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

-------

-------