate
21 alternative available nearby. OK. Now, if there's no
22 adequate alternative nearby, and preliminary, precursory
23 judgment indicates that the facility in question is not a
24 serious problem, at least, we may choose to go after a more
25 serious problem or a facility where there ia an adequate
-------
324
alternative, that is, another pennant facility nearby. So,,
we have that judgment and Congress has given that, and we
will play with tnat to a certain extent.
How, there's another thing that comes into
play here in terms of determining whether or not we are
going to take a look at an application and when we're goinc
to do it, and that is basically, I think, the squeaky wheel.
approach is going to be involved.
It there's a great deal of citizen or other
interest in a given facility, there is going to be impact
upon EPA to do something about that facility, and we will
then - feeling the pressure, certainly - act on that
facility's application. OK? Soon. Because it's generat-
ing a lot of interest.
OK, so that's another factor that's going
to impact on whether or not we take a look at it.
17 OK, ao then we find, for example, there is
18 j a great deal of interest in this facility, and this
facility then - we act on the application, and sure enough
we find that this facility is located on the edge of a
flood plain, does not appear to represent any immediate
hazard to someone, although they're never going to meet
the standard, but there is no alternative nearby, and to
24 shut that facility down, in our opinion, might lead to
worse things. Like no alternative, people are going to dump
-------
325
1 it some place. The stuff keeps being generated, and it's
2 going to have to go somewhere. If there is no alternative
3 it's liable to be Jumped. It would be better therefore,
4 in our opinion, to keep that facility operating.
5 There is another alternative built into the
e system, and I addressed this earlier. There is the oppor-
7 tunity for EPA to grant a temporary permit. What we call -
8 and you may hear us use the term some time in the future -
g a sunset permit. OK? This is one where the permit is
10 issued for a specified period of time, and I can't remember
11 the exact time that's written or that we are considering
12 now, but it's something like four or five years, during
13 which that facility will be monitored. They will have to
14 meet the standards as they are able to meet them in terms
15 of monitoring, et cetera, and a close eye will be kept on
16 it, but they will be allowed to continue operating while
17 the people who are using that facility are on notice that
18 as of a given date that facility is not going to be around
19 anymore, and the owners and operators of that facility are
20 on notice that they are going to have to find another
2i location or another facility, or what have you.
22 And that gives everybody a chance then to
23 implement, that is to make the necessary adjustments without
24 immediate chaos. There is also the opportunity for renewal
25 of that for a shorter period of time if, for some reason,
-------
326
1 act of God or whatever, things can't be modified in that
2 time.
3 But, hopefully, that'll give some idea of
4 how we expect to proceed, and whether we call it a variance
5 procedure or a sunset permit or judicious action or an
6 interim permit or whatever we want to call it, it all comes
7 out the same way, and that's basically the way it will be
8 handled. I hope that will clear that up some.
g I have one other one here which I will
10 address, and then I'll give it to you in a minute.
11 Can the permitting agency or other local
12 control agency ban small generators from certain landfills
13 if they have hazardous waste, or does this become too
14 stringent for a state permit system to approach?
15 I can take this two ways. The question being
16 whether the state might ban a small generator's hazardous
17 waste from a permitted hazardous waste facility, under the
18 presumption that the small generator's waste is a small
19 quantity, does not represent a real hazard, and could be
20 handled in a routine facility, or the other way around,
21 that they could ban a small generator's waste from a
22 sanitary landfill and thus force it into a permanent facilit;
23 As I indicated, there's quite a -- and, as
24 I think MX. Straus indicated — there's quite a deal of
25 flexibility here in what the state can do. OK. The way
-------
327
! which we'll judge these kinds of things is whether or not,
2 in our opinion, they gain an equivalent degree of control
3 or better. In this particular case, I would say that the
4 answer is that they could do that, and would still maintain
- an overall equivalent degree of control. But it's maybe a
,.; little dangerous to give those kinds of pronouncements
7 after IS seconds of thinking.
8 MR. SANJOURi A question was asked about
,., making verbal statements on all of Subtitle C. Anyone
li, wishing to make a statement on the entire section of the
M&.
^i l Act, please give -Mian Savage, outside, your name and we
12 will entertain such statements toward the end of the day
13 or earlier, if time permits, but it will be some time today.
14 We asked yesterday at the close of the meeting if anyone
15 wanted to give such statements, and no one came forward.
16 Alan?
,- MR. CORSONi I have two questions of clarifi-
18 cation.
19 Questions If the state program includes
20 an importation ban, the program is not approve able and
2i EPA will conduct its program. Will EPA, therefore, allow
22 importation to that state? I think this question addresses
23 would could be the net result of the New Jersey case.
24 The position that we have taken is that it
25 would not be a comparable state program and therefore, not
-------
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
323
authorized if the importation ban was there. I don't
think there's anything about our Act which allows us to
supercede state law.
Clarification. Please clarify previous
opinion about facilities on Indian Reservations. Indian
Reservations are, in essence, a sovereigh state. EPA or
the state cannot regulate facilities on reservations.
Both treaty and state law prohibitions exist. Indian
Reservations are not federal facilities.
I certainly completely agree with the last
statement. I do not mean to imply that the two are synony-
mous. I used the Indian Reservation as an introduction
to another point which I wanted to emphasize about federal
facilities which I will address in the next question.
I think we will refer back to our general
counsel for any opinion as to the applicability of Code
1945(a) to existing statutes, treaties and whatever regard-
ing Indian Reservations.
Question! Must military and other federal
installations comply with RCRA? If a state chooses to
administer the hazardous waste program, must the military
or other federal installations comply with the state program
In a word, yes, that is the intent, as we
read it, of Section 6002, I believe — 6001. And this is
one of the differences in this Act as opposed to some of
-------
329
the others. It does indicate that each department, agency
/\j
municipaltiy must comply both procedurally and substan-
3 tively with provisions of this Act.
4 There are other acts which EPA has adminis-
tered which call for substantive compliance. This Act also
6 adds that it must comply procedurally.
7 We have read that to mean that if there is
a state authorized program, a federal facility in that
state would have to apply for a permit from the state
10 program
11 MR. SANJOURi I think it may even go beyond
12 that, Alan. I have gotten a verbal opinion from a member
of the_general counsel's office that federal facilities
14 would have to apply with state law, even if the state did
15 not have an authorized state program.
16 MR. STRAUS: OK, I have a couple of questions
17 here.
18 The first one is: If a state is granted
19 interim authorization under 3006(c) and carries on an
20 excellent program for 24 months, would it be possible in
1980, for example, for the state to continue its well-
-)22 structured, economicall^sound program if it has an impor-
23 tation provision, for example. If not, would this not lead
to chaos as EPA takes over in such state, causing the state
25 to fire staff officials and cut state contractors no longer
-------
330
1 needed to dispose of hardware, equipment, computer time,
2 et cetera? How could EPA almost instantly acquire local
3 expertise for that state?
4 Well, I'd like to expand on it a little bit.
5 When a state applies for interim authorization, as I indi--
6 cated earlier, he must also submit an authorization plan
7 which will lay out the additions or modifications which
8 would have to be made in order for that state to assume
9 the program and the schedule in which the state proposes
10 ! to make those additions or modifications.
11 If the state does not make those changes,
12 taking the importation ban, if they cannot change the
13 legislation to rid the state of the importation ban, EPA
14 has no other choice but to assume the program. How, this
15 will lead to chaos, but the way the Act is written, if a
state does not have a fully authorized hazardous waste program
17 at the end of that two-year period, EPA is required and
18 mandated to take over the program.
19 So, you could say it about importation bans
20 or you could say it about anything else which the state
21 would not be able to get in their program.
22 What is the procedure for states, in coopera-
23 tion with EPA, to evaluate their existing environmental
24 laws to see if they are adequate or where they must be
25 amended?
-------
I
2
3
^4
5
fi
7
8
9
10
11
14
_»15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
331
Well, basically, what X will suggest is that
if there is any interest, that you gather the laws which
you think apply for hazardous waste management and send it
to the regional _off ices, and they will make an initial eval-
uation. How, please remember that this is an initial evalua-'
tion. Final evaluation cannot be made until all rules and
regulations are promulgated by EPA, but they can give you
an initial decision of whether they think the state has
enough authority or whether the rules and regulations
which the state has might be equivalent and consistent.
If you want to get the names and numbers
of th6 regional administrators, why don't you leave your
name at the desk outside, and we can send you a copy of
these people.
Does an administrative. as opposed to a
legislative importation ban violate the consistency criterion?
Hell, the first question is, we don't intend
to tell the state how to run the program. If they feel
that a facility cannot adequately handle a hazardous waste,
we are not going to force them to take it. We are just
opposing the outright ban that some states have saying,
"We will not take any waste,' so if a state feels that they
do not have the technical capability to handle the waste,
that the facility should not be permitted to accept this
type of waste, that will be the state's decision, if the
-------
332
state assumes a program.
The second question isi Does EPA plan to
overrule states if they, the states, feel that a more
O
stringent criteria are needed but EPA feels that this is
4
incorrect?
5
Well, basically, the reason why we are, I
b
guess, putting an upper limit on the criterion standards
is that a state could achieve the same effect of importa-
o
tion of waste by just putting an artificially high standard
and say, "Well, this is what we need for public health and
the environment."
We feel that a state probably could have
j>13 more stringent standards and that the regional Administrator
will accept them as long as they are not grossly more
14
stringent, so we do not see this as a real problem unless
the state just has a gross overestimate of the federal
standards.
11
,. Another questioni How about an advance
lo
unofficial opinion? In general, would the California
hazardous waste program qualify for EPA approval without
major change?
I will say again or defer to the regional
office. They will either have their staff look at it or
?23
their regional counsel, or they'll send it to us in
„ Washington to look at, and we will then make the initial
-------
333
1 determination.
2 I will say that we have reviewed several
3 pieces of legislation from several states and have a«nt
4 initial opinions back to the state.
5 If a state has interim authorization, if it
_~ 6 only has legislative authority to control *t I itti Lu disposal
^ 7 of hazardous waste, will offsite disposal be controlled by
EPA?
g In short, no. The state will control the
10 entire program under interim authorization. If all they can
control is the minimu, that's all that will be controlled.
*»
12 At the end of that two-year period, either they will have
13 to build their program up, or EPA will assume the full
hazardous waste program.
15 Could a state essentially ban disposal of a
16 particular substance or group of substances by not issuing
17 any permits for their disposal in the state, thus avoiding
18 the importation ban?
19 i A short answer is, yea. The state, again,
20 is going to have to determine whether the facility is
21 adequate to control or handle those types of waste. We do
22 I not plan on getting involved in those types of matters as
23 long as the state is authorized.
24 If a state law allows a county agency to
25 issue a permit for a hazardous waste facility, will EPA
-------
334
1 allow this procedure a* part of an authorized state pro-
2 gran, or must state agency issue permits and conduct
3 inspections?
4 The answer is that the state does not have
5 to do it. As I indicated, we are not dictating how the
6 state controls the program. He are just interested that
7 nothing falls through the cracks, so on the state's appli-
8 cation they would have to indicate which part of the program
9 I would be conducted by which agency, whether they are state
10 or county, and the application would be evaluated from tiuit
11 point.
12 Can the states be encouraged to discourage s
•713 local government entity from setting up importation bans?
14 If so, how ao? Could it be dona in a manner similar to the!
-llo federally^nandated 55 mile per hour speed limit, or is that
16 system unique to the large amount of federal systems
17 required?
18 Well, I'm not sure I know how to answer thjit,,
19 We are opposed to them. I'm not sure what we can tell you
20 to discourage local governments other than seiying they might
21 not be able to assume part of the hazardous waste program
22 that they could not carry out, let's say, if they have an
23 importation ban, but --
24 MR. LINDSEY: State legislation might be
25 one way to do it.
-------
33S
1 MR. STRAUSi State legislation, yeah, Fred
2 just indication probably would be the only way, but we could
3 not get involved in that.
4 MR. LINDSEYj What advantages, monetarily
5 and otherwise, ara established to encourage states to take
6 over the program?
7 Well, it's a good question. There are pros
8 and cons to a state wanting to take over the program.
9 In one case, for example, where states
10 already have a substantial program, there is the fact that
11 it already exists, and that's one reason for wanting to take
12 over the program. There's local controls set up, the system
13 la operating, and why encourage another system, such as a
14 federal system, to come in and start monkeying around, so
15 there's that part of it.
16 There is the whole deal, even in other
17 states, in many areas of the country where local home rule
18 - state's rights, if you will - is a significant issue.
19 "We don't want to deal with these guys in Washington. This
20 is a state problem. It impacts on the state people and,
21 therefore, we want to handle it here." Industry frequently
22 sees it that way. Environmentalists see it that way.
23 They'd rather be able to go up to -- to go to Phoenix to
24 deal with people rather than having to go to San Francisco
25 to deal with federal people who are removed, if you will.
-------
33(5
1 from the local scene.
2 There's also the advantage for a local state
3 to tailor its program quite a bit to the needs, condition!!
4 of the industry and the people and the environment in their
5 state. A federal system, as you've heard, is going to be a
6 federal system. It's going to apply nation-wide, as is,
7 without any real local tailoring, whereas if the state's
8 running the system, they can conduct this local tailoring,
g if you will.
10 There is the problem of elimination of
11 duplicative systems. If a state already has a system, and
12 they're not authorized or don't seek authorization, EPA will
13 be setting up another system, and there'll be two systems.
14 Industry and the states, nobody is going to like that. Thait's
15 for sure.
16 There's also the situation of the money.
17 Congress has authorized $25 million for each — no, excuse
18 me. Yes, they've authorized. That's the right word — for
19 two years. But Congress, however, seldom appropriates that
20 amount of money, and it's unlikely that they will appropriate
21 that amount of money here, so there's a good sized question
22 of whether or not there's going to be enough grant money
23 from Uncle Sam to pay for all state programs.
24 Further, there will be a matching requirement
25 on the states where the states will have to come up with
-------
337
1 some percentage - maybe it'll start at 25 percent - of the
2 total amount of money needed to conduct the program, but
3 most of the program probably will be paid — there probably
4 will be enough money for most of the programs to be paid
5 by Uncle Sam. So, there is that "carrot," if you will.
6 I guess that's about it. Those are the
7 main reasons.
8 After full authorization, how can unreason-
9 ably stringent state criteria be reconsidered by EPA? Will
10 it be necessary to generate a suit for each complaint
11 directed at the state?
12 If a state is authorized it's going to be
13 difficult, at best, for EPA to come back in and say, "Gee,
14 the criteria that you're using are no good." We supposedly
15 are doing this ahead of time.
