TRANSCRIPT
Public Meeting
on EPA's Current Schedule for Promulgating
under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
September 15, 1978, Washington, D.C.
This meeting was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-45p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
-------
emb-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
PUBLIC MEETING
EPA1B Current Schedule for
Promulgating Regulations
under the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Friday, September 15, 1978
The meeting in the .above-entitled matter convened,
pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m.
BEFORE:
STEFFEN W. PLEHN
Presiding Panelist
PANELISTS:
STEFFEN W. PLEHN
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Wastes
JOHN P. LEHMAN
Director, Hazardous Waste
Management Division
LISA FRIEDMAN, Esq.
Office of General Counsel
Water & Solid Waste Division
JOHN SKINNER
Director of Systems Management
Division
-------
emb-2
C 0 N T E N T S
STATEMENT OF i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CURTIS BARTON, On Behalf of The Manufacturing
Waste Committee of the American Paper Institute
and the National Forest Products Association
RICHARD SOBEL, Chairman, MCA/RCRA Task Group,
On Behalf of the Manufacturing Chemists
Association (MCA)
ROBERT L. HARNESS, Manager, Regulatory Affairs,,
Monsanto Company, On Behalf of Monsanto Company
EUGENE J. WINGERTER, Executive Director, National
Solid Hastes Management Association, On Behalf
of the National Solid Wastes Management
Association
RICHARD HARDISON, Manager, Environmental Affairs,
Carbon Products Division, Union Carbide Corpora-
tion, On Behalf of Union Carbide Corporation
PAGE
22
27
31
38
42
-------
emb-3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR, PLEHN*. I'.m Staff an Plehn. I'm the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste of EPA, and I'm
happy to welcome you to this meeting to discuss the question
of schedules for the proposal in some instances and promulgate >n
of regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
With me on the -- up here at the head table on my
left is Lisa Friedman, who is a lawyer from our Office of
General Counsel, who is — works with us on RCRA matters.
To her left is Jack Lehman, who is the Division Director of
the Hazardous Waste Management Division. And to his left is
John Skinner who is the Division Director of the Systems
Management Division.
I have a — some introductory remarks which I would
like to make and then I will be turning it over to Jack and
to John for presentation^ and I will get into the other ground
rules in just a moment.
I wish to welcome you to this public meeting to
discuss EPA*s schedule for promulgation of regulations under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The purpose of
this meeting is to inform the public of our current schedule ajnd
to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on it.
If any of you have not obtained a copy of the schedule, copies
are available from our 'registration desk.
-------
emb-4
RCRA is of central importance in the efforts of
2 EPA to protect public hcialth and the environment, as the
3 recent events at Love C.inal and elsewhere in the nation have
4 so tragically shown. EI'A first recommended federal legisla-
5 tion to regulate hazardous wastes to the Congress in 1973.
We continued to develop information on the nature of the hazarf-
dous waste problem and l:he damages resulting from improper
management until the enactment of RCRA in October 1976. Since
9 then we have proceeded 1x> develop the regulations called for
10 by the Act as rapidly an our resources and the complexity of
11 the problem has allowed,.
12 Through a growing program of grants we have assiste
13 state governments in obliaining legislation and developing thei
14 own programs for the effective anagement of hazardous wastes.
15 We have made major progress since the enactment of RCRA but
16 unfortunately we have not been able to meet many of the dead-
lines set forth by the i^ongress in the Act.
To date, EPA lias received citizen suit: letters from
19 six organizations notifying us of their intent to seek a
20 court order compelling 12PA to promulgate regulations under
21 Subtitles C and D of RC.RA: the four public interest group
22 citizen suit letters referenced in the Federal Register
23 notice announcing this meeting, plus two similar letters
24 from the National Solid Wastes Management Association and
25 the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group which were - '
-------
x received after that notice went to press. The Agency has met
2 witii all these groups in an, effort to obtain a better
3 understanding of their concerns and to see if those concerns
4 could be resolved prior to the litigation. No mutually
5 satisfactory resolution has been achieved to date.
6 On September 13, 1978, two of the citizen suit
7 organizations, the Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental
8 Action, filed suit in the U.S. District Court here in
9 Washington to require EPA to promulgate certain Subtitle A,
10 C, and D regulations. This filing followed fast on the heels
n of a similar lawsuit which had been instituted less than a
12 week earlier by the State of Illinois, seeking to compel EPA
13 to issue regulations under Subtitles C and D.
14 The schedule before you today represents EPA's
15 current best estimate of the shortest amount of time in which
16 it can promulgate defensible regulations with adequate allowance
17 for public participation. Please be assured we are concerned
]a about that schedule. If it were within our power, we would
19 want to have an operational hazardous and solid waste regula-
20 tory program in place immediately. However, that is not
21 possible.
22 He are seeking today to obtain the comments of the
23 public on our schedule. As the result of your comments and
24 our further experience we may conclude that the schedule can
25 be shortened. Alternately, we may determine that more time
-------
! will be required in order to assure that well conceived and
fully defensible regulations are achieved.
In light of the pending litigation againnt the
•5
Agency we will be somewhat constrained in responding to
questions about the Agency's proposed schedule during this
O
meeting. Thus, although we will be happy to answer
b
inquiries concerning, for axample, the availability of drafts
„ of the regulations and schedules for public hearings on the
o
regulations, we will not be able to reply, or will be able to
reply only in a limited way, to questions related to the
issues raised by the Environmental Defense Fund ancl the
12 State of Illinois lawsuits.
Now, I'd also like to cover a few procedural steps
14 here as to how we would plan to go ahead, to carry out this
meeting. As I said, at the conclusion of my remarks. Jack
15
Lehman and John Skinner will be preventing some information
ID
about Subtitle C and Subtitle D regulation development
process.
lo
Following their presentations, we will hear from
19
„ those individuals and organizations which havw asked to make
21 oral statements. We have ireceived five requeiits in advance
22 to make oral presentations.. So that we may keep to our
23 schedule, we are requesting each speaker to limit his or her
24 comments to no more than Id minutes and to confine their
remarks to the Agency's proposed schedule, the citizen suit
-------
7
j notices, and public participation in the RCRA Section 405
2 rulemaking. There will be subsequent meetings and hearings
3 at which you will be invited to present comments on the
4 substantive content of EEA's proposed regulations.
5 We will hear from speakers in the order in which
6 they registered. Before beginning their presentations, the
7 speakers should identify themselves and the organizations
8 they represent, if any, and state whether they will respond
9 to questions from the panel.
10 Written statements from the speakers, as well as a
n verbatim transcript of their oral statements, will be include
]2 in the record of this meeting. To assist us in assuring that
13 this record is complete, we request that speakers submit a
14 copy of any prepared statement to the reporter as well as the
15 panel, if they have extra copies.
15 If there are any persons who have not registered
17 to make a statement and would like to do so now, please give
18 your name to the registration clerk. After presentation of
19 oral statements, the meeting will be opened up for questions
20 from the audience. To avoid repetition and to assist us in
2i providing some organization to the question and answer
22 period, we are requesting that the audience submit its
23 questions in writing to our registration clerk, who in turn
24 will give them to the panel.
25 Could our registration clerk raise his or her hand
-------
8
! so everybody knows who you are? Is that frerril is it 6«crr
2 Gerri Wyer is the registration clerk, and I think she's still
3 working on registration. So she'll be in in a little bit.
4 Questions may be submitted at any tine during the
5 meeting and should include, in addition to the specific
6 inquiry, the name and affiliation of the person asking the
7 question. Within the constraints which I discussed earlier,
8 we will try to respond to all questions submitted.
9 The record of this meeting will ba V*lck open for
10 one week, i.e., until Friday, September 22, 1978, for the
u submission of additional written comments. Comments should be
12 sent to yer, our public participationoff\c.9.ri Office of
13 Solid Waste, WH-562, if you're sending us a letter, 401 M
14 Street, S. W., Washington, 0. C. 20460.
15 With these opening remarks I will now turn the
16 rostrum over to Jack Lehman.
17 Excuse me..-.Because this interest is so overwhelming,
18 we're making arrangements to put sound into a room that's
19 just down the hall so that those people who would like to
20 sit in there and follow this proceeding would be able to do
21 so. It's going to take just a moment to hook that up. So if,
22 with your permission, we'll :iust wait a second until that's
23 done.
24 This seat down hero — I think there'is either one
25 or two seats right there and if there are any other around —
-------
1
here's one over here, too. So ~ and there's some more here.
2 So cone on down and fill in and be comfortable.
3 since we have so many people here, some of whom are
4 not in the most comfortable circumstances, and I think that
5 virtually everybody who is here is either in the room or
standing in the back of the room, in order to not hold all of
you up too long I think we'll go ahead here, and at the point
that the other room is hitched up, we'll l«t ^oo know and
any of you in the back who would be more comfortable and woulc
]0 want to do that, could then move in there.
u So I think at this point I'll turn this — turn it
12 over to Jack.
13 MR. LEHMAN: Thank you, Stef. Briefly, I'm going
14 to describe the subtitle C regulations, the status of those
15 regulations and run briefly through the schedule for
16 promulgation of these regulations as we now see it.
17 Subtitle C regulatory package consists of seven
18 different regulations which we are developing in parallel.
19 They are all in the 3000 series in the RCRA. 3001 is the
basic definition of hazardous waste.
21 3002 are national standards for generators of
22 hazardous waste.
.,., 3003 are national standards for transporters of
24 hazardous waste.
3004 axe national standards for owners and operator)
-------
10
1 , *. • \
l of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities.
2 3005 is the regulation defining the permit system
g for such facility.
4 3006 is the guideline, EPA guideline to states as
5 to what constitutes an acceptable State program that can be
6 authorized to be carried out in lieu of the federal program
7 under Subtitle C.
8 And last but not least is Section 3010, which
concerns a one-time notification to EPA or authorized States
10 by all generators, transporters, storers, treaters or
n disposers of wastes that are deemed hazardous by Section
12 3°01-
13 Of those three — excuse me, of those seven
14 regulations, three have be*m proposed in the Federal Register
j. and those are Section 3006, the .State program guidelines
16 were proposed in February of this.year. Section 3003, the
17 transporter regulations were proposed in April, and Section
lg 3010, the notification regulations, were proposed in July.
ig And we have held public hearings on each of those regulations
20 All of the other regulations are in development, but
21 you should know that drafts of these proposed regulations havi
22 been widely circulated to interested parties for many months
23 now. Each time we complete a draft of — that is a signifi-
24 cant change from previous drafts we have distributed that to
25 the public, whoever wishes to get on our mailing list.
-------
11
1 At this time, we see the following schedule for the
completion of this regulatory set. Before I begin that, I
would like to say that our original plan as you saw earlier
3
was to propose each of these seven regulations in sequence.
So that we would not overload the system, if you will, with
5
public hearing type of work, commentary and this sort of
b
7 thing.
As we have proceeded down this path, we have found
8
that it is almost impossible to consider this regulatory
program except as a complete set and so we have abandoned the
concept of proposing the regulations as independent regula-
tions and are now going to propose the remaining four regula-
tions as a set, and five of the seven regulations will be
lo
promulgated in final form as a set. The two that will be
promulgated independently are the State program guideline,
lu
3006 and the notification regulations under section 3010.
lb
The reasoa for that is that those have to be promulgated
before the others for legal reasons under the Act.
lo
1Q So basically from here on out we're going to be
iy
20 talking in terms of the complete set of regulations going out,
travelling together, if you will.
I'd like to run through with you, for those of you
„„ who are not familiar with it, EPA'8 internal administrative
<£0
procedures. What type of reviews take place, and this is
„ illustrated in the Subtitle C regulation schedule that was
-------
12
distributed to you.
2 For those of you who are not familiar with the
3 nomenclature, we are, Mr. Jorling, our Assistant Administrator,
4 has formed a special task force called the ITF, or the
5 implementation task force, to put more emphasis on the
Subtitle C regulatory package than what it would ordinarily
be given;and this implementation task force is made up of the
Deputy Assistant Administrator levels and Office of Director
9 levels of all of the Offices within the Agency.
And the purpose of the ITF is to explore in some
depth the major issues yet to be resolved under Sub ltd. tie C
12 regulations, at a relatively high level of the management of
13 this Agency. So that we do not get bogged down in last minute
14 issues. We're past the first two items now. The next
15 scheduled milestone for Subtitle C is the second menting of
16 this implementation task force at which time -- which takes
17 place next Tuesday, on the 19th, at which time we will review
18 the draft of the 3001 regulations, which was released last
19 week.
Similarly, on the 26th — I should back up and say
2I last week, on the 12th we did distribute revised — or rather
22 this week ~ we did distribute the revised draft 30ftl regula-
23 tions and those are also in the process of being reproduced
24 and will be sent to all of you who are on our mailing list.
25 Similarly, on the 26th of September we will be
-------
13
j completing a revised draft of the 3004 facility regulations
which will be sent not only to the ITF but also to the
2
people on the mailing list.
3
On October 3 we will have the third meeting of
4
this ITF group which will review the facility regulations
5
of Section 3004. On the 10th of October we anticipate
6
completing revised drafts of the generator standards, 3002,
7
the permit standards regulations 3005, and the final regula-
8
tions on 3006.
9
Now the — we will distribute drafts of section
10
3002 and 3005 to, as I'venentioned earlier, to people that
are on our mailing list, because they have r\dt yet been pro-
posed. However, our legal counsel advises us that we are not
at liberty to mail out the drafts of the final proposed
14
regulations under 3006. And at the same time we will have
15
completed a new draft of our Economic Impact Assessment work.
16
There was a preliminary draft, which came in last spring,
and we have been doing a lot of reassessment, new work on the
18
economic impact area, and we will have a draft available
about that time.
20
Following that, onttie 17th of October, we'll have
the fourth meeting of the ITF to consider all these regula-
tions and the draft Economic Impact Assessment. We anticipate
that each one of these meetings will consist of a presentation
24
by our staff on the — on these regulations, followed by a
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
critique and discussion by the other Offices in the Agency.
And by this process we hope to smoke ovf any last minute problem
that we might have with these regulations.
Following this, we will go on the 7th of November
to the Steering Committee. Now, here's another group 1:hat
you may not be familiar with, but the Steering Committne is
again made up of the same folks, the Deputy Assistant Adminis-
ftrator level of the Agency. But this is — this is, rather
than sort of an informal review of the draft, this is toe —
this begins the formal process of getting the material si out
of the Agency and into the Federal Register.
The Steering Committee then meets and will resolve
hopefully any unresolved issues. We anticipate there may be
some so we have scheduled two ;neetings of the Steering
Committee, one on the 7th, and one on the 14th.
We have allowed ourselves a week after that last
meeting to revise any of the regulations and then we start
what's called Red Border review. Here again, if you're not
familiar with this terminology, the Red Border review is the
Assistant Administrator level of this Agency and before a
regulation is sent forward to the Administrator, each Assistan
Administrator is given an opportunity to review and coimant on
that regulation.
So we anticipate that there will be discussions at
the Assistant Administrator level of these regulations during
-------
15
that period and so we are assuming it will take at least three|
weeks for that Red Border review. At which time it then
goes to the Administrator of the Agency and the Administrator'4
Office reviews the regulation one last time* assuming all is
in order he signs it, releases it to the Federal Register} it
then takes approximately four work days for the Federal Register
to print it and we arrive at our scheduled publication of
proposed regulations in the Federal Register on January 2,
1979. Happy New Year.
He anticipate then a 90-day comment period, following
the promulgation — or the proposal of these regulations. We
had contemplated other times. A 60-day comment period is
sometimes considered normal. But in view of the fact that we
were going out with a substantial set of regulations here which)
are going to take, I know, some time for you to sort through,
we felt that a 90-day comment period was in order for a
regulatory proposal of this magnitude.
During that period, we plan to hold five three-day
hearings around the country and we will take on comments on all]
of the proposed regulations during those three day hearings.
And tentatively, we — these are tentative locations, but I'll
mention them anyway. We're thinking in terms of Washington,
D. C.; New York City; St. Louis; Denver and San Diego,
California.
So start on the East Coast and work our way West, thej
-------
16
j way we currently see it.
2 So, that brings uu to April 2. We then feel that
3 it's going to take us a minimum of 90 days to evaluate the
4 comments we receive, to collect any additional information,
5 analyze all of these comments that we anticipate, resolve any
6 further issues that the comments bring up, and redraft the
, regulations in accordance with the new directions as might be
g necessary.
9 Now, you have .to bear in mind we're 'doing this
10 simultaneously for all of these regulations and so that, well,
tl the calendar time is 90 days; that's 64 work days to do all of
12 that work, and I think that's rather conservative. But anyway
13 we're going to try to do it.
)4 At that time, we enter into another cycle of review.
13 Basically, we go through- tho same process that I described
[6 earlier, except there are — we've already been through the
17 first two that you see theru and so it wasn't shown on the
18 first page. But basically the regulations are reviewed by
19 our Office of Solid Waste, by Stef Plehn, by the other Divisio;
20 Directors, to make sure that they are consistent with other
21 materials like Subtitle D rngulations that you'll hear about
22 in a few minutes. It then goes the next step to Mr. Jorling's
2$ Office at the Assistant Administrative level and all of the
24 other Offices within the Waiaer and Waste Management Program
25 are given an opportunity to review and comment on the
-------
17
j regulations. Then we go into again the Steering committee, th
2 same group I mentioned earlier sees these regulations once
3 again. Similarly, Red Border Review. The Assistant
4 Administrator level is given an opportunity to see these
5 regulations another time and lastly they go to the
6 Administrator and — for final sign-off and actual promulgatio^i
7 in the Federal Register.
8 For all of that effort and activity, bearing in
g mind that each step of the review here usually results in a
10 change to the regulations and that involves a redzaft,
n retyping, so on. And so it's — each level of review involves
12 going back and doing some more work. So we anticipate then
13 promulgation of the Subtitle C package on January 25, 1980.
14 Based on this schedule.
15 John?
16 MR. PLEHN: Thank you very much. Jack. John will
17 discuss the remaining .regulations.
