PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE
PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR
STATE HAZARDOUS
WASTE PROGRAMS
MARCH 9,1978 MARCH
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
-------
TRANSCRIPT
Public Hearing
on the Proposed Guidelines
for State Hazardous Waste Programs
March 9, 1978, New Orleans, Louisiana
This hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-35p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
O.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
_1 N D B X
Agenda page
John P. Lehman, Opening Remarks 2
Richard Hill, Welcoming Remarks 3
Alfred Lmdsey 13
Dan Derkics 22
Bentley Ma eke y, Chemfix, Inc 39,167
Jeffrey R. Diver, Waste Management 41
Michael Tritico, Restore 62
Jay Snow, National Governors' Assn 78
G. W. Daigre, Dow Chemical 91
L. D. Sheperd, Sulphur, La 102
Mrs. L. D. Sheperd, Sulfphur, La 107
J. Charles Aligood, Jr., Livingston, La... Ill
William B. Deville, Governor's Office of 117
Science, Technology and
Environmental policy
Rick Rhodes, International Minerals 121
and Chemi caIs
Questions and Answers 124
Afternoon Session, Questions and Answers.. 1S9
Tom Tesler, Tennessee 179
Fadera1 Register, Part IV, 2/1/78 attached
-------
2
£ A N £ L
John P. Lehman, Director, Hazardous waste Manage-
ment Division
Alfred W. Lindsey, Chief, Implementation Branch
Ernest Pappajohn, Program Analyst, Implementation
Daniel L. Derkics, Desk Officer, Implementation
Merideth Wright, Office of General Counsel
Jim Sales, Region Six
Richard Bill, Region Six
MR. JOHH p. LEHMAN:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I call
this public hearing to order. My name
is John Lehman. I'm the Director of
the Hazardous Waste Management Division
of the Office of Solid Waste, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, in
Washington, D. C.
I will be serving as the Hearing Chairman
today. I would like to thank you on
behalf of the EPA for showing interest
-------
and coming to this hearing.
Now I would like to turn the proceedings
over to Mr. Richard Hill, who is- the
Deputy Director of the Air and Hazardous
Materials Division of EPA'a Region Six
Office, in Dallas, Texas. Nr. Hill.
RICHARD HILLi
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to take just a
few minutes on behalf of Reg*ion Six to
welcome you to, really, this initial
public hearing on the Solid Hazardous
Waste Management regulations and pro-
grams and to state that for Region Six,
and for many of you, this is a parti-
cularly important program that we're
dealing with,
you may or may not be aware that in Region
Six Texas and Louisiana rank No. 1 and
No. 4 in the nation as to volume of
generators of hazardous waste. So this
is a significant program in this region
and has a rather large share of the
nation's concerns.
-------
4
Region Six will bo here well after this hear-
ing is over. The staff will be here
and it is our aim and intention to build
on what starts here to make a valuable,
viable and sound program for sold waste
management* in general, and hazardous
waste management, in particular, in
this Region. And our job is to.work
with you to make the whole system work.
So call on us in Dallas and, certainly, we'll
be calling on you. Welcome, we appre-
ciate your comments on the regulations
and we need your help. Thank you very
much.
MR. LEHMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Hill.
Now I'd like to introduce the panel members
to you. The panel here with me is com-
posed of staff of the Hazardous Waste
Management Division and the Office of
General Counsel in Washington, D. C.
and a Representative of EPA 1s Region
Six Office.
-------
s
These people specialize in certain subject
areas related to this issue. From my
left they are Mr. Ernest pappajohn, who
is the Program Analyst in our implemen-
tation Branch of the Hazardous waste
Management Division. Mrs. Merideth
Wright, of Office of General Counsel;
Mr. Alfred Lindsey, who is Chief of the
Implementation Branch of the Hazardous
Waste Management Division, and, by the
way, was Chairman of the working Group
that developed the Section 3006 Guide-
lines. Mr. Dan Derkies, who is the
Desk Officer responsible for the de-
velopment of the 3006 guidelines, of
the same branch and division. And our
Region Six Representative, Mr. Jim
Sales .
As Mr. Hill mentioned, this is the first
public hearing concerning the Hazardous
Waste Management Program. The Resource
Conversation and Recovery Act of 1976,
P.I.. 94-580, or better known as RCRA,
-------
6
amended the Solid waste Disposal Act.
It includes a new Section 3006, which
provides in Subsection (a), and I quote
that:
"Not later than eighteen months
after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Administrator,
after consultation with State
authorities, shall promulgate
guidelines to assist States in
the development of State Hazard-
ous Waste Programs.
SPA
prnnaaad these auidelines in the Federal
Register on February 1, 1978. copies
of the proposed guidelines and the Act
are available on the table at the en-
trance. I am also submitting a copy
of these proposed guidelines for the
record.
The
intent of Congress and the policy of the
U. S. Environmental protection Agency
are in agreement as to the desirability
of States requesting and receiving
-------
7
authorization under Section 3006 of
RCRA to administer and enforce the
requirements of the Act. consequently,
the guidelines are intended to identify
those responsibilities in the State
program which must be developed or
implemented before EpA can grant
authorization.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 provides that regulations shall
be promulgated "only after notice and
opportunity for public hearing." Let me
now lay the groundwork and rules for
the conduct of this hearing.
The focus of a public hearing is on the
public's response to a regulatory pro-
posal of the Agency. The purpose of
this hearing, as announced in the
February 1, 1978, Federa1 Register, is
to solicit comments on the proposed
guidelines, including any background
information used to develop the comment.
This public hearing is being held, therefore.
-------
8
not primarily to inform the public nor
to defend a proposed regulation, but
more to obtain the public's response
to EPA's proposed regulation and there-
after to revise the regulation as may
seem appropriate.
All major substantive comments made at the
hearing will be addressed in the final
promulgation. The anticipated date of
final promulgation is about May of this
year.
The groundrules for the hearing are as fol-
lows i This will not be a formal adju-
dicatory hearing with the right to
cross-examination. The members of the
public are to present their views on
the proposed regulations to the panel
and the panel may ask questions of the
people presenting statements to clarify
any ambiguities on their presentations.
If any member of the public wants a question
asked of another member of the public
ha will be allowed to write the question
-------
9
on a card and pass it to the panel at
the end of the hearing, at which time
the panel may ask the question of the
appropriate person, and that person will
be given the opportunity to respond
accordingly.
So during this hearing, blank cards will be
available and will be passed out. pleas*
list your questions on these cards and
then the panel will ask them, if they
are deemed relevant to the statements
presented.
The Chairman resarves the right to limit
lengthy questions, discussion or state-
ments. We would ask those of you who
have a prepared statement to make orally
to place limit your presentation to ten
to fifteen minutes at the outside so we
can get all statements in a reasonable
time. The written statements will be
included in their entirety in the record
Written prepared statements will be accepted
at the end of the hearing; and I might
-------
10
also point out that written statements
which you may not want to give verbally,
can be accepted, also.
persons wishing to make an oral statement
who have not made an advanced request
by telephone or in writing should in-
dicate their interest on the registra-
tion card. If you have not indicated
your intention to give a statement and
you decide to do so later, please return
to the registration table and fill out
another card indicating your desire to
speak and give it to one of the staff.
As we call upon an individual to make a
statement, he should come up to the
lectern, on my right here, and identify
himself and his affiliation to the
court reporter and then deliver his
statement•
At the beginning of the statement I will
inquire as to whether the speaker is
willing to entertain questions from
the panel and the audience. He is under
-------
11
no obligation to do so, although within
the spirit of this information sharing
meeting, it would be of great assistance
to the Agency if questions were permittee
Everyone wishing to make statements will
have an opportunity to do so, even if we
have to run the hearings past our usual
cutoff time, which is approximately 5:00
p.m. We will keep going as long as it
takes to hear everyone.
For those of you who did not get a copy of
the agenda, I would like to describe
the day's activities as wo currently
see them. We will recess for a fifteen-
minute break about 10:00 o'clock, and
then we will have a one hour luncheon
break at 12:00 noon, reconvening at
1:00, if necessary. And then depending
on our progress, we may have a one hour
break for dinner at 6:00 o'clock.
In order to facilitate the comfort of all,
smoking and non-smoking sections have
bean set up in this room and water is
-------
12
available on the table In the back of
the room, to ray left over there. Phone
calls will be posted on the bulletin
board at the back of the room, and rest
rooms are located outside immediately
to the left.
Please leave your" business card or name and
address on a 3 x 5 card with the regis-
tration desk if you wish to be added
to our mailing list for future regula-
tions or proposed regulations.
As I mentioned, the court reporter is present
here today. The statements, questions
and comments will become part of the
public record and this record will be
available for public inspection in the
Docket Section, Room 2111, Hazardous
Waste Management Division, in the Office
of Solid Waste, U. S. EPA, 401 M Street,
Southwest, Washington, D. C. A copy of
the transcript of this hearing will be
available on request in about two to
three months.
-------
13
Za addition to the public hearing here in
Hew Orleans here today, two other
identical hearings will be held on
March 14th in Newton, Massachusetts,
which is a suburb of Boston, and on
March 16th in Seattle, Washington,
persons not wishing to deliver a state-
ment nay send a written statement to
the address noted in the pedera1 Register
before April 3, 1978.
Sow I'd like to turn this hearing over to
Fred Lindsey who will give you an over-
view of how Subtitle C regulations
function and how the proposed Guidelines
for State Hazardous Waste Programs fit
into this framework. Mr. Lindsey.
MR. ALFRED LINDSEY:
Thank you. Jack.
Subtitle C contemplates State programs to
regulate- hazardous waste, wherever that
is possible. If a State applies and is
authorized to conduct a program under
guidelines that we've prepared under
-------
14
Section 3006 of the Act, then that
State's regulations would apply as long
as they were no less stringent than and
equivalent to the Federal standards.
Thus, States are not assuming the Federal
Program when they are authorized, but
rather they are creating the equivalent
program? in lieu of the Federal Program.
Now equivalent to the Federal Program
means equivalent in degree o£ control,
as we interpret it.
Let me give you an overview of the inter-
relationships of the Sections of the
Act.
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended by the Resource Conversation
and Recovery Act of 1976, creates a
regulatory framework to control hazard-
ous waste.
Congress has found that such waste presents,
and I quote, "special dangers to health
and requires a greater degree of regula-
tion than does non-hazardous solid
-------
15
waste." Because of the seriousness of
this waste problem. Congress intended
that the States develop programs to
control it. However, in the event that
States do not choose to operate this
program, SPA is mandated to do so.
Seven guidelines and regulations are being
developed and proposed under Subtitle
C to implement the Hazardous Waste
Management Program.
It is important to note the definition of
solid vaste in the Act which encompasses
garbage, refuse, sludges, and other
discarded materials including liquids,
semi-solids and contained gases, with
a few exceptions, from both municipal
and industrial sources.
Hazardous wastes, on the other hand, are a
sub-set of all solid wastes, which will
be defined by regulations under Section
3001, and they are those which have
particularly significant impacts on
public health and the environment.
-------
16
Subtitle C creates a management control
system which, for those wastes defined
as hazardous, requires a *cradle-to-
grave" cognizance including appropriate
monitoring, record—keeping and reporting
throughout the control system.
Section 3001 of Subtitle C of the Act require!
SPA to define criteria and methods for
identifying and listing hazardous wastes.
Section 3001 should be published as a
proposed rule in approximately May of
this year.
Those wastes which are identified as hazard-
ous by these means are then included in
the management control syBtem construc-
ted under Section 3002 through 3005 and
Section 3010 of the Act. Those that
are excluded will be subject to the
requirements for non—hazardous solid
waste being carried out by States under
Subtitle D under which open dumping is
prohibited and environmentally accept-
able practices are required.
-------
17
Section 3002 of the Act addresses the
standards applicable to generators of
hazardous waste. EPA's regulations
under this section describe the classes
of generators for whom some requirements
may vary; for example, the Agency does
not interpret the intent of congress to
include regulation of individual home-
owners due to the small quantities of
hazardous wastes which they may generate.
Section 3002 also requires the creation of
a manifest system which will track
wastes from the point of generation to
their point of ultimate disposal. Sec-
tion 3002 should be published as a pro-
posed rule — we anticipate next month,
April of *78.
Section 3003 addresses standards affecting
transporters of hazardous wastes designee
to assure that wastes are carefully
managed during the transport phase.
The Agency is exploring opportunities
for meshing closely with proposed and
-------
18
current DOT regulations to avoid dupli-
cation in the transportation area.
Section 3003 should be published as a
proposed rule also in late April of *78.
Section 3004 addresses standards affecting
owners and operators of hazardous waste
storage, treatment and disposal facili-
ties. These standards define the levels
of environmental protection to be
achieved by these facilities and pro-
vide the criteria against which 8PA,
or State officials, will measure appli-
cations for permits. Facilities on a
generator's property, as well as off-
site facilities, are covered by these
regulations and do require permits;
generators and transporters, however,
do not otherwise need permits. I'd
just like to emphasize that. It's a
point of a lot of confusion and a lot
of people have trouble keeping that in
their minds. Generators and transporter!
unless they treat, store and dispose of
-------
19
hazardous waste do not require permits.
The only people who require permits are those
who treat, store and dispose of hazard-
ous waste. Section 3004 should be
published as a proposed rule in June
of 1978.
Section 300S regulations describe the scope
and coverage of the actual permit-
granting process for facility owners
and operators. Requirements for the
permit application, as well as for the
issuance and revocation process, are
to be defined by these regulations.
Section 3005 (c) provides for an interim
permit during the time period that the
Agency or the States are reviewing the
pending permit application. Section
3005 should be published as a proposed
rule in April of 1978.
Section 3010 regulations define procedures
by which any person generating, trans-
porting, owning or operating a facility
for treatment, storage or disposal of
-------
20
hazardous waste must notify EPA of this
activity within 90 days of promulgation
of the regulations which define what a
hazardous waste is. It is the regula-
tions under 3001, Section 3001, again,
which defines what a hazardous waste is.
EPA intends to make provision in these regu-
lations for States to be delegated this
function upon application to the Regional
Administrator. It is significant to
note that no hazardous waste subject
to Subtitle C regulation may be legally
transported, treated, stored or disposed
unless this timely notification is given
to EPA to a designated State. Section
3010 should be published as a proposed
rule in April of 1978.
Section 3006 of the Act, which is the pri-
mary purpose for this meeting today,
requires EPA to issue guidelines for
State programs and procedures by which
States may seek both full and interim
authorization to carry out the Hazardous
-------
21
Waste Program in lieu of an EPA-
administered program. States seeking
authorization in accordance with Sec-
tion 3006 guidelines are not required
to adopt in entirety all Federal
hazardous waste management regulations
promulgated under Subtitle C in order
to receive SPA authorization. Such
State regulatory programs need only
demonstrate that their hazardous waste
management regulations are consistent
with and equivalent in affect to these
BPA regulations in order to receive EPA
authorization under Section 3006.
The Agency intends to promulgate final
regulations by late 1978 under all
subsections of Subtitle C. However,
it is important for the regulated com'
munities to understand that the regu-
lations under Sections 3001 through
300S do not take effect until six
months after promulgation, which will
be in early 1979.
-------
Thus there will be a time period after final
promulgation during which public under-
standing of the regulation can be
increased. During this sane period,
notifications required under Section
3010 are to be submitted, and facility
permit applications required under
Section 3005 will be distributed for
completion by applicants.
Let me now turn the rest of our initial
briefing here over to Dan Derkics, who
is the Desk Officer in charge of the
preparation of the guidelines under
Section 3006. Dan.
DAN DERKICSs
Thank you, Fred.
I'd like to summarize tha proposed guide-
lines, briefly.
RCRA, the Resource Conversation and Recovery
Act, requires that a Hazardous Waste
Program be conducted in each and every
State jurisdiction. It is our judgment
that Congress intended that the States
-------
23
would be developing and operating the
State Hazardous waste Program. However,
in the event that States choose not to
assume the program, or EpA does not
authorize a State, EPA is required and
mandated by Congress to control the
Hazardous Waste Program.
In the Act a State can receive one of two
types of authorization. The first type,
full authorization, describes an auth-
orization without any fixed beginning
and of unlimited duration, and the
State will be granted full authoriza-
tion in lieu of the Federal Program;
that is, the State will conduct the
program in its entirety if the State
is found to be equivalent to the Federal
Program, consistent with the Federal
Program, or other applicable State
Programs, and the State provides ade-
quate enforcement.
However, Congress did not define or tell us
what an equivalent, consistent and
-------
24
adequately enforced State program 13.
So one of our tasks was to define these
three terms.
The tern equivalency has been defined in
terms of several separate elements,
seven of these elements, as a matter
of fact, and they are as follows>
One, the State must have legislative author-
ity to control hazardous wastes. This
authority must include both off-site
and on-site management authority.
Two, the State must have published criteria
and standards relating to hazardous
waste management. In all cases the
State's criteria and standards can be
ao less stringent than those that will
be promulgated by EPA, as stipulated
by Section 3009 of the Act.
This does not mean that the State's criteria
and standards cannot be different. The
only thing we're saying here is that
they cannot be any less stringent.
Three, the State must have a permit-like
-------
25
mechanism which provides an admini-
strative, legal, and resource framework
to issue, revoke and deny permits.
Four, the State must have a manifest system
which will track the waste from point
of generation to the point of final
disposal.
Five, the State must have adequate resources
with which to conduct and operate the
Hazardous Haste Program.
The sixth element, identification of Agency
responsibilities, applies only to those
States who have more than one Agency
involved in the administration and
enforcement of the Hazardous Waste
Program. For these States, in the
application to be submitted to EPA,
the State must explicity delineate
the various responsibilities of each
State Agency as it relates to hazardous
waste management.
In addition, a lead agency will be designated
by the Governor or other entity within
-------
26
the State responsible for this taslc to
facilitate any communications that will
occur between EPA and the State Agencies.
The seventh element in defining an equivalent
State program is that the State must
submit a public participation plan with
their application. This public parti-
cipation plan or program must comply
with the public participation guide-
lines which were promulgated under
Section 7004 (b) of RCRA.
Now, the second criterion in defining a fully
authorized Hazardous Waste Program is
that the State must be consistent with
the pederal Program or other applicable
State programs.
In all of our discussions dealing with con-
sistency we were only able to identify
one issue pertaining to consistency.
This deals with the free movement of
hazardous waste. This has been the
most controversial and hotly contested
issue in the development of these
-------
27
guide lines.
This issue can be further segregated into
two sub-issues. The first sub-issue
deals with legislated importation bans.
In the course of developing these guidelines,
six options were identified which ad-
dressed the issue of free movement of
hazardous wastes with respect to auth-
orizing States to operate and enforce
a Hazardous Waste Management Program
in accordance with the provisions of
Section 3006 (b) of the Act.
The first is: Authorize only those States
which allow the importation of hazard-
ous wastes to permitted treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. Legis-
lative bans or artificially high stan-
dards would disqualify States from
authorization.
The second option is a variant of the first
— is the same as the first, except
that States with legislative bans or
artificially high standards for disposal
-------
28
of hazardous wastes woiild still be
authorized as long as hazardous wastes
are allowed to be imported to permitted
treatment and storage facilities.
The third is the same as Option One, except
that the imposition of artificially
high standards would not disqualify
States from authorization. In other
words, they could have these legisla-
tive importation bans.
But the fourth alternative is to petition
Congress for a legislative amendment
to abolish State hazardous waste im-
portation bans altogether or at least
pre-empt these bans in those States
where EPA administers the regulatory
program. This, of course, is not an
exclusive alternative and may be pur-
sued in conjunctive with any of the
other alternatives.