16 Now, when the state makes application, we
17 will make a decision where an adequage degree of control
18 is being exercised or is available under the state program
19 and whether or not the importation ban provisions are being
20 met.
21 In the case where this occurs - just to talk
__-^2 a little bit more about that - the regional Administrator —
23 for example, if there is a greatly more stringent standard
24 than the federal standards, if you will, in a given area
_T25 °f concern — the regional administrator will make three
-------
1 tests.
2 First of all, he'll determine to his own
3 satisfaction that this particular standard is, in fact,
4 impeding movement of waste. If the answer is yes, it is
5 impeding movement of waste, then he will try another test.
e Does it, this standard, discriminate between wastes which
7 are generated within the state and those which are gene-
8 rated without the state? And, if the answer is yes —
9 or, excuse me — if the answer is yes, then they have a
10 discriminatory standard. If the answer is no, then he
11 will go the next route and say, "OK, can this standard be
12 substantiated based on the need, the local need, to protect
13 public health and the environment in a way that's different
14 from EPA1 s?" And if the answer is that there is no basis
15 in public health and the environment, that it's an arbi-
16 trarily set standard, or it can't be supported, the need
17 for it can't ba supported, then in those instances he will
18 find that that standard is, in fact, accomplishing the
ig same thing as an importation ban, and I think it's even
2o worse than an importation ban, because not only will it
21 inhibit waste from coming into the state; it will force
22 wastes which are generated within the state to move out of
23 it, which is another part of the whole issue..
24 It's going to be tough to implement that
25 particular set of circumstances. It's going to have to b«
-------
l-[
12
13
.
21
22
24
.,-
339
a blatant, clean kind of a thing, I think, to really carry
that through.
When and how might the hazardous waste
inventory be attained?
OK, it's not a hazardous waste inventory.
There is no such thing as a hazardous waste inventory,
except where the states are carrying such a thing out,
and a number of states have already done this, by the way.
Most of them have, yes.
Some otner ones will continue to do that.
It's not a requirement of the federal program, however,
that they do that.
Relative to the — you know, there may have
been some confusion with the other inventory, inventory
of open dumps which we talked about under Subtitle D. I'm
not sure when that actually will be completed, but it's
at least a year or a year and a half away.
Here's a long one.
One element not fully covered, but pertinent
to a hazardous waste program, is that of needed disposal
sites. Given the difficulty of local elected officials
to overrule objections from the public, and regardless of
whether the feds or the state is responsible for the pro-
gram, is there - and, if not, shouldn't there be - a plan
to make available appropriate federal lands as disposal
-------
340
1 sites for hazardous wastes where necessary?
2 Contrary to this proposal there have been
3 federal installations that have been citizen/Conaiiunity us
-------
341
1 them. I think the fact that EPA will be taking an in
2 depth look at each facility ohould help in this regard,
3 because EPA will, in fact, be giving that facility - if it
4 permits it - a clean bill of health. OK? That is, a
5 certification that this facility is not going to damage
6 public health, if you will.
7 And that should help, but it's not at all
8 clear that this is going to overcome citizen opposition.
9 We're not really sure how - we, the federal
10 government, are not really sure - serious a problem this
11 is going to be. We feel that the problem of local citizen
12 opposition is going to delay the expansion of the needed
13 capacity. We don't know for how long, we don't know how
14 serious that's going to be. Clearly, I think there will
15 be some impact.
18 We are looking now for tilings which we
17 might do to try to impact upon that, citizen opposition
18 groups, and something that Ben suggested, one of them is
19 this business of using federal landa or trying to make
20 them available.
21 It's not as easy as all that, and it's one
22 of the things we are looking at, however, I should point
23 out. It's not as easy as all that. It's difficult, for
&1-W or
'24 example, to get -ftftft at the Forest Service to give up their
25 land for hazardous waste facilities as they — you know,
-------
342
1
2
3
4
5
12
13
u
15
in
17
18
19
24
25
it's difficult to gat them to do that. EPA doesn't have
land, for example, except the regional office in San
Francisco, and they don't have a big enough parking lot
to do much with.
But, that's a difficult problem although it
is an option. Presumably one might get into that, but the
problem is that in doing that, then you tend to subsidize
one part of the industry as opposed to some other part of
the industry, and you get into equity problems there. That
has to be looked at.
Another approach which has been recommended
is citizen education and/or local public official educa-
tion so that at least when one of these decisions comes up,,
such as a zoning variance or a zoning issue relative to
one of these facilities, at least a decision can be made
with some knowledge of what's really involved and some
educated ideas, instead of hysterical, which is typically
a problem in these kinds of things.
Another option is a congressional fix, and
that will be tho one that will occur if, in fact, the
citizen opposition approach is so serious that we can't
overcome it and we can't implement this Act, then Congress
will fix it somehow, and I don't know how and when, but
it'll bo — it would be years if that were really involved,.
Oil, yes, one other thing — I was just
-------
343
1 prompted ~ there's already kind of a step in that direc-
2 tion, that last direction. Congressman Finley of Illinois
3 has -- I don't remember the number of the proposal —-
4 introduced into the House a bill which has, which would
5 be an amendment to RCRA which would, in fact, do that;
8 would, in fact, set up federal disposal sites, one in each
7 state, for a state disposal site. I don't know whether
8 that will pass, clearly, but that's been introduced.
9 Please name the two to six states that
10 appear to warrant full authorization.
11 No, I'm not going to do that. We haven't
12 made an evaluation of states. We, you know, clearly are ~
13 our requirements are not final, and we won't be making that
14 kind of an analysis in depth until the applications are
is received. This is based on our subjective understanding
16 of what various states are doing and so on, and it's not
17 a final or even a firm number. It's just an impression,
18 if you will, and I'm not going to try to name them.
19 An agency who operates existing dump sites.
20 should we apply for interim status permits to EPA iiranedi-
21 ately or wait till authorization of state regulatory systems
22 are final?
23 First of all, relative to doing it imraedi-
24 ately, the standards that you have to meet and so on are
25 not finalized. You know, we haven't even got a good grasp
-------
344
1 of Sections 3004 and 3005 regulations yet, so there's no --
2 you know, there's no real way to make application now.
3 Once the 3005 regulations are promulgated,
4 which should be this coming spring, then is the time to
5 make application either to the state - if it's been
6 authorized, and states will by that time be beginning to
7 be authorized - you don't have to make this application
8 though until six months after the 3005 regs are promulgated,
9 which presumably is next fall or later, October or November
10 of next year, December of next year. That kind of time
11 frame is what we're talking about.
12 So, that is when we would expect to receive
13 the bulk of the applications. And if the state were
14 authorized at that point, you would make it to the state.
15 If not, you would make it to us.
16 MR. SAHJOURj I have one oral question of
17 you, Fred, and that is thati In a state authorized program
IB would it be consistent if the state required some facilities
19 to be public utilities; that is, do they have to take in
20 everybody's waste? Would we authorize such a statement?
21 MR. LIHDSEY: If they were able to adequately
22 control the waste, that is, an adequate degree of public
23 health protection, in our opinion — that's a new question,
24 I haven't fully thought it through, but I think we would
25 not find that inconsistent.
-------
345
1 MR. CORSON: One question: Will the amount
2 of fines and other penalties be considered if the test for
3 equivalency? If so, how equivalent the equivalency?
4 I think the answer to that is that obviously
5 the amount of fines and other penalties will be one of the
considerations in our looking at a state enforcement pro-
gram. But it's not the single entity that sits out there. I
the state has the ability to regulate and hops on these
things very quickly, then it would probably go.
On the other hand, if they're qualified and
I, have equivalent fines but never impose them, we haven't
12 gained anything, so it would be considered as part of the
13 overall enforcement program.
14 MR. STRAUSs OK, I just have three others.
3
f£15 The first one ist What criterionjstandards
16 are required for obtaining full authorization? Hazardous
waste definition, operating standards for treatment,
18 storage or generation, operating standards for containers
19 and transportation, other.
20 The answer is, at a minimum the state would
21 have to have the same criterion standards that will be
22 developed under the federal program; that is, definition,
23 generator standards, transporter standards and treatment,
24 storage and disposal standards. And that does not mean
the state cannot promulgate different standards, but they
-------
346
l would have to have these at a minimum.
2 If EPA acts as the enforcement agency in a
3 particular state, I assume that federal funds support the
4 expenses of EPA's activities. Is this correct?
5 Yes.
6 If the EPA authorizes the state to act as
7 the enforcement agency, will federal funds - which would
8 otherwise have to be used for EPA - be provided to the
9 authorized state for the expenses it incurs in carrying out
10 the delegated federal regulations?
11 The answer is, yes, but we're not sure how
12 much.
13 If not, why not?
H Let me just clarify that. If the money to
15 be given to the states is not the same that will be used
16 by EPA — for example, there will be grants given to the
17 states, and if the state does not assume the program, that
18 money that would go to them does not automatically go to
19 EPA. That goes back in the pot, to be distributed to the
20 other states. It's two separate pots.
21 If yes, will EPA require the states to dis-
22 continue existing hazardous waste tax collection programs
23 which now support the states' enforcement programs?
24 The answer is, no, the state can fund a
25 program any way they feel is necessary, and legal under
-------
347
1 the state.
2 Does the importation ban nonrestriction
3 apply only to hazardous waste? For example, would an
4 importation ban on sewage sludge only prevent a state from
5 having its own hazardous waste management plan?
6 If sewage sludge was defined not to be
7 hazardous, then I would say yes. These guidelines only
8 apply t° hazardous waste, not to other types of waste,
g such as toilet waste, trash and garbage.
10 However, if sewage sludge is defined to be
11 a hazardous waste, then I would imagine the state would
12 have an importation ban and, therefore, the state cannot
13 be authorized.
14 MR. CORSONj I have a question.
IS I think this is another version of one that
IB I believe Fred chose not to answer earlier.
17 Is it a safe assumption, in view of the
18 federal distaste for inspection bans, that federal military
19 installations should have banned community use of their
20 hazardous waste disposal facility, or not permit their
21 use, or will a double standard prevail?
22 1 don't believe that it's a double standard.
23 Like a federal facility has its waste disposal facility
24 for their own waste, it is the same as a private facility
25 that a generator has on his property, and he is allowed to
-------
348
1 restrict that use to his own waste, not entering into
2 commercial operations. Similarly, we feel that a federal
3 facility that has a permit for disposal of his waste does
•4 not have to go into commercial business. We don't see it
5 j as a double standard at all, but rather a facility permit
I!
r> i on the generator's own site.
i
i
~ MR. SANJOURt Are there any oral questions
that anyone would like to ask from the floor? We still
have a few minutes left.
Would you please give your name and your
affiliation?
ft/uiOAt) ~7~i/Ot)Atj
MR. TBHWAN: I'm Leonard Toonan. BKK
Corporation, and I have a question that I really couldn't
figure out how to put on a card.
i
'3 The State of California is now instituting
1s a program whereby there will be a designated enforcement
17 agency for all waste management facilities, hazardous and
18 otherwise. And one of the options that is possible is that
19 there could be as many different enforcement agencies as
20 there are facilities.
21 If there are, for example, 60 hazardous
22 waste facilities - including disposal sites, treatment
23 facilities, transfer stations, and so forth - there could
24 be 60 different enforcement agencies.
25 How, one could be the County of San Diego.
-------
349
1 One could be the City of Rolling Hills Estates. One could
2 be the State Health Department. Under such a condition,
3 would there then be the required lead agency that Mr.
4 Straus indicated would be a requirement before a state
5 could be authorized?
6 MR. LINDSEYt Yeah, what would happen would
7 be that the state would make an application to EPA for
8 authorization, and in that authorization, we're going to
9 deal with the state agency. We're not going to deal with
10 individual counties and cities; that is, EPA is not. We're
11 going to authorize the state to carry out its program.
12 Now, the state's program can have, if you
13 will, local entities involved in it in some fashion like,
14 as you point out, as an enforcement tool. People will go
15 out and do the monitoring perhaps. In doing that, though,
16 juat as if the state were going to carry it out, they're
n going to have to identify for us where the resources are
18 coming from, where people are coming from, what, you know,
19 the activity that's going to be involved, so that we can
20 judge that to be equivalent or not equivalent to the federal
21 activity.
22 So, the same standards, if you will, or the
23 same kinds of information are going to have to be applied
24 and we'll look at it in the same manner. Whether or not
25 they've fragmented it among a number of different places,
-------
350
1 as long as they can tie it all together into a package
2 that's coherent and makes sense, you know, we certainly
3 won't preclude that.
^•>4 MR. TE_NNANi Even if the city in one case
5 and the county in another case and the state in another
6 case issues the permit?
7 MR. LINDSEYi Yeah.
4,
_^ 8 MR. TENNANi That would be OK?
9 MR. LINDSEYi Provided the standards are
10 equivalent, yeah.
L.
^r.11 MR. TENNANi Thank you.
12 MR. STRAUS i Let me juat expand on that.
13 We don't plan on dictating how the states
14 should control their hazardous waste programs. We feel
15 that it should be left up to them to decide that particular
16 point, and however they feel they can do it and adequately
17 control the problem and not let anything slip through the
18 cracks, would probably authorized.
19 MR. LINDSEYi We have one here. It's a
2n latecomer on a card.
21 How will the money be allocated to the
22 states, and what provisions will be made to insure that
23 small states in size, population and industry, et cetera,
24 will be provided with sufficient funds to run a proper
25 program?
-------
351
OK, the situation on that in this. This
coining year, before the states are authorized, they're
atill eligible for monies under Section 4008 of the Act
to begin to gear up a state program in hazardous waste,
and that money is being apportioned for a total solid
waste program of which the hazardous waste program ia a
sub, totally based on population.
OK. The next year, when the authorization
begins to take place, they will be eligible for money
under Section 3011, which requires that we come up wit.
a formula, and that formula has to include such things as —
if I can find it briefly, I'll kind of read to you what it
says. It's very short — It requires that it shall be
allocated among the states on the basis of Regulation
bla-bla-bla, which take into account the extent to which
hazardous waste is generated, transported, treated, stored
and disposed within such state and the extent of exposure
to human beings and the environment within such state of
such waste.
We've got to come up with a formula for
all that. Where we're going to get that kind of information
at the outset, that is before we start receiving data from
toe whole system, I'm not quite sure, but we'll be doing that:
over the next year, so it'll be based not only on — it won'1:
be based on population. It'll be based on the exposure,
-------
352
that is, how much waste is generated, treated, stored,
2 moved through the state, that kind of thing, provided we
3 can come up with some data on wnich to base uiat.
4 MR. 6ANJOUR: Mould anyone else like to ask
g a question from the floor?
