Papers Presented by EPA Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response at the First Public Briefing on the 1984 Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Video Teleconference December 11, 1984 Washington, D.C. ------- . . M Street, s ------- N ------- Program Agenda Overview Lee N. Thomas, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste & Emergency Response Banning Waste from Land Disposal John H. Skinner, Director Office of Solid Waste Minimum Technology Requirements Michael B. Cook, Deputy Director Office of Solid Waste Corrective Action and Enforcement Gene A. Lucero, Director Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Permits and State Implementation. Bruce Weddle, Director Permits and State Programs Division, OSW Small Quantity Generators and Delisting... Eileen Claussen, Director Characterization & Assessment Division, OSW Leaking Underground Storage Tanks John P. Lehman, Director Waste Management & Economics Division, OSW ------- RCRA OVERVIEW Lee M. Thomas* As Mr. Ruckelshaus just said, this is the first of many public meetings we plan to hold on the RCRA Amendments. EPA hasn't yet worked out all of the interpretive issues associated with this very large and complex bill, but given the fact that it could take a while to resolve these issues, and that many of the requirements in the new law have either already taken effect or are about to do so soon, we thought we'd take this opportunity to try and accomplilsh two things. First, we'd like to acquaint you with our interpretation of the statutory requirements that go into effect relatively soon. These requirements will be referred to as the "Early Enactment Provisions." Second, we'd like to lay out some of the issues related to the amendments that we've been struggling with for the past few months, and to get your insights on how best to deal with them. This is by no means the only opportunity you'll have to express your thoughts to us on the Bill. In February and March we'll be holding 2 day sessions in Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Diego, and Dallas to present a more in-depth picture of the amendments. By then, we anticipate that problems with implementing the early enactment provisions will have started to surface. These longer sessions should provide a good forum for EPA, the States, and private interest groups to sit down and figure out how to address these problems. *Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Presented at the Public Briefing on the 1984 RCRA Amendments, December 11, 1984. ------- -2- Another method we're using to solicit early comments on the amendments is a rule we'll be issuing in the next few weeks. We call it the "Codification Rule," and what it does is take the requirements in the amendments that go into effect automatically by statute and place them in the appropriate sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. This eliminates the need for each of you to determine on your own which of our existing regulations have been superceded by statutory requirements. The Rule codifies 27 requirements, and I believe a summary of these requirements has been distributed to you. The Codification Rule by and large follows the statutory language. The intent of the regulation is not to substantively elaborate on the statutory provisions, but rather to introduce the new statutory language verbatim, to the extent possible, into the existing regulatory framework. However, in analyzing the various statutory provisions and the interplay between them, we've had to make some judgments about Congress' intent in bringing about certain changes. Although the Codification Rule adheres as closely as possible to the exact language used in the statute, there are instances where we've had to depart from a strict transposition in order to carry out Congress' purpose. The Preamble to the regulations highlights these instances and also raises various issues of interpretation. We encourage you to read the rule carefully and submit your views on the issues raised. We have provided a 60 day comment period for the package. ------- -3- I would, like to briefly mention another set of documents we'll be issuing on the early enactment provisions. We plan to issue about a dozen guidance documents within the next year. They fall into two categories. The first are procedural. Their purpose is to facilitate cooperative implementation of the hazardous waste program by giving the Regions and States a common set of procedures to work with. They deal with such topics as joint issuance of permits and the effect of the amendments on State authorization. The second set of documents is more substantive. They provide our interpretation of several key terms in the statute. For example, what is a double-liner or an exposure assessment? Some of the guidance may ultimately be replaced by regulations, as is the case for double-liners. However, in order to allow the permitting process to continue, we think it's necessary to provide some common level of understanding on the meaning of these key terms. Comments on these documents will also be asked for, and the documents will be revised as needed. Now, onto today's proceedings. Congress isn't the only one that establishes ambitious schedules for EPA. Occasionally, we do it ourselves; and today we'd like to cover all the early enactment provisions. The agenda is divided into six presentations, The format is the same for each. First, a person from my office with major responsibility for implementing a set of provisions will summarize them for about 10 minutes. Then, that person and a ------- -4- panel of experts from EPA will take questions from the audience. John Skinner is our first presenter. He'll describe the restrictions of the land disposal of hazardous waste required under the amendments. Although many of these provisions don't go into effect until well after two years, they're included on the agenda because of the dramatic effect they will have on hazardous waste management practices, and the attendant need to plan ahead. John is followed by Mike Cook. He'll be describing a set of design and performance standards known as the "Minium Technology Requirements." Mike's discussion will concentrate on the requirement for double-liners, and the implications of this requirement for both new and existing facilities. The last session of the morning will deal with EPA's new enforcement authorities under the amendments. Gene Lucero will make this presentation. After Gene's segment, we'll take a short meal break. You'll have several opportunities today to stretch your legs and confer with your colleagues about the program. In addition to the meal break, there will be 2 short recesses that Rich will announce on the air. The first comes up in about an hour; the other, later this afternoon. Bruce Weddle will start off the afternoon session with a two part discussion. The first deals with the amendment's effects on our ability to issue permits. The second addresses how the RCRA program partnership between EPA and the States will change the new Law. ------- -5- Eileen Claussen will speak next. Her presentation will focus on two subjects. First she'll describe the requirements that will soon apply to small quantity generators and the education program needed to inform these firms of their new responsibilities. Second, Eileen will explain the ways in which EPA's "Delisting" procedure has been changed under the new law. Jack Lehman will close the afternoon session with a description of EPA's program for underground tanks containing hazardous substances. This is a major new undertaking for the Office of Solid Waste, and Jack will outline the numerous activities EPA must conduct over the next few years related to these tanks. In particular, he will describe an important new requirement that becomes effective very soon—the ban of new steel tanks. The videoconference