The fifth alternative, logically, is to take
no action at all on the hazardous waste
importation ban issue.
-------
29
The sixth alternative is basically the same
as the first, except that the States
with existing legislative hazardous
waste importation bans or artifically
high standards would be authorized for
a limited number of years beyond the
two-year interim authorization, which
I will discuss later. The termination
date of this allowed phase-out period
is to be July 1, 1984.
EPA has chosen this sixth option in the text
of the proposed guidelines, but recog-
nizes the possibility of using any one
of the six options or a variant of one
of these options in the final promulga-
tion of these guidelines.
Comments and suggestions on the six options
or any other possible courses of action
are especially invited. The implica-
tions involved in the final choice of
an option include trade-offs between
authorizing a maximum number of States
and discouraging impediments to free
-------
30
movement of hazardous wastes. Comments
on these trade-offs are also welcome.
The second sub-issue deals with any criteria
and standards which the State might
promulgate as to their similarity or
dissimilarity to those promulgated by
EPA .
In the guidelines, we have said that a State
can promulgate criteria and standards
which are more stringent than those
that EPA will promulgate as long as
they are consistent, and BPA's Regional
Offices will use two tests to determine
the consistency of these criteria and
standards where they can be shown to
inhibit movement of wastes to a par-
ticular State.
The first test involves whether the State's
criteria and standards discriminate by
geographic origin. That is, are there
higher or lower standards for in-state
wastes as opposed to out-of-state wastes'1
The second test asks whether the criteria
-------
31
and standards in question can be justi-
fied based on the need for protection
of public health and environment.
Using these two tests, the Regional Office
should determine the consistency of
the State's criteria and standards.
The third criterion in evaluating a State
Program is whether it includes adequate
enforcement. Our initial intent was to
write specific or quantifiable standards
into the guidelines dealing with ade-
quacy of enforcement, such as, the State
must conduct so many inspections for
permitted facilities, or the State must
collect so many samples per visit.
However, in the meetings that we held, both
with the States and the public, we were
urged not to place hard and fast numbers
in the guidelines since to do so may
preclude consideration of the individual
characteristics which a State program
might have. Therefore, we have written
the guidelines to allow maximum
-------
32
flexibility for the Regional Office to
consider individual characteristics,
organizational peculiarities, and
efficiencies or inefficiencies of
existing State Programs relative to
enforcement activities. The State's
enforcement program must display an
equivalent control -- an equivalent
degree of control to the Federal Program
to be eligible for authorization.
The next type of authorization which is
described in the guidelines is called
partial authorization. However, as I
had indicated earlier, there are two
types of authorization which a State
can apply for.
partial authorization is not one of them,
but rather is a subset of full authori-
zation. Partial authorization came
about as a result of our meetings.
Several of the States have indicated
that there might be certain instances
where States could not apply for full
-------
33
authorization because they lack certain
legislative authorities. Therefore,
there is a provision in the guidelines
for a State to seek partial authoriza-
tion under those circumstances.
It might be kept in mind that under partial
authorization the State would be con-
ducting part of the program and EPA
would be conducting part o£ the program.
So there would be two regulatory agencies
conducting the Hazardous Waste program.
The decision as to whether to grant partial
authorization will rest entirely with
the Regional Office. Furthermore, the
use of partial authorization will be
limited. States will only be permitted
to apply for partial authorization where
the problem is a lack of certain specific
legislative authorities. in all cases
the combination of the State Hazardous
Waste program and EPA's Hazardous Waste
Program must meet the substantive and
procedural requirements of a fully
-------
34
authorized Hazardous Waste Program,
which we just discussed.
The
Agency will then decide if protection of
public health and the environment will
be better served through a joint State
and pederal Program than through a
totally Federal Program.
The
third type of authorization described in
the guidelines and discussed in the Act
is called interim authorization. This
is described and discussed under sub-
paragraph (c) of Section 3006 of the
Act. A State will be granted interim
authorization if they are found to have
a Hazardous Waste Program in existence
by July 20. 1978. and if the State Pro-
gram is found to be substantially
equivalent to the Federal Program.
In
addition, the State will conduct the
Hazardous Waste Program under interim
authority in lieu of the Federal Pro-
gram? that is, the State will be con-
ducting the program in its entirety for
-------
35
no longer than two years.
It's important to keep in mind that the
interim authorization was meant by
i
Congress as a temporary period during
which State Programs can be modified
and expanded to meet the criteria for
full authorization. A State can only
apply for interim authorization during
a specified time period. That time
period is July 20. 1978, to October 20,
1978. A State can only operate the
Hazardous Waste Program under interim
authority in a definite calendar period,
and that period is October 21, 1978, to
October 20, 1980. After that date,
October 20, 1980, States will only be
able to apply and operate -• apply for
and operate the Hazardous Waste Program
under full or partial authorization.
Now the major differences we see between
the equivalency defined under full
authorization and substantially equi-
valent, which is defined under interim
-------
36
authorization is that the latter program
may lack certain legislative and statu-
tory authorities.
We believe that this relaxation of stringency
of the equivalency is consistent with
Congress' intent to maximize the number
of States eligible to assume the Hazard-
ous Waste Program under interim author-
ity and allow time for the building of
the program which will then ultimately
lead to assumption of a fully authorized
Hazardous Waste Program.
EPA
supports this viewpoint and, therefore.
has structured the guidelines as follows;
For
a State to receive interim authorization
they must have: One, the legislative
authority to control, at a minimum.
either on-site or off-site disposal
of hazardous waste. Two, they must
have some resources in which to conduct
the program. Three, they must have a
permit-like system to control, at a
minimum, either on-site or off-site
-------
37
disposal. And, four, they must hava a
surveillance and enforcement program.
The adequacy of the resources an.d the
surveillance and enforcement program
will be based on the Regional Admini-
strator's judgment.
In addition, when a State applies for interim
authorization, in the application to be
submitted to EPA he will submit a docu-
ment called an Authorization plan. The
Authorization Plan will lay out any
addition^ or modifications which must
be made for the State to be eligible
for full authorization at the end of
the two-year period. It will also lay
out the schedule on which the State
proposed to make these additionor
modifications.
Thwt basically describes the various types of
authorizations that a State can receive.
In addition, there are three other sections
in the guidelines. One describes the
substantive and procedural requirements
-------
38
for States applying for authorization.
One describes the substantive and pro-
cedural requirements for the withdrawal
of authorization. And the final section
describes the EPA oversight of the State
Hazardous Waste Program.
I won't be going any further into the guide-
lines. z would like to announce that
if there is sufficient interest by State
Agency officials, we have provided for
informal discussions with the officials
after the hearing. If the discussions
are held, the public is invited to at-
tend .
I'd like to turn this hearing back to Mr.
Lehman now. Thank you.
MR. LEHMAHt
Okay, ladies and gentlemen. I hope that
introductory material has helped put
our hearing into some perspective.
At this time wa will begin receiving state-
ments from the public. And I'd like
to call on these individuals to give
-------
39
their statements. We are calling the
speakers in the order in which we re-
ceived their request for speaking time.
First, I'd like to call upon Mr. Bentley
Mackey, President of Chemfix, Inc.
Mr. Maekey.
MR. BENTLEY MACKEY:
You mean I was the first one to put one in?
MR. LEHMANt
First one in. Would you please identify
your name and affiliation. Also, Mr.
Mackey, would you indicate whether you
will receive questions.
MR. BENTLEY MACKEY:
Well, I'll receive questions, but I only
have two quick comments.
I'm Bentley Mackey. I'm President of Chem-
fix, Incorporated, a Kenner based oper-
ation hare in Louisiana.
In the proposed rules and regulations there
are two things that I think the panel
and all of us should address ourselves
to and that's the business of on-site
-------
40
storage of hazardous materials, with
some determination as to when storage
as storage becomes effective and storage
as disposal becomes effective.
And, John, you and I through the years have
talked about the preponderancy of pits,
ponds and lagoons that are being con-
structed and called storage but, in
fact, are disposal.
There should be some attempt to limit what
is storage.
And somewhere in the regulations I had dis-
covered a 90-day period or a reference
to a 90-day period for storage of waste,
is that, in fact, in the regulations or
the proposed regulations? Do you re-
member that particular item?
MR. LEHMAN:
Well, why don't you finish your statement
and then we'll address your question.
MR. MACKEY:
I don't really have a statement. If you'll
look at that vlittle yellow card it says
-------
41
that Z wanted to talk about this bill.
(LAUGHTER)
MR. LEHMAN:
Well, we'll have a — well, go ahead.
MR. MACKEY:
No, I'm all done. Well, Chemflx supports
the bill. If the regulations are not
written by the guy that picked this
hotel in the heart of the French Quarter
and with en understanding of how you
cannot apply rules and regulations all
over the United States equally and that
there is some variation, then, there's
nothing else X have to say.
MR. LEHMANt
Thank you, Mr. Mackey. we'll address your
question at a later time, because we
really want to get public statements
on the record first.
Okay. Next I'd like to call Mr. Jeff Diver,
Waste Management, Incorporated.
MR. JEFFREY R. DIVER:
Mr. Lehman, my name is Jeff Diver. I
-------
42
represent Waste Management, Incorporated
of Oak Brook, Illinois.
NR.
LEHMAN:
Excuse mo. Will you accept questions?
MR.
DIVER:
Oh, yes, I will accept questions.
MR.
DIVER:
My name is Jeff Diver and I reside at 194
Merton Avenue in the village of Glen
Bllyn, Illinois.
I an appearing before you today in two cap-
acities, one professional and one per-
sona 1.
In my professional capacity I appear on be-
half of Waste Management, Inc., whom I
serve as Counsel for Environmental
Affairs. Waste Management is a publicly
held corporation, employing more than
3600 persons in over half of the States.
Additionally, through subsidiaries, the
Company operates in Canada and Saudi
Arabia. As the name implies, we are
engaged in providing solid waste manage-
-------
43
ment services covering collection, dis-
posal and resource recovery. Included
in our operation are treatment and dis-
posal facilities for hazardous, or, as
we prefer to call them, special wastes.
In my personal capacity I appear as both a
private citizen and as a former admini-
strator of a State Environmental Agency.
During 1973 to 1977 I served as Deputy
Director and Chief Counsel of the
Illinois Environmental protection Agency,
having the responsibility to develop,
structure and enforce State Environ-
mental Programs, including Hazardous
Waste Management Programs. More to the
present inquiry, it was my responsi-
bility to deal with the Federal Environ-
mental protection Agency in the negoti-
ation of annual air and water program
grants and in the drafting of Illinois'
Memorandum of Agreement for assumption
of NPDES authority. A Memorandum, I
might add, which was four years in the
-------
44
making. As a result of that State
experience I have gained an appreciation
of the problems involved in State
assumption of Federal Environmental
p rograma.
But
enough of introductions. I have come
today to comment on your proposed guide-
lines for authorization of State Hazard-
ous Waste Programs. To get right to
the point, my greatest concern relates
to interim authorization of State pro-
grams .
The
proposed guidelines, in the supplmentary
information portion, use up a lot of
ink in an attempt to justify the Agency's
conclusion on what Congress meant by
•substantially equivalent." Yet no-
where is there a clear statement in
these guidelines of what are the con-
sequences of a determination that a
State program is substantially equiva-
lent to the Federal program.
I f
you are serious about seeking Congressiona]
-------
45
intent, look at the objectives spelled
out in P.L. 94-580. For hazardous
waste purposes the objective clearly
stated in Section 1003, is, and I quote,
"to promote the protection of health
and the environment."
Now, look at what occurs once the Regional
Administrator concludes that a State
Program is substantially equivalent.
For two years, from October 21, 1978,
to October 20, 1980, the only control
over hazardous waste generation, trans-
portation, treatment, storage and dis-
posal is whatever control the State
has under its legislation and regulation!
How, look again at what you have proposed to
accept as being substantially equivalent
A State program with no control over
on-site disposal; a State Program with
no control over generators, transporters
treaters or storers; a State Program
with no waste tracking system; a State
Program with no regulations defining
-------
46
what is a hazardous waste.
As you put it yourselves, in Section 250.73
(b)(5), you propose that substantially
equivalent means "a minimal program."
I sincerely hope the Agency does not
truly believe Congress intended to pro-
tact public health and the environment
by giving a two-year free pass to gen-
erators, transporters, storers, treaters
and on-site disposers.
Indeed, if we refer back to the statute, it
ia clear that Congress intended that all
existing hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities would
have gone through the USEPA permit re-
view process, or have applications
pending before any State assumed interim
authorization.
Under the statutory time schedule, facilities
are required to have permits by October
21, 1978, which date, coincidentally,
is the first day of the interim authori-
zation period. We all know, however,
-------
47
that this permit deadline, intended by
Congress, will not be net because of the
delay in issuing the regulations which
underlie the permit program.
As
a former environmental administrator I
cannot and will not fault USSPA for
these delays. Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment is a new field for most of us.
The Office of Solid Waste has been
conscientious in soliciting broad-based
commentary, if not true participation.
on internal Agency drafts, and there
just wasn't enough money to staff up
to meet the deadlines. At the same
time, however, I do not make excuses
for the Agency in its choice for re-
solving the dilemma.
HO
one, leas# of all the people and the States
is well-served by the selection of an
option which calls for regulation of the
States instead of regulation of the
handlers of hazardous waste.
In
granting interim authorization to a State,
-------
48
USZPA does three things.
One,
it allows itself to avoid the obliga-
tion to administer its own Hazardous
Haste Program.
Two,
it grants absolution for those who would
be regulated were it not for the gaps in
the State Program; and
Three, it imposes on the State, via the
Memorandum of tinderstanding and the
required Authorization Plan, the re-
quirements to shape up the State's
program, to open the State's files to
USBPA, to provide a minimum of quarterly
reports, to allow USEPA to second-guess
the State on 10 percent of the permits.
and to allow USZPA to conduct inspec-
tions at 10 percent of the generators,
transporters, treaters, storers and
disposers in the State. It is difficult
to see how this advances the stated
Congressional objectives.
However, criticism without alternatives is
unfair. So, what do I suggest as a
-------
49
resolution of the problem? A resolution
which will advance both USEPA's goal of
encouraging maximum State participation
and the Congressional goal of protecting
health and the environment? USEPA has
i
already suggested the answer. Extend
the concept of partial authorization to
the two-year interim period. For ex-
ample, if a State has control over off-
site, but not on-site disposal, let the
State have interim authorization to
administer the off-site disposal program,
while USEPA retains the responsibility
for administering the on-site disposal
program. Or, if the State has no con-
trol over waste tracking, let USEPA
administer the manifest system. In
the event the State obtains, during
the period of interim authorization,
additional regulatory authority, those
additional program elements can be
transferred from USEPA to the State.
Allowing partial authorization m the interim
-------
50
period, it seems to ne, offers several
benefits in addition to satisfying
stated EPA and Congressional goals.
One, it allows USEPA to experience, first-
hand, the problems involved in actual
administration of the federally estab-
lished program. USEPA personnel, througl
this sensitizing and educational process,
would be better able to provide con-
structive assistance to the States when
they seek additional program elements.
Two, it provides an incentive to those who
will remain under USEpA control to seek
enabling legislation or regulations
which will allow State take-over of
those program elements.
Three, it avoids conflicts with existing
State Programs, as USEPA would retain
responsibility over only those elements
for which the State has no control.
Pour, it allows the States to better plan
and phase in their additional control
mechanisms, without feeling that the
-------
51
time spent in good faith deliberation
was working to the benefit of those yet
uncontrolled by State law.
The "Supplementary Information" in the pro-
posed guidelines discusses the drawbacks
to the concept of partial authorization,
saying, and Z quote:
"...the regulated community has
strenuously Contended that a single
entity should carry out the entire
program in a given State, arguing
that a sharing of responsibility
would result in confusion and dupli"
cation of effort for the agencies,
and greatly increased complexity
for regulated firms."
I represent a regulated company, and we do
not strenuously object to, but rather
support the concept of partial authori-
zation. Obviously, we would prefer to
have to work with only a single entity,
an entity at the State level. But we
are pragmatic enough to realize that it
-------
52
will take time and the expenditure of
large resources before many States are
in a program to take control over all
of the Federal program elements.
I
also know that attempts to accelerate com-
plete State take-over, through the co-
ercive measures of withholding grant
monies, or tying tyrant monies to the
establishment of specific program ele-
ments, or brow-beating the States during
annual program reviews or in public
meetings, is counter-productive.
I
should insert here that I don't — I think
and hope that the Office of Solid Waste
will not engage in these practices, but
Z mention them as they have been all too
commonplace in the administration of the
air and water programs.
The States will seek full authorization when
they are convinced that it will be to
the benefit of their people and when
they see that the Federal commitment
to State administration is matched by
-------
53
the commitment of Federal dollars.
Use
of partial interim authorization, con-
ditioned on the requirement that the
State show a good faith effort to pro-
cure needed legislation or regulations.
will allow orderly development of State
Programs, during both the interim and
poet-interim periods, while assuring
at the same time that hazardous wastes
are necessarily managed in accordance
with the Federal Program.
On*
last matter deserves comment before I
leave. That is the subject of hazard-
ous waste importation bans, be they
created directly by law or indirectly
by excessively stringent or burdensome
regulations.
Most of us in this room, X imagine, would
agree that such bans are impediments
to sound Hazardous Haste Management.
They present the very real threat of
cutting off access to high quality
facilities and of causing the economics
-------
54
of disposal to become so high that
generators, transporters will be willing
to violate Federal or State laws against
surreptitious dumping,
nevertheless, we must recognize that such
bans, for the most part, are founded
on political if not environmental
grounds. As such bans are political
in nature, they must be dealth with
politically and not through the empty
threats which are implicit in youx
proposed guidelines.
All you have done in this proposal is advise
the States:
One, that they had better get their bans on
the books by the date of final promul-
gation of the guidelines, and
Two, if they do so, you will, albeit grudg-
ingly, accept the ban for seven years.
If your final regulations continue this
folly you will have foreordained that
there will be no political solution
until 1984. How can USZPA, after pub-
-------
55
lishing a guideline which allows bans
until 1984, go before Congress and seek
an earlier cut-off?
My advice, offered gratuitously, is to omit
any and all reference to importation bans
in these guidelines and not to threaten
to cut off your nose to spite your face.
If a State has an approvable program for
managing hazardous waste, even if it
only covers intrastate waste, that pro-
gram should receive Federal authoriza-
tion. Threatening to withhold authori-
zation or grant funds, to put in the
vernacular, just doesn't cut any poli-
tical ice.
Pursue the fourth alternative you outlined
at page 4368, seek a Congressional
amendment to abolish or pre-empt bans.
1 am prepared, as I believe are most
people in the regulated industries and
in the regulatory agencies, to stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with you in ap-
proaching congress and pushing for the
-------
56
amendment•
If we fail, after having the opportunity to
present our case, at least we will know
that it is the will of the people as
expressed through their elected repre-
sentatives, to run the very definite
risks created by these bans.
I want to thank you for allowing me this
opportunity to speak my mind. Although
my remarks, up to now, have not indi-
cated it, I do support most of what you
have proposed, especially the concept
of a uniform national manifest.
I ask only that in drafting the final guide-
lines you keep in mind two things:
One, that your overriding purpose, above
all others, is to establish a program
which will, as soon as possible, afford
protection to the public and their
environment; and
Two, that the States will serve as your
partners in this endeavor, if they
are treated as full, consenting partners
-------
57
Thank you.
MR. LEHMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Diver.
Do any members of the panel have a question?
Mr. Lindsay.