18 MR. SKINNER: Yes. I'd like to discuss the schedule
19 for remaining regulations. The first one being the regulations
20 for classification of —
21 MR. PLEHN: John, excuse me. Could I interrupt just
22 a moment? There is a message here for Oscar Ackelsberg from
23 his secretary and he's asked to call his wife. That name is
24 A-c-k-e-1-s-b-e-r-g.
25 Excuse me, John. Sorry.
-------
18
j MR. SKINNER: The first one being the Criteria
2 for Classification Of Solid ulaste disposal Facilities, which
3 are authorized under Section 4004, and 1008 A-3 of the Act.
4 A proposed version of these regulations were published in the
5 Federal Register February 6 of this year. We had a public
6 comment period that lasted until June 12 of 1978 and during
7 that period we had a very extensive public participation
8 process where we had a number of public hearings and a number
9 of public meetings nationwide.
10 At the same time, we issued a draft environmental
n impact statement on those Criteria and held open the public
12 comment period for the draft: environmental impact statement
13 as well. At the end of the public comment period we had
14 received over 100 letters from individuals and various groups
15 and those 100 letters that we received resulted in approxima-
16 tely 1500 separate issues that were raised that needed to be
17 resolved in the development of the final regulation. These
18 were comments both on the regulation itself and on the
lg environmental and economic impact statement.
20 These comments are: going to require us to carry out
21 additinal analyses, also to redraft various sections of the
22 Criteria, to revise the draft environmental impact statement
23 and the economic analysis, and our current schedule for that
24 is that the Office of Solid Waste would complete that
25 process and have a package which could be sent forward for
-------
19
Agency decision-making by January 19 of 1979.
2
At that pointi in -ti»e, the regulation will move
3
through the decision-making process that Jack just described,
going through first the review by the Office of Hater and
5
Waste Management, then review by the Steering Committee and
6
then finally Red Border review and publication in the Federal
7
Register.
8
The point that I would like to bring-out about that
9
process on a final regulation is that process does not only
consider the regulation as it does when you are moving forward
with a proposed regulation, but it also considers all of the
12
public comments and the way in which the regulation was
13
revised, based upon those comments*
14
The schedule indicates that we hope to complete thai
15
process by July 27 of 1979 and promulgate that criteria in
16
final form in the Register at that time.
17
The second regulation that I'd like to discuss is a
18
regulation that is being issued both under the authorities of
19
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and under the
20
Authority of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act,
21
Section 405, calls for guidelines for the disposal and
22
utilization of sewage sludge from publicly-owned waste water
23
treatment works. Part of that requirement was met by — or
24
part of that requirement will be met by the Section 4004
25
Criteria which I just discussed. But the guidelines required
-------
20
under Section 405 is much broader than just the coverage
2
provided by the Section 4004 criteria.
3
At the same time that we're going through he process
of finalizing the Section 4304 criteria, we will be developing
a proposed guideline to meet the requirements of section 405
6
of th^. Water Act. So both of those regulatory processes are
going to be very closely related and are going to interact
with each other and decisions that will be made on one
9
regulation will impact upon the scope and content of the other
regulation.
n
The schedule for proposal of the Section 405
12
guideline as laid out calls for a draft of that guideline
13
to be completed by January 19, 1979. This guideline would
then go through the same inlaernal review process, in parallel
with the Section 4004 criteria and the schedule would call
for final — excuse me — proposed publication, publication
as a proposed rulemaking by July 27 of 1979.
18
We intend to hold a 90-day public comment period
19
on the proposed regulation. We anticipate considerable
comments . We anticipate need to revi/w£) and conduct additional
21
analyses after we review those comments and going through that
22
process and back through thci approval chain of the Agency, we
23
project an August 30, 1980 final promulgation date for the
24
Section 405 sludge guideline*
OE
The third regulation is a regulation for title
-------
emb-21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
development and implementation of state solid waste
management plans under Section 4002 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and before I get into the
schedule on that, let me indicate that that section required
another guideline for the identification of regions under
Section 4002-A and that guideline was published in proposed,
in interim form, in May of 1977.
Now, I'm talking about the guideline under Section
4002-B , which is for the development and implementation of
state plans.
This guideline was pblished as proposed in the
Federal Register, August 11 of this year and we are now in thi
public comment period on that guideline. There .are a number
of public meetings and a public hearing scheduled for public
input into that guideline and the schedule is available for
anyone who is interested in it.
At the end of that process, we will revise the
guideline and move through the Agency clearance process again
and our schedule projects a June 18, 1979 date for final
promulgation of the state planning guidelines.
The final regulation is a regulation required by
Section 1008 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
which requires that we provide guidelines that provide
technical, economic and environmental information on various
solid waste management practices, and the first of these
-------
emb-22
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guidelines that we havw scheduled is a guideline on the
practice of land filling. This guideline will suggest
techniques that could tie used to meet the 4004 criteria and
is therefore also being developed in parallel with that
criteria.
We have a preliminary working draft of Ste 1008
landfill guidelines which has been sent out for comment by
a number of parties. That draft is publicly available and
we can make it available to whoever is interested in a copy
of it.
After that preliminary review, we will be making
revisions and we expect to have.-a draft guideline that Mr.
Plehn can send forward for Agency review ajad clearance by
December 15 of this year, we anticipate publicalbion of that
as proposed in the Federal Register by March of 1979,
followed again by a 90-day public comment period,, with
final promulgation January 30, 1980.
MR. PLEHN: Thank you, John. We will now proceed
to take statements from those people who have anked to make
them, in the order in which we've received thoso requests.
The first person is Mr. Curtis Barton of the American Paper
Institute and the National Forest Products Association.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS BARTON, ON BEHALF OF THE
MANUFACTURING WASTE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN
PAPER INSTITUTE AND THE NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS
ASSOCIATION
-------
emb-23
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
MR. BARTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. My name
is Curtis Barton. I am a Group Head in the Environmental
Control Department of the Procter and Gamble Company,
and currently serve as Chairman of the Manufacturing Waste
Committee of the American Paper Institute and the National
Forest Products Association. This statement is made on behalf
of that committee and the 200 member pulp and paper companies
of API, and the more than 2,000 forest products companies
represented by NFPA.
Fos,jalraoat<,a^y«Mir- now, API and NFPA have been
closely following the development of the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations. We have commented to the Agency on several of
the preliminary drafts and proposed regulations, and intend
to do so on all of the various drafts and proposals to be
issued in the future.
While we believe the pulp and paper industry and
forest products industries themselves generate only a. very
limited type and quantity of waste which may be classified
as "hazardous", we believe the potential exists for EPA to
define"Hazardous Waste" so broadly that it could have a
severe impact on our industries, and may actually undermine
current environmentally acceptable disposal practices of non-
hazardous wastes.
Too broad a definition of "Hazardous Waste" could
lead to a severe shortfall in disposal facilities for truly
-------
amb-24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
hazardous wastes since what facilities do exist would be oven-
burdened with wastes which are not truly hazardous. It is of
utmost importance, thenafore, that the section 3001 regulation
in particular reflect a careful and balanced consideration of
all of the factors involved in determining which wastes are
to be treated as "hazardous."
The August 8 KPA proposed schedule which is presents
just now for rulemaking under Subtitle C of RCRA contains a
realistic January 1980
-------
25
We were distressed to learn just last month that
2 || EPA retained a contractor in May to study solid waste
3 || disposal practices in the pulp and paper industry and plans
to complete its study and report to EPA by November of this
year. There is no way an adequate study of the industry can
be conducted in the remaining time allowed*. Even if the con-
tractor were intimately familiar with the pulp and paper
industry (which it is not), the study can only be based on a
limited literature search and a random assessment of particula:
1() || operations within the industry. Given the diverse nature of
u I, the industry, the results can only be general in nature and
]2 || may be very misleading. If the contractor had an additional
,., ,| four to six months for the study, as suggested above, there
13 Jl
14 I, would be a much better opportunity for an adequate study to
,, ,. be performed.
1
16 || We are aware, of course, that EPA's proposed
17 || schedule adds somewhat to the lateness of the hazardous waste
.„ ,, regulations under the time tame set forth in the Act. We
19 n believe, however, that the additional time beyond that
20
provided by Congress is fully justified, given the magnitude
21 || of the task and the nature of the problems being addressed.
22 || This certainly is not the first time EPA has encountered a
n legitimate need to extend its regulation development activiti<
II
II Deyond the statutory deadlines to carry out adequately the
mandate of the law.
-------
26
In summary, we support the Agency's proposed promul-
2
gation date of January 1980, but strongly urge that the propo-
3
sal date be changed to Jun« or July of 1979. This suggested
schedule revision may help to avoid unforeseen longer delays
in the proper handling of titm Nation's hazardous waste which
could result from inadequate technical and economic assess-
7
ments in developing these regulations.
Q
Thank you. And I will answer any questions the
panel has.
MR. PLEHN: Thank, you very much, Mr. Barton. Are
there any questions?
12 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Barton, I understand your proposal
13 is to delay the proposed rags for roughly six months, but not
14 the final promulgation date. The implication is that EPA
15 would be able to go from proposal to final regulations in
six months.
17 MR. BARTONi That, would be the implication.
18 MR. LEHMAN: Yes. Now, would you like to comment
19
on the — for example, how — we just went thz-ough <» schedule
20 that says that that may take as long as a year. Coiold you
21 give us your thoughts as •.to how one might accomplish what
22
apparently is going to take a year and do it in six months?
23 MR. BARTON: I think that the Agency at the current
24 tine is going through an evolutionary process in developing
25
these regulations. 3001 for example, every month there's a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
End 1A
11
IB
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
different concept around, how the TOP is to be run and so
forth, and I think it's raore.; important that technology and so
forth be better established prior to the proposal, and if that
is done, I would think that you could — the second step,
going from proposal to promulgation would — could be
foreshortened, simply because you would have already done a
lot of the work required to make a sound regulation.
MR. PLEHNt Are there any other questions?
Thank you very much, Mr. Barton. The next speaker
is Mr. Richard Sobel, of the Manufacturing Chemists Associa-
tion.
STATEMENT Of RICHARD SOBEL, CHAIRMAN, MCA/RCRA
TASK GROUP, ON BEHALF OF THE MANUFACTURING
CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION (MCA)
MR. SOBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good after-
noon. My name is Richard Sobel. My statement today is on
behalf of the Manufacturing Chemists Association (MCA). I am
Chairman of MCA's RCRA Task Group.
The Manufacturing Chemists Association (MCA) is a
non-profit trade association having 194 United States member
companies, representing more than 90 percent of the productior
capacity of basic industrial chemicals within this country.
MCA members operate about 1500 plants located in nearly every
state. Many of the plants are generators of hazardous wastes,
Some members are transporters. And many of the facilities
also include disposal sites for wastes which may be designatec
-------
28
as hazardous. Thus, our members have a direct and critical
interest in hazardous waste guidelines and regulations.
3 Our industry believes that EPA has done a
4 commendable job in involving the public and in getting all
5 the complex issues laid out. However, the rules in their
6 present state are too complex to be workable. They need to
be simplified while still reflecting the real world. And
8 they need to be expedited so that affected parties can
g proceed with their planning procedures knowing what they are
10 facing.
H We do not believe that EPA has been dragging its
12
13 MCA believes that EPA has done an outstanding job
in soliciting input and in involving the public and affected
15 parties in the regulatory development process through an
16 extensive program of hearings and meetings and by making
readily available copies of preliminary drafts and drafts
of the regulations.
Also, EPA desk officers and others involved have
been available for clarification of these matters generally.
All this is part of an orderly and necessary process to
92 develop workable regulations in an area that is probably the
most complex of the environmental areas, because it involves
23
24 not only air and surface water, but also groundwater, and
must cover the complete spectrum of types of wastes (from
-------
29
! gases, through liquids, semi-solids, and solids), methods of
2 disposal (on, in, and under' the land, incineration, and
3 others), and sources of wastes (most commercial and industria
4 facilities in the country). Subtitle C, which covers
5 hazardous wastes, is the roost complex part of the problem as
6 far as regulation development goes. And Sections 3001
- concerning the definition and listing of hazardous wastes
8 and 3004 on the standards for disposal facilities are by far
9 the roost technically complex areas.
10 It is difficult to draft simple, practical and
n technically valid regulations in such a complex area, but
12 this is exactly what is needed. The complexities of."
13 establishing the 3001 criteria, for example, might be reduced
14 by restricting the criteria to those that are simply
1S determined and are of well-recognized concern.
16 Many of the problems encountered in early drafts
17 of the regulations have been due to efforts to include
|8 methodologies which have not been validated by the scientific
lg community.
20 Section 3004 on facilities standards covers a
21 diverse set of facilities from incinerators to landfarms,
29 from deepwells to landfills, that require the application of
03 expertise from a variety of technical disciplines. For the
24 first time, environmental regulations will deal in a major
25 way with not only what is to be achieved, but also how it is
-------
2
30
to be achieved.
MCA believes that these rules can be simplified by
adhering to performance standards only. Tell us what results
O
are to be accomplished. Most of the companies,, by far in the
chemical industry, are responsible operators and do not requip i
5
6 the specification of rigid procedures on development of
7 operating plans, training oi: people, preparation of contin-
gency plans, the proper number of operators, etc., etc. Also,
O
it should not be necessary t» include under RCRA facilities
covered by other Acts; for example, pits,.ponds,, and lagoons
that are part of NPDES systcims are covered by the Clean
Water Act, and we believe aare excluded from coverage by RCRA.
National Ambient Air Standards are set by the Clean
Air Act according to tried procedures, and we believe that
additional standards, if needed, should be developed under
15
that Act and not under RCRA,. Similarly, waste disposal
16
wells are covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act and, need
not be covered under RCRA.
18
We believe that sleeps in these directions will have
benefits all around. They would avoid duplication with other
acts and would be based on technically valid tests. They
would greatly simplify the rule-making task and provide a
more workable and practical set of rules. Finally, they
should reduce the time needed to develop rules under RCRA.
MCA and its member companies support the objectives
25
-------
31
j of RCRA. In this regard, we will continue to work toward
2 development of workable regulations that are technically and
3 legally supportable.
4 Thank you.
5 MR. PLEHN: Thank you very much, Mr. Sobel. I'm
6 sorry I mispronounced your name.
7 MR. SOBEL: Either way is okay.
g MR. PLEHN: Are there any questions from the
9 panel?
10 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Sobel, I listened with great
u interest to your remarks. You didn't address the schedule
12 directly. Do you have any remarks about the proposal —
13 MR. SOBEL: Mr. Lehman, we didn't analyze the
14 schedule directly. We just dealt with the general background
!5 of the thing, rather thanthe schedule. I didn't get the
16 schedule 'till a week ago. We think you need whatever time
17 it takes to do it right. But we're anxious to see the
18 results, because we have capital plans and budgets to
19 prepare, so we can tell what's coming.
2Q MR. PLEHN: Thank you very much.
21 The next speaker is Mr. Bob Harness of the
22 Monsanto Company.
23 STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. HARNESS, MANAGER,
REGULATORY AFFAIRS, MONSANTO COMPANY, ON
24 BEHALF OF MONSANTO COMPANY
25 MR. HARNESS: Thank you, Mr. Plehn, and members of
-------
32
the panel
2 My name is Robert L. Harness. I am Manager,
3 Regulatory Affairs for Monsanto Company. I have been employed
4 by Monsanto for approximately 10 years, and have held various
5 positions in plant engineering, plant operations and
6 environmental control. I am appearing today to present
7 Monsanto*s comments and recommendations on EPA's proposed
schedule for implementation of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
10 The Monsanto Company is a large corporation which
operates more than 50 manufacturing facilities in the United
12 States, employing approximately 62,000 persons worldwide. Our
,, plants produce a wide array of products and consequently a
lo
large range of solid waste types are generated. Wei have a
vital interest in every aspect of RCRA regulations and a
15
16 special concern for the hazardous waste criteria and pre-
liminary notification requirements.
.„ My remarks will .address the document entitled
lo
19
21
"Proposed Schedule for Rulamaking under the Resource
2Q Conservation Act and Recovery Act of 1976," dated August 8,
1978, and will focus on th Hazardous
Waste Management; and
-------
33
Second, the need for a reasonable time frame for
development and promulgation of regulations, so that EPA may
adequately address and solve these problems.
EPA's efforts to fulfill its mandates under RCRA
have been characterized by public participation in the
rulemaking process. This is especially true in the
, Hazardous Waste Management Program, where the Agency has
8 distributed draft regulations for review and comment by
9 interested parties. These interchanges have led to progres-
10 sive refinements in the draft regulations. However, the
n relatively simple language in RCRA subtitle C masks a very
12 complicated task. To date, no final regulations for hazar-
13 do us waste management have been promulgated, and EPA is now
|4 facing lawsuits for failure to fulfill its responsibilities.
15 Monsanto believes there are mitigating factors in
16 this matter which extend the critical issue beyond the ques-
]? tion of failure to act by a specified date. A number of
18 serious technical and procedural problems have been identi-
ig fied in EPA's emerging Hazardous Waste Management Program
20 which have necessitated delays in the rulemaking process, and
2] which must be resolved before promulgation can occur. Among
29 these are the following:
23 1. The initial drafts of the Section 3001
.,, regulations propose an unreasonably complicated and broadly
.,- inclusive definition of hazardous waste. If promulgated, man;
-------
34
j wastes generally considered innocous would be classified as
2 "hazardous." Moreover, many of the testing procedures
3 specified in the March 24, L978 draft regulation arei at this
4 time unproven, and, possibly, unworkable. Of particular
- concern are the toxicity testing protocols and the "toxicant
6 extraction procedure." A considerable amount of technical
„ interchange has taken place on this point, but it seems
8 apparent that significant work remains to develop workable
g criteria that will regulate only those wastes which are
]() significantly more hazardous than common municipal zefuse.
u Second, given the complexity of the draft hazardous
12 waste criteria regulations, coupled with the notification
requirement of the proposed Section 3010 regulation? it is
lo
14 probable that many relatively innocuous wastes would be
15 declared hazardous, because of a lack of test data. This
16 would result in some truly nonhazardous wastes utilizing the
already-too-scarce capacity of acceptable disposal sites.