(No response.)
MR. SANJOURi If not, then we will adjourn
for lunch until liOO p.m.
9 (Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the meeting was
l(l adjourned, to reconvene at ItOO p.m. of the same day, at
the same place.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
353
1
AFTEBNOON SESSION
2 1»05 p.m.
3 MR. LINDSEYi Now, in terms of obtaining
4 the special kind of permit, which we're calling a product
5 I recovery permit for the moment, they'll have to notify us
6 of the location, they'll have to identify the kinds of waste
7 that are being handled and the amounts and the processes
8 and products - the processes that they use and the products
9 that they make - and they'11 have to certify that the
10 standards under Section 3004 are being met. OK?
11 And, having done that, we will issue a permit
12 Now, we may very well go out and make an inspection before
13 doing that to satisfy ourselves that they are, in fact,
14 meeting the 3004 standards.
15 So, I wanted to set the record straight on
16 that, that basically we do have to live under the same
11 standards. It's simply the procedural matter of getting
a permit, which is somewhat easier.
19 This afternoon, I'll be carrying this section
20 We have the same people on the dais that we had before.
21 The next section of the act that we're going
22 to cover is Section 3010, and I'd like to introduce Tim
O23 Fields, who is the program nianager for technology within
—j24 our organization and is the desk _of ficer for this particular
25 section as well. Tim?
-------
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IK
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_ 354
HR. FIELDS i Thanks, Fred.
Briefly, I'll try to go through the regula-
tions as currently written, the current draft, anyway, for
Section 3010, that we're trying to have proposed in the
Federal Register in late November or early December.
We're promulgating the regulations that will
require, as stated in the Act, that all hazardous waste
handles, that is, hazardous waste generators, transporters,
treatment, storage and disposal facilities operators notify
EPA within 90 days from the date of promulgation of the
Section 3901 criteria for identification or listing of
hazardous waste.
The notification must state the location of
the activity, a general description of the activity, and
the types of hazardous wastes handled as identified or
listed under Section 3001.
The notification must be filed, as stated
under Section 3010, with EPA or an authorized state hazardou
flfecH-
waste program under Section 3006 that Mast Straus discussed
earlier this morning.
The notices that are filed, as Sam Morekas
indicated earlier, within the initial 90-day notification
period will constitute one of the three conditions for a
treatment, storage or disposal facility for acquiring an
interim permit.
-------
9
10
11
12
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
355
The reason that we're promulgating the
regulations under Section 3010 are that, first of all,
we feel that procedures must be established to receive
and process the incoming notices in the EPA _r_egional offices
and the states. Gome consistency must be established, so
we feel the best way to do so is to promulgate this con-
sistency through regulations, so we have to set up data
management systems to recoivu the notices and let people
know what they have to submit.
Second of all, we want to make potential
violators or people who are affected by the requirements
of Section 3010 aware of the requirements of that section,
and the way to do so is to propose rules in the Federal
Register.
We want to assure, thiiily, that there is
a nonambuguity among affected parties about what the law
A—
means by certain terms in Section 3010 and also the agencies
who have to administer Section 3010.
The law says the facility must submit a
general description of its activity. That could mean a
lot of different things, depending upon, you know, who is
interpreting that sentence. So, we're promulgating rules
that define what these terms mean so there is no problem
among the affected party as well as the people who have to
administer the requirements, as to what those terms mean.
-------
356
1 And, finally, we are promulgating these
2 rates to allow a mechanism for states to get involved in
3 the notification process. It's clearly the intent of
4 Congress that states administer as much of the hazardous
5 waste program as early as possible.
6 The law has a little flaw there. It says
7 that states that are authorized under Section 3006 may
8 receive notices. However, there won't be any authorized
9 states during the initial notification period. So, we are
10 ' promulgating special rules under Section 3010,, which I'll
11 j get into a little later, that will allow states to receive
12 thatfe notices from affected parties within their states
13 that they meet certain minimal requirements.
14 OK. The actual regulations as currently
15 | proposed will provide two major items. The r:n3t item is
16 , a term called limited interim authorization. This is a
IT special authorization for a state that will allow a state
18 ] to handle section 3010. It does not apply to any of the
19 other activities, like the permit, the manifest program,
20 et cetera, that Matt Straus discussed. This La not a part
21 of the interim authorization or full authorization under
22 section 3006. This is just an authorization to handle the
23 notification activity.
24 | OK. The notification — this special
l
25 authorization will allow states to receive notifications
-------
—79
357
from affected parties within their statej that is, hazar-
dous waste generators, transporters, treatment, storage
and disposal facilities under their jurisdiction.
It will allow states to conduct support
activities that will help promote the compliance of Section
3010 activities. States may mail notices to affected partie^
for forwarding back, they might advertise in the press,
they might conduct some joint activities with the EPA
regional offices to promote compliance with Section 3010.
Also, under this authority, there are
certain things that are reserved for EPA. The state will
not be allowed to promulgate its own set of notification
regulations. EPA's regulations are those that will be
applied in those states that have this authority to process
notices.
•Hie state cannot grant exemptions as to who
must notify. If EPA, for example, exempts household owners,
then the state must do so. If the EPA extends the notifi-
cation period for mining operations, the state can't require
mining operations to notify. We are going to have consis-
tency in the notification process, although a state might
be handling the notification process in some cases, and the
regional office might be handling notification in other
scates.
Enforcement must be conducted by EPA, the
-------
358
,, 1 EPA regional ^ffices in this case. States do not have the
2 legislative mandate to enforce against violators of the
3 notification process.
4 There are two basic conditions that are
5 being imposed upon the state in order to be able to handle
6 what we call limited interim authorization.
7 First of all, the state must agree to three
8 things. They must agree to maintain the notices or any
9 information they receive from affected parties for a period
10 of three days — three years from receipt of that material
11 from affected parties.
12 They must agree to supply or make available
13 copies of the information they receive to EPA upon request.
14 And they must agree to report violators
15 that they are aware of in their jurisdiction to the EPA,
16 who will then initiate enforcement action.
17 They must certainly submit a plan for
18 implementation of the notification process in their state.,
19 How do they plan to inform affected parties? What mechanism
20
-------
-r
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
•*> 1G
-V7
18
19
~r
21
22
^-s23
24
25
359
review this application, and these first three agreements
must be there; that is, the state must have in this appli-
cation this agreement to furnish information upon request,
agreement to maintain the records for three years, and
agreement to report violators of the section.
The implementation plan is a subjective
call on the part of the EPA regional administrator. The
<*_ •—
EPA regional administrator will judge as to whether a
•c ~
state's implementation plan is adequate to carry out the
spirit of Section 3010 in their state. If he deems, you
know, it's satisfactory, he will say yes. If no, he'll
reject the plan. He will have 30 days to make that
determination as to whether the state will be granted this
authority to conduct the notification activity in that state
After that 60-day period has elapsed, the
regional administrator - each of the 10 EPA regional
administrators - will notify EPA headquarters as to which
states in their regions have been granted this authority
to receive notices from affected parties in their states.
We will then publish a notice in the Federa^ Register and
advertise in the trade press, et cetera, and let you who
are affected by these requirements be aware of who to send
your notice to, whether to an EPA regional office or to a
state, depending upon what state you're located in.
All right. The second major part of the
-------
361)
1 All right. The second part of the regula-
2 tions is the actual notification requirements themselves.
3 These requirements define what people who have to file
4 notification within this initial 90-day period have to
5 submit to the EPA or a designated state agency.
6 First of all, the regulations will specify
7 that each facility must notify. For example, some companies
8 might have 30 facilities scattered over several states.
9 They cannot file a single notification that applies to all
10 those facilities. Each individual state facility must file
11 a notification, and I'll specify later what must be in that
12 notification.
13 The one exception we made is in the case of
14 transporters of hazardous waste. If a person is in the
15 business of just transporting hazardous waste, you may
10 i file an overall notification for all activities that are
IT under your jurisdiction, all your terminals that you own
or operate in other states. The jfeadquartera £tfice can
file a single notification. However, a copy of that
20 ! notification must be sent to each state or regional office
'
21 I that has jurisdiction over that terminal facility.
22 The regulations also provide for a continuing
notification process, for persons whose hazardous waste
24 activities commence after this initial 90-day notification
11
95 I! period.
-------
_ r, |
5
..11
"7
12
13
14
15
_^ ig
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
361
tiowever, only those persons who are in
existence and notified within the initial 90-day period
will be qualified for an interim permit. However, a need
has been identified for us for states and EPA jregions to be
made aware of those new people who come to the hazardous
waste arena after this initial 90-day period, so we've
provided for this in our regulations.
So, notifications roust be sent to either
the EPA jregion or state. It should not be sent to EPA
headquarters, that is the EPA Administrator. It should
not be sent to the EPA region in the state. It should
~
either be sent to one or the other, and we'll identify
this in the federal /Register notice.
We have provided two alternatives in our
regulation, two alternative means by which a person can
notify. We are publishing in the federal fcgister, along
with our regulations a suggested notification form and
instructions that tell people how to fill out that form.
If a person decides to use that form and
completes it accurately and fully, he will have satisfied
all the requirements of Section 3010, notification.
If a person decides not to use that suggested
form, he can then submit a notice in any way. He can send
in a letter, he can send in his own form. He can send in
a form that the state might have provided for him, whatever,
-------
3(12
.
1 but there Is a certain mandatory, minimum amount of
2 information that's specified in the regulations that a
3 person has to send in to EPA or a state, and, you know,
4 in the handout that you have,it's specified, and there's
5 about 10 items here - a couple of them not listed - but,
6 you know, the name and address, principal technical con-
7 tact at this facility, some of the, you know, standard
8 items a person should submit.
9 I'll go over some of the more detailed ones.
10 One of them is the waste types that person
11 is handling according to the Section 3001 criteria. As
12 Alan Corson discussed yesterday, there are six criteria
13 that he's examining for Section, you know, under Section
14 3001, basic criteria, you know, flammability, explosivity,
15 reactivity, radioactivity, et cetera, and the sixth one
16 is toxicity.
17 Well, a person will have to indicate for
18 the first five criteria within the initial 90-day period
19 as to whether any of his wastes meet those criteria and,
20 therefore, he is a hazardous waste handler.
21 If a person cannot make a decision on
22 toxicity within the initial 90-day period, he can indicate
23 to us that it's undetermined, he can't make a decision, but
24 he still will be required to file a notice, even if he isi
25 undecided.
-------
363
He would then be given an additional 90 days
to make a final, definitive determination as to whether his
wastes are hazardous based on toxicity. If he does not get
back to us, we're going to assume that he's a hazardous
waste handler for notification purposes, and he'll have to
comply with all the other sections of the law when they
take effect, 180 days after they are promulgated.
So, except for toxicity everyone will have
to make that determination within the initial 90-day period.
Our Section 3001 people are telling us that
there are about three objective tests for the other five
12 criteria, and a person should be able to make that decision
13 in the other five areas within that initial 90-day period.
A person will have to identify the types of
,r hazardous waste activities he is conducting and whether
lo
]6 he's a generator, whether he's a transporter, whether he's
17 a disposer. Some people may fall into all five categories,
18 but in any event, you will have to identify what categories
19 of hazardous waste activities you're conducting.
2Q Some sort of general description of your
hazardous waste will also have to be provided in the
22 notification. For example, you might say that, "I'm
23 handling acids. The hazardous wastes I have are acid sludge
from our oil re-refining operation." That's a general
description of your hazardous waste activity. That will
-------
364
1 have to be provided in your notification, the hazardous
2 waste that youre handling, some general description, so
3 we'11 have some sort of handle on what kind of waste you
4 have.
5 We're also requiring that you submit an
6 annual estimate of the total amount of hazardous waste you
7 are handling at your facility. You know, this is an esti-
8 mate of aggregate amount for all your hazardous waste, how
9 much hazardous waste you are generating on an annual basis.
10 And, finally, we're requiring that you pro-
11 vide soma sort of identification umber. All employers, all
12 facilities are provided an employer identification number,
13 if they have employees, by the Internal Revenue Service.
14 All federal facilities are provided with a GSA nine digit
15 ID number. A lot of public utilities commissions provide
IB hazardous waste, transporters of waste with a special permit
17 number. So, some sort of — we haven't really worked this
18 out yet, but some sort of identification number will have
1'j to be provided when you file notification with EPA or with
20 the state.
21 Confidentiality claims will also be provided
22 in the rags, so that if you can provide information indi-
23 eating why certain information that you submit in notifi-
24 cation should not be released to the public, we will
25 provide a mechanism that you can check off and indicate
-------
365
1 what information should be treated as confidential and
2 should not be released outside of our files.
3 We're doing certain things that I should
4 point out that will assist us in implementing these regs.
5 We're developing a list of potentially affected parties,
6 a atate-by-atate directory of all hazardous waste trans-
7 porters, treatment, storage and disposal facilities and,
8 you know, this will be made available to our EPA regions
g and states for implementing Section 3010. This list,
10 you know, some states have indicated they're not going to
11 mail, you know, notices to affected parties in their state,
12 and this.might be a first cut at that mailing, but even if
13 you don't receive information in the mail, you will still
14 be required to adhere to all the requirements of Section
15 3010.
16 We're also developing a list of labs and
17 test facilities that will be available to test people's
18 waste and to analyze their waste as to whether the wastes
19 are hazardous or not according to the test protocol develop-
20 merit of Section 3001. This list will also be available to
21 give guidance as to where facilities are available on a
22 state-by-9tate basis.
23 OK, we're also developing data management
24 systems to assist the EPA regions and the states in handling
25 the hundreds of thousands of notification forms that will be
-------
1
> 2
3
4
12 !
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
366
coming in from all over the country to various states and
the EPA regional offices.
•—" ~z
Some of the issues that we've wrestled with,
and we've made some tentative decisions on them, but we'll
welcome your input, too, are a sample notification form
versus a mandatory form. We have decided at the current
time to go with the sample notification form. We rejected
the mandatory form because wa thought that flexibility
needed to be brought in to the regulations, and a mandatory
form would not provide for that flexibility. Certain
states may want to send out a form of their own, they
might want to request additional information over and above
the EPA minimal requirements. Some affected parties might
not like to fill out forms. They might want to send in
the information along with supplemental information on
their own letterhead, so we decided to provide flexibility
and not have a required notification form.
We're just having a sample form that will
be providing guidance to the states and to affected parties
in filing notification. People can either use that form
or not use that form, depending upon their own wishes.
However, we do have these mandatory infor-
mation requirements as specified in the reg, that everybody
will have to submit, and this we feel is satisfactory in
the notification area.