MR. LXHDSEY:
Mr. Diver, 2 was interested in your suggestion
that we extend the concept o£ partial
authorization to substitute, if you will,
for interim authorization.
First of all, let me make a comment, and then
let me ask you to comment a little
further on what you've said there.
We foresee that as with the start-up of any
new regulatory system there's going to
be a period of gearing up in the
Regional Offices or at the State level,
if this State doesn't already have an
extensive program in mind. Some States
do .
And we see this as a period of confusion to
start with. Unfortunately, this usually
seems to be the case. And perhaps some
-------
58
uncertainty as this gearing up takes
place. And if there are two programs
simultaneously being geared up in one
place, namely a State Program, which
is capable of handling part of this
system, and a new Federal Program, which
is coming in to try and handle the other
part of the system, would there not be
— would that confusion not exacerbate
our efforts to try and get a complete
regulatory system in operation?
If
you would. Speak from your — the stand-
point of your State experience, because
you've been through this.
MR. DIVER:
Of
course, what I'm proposing is that, to
use your words, the confusion that would
exist would exist with regard to dif-
ferent elements of the program.
For example, if a State has a legislative
program and regulations that are es-
tablished to control off-aite disposal.
but it has no program ongoing with
-------
regard to on-site, what you propose to
do is to let the off-site disposal pro-
gram continue but there will be no
requirement applicable to on-site until
the State, at some point in the future,
regulates on-site disposal.
How i would much prefer to have a confused
program trying to be begun with regard
to that additional program element than
say we are willing to say that there
will be no regulation for that period
of time.
MR. LINDSEY:
Well, the period of time, however, is not
longer than two years.
MR. DIVER:
Well, no. Z understand that that's true.
I hope that's true.
MR. LIHDSEY:
That's true. That's in the Act.
MR. DIVER:
But the concept of partial authorization,
seems to me, that if it has any redeeming
-------
60
merit with regard to the full authoriza-
tion period has as equal merit in the
interim period so as to meet the Con-
gressional intent and not just the
intent to transfer programs, but the
intent to protect people in the environ-
ment .
MR. LIBDSEY:
Okay. Let me say one thing before I ask if
there are any other questions from here.
We mentioned earlier that we would take
questions on 3 x 5 cards'. xf anyone
wants a 3 x 5 card in order to address
a question to Mr. Diver or to anyone
subsequent to this, why, raise your hand
and I believe — John, do you have cards
back there?
I understand that the cards have been passed
out and if you have a question and would
like to raise your hand somebody will
come along and collect it. And if you
need more cards, why just — I guess
they are back at the back table. Is
-------
61
that the idea? Back at the back table.
MR.
LEHMAN:
Any other questions from the panel?
(HO RESPONSE)
MR.
LEHMAN>
Evidently not. Thank you very much, Mr.
Diver, for giving us your views .
Ladies and gentlemen, we do have a number of
other speakers. However, we have
scheduled a short break at this point
and I think it might be wise to con-
tinue to follow our agenda. So I'll
declare a recess for fifteen minutes.
We intend to start right on time at
10:15.
(Whereupon, there was a brief recess.)
AFTER THE RECESS:
MR.
LEHMAN:
Before we begin I would like to reiterate
that there are two parts of the room
for smokers and non-smokers. If non-
smokers would sit off to my right and
smokers off to the left, I think that
-------
62
would help matters here. We attempted
to set that up that way, but it didn't
get labeled that way. Smokers on my
le£t and non-smokers on my right. Okay.
I 'm
going to have to step out for a few
minutes. I would like to turn over the
hearing to Mr. Lindsey.
Before I do that, though, I would like to
call Mr. Michael Tritico of Restore.
Be indicated that he would like to make
a statement.
IS
Mr. Michael Tritico here? Yes, he is.
Okay.
MR. MICHAEL TRITICO:
Good morning. My name is Michael Tritico.
I'm a biologist and Director of Restore,
which is a Southwest Louisiana environ-
mental group.
He
thank the EPA for holding this hearing in
our State and inviting interested people
to make statements. As we interpret the
announcement in the Federal Register of
February 1, 1978, the emphasis of this
-------
63
hearing ia on the group of proposed
guidelines from EPA to States wishing
to form programs for effective manage-
ment of hazardous waste. we believe
that it is also within the scope and
purpose of this hearing for us to make
a few comments under Sub-part F, para-
graph 250.70, sub-paragraph (• \) , which
refers to the prohibition of any State
from imposing any requirement which is
less stringent than EpA's regulations
under Sections 3001 through 300£ of
the Act.
Restore believes that a few such comments
prior to our statement on Section 3006
will help us all be reminded of the
reality which has brought us all to-
gether today.
That reality being that there is a problem
ao serious that it was impossible to
solve at the State level. So serious,
in fact, that even an Act of congress
may not be able to solve the problem.
-------
64
I had intended to show you all some 35 milli-
meter slides of transportation, storage
and disposal processes involved in con-
tending hazardous waste in Southwest
Louisiana. Restore had some difficulty
in talcing the photographs. In fact, we
were chased off a public road in one
instance and told, "to get the hell
away from here right now. We don't
allow no damn pictures." That happened
Saturday. The pictures were taken and
developed but have been misplaced by
the busline which -- upon which they
ware being sent to me.
Z might also mention that some other members
of Restore are here. X haven't had a
chance to talk to them. I'm not sure
they have registered but I think they
would like to talk.
One of our slides was of an open dump site
where liquid wastes are being trucked
in from all over the United States.
Section 3001 of the Resource Conserve-
-------
65
tion and Recovery Act says that open
dumping Is prohibited even for non-
hazardous wastes.
The
open pits have overflowed during rains
causing fiah kills in the Houston River.
Fumes from the pits are affecting a
nearby community.
we
believe that given the mixing of the
materials in the pits there should be
established some mechanism under 3001
for identifying waste formed in the pits
and the air above them, if these —
what we consider to be illegal pits —
are alllowed to continue.
For
Section 3002 we suggest addition of the
requirement that chemical engineers
designing proposed new generating pro-
cedures must notify EPA and supply
designs of the process and all possible
molecular waste which would be produced.
Also under Section 3002 we believe that
standards applicable to generators
should require identification adequate
-------
66
to allow disposers to determine the
economic feasibility of disposal in
advance. That is, to determine what
techniques must be used to accomplish
disposal and costs involved. This
needs to be done to prevent disposers
from being caught unprepared economi-
cally to handle unanticipated hazards.
Under Section 3003, concerning transportation,
there should be a declaration that cer-
tain roadways, railways and navigable
waterways should be off limits to the
transportation of hazardous wastes.
There are some playgrounds through which
trains go in Lake Charles. There are
some rivers which are very important
upon which barges go. This needs to
be looked at very carefully. This
declaration of areas being off limits.
Under Section 3004 Restore believes that there
is no way the standards could ever be
too stringent. The proposed standards
may lock in a minimum set of goals which
-------
67
need to be accomplished. But these
standards may also make it difficult
to tighten standards several years from
,ow when it's realized that we should
have been even more conservative in
our handling of the hazardous materials.
Restore hopes that it can be continually
remembered by disposers that the better
job they do now under 3004, the less
pressure there will be for revision of
that section.
One specific suggestion we would like to
submit for inclusion at the national
level is that treatment facility op-
erators submit quarterly copy of in-
voices showing that they have received
sufficient quantities of appropriate
chemicals that they utilize in neutrali-
zation and detoxification procedures.
Restore will submit a technical report on
Southwest Louisiana problems, which
will more fully develop our reasons
for concern about the adequacy of all
-------
68
the preceding sections of the Act, and
our attitudes on Section 3006.
Under Section 3006, the topic o£ authoriza-
tion, Restore has no confidence that
Louisiana can develop and implement an
effective plan. There are too many
political alliances which are intri-
cately interfaced with the same sort
of philosophy that made it necessary
for Congress to react to threats pro-
duced by thoughtless industrial and
municipal activities.
Certainly it might be possible to develop
a few provisions which could be handled
effectively at a State level, but that
would be a long and tedious process.
Louisiana will never make it by the 1980
deadline, not even in some partial way.
Restore would prefer that EPA would face up
to that reality and begin exerting
direct effect not upon the existing
and developing hazards. we believe
that there are people ill today as a
-------
69
result of these hazards. Wo attempted
to gat affidavits but the possible
victims were frightened and told us
that they were more afraid of bullets
than fumes and bad well water* I'm
not positive that we don't have that
affidavit, but that will have to wait.
On the question of importation bans. Restore
suggests that States with existing
importation bans be allowed to replace
those bans with a ban on construction
of and acquisition of new disposal sites
which would attract wastes that those
States consider undesirable.
As far as out-of-State is concerned, since
Louisiana politicians don't seem to be
too upset about hazardous waste being
brought in here, it is likely that
Louisiana will not be one of the
authorized States and will be one that
is Federally administered. Therefore,
it is more likely that worse wastes
will be shuttled here since other States
-------
70
have already been resistant to importa-
tion .
As Louisiana citizens, we plead for realiza-
tion that the whole State is designated
a 208 Federal Water pollution Control
Act Planning Area, because almost every
stream is polluted. The streams can't
handle the problems they already have,
much less any new overflow.
Secondly, quite a few areas, just last month,
were declared in non-compliance on air
pollution laws. Our lungs can't take
any more stress from incineration or
evaporation products.
Thirdly, please remember that wetland dis-
posal of waste is restricted under
Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act.
In other words, we cannot take any new
imported wastes physically, biologically
or legally.
On the topic of adequate enforcement, hoping
for that in Louisiana is like hoping for
-------
71
snow. It might happen once every four
or five years, there won't be much of
it, it will melt in a few hours, and it
will not be handled in any kind of
orderly way.
The only reasonable outside chance that there
will be adequate enforcement of these
laws is that an outside Agency would
provide the enforcement. In the mean-
time, there is a need for some emergency
mechanism whereby EPA can move it at
once if the State doesn't move in a
particular situation.
Even if there were an Authorized Plan, the
five-month lag time written into the
guidelines is far too long to be useful
to the public health.
Also the seven-day advance notice defeats
the purpose of inspections. That should
be obvious. I can't believe that some-
one is so naive that they think that a
seven-day warning pattern would not en-
courage sloppy operation of treatment
-------
72
and disposal facilities.
The 10 percent limit of EPA freedom to in-
spect and review is absurd. I'd like
to know why SPA is restricting itself
in that way. It sounds like someone
may have exerted pressure that should
have been more fully resisted. Why
limit yourself to 10 percent? Why not
keep open the option for full inspec-
tion and review? Just because you
would have authority for full inspec-
tion and review would not require you
to conduct such inspections and reviews,
but at least you could do it if some
weird State situation cropped up.
On the topic of public participation in
Louisiana, I'd like to point out that
just two weeks ago our State called a
public hearing to discuss the problem
of storage of nuclear wastes in our
salt domes. People from all over the
State worked hard to get ready and spent
many hours presenting facts, opinions.
-------
73
and suggestions during the hearing.
Meanwhile, upstairs in the Capitol the
Governor called a press conference to
announce that he had cut a new deal with
the Federal people and that Louisiana
was going to accept over $1 million and
back off on its resistance to waste
storage. Downstairs, everybody kept on
talking not knowing that they were not
only being ignored but even directly
insulted by the Governor and the Federal
negotiators.
Restore hopes that EpA doesn't ever get
sucked in behind the Governor's slip
stream. We need you all. please be
aware that public participation is some-
thing the citizens here would love to
have happen. Something they would be
willing to do in larger and larger num-
bers would they be provided the oppor-
tunity and some protection from reprisal
Accordingly# Restore would like to request
now that the State hold a public hearing
-------
74
as provided under paragraph 250.75,
sub-section (a), page 4373 of the
February 1, 1978, Federal Register.
in conclusion, I ask that everyone involved
in this problem give thought to the
question: What option, other than com-
plete restoration of our environment,
can be shown to provide a safe planet
for future generations?
Restore is convinced that complete restora-
tion is the only choice which will allow
us to survive.
Thank you.
MR. LIHDSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Tritico. would you take some
questions from the panel?
MR. TRITICO:
Yes .
MR. LINDSEY:
Okay. I have a couple to lead off. Maybe
others would have some as well.
You mentioned the 10 percent limit on I
believe it was the review of permits.
-------
75
or maybe it was the inspection, as they
both have the 10 percent limit. And
you mentioned that you thought that was
foolish.
The
purpose for that being in there is largely
to identify to the States that
authorizad States — that we intend for
them to carry out the program and not
us. And all we are going to do is
exercise oversight sufficient to know
that the program is being carried out
according to the rules and regulations.
You
may also note that in there is the pos-
sibility if EPA has reason to believe
that a State is not carrying out those
provisions in accordance with the
agreed on action, that we can abrogate
and review as many as we would like.
Is that sufficient in your opinion?
would that be sufficient?
MR. TRITICO:
Yes
It's just that when I read it I did
not see that you had that right to
-------
76
abrogate it.
MR. LINDSEY:
I believe it's —
MS. WRIGHT:
It's in the statute.
MR. LINDSEY:
Yes, but it's also written in the regulations
somewhere. I'm not s-ure that I could
quote the verse for that.
MR. TRITICO:
I am glad to hear that.
MR. LIN OS EY >
Another point you made was the seven-day
warning relative to undertaking an
oversight inspection, and you felt
that couJd, would, I think you said,
to, you know, cleaning up operations,
if you will.
If I'm not mistaken in that, the warning
is to the State so that the State will
have time to accompany us. This is
only an authorized State now, one State
which has been authorized. And not to
-------
77
operator, the inspection night be a
surprise inspection. It might very
well be a surprise inspection. I think
we would carry some of those out cer-
tainly.
MR. TRITICO:
I did not understand that.
MR. LIHDSEY:
All right. Let me ask you the $64 question
here, if I might. You indicated that
you didn't have any faith in Louisiana's
ability to take over this Act. But let
me ask you the question: Do you think,
having read the guidelines under Section
3006, that they are sufficient for EPA
to follow, for EPA to determine whether
or not a State is going to — has a
satisfactory program?
MR. TRITICO:
I believe that it is, assuming that the
integrity of your people is the kind
of integrity that I would hope that it
would be.
-------
78
MR. LINOSBY t
Okay, okay. is there anyone elae on the
panel who has a question?
(HO RESPONSE)
NR. LINDSEY:
Again, let me just point out that if anyone
has a question for this speaker, or
for any othfcr speaker, if you will
write then on the cards and raise your
hands, why we'll take them.
If not, then Mr. Tritico, thank you very
much for your comments.
MR. TRITICO:
Thank you.
MR. LINDSEY:
The next request I have to present a state-
ment is from Mr. Jay Snow, who is
representing the National Governors•
Association.
Mr. Snow.
MR. JAY SNOW:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Hearing Panel for the opportunity to
-------
79
speak to you today regarding the pro-
posed guidelines for State Hazardous
Waste Programs pursuant to Section 3006
of the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act of 1976.
My
name is Jay Snow. I am Chief of the Solid
Haste Unit, Texas Department of Hater
Resources, and I speak to you today
representing the Hazardous Waste Task
Force of the national Governors '
Association Standing Subcommittee on
Waste Management.
The
participating States on the NGS Hazard-
ous Task Force have monitored closely
the development of these proposed guide-
lines. The States recognized the
importance of these guidelines in light
of the clear Congressional preference
contained in the law for State admini-
stration of Hazardous Waste programs
which fulfill the requirements of Sub-
title C of the Act.
On
behalf of the States, I appreciate the
-------
80
open manner in which the guidelines have
been developed to date, and the earnest
efforts on behalf of the Environmental
Protection Agency to solicit and con-
sider the States' views in developing
the document. I think the document we
have before us today has benefited from
this process of State particioation.
1 also think the document in its proposed
form, by and large, will prove to be an
effective instrument in fostering and
facilitating assumption of the Hazard-
ous waste Program by the States. Bow-
ever, there are a few provisions in the
proposed document which could either
prove to be an impediment to State
assumption or hamper the effective
administration of a State program once
authorized by EPA. I will attempt to
briefly summarize the States' position
on these matters.
The first of these issues regards the free
movement of hazardous waste proposed
-------
81
in Section 250.72 as a measure of con-
sistency and specifically, the so-called
importation ban provision, which would
render a State ineligible for authori-
zation.
As I have communicated to EPA in the past,
the States uniformly oppose this pro-
vision for a variety of reasons.
Basically, the provision is seen as an
unnecessary impediment to State assump-
tion of the Hazardous Waste Program
and as such, counter-productive to the
Congressional preference for State
assumption of the program.
Speaking as one who has been involved in a
progressive State Hazardous Waste pro-
gran for several years, I can assure
you that the public, as they should,
will continue to exercise a degree of
control over disposal site location
and disposal site service areas. I
think that the bans, in whatever form
they may take, that have been placed
-------
82
in effect should be considered as actions
taken in cognizance of public opinion,
and as such, should not be disregarded.
Therefore, I would think that such a
provision would be ineffective in dis-
couraging or removing such bans —some-
thing that, by the way, I think has been
overlooked in discussion on this issue
— would serve simply to define disagree-
ment between EPA and some State Programs.
And, therefore, result in unnecessary
dual program administration in some
States and unnecessary Federal admini-
stration of the program in other States.
I recognize the options considered by EPA
in developing this guidelines. With
regard to those six options, I would
think that Option 5, taking no action
on the hazardous waste importation ban
issue, would be the most appropriate
action for the initial promulgation
of these guidelines.
Should EPA choose to retain the importation
-------
83
ban provision, providing authority for
Regional Administrators to grant auth-
orization for a limited period, as pro-
posed, would definitely be the preferable
arrangement.
Another area of concern to the States regards
the potential of the Hazardous Waste
Program delegation paperwork to command
an inordinate share of State resources.
In several areas of the guideline, this
potential has been minimized. However,
further revision may be necessary in
Section 250.74, Federal Oversight of
Authorized Programs.
This section, for the most part, appropri-
ately limits the Regional Administrator
to a reasonable level of review and
oversight. However, in Section 250.74
(a) (4) dealing with reports, the
opposite approach has been chosen by
necessitating that the Regional Admini-
strator require quarterly reports.
This seems to be an unreasonable
-------
84
frequency, especially in light of the
Regional Administrator's ability to
impose such oversight procedures as
he deems necessary under Section 250.74
(b) .
The Task Force States have expressed to me on
numerous occasions their concern that
such provisions in the past in other
BPA Environmental Programs have in the
past, and could possibly in the future,
demand staff time that could otherwise
be devoted to more beneficial program
elaments.
I would, therefore, strongly recommend that
as a minimum, the reporting requirements
be made a negotiable item between the
Regional Administrator and the State.
This approach would allow the Regional
Administrator to tailor the reporting
to EPA'8 needs with respect to each
State, considering the type of authori-
zation, the level of funding, and so on.
Another area of concern, which, Fred, I be-
-------
85
you commented on in your intro-
duction this morning or you alluded to,
recently discussed at the NGA Hazardous
Waste Task Force at our meeting in
Denver, centers around the anticipated
application of the term "equivalency"
in assessing the adequacy of each elemeni;
proposed to be subject to examination
in Section 250.72 (a) (1). More
specifically, the States are concerned
that the measurement of equivalency
could go beyond the assessment of a
State Program element effect to deter-
mine the achievement of equivalent
effects and extend to methods and pro-
cedures which the State has established
to administer that program element.
P o r e x ample, in Section 250.72 (a) (1) ( 2)
and (3), the guideline indicates that
a permit mechanism consisting of cer-
tain specified components must be
present. And, further, the State may
not impose any requirement which is
-------
86
less stringent than that prescribed by
EPA regulations to be promulgated pur-
suant to Section 3005 of the Act.