will end at 4:00 P. M. Eastern Time. We invite those of you in Washington, D.C. to stay and ask our speakers any questions you didn't get a chance to ask while we were on the air. They will be available until 5:30. I'd like to thank you for taking the time to participate in this videoconference, and I look forward to working with you in carrying out this challenging new program for controlling hazardous waste. ------- BANNING WASTES FROM LAND DISPOSAL John H. Skinner* PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE NEW LAW ARE THOSE THAT BAN OR RESTRICT THE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES ON THE LAND. TODAY, IN THE UNITED STATES, MOST HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE MANAGED BY DEPOSITING THEM INTO OR ON THE SURFACE OF THE LAND. 133 MILLION METRIC TONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ARE PLACED IN SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. THESE PONDS OR LAGOONS THAT CONTAIN LIQUID HAZARDOUS WASTE POSE SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION. OVER 30 MILLION METRIC TONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ARE DISPOSED OF BY INJECTION INTO DEEP UNDERGROUND WELLS, AND OVER 5 MILLION METRIC TONS OF WASTE PER YEAR ARE DISPOSED OF IN LANDFILLS, LAND TREATMENT FACILI- TIES, WASTE PILES, AND OTHER LAND DEPOSITORIES. CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT ALL OF THESE METHODS COULD POTENTIALLY RELEASE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. THEY ENACTED A SET OF PROVISIONS THAT WILL SEVERELY RESTRICT THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE ON THE LAND. IN THE FUTURE, THESE PROVISIONS WILL CAUSE A SHIFT TOWARDS THE REDUCTION OF WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, AND THE USE OF MORE SOPHISTICATED TREATMENT AND DESTRUCTION TECHNIQUES. UNDER THE NEW ACT, THERE IS A STRONG BIAS AGAINST THE LAND DISPOSAL OF WASTE. THE ACT REQUIRES THAT WE EVALUATE EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE IDENTIFIED IN OUR REGULATIONS AND DECIDE WHETHER THOSE WASTES CAN BE SAFELY DISPOSED OF ON THE LAND. THE ACT STATES THAT THE LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES IS TO BE PROHIBITED UNLESS EPA *blrector,Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ------- DETERMINES THAT SUCH A PROHIBITION IS NOT REQUIRED IN ORDER TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THE ACT SETS FORTH A VERY AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE FOR EPA TO REVIEW ALL HAZARDOUS HASTES AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN BE DISPOSED OF ON THE LAND. WITHIN 24 MONTHS, EPA MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO BAN THE DISPOSAL OF DIOXIN AND SOLVENT-CONTAINING WASTES. EIGHT MONTHS LATER, EPA MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO BAN THE DISPOSAL OF THE SO-CALLED "CALIFORNIA WASTES" —WASTES CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO SIMILAR CONTROLS UNDER THE NEW PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WITHIN 45 MONTHS OF ENACTMENT, EPA MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO BAN THESE WASTES FROM UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELLS. IF EPA FAILS TO MAKE A DECISION DURING THE ALLOTTED TIME FRAMES, THESE WASTES ARE AUTOMATICALLY PROHIBITED FROM DISPOSAL ON THE LAND. NO ACTION IS NECESSARY ON EPA'S PART. THE PROHIBITION IS PUT IN PLACE AUTOMATICALLY BY THE NEW LAW. THIS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THE STRENGTH OF THE INCLINATION AGAINST LAND DISPOSAL CONTAINED IN THIS ACT. UNLESS EPA POSITIVELY CONCLUDES THAT THE DISPOSAL OF THESE WASTES IS SAFE, THAT DIS- POSAL IS PROHIBITED. SO FAR, I'VE TALKED ABOUT DIOXINS, SOLVENTS, AND THE CALIFORNIA WASTES, BUT THE ACT SETS FORTH A SIMILAR PROGRAM FOR ALL HAZARDOUS WASTES THAT WE CURRENTLY REGULATE AS WELL AS THOSE WE WILL REGULATE IN THE FUTURE. WITHIN 24 MONTHS OF ENACTMENT, EPA MUST PUBLISH A SCHEDULE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TO BAN THE LAND DISPOSAL OF ALL HAZARDOUS WASTES LISTED IN OUR REGULATIONS. THE NEW LAW SAYS THAT WE SHOULD FIRST CONSIDER HIGH HAZARD, HIGH VOLUME WASTES. IT ALSO SETS THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SCHEDULE AND REQUIRES EPA ------- 3 TO REACH DECISIONS ON ONE-THIRD OF THE WASTES LISTED IN ODR REGU- LATIONS WITHIN 45 MONTHS, THE SECOND THIRD OF THE WASTES LISTED IN OUR REGULATIONS IN 55 MONTHS, AND ALL REMAINING WASTES WITHIN 66 MONTHS OF ENACTMENT. IN ADDITION, AS WE IDENTIFY NEW HAZARDOUS WASTES IN THE FUTURE, DECISIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL MUST BE MADE WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THAT DATE. CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT THE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ON THE LAND, IN SOME INSTANCES IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO ALLOW TIME FOR ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT CAPACITY TO BECOME AVAIL- ABLE. FOR THIS REASON, THE ACT ALLOWS SOME EXTENSIONS TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROHIBITIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROHIBITIONS CAN BE EXTENDED FOR UP TO 2 YEARS BEYOND THE DATES MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT AND PROCESS- ING CAPACITY IS NOT AVAILABLE. IN ADDITION, EXCEPTIONS CAN BE GRANTED TO INDIVIDUAL FACILITIES FOR UP TO 1 YEAR, AND RENEWED FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR. IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THESE EXEMPTIONS, IT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED THAT A BINDING CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT TO CONSTRUCT OR PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE CAPACITY HAS BEEN MADE. LET ME NOW REVIEW OUR PLANS FOR ISSUING REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THESE KEY PROVISIONS OF THE NEW ACT. THE FIRST REGULATION WE WILL ISSUE WILL COVER THE SCHEDULE THAT EPA WILL USE TO REVIEW ALL OF THE WASTES LISTED IN OUR REGULATIONS. THIS SCHEDULE IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL IDENTIFY WHICH WASTES WE WILL EVALUATE FIRST AND WHICH WASTES WILL BE EVALUATED LATER. IT WILL PLACE THE WASTES IN 3 CATEGORIES TO BE REVIEWED OVER THE 45, 55, AND 66 MONTH TIME FRAME. ------- CONGRESS WANTED THIS SCHEDULE TO BE DEVELOPED WITHIN 24 MONTHS, AND IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, EXEMPTED THIS REGULATION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OP THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT. THIS MEANS THAT WE CAN ISSUE THIS REGULATION WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY FOR NOTICE AND PUBLIC COMMENT, WHICH IS USUALLY REQUIRED BY THAT ACT. WE HAVE DECIDED, HOWEVER, THAT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THIS PROGRAM IS ESSENTIAL AND WE WILL ISSUE A PROPOSED REGULATION FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT BEFORE ISSUING THE FINAL RULE. WE WILL HAVE AN EARLY DRAFT OF THIS REGULATION AVAILABLE IN MID-FEBRUARY 1985. AT THAT TIME, WE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS THIS DRAFT WITH INTERESTED PARTIES. WE WILL MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO CONTACT STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS, AS WELL AS THE REGULATED INDUSTRIES. OPEN COMMUNICATION WITH ALL INTERESTED PARTIES IS A BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT WE WILL FOLLOW THROUGHOUT THIS EFFORT. THE PROPOSED REGULATION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER IN THE SUMMER OF 1985 AND WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A 60-DAY FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. WE WILL THEN DEVELOP THE FINAL RULE WITH THE GOAL TO PUBLISH IT BY THE STATUTORY DEADLINE OF NOVEMBER 8TH, 1986. THE SECOND REGULATION THAT WE ISSUE WILL COVER 4 SUBJECTS. THE FIRST WILL BE THE "DECISION RULE" THAT EPA WILL USE TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO PROHIBIT THE DISPOSAL OF VARIOUS WASTES. IN ORDER TO PUT THIS "DECISION RULE" IN CONTEXT, WE WILL THEN APPLY IT TO THE FIRST SET OF WASTES THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO EVALUATE—THE DIOXIN, SOLVENT, AND CALIFORNIA WASTES. THIS WILL BE THE SECOND ------- 5 SUBJECT COVERED BY THIS REGULATION—A DECISION ON WHETHER TO PRO- HIBIT DISPOSAL OF THESE PARTICULAR WASTES. THIRDLY, WE WILL ESTABLISH TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR THESE WASTES. THESE WILL SPECIFY THE LEVEL OF TREATMENT NECESSARY SO THAT THE PROHIBITED WASTES CAN BE DISPOSED OF ON THE LAND, FINALLY, WE WILL ESTABLISH THE CRITERIA TO BE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO EXTEND THE EFFECTIVE DATES FOR THE PROHIBITIONS. WE WILL ALSO ALLOW FOR CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC REVIEW OF THIS IMPORTANT FOUR-PART RULE. AN EARLY DRAFT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSION IN SEPTEMBER 1985 AND A FORMAL PROPOSAL WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER BY THE END OF 1985. AGAIN, WE PLAN TO ISSUE A FINAL RULE BY THE STATUTORY DEADLINE OF NOVEMBER 8, 1986. WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN? WHERE WILL THESE PROVISIONS LEAVE US ULTIMATELY? TO BEGIN WITH, IN LIGHT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS, GENERATORS WILL SEEK OUT MEANS OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF WASTE PRODUCED IN THE FIRST PLACE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY WILL ATTEMPT TO RECYCLE AND RE-USE WASTES SO THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO BE DISPOSED OF. CERTAIN HAZARDOUS WASTES, SUCH AS ORGANICS, WILL BE DESTROYED THROUGH INCINERATION AND ACIDS AND BASES WILL BE NEUTRALIZED. WASTES CONTAINING INORGANICS, SUCH AS HEAVY METALS, WILL BE TREATED THROUGH STABILIZATION OR FIXATION. IN THESE TREAT- MENT PROCESSES, THE METALS ARE TIED UP IN A CHEMICAL MATRIX SO THAT THEY DON'T LEACH. FINALLY, FOR THOSE WASTES THAT ARE ALLOWED TO BE DISPOSED OF ON THE LAND, THE DISPOSAL FACILITY WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH STRINGENT DESIGN AND OPERATING STANDARDS. MIKE COOK WILL ADDRESS THIS LATER ON. ------- EVERYONE REALIZES THAT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE RESIDUALS THAT MUST BE DISPOSED OF ON THE LAND; BUT, IN THE FUTURE, UNDER THE NEW LAW, THESE RESIDUALS WILL BE REDUCED TO A MINIMUM AND THEN SUBJECT TO CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND PHYSICAL TREATMENT PROCESSES SO THAT THE POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATION FROM LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES IS GREATLY LESSENED. ------- MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS Michael B. Cook* The set of requirements covering mininum technology will drastically change the way hazardous waste is disposed of in the very near future. These are the so-called "minimum technology standards," a set of unusually specific statutory requirements tht significantly enhance EPA's current rules. for some of these requirements — for example, the air emission and leak detection standards — EPA must promulgate regulations before the requirements can go into effect. Because it takes a fairly long time to propose and finalize a rule, the impact of these statutory minima won't be felt for several years. Other tech- nology requirements go into effect automatically by statute. Obcviously, their impact is more immediate. EPA's current regulations for liners differ depending on whether the facility is permitted or is operating under interim status. For permitted facilities, the regulatory mimina is a single liner and leachate collection. During interim status, neither a liner or leachate collection is required. The amendments change this by prescribing two liners and leachate collection for both types of facilities. Prom now on, in order to receive a permit, owners and oper- ators of new surface impoundments must install two liners and a leachate collection system above the top liner. For landfills *Deputy Director, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ------- - 2 - the requirement is almost the same, except that two leachate collection systems are required: one above, and the other between the liners. The codification rule, that Lee Thomas described earlier, amends Part 264 of our regulations to incorporate the double liner requirement. We have not at this point specified the types of liners that must be installed to comply with the re- quirement. Rather, the codification rule merely repeats the statutory test — that the liners protect human health and the environment. The amendments give EPA two years to revise its regulations. In the meantime, however, EPA plans to issue guidance documents to inform owners and operators of what we think are acceptable liner systems. This should facilitate the permitting process by reducing the need for permit writers to determine on their own the adequacy of liners described in individual permit applications. EPA plans to issue this guidance in March of next year. Understandably, most permit applications received thus far \ do not reflect the double liner requirement. Thus, owners and operators will have to revise their applications before EPA can process them. As will be explained this afternoon, all permit applications for land disposal facilities are due by next November. As far as interim status facilities are concerned, landfill units that first receive hazardous waste after May 8, 1985 are ------- - 3 - subject to the same requirements for liners and leachate col- lection as permitted landfills. Furthermore, in order to provide EPA the opportunity to inspect the liner system before the unit is filled, the amendments require that the owner or operator notify EPA sixty days before using it. If an owner or operator laterally expands a landfill unit after May 8th, that unit is also subject to the double liner requirement. The same is true for surface impoundments. A significant difference, however, in the statutory treatment of the two types of facilities has to do with retrofitting. Unlike landfills, existing surface impoundments must be emptied, and double liners and leachate collection systems installed, by November of 1988. Failure to meet the deadline does not result in the impoundment's closure. It does, however, foreclose plac- ing additional hazardous waste in the impoundment. Because this aspect of the double liner provision is the most expensive of the minimum technology requirements, I will give a fairly detailed description of the statutory variances from the requirement. There are three narrow, and one potentially broad exempt- ions to the retrofitting requirement. The first of the narrow exemptions applies to single-lined impoundments that are located greater than a quarter mile from an underground source of drinking water. Because about ninety-five percent of exist- ing impoundments are located within such areas, few facilities will qualify for this variance. ------- A second narrow exemption is provided for impoundments for which a consent decree was entered into before November 8th. If the decree happened to require corrective action and ensured protection of human health and the environment equivalent to a double liner and leachate collection, the impoundment need not be retrofitted. EPA is unaware of any consent decrees that meet these criteria. The third statutory exemption is currently unavailable. It specifies that if EPA promulgates design, operation and location standards that collectively provide protection of human health and the environment equivalent to a double liner system, then impoundments that meet these standards are exempted from the double liner requirement. We anticipate that a very small fraction of the country will satisfy the locational aspects of these future standards. The fourth, and most significant exemption