-------
367
1 The mass mailing of notification forms was
2 tossed around, you know, having a mass mailing of notifi-
3 cation forms, you know, if we decided to go mandatory form
4 from headquarters. We decided not to do thia. We're not
5 going to do a mass -- we think if we publish notices in
_»6 the federal register, advertise in the trade press, adver-
7 tise, you know, in trade journals, publish press releases,
8 et cetera, this will get the word out.
9 However, we know that certain EPA regions
10 and the states have indicated they do want to mail out
n these sample forms to affected parties that they think are
12 in their states and EPA regions. EPA headquarters will
13 print the required number of forms, depending upon the
14 demand of the EPA regions and the states, and they can mail
15 them if they wish.
16 Coordination with states. This is a very
17 important item, and this is one of the reasons we have to
18 go early in the Federal Register with the filing of 3010
19 regulations. We have to promulgate these regulations. The
20 states will have 30 days to get their applications in. EPA
21 will then have 30 days to review those applications and make
22 certain decisions, yes or no, as to whether a atate or the
23 region will conduct the notification process. That's a
24 60-day time period, we have to publich a notice in the
-25 federal fegister, making people who are affected by these
-------
368
1 requirements aware of the requirements. All this takes
2 time. So, it always has to take place before the 3001
3 criteria are promulgated final. So, there is a need for
4 making sure of state programs, that they're ready to go
5 at the same time as the EPA regional programs are ready.
6 Data management systems have to be set up,
- forms might have to be printed, and all these activities
g have to take place, and that's why we have to go early with
_ jfo our regulations in the Federal Register.
10 A final issue that has been sensitive and
I! brought to our attention by states, there are about seven
12 or eight states that have existing hazardous waste programs,
13 and they are aware of that in the industry. They know where
I4 they are. They know how many generators they have, and
15 they're saying, "Why should those people be required to
lg notify again when I'm already aware of them?"
17 Well, you know. Section 3010 requires that
is people notify whether we are aware of them or not. Also,
I,, we feel that Section 3001 criteria might be drastically
20 different from some of the criteria in existing state
21 hazardous waste programs. Alan has indicated who he plans
22 to exempt, who he plans to extend. Some of those things
23 might not be consistent with existing state programs, so
24 we think that once the 3001 criteria are promulgated, there
25 will be a need for everybody to reassess the waste that
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
369
they are handling and then renotify again. So, our posi-
tion is that all hazardous waste handlers, as defined
under the regulations, which we've already discussed,
under Sections 3002 through five, you know, generators,
transporters and treatment, storage and disposal facilities,
will have to notify EPA or a delegated state agency.
OK, with that, I'm through, and I'll turn
it back to Fred.
MR. LINDSEYi OK, we'll take any statements
now that deal with Section 3010, if there are any. Anybody
have a statement, a prepared statement, they'd like to make
while we're handing out the cards for questions?
(No response.)
MR. LINDSEYi I guess not. Then, we'll take
some questions, if there are any.
A quick one. Can a state leave the notifi-
cation activity up to EPA and still receive interim or full
authorization, or will limited interim authorization be a
prerequisite for state authorization?
The answer is, a state can leave the whole
thing to EPA and still get interim and/or full authoriza-
tion. OK?
MR. FIELDS: Yeah, a question I have here
is: Pending definition of hazardous waste to include or
not, 1) rinsed pesticide containers, 2) unrinsed pesticide
-------
370
1 containers, should a pesticide applicator submit a notifi-
2 cation in applications for permits as a generator, trans-
£ porter, storer?
4 I guess the question is — I think the
5 question is what of these three categories a person falls
6 in. Is that — ?
7 MR. LINDSEYi Answer it that way.
8 MR. FIELDS) I guess that's the question.
9 I'll assume that's what the question is.
10 Well, in this case, the person would be a
11 generator of hazardous waste if he had an unrinsed pesti—
12 cide container, and that pesticide container that he has,
13 you knows, falls into the 3001 criteria, he would be a
14 generator of hazardous waste, and he would have to file
15 notification under Section 3010, and he would have to comply
16 with the manifest and generator reporting requirements of
17 Section 3002.
18 I'm not sure I'm interpreting his question
19 I correctly. If I'm not, I hope the person will submit
20 another question if I'm not making it clear.
21 MR. COESON: I have a couple of questions.
22 What date will the 3001 criteria be proposed?
23 As we tried to indicate, we hope to have a
24 proposed cri'.arls, proposed regulation, out somewhere around
25 tho end of cuia year or the early part of next year, with
-------
371
1 the final regulations being about four months behind it,
2 which would make the effective date six months later, so
3 we're talking about proposed regulations somewhere around
4 December to January time frame this year, this coming year,
5 1978, and hopefully for final regulations in the April to
6 June time period.
7 Hay we do the 3001 testing, or will you
8 only accept your lab's?
9 You certainly may do the 3001 testing. He
10 don't have any labs.
11 The next question is: Do you plan to set
12 up standards and approve test laboratories?
13 The answer to that question is, no. We
14 are planning next year, if we can scrounge some money, to
15 review the present quality control programs that other
lfi offices of EPA have introduced to assure some consistency
I7 and standardization between laboratories. But, at this
I8 point in time, we do not expect to approve the laboratories
19 who are permitted to do the testing.
20 On the other hand, just to deal with the
21 tests for a moment, one of the purposes in our 3001 regu-
22 lations for defining certain test methods is that if you
23 use that test method we will then accept the result as
24 invalid for the characterists being measured.
25 If, on the other hand, you propose some
-------
372
1 alternate test method, then we will need front you some
2 documentation or justification that that test raethod is
3 equally valid. So that if you want to propose an alter-
4 nate teat method, you may do it and substantiate that it
5 measures the same quality that we are looking for.
6 MR. SAHJOUR: The question isi What is
7 | the penalty if an existing facility does not apply within
8 90 days?
9 If the facility disposes, stores or treats!
10 hazardous waste, notifying within that 90-day period is
11 one of the two conditions necessary to have an interim
12 permit. So, if a facility does not notify within that 90
13 days, it cannot have an interim permit. That's a facility
14 that treats, stores or disposes. Otherwise, I think there
15 is essentially no penalty, per se.
IB MR. LIMDSEY: OK. Will analysis of a
17 generator's waste only be accepted by EPA if it's conducted
18 by a lab or teat facility published on the list, or will
19 generator's lab analysis be sufficient?
20 Generator's lab analysis would be sufficient.
21 Must small generators notify EPA or the
22 state? Will the small genetators1 classification be made
23 at this time, and if not, how and when will the exclusions
24 be made?
25 I That's an issue that hasn't been decided.
-------
373
l We haven't come down on that yet, whether or not the small
2 generators who fit that class will be required to notify,
3 so we can't give you an answer on that.
4 Yes, the classification will have been made
5 by then for small generators. I mean, a small generator
6 will know by that point whether or not he qualifies in
7 that category.
8 Mtist governmental agencies which store,
9 treat, and/or dispose of hazardous waste notify state or
10 EPA and file for permits?
11 Yes, under Section 6001. They are to be
12 treated just like any other generator, treator, storer,
13 like that.
14 It is determined more than 90 days after
15 the 3001 promulgation that an existing facility is involved
16 with hazardous waste, through administrative or legal
17 interpretation. Does that facility still qualify for an
18 interim permit category?
19 If the facility has not notified EPA within
20 the 90—day period that they generate hazardous waste, or
21 do whatever - treat, store or dispose of it - they will not
22 be eligible for the interim permit. That's written right
23 into the Act.
24 MR. FIELDS i This is a follow-up question to
25 Fred's question. If an industrial entity is unsure of the
-------
374
I status of ita waste, via-a-vis Section 3001, can it notify
2 the appropriate agency and later recall or rescind its
3 Section 3010 notification?
4 Well, the answer is, yes. If you, you know,
- notify us that you're handling a hazardous waste and you
g later make a determination that you're not really handling
_ a hazardous waste according to the Section 3001 criteria,
a you can, and we'll take you off our list of hazardous waste
O
9 handlers.
10 I've already indicate, you know, that in
n the case of toxicity we're giving you a 90-day extension
]2 in any event.
13 Two questions herei
14 Hill EPA conduct toxicity tests on major
15 wastes? And the second part, is all mining, aside from
16 milling waste, exempt from 3010? what about combined
17 mining/milling and smelting waste in an integrated process?
18 OK. Alan can correct me if I'm wrong, but
lg I don't think EPA plans to go around conducting toxicity
20 tests on the waste. The onus will be on the industrial
entity to test this waste or make --you don't even have
to test them. You just have to make a determination as
to whether your wastes are hazardous or not, based on --
j£o
well, you're talking about toxicity in this case, and the
.,_ onus will be on you to make that determination, and EPA
-------
375
1 doesn't plan to go around testing people's waste to make
2 that determination, except in an enforcement capacity as
3 Fred just pointed out.
4 Are raining/milling wastes exempt?
Yes, they are exempt from Section 3010.
3010 only applies to those things that are defined under
the 3001 through five regulations. So, if a person has
8 | been exempted on the 3001 through five, they will also
9 be exempt on notification under Section 3010.
10 In the case of the second part of that
1i I question - suppose you have a mining operation and a
12 smelting operation all there in the same area, the decision
13 j has been made that mining and milling wastes will be
14 j exempted for at least a six-month period after the regu-
15 lations take effect, to wait for the completion of the
16 Section 8002 mining study.
17 As Alan pointed out yesterday, we also are
18 now, this area- of primary smelting, which kind of ties in
19 quite closely with mining, is another area we have to look
20 «t« We haven't made a final decision on this yet as to
21 what we're going to do about a smelting operation. He
22 realize that they tie in quite closely with mining and
23 milling operations, so this is an area that we're going to
24 have to look at some more, but for the time being, the
25 smelting part of that operation has not been exempted.
-------
376
MR. SANJOUR: This is a continuation of the
o last question on the penalty.
3 The question is - or, the statement is:
4 Failure to notify is a violation described as Section
3008(a)(1) and is subject to a penalty as described in
Section 3008(a)(3). True or false?
Well, technically, true. But, if you read
the entire section, you'll find that under Section 3008
g (a)(2), it aays that — let ma aee if I can find the exact
10 wording -- Whenever, on the basis of any information the
u Administrator determines that any person is in violation
10 of any requirement of this subtitle, the Administrator
13 shall give notice to the violator to comply with such
14 requirement.
15 So, before the Administrator can enact any
lj.; penalty, he has to first give notice.
Yl If such violation extends beyond the 30th
day after the -Administrator's notification, the Administra-
lg tor may issue an order requiring compliance, et cetera/
20 and then the penalties described in 3008(a)(3) would go
21 into effect.
22
However, suppose 90 days have elapsed and
23 someone who should have notified has not notified. The
.a 24 administrator determincSthat that person failed to notify.
25 What can he do then? Give him 60 days to notify? He
-------
- — ^ 7
9
10
»l
12
)13
14
15
16
17
18
ig
20
21
22
23
24
25
377
can't since the period of notification has already expired.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't quite know what EPA
would do in those circumstances.
MR. LINDSEYi Mr. Fields stated that a
list of facilities likely to be impacted in each state is
being drawn up. Could this list be published in the
Fedearl Register?
This will include generators, remember, and
it may include small generators, and auch a list would be
extremely long. Our intention is not to publish this in
the federal ftpgister. It will, however, be sent to the
states and regions. This is typically not the kind of
thing that, I think, is put in the Federal Register anyway.
MR. FIELDS j The first question I have here
is: What form will notification of interim authorization
take, or will or can it assumed by notification?
I'm not sure I understand the question, but
the first part of it - what form will notification of
interim authorization take?
Well, I guess you're talking about this
limited interim authorization under Section 3010 - that's
the assumption I'm making, as opposed to 3006.
We will -- - the EPA Regional Administrator
will let a state know as to whether his application and
implementation plan that he's submitted meets all the EPA
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
378
requirements, and then we'll just send, you know, a lattor
— tha EPA Regional Administrator will send a letter bad:
to that state letting him know that he has received this
limited interim authorization, and the name of that stato
agency, address and contact will be published in the
Federal Register.
So, that's the form that notification of
interim authorization will take. I hope X answered the
question.
MR. LINDSEY: OK, I have a true or false
here.
In other words, if there is any doubt
whatsoever, notify. True or false?
Yeah, the answer is, if you have doubt,
notify. You can always get out of it. On the other hand,
you may, as a result of what Mr. San jour just said, decide
that since the penalties are not all that strong, you know,
you can do your own thing on that.
MR. SAN JOUR i if you dispose or treat or
store, the penalty is quite severe. You're losing your
right to an interim permit which could be one of the most;
valuable things you can get under this Act.
MR. LIHDSEYi That's right, and that's very
true. If you treat, store or dispose, the penalty is quite
severe. Other than that, it's not really clear to us how
-------
379
1 (jevera that penalty is.
2 Here's a similar question i The generator
ol hazardous waste disposes offsite - presumably, he sends
A*
4 it to some contract operation, 1 presume - why would he
5 notify EPA if the only benefit is a step toward an interim
permit which is not required of the generator?
Well, he doesn't require an interim permit,
clearly, I mean, if he's sending it to some other operation.
There is one other point which Mr. San jour
10 didn't bring out, and that is the whole issue of generators
11 wanting to be involved with this system for the purpose of
12 liability. Some generators have told us that the thing they
13 like about the whole Act here is that it does set up a
14 system whereby they can identify who are adequate treatment,
15 storage and disposal facilities, because we are, in effect,
16 doing that under this permit operation.
17 And, thus, by following all the procedures
18 that are set up to safeguard these wastes and so on, they
1(j are, in fact, sharing the liability, whereas now, you know,
2o they're totally liable for everything that happens to the
2i waste. How, as we talked about yesterday, the matter of
22 common law liability and so on gets involved, and they don't
23 clearly lose all their liability, but it should help.
24 MR. SAIIJOURj I'd like to elaborate on that
25 point. When I said that the penalty essentially is
-------
3(10
S5
r^l essentially nonexistent I was referring to the penalty for
2 failing to notify under Section 3010. However, if you
3 fail to notify — whether or not you notify, if you generate
4 a hazardous waste and turn it over to someone without conir-
5 plying with the law, the penalty is quite severe. I mean,
6 there is nothing ambiguous about that. You essentially can
- be fined $25,000 a day or something like that.
3 Or, if you generate a hazardous waste, and
9 you don't comply with the provisions of the law, namely,
10 fill out a manifest and do whatever is a part of that law,
11 you're subject to a $25,00 a day penalty, tod my statements
12 about no penalty were not in reference to that. That
13 penalty is real.