Since the Federal permit regulations are
likely to include procedural require-
ments for such matters as hearings,
application lead times and so on, would
differing administrative methods and
procedural requirements pertaining to
such matters established by a State
preclude the State's authorization due
to inequivalencies or because of issues
of stringency?
The general drift of these guidelines seem
to imply that they would not. And,
Fred, you made a statement this morning
that to -- to support that they would
not. However, I would recommend that
additional language be proposed in the
guidelines to clearly indicate that the
assessment of program elements with re-
gard to equivalency will be limited to
the adequacy of the program element's
-------
87
effect and not extend to methods,
practices, and procedures by which the
program is administered by the State.
In many cases. State Agencies are
bound to such procedures by State law.
Once again, I have appreciated the opportunity
to address the Hearing Panel on behalf
of the National Governors' Association.
And- I will be happy to answer any ques-
tions or further address any issues
that the Environmental protection Agency
may have or the attendees may have.
Thank you very much.
MR. LEHMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Snow. Do any of the panel
members have questions of Mr. Snow?
Yes, we do.
MR. LINDSEY:
I have one of my own and I'll handle that
first. And then I have one from the
audience, as well.
You were talking — the most recent the
last thing you said was about the intent
-------
88
of the stringency equivalency regula-
tions. And I would like to reaffirm
that the intent is to — where criteria
is concerned, which would be substan-
tive of our criteria for facility per-
mits and that kind of .thing, the Act
i3 quite clear in saying that no State
or other entity, for that matter, can
have a standard on the same criteria
which is less stringent. And in that
case -- that would be clear in any case.
However, as you pointed out and mentioned,
our intent is to — where the criteria
are different or on a different basis
or something of that nature, we're
looking for equivalent degree of con-
trol, and that's more of a judgment
call. There's no question about that.
And where we're talking about procedur-al
requirements, about how someone carries
it out, whether they call it a permit
or not, or things of that nature and
they call it something else. Those
-------
89
kinds of things are not terribly im-
portant to us. It's a matter of equi-
valency of control. A State will have
to demonstrate the same degree of con-
trol over hazardous waste, or more
degree of control, than the EPA Program
will.
If you have any, and I'm sure you will help
us with this, if you have any wording
which gives pause in this area or doesn't
make it clear, you, or anyone else for
that matter, if you would like to help
us word it, why, we would take any --
be glad to have any written suggestions
you might have on that.
MR. SNOW:
Would be glad to help out.
MR. LIN OS EY:
And the question from the audience here says:
Would either Mr. Snow, personally, the
Texas Water Quality Board, or the
National Governors' Association Solid
Waste Task Force support Federal
-------
90
legislation to abolish or pre-empt
importation bans?
MR.
SNOW :
NO .
MR.
LINDS
EY :
N one
of the three?
MR.
SNOW :
I ca
n't — the Task Force hasn't really
addressed this, whether they would
support it or not support it. From
the indication of the States parti-
cipating, I don't think that they would.
MR.
LINOS
BY :
I mi
ght also indicate that we have received
a couple of questions on cards which
were addressed to the panel here, as
opposed to speakers who are making
presentations. And we will attempt.
provided there is time available after
this is over, to answer those kinds of
questions at the end. So if you have
questions of the panel, as opposed to
speakers, if you would either hold them
-------
91
or else we'll hold them until this is
over and then we'll try to answer those.
MR.
LEHMAN:
Are there any other questions by the panel?
(NO RESPONSE)
MR.
LEHMAN:
I guess not. Thank you very much, Mr. Snow,
for giving us your views on this regu-
lation -- proposed regulation.
Next I would like to call Mr. G. W. Daigre.
Excuse me, if I have not pronounced
this correctly. He's of the Dow Chemi-
cal Company, U. S. A.
MR.
G. W. DAIGRE:
Mr. Chairman, I'm G. W. Daigre, Manager of
Environmental Control of the Louisiana
Division of Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
I wish to present comments pertinent to the
proposed guidelines for the State
Hazardous Waste Programs. These com-
ments reflect our concerns and corporate
philosophy in the proper management of
hazardous waste to provide adequate
-------
92
protection of human health and the
environment.
These comments are specific to the manifest
system, non-importation bans, partial
authorization, interim authorization,
hazard criteria, reporting requirements,
and economic and environmental impact.
First, the manifest system. It should be
emphasized in the approved State pro-
grams that in accordance with Section
3002 of RCRA, the use of a manifest is
required only for those hazardous wastes
which leave the site of generation,
that is, the premises, and are taken
only to permitted storage, treatment,
or disposal facilities.
We feel that it should be clearly stated in
the proposed guidelines that manifests
are not required for the generator,
transporter, or storer-treater-disposer
on the premises. The meaning of "on
the premises" also should be broadened
to allow some flexibility in operation
-------
among neighboring but non-contiguous
sites. We suggest on the premises or
on-site to be interpreted to include
all fully integrated hazardous waste
operations of management which are
conducted entirely under common manage-
ment within a reasonable distance from
each other, for instance, 50 miles,
but require some movement across or
along a public road or waterway.
To eliminate duplication, but still comply
with RCRA, the record-keeping for on-
site generators should be incorporated
into the requirements for storer-treater-
dispoaer who is also on-site under
common management, and who is subject
to record—keeping, as well as permitting
and reporting requirements.
We will provide EPA with a more detailed
assessment of the manifest system and
the reporting system as applied to
operations on the premises.
As far as non-importation bans, we agree
-------
94
that adequate management of hazardous
waste demand the free movement of such
waste to whatever facility or site that
can best treat or dispose of them. We,
therefore, encourage EPA to authorize
Hazardous Waste Programs only for those
States which allow the importation of
hazardous wastes to permitted storage,
treatment or disposal facilities. The
phase-ou.t of existing non-importation
bans on both hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes also should be pursued.
As
far as partial authorization, we are con-
cerned about the adequacy of allowing
partial authorization to a State to
conduct a Hazardous Waste Management
Program.
A
sharing of the responsibilities would
result in confusion and duplication
of effort for the agencies and greatly
increase the complexity for regulated
f irma.
We
question whether any State should seek a
-------
95
partial authorization. We encourage
the full authorization of State Programs
with as much consistency as feasible
among States recognizing differences
in facility siting and industrial
compos i 11on.
Interim authorization. We encourage EPA to
allow interim authorization to those
States having existing Hazardous Wastes
Programs substantially equivalent to
the Federal Program under Subtitle C.
The window for application for interim
authMization of 90 days should be
extended commensurate with the delays
of promulgation of Subtitle C regula-
tions. Similarly, the operational
period of interim authorization of
two years should be extended.
Hazard criteria. It is very uncertain at
the present time what actually con-
stitutes a hazardous waste in the
Federal regulations and yet all future
State Programs are required to define
-------
96
a hazardous waste. Meaningful guide-
lines to State Hazardous Waste Programs
cannot be established until hazard
criteria are fully defined under Sec-
tion 3001 .
There is over-concern for control of poten-
tially hazardous wastes already properly
managed so as to adequately protect
human health and the environment. Over-
regulation of so-called hazardous wastes
is evident in the proposed draft cri-
teria of Section 3001, which will result
in essentially all municipal and in-
dustrial solid wastes being declared
as hazardous irrespective of actual
or proven hazard.
This over-classification is obviously con-
trary to the intent of the RCRA. In-
dividual States must reflect the
criteria for hazard and State regula-
tions to be substantially equivalent
and as stringent as the Federal criteria
It is difficult to perceive any greater
-------
97
I
stringency than all solid wastes being
declared hazardous.
The net results of over-classification of
hazards are multiple. Hazardous waste
management facilities will be overtaxed
beyond capacity. Resource recovery,
contrary to the intent of RCRA, is
severely discouraged by classifying
all wastes as hazardous.
As far as the reporting requirements, we
disagree that reporting requirements
are of a small or negligible impact as
stated by EPA . We feel that an annual
summary report by the individual State
to EPA is sufficient and that quarterly
reporting schedule is excessive.
We feel that Federal review of up to 10 per-
cent of the permit applications and
Federal inspection of up to 10 percent
of facilities in each fiscal year is
excessive and unnecessary. Such re-
views and inspections should be limited
to extenuating circumstances upon the
-------
98
request by the State assuming primacy.
We
agree that the memorandum of understand-
ing should be an integral part of the
State authorization program. These
memoranda should be given wide dis-
tribution to all affected parties.
As
far as economic and environmental impacts.
analyses of the economic and envirbn-
mental impacts should not be restricted
to the entirety of Subtitle C. They
should also be included in the sub-
stantial impact of Subtitle D.
The
economic impact on the public resulting
from Sections 3006 implementation while
less than Sections 3001 through -5,
nevertheless, will not be negligible
as stated by EPA simply because the
subject State Programs must be equivalent
to the Federal Program.
In
either case, a costly program of manifest-
ing, monitoring, permitting, surveillance
and enforcement is required. Evaluation
of surveillance and enforcement programs
-------
99
should be done on a 3tate-by-Stato basis
reflecting individual characteristics
and problems.
We believe both the Environmental Impact
Statement and the Economic Impact
Analysis should be available to the
public, private industry, and individual
States before the proposed guidelines
for State Hazardous Waste Programs are
finalized.
Thank you for this opportunity to express
our concerns.
MR. LEHMAN'
Thank you. Are there any questions from the
panel? Mr. Lindsey.
MR. LINDSEY:
Yeah. I seem to be busy here.
Early on. when talking about the manifest
system, you indicated, if I understand
your statement correctly, that for
treatment, storage and disposal sites
which are owned by a generator, but
are not on-site, if you will, but are
-------
100
located somewhere further away — I
think you used the term up to 50 miles
— that the manifest system should not
be required. is that your point?
MR.
NR.
MR.
required to handle that type system.
The manifest system is additional
paperwork that would be required, and
you will require the generator to keep
track of what he's generating. And
it's all under the same management, so
we felt that this was a duplication to
have a manifest system under the same
OAIGRE :
Yes. As long as it's all under the same
managemen t.
LIB OS EY :
Company, yes. Okay. Could you comment a
little more on why that is, and why
you said that? Would we not lose con-
trol over the waste in some fashion in
that way?
OA I G RE :
I guess I'm concerned about the paperwork
-------
101
management.
MR. LEHMAN:
Are
there any other questions?
tat
me just make a comment, if I might, at
this time. And that is that several
of your comments were really beyond the
scope of this hearing. In other words.
we were talking about 3006 and you were
making comments about 3001, -2 and the
Environmental Impact Statement and so
on. That's fine. But I would just
like to say that we would like to see
you — future speakers please try to
focus on the hearing here. We will
have hearings at later time on these
other regulations as they are proposed
in the Register.
Thank you very much for your comments. Wo
appreciate your coming, Mr. Daigre.
NeXt 1 would like to call Mr. L. D. Sheperd.
Mr. Sheperd, would you please identify
yourself and your affiliation, if any.
and also if you would accept any questioi
-------
102
MR. LEO D. SBEPERD:
My name is Leo Sheperd and I'm from Sulphur,
Louisiana, and I'm here for the people
up there in our area. They asked us
to come down here, and I*m a property
owner, a home-owner. The home-owners
in our area asked me if I would come
down here to speak. I don't have any
— I haven't prepared for this because
we didn't know about it until the last
minute.
We went up last Saturday to get some pic-
tures and to take some tests of this
here wall being — this pollution is
being put down in. Well, as Mr. Tritico
told you, we were very rudely excavated,
put off, even put off the parish road,
tried to.
But, anyways, what our trouble is that we
have a well there that they're putting
down this pollution in. And as home-
owners we're very concerned, because
they're putting it in there under
-------
103
pressure which would cause, perhaps,
to bring this up to our water level
if the stuff is polluted, which we got
no way of knowing until we take tests
and find out about it.
I'm willing to pay for the test if they'll
let ma take them. The man told me that
I could take a test and take pictures
if he was there. That's kind of like
watching the chicken house with the fox.
But, after all, if he tells me which
I'm going to take I'm not going to find
out what Z want. I want to take them
at random, and I'll pay for them myself
and bring them back.
But as I said, I don't have any information
now to back me up but I can get you a
petition. And up there some of this
stuff is coming in from Texas, Louisiana,
and some of it from as far away as
Illinois. And we're in Louisiana.
We've got industries there in Lake
Charles. we realize that they've got
-------
104
to make a living for the people there
and they're bringing work in. But we
don't feel like we should take care of
this pollution from some other States.
So industries over there takes care of
them people, let them take care of their
own pollution.
And
we would really like to know how potent
this stuff is, if we can find out in
any way. And I'm trying ray best to find
out what it is and when I get more to-
gether I would be glad to answer any
and all questions, but until I do get
the questions -- got the answers to them,
I don't care to answer any questions
right now. But I would like to be able
to find out what's going in this well.
how much of it. and find out the facts
on i t.
Hot
only for myself, but for all the neighbors
and the home-owners. Hot property owners
because a lot of this ground belongs to
big industries and I'm sure they don't
-------
105
care what goes in there. But as home-
owners we do, because our property out
there is selling from anywhere from
$3500 an acres on up. It's all built
under restrictions. You can't have a
trailer there, you can't buil^ a tin
shed, you've got to have a good home.
And this outfit's polluting up our
place and making us afraid of it for
the water.
And it's also a nuisance to our roads, it's
tearing them up. So what I mean is
that until I get some facts I wouldn't
care to answer any questions. But that':
our problem and I'd like to find out
some way to eliminate it.
Thank you very kindly, sir.
MR. LEHMAH:
Okay. Thank you for your comments, Mr.
Sheperd. I should say that the entire
purpose of regulations under the
Hazardous Waste Provisions under the
Resource conservation and Recovery Act
-------
106
is to control such disposal of hazardous
waste .
MR. SHEPERO:
That's right. Yes, sir, it is. And I think
you folks take the Wa11 Street journa1,
and I think some of you have, and a
couple of three years ago, if you'll
remember, might be that some of you
remember, but they looked down to West
Lake and they crossed the river from
Lake Charles — they had a little item
in there — that they had more people
dying in Lake Charles — West Lake from
cancer than any other State according
to per capita than any other place in
the world due to the fact that the
people there were working in these
chemical plants, breathing the air,
and from the residue of them.
MR. LEHMAN:
Yes, sir.
MR. SHEPERO:
Thank you very kindly.
-------
107
MR.
LEHMAN:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Shepherd, we also have Mrs. Sheperd down
as a speaker. is she also here?
MR .
SHEPERD:
If you call her I think she'll speak.
MR.
LEHMAN:
Okay. Mrs. Sheperd, would you like to come
to the stand? Would you also indicate
your affiliation, please, and whether
you would take any questions?
MRS
. LEO D. SHEPERD:
I'm Mrs. Leo Sheperd. I live four miles
north of Sulphur, Louisiana. I will
accept questions from the panel only
because I have had experience with
harassment on this before.
We moved here seven years ago to settle our-
selves for retirement and to — because
we like the country, and we wanted to
make this our permanent home. My hus-
band retired last October.
Approximately June last year we discovered
-------
108
this dump in operation about two miles
from our hone. Our property is our
largest single investment of our life.
and we are very upset.
I
have contacted the State with no coopera-
tion to find out what's going in this
dump. It is an open-type dump. Some-
times the levees break and it flows
into the river.
I
can get statements. I did not have time
to get statements, from several people
in the community around there. They
tell rae that the fumes from this dump
burns their eyes and they experience
difficulties up there with headaches
and what-have-you.
I
have monitored trucks going in and out.
I have license plates from practically
every State. This stuff comes from
Chicago. My son has talked to a driver.
These States that do not allow their
own States to be polluted, Louisiana
gets it.
-------
109
Louisiana is a beautiful State. Why do we
allow all of this stuff to be brought
back to Louisiana to be disposed of?
This driver also pointed out to my son
that the stuff comes from as far away
as California.
I
think each truck carries about 6,000 gal-
lons. And the days that Z had monitored
trucks going in, they are in about every
15 minutes. This is a lot of pollution.
This is too much pollution.
I
understand that it's supposed to be moni-
tored by the Conversation Department
and the Wildlife and Fisheries Depart-
ment. And I get no cooperation from
them. I don't know what's going into
the dump. I am sure that it's pretty
lethal stuff.
Hot too long ago a truck came in and got
lost off of Houston River Road, came
into our road and a lady's new home.
tore up her beautiful yard. And she
allowed him to do this because the kid
-------
110
was lost. This truckload of stuff came
from Baton Rouge.
Row I think it's a sad state when I have to
come up here and ask the Federal govern-
ment for regulations. I think the State
should handle their own regulations.
But, unfortunately, politics in Louisi-
ana, in my opinion, are bad enough that
we are going to ask the Federal to limit
this. To do some regulations, to hear
us people, and I'm glad that I have an
opportunity to say my input.
Thank you.
MR.
LEHMAN i
Thank you, Mrs. Sheperd.
Do we have any questions from the panel?
(HO RESPONSE)
MR.
LEHMAN:
I guess not. Thank you very much, Mrs.
Sheperd.
MRS
. SHEPERD:
May I add something?
MR.
LEHMAN:
-------
Ill
Yes, go ahead.
MRS
. SHBPERO:
I had several other things to say but Mr.
Mike Trltico said them very well and
I see no need to repeat them.
I was with him last Saturday when we were
verbally abused and run out of the
dump site.
NR.
LEHMAN:
OXay. The next speaker I have is Mr. J.
Charles Aligood, Jr.
Would you please state your name and affili-
ation and also if you would accept
questions, please.
NR.
J. CHARLES ALIGOOD, JR.:
Yes. My name is Charles Aligood. I live in
Livingston parish, Louisiana. I'm
representing myself. I will accept
questions from anyone.
I come today in response to notice for a
public hearing for this EPA law to
comment on my first-hand experience
with existing State and Federal
-------
legislation concerning hazardous waste
hand ling.
TO be a little more specific, to indicate
ny position, I live approximately two
miles from a company called Southwest
Environmental Company, who ia, to my
understanding, permitted in the State
of Louisiana to handle hazardous chemi-
cal waste.
I was not aware until this company had re-
ceived their permit for operation that
any permit was even requested. I never,
as a citizen, had an opportunity to
participate in any hearing to make any
statement concerning the granting of
any permits for operations of a hazard-
ous chemical waste facility two miles
from my home. To my knowledge no pub-
lic hearing was ever held. Also, to
my knowledge, I don't think one was
even required the way this State of
Louisiana handles the hazardous waste
chemical situation.
-------
113
In terms of support from appropriate State
officials, there has been very little
support in terms of monitoring this
particular company.
I have made, personally, numerous complaints
publicly about odors that have existed
from time to time from this plant.
This past week there were, again, odors.
These odors are somewhat non-descriptive.
however, they exist.
Thia
particular facility was cited by the
Louisiana Stream Commission for dis-
posing — for pumping hazardous chemicals
from a large, approximately a one acre
square, pit, ostensibly -- and this is
my opinion — to keep the pit from
overflowing during heavy rainfalls.
This
particular company, I'm given to under-
stand, has submitted the best set of
planned program procedures, whatever,
in terms of their handling of hazardous
chemical waste.
One
would be hard-stressed to argue with
-------
114
what is written. However, in fact, one
has no problem at all arguing with
odors, and with the citation issued by
the State of Louisiana Stream Commission.
I find it interesting that the laxity of the
State of Louisiana officials exists in
handling citizen complaints. Mr. Triticc
has indicated some types of these types
of things. Mr. and Mrs. Sheperd have
indicated the same types of things.