from the double liner requirement is provided for wastewater impoundments. There are four criteria for this exemption. First, the impoundment must be conducting "aggressive" biological treatment. This is not as restrictive as it might sound; the legislative history includes, for example, aeration within the definition of aggressive biological treatment. Second, the facility must be subject to section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Third, the impoundment must be in compliance with the Part 264 ground-water monitoring stand- ards. The fourth criterion ties into the effluent guidelines ------- - 5 - program, if an effluent guideline has been written for the facility, the facility must be in compliance with it in order to escape the retrofitting requirement. If there is no applicable effluent guideline, and the facility is not implementing "Best Available Technology" based on a so-called BPJ permit, then to qualify for a variance, the impoundment must be part of a facility that is achieving a significant degradation in the untreated wastestream of the priority pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and the "Appendix Eight" constituents regulated under RCRA. Needless to say, guidance documents will have to be written to inform applicants and permit writers of the type of information needed to process requests for this particular waiver. In general, in order to obtain any of the variances just described, owners or operators must do three things. First, they must apply for the variance by November of 1986. Second, they must submit groundwater monitoring data, and all reasonably ascertainable evidence on whether the impoundment is leaking. And third, they must have a registered professional engineer certify that the impoundment meets the criteria for a variance. EPA, in turn, must provide notice and comment, and process the waiver application by November of 1987. If EPA later determines that an impoundment granted a variance is likely to leak hazardous constituents to ground water, EPA is empowered to require that impoundment to retrofit. An exception to this ------- - 6 - broad authority is provided for wastewater impoundments. For these impoundments, in order to withdraw the variance, EPA must find that the impoundment is actually leaking — not simply likely to leak — and that the owner or operator has failed to demonstrate that retrofitting is not needed to protect human health and the environment. Presumably, the Congress wanted to preserve for wastewater impoundments the option of using cor- rective action in lieu of retrofitting where installation of a double liner is not absolutely necessary. To summarize, the minimum technology requirement for double liners and leachate collection has a significant and, in most cases, immediate impact on land disposal facilities. By next November, all permit applications must incorporate the statutory minima. For interim status facilities, all new units must be double-lined starting next May, and all waiver applications for the retrofitting requirement must be submitted by November of 1986. Facilities should start planning today — either for the liners they will have to install, or the data they will have to compile in order to qualify for a variance from this minimum technology requirement. ------- CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ENFORCEMENT GENE A. LUCERO * I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THE RCRA AMENDMENTS ON INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT. CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOW LEVELS OF COMPLIANCE AND CERTAIN GAPS IN AUTHORITY WHICH FRUSTRATED OUR ACHIEVING A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES GIVE THE AGENCY VERY BROAD AUTHORITIES TO ORDER CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. IN OUR OPINION, THIS AUTHORITY WILL RESULT IN A CLEANUP PROGRAM FOR RCRA REGULATED FACILITIES SIMILAR TO THAT FOR UNCON- TROLLED SITES UNDER THE SUPERFUND LAW. EQUALLY DRAMATIC, CONGRESS MANDATED MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERIM STATUS FACILITIES. NEW AND CERTAIN OTHER UNITS AT LANDFILLS AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE DOUBLE LINERS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF ENACTMENT. ASSURING COMPLIANCE HERE WILL BE A NEW AND VERY IMPORTANT, EFFORT FOR EPA AND THE DELEGATED STATES. IN ORDER TO IMPROVE COMPLIANCE, CONGRESS ALSO DIRECTED THAT CERTAIN INTERIM STATUS FACILITIES MUST CERTIFY THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, WITHIN 1 YEAR OF ENACTMENT OR FACE LOSS OF INTERIM STATUS, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO CLOSURE. THE REAUTHORIZATION ACT ALSO REQUIRES INSPECTIONS OF ALL FACILITIES AT LEAST ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS; DIRECTS EPA TO DO INSPECTIONS OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL FACILITIES; AND BRINGS SEVERAL NEW CATEGORIES OF HANDLERS UNDER THE REGULATORY COVERAGE OF RCRA. NEEDLESS TO SAY, ALL THIS PRESENTS US WITH MAJOR NEW RESPONSIBILITIES WHICH MUST BE ADDED TO THE BASIC INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY. *Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ------- NOW, SOME DETAILS. TOE CORRECTIVE ACTION AUTHORITY FOR INTERIM STATUS FACILITIES IS SET OUT IN A NEW SECTION, S 3008(h) . IT STATES THAT WHENEVER THERE IS OR HAS BEEN A RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE INTO THE ENVIRONMENT, THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY ISSUE AN ORDER OR BEGIN A CIVIL ACTION IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT REQUIRING CORRCTIVE ACTION. WE INTERPRET THE TERMS BROADLY. THE TERM "RELEASE" MEANS EITHER A PAST OR PRESENT RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE OR CONSTITUENTS. THE RELEASE MAY BE FROM EITHER A HAZARDOUS WASTE OR A SOLID WASTE UNIT. AND, IT MAY BE INTO THE AIR, LAND, SURFACE WATER OR GROUNDWATER TO TRIGGER THIS NEW AUTHORITY. WE READ THE TERM "CORRECTIVE ACTION" TO COVER THE FULL RANGE OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS, FROM STUDIES TO "QUICK FIX" MEASURES TO FULL "CLEAN UPS". IT IS EASY TO IDENTIFY MANY CONDITIONS WHICH MAY EXIST AT INTERIM STATUS FACILITIES WHICH A CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDER CAN PROMPTLY ADDRESS. THE IMPACT OF THESE ORDERS WILL BE INCREASED BY THE STIFF PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE. A VIOLATOR CAN BE FINED UP TO $25,000 PER DAY OF NONCOMPLIANCE AND THE INTERIM STATUS OF THE OFFENDING FACILITY MAY BE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED. A SIMILAR CORRECTIVE ACTION AUTHORITY HAS BEEN CREATED FOR PERMITTED FACILITIES. CORRECTIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED IN THE PERMITS " ...FOR ALL RELEASES.. .FROM ANY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT.. JVT A TREATMENT, STORAGE OR DISPOSAL FACILITY...SEEKING A PERMIT...REGARDLESS OF THE TIME AT WHICH ------- WASTE WAS PLACED IN THE UNIT." AND IN A THIRD SECTION, CONGRESS ALSO DIRECTED THE AGENCY TO ORDER CORRECTIVE ACTION BEYOND THE FACILITY BOUNDARY, ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, PENDING NEW REGULTIONS. TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE AMENDMENTS CONVEY TO THE AGENCY AND AUTHORIZED STATES THE JURISDICTION TO HANDLE CERTAIN RELEASES WHICH PREVIOUSLY COULD ONLY BE REACHED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUPERFUND. IN A SEPARATE AMENDMENT, CONGRESS ALSO REVISED SECTION 7003, THE IMMINENT HAZARD AUTHORITY, TO MAKE IT EQUAL IN SCOPE WITH SECTION 106 OF CERCLA. THESE ARE CLEARLY NEW MEANS TO DEAL WITH RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES THAT IN THE PAST WERE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF RCRA. WE ARE WORKING ON THE QUESTION OF WHEN IT IS BEST TO USE THE DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES. SOME CASES ARE CLEAR. FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE A COMPANY IS CLOSING AN INTERIM STATUS UNIT BECAUSE IT CANNOT OBTAIN A PERMIT, ISSUING A CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDER MAY BE THE BEST MEANS TO REQUIRE CERTAIN STUDIES FOR PROPER CLOSURE TO BE PERMORMED, OR TO DIRECT "QUICK FIXES" TO BE MADE. THIS MIGHT BE ESPECIALLY USEFUL IF THERE ARE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMPANY'S SOLVENCY. GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF THESE AUTHORITIES WILL BE AVAILABLE EARLY IN 1985. THIS DOCUMENT WILL ALSO SPEAK TO HOW TO CHOOSE BETWEEN RCRA AND SUPERFUND APPROACHES, AND HOW TO USE THEM IN TANDEM WITH ONE ANOTHER. ------- LET ME NOW TURN TO ANOTHER PROVISION WITH MAJOR IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY — MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS FOR INTERIM STATUS FACILITIES. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DOUBLE LINER AND DOUBLE LEACHATE COLLECTION REMOVAL SYSTEM FOR LANDFILLS AND A DOUBLE LINER AND SINGLE LEACHATE COLLECTION REMOVAL SYSTEM FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS GO INTO EFFECT 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ENACTMENT, OR ON MAY 8th, 1985. ALL NEW UNITS AND LATERAL EXPANSIONS AT EXISTING INTERIM STATUS FACILITIES, ARE SUBJECT TO THESE REQUIREMENTS. THESE SYSTEMS MUST BE INSTALLED AND OPERATED IN "GOOD FAITH" COMPLIANCE WITH EPA GUIDANCE AND REGULATIONS. AS ALREADY DISCUSSED, THIS GUIDANCE WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU IN THE BEGINNING OF 1985. MONITORING COMPLIANCE TO ENSURE THAT THESE SYSTEMS ARE INSTALLED AND OPERATED IN "GOOD FAITH" WILL BE A CHALLENGE. EPA AND THE STATES, WILL NOT HAVE A NEW ARMY OF INSPECTORS FOR THIS TASK. TO HELP IN THIS EFFORT, THE STATUTE REQUIRES PRIOR NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF WASTE. AS PROPOSED IN THE INTERIM FINAL RULE, WE ARE ALSO CONSIDERING REQUIRING, THROUGH FURTHER RULE- MAKING, PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF WHEN THE SYSTEM IS TO BE INSTALLED AND DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE DESIGN OF SYSTEM AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFIED BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER. WE MAY ALSO REQUIRE THAT DETAILED RECORDS BE KEPT, INCLUDING STEP-BY-STEP CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATIONS. UNTIL REGULATIONS ARE ISSUED, WE SUGGEST THAT FOLLOWING THESE TYPES OF PROCEDURES WILL BE EVIDENCE OF GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE WHEN THE FACILITY SEEKS A PERMIT. THIS APPROACH, HOWEVER, MUST BE COUPLED WITH SELECTIVE INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT. ------- A THIRD IMPORTANT CHANGE TO THE LAW INVOLVES EXPANSION OF THE INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITIES OF EPA AND THE STATES. THE NEW RCRA PROVISIONS MANDATE THE TIMING OF INSPECTIONS AND AN INSPECTION REGULATION. FOR EXAMPLE, ALL TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES MUST BE INSPECTED NO LESS THAN ONCE EVERY 2 YEARS, BEGINNING A YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF ENACTMENT. IN ADDITION, THE AGENCY IS REQUIRED TO ISSUE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE MANNER AND FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS. AND SIGNIFICANTLY, THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES EPA TO INSPECT FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL FACILITIES ANNUALLY. AS YOU HEARD EARLIER TODAY, A WHOLE NEW SET OF HANDLERS ARE NOW SUBJECT TO RCRA REGULATIONS. THE INCLUSION OF SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS IN THE REGULATORY SYSTEM IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. RECOGNIZING THE DIFFICULTY OF INSPECTING THIS MUCH LARGER UNIVERSE OF REGULATED HANDLERS, CONGRESS HAS REQUESTED THAT THE AGENCY DEVELOP A REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE POTENTIAL FOR SUPPLEMENTING EPA AND STATE INSPECTIONS WITH PRIVATE INSPECTIONS. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING INTO ADOPTING NON-TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES FOR INSPECTING AND ENFORCING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE NEWLY REGULATED COMMUNITIES. WE'RE CURRENTLY EXAMINING SEVERAL OPTIONS, SUCH AS ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING, AND WE'LL BE CONTACTING THE STATES, COMPANIES OFFERING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENT INSURANCE, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO MORE FULLY EXPLORE THOSE OPTIONS. CONGRESS'S STRONG STANCE ON THE NEED FOR IMPROVED RCRA COMPLIANCE IS EVIDENCED BY THE NEW INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS BY A NEW PROVISION THAT TERMINATES INTERIM STATUS AUTOMATICALLY IF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS SET ------- FORTH BY THE STATUTE ARE NOT MET. THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE INTERIM STATUS LANDFILLS WILL LOSE INTERIM STATUS UNLESS THE FACILITY CERTIFIES COMPLIANCE WITH GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMITS THEIR PART B APPLICATION OR CLOSURE PLAN BY NOVEMBER 8th, 1985. THAT'S LESS THAN A YEAR AWAY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS TO UPGRADE THE FACILITY'S COMPLIANCE NOW WHILE IN INTERIM STATUS SO THAT THE FACILITY IS CLOSER TO ACHIEVING PERMITTING STANDARDS. FOR THOSE FACILITIES THAT CAN'T DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE, INTERIM STATUS WILL BE REVOKED AUTOMATICALLY BY STATUTE. LET HE MAKE IT CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THE REVOCATION OF INTERIM STATUS DOESN'T RELIEVE FACILITIES FROM CLOSURE OR POST-CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AS WELL, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME I WON'T DISCUSS THEM HERE TODAY. FOR MORE INFORMATION, I DIRECT YOU TO THOSE PROVISIONS REGARDING GREATER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 7003 SETTLEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZEN SUITS. THERE WILL ALSO BE NEW INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES COVERING SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS, UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS, AND BURNERS AND BLENDERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. ------- PERMITS AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION Bruce Weddle* Perhaps the biggest challenge those of you in the Regions and States will experience as a result of the new legislation will be in the permit program. Almost all of the new provisions will directly or indirectly affect the issuance of permits. The regulated community will begin to see the impact of many of the Act's new provisions through the permit application and issuance process. All permits issued after the 8th of November, must incor- porate many of the Act's new provisions. For example, landfill permits for new units, replacements or lateral expansions must now include requirements for two or more liners with leachate collection above and between the liners. All permits must also provide for corrective action for releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from all solid waste management units at the facility, regardless of the time at which waste was placed there. It's important to note that the permit doesn't have to identify the nature and extent of the release, nor is it necessary for the permit to specify the exact corrective action to be followed. Permits may be issued with compliance schedules that establish a timetable for gathering data necessary to determine the magnitude of the release as well as for the corrective action needed. Permits for landfill facilities must also include a ban on the placement of bulk liquid hazardous waste after May 8th, 1985 and a ban on the placement of any liquids after November 8th, 1986. *Director, Permits & State Programs Division, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ------- However, a limited