Adequate time to develop workable criteria will minimize
lo
ig this consequence.
Third, the draft Section 3004 regulation, standards
20
for hazardous waste storage,, treatment and disposal facilitie^,
22 would set extremely tough facility standards that are
inflexible from the standpoj.ng of type of hazardous waste
2o
handled. Furthermore, we txilieve very few existing
25 facilities, even those clearly environmentally acceptable.
-------
35
1
will meet the draft standards. He suggest reshaping of the
2
program to allow for distinction of facilities by type of
3
waste handled, and continued operation of existing
4
facilities shown to be environmentally sound.
5
Fourth, the matter of economic impact of the
6
hazardous waste regulations, as well as other aspects of RCRA
has not been adequately evaluated. The draft report entitled
g
"Cost of Compliance with Hazardous Waste Management Regula-
9
tions," dated May 1978, and completed under contract to EPA
by Battelle Columbus Laboratory predicts significantly higher
costs for compliance and in view of the already high inflatioi
12
rate, should be given thorough consideration in the rulemakin<
13
process.
These matters do not stand alone as the issues
needing resolution. Rather, they serve to illustrate the
16
kinds of problems which must be addressed by EPA in this
17
rulemaking process.
18
The threat of lawsuits against EPA, as mentioned
19
in the August 16, 1978 Federal Register notice, implies
negligence on the part of the Agency in carrying out its
21
responsibilities. We disagree. Simply put, development of
22
a comprehensive solid waste disposal program and hazardous
23
waste management regulations is an enormously complex
24
problem that will impact significantly on all of society.
25
We believe EPA has been working diligently on this matter.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
but that the promulgation (late in the statute was inserted
by Congress without a full understanding of the difficulties
of the undertaking.
Monsanto endorses, the objectives of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and will continue to cooperate
with EPA, both alone and through the Manufacturing Chemists
Association, to develop sound regulations which are adequate
to protect the environment. Monsanto strongly supports the
"r-tde
need for a -^ejti^making schedule that is adequate to allow for
development of workable, effective regulations.
We believe the timeta|jfie proposed by EPA will
provide adequate opportunity to resolve many of the pending
questions. The schedule will allow for review of the most
recent drafts of the Subtitle C regulations prior to the
proposed January 7, 1979 federal Register proposal date.
Because of the complex technical nature of these regulations,
the proposed 90-day public comment period also appears
justified.
Finally, considering the fact that public comment
on the proposed regulations will be very extensive, requiring
time-consuming EPA review, a projected final promulgation
date of January 1980 is likewise a reasonable target.
Similarly, Monsanto views the proposed timetables for
development and promulgation of RCRA section 4004 criteria;
Clean Water Act, section 40!> municipal sludge guidelines;
-------
37
1 RCRA section 4002, state planning guidelines; and RCRA
2 section 1008, landfill guidelines, as reasonable and
3 realistic considering the task at hand.
4 In closing, I would like to offer one further
5 point. This extended regulatory development schedule will
6 not create an "open season" for hazardous waste disposal.
7 Many states already have comprehensive, enforceable waste
8 disposal laws. We and other responsible companies will
9 continue to manage our process waste disposal activities in
10 a socially responsible manner, and in compliance with
11 existing-.laws land regulations.
12 Moreover, we have already begun an evaluation of
13 our process waste disposal activities in anticipation of
14 additional requirements which might be imposed by RCRA
15 regulations. Irresponsible "midnight dumping" activities
i€ have been the work of a very small number of people, and
17 very likely will not be eliminated by even the most severe
i8 of regulations.
19 It is of paramount importance for the protection
20 of the environment, as well as the maintenaic e of our standard
21 of living, that industrial and municipal waste management
22 regulations be reasonable, as well as adequately protective.
23 for this reason, Monsanto supports EPA's revised implementa-
24 tion schedule, and looks forward to continued participation
25 in the rulemaking process.
-------
38
; Thank you for th« opportunity to present this
2 statement. And I will answer questions.
3 MR. PLEHN: Than): you, Mr. Harness. I apologize
4 to you, too, for your name.. I'm now batting 333, which in
5 baseball is pretty good, but in running meetings it's not
6 terrific.
7 Are there any questions from the panel? No
8 questions.
9 Thank you very much.
10 MR. HARNESS: Thiink you.
u MR. PLEHN: Our next speaker is Mr. Eugene J.
12 Wingerter of the National Solid Waste Management Association.
13 STATEMENT OF EUGKNE J. WINGERTER, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, NATIOWO. SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT
u ASSOCIATION, ON IIEHALF OF THENATIONAL SOLID
WASTES MANAGEMENT: ASSOCIATION
MR. WINGERTER: tfiank you, Stef, for allowing me
16
to be here and also for pronouncing my name correctly. I feel
flattered.
1ft
From the size of the audience here and in the next
19
room, it's a pleasure to sue that the interest in RCRA's
20
implementation has not wanud at all in the last two years.
21
The Resource Conservation and Recover Act., passed in
22
October 1976, has been hailed as the first federal law which
23
requires comprehensive coniurol of hazardous waste. RCRA
24
required that by April 19711, the U.S. Environmental Protection
25
Agency promulgate regulations for the generation and
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
transportation of hazardous waste as well as for the storage,
treatment, and disposal of these wastes at specially permit-
ted facilities. That deadline expired five months ago and
the regulations, with the exception of those related to
transportation, have not even been formally proposed.
The need for these regulations is paramount. The
kind of environmental assaults which occur in a society
without hazardous waste regulations was illustrated recently
in the promiscuous dumping of PCs-contaminated liquids along
a North Carolina highway.
While several states have enacted legislation
regulating the disposal of hazardous wastes, only a few
states require a manifest to track the movement of waste from
point of generation, during transport, to final disposal at
a permitted facility. Such a record-keeping system seems
the best mechanism for assuring that hazardous wastes
generated are taken to approved facilities and nowhere else.
But even those states which do have cradle-to-
grave hazardous waste control laws are postponing development
of regulations until the U.S. EPA provides the model with the
RCRA regulations.
The delay by EPA has another, and more damaging
effect. Until a hazardous waste management program is in
place and enforced, there will be minimal development of new
facilities which meet the rigid environmental standards
-------
40
necessary to provide secure: disposal of hazardous waste.
Without enforced regulations, there is little incentive for
,, generators of hazardous waste to pay the high cost of disposal
4 at specially designed and designated facilities.
Without such regulations to assure the delivery of
waste to such facilities, there is little reason to expect
new treatment and disposal facilities to be developed.
8 And, very simply, without facilities adequate to take all of
g the kzardous wastes genera bad across the nation, a hazardous
10 waste regulatory program has little meaning. What end is
H achieved with the manifest .'systems and disposal permits, if
12 there are no disposal sites which can safely accept the
hazardous waste?
For these reasons,, we urge that EPA be aggressive in
14
proposing an amended schedule for implementation of the
16 regulations under RCRA. Early drafts of regulations indicate
1? that EPA has done considerable background work on the regula-
IS tory issues, and that the Agency will be able to complete
19 regulations in a timely manner without trading off thorough-
20 ness.
21 We do urge, however, that EPA include in its new
,,.2 schedule time for interaction with interested groups outside
23 of the federal government. The National Solid Wastes
24 Management Association values the opportunities provided by
25 EPA to contribute our experience and technical expertise to
-------
41
! the development of these regulations. He feel that the
2 regulations related to both hazardous and solid waste under
3 RCRA will be better for the iiput EPA has received from many
4 outside interest groups.
5 Further, we urge EPA, in its haste to finalize the
6 hazardous waste regulations, not to compromise its position
7 that regulations apply as strictly to disposal at the site of
8 generation as they do to disposal off-site at a waste service
9 facility.
10 Some groups have argued, because of the impact on
u the generating industry, that the regulations should be
12 enforced on a more gradual basis for onsite hazardous waste
13 disposal facilities than for offsite facilities. EPA has
14 stated that perhaps 80 percent of all hazardous wastes are
15 disposed of at facilities which are captive to the
16 generating industry. Hazardous waste disposal — hazardous
17 wastesldisposed of at a generator's facility are no less likely
\/
18 to cause environmental damage than are wastes disposed of at a
19 comparable offsite facility. We stress the importance of a
20 regulatory scheme which enforces the strict standards equally
21 at all hazardous waste disposal facilities regardless of who
29 owns and operates them.
23 National Solid Wastes Management Association
04 appreciates the opportunity once again to make its comments
95 known to the EPA, and we intend to continue our participation
-------
42
with the development of the hazardous and solid waste regula-
2
tions. We look forward to ijhe day when the hazardous waste
q
control program will be in effect.
Thank you.
MR. PLEHN: Thank you, Mr. Wingerter. Are there
any questions?
7 MS. FRIEDMAN: ATI I correct in understanding it's
a
the position of your organization that we should shorten the
schedule?
10 MR. WINGERTER: No. I didn't say that, Lisa. We
are anxious to see the regulations promulgated as expeditious jjy
12 ...
as possible.
13 MS. FRIEDMAN: Then, do you support the schedule?
14 MR. WINGERTEJt: I cannot say that, because I have
not looked at the details of the schedule to know just how
effective they are as far as the feasibility.
17 MR. PLEHN: The r.,ext statement is by Mr. Hardison,
18
of the Union Carbide Corporation.
19 STATEMENT OF RICHARD HARISON, MANAGER,
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, CARBON PRODUCTS
DIVISION, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,, ON
BEHALF OF UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
MR. HARDISON: Thank you very much. You're up to
„, 60 percent now.
ffO
My name is Richard Hardison, and I'm Manager of
24
Environmental Affairs for the Carbon Products Division of
2o
-------
43
Union Carbide. And today I'm making comments on behalf of
2
Carbide Corporation on the Resource Conservation and
3
Recovery Act.
Union Carbide supported the enactment of RCRA,
because we recognized that solid waste management in this
6
country has been neglected. Serious problems of environmental
degradation, occupational safety, and harm to human health
8
have in the past resulted from careless handling of solid
9
wastes.
10
Improper disposal of waste materials can cause
pollution of underground and surface water resources. In
12
some cases, such pollution is the result of disposal
13
practices which may actually have met the prevailing standards
of the time and which were considered safe and legal by both
15
industry and government. Therefore, a new approach was
16
needed to effectively deal with the problem of solid waste
disposal.
18
The Environmental Protection Agency has been
19
directed under RCRA to develop regulations that translate the
20
Act into effective practices. In developing the RCRA
21
regulations the EPA has received input from state agencies,
22
labor groups, environmentalists and industry. The chemical
23
industry has in particular worked closely with EPA to provide
24
needed technical background. The results of this effort have
25
shown well considered preliminary drafts and proposed regulations
-------
44
1 that have had severe scrutiny from all perspectives. While
2 inevitably there will be some points on which industry and
3 environmental groups will differ, we think it is worth
4 emphasizing the constructive job EPA has done so far to
5 reconcile these respective points of view.
6 He feel that input from the public and private
7 sectors has eliminated many of the pitfalls experienced in
8 implementation of the air und water acts which led to
9 extensive litigation with consequent waste of time resources
10 and forced delay in achieving environmental quality goals.
11 If promulgation of rules under the *ir and water
12 acts had received the benefit of the kind of public and
13 private input that RCRA hail received, the court dockets would
14 not be crowded with litigation between the EPA and industry
15 on points which could have been resolved before promulgation
16 of the regulations.
17 Union Carbide considers a healthy, safe, clean
18 environment to be an import .ant national objective. We are
19 committed not only to compliance with existing health,
20 safety and environmental la.ws, but to the development of new
21 technologies and new or refined public policies designed to
22 achieve these objectives consistent with the other basic
23 wants and needs of people and with the achievement of other
24 important national objectives. It is our policy to contribute
25 openly and constructively to the creation of such policies
-------
I 45
, and regulations.
2 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act can
3 provide the basis of a sound program to control solid waste
4 problems. Union Carbide feels that it is far more important
- for EPA to produce technically sound and reasonable regula-
6 tions that meet the objectives of RCRA than it is to meet
„ arbitrarily imposed time limits for accomplishing this task.
„ It is our view that Congress intended RCRA to
o
9 provide a reasonable and responsible vehicle for management
|() of solid wastes, and we believe that EPA has the capability
H and the desire to produce an effective set of regulations
ptublid
12 that will protect tha'-pWric and the environment without
13 imposing unreasonable degcees..ef regulation. We at Union
14 Carbide fully expect that industry's successful record of
15 compliance with the environmental acts will be continued with
lg this challenging new one.
17 Thank you. I would entertain questions.
18 MR. PLEHN: Thank you, Mr. Hardison. Are there
19 any questions? No.
20 Thank you very much.
21 I would like to suggest that we all might like now
,2 a 10-minute break. If there are any other persons here who
.,,, would like to make a statement, if they would register out-
24 side and make that interest known. Also, those of you who
9. may have filled out cards with questions, if you could provid*
-------
emb-46
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
those to us now, at the beginning of the break. If there are
no further statements, we can get into the answez:ing of them
right after we resume.
Why don't we break for 10 minutes.
(Brief recess.)
MR. PLEHN: To my knowledge, there is rio one who
has indicated that theywould like to make a statement. Is
that correct? Is there anyone here who would like to make a
statement?
If there is not, we will now turn to the questions
which we received on the cards. I might take the
-------
uab-47 47
i involved in the development of these regulations. , And that
2 is the first point.
3 The second point I think is that we have, as also
4 has been mentioned today, but as I think that we've chosen to
f/fese-
5 say, that we have tried in the development of Uiia regula-
6 tions to do it in as open and as participatory a way as was
7 available to us, and we, we personally think that that: has
8 been a very useful and successful way to get the input of
9 the wisdom of all those in our society who are concerned
10 about these problems to help us with our task. But that has
n also taken time.
12 Thirdly, we have had the difficult problems of
13 integrating this statute, development of regulations under
n this statute with all of the other — or not all of the
is other, but with many of the other environmental laws to be
16 administered by EPA. The Clean Water Act is probably the
17 foremost example. As you know, we are working currently to
18 integrate the RCRA permitting process with the NPDES permit-
19 ting process, but other examples are the Clean Water Act,
20 work with the DPT on the integration of the transportation
21 regulations with their authorities in that area, the
22 integration with the Safe Drinking Water Act in terms of
23 ground water protection, etcetera, etcetera.
24 And I guess the final point that I'd like to make
25 is that this is, as you know, a functional!zed agency. The
-------
emb-48
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
Office of Solid Waste has one perspective on these problems,
but we need to integral* our efforts with other organizations
like the Office of Research and Development, the Office of
Enforcement, the Office of Planning and Management and the
Office of Air, Water and Radiation, and some of these
mechanisms of working groups and steering committees and
Red Border clearances are the best procedures that we've been
able to devise as an agency to ensure that the Administrator,
who is responsible for the activities of all of us, is
certain that he has the best judgment of every component
part of the Agency as to how these programs should go forward
and how they should properly fit together.
Now, it's an unfortunate fact that all of those
things taken together require time, and as I said at the
outset, it would be the earnest wish of all of us that this
process were today completed, and our program were in full
effect under the law. But unfortunately, that is not the
case.
I understand John Skinner has a question that he
would —
MR. SKINNER: I have actually three questions.
The first one is, is there any possibility that the
I)
Section 4004 criteria will be reissued in proponed form.
That's not something that we can answer at this
point in time. It depends upon the changes that will be
-------
erab-49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
necessary in the Section 4004 criteria, whether they are
significant changes and whether they are changes that raise
issues that have not been adequately commented on in the
original public comment period on the proposed regulation.
So, as we're developing the regulation, we will
have to make decisions as to whether or not proposal —
reproposal is necessary. Let me state, however, that the
schedule that we presented to you today does not include
reproposal of the regulation. So that if we did decide to
repropose the regulation and have an additional public
comment period, that schedule would have to be extended
accordingly.
The next two questions deal with the disposal of
((
sewage sludge. And the first one is, what is the statutory
basis for excluding sewage sludge from the Resource
))
Conservation and Recovery Act.
We have not decided to exclude municipal sewage
sludge from the provisions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. The definition of solid waste in that Act
clearly includes municipal sewage sludge. However, Section
1006 of the Act calls for integration of RCRA with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and says that nothing
in this act shall be construed to apply to any activity or
substance which is subject to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, except to the extent that such application is
-------
emb-50 50
i not inconsistent with ithe requirements of such acts. And it
2 also says that the Administrator shall integrate all provisio
3 of this Act for purposes of administration and enforcement,
4 and to avoid duplication with the provisions of other acts,
5 including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
e So, in developing the guidelines under Section
7 four thousand — 405 of the Clean Water Act, we are attemptin
8 to meet the requirement for coordination and integration.
g The second question gets at another aspect of that
II
10 issue. It says, doesn't Section 405 of the Clean Water Act
n only deal with the disposal of. sludge, and not with the
12 generation, transportation and storage of sludge that meets
>;
13 the hazardous criteria..
u That is predominantly correct. Therefore, it is ou:
15 intent to co-promulgatci the guideline that we develop under
16 Section 405 of the Cles.n Water Act with Section — with the
17 regulations under Subtitle C for hazardous waste management
is of RCRA, and also with the regulations under Subtitle D,
ig principally the 4004 criteria as is necessary to provide
20 control and protection that is not available under the Clean
21 Water Act.
22 We have actually taken the first step in that
23 regard in co-promulgating a certain part of the Section 405
24 guideline under Section 4004 in proposed form.
25 Those are thci only questions I had, Stef.
-------
emb-51
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
51
MR. PLEHN: He have here three questions which ask
sort of for substantive matters relating to these various
regulations, and that's not a subject of our meeting here
today.
So we won't be answering those as part of this
process.
Just a moment. If there are any further questions,
I'd encourage you to get them to us. This is another sub-
stantive question, which really is not part of today's
meeting.
If there are no further questions, I think I
will — and if there's no-one who would like to make a
further statement — then I think that I will call this
meeting to a close.
Thank you very much for coming.
(Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the meeting was
adjourned.)