They're concerned. I am here today
indicating, as well, my concern.
Z find it mind-boggling to consider that the
Louisiana Stream Commission, the State
Department of Conservation, the State
Health and Human Resources Administra-
tion of Louisiana, the local State
Representative of the State Health
Department, the local Health Department,
all of these individuals, and possibly,
as well the Federal Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, are all charged with
representing and upholding and doing
-------
115
those things necessary for the public
safety. I am concerned that the State
of Louisiana is not doing what they
should be doing.
I agree and fully support the law as stated.
I fully support all manifest systems,
not only for transportation of material
from one company to another, but also
within the same company. I fully agree
with the need to maintain this manifest
system because it is a problem, or
could be a very difficult problem to
determine the flow of these materials,
if the manifest system was allowed to
be lax in some areas and stringent in
other areas.
There is a need for this Federal legislation.
There is also a need, I feel, for the
existence or a creation of a single
body, a single agency, that would have
sole responsibility for implementation
and enforcement of all environmental
or harzardous chemical waste material.
-------
116
This single agency does not exist in
Louisiana, as I have cited these four
that I know of — these agencies that
have some say-so in there. It's in-
teresting that one would tend to pass
off on the other.
This
is opinion on my part. However, what
is not opinion is, again, the citation
that's been issued to this company.
and the odors that do exist.
The
existence of strong Federal legislation
is urged, on my part. The existence
of public hearing being required for
all permits that are applied for for
handling chemicals and for establish-
ing new sites, are sought by myself
and I hope by all people within the
State of Louisiana and the United
S tatea .
The
existence of hazardous chemical waste
disposal facilities in the' State of
Louisiana is growing rapidly, possibly
because of the laxity of existing State
-------
117
regulations.
To go one step further, maybe not laxity of
the regulations, but laxity of enforce-
ment .
Thank you.
MR.
LEHMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Aligood.
Oo we have any questions or comments from
the panel?
(HO RESPONSE)
MR.
LEHMAN t
I guess not. Thank you very much, Mr. Ali-
good, for giving us your comments on
this issue.
Next, I would like to call Mr. William B.
DeVille.
Mr. DeVille, please state your affiliation
and also if you would accept questions.
MR.
WILLIAM J. DeVILLE:
Thank you. Jack. I'm Bill DeVille. I'm
Director of Research of the Governor's
Office of Science, Technology and
Environmental policy. State of Louisiana
-------
118
I also serve as Staff Chairman of the
National Governors' Association Standing
Subcommittee on Waste Management, which
Governor Edwards chairs.
I wanted to re-emphasize statements made by
Mr. Jay Snow, who serves as Task Force
Chairman of the Hazardous Waste Task
Force, on the subject 3006 proposed
guide lines .
we think that by and large these are reason-
able and effective proposed guidelines
with the stipulation cited by Mr. Snow.
Once again emphasizing the concerns
about the non-importation ban question,
the reporting matters, and the potential
procedural issues which, in most cases,
the States are bound to, under State
administrative procedures laws, which
of course also have relevance to the
procedures that a regulatory agency
must observe in meeting the requirements
of due process.
I wanted to make one other comment as to the
-------
119
previous discussion this morning on the
issue o£ partial authorization during
interim authorization. X can say that
Louisiana would oppose the concept of
partial authorization during the interim
period and I think I can say that on
behalf of most, if not all, of the
States at this time.
I do fear that that would cause a consider-
able amount of chaos and confusion. I
think it would sorely test the resources
of both of the states under EPA in a
period when we are all trying to move
toward proper implementation of the Act.
I would like to make one final comment.
Governor Edwards, at the recent meeting
of the National Governors 1 Association
and reporting on the activities of the
Subcommittee on Waste Management and
the status of implementation of RCRA
at this time, commended SPA. And I
think properly, on the openess of
participation in discussion. And I
-------
120
think that this has assisted all of us
to move toward a law which will be
properly implemented.
Again, to quote the Governor on one more
point, he said, "Bad laws are sometimes
saved by good regulations. And good
laws have been ruined by bad regula-
tions." And he says, "We support, as
we have supported, the proper imple-
mentation of RCRA . "
I will answer any questions.
MR.
LEHMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Deville.
Do we have any questions or comments from
the panel?
(MO RESPONSE)
MR.
LEHMAN:
Evidently not.
MR.
DeVILLE:
J would like to make one further note.
Yesterday, in Baton Rouge, a legislative
hearing was held on draft hazardous
waste legislation. And I would encourage
-------
121
those in the audience who are interested
in these matters, as I gather a number
are, to become more aware of the formal
processes and hearings which were duly
advertised on this very important matter
MR. LEHMANt
Thank you, Mr. DeVille, for giving us your
comments.
I do
not have any further statements on my
list here. Are there any individuals
in the audience who desire to make a
public statement at this time?
Yes,
sir. could you please identify your-
self and indicate whether or not you
will accept questions.
MR. RICX
RHODES:
My name is Rick Rhodes. I'm the Hazardous
Materials Manager for International
Minerals and Chemicals.
And
in judging your program there are two
moot points I would like to have
clarified, if possible.
No.
1, the transportation of hazardous
-------
122
materials basically is regulated by the
Department of Transportation under Title
49. CPA said they will regulate the
transportation of hazardous materials
to the dumping point. Now who will
determine the specifications of the
containers? Also, what criterion will
you use for the definition of each
hazardous materials? EPA or DOT?
MR. LEHMAN:
Mr. Rhodes, the questions you're asking
really are part of a different sub-
section of Subtitle C, namely Section
3002, which defines generator require-
ments in Sub-section 3003. And we'll
be glad to answer that question, I
think, — we intend to have an open
question period after this hearing on
Section 3006. So, perhaps, if we could
defer answering that until we get to an
open question period.
MR. RHODES:
Okay. Thank you.
-------
123
MR. LEHMAN:
Are there any other individuals in the
audience who would like to make a state-
ment about Section 3006, the proposed
Guidelines for State Hazardous Waste
Programs ?
(HO RESPONSE)
MR. LEHMAN:
I don't see any.
So at this time I would like to end the
formal hearing on Section 3006, Pro-
posed Guidelines.
But, as I indicated earlier, we will stay
and answer other questions of a more
general nature that will be on the
record also.
I should point out that if there are members
of the audience that wish to make com-
ments on other regulations of the set
we're producing — in other words, there
are seven in all, this being one of the
seven — if you have comments on other
parts of the Subtitle C regulation set.
-------
126
waste treatment, storage and dis-
posal facilities, including the
keeping of records and submittal
of reports, and the establishment
of monitoring practices; control
of the treatment, storage and dis-
posal of hazardous waste through
a permit system or its equivalent;
a waste tracking system, i.e., a
manifest system; the power to
conduct inspections and take
samples; and the power to institute
enforcement proceedings against
violators.
"The State legislative authority
and regulatory program shall be
applicable both to those hazardous
wastes stored, treated or disposed
of at the site of generation (so-
called 'on-site' management), and
to those hazardous wastes shipped
elsewhere for storage, treatment
or disposal. "
-------
127
How that's for a fully authorized program.
For a program under interim authoriza-
tion, legislative authority that's re-
quired is slightly different.
"A State seeking interim authori-
zation shall demonstrate legisla-
tive authority to control at least
either on-site or off-site hazard-
ous waste disposal facilities,
including the authority to conduct
inspections and institute enforce-
ment proceedings.*
How you note that legislative authority to
control hazardous waste treatment or
storage, as is required under full
authorization, is not required for
interim authorization. You can see the
difference there in the contrast be-
tween full and interim authorization.
As for April of this year, it's not really
April -- this legislative authority
has to be in effect for interim auth-
orization has to be in effect by July 20
-------
128
I hope I've answered that question sufficiently.
Maybe there are some other comments on that.
MR. LEHMAN:
Okay. We have another written question.
Mr. Lindsey.
MR. LINDSEY:
Okay i
At the Roseland, Virginia, meeting on the
draft strategy for implementation of
RCRA, it was stated that only seven to
ten percent of industrial waste would
be classified as hazardous.
In light of that how do you justify propos-
ing and requiring comments on other
hazardous waste regulations before
defining hazardous waste under Section
3001 regulations.
Your approach requires many, many hours of
study and analysis by companies who
will not, in the end, be affected by
the regulation.
Okay. This has been a dilemma right along.
Let me just make a couple of statements
-------
129
about it. We are proposing here, this
3006 regulation first because States
are now and have to begin gearing up
their program so as to be eligible for
interim authorization at a certain
time frame, like next fall, -- or,
this summer, excuse me.
And to do that we want to get the 3006
regulations out as soon as we possibly
could. Yes, we would have preferred
to be able to be able to put them all
out for comments all at once, but we
can't -- we did not think it worth it
to wait to do that when the States
would like to know if they're going --
since they're considering whether or
not to accept or seek authorization,
they need to know what kind of rules
they are going to have to play under.
Even if they don't know, for example,
all the standards that are going to be
promulgated under the Federal regula-
tions. So we wanted to put that out
-------
130
as soon as we can to give the States
this maximum lead time in order to be-
gin to work on the problem.
Relative to the other sections of the Act
which lay out, if you will remember,
the Federal programs. Sections 3C01 to
3005, our intent is to propose those
as they come along. However, the closinc
date for comment on the proposed regu-
lations will be a single date, if you
will, or some regulations will have a
longer comment period than others.
The
idea here, again, is that — you've seen
Section 3006 guidelines and the back-
ground documents and so on that go
along with that — the remainder of
them are much, much more complex than
this are, more involved shall I say.
and the background documents consider
a great many more things.
And
if it all came out at once, we've had
comments go the other way, that if they
get, you know, a foot full of documents
-------
131
which are background documents and so
on, it's very difficult to read all that
at once. And so part of our intent
here is to propose them as early on as
we can to give people a chance to work
in. But as I say, the closing date for
comments on all the 3001 to -5 regula-
tions will be the same date, so that
you will have a chance to consider them
all at once, rather than piecemeal.
I hope that answers that.
MR.
LEHMAN:
It looks like we have another written ques-
tion. I have a couple of more written
questions. Okay.
Mrs. Wright.
MRS
. MERIDETH WRIGHT:
I'll answer this one.
We've been asked whether it would be possible
to add a requirement that publication
of hearings in the State journal would
not be considered adequate notice, but
rather that publication in the ma^or
-------
132
newspapers should also carry the announce-
ment .
What I would like to point out is that one
of the requirements m Section 3006,
Proposed Guidelines, is that the State,
in order to receive full authorization
would have to submit a public partici-
pation plan that conformed with the
guidelines that EPA had to publish under
another section on public participation
in Solid Waste Management.
Copies of these other setsof guidelines are
available at the front desk there and
I just gave the author of this question
a copy of those guidelines.
In those guidelines there are several sec-
tions dealing with notice for hearings,
but the section that I'd like to par-
ticularly point out is Section 249.7 (d)
which suggests that in addition to the
legal requirements of publishing notice
that, because even notices published in
newspapers are not always sufficient to
-------
133
assure public awareness, that notices
should be mailed to particularly in-
terested and affected persons, people
who have submitted their names for
receipt of such public notices, when-
ever possible, unless the urgency of
the hearing for some environmental
reason requires shorter notices.
I hope that those requirements which a State
must meet in order to receive authori-
zation would satisfy that problem.
NR. LEHMAN:
Okay. Thank you, Mendeth.
We have a couple of other written questions
here. We'll get back to some of the
oral questions that were asked earlier
in the hearing after wo finish with the
written questions.
Here's one from the audience, it says :
Do you really believe that only seven to
ten percent of industrial waste will
be classified as "hazardous waste"
under the draft criteria proposed by
-------
134
EPA under Section 3001? If so, why?
What about fly-ash? Would it be con-
sidered to be a "hazardous waste?"
Well, let me address that in several parts.
First of all, we have not proposed as
yet any criteria under Section 3001,
at least not officially, in the Federal
Reglater. We have circulated, widely,
to interested parties, copies of draft
regulations. As you probably can ap-
preciate, we run through several drafts
in the preparation of a proposed regu-
lation. And it is our policy and our
intent to involve as many interested
parties in this development process as
possible. So we have sent out to over
500 individuals copies of these drafts.
So the question may have been asked
concerning our stance in one of these
drafts. But I should say that the
drafts are just that — they don't
represent our final proposal.
But to get to the root of the question, I
-------
135
think there's a great deal of misunder-
standing about our intentions here with
respect to the definition of hazardous
waste. And, you know, it revolves
around this issue about, roughly, ten
percent of industrial waste being
classified as hazardous.
1 think it's worth taking a minute to give
you some of the background for that
number and to indicate where it comes
from and whether or not it would turn
out to be the final case.
Over a two-year period, from about 1974 to
1976, the Office of Solid Waste con-
ducted fifteen different studies by
contractors of specific industrial
sectors and their waste from those
sectors and, in particular, those wastes
which in the contractors' judgment might
be considered potentially hazardous
waste. And it turned out that of those
fifteen industries studied, when you
added up the total amount from all
-------
136
fifteen of these, nationally, and you
said: Okay, this is the total amount
of waste that they produce, and then
this is the sub-set of that amount that
has been identified by the contractor
as possibly being potentially hazardous.
That this turned out to be approximately
ten to fifteen percent of the total
amount.
How, you've got to bear in mind that certain
industrial sectors out of that total
of fifteen, almost all of the waste
from certain industrial sectors, was
considered to be hazardous by the con-
tractors. And in certain other sectors
a very small percentage, like one per-
cent or less, was considered to be
hazardous.
But in aggregate, nationally, it turns out
to be about ten to fifteen percent.
Now, so that's the basis of our state-
ments in the public and before con-
gressional Oversight Committees and
-------
137
so forth, that that's approximately the
segment of the total industrial waste
picture that we're aiming at.
NOW
the -- whether it will turn out to be
roughly ten to fifteen percent or not,
of course, depends on how the final
definition for hazardous waste comes
out.
I noticed in one of the earlier statements
one of the participants in the earlier
hearing, a claim was made that the way
things are going all waste would be
hazardous, including municipal waste.
Well, that is not our intention. That
is not the congressional intent, either,
I believe. If you read, very closely.
the definition, the legislative defini-
tion, of hazardous waste m the Act it
refers to waste which poses substantial
hazard or have a significant probability
for public health or environmental
damage.
And
yet Congress did not give us a great deal
-------
13
of guideance but we're talcing that to
mean that what they really wanted this
regulatory program to control was the
really significant and substantial
threats to public health and environ-
ment and not municipal waste, for
example.
As a matter of fact, if you read the draft
regulations for Section 3001, which
defines what hazardous waste is, you'll
find that all municipal or, that is,
household type of waste, are exempted
in the regulation from control under
the hazardous waste regulation because
we believe that is consistent with
Congressional intent.
Now as to the other question, I'm sorry to
be so long-winded about this, but I
think it's important that -- for You
to understand this.
The second part of the question was: What
about fly-ash? You know, would it be
considered to be a hazardous waste?
-------
139
Well, you could ask the same question
about almost any other type of waste.
What about X, you know, would that be
a hazardous waste? We ]ust are not
able to answer that question right now
because we have not finished the defi-
nition of what a hazardous waste is.
How
there are certain criteria being de-
veloped. The law requires EPA to define
hazardous waste in two ways, one by
criteria and one by lists. And we are
developing both. And the one follows
the other, basically. We define the
criteria first and then by applying
those criteria to certain waste streams
we then develop the lists. But the
fact that a material or a waste stream
is not on the list does not necessarily
mean that it is not hazardous, because
the ultimate decision is the criteria.
And
what we have in mind here is a hierar-
chical set of criteria starting with
the most acute hazard. Like: 13 it
-------
140
explosive? Is it flanmable? Is it
infectious? And if you flunk one of
those tests, then the waste is hazardous,
And it goes down on — the last one in
the hierarchy is: Is it toxic? And
then we have two, the criteria split
when you get to toxicity, and we're
contemplating two different types of
criteria. One being an analytical
cheraistry-type of test to decide whether
the material is toxic, and the other
being a bio-assay type of test.
N ow
you've got to bear in mind that we are
somewhat out on the — in the forefront
of the state of the art here. The law
requires us to consider chronic as well
as acute toxicity in the definition.
And also to accommodate any bio-magni-
fying type of waste, bio-cumulative
components and so on.
And
, furthermore, we are applying these
criteria to wastes. we are not apply-
ing them to pure chemicals. And there's
-------
141
a big difference, believe me, between
trying to decide -- especially the
toxicity of a pure chemical as opposed
to trying to decide the toxicity of
a mixture, a waste mixture, which could
conceivably consist of hundreds of
different kinds of chemicals all mixed
up together which may be synergistic
when mixed together or may be antago-
nistic. In other words, one may cancel
out the other or they may support one
another. It's very difficult to tell.
So, we're defining these criteria, then,
for the wastes themselves. And we also
are developing these lists. So I can-
not answer at this time whether or not
fly-ash will be or will not be considered
hazardous waste. It depends on how the
criteria turn out. And the same thing
goes for a large number of other wastes.
I was challenged at another meeting we had
as to say: Okay, can you tell me a
waste that would not be a hazardous
-------
waste? And I think wo can answer that
in one ease where we have some data
and that data is firm and it does show,
and i think it illustrates a point, too
the waste in question is foundry sands.
You are all familiar. I think, with the
way casting in foundries is done. They
use foundry sands to make a mold,
these sands often contain high concen-
trations of heavy metals. And these
heavy metals can be toxic in their own
right. But the mere fact that the
waste contains heavy metals does not
necessarily make it hazardous, because
it depends on whether the heavy metals
are capable of being leached out of
that waste or whether they are tied up
by the structure of the waste itself,
it turns out, in the case of foundry
sands, where you're talking about very
high temperature smelting and foundry
operations, that these wastes — these
heavy metals are. i„ fact, fused in a
-------
143
glassy substance. And there's very
little, if any, possibility that these
components of the waste can ever leach
out.
And
so these wastes were, in fact, tested
against some of these leaching criteria
and were found that none of these heavy
metaIs get out. So, based on that, we
would, I think, say with some firm
knowledge that foundry sand wastes.
even though they contain toxic heavy
metals, would not be classified as a
hazardous waste under our criterion.
Mow
I hope that distinction clarifies this
in your mind, because — and another
point was brought out: What about the
whole business of potentially hazardous
waste? I think that deserves comment,
too, and I'll try and be a little briefei
on that point.
But
it is this, that we're talking about here
is the potential for public health and
environmental damage if the waste is
-------
144
not properly disposed of. And that's
why we have manifests and that's why
we have transportation controls and so
on. It's to make sure that a waste
which does have that potential is con-
trolled from the time that it's gener-
ated through the transportation link
to the time that it reaches a permitted
hazardous waste facility for treatment.
storage or disposal.
I f
the waste has the potential for signifi-
cant or substantial public health damage.
if it is not disposed of properly, then
that's a hazardous waste.
And
I hope that distinction is clear to you.
Okay. We have another written question now.
MRS. WRIGHT:
The
question is whether a citizen may bring
an action under the Citizen Suit Pro-
vision of the Act against an on-site
disposer who is not in compliance with
EpA's regulations, even in a State
which has interim authorization and
-------
145
itself has no controls over on-site
disposal.
And
the quick answer to that is yea. It is
also true that EPA, as its enforcement
arm, could also bring an action against
an on-site disposer which is out of
compliance of EPA's regulations in a
State which has not yet gotten around
to controlling on-site disposal.