14 So, I mean, there's plenty of incentive for
15 people to comply with the system and fill out manifests and
le do whatever is required. I was just talking in my comments
17 about the penalties previously only addressed to Section
18 3010, and only for generators and transporters.
ig I might as well go on with the next question.
2g If transporters don't notify, they can't
2I transport legally.
22 I -- Well, suppose he doesn't notify and
23 than when he transports he fills out all the manifests and
24 all the other paperwork.
25 The answer is that he car'ttransport legally.
-------
381
1 MR. LIHDSEYj I guess that's it on this.
2 Does anyone —
3 A VOICES What was your reply?
4 MR. SANJOUR: The answer was that that's
5 correct. He cannot transport legally if he hasn't notified.
6 That is correct.
7 MR. CORSOH: I have a several part question.
8 Will definitive procedures be promulgated
9 specifically addressing toxicology? This refers to a
10 schedule showing that our 3001 test procedures for toxicity
11 will probably come out about three months after the first
12 set.
13 When other parameters are published — so,
14 in other words, he's saying, will procedures be promulgated
15 specifically addressing toxicology when other parameters
16 are published? If we disregard the firat list legally and
17 then produce toxic waste six months later, will EPA or the
18 state have late notification format? That's the first
19 part of the question.
20 Let me rephrase it and cover it in this
21 fashion.
22 3010 is triggered every time the 3001 is
23 revised. If we revise 3001 three years from now to change
/
—\Z4 our definition of a flammable waste or tosic waste, then
25 those changes which may have occurred affecting people who
-------
382
1 generate, transport, treat and store, it will again be
2 triggered for a 3910 notification.
3 Similarly, we interpret that the interim
4 status of a permit, if it was not a hazardous waste prior
-^5 to that change, and now, because of thg. change of the
6 regulations as promulgated by the new 3001, that becomes a
7 facility for treatment, storage and disposal of the now
8 defined hazardous waste, the interim procedure is again
9 opened up.
10 Question twoi .'lining and milling studies
n are abundant through the nuclear Regulatory Commission.
12 Is the interface between RCRA and NRC regs being coordi-
13 nated?
14 The answer is, yes, we are working with
15 them. We will try as far as we can when something is
IB happening under their lincense to include our permit con-1
17 ditions so that there is only one allowing authority taking
18 care of both sets of regulations.
19 The third questions Will the 3010 publi-
20 cation in the Federal Register be, 1) guidelines, 2) pro--
21 posed rules, or 3) regulations?
22 The answer is that it will be both propos«sd
23 rules and regulations.
24 MR. FIELDS« If a generator chooses to
25 classify its waste as hazardous without analyzing it, how
-------
383
1 should he identify that waste? Waste one, waste two,
2 et cetera?
3 Hell, we will — I guess it's kind of hard
4 to describe what I'm talking about unless you see the
5 notification form or the regulation, which I'll be happy
6 to send.
7 Basically, we are requesting the person who
8 has to identify the means by which he has declared his waste
9 as being hazardous, and it'll be one of those — he'll have
10 to specify one of those -- one or more of those six cate-
11 gories of criteria which Alan Corson discussed. You know,
are your wastes hazardous because of f laramability? Are you
13 declaring them hazardous because of toxicity? Or whatever.
14 So, — and, also, you'll have to identify
that waste that you declare to be hazardous by some general
16 description, a minimum. You'll have to say it's flammable,
then you'll have to provide a description of that waste or
18 wastes that you are declaring to be hazardous.
19 I'll give you one example, you know, say
20 that it might be, like the example Fred Lindsey gave this
morning, waste from pajwhluatliyiuiui anufacturing. That
22 might be a general description, you know, the process from
23 which the waste is coming, as well as some general descrip-
24 tion of the waste. That's satisfactory to us to identify
25 that waste. But, just saying waste one or waste two is
-------
3614
1 not quite good enough.
2 MR. LINDSEYt How long will the record of
3 this meeting be open for submission of comments?
4 There's two ways of doing this. Number one,
- if you can get the thing into us, like real soon, like
6 today is Tuesday, we'd have to have it postmarked by, I
7 think, Friday, we should be able to get it into the written
g transcript. After that point, you can mail it in to us in
9 Washington, and we will add it to the docket for this
I,, purpose, but it won't be in the written transcript.
n In the event of a spill from a product acid
j2 storage tank and/or facility and the acid is absorbed by
13 the surrounding ground, does the spilled acid then becomes
!( a hazardous waste?
]5 The answer is that provided it meets the
16 criteria - and it would, in all likelihood, meet the pH
YJ criteria, yes, then it becomes a hazardous waste, the
18 whole thing, ground and all. And the person who owned
]9 that stuff would then be a generator.
20 MR. SANJOURi I have two questions both
21 related to the same issue, and that is the criminal penalty
22 under Section 3008 (e) (3) relating to f-ilure to notify.
23 Now, let me review what 3000 (b) says.
24 It refers to criminal penalties for three acts. It d«sc:Hbe|
25 three acts for which there are criminal penalties.
-------
385
1 Transporting, disposing and making of false
2 statements. How, I'm not a lawyer, but to me a failure to
3 notify ia not one of those three acts. That's my legal
4 opinion from someone who does not have a law degree, so if
5 you take my word for it, you're being pretty foolish.
6 My knowledge of the English language is that
7 failure to notify is not one of those three things. It is
8 not transporting, it is not disposing and it is not making
9 of false statements. Therefore, you cannot have a criminal
10 penalty for failure to notify. You can have a criminal
11 penalty for failing to dispose, for knowingly failing to
12 dispose, transport or make a false statement with the
13 hazardous waste. In other words, it's what you do with
14 the waste or the papers that you do fill out that can cause
15 you to have a criminal penalty, and not the failure to do
I6 something. I hope that's clear. At least my reading of
17 the law is clear.
18 MR. LINDEEYi Are there any others?
19 (No response.)
20 MR. LINDSEYi I guess not. He'll take
21 questions from the floor. Anybody have a question on 3010
22 they'd like to address?
23 MR. FEHSENFELDt I have a general question.
24 MR. LINDSEYi OK.
25 MR. FEHSENFELDi My name's Fred Fehsenfeld
-------
386
with ILWD.
2 Why don't we discuss 3007, 3008 and 3009?
3 I'm just asking as a general question.
MR. LINDSEYs Because we -- well, a general
5 answer. We're not writing regulations on those sections.
6 They are specifications within the Act. There will be some
guidance and possibly some regulations on 3008, some pro-
cedural kinds of regulations which won't be addressed by
our office. They'll be addressed by our ^ffice of _enforce-
10 inent which, maybe to you is insignificant, but we are not
involved with those particular sections of the Act. That
12 happens to be another part of the agency, and when in fact,
13 and if in fact they do that, why, there'll be a whole public
14 action there and so forth.
15 We can try, as Mr. Sanjour has done now, to
interpret what is meant by various parts of those sections
,- you're talking about, and if there are specific questions
18 we can do that, but there are no regulations being prepared
19 at the moment on those.
20 Any other questions from the floor?
2| (No response.)
22 MR. LINDSEY: OK. What I'd like to do,
23 sinca we're running a little early, is to ask if anybody
2 today wants to make a general overall statement, a prepared
25 statement, concerning the overall Act, all the sections of
-------
387
1 the regulations. I have an indication here that a Mr.
2 Alan Gray of EGSG in Idaho would like to do no. In Mr.
3 Gray here, and would he like to do that now?
e- e.
MR. GRAYs I'm Alan Gray, EG&G, and after
5 review of ninety-four five eighty, I've had some misgivings
6 about it, and this has been particularly amplified during
7 the meeting here.
I think there are two areas that need
rectification in the Act.
10 The first is ~ appears to be a prolifera-
11 tion of fictitious numbers which are used. For example,
12 you quote ten to the minus eight centimeters per second
13 for the migration of leach ate through the soil.
14 Now, admittedly, I didn't bring ray hand
calculator with me, but if my mental math is accurate,
IK this translates to about a thousand years for the material
n to go 10 feet. Now, I don't — this bring up two problems.
18 First, I don't know of any organic sub-
19 ij stance that is going to remain in its original form for
20 a thousand years; and secondly, more irapaotant, I think
21 I can say with a hundred percent assurance there is no
22 analytical technique that can assure you that it'll take
93 j a thousand years for something to move 10 feet.
24 1 How, in Seattle, where you probably have an
25 j average rainfall of approximately a hundred inches a year.
-------
388
1 it's almost ridiculous, in Phoenix, where there is three
2 to five inches per year, this may be an attainable value.
3 But, frankly, the number is just unworkable. I could go
4 out and start a hazardous waste and say, yes, it's going
5 to take a thousand years to go 10 feet, and how are you
6 going to prove I'm wrong? 'so, the number is fallacious.
7 The second — another example, and this was
e.
_^8 on the issue of benzine yesterday. Now, during your reports
9 here, you are using LD-50 and .35 times LD-50 for the
fa-
ll) bioacidity, and since benzine has been called a carcinogenic
11 material this is what you would use. You also say it can
12 only be one part per million. How, I have to assume that
13 one part per million is .35 times LD-50. If this is the
14 case, then this country is in real trouble, because there
15 wouldn't be a chemist in this country alive today. Neither
16 would there be any refinery workers alive.
—Tl™ If banzTfie is aa lethal as you're trying
18 to indicate, then frankly, it would be more effective than
19 the pill for maintaining zero population growth.
20 The other area which is of concern and which
21 has been brought out is the proliferation of laws. For
22 example, we have the Pure Air Act. Mow, you say that this
23 isn't adequate because it only addresses, as I recall, six
24 to nine substances in the air. So you are going to increase
25 this to include all of the other elements.
-------
389
1 You've gone into pita, ponds and lagoons.
2 You're going to take that over because the Pure Drinking
3 Water Act is not adequate. And yet, a gentleman up here
4 on the dais yesterday stated that every three years you have
5 an opportunity to upgrade the law to meet existing techno-
,3 logy. I can only assume that the other departments have
- the same prerogative.
8 Now, instead of having a whole mass of laws
9 that we have to go through in order to find out whether we
10 are in compliance, why isn't it more feasible for the
H department that has the — Pure Drinking Water Act to
12 upgrade theirs to include what is necessary so we can go
13 to one source to find out what problems are and whether
]l or not we are in compliance.
15 Now, this may be facetious, but I almost
16 got the impression that EPA was more interested in Parkin-
17 son's Law than they were in helping the general public.
18 So, if you could have one source to go to
19 find out whether you're in compliance, it's much more
20 practical than having to go through every rule and regula-
2i tion.
22 That is basically what I wanted to say.
23 MR. LINDSEY: OK. Thank you, Mr. Gray.
24 Is there anyone else who has a formal
25 statement that they'd like to make on the record covering
-------
390
1 the entire Act?
2 (Ho response.)
3 MR. LINDSEYl OK.
4 The next section that we're going to deal
5 with, the next topic that we're going to deal with here
6 is the topic of a programmatic environmental impact state-
7 raent and economic impact statement which will look then at
8 the overall impact related to the promulgation of these
9 regulations, and to do this, to present this work, we have
10 here Mike Shannon, who is the program manager for policy
11 analysis within our organization, and is the desk officer
12 for this particular work.
13 Mike?
14 MR. SHANNONt The authority for doing the
15 programmatic or regulatory EIS of the Subtitle C action
16 comes from the same act that provides authority for doing'
17 the site specific EIS's that were discussed earlier this
18 morning, and that is the National Environmental Policy Act
19 of 1969.
20 In 1974, the Administrator of EPA decided
21 to do voluntary ElS'a on major regulatory actions, whetheir
22 they were the site specific kind of EIS's or of a broad,
23 regulatory action such as the entire implementation of
24 Subtitle C.
25 In doing this EIS, we are following the
-------
391
NEPA guidelines and the Council on Environmental Quality
guidelines for such analyses.
The EIS procedure also requires that economic
considerations be taken into account in promulgating the
regulations. In recent years that particular requirement
has been enlarged. In fact, there are several executive,
presidential executive orders requiring agencies such as
EPA to conduct economic impact analyses of regulatory
0
actions, and the (ffice of Management S Budge has provided
guidelines under which EPA conducts these analyses.
Despite these particular executive orders
and other regulations, it has been EPA's policy since 1970
to conduct economic impact analyses. The Administrator,
for instance, wants to bo advised of every economic impact
regarding a regulation, even if the criteria, for instance,
for conducting such an analysis are not met. He wants to
be made aware, for instance, if one person is going to be
laid off, he would want to know that and consider it in
his decision.
In addition, the general counsel of EPA has
ruled that in the event that an environmental law does not
say specifically that economics are to be taken into
consideration, that economic analyses are to be performed
so that the regulation that is developed is reasonable and
provides a sound basis for decision making.
-------
392
1 Regarding the content of the economic and
2 environmental impact analyses, I'd like to break down what
3 I have to say in three parts t A general introduction and
4 what they will contain - really, primarily the EIS, what
5 it will contain; then I'd like to present a discussion of
6 the EIS process, and then what we are doing for the economic
7 impact analyses.
8 The EIS, basically, has as its purpose to
9 present to the public the environmental consequences of
10 the proposed regulatory action. The EIS is to be written
11 so that extensive technical and scientific expertise is not
12 required to understand and evaluate the particular action
13 that is being taken. The EIS is written primarily for the
14 general public so that they can understand what it is that
15 the agency is doing.
16 In addition, the EIS acts as the official
n vehicle for public comment on the action. For instance,
18 when the Subtitle C regulations are proposed - and, in
19 this case, I presume it will be when the last Subtitle C
20 regulation is proposed, as has been discussed it's likely
21 to be 3004 - at that time, a draft EIS will be published
22 during which time there will be a 60-day comment period,
23 and then after that, 30 to 60 days - whatever it takes
24 for the final decision to be made - a final EIS will be
25 prepared laying out the basis for the final decision on
-------
393
1 the regulatory actoin.
2 The EIS statement in particular will lay
3 out what the particular problem is relating to hazardous
4 waste management. It will generically discuss the genera-
5 tion of hazardous waste, the treatment, storage, disposal
6 problems, transportation problems. It will generically
1 describe the criteria for hazardous waste. It will dis-
8 cuss and identify the public health and environmental
9 problems associated with air emissions and water quality
10 problems.
11 It will also discuss site specific problems
12 or cases of accidents related to hazardous waste management.
13 In the actual conduct of the EIS analysis,
14 one of the first things that we've done was develop a list
15 of regulatory options, both across Subtitle C and within
16 individual sections of Subtitle C. He wanted to know what
17 the issues were that we would have to deal with, and many
18 of these issues were identified in the meetings that have
19 been mentioned previously, the meetings that this office
20 held, has held in the last six months around the country.