-------
-------
Opening Remarks
Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
Public Meeting
EPA's Current Schedule for Promulgating Regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
September 15, 1978
I wish to welcome you to this public meeting to
discuss EPA's schedule for promulgation of regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The purpose of this meeting is to inform the public of
our current schedule and to provide an opportunity for
public comment on it. If any of you have not obtained a
copy of the schedule, copies are available from our
registration desk.
RCRA is of central importance in the efforts of EPA
to protect public health and the environment, as the recent
events at Love Canal and elsewhere in the nation have so
tragically shown. EPA first recommended Federal legislation
to regulate hazardous wastes to the Congress in 1973. We
continued to develop information on the nature of the hazardous
waste problem and the damages resulting from improper manage-
ment until the enactment of RCRA in October 1976. Since
-------
then we have proceeded to develop the regulations called
for by that Act as rapidly as our resources and the complexity
of the problem has allowed. Through a growing program of
grants we have assisted state governments in obtaining
legislation and developing their own programs for the
effective management of hazardous wastes. We have made
major progress since the enactment of RCRA but unfortunately
we have not been able to meet many of the deadlines set
forth by the Congress in the Act.
To date, EPA has received citizen suit letters from
six organizations notifying us of their intent to seek a
court order compelling EPA to promulgate regulations under
Subtitles C and D of RCRA: the: four public interest group
citizen suit letters referenced, in the Federal Register
notice announcing this meeting, plus two similar letters
from the National Solid Wastes Management Association and
the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group which weie received
after that notice went to press. The Agency has met with
all these groups in an effort to obtain a better understanding
of their concerns and to see if those concerns could be
resolved prior to the litigation. No mutually satisfactory
resolution has been achieved to date.
On September 13, 1978, two of the citizen suit orgain-
izations, the Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental
-------
Action, filed suit in the U.S. District Court here in
Washington to require EPA to promulgate certain Subtitle A, C,
and D regulations. This filing followed fast on the heels
of a similar lawsuit which had been instituted less than
a week earlier by the State of Illinois, seeking to compel
EPA to issue regulations under Subtitles C and D.
The schedule before you today represents EPA's current
best estimate of the shortest amount of time in which it can
promulgate defensible regulations with adequate allowance
for public participation. Please be assurad that we are
concerned about that schedule. If it were within our power
we would want to have an operational hazardous and solid
waste regulatory program in place immediately. However,
that is not possible.
We are seeking today to obtain the comments of the
public on our schedule. As the result of your comments
and our further experience we may conclude that the schedule
can be shortened. Alternately, we may determine that more
time will be required in order to assure that well con-
ceived and fully defensible regulations are achieved.
In light of the pending litigation against the Agency
we will be somewhat constrained in responding to questions
about the Agency's proposed schedule during this meeting.
-------
Thus, although we will be happy to answer inquiries con-
cerning, for example, the availability of drafts of the
regulations and schedules for public hearings on the
regulations, we will not be able to reply, or will be able
to reply only in a limited way, to questions related to
the issues raised by the Environmental Defense Fund and
the State of Illinois lawsuits.
-------
STATEMENT OF THE
AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE
ON THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE
FOR PROMULGATION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
SEPTEMBER 15, 1978
MY NAME IS CURTIS BARTON. I AM A GROUP HEAD IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
DEPARTMENT OF THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY, AND CURRENTLY SERVE AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE MANUFACTURING WASTE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN PAPER
INSTITUTE AND THE NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION. THIS STATEMENT
IS MADE ON BEHALF OF THAT COMMITTEE AND THE 200 MEMBER PULP AND PAPER
COMPANIES OF API, AND THE MORE THAN 2,000 FOREST PRODUCTS COMPANIES
REPRESENTED BY NFPA.
FOR ALMOST A YEAR NOW, API AND NFPA HAVE BEEN CLOSELY FOLLOWING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS. WE HAVE COMMENTED
TO THE AGENCY ON SEVERAL OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFTS AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS,
AND INTEND TO DO SO ON ALL OF THE VARIOUS DRAFTS AND PROPOSALS TO BE ISSUED
IN THE FUTURE.
WHILE WE BELIEVE THE PULP AND PAPER AND FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES THEMSELVES
GENERATE ONLY VERY LIMITED TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF WASTE WHICH MAY BE
CLASSIFIED AS "HAZARDOUS", WE BELIEVE THE POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR EPA TO
DEFINE "HAZARDOUS WASTE" SO BROADLY THAT IT COULD HAVE A SEVERE IMPACT ON
OUR INDUSTRIES, AND MAY ACTUALLY UNDERMINE CURRENT ENVIRONMENTALLY-ACCEPTABLE
DISPOSAL PRACTICES OF NON-HAZARDOUS WASTES. TOO BROAD A DEFINITION OF "HAZARDOUS
WASTE" COULD LEAD TO A SEVERE SHORTFALL IN DISPOSAL FACILITIES FOR TRULY
fHAZARDOUS WASTES SINCE WHAT FACILITIES DO EXIST WOULD BE OVERBURDENED WITH
I
WASTES WHICH ARE NOT TRULY HAZARDOUS. IT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE, THEREFORE,
THAT THE SECTION 3001 REGULATIONS IN PARTICULAR REFLECT A CAREFUL AND BALANCED
CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE FACTORS INVOLVED IN DETERMINING WHICH WASTES ARE
-------
-2-
TO BE TREATED AS "HAZARDOUS".
THE AUGUST 8 EPA PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR RULEMAKING UNDER SUBTITLE C OF RCRA
CONTAINS A REALISTIC JANUARY 1980 ENI) POINT DATE FOR THE PROMULGATION OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE HAZARDOUS HASTE REGULATIONS (SECTIONS 3001-2-4-5).
ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE, HOWEVER, THE PERIOD BETWEEN PROPOSAL
(JANUARY 2, 1979) AND PROMULGATION WOULD BE MORE THAN A YEAR. WHILE WE
BELIEVE THE PROPOSED JANUARY 1980 PROMULGATION DATE IS REALISTIC /iND SHOULD
BE ADOPTED, WE BELIEVE THE DATE FOR PROPOSAL OF THESE REGULATIONS SHOULD BE
CHANGED FROM JANUARY 1979 TO JUNE OR JULY OF 1979. THIS WOULD ALLOW MORE
TIME AND A BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR THE! AGENCY TO DEVELOP ADEQUATE INFOR-
MATION REGARDING THE CRITERIA WHICH WILL BE USED TO DEFINE HAZARDOUS SOLID
WASTE, AS WELL AS TO COMPLETE MORE COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES OF INDUSTRIES'
WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEMS AND PRACTICED. PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PRE-F'ROPOSAL
STUDY TIME ALSO MAY REDUCE RISK OF LE.NGTHY DELAYS WHICH COULD RESULT FROM
LITIGATION OVER INADEQUATELY DEVELOPED REGULATIONS.
WE WERE DISTRESSED TO LEARN JUST US! MONTH THAT EPA RETAINED A CONTRACTOR
IN MAY TO STUDY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES IN THE PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
AMD PLANS TO COMPLETE ITS STUDY AND REPORT TO EPA BY NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR.
THERE IS NO WAY AN ADEQUATE STUDY OF THE INDUSTRY CAN BE CONDUCTED IN THE
REMAINING TIME ALLOTTED. EVEN IF THE CONTRACTOR WERE INTIMATELY FAMILIAR
WITH THE PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY (WHICH IT IS NOT), THE STUDY CAN ONLY BE
BASED ON A LIMITED LITERATURE SEARCH AND A RANDOM ASSESSMENT OF PARTICULAR
OPERATIONS WITHIN THE INDUSTRY. GIVEN THE DIVERSE NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY,
THE RESULTS CAN ONLY BE GENERAL IN NATURE AND MAY BE VERY MISLEADING. IF
THE CONTRACTOR HAD AN ADDITIONAL FOUR TO SIX MONTHS FOR THE STUDY, AS SUGGESTED
ABOVE, THERE WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ADEQUATE STUDY TO BE
PERFORMED.
-------
-3-
WE ARE AWARE, OF COURSE, THAT ERA'S PROPOSED SCHEDULE ADDS SOMEWHAT TO
THE LATENESS OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS UNDER THE TIME FRAME
SET FORTH IN THE ACT. WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THE ADDITIONAL TIME
BEYOND THAT PROVIDE* BY CONGRESS IS FULLY JUSTIFIED, GIVEN THE MAGNITUDE
OF THE TASK AND THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEMS BEING ADDRESSED. THIS CERTAINLY
IS NOT THE FIRST TIME EPA HAS ENCOUNTERED A LEGITIMATE NEED TO EXTEND ITS
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES BEYOND STATUTORY DEADLINES TO CARRY OUT
ADEQUATELY THE MANDATE OF THE LAW.
IN SUMMARY, WE SUPPORT THE AGENCY'S PROPOSED PROMULGATION DATE OF JANUARY
1980, BUT STRONGLY URGE THAT THE PROPOSAL DATE BE CHANGED TO JUNE OR JULY
OF 1979. THIS SUGGESTED SCHEDULED REVISION MAY HELP TO AVOID UNFORESEEN
LONGER DELAYS IN THE PROPER HANDLING OF OUR NATION'S HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH
COULD RESULT FROM INADEQUATE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS IN DEVELOPING
THESE REGULATIONS.
C. A. BARTON
9/14/78
VRT
-------
MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION
1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N W
WASHINGTON, D C 20009
FOR RELEASE-
CONTACT:
For Immediate Release
Thomas J. Gilroy
(202) 328-4282
Members of the Press:
Attached is a statement by the Manufacturing Chemists Association
(MCA) given 9-15-78 at an EPA public meeting held to discuss its
proposed schedule of rulemaking under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.
/''
The statement was presented by \Richard Sobel, chairman of
MCA's RCRA Task Force.
# # #
MCA-4067
9/15/78
-------
STATEMENT OF MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION (MCA)
AT THE PUBLIC MEETING IN
WASHINGTON, D,C, ON 9/15/78 TO
Discuss EPA's PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR RULE-MAKING UNDER THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
PRESENTED BY RICHARD SOBEL, CHAIRMAN
MCA/RCRA TASK GROUP
-------
GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME is RICHARD SOBEL. MY STATEMENT TODAY is
ON BEHALF OF THE MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION (MCA), I AM
CHAIRMAN OF MCA's RCRA TASK GROUP,
THE MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION (MCA) is A NON-PROFIT
TRADE ASSOCIATION HAVING 194 UNITED STATES COMPANY MEMBERS
REPRESENTING MORE THAN 90% OF THE PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF
BASIC INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS WITHIN THIS COUNTRY, MCA MEMBERS
OPERATE ABOUT 1,500 PLANTS LOCATED IN NEARLY EVERY STATE,
MANY OF THE PLANTS ARE GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES, SOME
MEMBERS ARE TRANSPORTERS, AND MANY OF THE FACILITIES ALSO
INCLUDE DISPOSAL SITES FOR WASTHS WHICH MAY BE DESIGNATED AS
HAZARDOUS, THUS, OUR MEMBERS HAVE A DIRECT AND CRITICAL
INTEREST IN HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS,
OUR INDUSTRY BELIEVES THAT EPA HAS DONE A COMMENDABLE JOB IN
INVOLVING THE PUBLIC AND IN GET"ING ALL THE COMPLEX ISSUES
LAID OUT, HOWEVER, THE RULES IN THEIR PRESENT STATE ARE TOO
COMPLEX TO BE WORKABLE, THEY NEED TO BE SIMPLIFIED WHILE
STILL REFLECTING THE REAL WORLD AND THEY NEED TO BE EXPEDITED
SO THAT AFFECTED PARTIES CAN PROCEED WITH THEIR PLANNING PRO-
CEDURES KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE FACING,
WE DO NOT BELIEVE EPA HAS BEEN DRAGGING ITS FEET,
MCA BELIEVES THAT EPA HAS DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB IN SOLICITING
INPUT AND IN INVOLVING THE PUBLIC AND AFFECTED PARTIES IN
-------
- 2 -
THE REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE
PROGRAM OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS AND BY MAKING READILY
AVAILABLE COPIES OF PRELIMINARY DRAFTS AND DRAFTS OF THE
REGULATIONS, ALSO, EPA DESK OFFICERS AND OTHERS INVOLVED
HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR CLARIFICATION OF THESE MATTERS
GENERALLY, ALL THIS IS PART OF AN ORDERLY AND NECESSARY
PROCESS TO DEVELOP WORKABLE REGULATIONS IN AN AREA THAT IS
PROBABLY THE MOST COMPLEX OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS BECAUSE
IT INVOLVES NOT ONLY AIR AND SURFACE WATER BUT ALSO GROUNDWATER,
AND MUST COVER THE COMPLETE SPECTRUM OF TYPES OF WASTES
(FROM GASES, THROUGH LIQUIDS, SEMI-SOLIDS, AND SOLIDS),
METHODS OF DISPOSAL (ON, IN, AND UNDER THE LAND, INCINERATION,
AND OTHERS), AND SOURCES OF WASTES (MOST COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES IN THE COUNTRY). SUBTITLE C, WHICH
COVERS HAZARDOUS WASTES, IS THE MOST COMPLEX PART OF THE
PROBLEM AS FAR AS REGULATION DEVELOPMENT GOES AND SECTIONS
3001 CONCERNING THE DEFINITION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES AND 3001 ON THE STANDARDS FOR DISPOSAL FACILITIES ARE
BY FAR THE MOST TECHNICALLY COMPLEX AREAS,
IT IS DIFFICULT TO DRAFT SIMPLE, PRACTICAL, AND TECHNICALLY
VALID REGULATIONS IN SUCH A COMPLEX AREA BUT THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT IS NEEDED, THE COMPLEXITIES OF StTT-HHi THE 3001 CRITERIA,
FOR EXAMPLE, MIGHT BE REDUCED BY RESTRICTING THE CRITERIA TO
THOSE THAT ARE SIMPLY DETERMINED AND ARE OF WELL-RECOGNIZED
CONCERN, MANY OF THE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN EARLY DRAFTS OF
THE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN DUE TO EFFORTS TO INCLUDE METHODOLOGIES
WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN VALIDATED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY,
-------
-3 -
SECTION 3004 ON FACILITIES STANDARDS COVERS A DIVERSE SET OF
FACILITIES FROM INCINERATORS TO LANDFARMS, FROM DEEPWELI.S TO
LANDFILLS, THAT REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF EXPERTISE FROM A
VARIETY OF TECHNICAL DISCIPLINES. FOR THE FIRST TIME,
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS WILL DEAL IN A MAJOR WAY WITH NOT
ONLY WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED BUT ALSO HOW IT IS TO BE ACHIEVED,
MCA BELIEVES THAT THESE RULES CAN BE SIMPLIFIED BY ADHERING
TO PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ONLY, TELL US WHAT RESULTS ARE TO
BE ACCOMPLISHED, MOST OF THE COMPANIES, BY FAR IN THE CHEMICAL
INDUSTRY, ARE RESPONSIBLE OPERATORS AND DO NOT REQUIRE
THE SPECIFICATION OF RIGID PROCEDURES ON DEVELOPMENT OF
OEERATUNG PLAN?, TRAINING OF PE.OPLE, PREPARATION OF
CONTINGENCY PLANS, THE PROPER NUMBER OF OPERATORS,, ETC,,
ETC, ALSO, IT SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO INCLUDE UNDER RCRA,
FACILITIES COVERED BY OTHER AcTSj FOR EXAMPLE, PITS, PONDS,
AND LAGOONS THAT ARE PART OF NF'DES SYSTEMS ARE COVERED BY THE
CLEAN WATER ACT AND WE BELIEVE ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE
BY RCRA. NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR STANDARDS ARE SET BY THE
CLEAN AIR ACT ACCORDING TO TRIED PROCEDURES AND WE BELIEVE
THAT ADDITIONAL STANDARDS, IF NEEDED, SHOULD BE DEVELOPED
UNDER THAT ACT AND NOT UNDER RCRA. SIMILARLY, WASTE DISPOSAL
WELLS ARE COVERED BY THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AND NEED
NOT BE COVERED UNDER RCRA.
WE BELIEVE THAT STEPS IN THESE DIRECTIONS WILL HAVE BENEFITS
ALL AROUND, THEY WOULD AVOID DUPLICATION WITH OTHER ACTS
-------
AND WOULD BE BASED ON TECHNICALLY VALID TESTS, THEY WOULD
GREATLY SIMPLIFY THE RULE-MAKING TASK AND PROVIDE A MORE
WORKABLE AND PRACTICAL SET OF RULES. FINALLY, THEY SHOULD
REDUCE THE TIME NEEDED TO DEVELOP RULES UNDER RCRA.
MCA AND ITS MEMBER COMPANIES SUPPORT THE OBJECTIVES OF RCRA,
IN THIS REGARD, WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARD DEVELOPMENT
OF WORKABLE REGULATIONS THAT ARE TECHNICALLY AND LEGALLY .
SUPPORTABLE.
-------
Monsanto
Monsanto Company
1101 17th Street. N W
Washington. 0 C 20036
Phone (202) 452-8E80
September 1k, 1978
Ms. Chris Marshall
Public Participation Officer (WH-562)
U.S. Environmental Protection Aijency
JtOl M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 201(60
Subject: EPA proposed schedule for rulemaking under
the Resource Conserva:ion and Recovery Act
of 1976.
Dear Ms . Marshal 1 :
Attached is a statement which Monsanto
Company plans to present at the September 15, 1978
public meeting on the above subject. We trust the
Agency will give careful consideration to our remarks,
this matter.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
er.