The
citizen suit provisions provide that a
citizen may bring an action against
any person who is alleged to be violatinc
any permits, standard, regulation or
requirement under the Act. And there's
no restriction in that. Once those
regulations or permits have become ef-
fective there's no restriction in that
on what other kinds of controls also
exist over that particular site.
MR. LEHMAN:
Okay. We have another question here from
the audience. This concerns Section
3002 of the Act, which is the regula-
-------
146
tions applied to generators of hazardous
wastes. it says:
Can
you elaborate on the current status of
exemption under RCRA for "small" gener-
ators? For example, has EPA developed
a definition for small generators?
Does such a definition exempt such firms
irrespective of the waste generated?
You
know, some of you may not be aware of
this and I'll give a little preamble
to it.
What
we're contemplating is a, you know.
possibly to exempt what we call small
generators. That is, generators of a
small -- very small amounts of waste
from the overall requirements of this
regulatory system.
We've done some analysis of the situation
and find that if you, for example, set
a limit of, say, 100 kilograms of waste
per month — that 220 pounds per month.
that's roughly a half of a 55-gallon
drum, to put it into direct terras --
-------
147
that if a generator generates, you know.
less than that amount per month he would
be exempted from the reporting require-
ments and the manifest requirements and
all these other things, provided — and
this gets to the second part of the
question — that the waste does not
contain certain types of chemicals
which are very, very hazardous.
Someone once aaid: Well, 100 kilograms or
220 pounds of PCBs is a lot of PCBs.
And we agree with that.
And
so there will be exemptions to the
exemptions, then, if you will. In
other words, you're back in the system
if you have certain types of chemicals.
Bu t
the whole idea here was to avoid putting
undue reporting requirements and so
forth on small businesses which have
very small amounts of waste. And it
turns out that if you adopt this type
of approach, that you exempt about 99.5
percent of all of the generators of
-------
potentially hazardous waste from the
system, but you only lose control of
about of less than one percent of
the wastes. in other words, most of
the waste is generated by large gener-
ators. So, in other words, there's a
very large number of small generators
and a very small number of large gen-
erators, if that makes sense. And so
you have not lost control over very
much of the waste, but you have reduced
the administrative aspects on a large
number of people.
So that is our current thinking and that's
the basis of that question. I think
that's -- we have, as I said, developed
in our draft regulations a definition
for snail generators based on 100 kilo-
grams per month. And it does make a
distinction between certain chemicals
that are in that place.
I think that answers that question. Thank
you.
-------
149
Do we have others, Fred?
MR. LINDSEY:
Yeah
, I have two here .
One
is basically a 3001 question on the
definition of hazardous waste:
What
authority will EPA have over the handlinc
and disposal of high level radio-active
waste from nuclear power plants?
And
the answer to that is basically, none.
Let me go further with that and say
that if you*11 look under Section 1006
(a) of the Act, it indicates, if I may
quote it:
"Nothing in this Act shall be con-
strued to apply to,"
And then it goes on to list a whole
series of Acts:
"...any activity or substance
which is subject to the follow-
ing:"
And then it goes on to list a whole
banch of Acts, including the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954.
-------
150
So what I'm saying is that we don't have any
direct control under RCRA of anything
which is covered under the Atomic
Energy Act. That leaves us, then, as
we understand it, with certain kinds of
radio-active wastes which -are not
covered under the Atomic Energy Act
and those are basically naturally
ocurnng things like radiant, or those
produced by accelerators, that kind of
material.
The second part of this question:
is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the
sole authority responsible for this
type of hazardous waste?
And the answer is, yes. BPA's Office of
Radiation Programs is trying -- is
mandated with coordinating the actions
and so on of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and is kind of monitoring
what goes on. Also there's some —
EpA has a memorandum of understanding
with the nuclear. Regulatory Commission
-------
151
where we consult with them and so forth.
So in that sense we do have some interest
in the area, but we don't have any
direct control under RCRA of any high
leve1 was tea .
Another question here:
Hill
incineration of a hazardous waste which
is generated on-site as part of the
chemical manufacturing process be clas-
sified as a Hazardous waste Management
facility and, therefore, require a
permit?
And
the answer — this is a question about
Section 3004, the standards for treat-
ment, storage and disposal facilities,
which, as I may also point out, have
not been proposed yet. There's only
been one very preliminary draft put out.
So what I'm saying here is, based on
preliminary drafts, the way it's in
there now is that the answer is, nor-
mally yes, that would be the case.
But
the second part o£ this question goes
-------
152
on to point out an area where we are
still discussing, and haven't made a
final decision, but where it might be,
no, and that ia even if the waste is
continuously fed to that on-site in-
cinerator, presumably through a direct
pipeline from the manufacturing process,
that's that sort of thing,
ow, let me just elaborate on that. It s
necessary for us in writing regulations
under Section 3004 to try and determine
what ia -- in other words, where does a
facility become a Hazardous Waste
Management facility and not part of the
process, if you will?
And the concept we have gone under so far is
that any continuous operation from a
attached to a manufacturing operation,
such as by a pipeline or a conveyor
belt, and is continually fed, is not
a Hazardous Waste Management facility
for purposes of this Act. Therefore,
one could take that question and say:
-------
153
If a manufacturing operation has a waste
coning out of it and it feeds it directly
continuously to an incinerator, then
that incinerator would not, in accor-
dance with what I just said, be a
Hazardous Waste Management facility
requiring a permit.
On the other hand, the waste which would come
from that, the ash, et cetera, would be
subject to that operation. And, of
course, then the air pollution regula-
tions which exist for incinerators would,
of course, also apply in any event under
other Acts.
But
if the language stays the way it is now,
I guess the answer to that would be that
that particular case, probably would not
be covered under the Section 3004 regu-
lations .
You
*11 have plenty of chance to comment on
that, provided it stays like that in
the draft of Section 3004 when the
hearings are conducted on that. Or, if
-------
154
you'd like to comment on that before,
why — whoever made that question could
see me and I'll give them the name of
the Desk Officer m charge of that area
and you can contact him directly if you
would like.
19 there anybody else that has a written
ques tion ?
MR. LEHMAN:
Here
is a statement or a question from the
audience concerning Federal funding of
State Hazardous Waste Management Pro-
grams. It says:
What
interim authority and fully authorized
State Hazardous Waste Program Federal
funds have been identified or antici-
pated and in what amounts for Louisiana?
All
right. Let's go back. Section 3011 of
RCRA sets up a Federal Grant Program
explicitly for the purpose of assisting
States — the development and the im-
plementation of State Hazardous Waste
Programs .
-------
155
The law authorizes $25 million per year for
Fiscal Year '78 and "79 m that law.
However, the Congress did not appro-
priate any funds in FY-78 under that
section of the law. They did appro-
priate funds under a different section
of the law, under Subtitle D, for a
more general State Program support.
And those funds were in the amount of,
roughly, 514 million for all solid
waste activities at the State level in
Fiscal Year '79. Of that $14 million,
roughly, $4 million is targeted to be-
gin the early development of State
Hazardous Haste Management Programs.
Now in Fiscal Year "79, which will start on
October 1st of this year, the Admini-
stration, President Carter, in his
recent budget submission to the Congress,
identified a request for ?15 million,
explicitly under Section 3011 for the
Hazardous Waste programs at the State
leve1.
-------
156
We do not yet know whether that amount or
some different amount will be actually
appropriated by the congress for Fiscal
Year 1979. So it is difficult to state
what amounts will be available nationally,
and in particularly, for the State of
Louis iana.
I should also say that we are developing at
this time allotment formulas, if you
will, for the various States and these
are going to be published as interim
regulations under Section 3011 soon,
like in the spring, because these fund-
ing activities do have to have a lot
of lead time in them and we want to
make sure that the States have a general
idea of at least what percentage of the
available funds they would be likely to
rece ive.
Now that allocation or allotment formula is
based upon requirements specified in
the Act under Section 3011. And it
specifies several parameters. One 13
-------
the amount of hazardous waste that is
generated in the State, the amount that'
disposed of in the State, and several
other factors as the EPA may find neces-
sary .
And so we're trying to develop a formula that
will be equitable to all of the States.
You can appreciate also that we lack
data about those parameters, because
we really won't know how much waste is
disposed of in a State, for example,
until we start to get these manifests
rolling where we can track the waste
and find out where it goes. Right now
we don't have that — that system is
not yet in effect.
So I'm sorry, but I can't answer that in
specifics, but I can say that, in sum-
mary then, that the Administration has
requested $15 million State Grant Pro-
gram for Hazardous Waste Programs in
Fiscal '79, which is in effect a four-
fold increase over the funds available
-------
158
for '78. And wo'11 have to see what
the congress does with that request.
Okay, we have a number of questions from
the floor still to answer. And we are
at the time where we were going to
break for lunch. Z think it would
be in the best interest of everyone
9 *
here if we did break and come back and
cover these other questions and any
further oral questions that you may
have at that time.
If there are any other cards that anyone
wants to pass they can do that at this
time .
Let's break for lunch and reconvene at 1:00
o'clock. Thank you.
(Whereupon, there was a luncheon
recess from 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m.)
-------
159
AFTER THE LUNCHEON RECESS;
MR. LEHMAN:
Let's reconvene the session.
We have another question here. Mr. Landsey
will answer xt.
MR. LINDSEY:
This has to do with the permit system under
Section 3005 of the Act and hpw we're
going to handle that.
Here come a bunch of more people, so maybe
I'll wait for them to come on in before
I mention it.
Under RCRA what responsibilities, if any,
with regard to permits and generation
of reports are encountered by municipal
waste treatment systems which accept
hazardous or potentially hazardous waste
from industrial contributors?
I assume by this question that we're — the
person who asked it -- is talking to
the point of sewage treatment facilities,
primarily. And as I think I indicated
to you earlier,we are in the process of
-------
160
deciding where to draw the line as to
what is and what is not a facility with
regard to other activities. And as I
think X mentioned a little earlier, if
a facility, if a treatment plant of some
sort receives the waste on a continuous
basis via pipeline or a conveyor belt
or a similar continuous operation, that
facility will be — will not be part of
the hazardous waste stream until and
unless a waste emanates from the system
as a sludge or something of that matter.
Now the way it's written now, under Section
3004 and -5, if the waste is delivered
to a, let's say, a city sewage treatment
system into the city sewer directly and
goes into the treatment plant, that
treatment plant will be covered under
the NPDES under the Water pollution
Control Act, and also under the pre-
treatment regulations which are being
formulated under that Act. The facility
itself will not require an RCRA permit
-------
161
unless the sludge which emanates from
that.sewage treatment facility turns
out to be hazardous. if it does, then
that sludge would be a hazardous waste
and the treatment facility would be a
generator. If that treatment facility
also disposes of the waste on-site or
somewhere else, then they would/\i treat-
ment, storage and disposal site and
would need a permit for that sludge.
NOW
there is one glitch in the whole thing.
and that is if that facility, publicly
owned or it may have been a sewage
treatment facility, primarily in the
business of treating sewage, also re-
ceives industrial waste by truck
a truck rolls in and puts the stuff
into the system in some fashion —
then we've got a little different
s ituation .
And
the reason we've got a different situ-
ation is even though it's not our intent
to try to regulate that facility which
-------
162
is already regulated under the NPDBS
system, it will be necessary for us
to have the manifest system work. If
it's a hazardous waste, say, from an
industrial generator and it goes to a
municipal or privately-owned primarily
sewage treatment operation, then the
carriage of that material in the truck
will require a manifest. In order to
make the manifest system work we have
to have the reporting by the sewage
treatment plant.
Now, so what will happen is that those
facilities that have that kind of situ-
ation where they're receiving hazardous
waste via trucfc along with the other
materials that they receive, they will
be eligible for a special kind of a
permit which will recognise the NPDES
permit and require only that they comply
with the record-keeping and reporting
requirements under Section 3004.
In addition, however, if they also store
-------
163
that material on-site, then that storage
is not covered by NPDES, if they store
it before they meter it into the system
or something like that. And that stor-
age, then, would require a permit under
RCRA .
So
that's a little complex, but you know we
get these "what if questions and so I
try to cover the bases with that one.
But that's the way we see that one going
at this point.
MR. LEHMAN:
Okay. Thank you, Fred.
We
have a couple of questions that were
asked earlier this morning that I'd
like to get at.
Mr .
Mackey asked a question concerning the
difference in definition between
storage and disposal and cited pits,
ponds and lagoons as an example where
this might be a questionable area.
And he also made reference to a 90-day
exemption.
-------
164
Let me see if I can clarify some of that
for you. To get at the distinction
between storage and disposal, you have
to go to the definitions as written in-
to the law, into the Federal law, RCRA .
In effect, disposal is defined as controlled
discharge. In other words, if you
carefully read the definition you'll
see that it does allow some discharge
from disposal facilities, but discharge
in such a manner that public health and
the environment are not threatened.
The distinction then is made, again, in the
definition in the law concerning stor-
age, and storage is, m effect, zero
discharge. Because it says storage is
anything you do besides disposal. So
using a pit, pond or lagoon as an ex-
ample of how to draw this distinction
— first of all we have to clarify that.
The Subtitle C provisions of RCRA apply to
a pit, pond or lagoon only if there's
a hazardous waste in that pit, pond or
-------
165
lagoon. Okay. Assuming that's so, if
there is any discharge from that pit,
pond or lagoon — and by that I mean
discharge into the air, discharge into
the ground water, or surface discharge.
Hell, of course, if it had a surface
discharge it would theoretically have
a NPDES permit.
But any discharge from a pit, pond or lagoon
then means that it's not a storage
situation at all. It'3 a disposal
situation and requires a disposal permit
Now as to the 90-day exemption, in our draft
regulation — and this is all covered
in Section 3004, which is the regula-
tion for owners and operators of storage
treatment and disposal facilities we
are considering making a distinction
about the time of storage. Many manu-
facturers generate waste and store them
for a fairly short period of time, like
a few days or a couple of weeks, while
they agglomerate enough material to
-------
166
make it economically feasible to call a
truck in and have it shipped away.
Storage of that type, we feel, should not
necessarily require a permit because
it's of short duration and if done
properly would have no ma^or public
health or environmental problems associ-
ated with it.
Now, however, — and so we've hit upon this
strategy of separating short-term
storage from long-term storage with a
90—day cut—off period. And, basically,
we're saying that if you store some-
thing more than 90 days then you do
need a permit; but if you store it less
than 90 days for the purposes of trans-
porting it off-site, then you don't
need a permit. That does not mean that
you are home free, however, you still
have to meet the requirements laid on
generators for proper containerization.
In other words, the wastes must be con-
tained in proper containers, they must
-------
16
be labeled properly, a manifest is re-
quired to ship those wastes, and all
the other aspects of the law apply
except the need to get a permit for
that short-term storage.
And we did this to try and relieve some of
the administrative burden on people who
store waste for just a short period.
On the other hand, if you store waste
in a tank, for example, for more than
90 days then that does require a permit.
I hope that clarifies your question, Mr.
Mackey.
MR. MACKEY:
May I ask something else?
MR. LEHMAN:
Yes. please come to the aike.
MR. MACKEY:
This is for the first time. That first time
didn't count.
I know that the problem of short-term and
long-term storage, but we have an im-
mense problem that I know Mr. Lmdsey
-------
168
is aware of, and it's mountains of
gypsum waste, already existing, how-
ever, behind some of our industries.
And I'm just picking gypsum because I know
that you were down at Uncle Sam the
other day. My garbage grapevine has
kept rae posted on you.
But how do we address existing piles of
materials th&t at one time were not
really hazardous or considered hazard-
ous and now we've learned that perhaps
they may be hazardous?
There's not enough disposal space in this
whole State to take care of some of
that stuff.
MR. LEHMAN:
Okay. Let me address that question.
The whole issue of whether or not the Hazard-
out Haste Regulatory program should be
retroactive, in other words, should it
go back and pick up wastes that were
generated long before the Federal law
was passed or not is a very difficult
-------
169
question to answer.
The law is essentially silent on that point.
It makes no distinction between old
hazardous wastes, if you will, and new
hazardous wastes. we have been wres-
tling with that issue for some time and,
quite frankly, we have not made a final
determination about that.
But I can say, though, that the management
of hazardous wastes does not necessarily
mean that it has to be shipped somewhere
to a different site. If -- and I use
if, you know, if these gypsum piles,
for example, were considered to be
within the purview of RCRA; and, if
they can be shown to be a hazardous
waste by our criteria, does not neces-
sarily mean that they have to be moved.
It may mean that a different type of
management practice might have to be
used for those wastes or perhaps more
monitoring of ground water underneath
those wastes, or something like that
-------
170
might be what ls determined to be an
adequate protection for public health
and environment.
So you've raised a very difficult issue.
It's not juafc the gypsum piles. There
a re literally thousands of landfills
and indiscriminate dumping sites around
the country where waste, which I think
would meet our criteria for being
hazardous, have already been dumped.
And the issue about whether or not our
regulations would apply is still under
consideration .
Now, also Mr. Rhodes, in his statement, asked
-- basically asked a question about the
relationship between the Department of
Transportation rules and regulations on
the transportation of hazardous material:!
and the EPA regulations under Subtitle
C of RCRA concerning the transportation
of hazardous wastes.
And I want to just, first o£. all, make that
distinction that EPA's control over
-------
171
transportation applies only to hazardous
waste and not to hazardous materials
that are commercial products in commerce
And it's very clear that the amount oE
hazardous waste, even though it is —
it depends on your perspective, but
we're thinking in terras of on the order
P \
of 30 million tons of hazardous wastes
in the country, and that is a lot. But
that you have to put into perspective
of, roughly, five billion tons of cora-
raericial chemicals that are shipped
around this country every year.
And
so we are, in effect, controlling under
RCRA a fairly small segment of the
total aspect.
The
other thing is that many hazardous wastes
already meet the Department of Trans-
portation criteria for hazardous
materials. In other words, the DOT
regulations do not make any distinction
between whether a material is a waste
or whether it is a commercial product,
-------
172
they just say hazardous materials. And
if it meets the criteria for hazardous
material under DOT it should be being
handled according to DOT regulations
right now, even before RCRA was passed.
Now ,
a further distinction is that the
Department of Transportation's regula-
tions, until recently, applied only to
interstate carriers of hazardous
materials and any shipment .inside the
State or intrastate was not covered
under DOT regs. However, that was
changed in 1974 when the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act was passed.
and which broadened DOT's authority to
include intrastate shipment as well as
interstate shipment. But that portion
of that Act has really never been
implemented by DOT to this point.
Okay
So much for that — that's sort of a
preamble. Now what are we doing? We
recognize, very strongly, that we do
not want to — that is, EPA does not
-------
173
want to add any undue burden to trans-
portion activities that are already
underway. On the other hand, we have
to satisfy the requirements of our Act.
So what we've done is the following. We have
— and I might also point out, there are
certain things that we are required to
do under RCRA which are not obviously
within the purview of the Department
of Transportation. Their mandate is
really to protect the public safety
during transportation. Whereas our
transportation controls are aimed pri-
marily as a control mechanism to make
sure that the wastes go from point A
to point B and don't get lost in transit
But also to protect public health and
also to protect the environment.
Now the Department of Transportation, until
recently, did not really take into
account environmental factors in their
regulations. They only considered
public safety factors .
-------
174
So what we're doing, basically, i® we re
writing a set of regulations under RCRA
concerning the transportation of hazard-
ous wastes. We're going to propose
those shortly for public comment. Then
the Department of Transportation is
a-lso going to propose those regulations,
possibly with minor differences, but
essentially the same regulations. And
we will have ]oint public hearings, EPA
and DOT, on those proposals.