2v In the process, we've attempted to determine
22 which options help meet the objectives of the Act, the
23 public health, environmental protection objective, and the
24 re3ourna conservation and recovery option, and the state
25 participation objective, for example.
-------
394
1 From that point, what we do is define and
2 develop a selected set of manageable alternatives that we
3 think will reach the goals, or help us attain the goals of
4 the Act. What we've been hearing the last few days is what
5 we call the baseline action. It represents the position
6 that the Office of Solid Waste is taking up to this point.
7 In addition, we are attempting to develop
8 some alternatives to that particular alternative. One
9 alternative would be - and it is required by the EIS and
10 the economic analysis process - the alternative of no action
11 In addition, we are also looking at alterna-
12 tives that specifically enhance resource recovery and
13 conservation, an option that would phase in the regulations
].l over a period of time, an alternative that would increase
15 public health and protection by, say, 35 percent, and the
16 opposite end would decrease public health and environmental
17 protection by 35 percent, tor example.
18 The purpose of doing an alternatives
19 analysis is to force the agency to take an interdisciplinary
20 objective look at the action that it is attempting to put
21 into effect.
22 In looking at the impacts, there are several
23 categories that we have to address. The primary impacts,
24 for instance, is a major category, and then, of course,
25 the secondary impacts, and there are also some other
-------
39 S
l considerations.
2 The primacy impacts that we will have to
3 evaluate are: What are the physical and biological changes
4 in the environment from these alternatives? What kind of
5 pollution reduction will we save from the Subtitle C action?
6 Will there be procedural changes in the total management of
7 hazardous waste, significant changes in the structure of
8 the way the business is conducted? What kind of resource
9 recovery and conservation benefits will we receive?
10 The secondary impacts that we will have to
11 evaluate include: Cross-media pollution problems that may
12 arise because of this particular action. Are we going to
13 create another environmental problem new to hazardous waste
14 management regulations?
15 Other considerations that we'll have to
16 evaluate are the adverse impacts of the action. Are there
17 some unavoidable impacts? What is the relationship between
18 local short-term uses as opposed to the maintenance and
19 enhancement of long-terra goals? Are we sacrificing some
20 long-term goals just to implement some short-term benefits,
21 for example?
22 In addition, we will have to specifically
23 address the comments that are received from the public in
24 the period of public comment on the draft EIS. He will
25 have to explain to what extant we did or did not take public
-------
396
1 comments into consideration.
2 Going on to the economic analysis, there
3 are several studies, pieces of work, that we have underway
4 now. The first one is to upgrade, revise all the cost
5 data that exists on management of hazardous waste. Pri-
6 marily I'm talking here about the •internal cost of nanaga-
7 raent of hazardous waste. How much does it cost the gene-
8 rators to deal with hazardous waste management? What kind
9 of incremental costs will they experience in going from
10 where they are now to the level that will be incurred when
11 these regulations go into effect?
12 Then the next step is to take these
13 increased incremental costs of management and translate
14 them into broader economic impacts of what will happen if
15 they incur an increased cost in terms of their ability to
16 produce products if they're a manufacturing firm or their
17 ability to offer a particular service. Will they be able
18 to pass on these increased costs, or will they have to
19 absorb than and, therefore, what kind of impacts would
20 that have on their ability to come up with investment
21 capital for new, productive plant expansions, for example?
22 ! We'11 also look at the employment impacts,
23 ! for instance, where there'll be curtailments in employment,
24 j job layoffs, et cetera.
25 1 Then the final economic analysis step or
-------
397
1 study that we are doing Is to look at the interrelation-
2 ships between the various sectors that are involved in
3 hazardous waste management. There are the generators,
4 those who are responsible for generating hazardous waste.
5 The middle sector involved is the transporters, and the
6 last sector would be the management firm.
7 What kinds of shifts are likely to take
g place, if any, between the amount of business that the
9 generator now does and how much he chooses to do after the
10 regulations go into effect? Will there be some significant
11 changes there? We will attempt to understand what's likely
12 to occur so that we can evaluate the impacts of these
13 regulatorial alternatives.
14 The unresolved issue that exist at this
15 point primarily stem from the fact that, in conducting the
16 environmental and economic impact analyses, we've been
17 dealing with a situation where the regulations have been
18 evolving over a period of time, and it's difficult to pin
19 down - even with the data that we have - what the specific
20 impacts would be, for instance, of this baseline action
21 as you've heard it. A lot depends, of course, on the size
22 of the hazardous waste management net as determined by the
23 hazardous waste 3001 criteria listing approach that's
24 chosen.
25 But what we're trying to do in the
-------
398
1 environmental and economic analyses is to remain flexible
2 so that we can provide impact analyses as these alternatives
3 are defined and developed through, for instance, the vehicle
4 of these public meetings.
5 Other things that present problems at this
point are in a sense information gaps, cost data gaps that
exist now for the administrative or nontechnical costs of
hazardous waste management control. We have fairly good
g information on how much it costs to land dispose a waste
10 or to incinerate a waste, but we don't have a lot of good
11 data on the cost of testing the manifesting, record keeping
12 reporting costs, the paperwork costs, for instance, and
13 some other managerial costs, such as the cost of insurance
14 or bonding.
15 In addition, other data gaps exist from the
IB standpoint that there are industries in other sectors
17 involved that we have not -- or, keep coming forward as
18 the impact of these regulations are realized. For instance,
19 the impact on gasoline stations or other sectors that we
20 haven't identified. We will attempt to do that as this
21 process goes on so that we can evaluate them in light of
22 the alternatives that have been identified.
23 And probably the most significant problem
24 that will be faced, issue that is faced, is the ultimate
25 balancing of the economic and the environmental technical
-------
399
1 considerations. To what extent will they be taken into
2 account in promulgating the final regulations? That
3 remains to be seen and is really an administrative top-
4 level EPA decision, particularly if there are going to be
5 adverse economic impacts.
6 That concludes what I had to say on economic
7 and environmental impacts. Thank you.
8 MR. LINDSEY: Thanks, Hike.
9 We'll take questions, and we'll take any
10 statement that has to do with the EIS or environmental or
11 economic impact statement, if there are any, and we'll be
12 takiru,- questions. I see one on its way up now.
13 I ought to say that it's kind of interesting
14 that this is the first time that we know of that EPA has
15 done an environmental impact statement on regulation writing
IB of this kind of complexity, that is, a complete programmatic
17 broad—scoped set of regulations. We're kind of breaking
18 new ground here, and it's quite interesting so far. We've
19 still got an awful lot of more work to do in this area.
20 Mike, are you ready?
21 MR. SHANNON: Yes.
22 When will the draft EIS be ready?
23 It will be ready approximately, let's say
24 30 days after the final Subtitle C regulation has been
25 approved by the Administrator. You know, we won't really
-------
400
1 know what the particular action is until that point, and
2 when it occurs, it'll take a period of time to put the
3 final touches on the draft EIS statement.
4 Now, so if we say that the final, the last
5 Subtitle C reg is proposed on January 30th, backing up one
6 month previous to that - it has been approved by the EPA
_>,7 administrator on December 31st, it would take a month to
f ar
^8 get it published in the Federal Register, and at that
g time, January 30th, the draft environmental impact state-
ID ment would be ready.
11 And the question goes on to says May I
12 get a copy in time to comment?
13 Yes. At that point, January 30th, when the
14 reg is proposed and the draft EIS is published, there will
15 be an official 60-day public comment period. Copies ~ I'm
IB not sure of all the details — but we are required to
17 publish, I think it's at least a thousand copios, and they
^^18 would be distributed to thejatate offices, the EPA regional
_-vig offices, and would be available at the EPA headquarters
20 office. So, that's when it will be possible to get a copy,
2i and in time to comment, too.
22 MR. LINDSEY: Yeah, the EIS accompanies the
23 regulations in the proposed sense, so it'll accompany the
24 proposal in the Federal Register, of the regulatory activity,
25 and then it will be commented on just like the rest of the
-------
401
1 regulations, and then it will be submitted in the final
2 form just like the regular regulations as well.
3 OK, here is a rather long-winded one which
4 I'll try to handle.
5 Considering no action — actually, it's
g several different questoins. Considering no action as an
7 alternative in the EIS makes no sense when you are mandated
, to take an action.
o
g Ye all, that's true. We are mandated to take
10 an action.
u On the other hand, the environmental impact
12 statement procedure always asks the question, and one of
13 the things that's involved in an EIS is to try and take a
14 look at the baseline. The baseline is no action. If you
15 don't do anything, what's the level of the environment
12 that you're coming from or improving from, if you will?
17 Your statement sounds as if the EIS will be
18 written as a justification of the actions you wish to take
19 rather than a conaideration of alternative actions, such
-^20 as different values of permiability, ftiiiuiiuy factors and
21 their absolute values in regards to various kinds of inor-
22 ganic and organic waste.
23 | This is a criticism that we've heard before,
24 and I think that given the best of all possible worlds,
25 what one would do would be to do a little bit of work — I
-------
402
guess a substantial amount of work to identify what all
the alternative approaches are, and then one would sit
back and do all the EIS work insofar as he could go, and
then based on that EIS work would pick that particular
chain of alternative approaches within each section of the
Act and put them together and then go back and finish his
7 j EIS. Unfortunately, Congress didn't give us the luxury of
8 doing that in the sense that we've got an extremely tight
9 delay — time mandate, if you will. So, it was necessary
10 ] for us to do all this work in parallel.
11 So, what we did was to choose, based on
12 protection of public health and the environment, made
13 individual choices within various sectolns of the Act
14 based on public health and the environment and, to a fair
15 extent, with knowledge of the economic involvement here,
16 and we progressed, if you will, into a set of regulatory
17 approaches that we think are moat suitable.
18 At the same time, in the EIS, we're
19 developing and have been developing the alternative courses
20 of action to that course.
21 Now, where it turns out as a result of the
22 EIS activity that the route we are taking is not the appro-
23 priate one, that there is in fact a better approach or it
24 better twise, if you will, in the way in which we could
25 accomplish these regulations, then we will have backed up
-------
403
1 and made changes.
2 So, in essence, we're not using it as a
3 justification. The alternatives are real alternatives,
4 and you have a continuum, if you will, of alternatives.
5 Actually, there are literally hundreds of thousands of
6 different regulatory approaches which could be taken in
7 the individual decisions which we're making, and many of
8 them don't make any sense, but still they're really there.
9 So, in doing a programmatic EIS in this
10 case, as opposed to, say, building a highway, which is
11 another whole kind of an EIS, it is necessary to cut down
12 and limit your alternatives to basic courses of actions
13 and chains, if you will, of regulatory option, and you take
14 a look at them in various lights. That is the kind of thing
15 Mike was talking about. We really try to stimulate resource
16 recovery as one goal. What changes would we make to do
17 that? And, if so, then what effects would that have on
18 public health and the environment and things of that
19 nature?
20 So, our intent is not to use it as a
21 justification really, but rather to -- it waa necessary to
22 proceed in parallel on this thing, and as we identify
23 where we've made errors, we have made the changes.
24 MR. SHANNON I This question 3ays I Will
25 special attention oe given in the impact analysis to the
-------
404
1 cost of ponds, lagoons and other existing facilities to
2 meet Section 3004 and 3005 guidelines?
3 As a result of information that haa been
4 put forth here and at recent public meetings, I would say
5 that we will be giving a lot of special attention to the
6 impacts of this particular action, both environmental and
7 cost of economic impact.
8 What we've tried to do in the impact
9 analyses is to remain very flexible so that as specific
10 twists come up like this, we can at that point go forward
11 and take a real close look at the specific impact of what
12 the actions would be.
13 so, the answer is, yes, we will take a very
14 close look at that, presuming that our general counsel
15 determines that we do have the authority to go back and
16 regulate those particular areas.
17 MR. LIJlDSEYi Are there any other questions
18 on the environment impact, economic impact area?
19 You want to make one from the floor? Fine.
e~ e- 4
20 MR. LARSON! My name is Tom Larson, AMEX.
7 -' — —
21 If you expect to get your draft EIS done
22 within 30 days of final promulgation of regulation, is it
23 not possible that you will only have 30 days to do your
24 economic analysis? And if that's the case, you will not be
25 able to do an adequate job of it.
-------
405
In other words, if 3004 is the last regula-
2 tion published, you're going to have your draft EIS done
3 within 30 daya of that, that is not sufficient time to come
4 up with a reasonable economic impact analysis.
5 MR. SHANNONi OK. In effect, I think what
you're saying — that's a good point. It does present a
problem to us in conducting the analysis. What we're
attempting to do is to analyze the impacts as they come
9 in basically as the regulations stand today, for instance.
10 We're having to use surrogate or substitute information
u for what we think the impacts will be at this point.
12 For instance, the technology that we're
13 evaluating comes from a series of industry studies that
14 were done in the last one to three years, but in fact, you
15 know, we can't say with certainty that the impact of the
1H regulations as they stand now are going to be — are
17 accurately portrayed by the kind of technology that those
18 studies said would come forward.
in You know, ao if, in effect, there is a
20 problem, whan the draft EIS is done and the regulations
21 are proposed, we will have the additional time of the
2.; public comment period and whatever it takes to continue
23 the evaluation of the impact, including the economic
impact.
MR. LINDSEYt Yeah, that's — that I think
-------
406
1 is a good point in that we will propose these, and then
2 there's some time to continue working on them before they
3 become final, in the final analysis.
4 But your point is well taken. Time is a
5 big problem for us through all of this business, and we
6 are proceeding, as Mike pointed out, down the road of doing
7 the analysis, first of all in a broad scope and then moving
8 down as we are now to the regulations and the alternatives
9 that we have to those regulations. We continue to refine
10 the information is what it amounts to.
11 Also, I should point out that the economic
12 and the environmental impact statements are two separate
13 items. The EIS and the economic are two separate items.
G-
^34 MR. LARSON: It's the economic one that,
15 in my opinion, is being given short shift, has for many
16 years, by EPA. Everything has always been declared non-
17 inflationatory, and take a look at the economy,
MR. LIHDGEY: Well, I can guarantee you
\Jil9 that this will not be declared noninflationary. There will
20 be gome substance to this particular activity. It won't
21 simply be a one sheet piece of paper or something.
22 You still may not like it, but —
23 Are there any raore questions from the floor
24 in this area?
25 (No response.)
-------
407
! MR. LINDSEYi OK.
2 We're running a little bit ahead. The next
3 item on the, you know, on the agenda here is a discussion
4 of case examples. You all should have received a copy of
5 this. It's a one-page sheet of some kinds of examples of
6 how various companies who are manufacturing operations or
7 shall I say waste generating and waste disposal kinds of
8 concerns who would be affected by the Act, as least insofar
g as we see it.