Robert L. Ha rness
Ka,,sgcr, P.cg i:! :: to
cc: Mr. Stephan W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Sol id Waste (WH-562)
Mr. John P. Lehman
Director, Hazardous Waste Management
Division (WH-565)
RLH/csn
-------
f:Y NAME is ROBERT L, I-'ARNESS. ! AM MANAGER,
REGULATORY AFFAIRS FOR ['ONSANTO COMPANY. ! HAVE BEEN
EMPLOYED BY MONSANTO FOR APPROXIMATELY TEN YEARS, AND
HAVE HELD VARIOUS POSITIONS IN PLANT ENGINEERING, PLANT
OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, I AM APPEARING
TODAY TO PRESENT COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON EPA's
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT,
THE HCNSANTO COMPANY is A LARGE CORPORATION
WHICH OPERATES MORETHAN FIFTY MANUFACTURING FACILITIES
IN THE UNITED STATES, EMPLOYING APPROXIMATELY 52,000
PERSONS WORLDWIDE. OUR PLANTS PRODUCE A WIDE ARRAY OF
PRODUCTS AND CONSEQUENTLY A LARGE RANGE OF SOLID WASTE
TYPES ARE GENERATED, I'E HAVE A VITAL INTEREST IN EVERY
ASPECT OF RCR.A REGULATIONS AND A SPECIAL CONCERN FOR
T!iC HAZARDOUS WASTE CRITERIA AND PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS.
ilY REMARKS WILL ADDRESS THE DOCUMENT EN-
TITLED '''PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR RULEMAKING UNDER THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION ACT OF 197G,1' DATED AUGUST 8, 1973, AND WILL
FOCUS ON THE FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES:
1. THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED TO DATE IN THE
RULEMAKING PROCESS, PARTICULARLY THOSE
ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATIONS BEING
-------
PAGE Two
DEVELOPED UNDER P\CRA SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS
HASTE MANAGEMENT; AND
2. THE NEED. FOR A REASONABLE TIME FRAME FOR
DEVELOPMENT AND PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS,
SO THAT EPA MAY ADEQUATELY ADDRESS AND SOLVE
THESE PROBLEMS;.
PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED TO SATE
EPA'S EFFORTS TO FULFILL ITS MANDATES UNDER
RCRA HAVE BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
THE RULEMAKING PROCESS. THIS IS, ESPECIALLY TRUE IN THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHERE THE AGENCY HAS
DISTRIBUTED DRAFT REGULATIONS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT BY
INTERESTED PARTIES. THESE INTERCHANGES HAVE LED TO
PROGRESSIVE REFINEMENTS IN THE DRAFT REGULATIONS. HoW~
EVER, THE RELATIVELY SIMPLE LANGUAGE IN RCRA SUBTITLE C
MASKS A VERY COMPLICATED TASK. To DATE, NO FINAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN PROMULGATED, AND
EPA IS NOW FACING LAWSUITS FOR FAILURE TO FULFILL ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES,
HONSANTO BELIEVES THERE ARE MITIGATING FACTORS
IN THIS MATTER WHICH EXTEND THE CRITICAL ISSUE BEYOND
THE QUESTION OF FAILURE TO ACT BY A SPECIFIED DATE, A
NUMBER OF SERIOUS TECHNICAL AND PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS HAVE
BEEN IDENTIFIED IN EPA's EMERGING HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGE-
MENT PROGRAM WHICH HAVE NECESSITATED DELAYS IN THE
-------
PAGE THREE
RULEMAKING PROCESS, AND WHICH MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE PROMUL-
GATION CAN OCCUR. AMONG THESE ARE THE FOLLOWING:
1. THE INITIAL DRAFTS OF THE SECTION 3001
REGULATIONS PROPOSE AN UNREASONABLY COMPLICATED
AND BROADLY INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE. IF PROMULGATED, MANY WASTES GENERALLY
CONSIDERED INNOCUOUS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
"HAZARDOUS." MOREOVER, MANY OF THE TESTING
PROCEDURES SPECIFIED IN THE MARCH 2''l, 1978
DRAFT REGULATION ARE AT THIS TIME UNPROVEN,
AND, POSSIBLY, UNWORKABLE. OF PARTICULAR
CONCERN ARE THE TOXICITY TESTING PROTOCOLS
AND THE "TOXICANT EXTRACTION PROCEDURE/'
A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL INTER-
CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE ON THIS POINT, BUT IT
SEEMS APPARENT THAT SIGNIFICANT WORK REMAINS
TO DEVELOP WORKABLE CRITERIA THAT WILL REGULATE
ONLY THOSE WASTES WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANTLY
MORE HAZARDOUS THAN COMMON MUNICIPAL REFUSE.
2. GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DRAFT HAZARDOUS
WASTE CRITERIA REGULATIONS, COUPLED WITH THE
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT
-------
PAGE FOUR
OF THE PROPOSED SECTION 3C10 REGULATION,
IT IS PROBABLE THAT MANY RELATIVELY
INNOCUOUS KASTES WOULD BE DECLARED
HAZARDOUS, BECAUSE OF A LACK OF TEST DATA,
THIS V.'OULD RESULT IN SOKE TRULY NON-
HAZARDOUS WASTES UTILIZING THE ALREADY-
TOO-SCARCE CAPACITY OF ACCEPTABLE DISPOSAL
SITES. ADEQUATE TIME TO DEVELOP WORKABLE
CRITERIA WILL MINIMIZE THIS CONSEQUENCE,
3. THE DRAFT SECTION 300^ REGULATION, STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE, TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES, WOULD SET EXTREMELY
TOUGH FACILITY STANDARDS THAT ARE INFLEXIBLE
FROM THE STANDP3INT OF TYPE OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE HANDLED. FURTHERMORE, V.'E BELIEVE
VERY FEW EXISTING FACILITIES, EVEN THOSE
CLEARLY ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE, WILL
MEET THE DRAFT STANDARDS. V.'E SUGGEST
RE-SHAPING OF THE PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR
DISTINCTION OF -ACILITIES BY TYPE OF WASTE
HANDLED, AND CONTINUED OPERATION OF
EXISTING FACILITIES SHOWN TO BE
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND.
K. THE MATTER OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS
OTHER ASPECTS
-------
PAGE FIVE
OF RCPA, HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY
EVALUATED. THE DRAFT REPORT ENTITLED
"COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS/'' DATED HAY 197S,
AND COMPLETED UNDER CONTRACT TO EPA BY
EATTELLE COLUMBUS LABORATORY PREDICTS
SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER COSTS FOR COMPLIANCE
AND IN VIEW OF THE ALREADY HIGH INFLATION
RATE, SHOULD BE GIVEN THOROUGH CONSIDERATION
IN THE RULEMAKING PROCESS.
THESE MATTERS DO NOT STAND ALONE AS THE ISSUES
NEEDING RESOLUTION. RATHER, THEY SERVE TO ILLUSTRATE THE
KINDS OF PROBLEMS WHICH MUST BE ADDRESSED BY EP^, IN THIS
RULEMAKING PROCESS.
NEED FOR AN ADEQUATE TIME FRAME FOR REGULATION PEVELOPMENT
THE THREAT OF LAWSUITS AGAINST EPA, AS MENTIONED
IN THE AUGUST 16, 1978 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, IMPLIES
NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE AGENCY IN CARRYING OUT ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES. !.'E DISAGREE. SlMPLY PUT, DEVELOPMENT
OF A COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM AND HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS IS AN ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX PROBLEM
THAT WILL IMPACT SIGNIFICANTLY ON ALL OF SOCIETY. !'!E BELIEVE
EPA HAS BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY ON THIS MATTER, BUT THAT
THE PROMULGATION DATE IN THE STATUTE WAS INSERTED BY CONGRESS
WITHOUT A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE
-------
PAGE Six
UNDERTAKING. MONSANTO ENDORSES THE OBJECTIVES OF THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT, AND MILL CONTINUE
TO COOPERATE WITH EPA, BOTH ALONE AND THROUGH THE i'lANU-
FACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION, TO DEVELOP SOUND'REGULATIONS
WHICH ARE ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. MONSANTO
STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE NEED FOR A RULEMAKIMG SCHEDULE THAT
IS ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WORKABLE, EFFECTIVE
REGULATIONS. !!E BELIEVE THE TIMETABLE PROPOSED BY EPA
WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE MANY OF THE
PENDING QUESTIONS. THE SCHEDULE WILL ALLOW FOR REVIEW OF
THE MOST RECENT DRAFTS OF THE SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS PRIOR
TO THE PROPOSED JANUARY 7, 1979 FEDERAL rEGISTER PROPOSAL
DATE. BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEX TECHNICAL NATURE OF THESE
REGULATIONS, THE PROPOSED 90 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT ALSO
APPEARS JUSTIFIED. FINALLY, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS WILL BE VERY
EXTENSIVE, REQUIRING TIME-CONSUMING EPA REVIEW, A PROJECTED
FINAL PROMULGATION DATE OF JANUARY 1980 IS LIKEWISE. A
REASONABLE TARGET. SIMILARLY, ''ONSANTO VIEWS THE PROPOSED
TIMETABLES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMULGATION OF P.CPA SECTION
ilOO^I CRITERIA; CLEAN '..'ATER ACT,SECTION '105 MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
GUIDELINES; P.CP.A SECTION '1012, STATE PLANNING "GUIDELINES;
AND P\CRA SECTION 1003, LANDFILL GUIDELINES,AS REASONABLE
AND REALISTIC CONSIDERING THE TASK AT HAND.
-------
PAGE SEVEN
IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER ONE FURTHER
POINT. THIS EXTENDED REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE WILL
NOT CREATE AN "OPEN SEASON'" FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL.
MANY STATES ALREADY HAVE COMPREHENSIVE, ENFORCEABLE
WASTE DISPOSAL LAWS. :!E AND OTHER RESPONSIBLE COMPANIES
WILL CONTINUE TO MANAGE OUR PROCESS WASTE DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
IN A SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE MANNER, AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH
ALREADY EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS, "OREOVER, WE HAVE
ALREADY BEGUN AN EVALUATION OF OUR PROCESS WASTE ACTIVITIES
IN ANTICIPATION OF ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH MIGHT
BE IMPOSED BY RCP.A REGULATIONS. IRRESPONSIBLE ''MIDNIGHT
DUMPING" ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN THE WORK OF A VERY SMALL
NUMBER OF PEOPLE, AND VERY LIKELY WILL NOT BE ELIMINATED
BY EVEN THE MOST SEVERE OF REGULATIONS, IT IS OF PARAMOUNT
IMPORTANCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, AS WELL
AS THE MAINTENANCEOF OUR STANDARD OF LIVING, THAT INDUSTRIAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS BE REASONABLE AS WELL AS
ADEQUATELY PROTECTIVE. FOR THIS REASON, ."ONSANTO SUPPORTS
ERA'S REVISED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE, AND LOOKS FORWARD
TO CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE RULEMAKING PROCESS. THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS STATEMENT.
-------
oWationd!
1 1 20 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW • SUITE 930 • WASHINGTON DC 20036
TELEPHONE (2021 659-4613
EUGENE J WINGERTER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
STATEMENT
by
Eugene J. Wingerter
Executive Director
National Solid Wastes Management Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 930
Washington, D. C. 20036
at a public meeting
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Proposed Time Schedule for Promulgation of Solid
and Hazardous Waste Regulations
September 15, 1978
Washington, D. C.
INSTITUTE OF WASTE TECHNOLOGY
• CHEMICAL WASTE COMMITTEE
• NATIONAL SANITARY LANDFILL COMMITTEE
• RESOURCE RECOVERY COMMITTEE
WASTE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
-------
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, passed in October 1976, has
been hailed as the first federal law which requires comprehensive
control of hazardous waste. RCRA required that, by April 1978, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency promulgate regulations for the generation
and transportation of hazardous waste as well as for the storage,
treatment, and disposal of these wastes at specially permitted facilities.
That deadline expired five months ago and the regulations, with the
exception of those related to transportation, have not even been
formally proposed.
The need for these regulations is paramount. The kind of environmental
assaults which occur in a society without hazardous waste regulations
was illustrated recently in the promiscuous dumping of PCB-contaminated
liquids along a North Carolina highway. While several states have
enacted legislation regulating the disposal of hazardous wastes, only a
few states require a manifest to track the movement of waste from point
of generation, during transport, to final disposal at a permitted facility.
Such a record-keeping system seems the best mechanism for assuring that
hazardous wastes generated are taken to approved facilities and nowhere
else. But even those states which do have cradle-to-grave hazardous waste
control laws are postponing development of regulations until the U.S.
EPA provides the model with the RCRA regulations.
The delay by EPA has another, and more damaging, effect. Until a hazardous
waste management program is in place and enforced, there will be minimal
development of new facilities which meet the rigid environmental standards
necessary to provide secure disposal of hazardous waste. Without enforced
regulations, there is little incentive for generators of hazardous waste
to pay the high cost of disposal at specially designed facilities.
-------
-2-
Without such regulations to assure the delivery of waste to such facilities,
there is little reason to expect new treatment and disposal facilities
to be developed. And, very simply, without facilities adequate to take
all of the hazardous wastes generated across the nation, a hazardous
waste regulatory program has little meaning. What end is achieved with
manifest systems and disposal permits, if there are no disposal sites
which can safely accept the hazardous waste?
For these reasons we urge that the EPA be aggressive in proposing an
amended schedule for implementation of the regulations under RCRA.
Early drafts of regulations indicate that EPA has done considerable
background work on the regulatory issues, and that the agency will be
able to complete regulations in a timely manner without trading off
thoroughness.
We do urge, however, that EPA include in its new schedule time for
interaction with interested groups outside of the federal government.
NSWMA values the opportunities provided by EPA to contribute our experience
and technical expertise to the development of regulations. We feel that
the regulations related to both "hazardous and solid waste under RCRA
will be better for the input EPA has received from many outside interest
groups.
Further, we urge EPA, in its haste to finalize the hazardous waste
regulations, not to compromise its position that regulations apply as strictly
to disposal at the site of generation as they do to disposal off-site at
a waste service facility. Some groups have argued, because of the
impact on the generating industry, that the regulations should be en-
forced on a more gradual basis for onsite hazardous waste disposal
-------
-3-
facilities than for offsite facilities. EPA has stated that perhaps 80%
of all hazardous waste are disposed of at facilities which are captive
to the generating industry. Hazardous waste disposed of at a generator's
facility are no less likely to cause environmental damage than are
wastes disposed of at a comparable offsite facility. We stress the
importance of a regulatory scheme which enforces the strict standards
equally at all hazardous waste disposal facilities regardless of who
owns a* operates them.
NSWMA appreciates the opportunity once again to make its comments known
to the EPA and we intend to continue our participation with the deve-
lopment of the hazardous and solid waste regulations. We look forward
to the day when the hazardous waste control program will be in effect.
Thank you.
-------
COMMENTS BY UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
FOR THE PUBLIC MEETING ON THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AMD RECOVERY ACT OF 1976.
held
September 15. 1918
at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
I AM RICHARD HARDISON, MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL. AFFAIRS
FOR THE CARBON PRODUCTS DIVISION OF UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION.
TODAY I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF UNION CARBIDE COBlPORATION
ON THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT ( RCRA ).
UNION CARBIDE SUPPORTED THE ENACTMENT OF RCRA BECAUSE WE
RECOGNIZED THAT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY HAS BEEN
NEGLECTED. SERIOUS PROBLEMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGREGADATION,
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HARM TO HUMAN HEALTH HAVE IN THE PAST RE-
SULTED FROM CARELESS HANDLING OF SOLD) WASTES. IMPROPER DISPOSAL
OF WASTE MATERIALS CAN CAUSE POLLUTION OF UNDERGROUND AND SURFACE
WATER RESOURCES. IN SOME CASES, SUCH POLLUTION IS THE RESULT OF DISPOSAL
PRACTICES WHICH MAY ACTUALLY HAVE MET THE PREVAILING STANDARDS OF
THE TIME AND WHICH WERE CONSIDERED SAFE AND LEGAL AT THE TIME BY
BOTH INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, A NEW APPROACH WAS NEEDED
TO EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) HAS BEEN
DIRECTED UNDER RCRA TO DEVELOP REGULATIONS THAT TRANSLATE THE ACT
INTO EFFECTIVE PRACTICES. IN DEVELOPING THE RCRA REGULATIONS THE
EPA HAS RECEIVED INPUT FROM STATE AGENCIES, LABOR GROUPS, ENVIRON-
MENTALISTS AND INDUSTRY. THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY HAS IN PARTICULAR
WORKED CLOSELY WITH EPA TO PROVIDE NEEDED TECHNICAL BACKGROUND.
THE RESULTS OF THIS EFFORT ARE SHOWN [K WELL CONSIDERED .
-------
PRELIMINARY DRAFTS AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS THAT HAVE HAD SEVERE
SCRUTINY FROM ALL PERSPECTIVES. WHILE INEVITABLY THERE WILL BE SOME
POINTS ON WHICH INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS WILL DIFFER, WE
THINK IT IS WORTH EMPHASIZING THE CONSTRUCTIVE JOE EPA HAS DONE SO
FAR TO RECONCILE THE RESPECTIVE POINTS OF VIEW.
WE FEEL THAT INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS HAS
ELIMINATED MANY OF THE PITFALLS EXPERIENCED IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
AIR AND WATER ACTS WHICH LED TO EXTENSIVE LITIGATION WITH CONSEQUENT
WASTE OF TIME RESOURCES AND FORCED DELAY IN ACHIEVING ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY GOALS.
IF PROMULGATION OF RULES UNDER THESE ACTS HAD RECEIVED
THE BENEFIT OF THE KIND OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INPUT THAT RCRA HAS
RECEIVED, THE COURT DOCKETS WOULD NOT BE CROWDED WITH LITIGATION
BETWEEN THE EPA AND INDUSTRY ON POINTS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED
BEFORE PROMULGATION OF THE REGULATIONS.
WHERE UNION CARBIDE STANDS:
UNION CARBIDE CONSIDERS A HEALTHY, SAFE, CLEAN ENVIRONMENT
TO BE AN IMPORTANT NATIONAL OBJECTIVE. WE ARE COMMITTED NOT ONLY TO
COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, BUT TO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND NEW OR REFINED PUBLIC POLICIES
DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER BASIC
WANTS AND NEEDS OF PEOPLE AND WITH THE ACHIEVEMENT OF OTHER IMPORTANT
NATIONAL OBJECTIVES. IT IS OUR POLICY TO CONTRIBUTE OPENLY AND CON-
STRUCTIVELY TO THE CREATION OF SUCH POLICIES AND REGULATIONS.
