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

-------