In Now, kind of what we've been doing the last
H couple of days when people have been trying to think of
12 examples of how various things would fit, it's been kind
13 of along this same line, but these are special circumstances
14 which we feel illustrate certain alternatives here, if you
15 will, and the gentlemen here are passing out, by the way,
16 copies of this. If you haven't received this, just raise
17 your hand, and we'll give it to you.
18 I probably might as well go ahead and run
19 through this at this point, and I'll read it though and
20 try to explain it as I go, and then we'll see if there's
21 any specific questions on that example.
22 We have an organic chemical company which
23 produces a significant quantity of a hazardous waste and
24 then sends that hazardous waste to a treatment and disposal
25 contract, commercial treatment/disposal firm. You should
-------
408
I also add to that via common or contract carrier; that is,
2 by someone else's mechanism.
3 Mow, you'll notice there that under Section
4 3001, there's an "or" situation. That "or" situation means
5 depending on how we come down on the issue we discussed
6 yesterday of the place of the list in terns of this whole
7 area. How, if the material is listed, one way we can do
8 that, if you'll recall, is to have a rebuttable presumption
9 in relation to the list, meaning that if your waste appears
10 on that list, then you do in fact have a hazardous waste,
11 and you raay prove that you don't by using the criteria in
12 the test to prove that you're not in the system.
13 So, given that circumstance of this organic
14 chemical company, if he is listed, he can just assume that
15 he has that hazardous waste, or he may use tests and test
16 his waste to determine that he does not.
17 On the other hand, if the liat is simply an
18 example list, rather than a list which carries with it a
19 rebuttable presumption of being hazardous waste, then he
20 will either declare his waste as a hazardous waste specifi-
21 cally, or he can test against the criteria to determine
22 whether or not the waste does fall into the system. OK.
23 Under Section 3002, it would be the respon-
24 sibility of that organic chemical company to properly label,
25 placard, containerize and initiate then the manifest system
-------
409
1 which would include entering the proper data and then
2 designating a permitted facility to receive the waste.
3 He would also have to keep records which are required as
4 you recall under Section 3002, and he would have to provide
5 the quarterly report which is the summary of the manifest
g information.
7 Under Section 3010, he would have to notify
8 EPA within 90 days that he is in fact a generator of
9 hazardous waste, within 90 daya of the publication of 3001.
10 OK, that would be what this organic chemical
11 company would be required to do then, as we see it, under
12 Section -- no, under Subtitle C.
13 Are there any questions on that? We'll
14 take them from the floor if there are, as opposed to cards.
15 (No response.)
16 MR. LINDSEY) OK, let's move on to number B.
17 We have a petroleum refiner producing
18 hazardous sludges and disposing of those sludges in a
19 lagoon on hia own property that is contiguous to the
20 generating facilities. What are his requirements?
21 Well, under Section 3001, it's still up to
22 him to determine whether he has a hazardous waste or not.
23 If he appears on a list, and if we decide that that list
24 carries with it the presumption of having a hazardous waste,
25 then he can declare it a hazardous waste. It will either
-------
410
be a hazardous waste, or he can declare it, or he can test
2 it. That is the same criteria that the organic chemical
3 company in "A" would have.
4 Under Section 3002, since he's disposing of
<£>
5 this material onsite, that's all he needs to do is keep
records. He does not have to, for example, undertake the
manifest and all of that sort of thing.
Under Section 3005, however, because he's
disposing, he would require a disposal permit which then
meets the requirements of Section 3004, the standards for
n treatment, storage and disposal. And this would, of
12 course, include submitting of a quarterly report of what
13 he's doing.
]4 Under Section 3010, he would, like facility
lg "A" be required to notify EPA within 90 days of the publi-
16 cation of the 3001 standards that he is, in fact, generating
|7 and disposing of hazardous waste
Are there any questions on that example?
Yeah, Bob? Can you come up. Bob, because
20 the fellow is not going to be able to carry it.
BOBs That was going to be my second sugges-
tion, is why don't we have an ad hoc meeting without having
record keeping, and if people get dangerous then we all can
shoot out the side of the door, and let's have a more
25 informal meeting for the rest of the day.
-------
15
lfi
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
411
I1R. LI14DSEY: Bob, we'd be willing to have
informal meetings, but for purposes of going over this, we
would like to be able to continue to keep the record of
the thing for now.
BOB! OK.
MR. LIHDSEYs How, if you want to make a
statement off the record though, we have no objection to
that.
DOB: I don't mind making the record. I
just think it's — - coming back and forth is — stops com-
munication, but — •
MR. LINDSEY: Well, I'll tell you what. If
anybody has anything and would like to stick around for a
little while after this is over and discuss on more of a
one-to-one basis, I have no objection to doing that. We're
just going over case examples.
BOBt OK. On this case example, you said
that he may test, he may declare it hazardous, or he may
tested and showed that it's not hazardous. I'll ask the
question on 3010. How is he going to identify this? How,
I understood yesterday that you could either declare that
it is hazardous and not test or you can test. Now, it's
still the same question. I got back to your answer there
that I had — that if I have a waste and it is hazardous,
then it has to be identified as to how it's hazardous.
-------
412
1 Now, I —
2 MR. LINDSEYi You moan under 3010.
3 BOB: Yeah, 3010. What if I choose not —
4 I mean, what you're saying is that I've got to test no
5 matter what?
6 MR. LINDSEYs No.
7 MR. CORSONi Ho. Could I make a point?
8 Bob, on this sheet for example, when we're
9 saying under "B" or "A" that it is a hazardous waste, this
10 means that the waste is in fact hazardous if it had been
11 tested against the criteria.
12 BOBs OK, so you've got the —
13 MR. CORSOH: But, for these cases, in order
14 to make our point, we're saying the waste is hazardous.
15 He said in the first example it might have been listed,
16 and the second way he is not on the list, then he may
17 declare it, or he may decide since he wasn't really sure
18 about it, he may actually go and do the test procedure and
ig found out the waste was hazardous.
20 In all of these examples, in order to show
21 what the generator, the transporter, the treater, storer
22 or disposer must do, we are saying the wastes truly are
23 hazardous wastes.
24 BOBt Than I would like to suggest that
25 use the — consider — and I'm sure that this has already
-------
413
1 been pointed up to you -- the California system that I
2 know that they use, where the generator may declare his
3 waste as hazardous without any further tests.
4 MR. CORSONt We do that.
5 We would have to maybe have a further
g description as required to say what it is under 3010,
7 as when you prenotify under 3010 that it's a hazardous
8 waste.
,-, BOB: That you think. I mean, in your
l() opinion. You're not saying that it is, I mean, that you
U know for a fact, but then you can say it is toxic.
12 MR. LINDSEY: That was Bob Dyer, incidentally
13 from Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority.
14 OK. Any other questions on Example "B"?
15 (No response.)
ig MR. LINDSEYi Example "C" is a photographic
17 lab which generates a small quantity of hazardous waste,
18 that is, he meets the requirement as being a small generator
,,, but then he decides to send that material to a commercial
20 disposal firm. OK. If he does that, to a commercial
21 hazardous waste permitted disposal firm. If he does that,
22 he has to follow all the requirements that a large generator
23 would have to follow; that is, he would have to follow the
24 same procedures as the organic chemical company in Example
25 "A". On the other hand, I could point out that as a small
-------
414
generator, he has very much less responsibility if he sends!
the material directly to a nonpermitted facility, which he
would have the option of doing, but if he decides to send
it to a hazardous waste facility, he has to go through all
the procedures that are involved with that.
Any questions on that?
(tlo response.)
MR. LINDSEYs OK. Example "D".
Pesticide aerial applicator generates small
quantifies of a hazardous waste and soil incorporates that
waste on his own property.
Here again we have an example of a small
generator, one who meets the criteria of a small generator,
and he decides that he's just going to handle that stuff
on his own property. Well, if he's a snail generator and
he handles it on his own property, all he has to do ia two
things as it's presently listed now, and one is record
keeping. Keep track of what he's doing. He doesn't have
to report it, just record keeping.
711 of the 3004 national standards would
apply to that activity. An I right on that? I think that's
right. Yeah. Onsite, 3004, but he would need a permit.
Ko would also have to notify that he is handling that stuff
on his own site, disposing of it. That would be all. Keep
records, notify.
-------
415
1 Any questions on that?
2 Yeah? Would you come on up?
3 QUESTIONt I just want to ask a question.
4 Can you give us any kind of a benchmark on
5 the small quantity?
6 MR. LINDSEY* You mean what is that going
7 to be?
8 QUESTION! Yeah, just a benchmark kind of a
9 thing, nothing to pin you down too tight.
10 MR. LINDSEYt There's several ways we go on
11 that. One is, and the one I guess which we are leaning
12 toward is to identify some number of pounds per month or
13 something of that nature, generation rate, that would
14 identify a small generator. We don't have a number to give
15 you on that at this point. The group of people who are
16 still working on Section 3002 have been worrying that to
17 death, and I don't think they have anything yet.
18 QUESTIONi Well, Fred, is it in the area
19 of ten or a hundred or a thousand pounds? In what area?
20 MR. LINDSEY: I think we're talking about
21 somewhere between ten and a thousand at this point. Really,
22 I'm not trying to be funny. We just haven't -- we really
23 haven't come down on it any further than that.
24 There's still another option, a complete
25 other option which we may follow, and that is the option
-------
416
of coming up with ~ using SIC codes to get rid of the
2 amusement park and the hardware store and these kinds of
3
things.
4 I don't want to get into a big discussion.
He did have one idea which was interesting and which was
5
occasionally picked up by somebody, having heard us talk
about it, and this is the idea of 27 pounds parraonth. Thin
came about because a preliminary examination indicated that
g perhaps this is what a family, homeowner family, typically
1Q generates. Now, that whole business of 27 pounds per month
n and homeowner family and all is data which is not very —
12 not very firm at this point, so I don't want to get into a
discussion as to the validity of that, but that's one
number. Another number was that maybe we want one drum
,K kind of thing or two drum king of thing, which would put it
10
lg in the thousand pound range.
So, we're still open. Anyone wants to help
18 us define that, we'd be real happy to have your suggestions
lg on what's a good way — or what a good number would be in
2 those cases. That's all I can say.
Anything else on Item "D"? The small
generator in this case?
„„ (Ho response.)
Z.O
MR. I.INDSEY: OK. Then "E". Transporter
24
picks up hazardous waste pumpings from several manufacturers
-------
417
1 lagoons.
2 OK, he's going around picking up material
3 from several different manufacturers now. What must he do?
4 Well, under Section 3002, the manifest must be certified
5 by the generators. For example, the transporter, he may
6 in this case be picking up materials in a lot of different
7 places. He may himself initiate the manifest, but every
8 time he picks up a load, he's going to have to have the
9 generator sign off that he has, in fact, given this material
10 to tha trnasporter. And concerning the destination, the
11 placarding and the other information that would be required.
12 Under Section 3003, the transporter must
13 certify the acceptance and deliver that material only then
14 to a manifested location, to the location that he puts on
15 the manifest. He also, of course, must notify EPA under
16 Section 3010, even though that doesn't show up on the sheet.
17 Any questions on that?
18 (Ho response.)
19 I1R. LINDSEYs OK. Let's take Example "F".
20 An electronics firm has an etching solution
21 which is a hazardous waste, and we're presuming for this
22 example that it is. Half is sent to commercial disposal
23 firms, and half is recycled, presumably immediately.
24 For the disposed portion, that portion which
25 he is disposing, sending off for disposal to a contract
-------
413
commercial facility, he would have to -- he would be treated!
2 just like the organic chemical generator company who was
3 generating waste in Example "A". That is, he would have
4 to comply with all the systems.
For that recycled solution, recycled portion,
he's sending this material now to a permitted product recove:ry
facility, and that, as we discussed yesterday — all he
would have to do in that case is keep a record of where he's
sending it, for that material. He would not need to maniires';
]„ it in that case.
Are there any questions on that? Hov; that
12 all fits together.
13 (No response.)
14 MR. LINDSEYs OK. Going on to the last ones.
15
16 We have a solvent reclaimer here who accepts
,7 waste solvents from a variety of manufacturers and produces
18 then clean solvent, and of course then, he has left over a.
hazardous waste residue. All right, now, he takes these
waste residues from his solvent reclaiming operation and
sends them off to a commercial disposal firm. Now, how
does he handle things? What are his requirements.
Now, the residues that he's generating,
the residues that are left over which - in this particular
example, we're concluding are hazardous, he becomes a
-------
419
1 generator of those residues, and he would have to handle
2 those residues in accordance with the same requirements
3 that the organic chemical company in Example "A" did. This
4 is a hazardous waste, and disposal of it's going to have
5 to be handled in accordance with any other hazardous waste.
g He would, however, if he is a product recover;
7 facility recovering original product, be eligible for the
8 special kind of permit that we talked about, which we're
9 calling now for the purposes of keeping it straight, a
10 product recovery permit, which is, as we've talked several
11 times, a much easier kind of permit to get. OK?
12 So, that's the kind of permit he would get.
13 He would, however, have to meet the standards under Section
14 3004 regarding reporting and the other standards which
15 would apply to a treatment facility of this nature He
16 would have to notify EPA within 90 days that he is a treator
17 of hazardous waste
18 lie would not, as it indicates there at the
19 bottom — manifests would not be involved in his receipt of
20 waste, because the generators, they are sending material to
2i a facility of this type and would not have to initiate the
22 manifest.
23 OK, are there any questions on that?
24 I might point out that if the residue are
25 not a hazardous waste, the residue that's left over are not
-------
420
1 hazardous, then he could do with that residue what he
2 pleased.
3 Yea, air?
4 (Inaudible question from the floor.)
5 MR. LINDSEYi OK. First of all, the con-
g I sideration would have to be taken in order to separate by-
7 I products from things which are at least sometimes waste if
g the material which, that we're discussing here, is essen-
9 tially always sold, always used kind of a tiling. That is,
10 ! I think the example, I think the limit is at this point
H I nationally not more than five percent of it is ever dis-
12 posed of in terms of discarding or something like that.
13 Then it is not a waste and you don't need to do anything.
j
14 i On the other hand, if this material is some-
15 times on a national basis disposed of and sometimes not,
16 then the material would be — would fit into the system
17 unless the person who generated it to start with could
18 identify the immediate utility. If he could do that and
in he doesn't dispose of it but he always ships it to you
20 under contract, and then that would not be a waste either,
21 and no permit, manifest, et cetera, would be needed.