waiver is available for this requirement. Finally, landfill permits must include a five year re-opener provision for review and modification of the permit. Permits for new surface impoundments and expansions and replacements of existing surface impoundments must include require- ments for two or more liners with leachate collection between the liners. Permits for existing surface impoundments must require the installation of double liners and a leachate collection system within four years of the date of enactment. As Mike Cook explained before lunch, the Act establishes a possible exemption from this requirement if the exemption request is received within 2 years of the date of enactment. Surface impoundment permits, like landfill permits, must require corrective action for prior releases from all units and provide for a five year review. Finally, permits for incinerators and treatment and storage facilities must, like landfill and surface impoundment permits, require corrective action and financial assurance for releases of hazardous constituents from all current or past solid waste manage- ment units at the facility. Another provision of the Act requires landfill and surface impoundment facility owners and operators to submit exposure assess- ments. These assessments are to be developed from readily available information. They must address potential avenues of public exposure to any hazardous substances released from the permitted units. This ------- -3- permitted units. This includes releases that may be associated with transportation of hazardous waste to or from the facility, and releases occurring from both normal operations and from accidents at the facility. The assessment must also identify other potential pathways of human exposure. Owners and operators who already have submitted a permit application or who will submit their applications during the next 8 months must submit their exposure assessments by August 8thf 1985. All permit applications for landfill and surface impoundment facilities which are received after that date must include an exposure assessment. The Act provides that a health assessment be conducted when- ever EPA or an authorized State judges that a landfill or surface impoundment may pose a substantial health risk. This assessment would be performed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry which is part of the Center for Disease Control. In addition to these major new provisions, the Act establishes permit application submittal deadlines and requires EPA and the States to accelerate the permit issuance process. Specifically, all existing land disposal permit applications must be submited by November 8th, 1985 or the facility loses interim status and must close. EPA and Authorized States have until November 1988 to issue all land disposal permit applications. Existing incinerator facility owners and operators have until November 1986 to submit their permit applications. If they fail to meet this deadline, they lose their ------- -4- interim status in November of 1989. That is also the date the Act establishes for EPA and the States to complete issuance of all incinerator permits. The remaining facility owners and operators have until November, 1988 to submit their applications. Failure to meet this deadline will result in loss of interim status for these facilities in November of 1992. That is also the date the Act establishes for EPA and the States to complete issuance of these permits. Obviously the new provisions of the Act have an immediate impact on current Federal and State permitting activities. For example, in response to the new legislative timetable, we will accelerate the mailing of permit application request letters in order to complete all land disposal call ins by May of 1985. We will continue our current practice of conducting joint inspection and permit writer site visits within 90 days of the permit applica- tion request. These visits will be used to assist facilities to understand the new requirements as well as to offer advice on those application requirements that haven't changed. For those permit applications currently being processed, we, and authorized states, will begin immediately to apply the new provisions. Guidance documents covering the new requirements are currently being developed. I anticipate that draft guidance on the double liner and corrective action requirements will be avail- able for public review and comment within a month and in final ------- -5- form by March. In the meantime, all applicants will be contacted to determine if they have any closed or unregulated solid waste management units at their facility. Permit processing will continue while investigations are conducted to determine if a release has or is occurring at the facility. Our permitting priorities will remain largely unchanged. We will continue to emphasize the permitting of land disposal and incinerator facilities. Likewise, the issuance of permits to new facilities that provide treatment alternatives to land disposal will be a top priority. The Act provides new permitting authority in this area. Research, development and demonstration permits may now be issued to any hazardous waste treatment facility which proposes to use an innovative or experimental technology even though permit standards have not been published for that technology. Further, we now have the authority to modify or waive any permit application and issuance requirements except for those governing public partici- pation and financial responsibility. This authority, coupled with the banning of certain wastes from land disposal will provide a strong incentive to spur the development of new treatment technology. The final point I would like to make is that the provisions of the Act go into effect simultaneously in Authorized States and in States where EPA runs the program. EPA will therefore initially be required to implement the new provisions in Authorized States. This ------- -6- creates a situation where EPA and the Authorized State will need to work very closely together and to jointly issue facility permits. That is, the State will issue the portion of the permit that it is authorized for and EPA will issue the remaining portion of the permit. In conclusion, over the next few months EPA will — (1) issue the guidance necessary to interpret the new statutory provisions so as to enable the permit program to sustain its current momentum; (2) establish a joint permitting relationship with each State hazardous waste program that will enable permit processing and issu- ance in a timely manner; and (3) establish, in a broader sense, a relationship with the States that will lead to cooperative imple- mentation of the new requirements and expedite the process of authorizing States for the new statutory provisions. ------- SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS AND DELISTING Eileen Claussen* THE RCRA REAUTHORIZATION ACT GREATLY INCREASES THE NUMBER OF FIRMS THAT WILL BE REGULATED UNDER THE HAZARDOUS WASTE RULES. UNDER THE FEDERAL RCRA REGULATIONS ISSUED IN 1980, ONLY THOSE WHO GENER- ATED OVER 1000 KILOGRAMS OR 2200 POUNDS PER MONTH OF MOST HAZARDOUS WASTES WERE REGULATED AS HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS. WE ESTIMATE THAT THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 15,000 GENERATORS THAT FALL WITHIN THIS CATEGORY. THE NEW BILL, HOWEVER, REQUIRES THAT WE REGULATE ALL THOSE WHO GENERATE OVER 100 KILOGRAMS OR 220 POUNDS PER MONTH. 