Then the Department of Transportation is
going to promulgate those regulations
as part of their Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act regulations. And
then EPA is going to adopt the Depart-
ment of Transportation regulations as
our own. So that you will have,
basically, the same set of regulations
issued under dual authority, allowing
for joint enforcement by both the EPA
and DOT.
That is our plan, the system that we worked
-------
175
out aftar many discussions with the
Department of Transportation. We have,
if you'll notice in some of our criteria
we have gone to great lengths to avoid
using any terminology which would be
confusing to the transportation com-
munity. For example, our initial
critiera used the word "flammable" waste
and yet the Department of Transportation
already has on the books a definition
for a flammable material. And to avoid
confusion, we have changed that -- the
terminology that we use from "flammable"
to -- I've forgotten what we used.
MRS. WRIGHT:
Ignitable.
MR. LEHMAN:
Ignitable. To try and avoid some of these
confusions.
But, suffice it to say, in summary, that we
are working very closely with the
Department of Transportation and they
are commenting on our regulations.
-------
176
They have made very valuable suggestions
already as to how to avoid any conflict
or confusion. And so we are working
hand-in-glove with them on this and we
hope to accomplish what we are required
by law to accomplish with a minimum of
disruption to the existing hazardous
material transportation system that's
in being right now.
A case in point is our law requires a mani-
fest, as you probably know, for tracking
the waste. And we've been able to work
it out so that the requirements for our
manifest are in essence the same as the
requirements for what DOT calls a ship-
ping document. And so we need to add
}ust about two or three more items of
information, besides what DOT already
requires; and we intend to do this by
}ust using the same form as the trans-
portation community is already used to
using, but adding two more items of
information .
-------
177
I think that answers the questions we got
this morning. Do we have any further
questions from the audience at this
time?
(NO RESPONSE)
MR. LINDSEY;
Let me — why don't I get to that one.
The question is: What are we going to do
about the informal or less formal
meeting, anyway, with the State folks?
After we close this section, what we're
doing here now, which is a question
and answer session, if those States
who would like to have a more informal
session would meet with me and the
rest of the staff, oh, up here in the
corner somewhere, why we'll discuss
whether we want to hold it tonight as
was originally advertised at 7:00
o'clock, or whether we would rather
do it this afternoon, or whether there
is enough interest to hold it at all,
or what-have-you.
-------
178
So
those of you who would like to do that.
once we've finished this session here.
why we can discuss it up here, everyone
who is interested.
MR. LEHMAN:
we
have a question here from the floor:
What do you mean by joint EPA-DOT enforce-
ment? Does this mean EPA could enforce
the DOT regs?
The
answer is no. EPA will enforce its own
regs, but they just happen to be the
same regs when it comes to hazardous
waste now. It's ]u»t exactly the same
regs as DOT will be promulgating.
So
that in that sector of the hazardous
materials transportation segment with.
deals with hazardous waste, EpA will
have the ability to enforce that at
the same time that DOT has that.
In
other words, we'll law enforce our own
regs and so will DOT, but in the case
of hazardous waste they're identical.
But EPA will not enforce the remaining
-------
179
parts of DOT's regs, which do not apply
to was tes ,
MR.
TOM TESLER:
I'm Tom Tesler of the State of Tennessee.
Does this mean, then, that you've got two
agencies that could possibxy enforce
the same regulations?
MR .
LEHMAN:
That's correct.
MR.
LIN DS BY:
That's right.
MR .
TESLER:
It sounds like that could create some prob-
lems. It sounds like a duplication
that I know that they've been trying
to get away from, at least in our State.
MR .
LEHMAN:
Well, the issue really is that the Department
of Transportation — the resources for
enforcement under the Department of
Transportation are limited.
MR.
TESLER:
Agreed.
-------
180
MR. LEHMAN :
And so we're ]ust trying to maximize the
amount of enforcement of power that
we have.
In other words, it doesn't make a whole lot
of sense for an EPA official, for ex-
ample, to make an inspection of a
transportation terminal only for the
purpose of looking at the hazardous
waste part of it. In other words, if
a DOT official is going to go visit
that terminal to look at all of the
aspects, he might as well look at the
hazardous waste aspects, too, ]ust for
efficiency.
MR. TESLER:
Okay.
MR. LEHMAN:
Let rae say this. We are going to be working
out a memorandum of understanding, an
inter-agency agreement on this point.
MR. TES LER :
If in the agreement it can be more defined.
-------
181
I Chink it would work.
MR. LEHMAN:
Yes. That's the understanding.
MR. TESLER:
Thanks.
MR. LEHMAN:
Do we have any other questions from the floor
(NO RESPONSE)
MR. LEHMAN:
Subtitle C, as a whole, is a fairly compli-
cated set of regulations and they are,
as you can begin to see, very closely
interlocked. One regulation sort of
ties in with another and so on and so
forth.
The Section 3006 regulations or guidelines
on State Hazardous Waste programs, which
were the focus of our discussion today,
are really — they tie m with the rest
of it also, but they are capable of
being separated to a certain extent
and that's the reason we went ahead
and proposed those early, one of the
-------
182
reasons. The other reason being, as Mr.
Lindsey pointed out, we wanted to make
sure we were out in the Federal Regis te r
in time to impact on the traditional
State legislative process, which we
know is usually in the spring of the
year. It's going on right now in most
States.
Do we have any other questions about Section
3006?
(NO RESPONSE)
MR. LEHMAN:
Or about Subtitle C?
(NO RESPONSE)
MR. LEHMAN:
Evidently not. I guess I'd like to take
this opportunity then to thank all of
you for coining. It's been very informa-
tive to us and helpful. And we will
take into consideration all of the
comments that were made here today.
And we will be — as mentioned earlier,
our proposed schedule is to publish
-------
183
Section 3006, State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Guidelines, in final
form about May of this year.
With that I ' <3 like to bring this session to
a close.
And ]ust as a reminder, we would like to
meet with the State officials and decide
whether we're going to carry on after
this point.
So thank you very much. This session is
ad journed.
(Whereupon, the proceedings were
concluded at 1:40 o'clock p.m.)
josemary L. Diliberto,
Reporter
-------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1,1978
PART IV
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STATE HAZARDOUS
WASTE PROGRAMS
Proposed Guidelines
-------
4366
(6960-01)
Bwowtnim ftoiicnow aowct
I7RI.S3M)
n*n haimooui wasti nraoww
AOENCY Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION' Proposed guideline*.
SOMUAltT* This rale Mil out Oulde-
Una for State hazardous waste maa-
•cement programs, Including the sub-
stantive and procedural requirements
Tor authorization of such State pro-
piu under the authorltr of Section
1000 of the Solid Wane Disposal Act
<43 OAC. <901 dug) uamended br
the Resource Conservation and Recov-
err Act of 1976 (Pub L. 94-660) ("the
Act") These Ouldellnes also prescribe
the procedure* by which States may
apply for authorization, the proce-
dure* br which such authorization
mar be withdrawn, and the procedures
br which EPA Diouwun to exercise
oversight of luch Staw programs u
mar be authorized under Secuon 1006.
DATES; AH comment* received on or
before Asrtl 1. 1978 will be considered
br the Agency before f*""T action on
the propoeed guidelines.
HEAROtO Oral or written comments
mar he submitted at the public hear-
Inca oo these proposed guidelines.
Registration for each hearing will be
held between &30 and 1 ajn. The
hearing* are scheduled for March 8.
DTI at the Bourbon Orleans Ramada
Inn, TIT Orleans St- New Orleans. La.
March 14 at the Marriott Motor Hotel,
2346 Commonwealth Ave. Newton.
(Suburb of Boston) and March
16 at the Seattle Convention Center
(Ntaqually Room*. 308 Harrison St.
Seattle. Wash. Requests to participate
in the public hearten should be di-
rected to. Mrs. Oerrt Wyer. Public Par-
ticipation Officer. Office of Solid
Waste (WH-46Z). T7JS. EuvliiiiimonUl
Protection Agency. Waahingum. DC
20460. 203-1&W15T
tnnBwwiKH1 Comments should be
submitted toe Demur Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Solid Waste (WH-663).
OA Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington. D.C 20460 Com-
munications should Identify the regu-
lator? docket or notice number, which
Is 1006 for these proposed guidelines.
The official record for this rulemak-
ing Is located In room 211 ID VS. Envi-
ronmental ^Protection Agency. 401 'M"
SL SW. Washington. DC 20460. sad
ts available for viewing from 9 ajn. to
4 pin Monday through Pltdar. ex-
dudlng ixoUdsys.
FOR VHRl'mtH INFORMATION
CONTACT
PtOfOta BUUS
Mr Dan Derfclc*. Hanrrtmis Waste
Management Division. Office of
Solid Waste (WH-663). V3. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton. D C 20460. 203-7U-9190
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION*
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended br the Resource Con-
Miration and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
1978 (Pub. L. 94-660). creates a regula-
tor? framework to control hazardous
waste. Congress has found that such
waste presents 'special dangers to
health and requires a greater degree
of regulation than does non- hazardous
solid waste" (Section l003(bX5)> Be-
cause of the seriousness of this waste
problem. Congress Intended that
States develop to control It.
In the event that a State does not
choose to operate such a program.
E7A Is required to do so.
This rule Is one of a aeries of seven
being developed and proposed under
Subtitle C to implement the hazard-
ous waste management program. It Is
Important to note the broad definition
of solid waste (Section 1004(71)) which
encompasses (with a few exceptions)
garbage, refuse, sludges* and other dls-
cBfdtd otttcflili HTit*fi w*
miioUd*. contained sim fwmi
both ttvttHM and Industrial sources.
Hursrdoos waste*, which in a tub-set
of all solid waste and will be defined
br section 3001 regulations, have a
particularly rtgniflcaat Impact on
public health and the environment.
Subtitle C creates a management
control system which, for those wastes
defined a* hazardoua. required
"credle-to-«r*ve' cognizance. Including
appropriate monitoring, recordkeep-
ing. and reporttns throughout the
system. Section 3001 requires EPA to
define the criteria and methods for
Identifying and listing hazardous
wastes. Those wastes which are Identi-
fied as h—br these mrans are
then Included In the management ooo-
trol system constructed under Sections
M03-1006 and 3010. Those that are ex-
cluded will be subject to the require-
ments for non-hazardous solid waste
being carried out br Stsfrt under Sub-
title D, under which open flumping Is
prohibited ***4 givingnurnMlly
ceptable practices are required. It Is
important that appropriate miercoa-
nertHma be established between Subti-
tle C and Subtitle D efforts.
Section 3001 addresses the standards
applicable to generator*. EPA'i regula-
tions tmAmr rhta section d(3CTtbe the
i Uiws of generators for whom some
requirements may vary: for irrampte,
the Agency does not interpret the
intent of Congress to Include result
Una of individual homeowners due to
the ww*11 quantities of hazardous
waste* which they may generate: Sec-
tion 3003 also i equina the creation of
a manifest system which win track
wastes trom the potnt of feneration to
thtlf uiUmtti dlspQHtto&
Section 1003 addresses standards af-
fecting trmnsporters of hazardous
wastes to assure that wastes are care-
fully managed during the transport
phase. The Agency Is exploring oppor-
tunities for meshing closely with pro-
posed and current DOT regulations to
avoid duplication In this area.
Section 3004 addresses standards af-
fecting owner* and operator* of haz-
ardous waste storage, treatment, and
disposal farllltlrv These standards
define the levels of environmental pro-
tection to be achieved by these facili-
ties aad provide the criteria against
which EPA (or State) officials will
measure applications for permits. Fa-
cilities on a generator's property as
well as off-site facilities are covered by
these regulations and will require per-
mits—generator* aad transporter* who
do not treat, store, or dlspom of haz-
ardous wastes do not need permits.
Sertlon 1006 regulations describe the
scope and coverage of the actual
permit granting process for facility
owners aad operators. Requirements
for the permit application as well ss
for the Imianre and revocation pro-
cess are defined by these regulations.
Snrtlim 3006(c) provides for Interim
permits during the time period that
the Agency or a State is mvtewtnc the
permit *ppllntt*rnii
Section 1006 requires EPA to Issue
guidelines for State programs and pro-
cedures by which States may seek
both full aad Interim authorization to
carry out the hazardous waste pro-
gram in Ueu of the EPA-administered
program.
Section 3010 regulations define pro-
cedures br which any person generat-
ing. transporting, owning or operating
a facility for storage, treatment, and
dl0OMl of humiouft vuus must
notify EPA of this activity within 90
day* of promulgation of regulations
a hazardous waste (Section
3001) EPA Intends to make provision
for State* to be delegated this tunc-
tiro upon tpplFinton to tlw Adznlnl^
trator It Is significant to note that no
hazardous waste subteet to Subtitle C
regulation may be legally transported,
tnaied. stored, or disnosed. nor mar
Interim pr»»n« be Issued. this
timely notification is given to EPA or
- if--'—< •
Tho Act calls for the Agency to pn>
"¦"ipK aoai regulations by no later
than April 1978 under all sections of
Subtitle C However. It Is Important
for the regulated rnmmiinltln to un-
derstand that the regulations (Section
1001-3006) do not take effect until 6
months after promulgation (October
1978). Thus, there will be a time
after proaulnflon dntoi
whtrti puWto uBdenuadbu of tto ret*
nlaHftwq Wl (W tSOVWOd tbON
LOiuul by the regulations can prepare
to comply. p»irttg twta mom crt Hwl.
rtoOOcatlaaa required under flwrttnn
room uuoim. vol « n& a. wwimt, win it i, m
-------
KOTOSD tuus
438T
W10 bit be submitted, and facility
permit ippllraTlnni required under
Section J004 may be distributed for
oompleUoa by applicant*
Bwaom or TBI* Raauunoa
Section 1000(a) of the Solid Waits
Disposal Act (42 O.3.C. 89301. aa
amended br the Resource Con*errm^
tloa and Recovery Act of 1919 (Pub. I*
M-08S) dlrectt the Agency to
"* • • promulgate guidelines to assist
State* la We development o( Slate
hazardous waste program*" The pro-
posed Ouldellnes have been developed
tn the coune of considerable eonsulta-
tlm «lth the State* Between March
23. 19TT, and April 9 1871. a serte* at
gjg meetings wa* held throughout the
United States at which EPA and the
State* discussed Issues relevant to the
Guideline* to be developed under Seo-
Uon MO«a>. Representatives from a
total at 40 State* participated in thoae
meeting* A second series of meetings
vaa Held between June 23. 1977, and
August 10, 1977. at which the first
draft of these Guidelines was dis-
cussed with the States: a total of 47
States were represented at this second
serte* The proposed guidelines thus
reflect the experlenoe comment*, and
opinions of State hazardous waste
management people to the greatest
tatgnt possible.
Section 1000 describes two types of
authorization. Section 3000(b) de-
scribes an authorization without fixed
beginning dates, and of unlimited du-
ration. wnile Section 1000(c) describes
an Interim" authorization ' * * • for
a 24-month period beginning on the
date 9 months after the date required
for promulgation of regulations under
Sections 3002 throuih 3003" (April 31.
1978) These Guideline* distinguish
the two by referring to the former as
full" authorisation and to the latter
it "iniertm" authorization.
The Act directs or authorizes ' the
Administrator" of SPA to discharge
certain responsibilities and conduct
certain activities with respect to haz-
ardous waste management. The Ad-
ministrator has delegated to each Re-
gional Administrator those author!tie*
and responsibilities related to Section
1000 In order to allow state* to work
with tbe appropriate Regional Admin-
istrator throughout the application
sad authorization process. The Guide-
lines therefore refer to the Regional
Administrator in most cues: where
the Ouldellnea refer to "the Adminis-
trator" the authority or dfrtilnn refer-
enced baa not been delegated to the
A^mlnlMtrmtar.
Uima ISSOB ConXUBSS
The following discussion Is present-
ed to assist the reader In undemand-
ing the reasoning behind the develop-
ment at tbe propuaed guideline* Only
thoae portions of the guidelines which
generated significant <1l*niMHwi In the
public meetings and in response to the
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemak-
ing are discussed here
L Authorization (1008b).
A. Pull authorization.
(1) EtjuivaUnCTf.
(a) LHisuzivi APTaoairr
Sevenl States have enacted, or are
now considering, hazardous waste
management legislation. The Agency
does not believe that every State must
necessarily do so In order to receive
authorization. Where the Slate has
other statutory authority (Le_ water
pollution legislation, public health leg-
islation, etc.) which, tn the opinion of
the State and of the Agency, Is suffi-
cient to allow the administration and
enforcement of a State hazardous
waste program equivalent to that of
EPA. the Agency will consider this ele-
ment co be satisfied.
(b) naurr uxciuifim
Section 3009 of the set requires
anyone who owns or operates a facility
which store* treats. or disposes of
hazardous wastes to have a permit.
The Agency conslden this require-
ment to be central to the sdmlnlstra
lion and enforcement of the Act. and
consequently believes that no Slate
program can be equivalent" to that
of EPA without such an element- A
few co mm enters (ell that any control
mechanism through which the State
could achieve "equivalency In effect
¦hmiiri ba sllowe
the of baxardous waste per-
mm uzu£tf tlu StAiA'i biardoui
vuMprocu.
mnviit rrncM
Section 3003(8) of the Act requires
the use of a manifest to ensure that
hazardous wastes which leave the site
of generation are taken only to «tor-
ire treatment, or disposal facilities to
which a permit has been issued. Tills
requirement Is reflected In the experi-
ence or expectations of several States
which believe a manifest system to be
an essential element In managing haz-
ardous waste* a belief which the
Agency share* The State will not be
able to effectively control hazardous
wastes by regulating only the treat-
ment and rttsnmsl sites. The "cradle-
to-grave" management concept, on
which Subtitle C Is based. Includes the
requirement that the regulatory
agency know of the existence and
movement of hazardous wastes
throughout the life cycle of those
wastes. This concept Is Intended to dis-
courage clandestine and environmen-
tally unsound practices. In addition,
due to the substantial transportation
of waste scress State line* a large ma-
jority of commenten considered a con-
sistent or uniform manifest format to
be necessary to make the entire waste
tracking and control process work.
This requirement may cause the few
States which already have a manifest
system to change their system, thus
presenting some Initial problem* How-
ever. the long range benefits (I e. sim-
pler manifest data management) from
this change will far outweigh these
initial problem* Also CPA expect* to
provide software and other tools" to
assist States In setting up such sys-
tems
(d> aomncATton or luuuim
In developing and implementing a
Stale hazardoua waste program, the
States will need to estimate the re-
sources needed In order to conduct a
comprehensive hazardous waste man-
agement program. The Agency consld-
en the requirement of adequate re-
sources to be a necessity In defining an
equivalent State program" in order to
properly administer and enforce the
requirements of the Act. However,
there was some uncertainty raised as
to the way the phrase 'adequate re-
sources" should be defined In the
guideline* lie citing specific re-
sources estimates or using a broad de-
scription of adequacy)
EPA believes that the guidelines
should be written so aa to allow the
Regional Administrator the latitude
necessary to assure himself that the
State has the "adequate resources" to
conduct the program. In this way, the
Individual characteristic* of each
Stale's bureaucracies and problems
may be considered In evaluating Its re-
source needs.
(2) Consistency The second crlto-
ri on for authorization of State pro-
grams under Section 3008(b) Is that
they be "• • • consistent with the
Federal or State programs applicable
In other Statea ¦ ¦ "* Impartiality and
equity dictate that the requirements
and obligations Imposed upon those
rdoal (Mora. vat.