22 However, if that generator sometimes dis-
23 poses of it or leaves the stuff sitting around for quite
24 a while, then other requirements might be involved.
05 Yes, jira? ..
STfiHULIL. 3+aMe.Z. H.
_>> MR. BeiriEiBRi Jim
-------
421
1 If you don't mind, I'd like to go back
2 to "E".
3 In the case of these milk runs where you're
4 mixing a number of different wastes, couldn't this be con-
5 ceivably considered as almost like a portable transfer
6 station or a mixing process where because of the collection
7 of theae different types of material you actually are mix-
8 ing, you are actually coming up with another waste? Wouldn't
g the hauler, possibly, in this case be considered as a
10 generator of this new waste?
ll MR. CORSONt I think the approach we're
12 taking there is that each portion of the load must be
13 signed off and certified by the individual generator who
14 is giving it to the transporter, and there will be some
15 requirement on the part of the transporter to make sure
16 that he assesses the compatibility of the various wastes
17 that he is picking up. We're not putting any requirement
18 on him now to characterize that new total waste load that
ig he is picking up and mixing, all of these wastes together.
20 MR- SOLLERi It could be a completely
21 different product.
22 MR. CORSONJ That's certainly possible,
23 with the chemical actions and reactions taking place.
24 MR. LINDSEYi Are thera any others?
25 Would anvone like to ask a question about
-------
422
1 a specific example he can dream up?
2 OK. Yes, sir?
Oeu
MR. BAKER: John Baker from Titanium Metals
4 Corporation. Henderson, Nevada.
5 I've been discussing with several fellows
outside this question, or example, you might call it, and
they thought it would be appropriate to bring up here.
MR. LINDSEY: To see if you get the same
9 answer.
10 MR. BAKER: Yeah, right.
ll San a industry has a discharge stream
12 which I assume is covered under this regulation. It is
13 permitted under the NPDES permit. It will not support
14 the bioassay tests, which I assume they're considering
15 under 3001. We've already, in the particular case I am
16 thinking of, we've already found that it does not support
17 fish, it would not support soy beans, and the reason is
18 due to the native salinity of the Colorado River.
19 Would this discharge fall under your guides
20 as a hazardous waste discharge?
21 MR. LINDSEY: The answer is no, but no,
22 maybe for the purpose -- not for the purpose or reason
23 you think.
24 First of all, the discharge which is per-
25 mitted, and he has a permit under NPDES, is excluded by
-------
423
1 the Act. He don't cover discharges as it were.
2 Now, to expand a little on that, the question
3 always comes back, "Hell, what about my process, from the
4 end of my manufacturing operation to the point of that
5 discharge, this discharge under NPDES that I am permitted
6 to operate?"
- Hell, OK, first of all, it is a sludge or a
8 concentrated liquid which comes out or something like that
9 which is then disposed of. You would then be a generator
,(l at that point, OK, of that sludge, if it's hazardous, of
I! course.
12 Now, how about — are we going to get in-
13 volved with the permitting of effluent treatment process
14 strains, if you will, you know, the clarifier and whatever
15 else you may have in there, and the answer is no, we will
It, not be getting involved with effluent treatment operations
17 | which are contiguous to the manufacturing operation. OK?
]8 There may be — we still have one minor
point of disagreement within our office and which we're
still considering, and that is, suppose that effluent
treatment were to include as part of it a lagoon of some
29 sort, which might have been a treatment lagoon or settling
23 or whatever, and that treatment lagoon then leaks into the
24 ground, leaching, if you will, and threatens ground water,
j
25 I then the question comes up, "Are we going to permit those
-------
424
1 facilities ?s a disposal facility?"
2 And our initial impression was that in that
3 particular case, yes, we would, but we've had cause aa a
4 result of the two previous meetings to say we're going to
5 rethink that.
6 MR. BAKERi So, therefore, if I discharge
7 directly without any lagooning or anything discharge, it
8 would not bo covered under --
9 MR. LINDSEY: You would not be subject to a
10 permit to do that under RCRA.
11 MR. BAKER i So, as long as we have the HPDES
12 permit, it's —
13 MR. LINDSEYi Yes, correct.
14 MR. BAKER: Thank you.
15 Same thing for air pollution control activi-
16 ties, you know, the treatment operations there, the same
17 thing has to do with the scrubbers, at cetera, on air
18 pollution control facilities from the stacks on a manufac-
19 turing operation. We're not permitting that scrubber, if
20 you will, in the same light. Although there's sludge from
21 it, we may — you may have to be a generator, if that's
22 hazardous.
23 MR. CORSOWi There's a definition at Page
24 2801. It's 1004(27).
25 MR. LINDSEY: You've got a good memory, if you
-------
425
can remember the page number
Anything else? Any other questions, examples
3 somebody wants to put up?
Oh, yes. Yes. I'm sorry.
MR. FEHSENPELD'i My question, let's assume
0
„ that I'm receiving a cutting oil from industry, and it
0
might be hazardous, but because it's coming to the recycling
operation, which I am operating recovering the oil, I do
0 not need a manifest. If you don't need a manifest, then
y
l(| the responsibility of the generator to inform, for example
that he's using a nocosymine as a catalytic emulsifying
agent, what happens in that particular case?
13 MR. LIHDSEYi The question is, if I got it
right, you are the — you're not the generator, you're
,> the operator of the recovery facility, and you're recover-
ID
ing a product from the -- a waste material, cleaning it up
17 and selling it in some manner to a treatment process.
18 OK, you would be eligible for a product
recovery permit, and the generator would not have to
20 manifest this waste through to you. OK.
2] Now, your question is, what about the fact
that he won't be provided you with information on the
manifest? OK. That would then be contractual arrangements
between you and he. You may want to demand that, con-
tractually, for receiving that kind of stuff, that he tell
-------
426
I you exactly what he's doing, as you would now, I would
2 presume.
3 Vie find, for exanple, that most treatment
4 and disposal operations now — not disposal, excuse me.
5 Well, disposal, too, to some extent, but particularly most
6 treatment operations have a pretty complex contract whereby
7 the operations on the receiving end require quite a bit off
8 information from the generator of the waste concerning th«
9 composition.
10 Alternatively, he may choose frequently to
11 test that waste to be sure he's not getting something thai:
12 is going to screw up his operation.
13 So, your point is, and I guess my quick
14 answer ia. that in that case, you're right, there wouldn't
15 be any information on the manifest which you could use.
16 You'd have to set up some sort of contractual arrangements*
17 to get that information. I would think you might want
18 more substantial information than is on the manifest anyway
19 if you've got a process that's complex like that.
20 Does that answer the question?
2i MR. PEHGENFELI): Yes.
22 »R. LIHDSEY: OK.
23 MR. CORSON: There may be a little bit more
24 to it. Depending on exactly how we set up our reporting
25 requirements — we are going to have reporting requirements
-------
427
1 that require facilities with permits to report when other
2 people are violating the regulations. That is part of their
3 permit condition, in other words, when people who they do
4 business with do not obey the regulations in their handling.
5 And, perhaps, depending on hov/ those regula-
6 tions come out, perhaps you would have to report such a
7 person for having these —
8 MR. LIHUSEY: If he Knowa it. At this point
9 he won't know it.
10 IU. CORSOtI: Yeah.
11 MR. TRUE: I am Layton True with Chevron
12 Chemical.
13 I have a solar evaporating farra which is
&" »jf>oes
,014 subjfict to monitoring requirements of an NPBDES permit.
15 Is this farra likely to be regulated under RCRA?
16 MR. LIIIDSEY: That get* back to the same
17 example that I gave to the gentleman before, tie haven't
18 quite decided what we're going to do with lagoons, if
19 you will, or ponds which are leaching, which are in the —
o/*yo£s
20 permitted NPgDES effluent treatment. Originally, I would
21 have said yes, if it were leaching a hazardous waste, or
22 if a hazardous emission were coming off, but we've had
23 cause to rethink that, and I can't give you a definitive
24 answer.
25 Any other examples, questions?
-------
423
MR. BAKERj If a company has a spill on the
ground and that becomes a hazardous waste, according to
you all, what size quantity spill would be required to —
4 MR. LIHDSEYi Yeah, that's interesting. That
5 question came up when several others were discussing it.
I don't know whether it was last night or this morning or
at lunch or some time, and we got to thinking about that,
and we don't address that at the moment, and that's some-
g thing we're going to have to address.
10 My thinking would be - and I don't have tins
authority of the rest of the people here to back me up -
12 but under the quantity or whatever that identifies a small
13 generator, OK —
14 MR. BAKERj Would it be generating that acid
15 in other streams?
16 MR. LINDSEYi Well, the acid would be a
17 product. OK, we're talking about —
MR. BAKER: No, I mean generating a waste
after the —
20 MR. LIHDSEYt But if he spills it on the
„, ground, it's going to be incorporated with the soil, and
it's not the same waste, if you will, so possibly there
23 might be a way out. I don't know. I would think it's not
24 the same thing if you mix it up with something else.
25 That's an interesting question, and we
-------
429
1 had — it did come up the other day, and we haven't — we
2 don't address it at the moment, but we will.
3 Yes, Amis?
4 MR. EDELMAN: Arnie Edelman, EPA.
For the transportation, we're looking at
6 | existing regulations, that is the Department of Transporta-
7 I tion, for the reporting of spills. They have five or six
8 criteria that one goes through. One is a certain dollar
9 property value, loss of life, and spill. Any quantity of
10 jj spill. And also in the judgment of the transporter if it
I
11 | should be reported.
12 [ So, basically, DOT does have dollar limits,
13 j damage to health limits and also quantity. Any amount
14 spilled is reportable. So, for the transportation regula-
15 tions, we went to DOT and said, OK, there are different
16 routes we can go, and it looks like for now we would like
17 to get information on what type of spills there are, what
18 it involved with the spill, so we are studying any quantity
19 that is spilled as reportable, and this is what DOT has
20 done. When we get information that indicates a hundred
21 thousand spills of half a gallon or less, of course, at
~%£ that point, we would probably modify the regulatoins. We're
23 allowed to modify them every three years. For now, any
24 quantity is the level that we're considering.
25 OK. Any other questions or situations?
-------
430
(No response.)
2
1
MR. LINDSEY: OK. Seeing none, I will ask
, if anyone, at thio last call, would like to make a formal
o
statement? I don't have any indication on the registration
that there is any, but we'll give you an opportunity if
0
you'd like at this point.
OK, seeing none, thank you very much,
everyone. I think you've been very helpful to us in posing
some questions and no forth which we will consider, and we
lf) very much appreciate it.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the meeting was
13 closed.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
Attendees—October 17-18, 1977
Amber, Richard O.
Chief, Hazardous Waste
Management
EPA
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75770
Baker, Don
Supervisor of Environmental
Control
Titantium Metals Corp.
P. O. Box 2128
Henderson, Nevada 89015
Bayor, Robert B.
Manager
Velsicol Chemical
341 E. Ohio Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Beatty, Thomas Q.
Executive Vice President
Arizona Cotton Growers
Association
4139 E. Broadway
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
Berens, Ronald
General Manager
Valley Sprayer & Duster
Service
P. 0. Box 1837
SunCity, Arizona 85372
Bergin, Kieran D.
Hazardous Waste Engineer
1955 Workman Mill Road
P. 0. Box 4998
Whittier, Arizona 90607
Bingham, Robert
Attorney
Parsons, Behle & Latimer
79 S. State Street
P. C. Box 11898
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Blackledge, Bill
Administrator
Board of Pesticide Control
State of Arizona
1624 W. Adams #103
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Boll, Kenneth G.
Sanitary Engineer
US Forest Service
519 Gold SW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
Bourns, Charles T.
Supervisory Environmentalist
EPA~ Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Boyd, James H.
Manager Environmental
The Bunker Hill Co.
P. 0. Box 29
Kellogg, Idaho 83837
Dr. Brandon, Dale E.
Environmental Coordinator,
Minerals Dept.
Exxon Co. USA
P. 0. Box 2180
Houston, Texas 77001
Bowles, Clarence E.
Inspector
Federal RR Adm. (DOT)
630 #2 Embaracadero Center
San Francisco, California 94111
Brenckle, Mary B.
Engineer
Exxon, USA
Box 3950
Baytown, Texas 77520
Brinson, Terry T.
Manufacturing Manager
Arizona Agrochemical
P. 0. Box 309
Chandler, Arizona 85224
Brown, flichael D.
Chief Environnental Engineer
G.E.Z.P
124 Spear Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Brown, G. Steven
3COJ Consultant
MFPDI
1400 llth Avenue
Helena, Montana 59601
-------
Burns, Walter
Plant Manager
Arizona Agrochemical Co.
11520 E. Germann Road
Chandler, Arizona 85224
Cabirac, Tony
Representating the City
of Prescott
3554 W. Dai ley Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85023
Canex, Tibaldo
Coordinator
Arizona Dept. Of
Health Services
1740 W Adams
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Cantrell, Charles B.
Engineer
Western Electric Co., Inc.
P. 0. Box 13369
Dept 4020
Phoenix, Arizona 85030
Castell, Robert J.
Director of Environmental
Quality
Ideal Basic Industries
Cement Division
P. 0. Box 8789
Denver, Colorado 80201
Cinq-Mars, Robert J.
Environmental Coordinator
Cities Service Company
P. 0. Box 300
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
Collins, Ralph E.
Label & Reg. Spec.
Arizona Agrochemical Company
P. 0. Box 21547
Phoenix, Arizona 85036
Copeland, Robert L.
Arizona Director
N.A.A.A.
171 W Shannon
Chandler, Arizona 85224
Cox, Daniel L.
Senior Engineer
Southern California Edison Co.
P. 0. Box 800
Rosemead, California 91770
Crohurst, Harry T.
Chief Bureau of Public
Health Engineer
Maricipa Co. Health Dept.
P. 0. Box 2111
Phoenix, Arizona 85001
Cuestas, Frank r
Residential Supt.
City of Tucson
4004 S. Park Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85714
Dangerfield, Mary P.
3622 W. Rancho Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85019
Dyer, Robert H.
Assistant General Manager
Coule Coast Waste Disposal
Auth.
910 Bay Area
Houston, Texas 77058
Fehsenfeld, Fred •"!.
Manager Trustee
ILWD Industrial Liquid
Waste Disposal
Columbus, Indiana
Indianopolis, Indiana 46268
Filgo, William W.
Environmental Engineer
TVA
248 - 401B
Chest, Indiana 37401
Fitch, Clint
Environmental Control Supervisor
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Hayden, Arizona 85235
Freeman, L. Russell
Vice President
ACEC
c/o Rrown & Ca!dwell
1501 r, Broadway
Walnut Creek, California 94596
------- |