100 KILOGRAMS IS ROUGHLY HALF OF A 55 GALLON DRUM. WE BELIEVE THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF FEDERALLY REGULATED HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS BY 100 TO 130 THOU- SAND. WHO ARE THESE SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE? A SURVEY WE RECENTLY COMPLETED SUGGESTS THAT MORE THAN HALF OF THESE SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS FALL INTO FIVE INDUSTRY CATEGORIES: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, METAL MANUFACTURING AND FINISHING, PRINT- ING, PHOTOGRAPHY, AND LAUNDRIES AND DRY CLEANING. OTHER INDUSTRY GROUPS THAT WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SMALL QUANTITY GENER- ATORS INCLUDE WOOD PRESERVING, ANALYTICAL AND CLINICAL LABORATOR- IES, CONSTRUCTION AND PESTICIDE APPLICATORS. WHAT NEW REQUIREMENTS WILL THESE FIRMS BE FACING IN THE NEAR FUTURE? THE NEW ACT IS VERY SPECIFIC IN WHAT IT REQUIRES. BEGIN- NING IN AUGUST OF 1985, ALL THOSE WHO GENERATE BETWEEN 100 KILOGRAMS AND 1000 KILOGRAMS PER MONTH MUST COMPLETE PARTS OF THE UNIFORM NATIONAL MANIFEST WHEN THEY SHIP WASTES OFF THEIR PREMISES FOR •Director, Characterization & Assessment Division, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ------- 2 STORAGE, TREATMENT, OR DISPOSAL. THE INFORMATION THAT MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE MANIFEST FORM INCLUDES THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE GENERATOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTE, THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF CONTAINERS, THE QUANTITY OF WASTE, AND THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE FACILITY TO WHICH THE WASTE IS BEING SHIPPED. THE REQUIREMENT THAT I HAVE JUST OUTLINED COVERS THE PERIOD BETWEEN AUGUST OF 1985 AND APRIL OF 1986. BY MARCH 31, 1986, EPA IS RE- QUIRED TO PUT OUT COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FOR SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS PRODUCING 100 KILO- GRAMS PER MONTH OR MORE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. AT A MINIMUM, THESE STANDARDS MUST REQUIRE THAT ALL TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL OF SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTE OCCUR AT A REGULATED HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY, AND THAT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS USE THE UNIFORM NATIONAL MANIFEST WHEN WASTE IS SHIPPED OFF THEIR SITE. AT THE PRESENT TIME, 14 STATES REQUIRE SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS OF OVER 100 KILOGRAMS OF WASTE PER MONTH TO MANIFEST THEIR WASTES, AND 20 STATES REQUIRE DISPOSAL OF SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTE IN A LICENSED HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY. AS A RESULT OF THE NEW ACT, A GREAT MANY ADDITIONAL FIRMS WILL HAVE NEW REQUIREMENTS TO MEET, AND WE FEEL IT IS IMPERATIVE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THIS NEW UNIVERSE OF REGULATED FIRMS. WE PLAN TO WORK WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EPA REGIONAL OFFICES, STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES, AND WITH TRADE AND PROFESSIONAL ASSO- CIATIONS THAT REPRESENT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS TO DEVELOP PRO- GRAMS TO EDUCATE AND ASSIST NEWLY REGULATED FIRMS. WE PLAN TO ------- 3 DEVELOP MATERIAL TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE NEW REQUIREMENTS ARE. WE EXPECT TO DISTRIBUTE THIS INFORMATION THROUGH THE STATES, TRADE GROUPS AND PERHAPS EVEN BY DIRECT MAIL. ALONG WITH THESE ACTIVI- TIES, WE'LL BE DEVELOPING RULES TO MEET THE MARCH 31, 1986 DEADLINE AND HOPE TO PROPOSE REGULATIONS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER THIS SUMMER. IN ADDITION TO GREATLY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF FIRMS AND FACILITIES THAT WILL BE REGULATED UNDER THE HAZARDOUS WASTE RULES, THE REAUTHORIZATION ALSO REQUIRES THAT WE EXPAND THE KINDS OF WASTES INCLUDED IN THE REGULATORY SYSTEM. THE AGENCY IS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO MAKE DECISIONS ON 18 NEW INDUSTRY SEGMENTS OVER THE NEXT 15 MONTHS, AND IS ALSO REQUIRED TO DEVELOP NEW CHARACTERIS- TICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AS APPROPRIATE. OF EQUAL SIGNIFICANCE ARE THE NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR DELISTINGS. UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, MEMBERS OF THE REGULATED COMMUNITY CAN PETITION THE AGENCY AND INDICATE THAT THE WASTE THEY PRODUCE DOES NOT MEET ANY OF THE CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE WASTE WAS LISTED AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE REGULATED AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE. THE NEW AMENDMENTS CHANGE THIS STANDARD. THE PETITIONER MUST NOW PROVIDE, AND THE AGENCY MUST NOW CONSIDER, INFORMATION ON THE PRESENCE OF ADDITIONAL CONSTITUENTS THAT COULD RENDER THE WASTE HAZARDOUS. THE DELISTING TEST, THEN, BECOMES TWO-PRONGED. THE AGENCY MUST CONSIDER BOTH THE FACTORS FOR WHICH THE WASTE WAS LISTED, AND THE FACTORS AND CONSTITUENTS OTHER THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THE WASTE WAS LISTED IF WE HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT THESE ADDITIONAL CONSTITUENTS COULD CAUSE THE WASTE TO BE HAZARDOUS. TO SATISFY THIS TEST, THE PETITIONER MUST SUBMIT SUFFICIENT INFOR- MATION TO THE AGENCY SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO ------- 4 WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT OTHER CONSTITU- ENTS MAY BE PRESENT IN SIGNIFICANT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE WASTE. THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER VERY IMPORTANT PROVISIONS IN THE AMENDMENTS THAT DEAL WITH DELISTING. HISTORICALLY, EPA HAS GRANTED WHAT WE CALL "TEMPORARY DELISTINGS" THAT WERE IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AND ALLOWED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE SAME TIME. THE NEW AMENDMENTS REQUIRE THAT WE GO THROUGH NOTICE AND COMMENT RULEMAKINGS, WHICH MEANS WE WILL PROPOSE, RECEIVE, AND EVALUATE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN GO THROUGH A FINAL RULEMAKING. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROPOSE DECISIONS WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF RECEIVING A COMPLETED PETITION, AND GRANT OR DENY A PETITION WITHIN 24 MONTHS. PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT PROVISION IN THE AMENDMENTS THAT DEALS WITH DELISTING CONCERNS THE TEMPORARY DELISTING DECISIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE. WE HAVE ONLY UNTIL NOVEMBER 1986 TO PROPOSE AND GO FINAL WITH THESE DETERMINATIONS CONSIDERING ADDITIONAL CONSTITUENTS THAT MAY BE IN THE WASTE. IF THE AGENCY HAS NOT MADE FINAL DETERMINATIONS WITHIN THIS PERIOD, THE TEMPORARY EXCLU- SIONS ALREADY GRANTED ARE RENDERED VOID, AND THE WASTES MUST BE MANAGED AS HAZARDOUS WASTES. THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 225 PETITIONS IN THIS CATEGORY. WE HAVE ALREADY SENT LETTERS TO ALL PETITIONERS THAT FALL WITHIN THIS AREA, AND HAVE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM SOME PETITIONERS. HOWEVER, 24 MONTHS IS NOT A VERY LONG TIME FOR US TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS AND CONDUCT RULEMAKING ON SUCH A LARGE QUANTITY OF DATA. WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS IS THAT WE WILL PROCESS PETITIONS AS WE RECEIVE COMPLETE INFORMATION, AND THAT NOT ALL PETITIONS WILL BE HANDLED IN THE TIME PERIOD. FURTHER, WE HAVE MADE A DECISION TO HANDLE THESE PETITIONS ON A PRIORITY ------- 5 BASIS; AND OUR ACTIONS ON NEW PETITIONS WILL SLOW CONSIDERABLY. WE PLAN TO HOLD A MEETING FOR PETITIONERS IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO EXPLAIN OUR PLANS IN THE DELISTING AREA FOR THE NEXT 2 YEARS, AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON HOW WE EXPECT TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS BASED ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. V. ------- ------- LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS John P. Lehman* In this last segment of our RCRA public briefing, I will tell you about new controls on leaking underground storage tanks (or LUST). Last but not LUST, so to speak. The LUST program breaks new ground in that, for the first time, the RCRA law applies to storage of products as well as