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT CAN PROVIDE THE
BASIS OF A SOUND PROGRAM TO CONTROL SOLID WASTE PROBLEMS. UNION CARBIDE
FEELS THAT IT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR EPA TO PRODUCE TECHNICALLY
SOUND AND RFJVSONABLE REGULATIONS THAT MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF RCRA THAN
IT IS TO MEET ARBITRARILY IMPOSED TIME LIMITS FOR ACCOMPLISHING THIS
-------
-3-
TASK. IT IS OUR VIEW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED RCRA TO PROVIDE A
REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE VEHICLE FOR MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTES,
AND WE BELIEVE THAT EPA HAS THE CAPABILITY AND THE DESIRE TO PRODUCE
AN EFFECTIVE SET OF REGULATIONS THAT WILL PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND THE
ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT IMPOSING'AN UNREASONABLE DEGREE OF REGULATION.
WE AT UNION CARBIDE FULLY EXPECT THAI INDUSTRY'S SUCCESSFUL RECORD'
-** £&~*. <£^ <*~J<2g^, k^&i
OF COMPLIANCE WITH WME ACTS WILL BE CONTINUED WITH THIS CHALLENGING
NEW ONE.
GJH/rr
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
PUBLIC MEETIN3 ON SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
Conments by
Dr. Stacy Daniels
on behalf of Dow Chemical U.S.A.
Washington, D.C.
Septenber 15, 1978
-------
Mr. Chairman, Dow Chemical U.S.A. wishes to present comnents pertirasnt
to the proposed schedule of regulations and guidelines for hazardous waste
management (RCRA Subtitle C, Sections 3001-3006, 3010). These conraaits
reflect our corporate concerns and philosophy in the proper management of
hazardous and solid wastes to provide adequate protection of human liealth
and the environment. We have followed closely the developing regulations
since enactment of the RCRA. We have participated in public workshops and
hearings and have submitted written comments on all draft and proposed
regulations.
We comnend the EPA in seeking input from the industrial sector regarding
hazard testing procedures and performance guidelines for hazardous waste
management for we believe such public participation is essential in the
development of responsible regulations. We feel the Agency has been re-
ceptive to public input and has made substantial progress in recogruLzing
the real-world problems of solid waste implementation and enforcement.
Several major concerns have been expounded during development of the
regulations:
1) potential overclassification of solid wastes as hazardous
wastes
2) procedural vs. performance guidelines
3) distinctions between on-site and off-site operations for Jrully
integrated facilities
4) overlap with other environmental regulations
5) the time schedule for implemantation
-------
-2-
The interpretation of "What is a hazardous waste?" is critical in avoiding
overclassification of all municipal and industrial wastes as hazardous. The
development of criteria of hazard for solid waste lacks precedent. It is
preferable to develop consensus standards with meaningful participation
by those being regulated. Development of workable regulations reflecting
a realistic interpretation of hazard demands a logical and scientifically
sound approach over a reasonable period of time.
The development of procedural "how-to-do-it" guidelines for facilities
for storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes is undesirable.
Environmental regulations which are restricted to performance guidelines
and permit individual options have proven to be effective. Responsible
management options are necessary in waste handling operations to reflect
site-by-site variations in solid wastes and facilities.
Excessive regulatory overlap and duplication of permitting procedures among
these areas has been of prime concern to the Agency. Wastewater treatment
facilities and underground injection control facilities, for example, are
regulated under existing laws and the Agency to its credit has attempted to
avoid undue regulatory overlap with hazardous waste management facilities.
These concerns involve many complex issues and the Agency needs adequate time
to address them. It is imperative that these issues be resolved. Promul-
gation of the regulations even within the proposed time frame will require
simplification. This could be accomplished by eliminating: (a) the toxic
hazard testing requirements and retaining a listing of specific hazards, and
(b) limiting the guidelines to performance and deleting all procedural guidelines.
-------
-3-
The management of solid wastes, like the management of waterborne wastes,
does not warrant the creation of a crisis at the expense of sound regulatory
action. Air, water, wastewater, and solid waste management are teihnically
detailed areas.
We believe that the proposed schedule for rulemaking tendered by tlie Agency
on August 8, 1978, is reasonable and responsive to measured 'and orderly in-
put and assessment. The proposal of hazardous waste regulations by early
1979 and prom.ilgat.ion by early 1980 is not unreasonable and should be
acceptable to all public and governmental sectors.
We recomnend, however, that the Agency promulgate all Sections of Subtitle C,
including those dealing with state pn^grams (Sec. 3006) and notification
(Sec. 3010) by early 1980, since all effective dates are dependent upon the
promulgation of Section 3001, which wLll include the critical intei-pretation
of what constitutes a hazardous waste. We thank you for the opportxmity to
present our views.
-------
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR RULEMAKING
under the
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OP 1976
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, D.c. 20460
August 8, 1978
-------
Time Schedule for Subtitle C Regulations
08/04/78 Initial Implementation Task Force (ITF) meeting to review over-
""~~ '
09/12/78 Complete and distribute rwised draft of 3001 regulations (38
workdays frcm July 19 to significantly revise 3001) .
09/19/78 Second meeting of ITF to review draft of 3001 regulations (5
workdays for ITF members to review draft) .
09/26/78 Complete and distribute revised draft of 3004 regulations (48
workdays from July 19 to siignif icantly revise 3004) .
10/03/78 Third ITF meeting to review draft of 3004 regulations (5 work-
days for ITF members to review draft) .
10/10/78 Complete and distribute revised drafts of 3002/5/6 regulations
and draft Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) (57 workdays from
July 19 to substantially revise EIA, the pacing item) .
10/17/78 Fourth ITF meeting to review drafts of 3002/5/6 regulations and
draft EIA (5 workdays for ITF mesnbers to review ^drafts} .
10/31/78 Complete revision of all regulations and EIA as a result of
above meetings and distribute (10 to 30 workdays, depending on
specific regulations, to make revisions, resolve minor issues
not addressed by ITF and collect additional supporting infor-
mation where required) .
11/07/78 Steering Ccr^ttee__(I5E_menfcers) review of all regulations, EIA
and EIS T5~worta!!ays~ror members to review semi-final draf ts) .
11/14/78 Second meeting of Steering Ccnmittee to complete review and
clear resgulations (probably with many differences and unresolved
issues) .
11/21/78 Revise regulations, EIA ard EIS per Steering Committee and
start Red Border review (5 working days) .
12/12/78 Complete Red Border reviev. (during this period there will be
two AA discussions of unresolved issues) (3 weseks as rejquired
by internal rules for Red Border review) .
12/22/78 Administrator signs regulations for proposed rulemaking (8
working days and probably one or two Administrator/M level
meetings to resolve issues) .
01/02/79 Publish proposed regulations for 3001/2/4/5 in Federal Register
and issue draft EIA and EIS (4 workdays) .
Publish (promulgate) 3006.
-------
04/02/79 Close of comment period (90 calendar days).
07/05/79 Complete evaluation of comments, collection of additional
information, analysis of comments, resolution of issues at
staff level and re-draft of regulations (64 workdays).
07/13/79 Complete OSW review and clearance (6 workdays).
08/01/79 Publish (promulgate) 3010 in Federal Register.
09/14/79 Complete CWfrM review and clearance (9 weeks).
11/16/79 Complete Steering Committee review and clearance (9 weeks).
Ol/H/80 Complete Red Border review (8 weeks) .
01/25/80 Publish (promulgate) 3001/2/3/4/5 in Federal Register (10 workdays).
-------
Time Schedule for 4004 Criteria
08/31/78 Complete evaluation of 1500 public comvents to proposed
rulernaking.
11/30/78 Complete collection of additional information and detailed
analysis and resolution of substantive issues raised by the
comments (61 workdays).
01/12/79 Complete re-draft of 4004 criteria based on foregoing (31
workdays). Also complete draft EIS and EIA over «>ntire period.
01/19/79 Complete OSW internal review and approval by DM (5 workdays).
03/23/79 Complete CWM review and approval (9 weeks)
2 weeks of review by progran offices
3 weeks (3 meetings) of disc;ussion and resolution
(or sharpening of differences) with program offices
3 weeks (3 meetings) to discoiss and resolve program
office differences with M
1 week to revise regulation pursuant to above
05/25/79 Complete Steering Committee Review (9 weeks)
1st week - brief Steering Ccnmittee
2nd week - review by Steering Committee
3 weeks of negotiation of minor issues; discussion
and information collection on major issues
7th week - final Steering Ccmmittee review and
clearance
2 weeks to revise and ready criteria for red border
07/13/79 Complete Red Border review (8 weeks)
3 weeks to obtain M concurrences or non-concurrences
3 weeks (2 M meetings) to resolve or focus M
differences
1 week to revise criteria pursuant to foregoing
1 week to brief Administrator, resolve any outstanding
issues and obtain Administrator's signature
07/27/79 Publish (promulgate) in Federal Register (2 weeks)
-------
Time Schedule for
Section 405 Municipal Sludge Guidelines
9/15/78 Complete first working draft and distribute for review by work
group and public (84 workdays; coordinated with review of comments
of municipal sludge requirements of 4004 regulations)
10/13/78 Complete second working draft and review by work group (20 working
days)
1/12/79 Complete final working draft (65 working days)
1/19/79 Complete OSW internal review and approval by DAA (5 working days)
3/23/79 Complete OWWM review and approval (9 weeks; coordinated with
4004; see 4004 schedule)
5/25/79 Complete Steering Ccnroittee Review (9 weeks; see 4004 schedule)
7/13/79 Complete Red Border review (8 weeks; see 4004 schedule)
7/27/79 Publish (proposed ruleinaking) in Federal Register (2 weeks)
10/27/79 Complete public conraent period (90 calendar days)
1/30/80 Complete evaluation of ccnments, collection of additional infor-
mation, analysis of comments, resolution of issues at staff
level and re-draft of regulations
2/10/80 Complete OSW review and clearance
4/10/80 Complete OWWM review and clearance
6/10/80 Complete Steering Ccmnittee review and clearance
8/10/80 Complete Red Border review
8/30/80 Publish (promulgate in Federal Register)
-------
Time Schedule for 4002 State Planning Guidelines
08/11/78 Publication as proposed.
11/11/78 Public cement period.
03/11/79 Revision and DAA sends forvrard for OWW1 clearance!.
04/09/79 OWN clearance.
05/07/79 Steering Committee clearance.
06/18/79 Red Border clearance and promulgation.
-------
Time Schedule for 1008 Landfill Guidelines
12/15/78 DAA sends forward for CWW4 clearance.
01/12/79 OWM clearance.
02/09/79 Steering Committee clearance.
03/23/79 Red Border clearance and publication as proposed.
06/23/79 Public ccnment period.
10/23/79 Revision and DM sends forward for CWVM clearance.
11/20/79 OWW1 clearance.
12/18/79 Steering Coiroittee clearance.
01/30/80 Red Border clearance and promulgation.
-------
PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
SUITE 70O
2OOO P STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON O. C. 20036
UO3) 785-3704
June 21, 1978
Douglas M. Costie. Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. w.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Certified Mail # 812871
Re: Solid Waste Disposal Act
Dear Mr. Costle:
I am writing on behalf of Public Citizen, Inc., and several other
interested parties, to serve notice of our intent to institute legal
proceedings against "your Agency for failure to perform a number of non-
discretionary duties under Subchcipter III of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act which are necessary to implement the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et
seq. Pursuant to the "citizen suit" provision of the Act (42 U.S.C.
§ 6972), you have sixty days in which to meet your obligations under
this Subchapter and I am hopeful that you will do so in order to im-
plement an important Congressionsil mandate, promote vital public
policy and avoid unnecessary and costly litigation.
For your information. Public: Citizen is an organization funded
by the contributions of tens of thousands of citizens who are ad-
versely affected, and in numerous, cases seriously injured by the
absence of any regulations requiring the safe transportation, storage
and ultimate disposal of hazardous waste materials. The organiza-
tion and its constituents lobbied for enactment of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act and had every hope t.hat your Agency would meet its
obligations to implement the Act within eighteen months, or by April
21, 1978.
More particularly, Subchapter III required EPA to perform the
following' non-discretionary acts on or before April 21, 1978:
1) Publication of criteria for identifying and listing
hazardous waste (42 U.S.C. § 6921(a));
-------
-2-
2) Identification of wastes meeting these criteria
(42 U.S.C. § 6921(b));
3) Promulgation of regulations establishing standards
applicable to generators, and transporters of
hazardous waste (42 U.S.C. §§ 6922, 6923);
4) Promulgation of performance standards for facilities
used to treat, store and dispose of hazardous waste
and development of a permit program for such facilities
(42 U.S.C. §§ 6924;6925);
5) Promulgation of guidelines to assist States in the
development of hazardous waste programs (42 U.S.C.
§ 6926).
None of these acts have yet been performed and hazardous wastes
continue to pose a serious threat to citizen health and the en-
vironment.
I do hope that your Agency will perform' each o~f these acts
promptly, and in any event within the next sixty days. Moreover,
I would appreciate your apprising me of both your intentions and
your efforts to meet your obligations under the Act. I will look
forward to hearing from you and I thank you in advance for your
concern for the public health.
Sincerely yours.
Arthur L. Fox, II
cc: Hon. Griffin Bell
-------
Environmental
Defense
15.25 18th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036 • 202/333-1484
July 5, 1978
DELIVERED BY HAND
Administrator Douglas M. Costle
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 West Tower
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator Costle:
The passage of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act on
October 21, 1976, marked an important addition to the nation's en-
vironmental law. Concern about raw materials and energy shortages,
the rising cost of landfilling, and the development of innovative
resource recovery technology demonstrated the need for the federal
government to take on a larger role in the promotion of effective
solid waste management practices. Further, Congress had previously
enacted strong legislation aimed at eliminating pollution of our
air and water resources. Paradoxically, compliance with these laws
tended to expand the scope of the solid waste disposal problem, as
well as focus attention on abuse of our land resources. The Resource
Recovery and Conservation Act served to complement this earlier legis-
lation by eliminating the unregulated land disposal of discarded
materials and hazardous wastes.
Unfortunately, the promise of this legislation may be signifi-
cantly diluted by EPA delay in putting the law into effect through
necessary regulations. The Act mandates that the agency promulgate
fifteen major sets of regulations by dates ranging from six months
to two years after the enactment of the statute. Twelve of these
OFFICES :N. EAST SETAUKET. NY (MAIN OFFICE): NEW YORK CITY (PflOGIU'.l SUPPORT OFFICE)- WAin'NGTOM, DC: EIF^ELEY. C/'LIFC.iN! \
Pttnttd on T
-------
-2-
regulations are now past due. Eight of the regulations have not
yet been proposed, and three additional sets have not been pro-
mulgated in final form. The progress of the agency to date
strongly suggests that additional regulations due in October, 1978,
will not be promulgated in time. The table on the attached pages
indicates the mandated regulations which the agency has already
failed to promulgate by the prescribed date.
Delay in the promulgation of these regulations is of more
than technical concern since they are essential to the implementa-
tion of the Act. For example, criteria for determining which
facilities shall be classified as open dumps, due since October 21,
1977, are needed before an inventory can be compiled of all the
open dumps in the country, which is in turn necessary to effect the
Actte prohibition against continued open dumping of solid waste. Also,
regulations must be promulgated under Section 3001 listing particular
hazardous wastes that are subject to management before the notice, re-
quirements of Section 3010 go into effect.
As a result of our concern, the Environmental Defense Fund
desires to give notice of our intention to commence a legal action
based on your failure to perform the legislatively mandated duty to
promulgate the regulations listed in the attached, table within the
time period provided in the Act. This notice is required to be
given 60 days prior to the commencement of the action by Section
7002 (c) of the Act as well as the implementing regulations. 40 C.F.R.
254.
Sincerely,
William A. Butler
General Counsel
WAB:cs
Attachment
cc: Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials,
Thomas C. Jorling
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste,
Steffen W. Plehn
-------
K
ft,
o
•O
01
ctl
bO
rH
6
O
r.
(X,
O
co
4J
ct)
'O CTv
O
(4 k
Q. cd
•O
10
o
o.
C 0
O k
•H Q.
O 0)
O O
55 EH
•O
QJ
<0
bj
CO
CM
•a ir>
a> o
M trv
ooo
g.rH
£
•o
cu
4>
10
3
GOO
O f-
C) f,
XI 0)
En
O fc-
*J 3
CO
o
EH
O
f. CO CU
Oi
•O
01
CO
O CO
fJ.C-
o -
O 3
EH CO
O)
•H
rH
•o
cd
a
CO
t—
\
rH
co
C
o
•H
.p
cd
rH
3
bO
D
K
CU
y^
3
CO
O
rH.
O
to
•H
Q
rH
flj
K
0
K
O
C
O
•H
O
CD
to
cd
•H
O
C
cd
iH
PC.
1
p*»
O
o
rH
t-
t—
N.
H
C\J
\
O
co
D
C
•H
rH
t3
•H CO
O
cd
fc
01
»J
3
14
3
O
?
ctf
cd
X
CO
^~
rH
ry
.=r
to
3
O
T3
r<
cd
N
cd
w
CU
•p
cd
co
(H
O
CO
CD
K
•H
rH
0
T3
•r)
3
1
vo
o
o
ro
co
Ol
•H
4J
•H
rH
iH
O
Cd
fe.
C>
co
^
co
f*.
\
o
rH
j>j
J3
C
o
•H
J-l
a)
O
•H
Vi
^
^j
O
£,
O
(3
CU
40
10
oo
1
o
rH
O
co
•»
0}
»
O
4J
cd
^
CU
c
CU
a
CU
J T
09
_cd
w
3
O
•a
ca
t^
cd
:c
-------
O
i-H
O
m
C to
? C
6 o
rH 3
-H 60
U CO
Oj h
fa
4J
•O C
c 53
0) h
O
cu o\ Hi
(,n t- to
,| - f-l
n n
i: - i:
o - - >, o o
f,O r-1 =T f^
P, m u —' P.
o cd »—.
to vo a; t— to CA
•p -H rC *rH (H -H
co 4-> Fr. ru JJ CC
C-~ >> nj T3 \ M fc.