wastes. Also, the LUST program can be considered a mini-RCRA program in its own right, with authorities for: o a massive tank registration program, o Federal technical standards for new and existing tanks, o State LUST programs and grants, o Federal inspection and enforcement, and o several studies and Reports to Congress. Problem What's the problem here, you may ask. The legislative history states that there are over two million underground storage tanks in the United States that contain hazardous substances or gasoline. An estimated 100,000 tanks are presently leaking and another 350,000 are expected to leak in the next five years. EPA recently proposed to list as Superfund sites 19 leaking underground tank facilities in "Director, Waste Management & Economics Division, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ------- -2- the South Bay area of San Francisco. Similar situations probably exist elsewhere. Congress concluded that this problem has become of national significance and requires Federal action. Program scope Let's first talk about what is included in the new LUST program and what isn't. The LUST program has a broad scope. It regulates all petroleum products (including crude oil) and all substances defined as hazardous under the Superfund law that are stored in underground tanks. The term "underground storage tank" includes any tank with ten percent or more of its volume below ground, included in the volume are pipes attached to the tank. It is possible, then, for an above ground tank to be regulated if it has extensive underground piping. Excluded from the LUST program are: o tanks holding hazardous waste (because these are regulated elsewhere), o farm and residential tanks less than 1100 gallons storing motor fuel. o on-site heating oil storage tanks, o septic tanks, o pipelines, o flow through process tanks, ------- o o -3- sumps and surface impoundments, and several other types of underground systems. Interim Prohibition The statute imposes a three-part Interim prohibition on new tanks that goes into effect 180 days after enactment. After May 7, 1985, no person may install an underground storage tank unless: o it will prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the life of the tank, o it is cathodically protected against corrosion, constructed of non-corrosive material, steel clad with non-corrosive material, or its equivalent, and o the materials of the tank (or liner) are compatible with stored substances. The cathodic protection provision does not apply where the soil resistivity is 12,000 ohm/cm or more. EPA will issue interpretive guidance on this prohibition as soon as possible. Obviously, it will have a significant effect on tank manufacturers, tank installers, and their cus- tomers. Also, it is the first LUST provision subject to Federal enforcement. The maximum penalty for violating this provision is $10,000 per day per tank. ------- -4- Notification The statute calls for notification and registration of underground storage tanks to State or local agencies. The notification program will affect several million tank owners. It will work like this: o By May 1985, State Governors will designate the State or local agency that will receive the notifications. o By November 1985, EPA will prescribe the form of the notice. o By May 1986, owners of existjng underground storage tanks must for each tank notify the State or local agency of its: age - size type location - uses. o By May 1986, owners of underground storage tanks taken out of operation after January 1, 1974, but not removed from the ground, must for each tank, notify the State or local agency of its: ------- -5- - age and date when taken out of operation, size, type, - location, and type and quantity of substance left in the tank. After May 1986, owners of new underground storage tanks must similarly notify the State or local agency within 30 days after its installation. o 30 days after EPA prescribes the notification form (and for 18 months thereafter) any person who deposits regulated substances in an underground storage tank must notify the tank owner of the LUST notification requirement. Thus, the notification program requires actions by both distributors of regulated substances and owners of new and existing underground storage tanks, and tanks taken out of operation within the last ten years. Regulatory Program The statute requires EPA to develop and promulgate new tank performance standards and standards concerning release detection, prevention, and corrective action applicable to all tanks. Also required are related studies and reports ------- -6- to Congress. The schedule for these rules and reports varies for petroleum and hazardous chemicals, as follows: Schedule Hazardous Petroleum Chemicals 1. New Tank Standards 27 mos. 33 mos. 2. Leak Detection, Prevention and Corrective Action Rules 27 mos. 45 mos. 3. Study and Report to Congress 12 mos. 36 mos. The statute specifies that the release detection, prevention, and correction regulations must require: o a release detection method, o recordkeeping for these methods, o reporting of leaks and corrective action taken, o corrective action for releases, o proper closure of tanks, and o evidence of financial responsibility for taking corrective action and compensating third parties for injury or damages from sudden or nonsudden releases. The law allows States to substitute corrective action and compensation programs financed by a fee on tank owners and operators. Either way, we suspect the leak cleanup requirements ------- -7- will be one of the most significant costs imposed by the new law. State Programs Congress made clear its intent that the LUST program is to be conducted by the States. The legislative history notes the progress made in several States with existing LUST programs. The statute is designed to avoid interfering with developing State programs. Congress wants the States to press ahead. States or local agencies will receive the notifications described earlier. States may apply for LUST program authorization 30 months after enactment. The programs may cover petroleum tanks or hazardous substance tanks or both. State programs must include all the regulatory elements of the Federal program and provide for adequate enforcement. As an inducement for action, the statute allows state LUST programs that are less stringent than the Federal program to be authorized if States act quickly. In no case, however, can State programs be less stringent than Federal requirements for corrective action, financial responsibility, and new tanks. Inspections and Enforcement The statute provides that Federal and State personnel may: o request pertinent information, o inspect and sample tanks, and ------- o conduct monitoring and testing of tanks and surrounding soils, air, surface water, and ground water. Federal enforcement is also provided for. EPA may issue compliance orders for any violation of the LUST statute or regulations. Offenders are subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per tank. Criminal penalties are not authorized. Summary In summary, then, Congress has put forward a major program to control leaking underground storage tanks. Both EPA and the States are heavily involved. The program will affect several million tank owners, tank manufacturers and installers, and the distributors of petroleum and hazardous substances. The first statutory provision (the interim prohibition on installing new bare tanks) goes into effect automatically on May 7, 1985. Many more deadlines follow in rapid succession. We will work with everyone involved to develop the best possible program. We will need your help. Our ultimate goal will be to detect, prevent, and control leaks from underground storage tanks. Thanks very much. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Library, Room 2404 FM-?11-A 401 M Street, S.W, Washington. DC 20460 ------- ------- |