\X1 i-l CM 0) ^T r-IO
vo 3 -=r s s 10 3
\ -a U)v-^ O 'O Wo
CNJ a> 0) o« QJ aj -^r
4J ^ t— O -!-> fn ^
•O nj c— ?i cd x-x
4) bfl G X p. W^r H CO
10i-l THO== iHlTv -H t—
O3 f*c\l 0) 3c\J SH\
D, E V~~^ f S <1)
•H
0
t,
O
%-l
10
40
i
0)
£-,
•H
3
cr
o>
t.
cu
0
•H
40
o
•x.
1
o
C\J
o
o
t—
for Public Parti- None
to
o
c
•H
rH
CU
to 13
40 iH
•H 3
3 O
CO
1
.0
.3"
0
O
t—
RCRA Implementation
c:
•rl
K
O
•H
40
cd
c.
-,-t
0
cu
o
•z.
10
0
•H
40
cd
rH
3
bO
-------
•d
0)
4*
fll
la
o o
^ ir\
O.O
•H PH
-P
nj c\l
bO
(U'--
^1 1>-
t—
E\
•HO:
4-J O
C iH
4) (D
C C
O O
2; 2
(1)
C
O
M
C
O
•H
-p
Crf
rH
a
hO
(D
U
.!->
C
(d
fc
o
i
.=r
o
o
oo
w
C
o
•H
•P
a)
3
hO
0}
!H
4^
C
a]
(-,
O
1
in
o
o
w
ra
C
o
•H
.p
n)
nH
3
faO
to
k
JO
C
n)
t,
0
1
vo
o
o
CO
-------
nvironmerUal action
Suite 731 1346 Connecticut Awe. NW Washington, DC 20036 (202)833-1845
July 5, 1973
Mr. Douglas Costle, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.w.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Costle:
Pursuant to the requirements of section 7002 (a) (2) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC 6972 (a) (2)), this
letter is being sent to inform .you of Environmental Action's
intent to file suit 60 days from the date of this letter for
your failure to promulgate regulations under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC 6901 et. seq.)
within the mandated time period. Specifically, sections .3001
through 3005 of the Act (42 USC 6921-6925) require you to prom-
ulgate regulations within 18 months after the enactment of the
Act. The Act became law on October 21, 1976, therefore regula-
tions should have been promulgated no later than April 21, 1978.
While progression some regulations has been made, particu-
larly section 3006, we are particularly concerned about the de-
lays in the promulgation of regulations pursuant to sections
3001, 3004, and 3005 of the Act. It is our understanding that
the publication of proposed regulations in the Federal Register
for these sections has recently been delayed from late July to
late September. Final promulgation is not likely before late
December. We find this delay to be inexcusable, especially in
view of the fact that the Agency had been preparing hazardous
waste management guidelines long before passag'e of the Act. As
you know, the timeliness of solid waste guidelines promulgation
under section 209 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act was the sub-
ject of litigation in which Environmental Action was a party.
(See Civil Action No. C-74-1202 WHO, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. Dist.
of Calif.) It appears that the Agency can only respond in a
timely fashion to congressional mandates under solid waste
management legislation after litigation provides the necessary
impetus.
A. Blakeman Early
Legislative Director
-------
"Mr. Douglas Costle
•Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
4th and M Streets, S.W.
Washington O.C. 20460
60 day notice of Intent to file a civil action
Dear-Mr .-Cos tie:
Citizens!for a Better En'vironmentvC'CBE)/hereby notifies you of our intent,
after 60 days, to file a civil action against you for failure to perform an
act not discretionary under the-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976,-Pub!ic Law 94-580.
Pursuant to Section 70C2(c) "of the Resource Conservation and .Recovery Act of
1976,-and 40 CFR Part 254, this letter is being sent to the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, vr^li a copy to the Attorney General of the
United.States.' '
CBE "identifies the following failures of the Administrator to perform an act
or-duty under the Acf*which is not discretionary:
FAILURE TO ACT fl
Sections 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004 and 3005 of the Act require that, "Not later
than eighteen months after the enactment of this section. ...the Administrator
shall..." promulgate regulations identifying and managing hazardous wastes.
The Act,.including the relevant sections, was enacted on 21 October 1976.
As ofjtoday, 7^ July 1978,.:no'final,.regulations have been promulgated under
;these|se.ctiqns'.
7 July 1978 is more than eighteen months after 21 October 1976.
FAILURE TO ACT 12
Sections 3001, 3002,' 3003, 3004 and 3005 of the Act require that, "Not later
than eighteen months after the enactment of this section.. .the Administrator
shall..." promulgate regulations identifying and managing hazardous wastes.
Taking'into account toxicity, persistence, and degradabili ty in nature, poten-
tial for accumulation in tissue, anc other related factors such as flammability,
corrosiveness, and other characteristics, certain sludges from a waste treat-
ment plant are hazardous'wastes.
The Act, including the relevant sections, was enacted on 21 October 1976.
-------
As of today, 7 July 1978, no final regulations have been promulgated under
any of these sections regulating sludges from a waste treatment plant.
.7.July. 1978 1s more than eighteen months after 21 October 1976.
iIDENTIFICATIQN OF COUNSEL
Bill S. Forcade
'Staff Attorney
-Citizens for a Better Environment
:Su1te 2610, 59 E.-Van Buren Street .
?Ch1cagor Illinois . 60605-^ -'-> ~- >
-(312)'939-1530
• Sincerely,
Bill Forcad
Staff Attorney
';.BF/pt
-------
CLADOUHOS & BRASHARES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
f75O NEW YORK AVENUE. NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, O.C. 2OOO«
2O2-S33-IIOI
TELEX NO.89-2662
I90O AVENUE OF THE STARS, LOS ANGELES. CAUFORN IA 9OOS '
213-558-2295
HARRY W. CLADOUMOS
MELVIN J. OUVALL, JR. *
ROBERT G BURKE *
TERRY A BARNETT AUgUSt 11, 1978
OAV1D H COFFMAN
CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
* ADMITTED ONLV IH CAL1FORHIA __^^_^__^___^^^^_»-^ ___—_
Mr. Douglas Costle, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Notice of Citizen's Suit
•Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §6972
Dear Mr. Costle:
I am authorized and requested by our client,, the "National
Solid Wastes Management Association, to give you notice,
pursuant to the "citizens suits" provision of the; Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §6972, that
the National Solid Wastes Management Association will file
suit sixty (60) days from the date of this letter in respect
to the failure of the Environmental Protection Agency to
promulgate regulations under Subtitles C and D of the
Resource Conservation an3 Recovery Act of 1976, 42 0.S.C.
§6901 et sec, within the time periods mandated by the statute.
Sincerely yours.
William C. Brashares
WCB:jjp
-------
WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS
HOMAS H r
ONALO H C
ERR* r. LCN
ERR* o AN
LCXANOER
TEPHEN M
TEVCN K VA
HOMAS W B
ITT
CM
NER
R
SIERCK
UITT
LOMSNI
ICHARO A BROWN
OBERT 0 CORNELL
OBERT M COHAN
ANCT N. HENORV
EFFREV F. LtSS
ARBARA B. PRICE
ROBERT M LICHTMAN
NCAt. P PUTLEDCE
DAUiCL F O'KECFE.JR
TONI K GOLDEN
JAMES DOUGLAS WELCH
C COLfMAN BIRD
DAVID P 8E«Z
OAVIO O WCIN9EPG
GIL8C.RT E HARDY *
LESLIE 0 MICHELSON
JUDITH C LCS5ER
GCORGC A Avrqv
DONALD T OuCKLtN
ROBERT E NACLC
KEITH S WATSON
ROBERT * SKITOL
JUOITH RICHARDS HOPE
LEWIS M POPPER
ANTHONY L YOUNG
MARC E LACKRIfZ
ALFRED H WURGLITZ »
I32O NINETEENTH STREET, H W
WASHINGTON, D. C 2OO36
t2OZ) 29«-2i2i
SCLHAM LEVINC <
or COUNSCL
PHILIP ELMAN
* HOT ADwrrCO IN O C
August 30, 1978
Hand Delivered
Hon. Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Re: Notice of Citizen's Suit
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972
Dear Administrator Costle:
We are writing on behalf of the Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group ("USWAG") and its members, including thirty-nine electric
utility members and the Edison Electric Institute ("EEI") . USWAG
is the successor organization to the Solid Waste Group Task Force
of EEI, the principal national association of investor-owned
electric light and power companies. USWAG's offices are located
at 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20036
(phone: 202/862-3800).
We are authorized and requested to provide you with notice,
pursuant to Section 7002 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 6972 ("RCRA") and 40 C.F.R.,
Part 254, of our intention to file suit sixty (60) days from
the date of this letter with respect to the failure of the
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations under .
Subtitles -C and D of RCRA within the time periods required by
the statute.
We understand that four environmental groups and the National
Solid Wastes Management Association have also filed "citizen
-------
WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS
Hon. Douglas M. Costle
August 30, 1978
Page Two
suit" notices pursuant to Section 7002 and that EPA has
scheduled for September 15, IS78, a public meeting to discuss
these notices and the Agency's proposed schedule for promulgating
regulations under RCRA. Because of the potential impact of
RCRA on USWAG's members, representatives of USWAG will appear
at the public meeting.
We also understand that EPA has held at least one private
meeting with environmental groups to discuss the Agency's
proposed'schedule for publishing implementing regulations.
We are concerned about such nonpublic discussions and request
that we be notified of any future meetings on this subject in
time to allow our full participation.
USWAG recognizes that implemertation of a statute as significant
as RCRA must be accomplished on the basis of adequate information
and careful analysis. Its members thus are hopeful that a
reasonable and appropriate timetable for promulgation of regu-
lations can be developed without litigation.
Sincerely yours.
Thomas H. Truitt
Counsel to Utility Solid
Waste Activities Group
cc: The Honorable Griffin Bell
Attorney General of the United States
Mr. Thomas C. Jorling
Assistant Administrator for Water
and Hazardous Materials
Mr. Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
-------
52
1
2
, REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3
4 DOCKET NUMBER:
CASE TITLE: Public Meeting on EPA's Current Schedule for
Promulgating Regulations Under the Resource Conservation and
HEARING DATE: September 15, 1978 Recovery Act
7 LOCATION: 401 M Street Washington, D.C.
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence herein
are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me
at the hearing in the above case before the Environmental
Protection Agency
and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same.
Lu
14 Date: September 21, 1978
15
16
Official Reporter
Acme Reporting Company
1411 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
20
21
23
24
25
-------
Attendees - Public Meeting
on Proposed Schedules for Promulgating
Rulemakings under RCRA,
September 15, 1978
Washington, D.C.
Ackelsberg, Oscar J.
W.R. Grace & Company
Assistant Vice President
1114 Avenue of Americas
New York, New York 10036
Amber, Jerome S.
One Parkland Blvd.
Parklane Towers West
Suite 628W
Dearborn, Michigan 48126
Ancharrow, M. Reamy
LEBOEVF, LAMB, LEIBY,
& MACRAE
1757 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Anderson, M. Kent
Government Relations Trane
2020 14th Street North
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Andrews, Lewis E.
NASA Technical Manager Code LB-4
400 Maryland Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20546
Aoki, S.
Clean Water Action Project
1341 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Aschliman, Nick
Staff Engineer
Gulf Coast Waste Auth.
910 Bay Area Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77058
Austin, John D., Jr.
American Mining Congress
1200 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Bailey, David E.
PEPCO
Environmental Engineer
1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20068
Balikov, Henry R.
Environmental Counsel
J.H. Amber Corp.
Thornall Street
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Barta, J.W.
Huntington Alleys Inc.
Chemical Project Leader
P.O. Box 1958
Huntington, West Virginia
25720
Barton, C.A.
Group Leader
The Proctor & Gamble Company
Hillcrest Tower
7162 Reading Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45222
Baughman, Claire W.
Assistant Manager
CIBA-GEIGY Corp.
Ardsley, New York 10502
Herman, Eugene
Legal Department
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company
Wilmington, Delaware 191398
Bock, Raymond W.
National Marketing; and Sales Mgr.
Waste Management Inc.
The Chemical Waste Management Div
900 Jorie Blvd.
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Brashares, William C.
Attorney at Law
Cladouhos & Brashares
1750 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Brennan, Harry M.
Director, Air & Waste Conservation
Amoco Chemicals Corp.
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Brenner, R.J.
Mobil Chemical Co.
Manager Environmental Affairs
P.O. Box 240
Edison, New Jersey 08817
-------
Brown, Christine
Georgetown University
Research Assistant
2 'Ogara
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C. 20057
Brown, J.C.
Senior Process Engineer
Olin Chemicals
P.O. Box 248
Charleston, Tennessee 37310
Brown, Jerry L.
Chief Chemist
Monsanto Company
P.O. Box 249
Anniston, Alabama 36202
Browne, Ellen T.
Energy and Environmental Analysis
Inc.
1111 North 19th Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Browne, Richard C.
Attorney and Counsellor at Law
Suite 804
1140 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Brubaker, Bruce H.
Special Assistant to the
Director
Diamond Shamrork Corp.
1100 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Bruhns, Capt. U.K. f :'im)
President
Offshore Supply Assnv.Inac.
2800 North Loop West
Suite 400
Houston, Texas 77092
Buck, Kathleen A.
Office of the Director
Of Government Relations
One Farragut Square South
Washington, D.C. 20006
Burre, David L.
Environmental Engineer
Borden Inc.,
180 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215 2
Byrne, Thomas D.
Government Affairs Rep.
Alton Box Board Company
917 Crystal Plaza North
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Caple, Arthur
EHA - Maryland
Chief Solid Waste
201 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21157
Carey, Mike
Engineer
Pennwalt
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
Carmel, Perry
Licensing, Permits
and Safety Officer
3527 Whiskey Bottom Rd.
P.O. Box 599
Laurel, Maryland 20810
Carrol, David W.
Manufacturing Chemist Assn.
1825 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Cheely, Albert H., P.E.
1333 Village Drive
So. Charleston, West Virginia 25309
Chu, Joseph P., Ph.D., P.E.
Supervisor
Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corp.
General Motors Technical Center
Warren, Michigan 48090
Coates, Harry A.
Fred C. Hart Associates,
527 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Inc.
Cobb, Clifford W.
Solid Waste Project
NACOR
1735 New York, Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
-------
Cole, Ray C.
House of Representative
Commerce Comm.
Staff Assistant
HOB Annex 2
Washington, B.C.
Connelly, Leo B.
Asst. General Counsel
NYC Dept. of Environmental
Protection
2353 Municipal Bldg.
New York, New York 10003
Connor, Kay
Administrative Assistant
Carrier Corp.
The Blake Building - Suite 510
1025 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20036
Coolick, Frank
Supervisor of Engineering
Solid Waste Administration
32 East Hanover Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Cooper, Jack L.
Director, Environmental Affairs
National Food Processors Assn.
1133 Twentieth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Cox, Geraldine V.
Environmental Scientist
American Petroleum Institute
2101 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Cunningham, Howard, C., Dr.
Manager, Regularory Compliance
Witco Chemical
277 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Curtin, Lawrence N.
Holland & Knight
P.O. Drawer B W
Lakeland, Florida 33802
Dach, Leslie
Science Associate
EDF
1525 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Davis, Owen H.
Director Federal Agency Relations
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
1050 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Davoli, Dana J., Ph.D.
Staff Scientist
Citizens for a Better Environment
59 East Van Buren, Suite 2610
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Dawson, Russell
Senior Editor
BPI
P.O. Box 1067
818 Roeder Road
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Denyes, Wells
Washington Representative
Eastman Chemical Products, Inc.
500 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
Deschenes, Denise
Jr. Engineer
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.
P.O. Box 2521
Houston, Texas 77006
Di Nal, Joan G.
Attorney
Atlantic Richfield Company
515 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
Drance, Andrew
Washington Rep.
Garden State Paper Company, Inc.
2020 North Fourteenth Street
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Dunn, J.
Exec. Secretary
APWA/ISW
1776 Mass. Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20832
Edwards, Moyer B.
Director Environmental Control
Alabama By-Products Corp.
P.O. Box 10246
Birmingham, Alabama 35202
-------
Eliopoulos, Phoebe
Board of Editors
Environmental Reporter
The Bureau of National Affairs,
1231 25th Street, N.W.
Washingotn, D.C. 20037
Ellerbusch, Fred
Bristol-Myers Products
225 Long Avenue,
Hillside, New Jersey 07205
Engelman, C.R.
Industrial Chemicals Div.
American Cyanamid Co.
Blerdan Avenue
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
Erickson, Lee E.
Administrator
Environmental Control Dept.
Stauffer Chemical Company
Westport, Conn. 06880
Erk, Leyla
Research Assistant
Rubber Manufacturers Assn.
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Farrington, Edmond, H.
Kerr- McGee Corp.
605 Commonwealth Building
1625 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Feigner, Ken
Chief, Waste Mgmt. Branch
EPA Region X
1220 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Ferguson, James T.
Theodore Jonas Assoc.
2009 North Fourteenth Street
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Fleming, G.G.
Superintendent - Transportation
Services
Chessie System
Operating Dept.
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Forbes, Phillip B.
Manager Integrated Planning
ARCO Chemical Company
IncB.O. Box 2819
Dallas, Texas
Frahn, Kurt
Environmental Engineer
HDR Engineers
P.O. Box 5576
Clearwater, Florida 33518
Fredericks, B.C.
Executive Assistant
Englehard Industries Divison
Engelhard Minerals & Chemicals Corp.
70 Wood Avenue, South
Metro Park Plaza,
Iselin, New Jersey 08830
Foushee, Charles
President
Caldwell Systems Inc.
P.O. Box 1682
Lenoir, North Carolina 28645
Friedman, Frank B.
Arco Chemical Company
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
Frye, Russell
Assoc.
Smith & Schnacke, Attorneys
P.O. Box 1817
Dayton, Ohio 45401
Gagner, Gerald J.
Manager of Resource Recovery
Waste Resources Corp.
1721 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Garmon, James J.
Environmental Engineer
Goodyear Tire & Rubber
1144 E. Market Street
Akron, Ohio 44316
-------
Gatsy, Blair
Reporter/Editor
Resources News Service
363 National Press
Building
Washington, D.C. 20045
Garrahan, Kevin G.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
5408 Silver Hill Road
Suite 507
Suitland, Maryland 20028
Gilchrist, James E.
Counsel
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
P.O. Box 2180
Houston, Texas 77001
Glenn, Michael K.
Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller
161 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Goldfield, Carl
Assistant Legislative Counsel
American Public Power Assoc.
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Goldsmith, Robert
Staff Attorney
Citizen for a Better Eiviron.
59 East Van Buren, Suite 2610
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Gosline, Carl A.
Assistant Technical Director
Manufacturing Chemists Assoc.
1825 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Graves, John W., P.E.
Director of Environmental
Safety and Health Affairs
Fennzoil Company
Pennzoil Place
P.O. Box 2967
Houston, Texas 77001
Gray, Harold B.
Senior Technical Representative
Hercules Incorporated
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Greco, James R.
Director, Government .and Industry
Affairs
Browning-Ferris, Inc.
Fannin Bank Building
Houston, Texas 77030
Grisdela, Margaret
Associate Director
Public Affairs
A/C Pipe Producers Assoc.
1600 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 1308
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Guinan, O.K.
Manager, Environmental Services
Bureau of Explosives
Assoc. of American Railroads
1920 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Guthire, S.
Legal Assistant
Kimberly Clark
1730 Penn. Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20006
Hall, M.E.
Senior Staff Engineer
Environmental Project
Union Carbide Corp.
Charleston, West Virginia 25306
Hannigan, Vera
Union Pacific Corp.
815 Conn Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC. 20006
Hansen, James C.
Manager, Public Relations
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
Suite 700 South
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Hardison, R.A.
Manager
Union Carbide Corp.
12900 Snow Road
Parma, Ohio 44130
Harlow, Dan R., J.D., Ph.D.
Director, Scientific Affairs
Chemical Specialist±os
1001 Conn. Avenue
Wa«h1not-nn T> r
-------
Harness, Robert L.
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Monsanto Company
1101 - 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Helsing, Craig R.
Regularory Liaison
Can Manufacturers Institute
1625 Mass. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Hershson, Morris
President
National Barrell & Drum Assoc.
1028 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Hickman, H. Lanier, Jr., P.E.
President Hickman Associates
1629 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Holik, Jeff
Attorney
Baker, Hortetler, Patterson
818 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Hontz, Phil
Marketing Representative
Texas Instruments
Dallas, Texas
Houston, Betsy
Assistant Vice President
Wilson £. Hamilton & Assoc., Inc.
1901 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Hughes, Chris
Environmental Project Manager
Edison Electric Institute
1140 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Ince, H.C., Jr.
Manager, Environmental Engineer
J.P. Stevens
Box 2789
Greenville, South Carolina 29602
Jaffee, Edward L.
Washington Rep.
PPG Industries, Inc.
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Jimmink, Mary
Manager, Washington Office
Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry
1500 Mass. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Johnson, Charles
Technical Director
NSWMA
1120 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Johnson, Karl T.
Vice President
The Fertilizer Institute
1015 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Johnson, Victor R., Jr., P.E.
Southern Region Manager
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
2131 Kingston Court, S.E., Suite 112
Marietta, Georgia 30067
Keilman, D.J.
Principal Env. Engineer
Hercules Inc.
910 Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
Kerns, B.A.
Manager Environmental Control
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Westinghouse Building
Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Kesten, S. Norman
Assistant to the Vice President
ASARCO Incorporated
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
Keyser, Earline A.
Bechtel Corporation
1620 Eye Street, N.W., Suite
Washington, D.C. 20006
703
-------
Klllorin, Mary
Administrative Assist.
3M Corporation
1101 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
King, James E.
Professional and Regulatory
Services Department
Proctor & Gamble Co.
Ivorydale Technical Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45217
King, William B.
Deputy Director
Armstrong Cork Co.
1666 K Street, N.W.
Suite 205
Washington, D.C. 20006
Kleppinger, Edward W., Ph.D.
President
EWK Consultants Inc.
Suite 639
1311 Delaware Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
Knight, Bruce L.
Environmental Control Division
Marathon Oil Company
539 South Main Street
Findlay, Ohio 45840
Knight, Gary D.
Director
Environment and Land Policy
Chamber of Commerce of the
United States
1615 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20062
Komoroski, Kenneth S.
Environmental Engineer
PPG Industries, Inc.
One Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Konsoulis, Mary
Legal Assistant
Seymour & Dudley
1225 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Kratsas, Robert G., Dr.
Ecologlst
Standard Oil Company (Indiana)
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Kuahner, Francine Bellet
Associate Director
Chemical Specialities Manufacturers Assoc.,
Inc.
1001 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
LaBarbera, D.R.
Senior Engineer
E.I. DuPont
Chambers Work
Deepwater, New Jersey 08023
LaRose, Keith
Legal Consultant
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
527 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Latta, Edward C.
Senior Plant Engineer
SPS Company
Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 19046
Laubusch, Edmund J.
Assistant Secretary Treasurer
The Chlorine Institute, We.
342 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Lawrence, J.T.
Transportation Associate
Western Electric
Gullford Center
P.O. Box 25000
1-85 and Mt. Hope Church Rd.
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
Le, Tien
Analyst
Brookhaven National Lab.
Building 475
Upton, Long Island, New York 11973
Lehr, Leon G., P.E.
Civil Engineer
USDA Forest Service
Rosslyn Placa E.
1621 N. Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
-------
Lewis, C.W. Bill
Member
House of Representative
State of Arizona
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Lewis, Donald W., P.E.
Chief Engineer
National Slag Association
300 S. Washington Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Liberman, Arthur L.
Patent and Trademark Counsel
International Flavors & Fragrances,
521 West 57th Street
New York, New York 10019
Lindsey, Alan M., P.E.
Coordinator - Air & Solid Waste
International Paper Company
P.O. Box 16807
Mobile, Alabama 36616
Lindsey, Maureen
Research Associates
Moshman Associates, Inc.
6400 Goldsboro Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20034
Ludington, Judith A.
Assistant Environmental Scientist
Wapora, Inc.
6900 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20015
Lue-Hing, Cecil, D.Sc., P.E.
Director Research and Development
The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Lyle, Edward
Attorney
Morgan Lewis & Bockins
1513 - 26th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
MacDonald, Ira A.
Regulatory Compliance Director
Ashland Chemical Company
P.O. Box 2219
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Maddux, Helene
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.
1111 North 19th Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
McCauley, Kenneth
Waste Water Engineer
Western Electric
4500 S. Laburnum Avenue
Richmond, Virginia 23231
McCoy, Billy C.
Senior Scientist
Radian Corp.
Inc. Suite 125, Culpeper Bldg.
7923 Jones Branch Dr.
McLean, Virginia 22102
McEntire, C. Allen
Environmental Engineer
South Carolina Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
McHugh, Thomas W.
Manager
Health, Safety & Environment
Emery Corporate Manufacturing
4900 East Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45232
McLeland, Le-nhung
Assistant for Legislative Programs
American Chemical Society
1155 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
McManus, Frank
Editor & Publisher
Resource Recovery Report
1707 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Milford, Charles, 0.
Vice President
Roebuck System, Inc.
Box 198
Roebuck, South Carolina 29576
Miller, Steven R.
Attorney
DOE
B-206
Washington, D.C. 20545
-------
Morrow, Robert R.
Attorney
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan
1666 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Mosher, Dale C.
Project Manager
Wehran Engineering
666 East Main Street
Middletown, New York 10940
Muckenfuss, Laura A.
Grants Coordinator
Greenville County
County Courthouse
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Mullen, Hugh
Director Government Relations
IU Conversion Systems, Inc.
3624 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
Murphy, E.G.
Environmental Planner
M-NCPPC
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland 20906
Neeld, Jack
Director of Environmental Control
Continental Oil Company
P.O. Box 727
Westlake, Louisiana 70669
Neighbors, Milton
President
M.L. Neighbors, Inc.
919 Eighteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, C.C. 20006
Nelson, Robert J.
Coatings Engineer
National Paint & Coatings Assoc.
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Newman, Lewis R.
Colt Industries, Inc.
1901 L Street, N.W.
Suite 303
Washington, D.C. 20036
Niles, O'Jay
Director of Technical Services
American Textile Manufacturers Inst.
400 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28285
Norton, Lawrence, Jr.
Manager, State and Regional Affairs
National Agricultural Chemicals Assoc.
The Madison Building
1155 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Nowers, Philip P.
Director
Waste Equipment Manufacturers Inst.
National Solid Waste Management Assoc.
1120 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Suite 930
Washington, D.C. 20036
Olexy, Robert A.
Regional Director
Browning-Ferris Industries
1023 N. Lobdell Avenue
Suite A
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806
Onuschak, Emil, Jr.
Environmental Affairs
Columbia Gas System Service Corp.
20 Montchanin Road
Wilmington, Delaware 19807
Packard, Jean
Principal Associate
Ralph Tabor and Associates
316 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
Pannella, Harrison, T.
Technical Services Director
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Inst.
1010 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Parker, Hampton M.., Ph.D.
Technical Manager - Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Corporation
270 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
-------
Pelensky, Mike
Chemical Engineer
EPA Region III
6th & Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
Pellissier, Rino L.
Senior Environmental Engineer
FMC Corporation
2000 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
Peruzzi, Robert V.
Manager Pollution Abatement
Technology
Rohm & Haas Co.
Engineering Division
P.O. Box 584
Bristol, Pa. 19007
Peterson, Charles W.
Project Engineer
SCS Engineer
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive
Suite 432
Reston, Virginia 22091
Post, Howard A.
Industry Specialist
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
Price, Donald R.
Program Coordinator
Waste Management, Inc.
900 Jorie Blvd.
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Randolph, Anne
Environmental Protection Spec.
DOE
2000 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Raymond, Deborah D., Ph.D.
Environmental Safety Depart.
The Proctor & Gamble Company
Cincinnati, Ohio 45217
Reick, Ken
Environmental Engineering Dept.
The Anaconda Company
660 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80204
ReynoIds, Rose
Legal Assistant
Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle
1666 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Reifler, Ronald L.
Environmental Engineer
City of Baltimore Health Dept.
Room S-219
111 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Richardson, Russell, C., Jr.
Governmental Affairs
American Consulting Engineers
Council
1155 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Ricker, Jon
Env. Engineer
Mobil
150 E 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Robertson, Charles
Exec. Vice President
ENSCO
P.O. Box 1975
El Dorado, Arkansas 71730
Rogers, Margaret
Legislative Assistant
Printing Industries of America,
1730 North Lynn Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Inc.
Rucker, Eldon
Environmental Affairs Assist. Dir.
American Petroleum Institute
2101 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Russell, Cheryl
Reporter
Bureau of National Affairs
1231 25th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Russell, Eileen
Producer
ABC News
7 W 66th Street
New York, New York 10021
10
-------
Ryman, Kermit W.
Washington Branch
Chevron, U.S.A. Inc.
1700 K Street, N.H.
Suite 1204
Washington, D.C. 20006
Samtur, Harold R.
501 Eugenia
Madison, Wisconsin 53705
Savage, Robbi, J.
Environmental Analyst
National Association of Manuf.
1776 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Schwartz, Amy, L.
Attorney
Allied Chemical
P.O. Box 1057 R
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Schwelm, Elaine
Administrative Assistant
Nuclear Engineering Co.
1100 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 22306
Scott, Marsha
Beveridge, Fairbanks & Diamond
One Farragut Square South
Washington, D.C. 20006
Shawver, Robert
Environmental Engineer
Navy Dept.
Code 104.3 Chesdiv
log 57 Washington Navy
Sherman, James S., P.E.
Senior Chemical Engineer
Radian Corp.
7923 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
Sherman, Kathleen
Project Manager
League of Women Voters
1730 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Yard 203747
Shoemaker, Daniel J., P.E.
Section Manager
Betz, Converse, Murdoch, Inc.
Plymouth Meeting
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19462
Shuster, Edward R.
Vice President
Newco Chemical Waste Systems, Inc.
4626 Royal Avenue
Niagra Falls, New York 14303
Sickler, R. Scott
Regulatory Analyst, Washington Affairs
Ford
815 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Simon, Jacky L.
Legal Assistant
Arnold & Porter
1229 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Simonsen, Bernard
Vice President
IT Corporation
336 W. Anaheim Street
Wilmington, California 90744
Shiver, James K.
Washington Rep.
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
1629 K Street,N.W.
Room 600
Washington, D.C. 20006
Simmons, Donald W.
Engineer
Environmental Control
National Steel Corp.
2800 Grant Building
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219
Simmons, Larry L.
Manager
Industrial Programs
Energy Impact Associates
P.O. Box 1899
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
11
-------
Smith, George C., Dr.
Technical Coordinator
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
900 Agnew Road
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
Sobel, Richard
Director Environmental
Services
Allied Chemical
P.O. Box 1087R
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Soffer, Douglas J.
American Management System, Inc.
1515 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Speary, William A., Jr.
Environmental Counsel
Browning Ferris Inc.
P.O. Box 3151
Houston, Texas 77001
Stankiewicz, Frank
Environmental Protection Dept.
American Cyanamid Co.
Berban Avenue
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
Steadoan, J.B.
Proj. Manager
Wiley & Wilson Inc.
2310 Langhorne Road
Lynchburg, Virginia 24505
Stern, Sharon L.
Associate
DeBevoise & Liberman
806 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Steinberg, Gary
Clean Waste Action Proj.
1341 G Street, N.W.
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20005
Stout, E.L.
Conservation Engineer
Atlantic Richfield Company
North American Producing Division
P.O. Box 2819
Dallas, Texas 75221
12
-------
Strohm, Carl
Env. Engineer
Metro Sanitary District
of Chicago
666 N. Lake Shore Drive
10th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Sullivan, J. Mark
Project Director
EPA SWM Project
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Suzuki, Robert H.
Corp. Environmental Control
Dept.
Mobay Chemical Corp.
Penn Lincoln Parkway West
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15216
Swartz, Fred W.
Washington Rep.
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tennille, Norton F., Jr.
Arnold & Porter
1229 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Taranto, B.L.
Environmental Control Advisor
Exxon Chemical Company, U.S.A.
P.O. Box 222
Linden, New Jersey 07036
Thiel, Robert S.
Corporate Environmental
Engineer
Velsicol Chemical Corp.
341 East Ohio Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Thillmann, John, H.
Chief Environmental Branch
Fairfax County Government
4100 Chain Bridge Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22039
Thomas, Gary
Bureau Chief
Griffin- Larrabee News
1237 National Press Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20045
Thomas, Jerry L.
Environmental Coordinator
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours S Co. (Inc.)
P.O. Box 27001
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Timberlake, Cecil H.
Federal Relations Representative
Phillips Petroleum Company
Suite 1107
1825 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Toothaker, Anne M.
Regulatory Affairs
Environmental Protection
General Electric Company
Building 36, Room 120
Schenectady, New York 12345
Torres, Donald T.
City of Baltimore Health Dept.
Room S-219
111 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Townsend, Steven
Sanitary Engineer
Philadelphia Water Dept.
1140 Municipal Serv. Bldg.
15th & J.F.K. Blvd.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
Trumble, Glenn
Engineer
Velsicol Chemical Corp.
1199 Warford Street
Memphis, Tennessee 38108
Tucker, R.E.
Director of Mkt.
Environmental Control
11300 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Turk, John G., Ph.D.
Vice President-Technical
Glass Packaging Institute
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
13
-------
Turner, James P.
Manager,
Manufacturing Chemists Assoc.
1825 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Vaugh, David R.
Specialist-Environmental Affairs
Olin Chemicals Group
120 Long Ridge Rd.
Stamford, Conn. 06904
Waldrop, Philip G.
Regional Planner
Great Lake Basin Commission
3475 Plymouth Rd.,
P.O. Box 999
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
Ward, S. Daniel, P.E.
Staff Engineer
Radin Corp.
7923 Jones Branch Dr.
McLean, Virginia 22102
Weinberg, David B.
Wald, Harkrader & Ross
1320 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC. 20036
Weidman, H.G.
Engineer
Exxon
P.O. Box 222
Linden, New Jersey 07036
Weinert, John R.,
Research Consultant
USS Chemicals
600 Grant Street, Room 2813
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
Weller, Janet
Associate
Cleary, Gottlieb
1250 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Wentworth, Marchant
Solid Waste Project
Environmental Action Foundation
1346 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Weller, Frank W.
Environmental Conservation Production
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
P.O. Box 2180
Houston, Texas 77001
Whitaker, Lida
Environmental Engineer
Chesnav facengcom
Bldg. 57
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, D.C. 20374
Wiechmann, Richard
Director of Environmental Affairs
American Paper Institute
1619 Mass. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Wilbur, Linda B.
Manager, Federal Monitoring
National SOlid Waste Management Assoc.
1120 Conn Avenue, N.W.
Suite 930
Washington, D.C. 20036
Wingerter, Eugene J.
Executive Director
National Solid Waste Management Assoc.
1120 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Suite 930
Washington, D.C. 20036
Wittman, Nelson, E.
Assistant Vice President
Government Relations
DuBois Chemicals
DuBoia Tower
Cincinnati, Oh'io 45202
Womack Don
Vice President
Texas Utilities Services Inc.
1150 Conn. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Woodson, D.L.
Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste
Management Board
P.O. Box 12312
Roanoke, Virginia 24024
14
-------
Wyche, Bradford, W.
Wald, Harkrader & Ross
1320 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Young, Earle P., Jr.
Assistant Vice President
Environmental Affairs
American Iron and Steel Institute
1000 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Zeigler, George A.
Manager, Government Relations
National Lime Assoc.
5010 Wisconsin Avenue
Washington D.C. 20016
ual744
SW-45P
Order No. 728
* U.S. GOVWIIWTPIIItmilSOfFICi ItTt- 620.-007/3720
15
-------
-------
------- |