-------
who manag* hanrdoos waate* tn oos
State not differ ft"#
thoaa tmpoeed tn other States. to avoid
a which could Hts the retu-
|a ||iy StAlO I con*
ptflttrv utimtim Thii ibm iioi ipa
^*¦1 to Uiom vbo conduct
their icunus lo nore than on* 6Ut«,
nwi vtk> itfflili not N beM to »"•»¦—««¦* of ¦|""" baaa
ta other States, leading to oaadlea du-
gi treatment dlipoaat o>
P*h*7 tn many States, of to a shortfall
of xtoouat* *««-inn— tn other Statea.
Artificially *'"« standards coold dla-
« immtm -p'—* or limit the move*
¦¦¦¦» of mw1*— rata Into the
tod, concurrently. artificially
™»— waste* to do** out of Uu State.
In the coure* of developing these
guidellaee. van Identified
which addressed lha Iwia at free
of hasardous rata with
rminrt to authorizing States to oper-
ate enforce a hazardous waste
management program In aocordaoci
with tba provisions of taction 1006(b)
of the Act:
(1) A ulbara* only thoaa Statea
«Uck allow tba importation of ha»
ardous wastes to permitted treatment,
mnit and dlipoaal fadlltlea. Legtsla-
tin — or artificially bleb standards
would disqualify Stain tntt authorl-
ntofossk tuns
lowed phaaa-out parted la to b* July L
IM4»)
It ahould ba i mnhiitrnd that EPA Is
convinced that Importation bana can
not ba permitted to multiply and that
¦uch must sooner or latar be
eliminated one nr or another CPA
strongly believes that the adequate
management of hazardous wastes do-
—the five movement of waatea to
whatever facility, or site can best treat
or discos* of them. Restricting tha
morement 0f hazardous wastes goe*
directly against this phlloaophy and
peaea a real threat to the expansion of
in ff|u|riipw»iHitaiiy htm1"* Industry aa
wall u hampers tha rationalization of
waate management. In addition* if
EPA (alia to taka th* position In the
Guidelines to preclude a Stata from
—i„T tj,, patera! hazardous wast*
program If the State has a legislative
Hazardous waste Importation baa. It
may well reault In the proliferation of
such ban* Depending on the approach
finally »«*«" this may result In the
Hi«T..nn<^H.w» from full suthortza*
of some States, a few of which
¦n.f already have some form of a haa-
ardoua waata management program.
SPA baa choeaa to Include option
number its In the text of the proposed
guidelines, but reeognlzea tha poaslbU-
Ity of toy ona of tha da options
or a variant of one of these optloca tn
the final promulgation of these regu-
i.nnnj Comments and suggestions on
the six options or any other poolble
courses of in i hum tally IwlMi
th* implications involved In the final
choice of an option tnrmrte tradeoffs
between authorizing a ma liming
number of Statea and dlsoeurmglng im-
pediments to free movement of wastes.
Commenta on these tradeoffs are
(3) Same aa Option I. except that
State* with legislative bana or artin-
ah. tilgh standards for dlrporsl of
hasardous wastes would Mill be auth»
rtzsd. as u hazardous wuta art
allowed to be Imported to permitted
treatment and storage fadlltlea.
(1) Same aa Option L exoept that
the impoaltlan of artificially high
standards would not disqualify Statea
from authorization.
(4) Petition Congress for a legislative
amendment to ,K""*K 3tate hazard
ona waate* Importation bans altogeth-
er or at least pre-empt them In those
State* where E7A administer* the reg-
ulatory program. (This, of couim. is
not aa exclusive alternative.)
w4 problems, which be evahK
ated on a Stale-by-State baala. necessi-
tating Individual evaluation of the sur-
relllanee and enforcement program.
a. ra>Ttat insouunos
In some casea. Statea which wish to
take over the full hazardous waata
program will have been unable to
bring all components of the State pro
gram Into compliance with 3004(b).
These Statea m*y have been unable to
obtain passage of needed legislation,
or may lack adequate resource* to
carry out all program nsponiUbllltlra
A number of State* have indicated to
EPA that, under these circumstances,
they would wtsh to obtain at least the
authorisation to carry out thoee pn>
grem responsibilities for which they
have authority and resource*, with
EPA camrtng out the remaining re-
sponsibilities.
Under Section 1000(b). SPA could
allow Statea to receive partial authori-
sation for selected major oomponanta
of a full hasardous waste program, but
only If the Btate meets the require-
ments of equivalency, consistency and
enforceability for each such malor
component. Par example, a State
could perform permitting, surveil-
lance. and enforcement for off-site dis-
posal. treatment, and stance, while
EPA carried out permitting, surveil-
lance enforcement for on-site op-
erations or Statea could run a permit
program for all treatment, storage,
and dlspnal fadlltlea, both off-site
¦im on-site, while EPA conducted the
system, etc.
However, there are problems with
partial auLhortxaUon. Ftret, the regu-
lated community has strenuously con-
tended that a single entity should
carry out the entire program In a
img Stat*, arguing that a sharing of
responsibility would result tn cento-
Hon and duplication of effort for the
agencies, and greatly lncreaaed com-
plexity for regulated flrma. Second,
the availability of partial authortaa-
tlon could eneourage some Statea. al-
though nnM* of qualifying for full
authorisation, to take over only select,
ed program elements, leaving EPA
with the most • controversial" and ex-
pensive tegmenta sad actually luutaa
Ing the burden on the reaouroea of tha
Regional Offices. Third, the dellnea.
Uon of responsibilities between the
Region and the State would uadoubfc
edly be a lengthy and difficult prootja.
Finally, the existence of partial au-
thorization could remove some of the
Incentive for strenuous Stata efforta
toward full authorisation.
Although these argument* against
allowing State* to apply for partial au-
thorization are strong. EPA propoaea
to allow States to apply for partial au-
tbortsaUon to allow ti mmj State* y
ponible to participate Id U&o lmpto»
art&tattOQ of the haardoua wacto pro
VOL 4k HOk :
-------
PtOPOSB MJUS
4369
pin Himiiu. Um inDiUlItT of par-
tial authorisation 111 be limited.
States will be permitted to apply for
partial authuiLslluii only If State leg-
lilatlv* authority does act exist for
cereals program components. The do-
qq gTAottzxs pinlil authoftia-
Uoa will rat with the Regional Ofllea.
tn the eount o 1 Ua examination of the
atWi eligibility for full authorization
under 2006
The Acency shall. If evidence «ub-
mltted tndlcstm Utat Um State has a
hazardous rate profram "Is exis-
tence'* pursuant to State law br July
20. 19TB and the State pieciin U «uU-
^.^!.nr equivalent to the Moil
liiucism under Subtitle C. grant an In-
terim authorization to the State to
carry out such procram In lieu of the
Federal program for a It-month
period beginning on October 21. 1918.
However. a 8Ute may only apply for
tntertm authorization over a specified
time period (July 10, 19711. to October
20. 1978) and may only operate the
hazardous waste program. under Inter-
tm authority, during the definite cal-
endar period between October 3L
1916, through October 30.1M0.
<11 SutoitaxtlaBi wttlwiImL In d«-
itntiif the interim program. the var-
ious elements and sssolcatod alterea-
ttrea that were proposed aa criteria for
equivalent" in ths
nntt y than telBC
EPA tn deftnlna an "equivalent" State
program. Since It Is clear that Coo-
(reae latmrtnd thli interim period to
provide a 'truce" period to the Statee
to develop a procram suitable (or full
authorization, the major difference
bstw em "equivalent" and nibetan-
Ually equivalent" U that the tatter
procram may be tn statutory
and regulatory authority Similarly,
the decree of stringency of a clven
i ihiuhwh vtthls tay element
during thla Interim period, be Leu
irpiMg»»n tih» federal standards.
Ulla relaxation from
itrlct "cqulvaleaca" to "substantial
equivalence" tod the conopoadlni
latitude la decree of stringency for the
period. EPA believe* to be coo-
¦Mcnt with the Intent of Congress to
Qf QtltflP IlKO Ult
wdous vuu
tirf uiltoitftly, Into ft fully luUuuttBd
program. EPA supports this vtewpotnt
by structuring Ita policy so that the
greater resources available to the
States within each Region (eoae DA
»«f™« iiniimiiim 6 to S States) will
be brought to bear on the Implrmftita-
Uoa and enforcement of a hatardaua
waste management procram without
itralnlnf the already limited resources
of CPA. Thli approach should reiult
tn a greater decree of protection of
public health and the environment
than If EPA had to conduct the ha*-
airlous waste program In a large ma-
jorlt? of Sutci
(2) ituMorixodoit plan. The Guide-
lines Include a requirement that each
State prepare an 'authorization plan'
a* a condition of receiving Intertm au-
thorization. The Agency considers the
Interim authorization ftep to be an op-
portunity for State* which cannot yet
qualify {or full authorization to never-
theless establish their stewardship of
the hazardous rate regulatory pro-
gram during the period In which they
are developing their programs. The
Agency further believes that the
Intent of Congress was to have Stales
which Qualify for and accept Intertm
authorization progress to full authori-
zation In the two yean allotted by Sec-
tion 3006(c) and that by their doing
so. the best Interests of public health
and the environment. EPA. the State
and the regulated community will be
served. The authorization plan Is In-
tended to milt thli progress.
The authorization plan should be
comparable to a 'compliance sched-
ule" under which the State and the
Regional Administrator agree on wnat
deficiencies exist In the State program
(as compared wtth the requirements
for full authorization), what corrective
or perfecting measures are necessary;
and. the ptopooad schedule for accom-
plishing tne corrections.
accoMMBmn momm
The Agency believes that the three
elements discussed below will contrib-
ute to an effective State hazardous
waste management regulatory pro
gram, and are tn keeping with the
Intern of the Act. They will not be re-
quired. however, for authorization
under Section 3004(b) or Section
3006(c) These elements arte (1) Tech-
nical Assistance: (2) Inventory of Haz-
ardous Wastes, and <1) Safeguarding
oi f/w>fiH*int*i Information.
TTT-mm-n. tuuijuia
The experience of Q'A and of those
States which have begun developing
hanrdous waste management pro-
grams has strengthened the Agency's
convtetlon that State Technical Assla-
taace to the regulated community la
useful and desirable. The Slate pro-
gram should include assistance is well
aa deterrence aspects. and should offer
the regulated community Information
on acceptable management options at
the same time It discourages those
which are unacceptable.
A Technical .ftsstiranwt program
.~.miirt the States role of as-
sisting the regulated community in
complying wtth applicable require-
ments and regulations. The Agency
will not require either of these types
of Technical Assistance In uwwilng
the equivalency of proposed State pro-
grams under Sections 3006(b) or
1006(c) The Slate however should es-
pecially seek to provide the latter type
of in1T«n-T since its failure to do so
may Increase the potential for Incom-
plete or Inadequate compliance by seg-
ments of the regulated community
UiVOTOtT
Many States have conducted hazard-
ous waste surveys over the past tew
year*. gathering Information on the
types quantities, locations, and dispo-
sitions of hazardous wastes within the
State The manifest system required
under Section 3002 of the Act will
allow the State to verify or upgrade
this information or to begin to compile
tt. This Information Is an important
and uierui tool for the State, both for
planning purposes and for use In ad
ministering and enforcing the hazard-
ous waste regulatory program.
The Agency will not require this ele-
ment In assessing the equivalency of a
proposed State program for the pur
poses of Sections 3006(b) or 3006(c)
The Stales are urged, nevertheless, to
compile such data for use In develop-
ing their programs over both the
short- and long term.
SAmQaasmo oy cokjtdiktiai
nrrasjaiTTon
The rreedom of Information Act IS
U.3.C 5S2 tc in i includes a provision
under which trade secrets and certain
other Information may be exempted
from public disclosure. The Agency be-
lieves U(UT 1 iftt
-------
UTO
T-"1^ to- the Btata wo M tte
ma» m to SPA slnoe ttaa
object Stale programs mint be equiv-
alent to tha Federal (mm In the
second r. the of States r»
parting quarterly to Q*A Is farmer
»nm»i»i by allowing me States to
mm hine the quarterly report with the
rhan applicable.
la with Executive Order
11811, *¦ by Executive Order
LIMA, and OMB A-101 and
CPA Policy m stipulated is n FR
37419, October U, 1974 lestieuliely.
inalrsee of the economic and environ-
OfcCtttAl Imdl AM ***"1 ptffORQAd
(or the entirety of Subtitle C. Hazard-
ous Wane ¦ nA not
——aa jet. Any additional #00-
Mwto inmot on Ui# public muittng
(ram Section 3000 implementation can
be e sported to be stnoe the
subject State programs mint be equiv-
alent to the Federal program. The*
»~p—— can thus be *¦*"-"* to be
equivalent.
Dated: January 34. 1818.
Doouus tL Costlb,
Administrator
It la pnwwd to amend Title 40 br
adding Part 330 consisting of new Sub-
part P to read aa sst forth beto*. Sub-
parts A (hroush E are reeerrod.
tsan
aan
san
tso.n
tsar*
~eflaram
nan
tsan
ma established pursuant to Subtitle
C of the Act. Tike guidelines also de-
scribe the substantive and procedural
requirements for States applying for
authorisation. EPA's oversight of tha
State's h—waste program, and
(or the withdrawal of authorization
pursuant to section 3006(e).
(c) In addition, sort! on 1009 of the
Act prohibits States (ram tmr~**n
any requirement which Is "less strin-
gent" than EPA's retulatlona under
¦ectlons 3001 through 3003 of the Act,
a prohibition which applies whether
or not the State Is authorised under
section 1000.
in jooa. pmb. u m-mo. so
staL no* (u ujlc om g« taaTo.
2&O.T1 laMU (ad UXS also (mad tmdv
mo. son. pml l. n in 90 sa*. au ai|Ma
(ai Section noo of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, aa amended by the R»
source Conservation and Beoovery Act
of ure (43 UAC. ami. requires the
iftsf oumuiuaoa wttb
lattiorttte, to nrnnnilBfi eddfr
lines to assist States in the dawlop-
meitt of State hazardous waste pro-
(b> liees guldaOnea rtaerrftie the
various piorMone aad i*apaiKlftlm a
State tiaumkws waste program must
have In order to qualify for anthotm-
tloQ under asottca 1000Tb) or serHoa
ttootok. which provide that the State,
la Ilea of the ftdenl SPA. may sd-
regulatory g»
I tSdiTI
War the purpoeas of this pare
The term 'authorization" or "au.
tbortaxT rafna to a State which has
an approved hazardous waste program
i"** section loooib) or Soowc) of the
Act and H 390.73 and 390.73.
(CI Dm term "elcmmt** t
function of the 8tate procram which
DA necessary (or a State
waste program to {m equiv-
alent to that of SPA.
(d) The term "lull authorization"
refer* to authorfiatlnn of a State pro-
srvn which hu net **ti> nibsu&ttra
and prooedural requirements of »
tlon 3000(b) of the Act and 1380.13(a).
The term "haordous waste man-
ifBBOf* tb9 lyitfitDAllO oop>
trot of the collection, source separa-
tum. stones. transportation. process-
ing, treatment, icuneiy. and disposal
of hazardous wastes.
(fl The term "Interim authortrstlnn"
refer* to authorisation by EPA of a
State program which haa nut the sub-
stantive aod procedural requirements
of iectlon 3000(e) of the Act and
139073.
(O The term "overelght" refen to a
iniuimiin yiuqjam of surveillance
and review canted out by EPA to
Insure that each authorised State's
hsiarrtoni wast* management pro-
gram remains In compliance with the
requirements for authorisation stated
In this Part.
(h) The term "partial authorization"
refera to 111111111118111111 by EPA of a
3uu ptmry^ to ^rr'r'trrr i&d 6o>
tore* niffflflfi procnm oi
a fully authortsed haardous waste
proqnm while EPA carrtes out tha re-
mamt-nt parts. In all caeea. the oomta-
patlon of the State and CPA haasrd-
ous waste proemm ihall meet the (uh-
of section 1006(b) of the Act and
|nwra«i
(1) The term "withdrawal" refers to
thi t«nutxattaa d MiftflTttrtfln Xor ft
sectfaw 3000(e) of the Act and I M0.78.
(J) The term "State" means any of
the several State* asd the District of
Colombia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rloo. the Vlrdn Istanda,
Guam. Amerloan a*~~ and the
northern Mariana Islands.
I tsan Aahottiadaa UMSbk.
(a) FvU aoihoriMtton. This section
describes the various provisions to be
met and capabilities to be demonstrat-
ed by States seeking to apply to the
Regional Administrator for full au-
thorisation. The Regional Administra-
tor shall apply the ertterla Identified
In 1390T3(aNl) through 12307S(aXX)
In determining whether the program
of any State Is "equivalent to" the
Federal program, 'consistent with"
tha Federal program and with thoee
ippllraftln In other Statea, aod wheth-
er the State's program provides "ade-
quate enforcement of compliance." sa
required by section 3009(b) of the Act.
A negotiated Memorandum zi Under-
standing, as described In f 230.74(a), Is
required (or full authorization.
(1) iQutoalncv. The Regional Ad*
mlnlstntor shall measure the "equlw
lenay" of a State program to the Fed-
eral program by determining whether
the State program encompasses all of
the following elements, and by asses*
tng the adequacy of each (or the ad-
Blolsttvttos iad e&lofoctiuBi of 4
hsmdous waste i",nl«— Legislative
Authority; Published Regulations:
Permit Mechanism. Manifest System.
Identification of Resources: Intera-
gency Delineation of Responsibilities
(if appropriate to the applicant States
aod Public Participation.
(I) Ltgtitatto* otOAorUn (A) A State
9»Mn| full ih*ll i
-------
PIOPOMD RUUS
4371
to unique or unusual circumstances or
mdltlou within the SUM Where a
3taM tax existing regulations or pro-
poses new regulations which ire dlf-
[emit from those of EPA. the Region-
U Administrator shall evaluaM the
jubllshed regulations of the SUM'S
Agencies (or their equivalency to
those of CPA. The Slue s regulation
ihall address the Identification of ha*>
irdous wasM uid shall contain sua*
lards applicable to generator* of haa-
irdous rate transporters of Imudr
:us waste. and the owners and open*
ton of hiiardouj wute treatment,
¦tongs and rtlipoial facilities. SUM
regulations may not Impose any re-
lulrement which is 'lest stringent"
than EPA's regulations under sections
1001 through JOOS of the Act.
(Ill) Permit mechanim A SUM
¦eeklng full authorization shall pro-
lids for • permit sysum applicable to
[adlltles which treat, store, or dispose
jf hazardous wastes, which conslsu ol
ld administrative and legal framework
together with resources sufficient to:
iccept, process and renew applications
[or permits: issue permiu (with appro-
prUM special conditions), monitor re-
newals and expirations of pennies
monitor compliance with the terms
and conditions of permits, enforce
:ompllanee with the terms and condi-
tions of permits: and enforce against
somen and operators who have not ac-
quired permits. The Regional Adminis-
trator shall evaluate the systems of
thoae applicant States where the term
"permit. Is not used in order to deur-
mine whether mechanisms such as ' li-
censeletter* of approval*, wasu
discharge requirements * or other con-
trol devices, regardless of terminology,
satisfy the intent of the Act.
(Iv> Uani/at system. A SUM seeking
full authorization shall demonstrate
the administrative capability to over-
see the wasu transportation manifest
system established under section
3003(9) of the Act. Such capability
shall Include the management of man-
ifests involving both Intrastate and In-
lerstaM tranaonation of hazardous
wastes. States seeking full authoriza-
tion under these Quldellnea shall
agree to use the manifest format pu»
Uihed by the Administrator In the
PtsnLU. Rcoisna pursuant to Section
1002 In administering and enforcing
their hazardous wasM management
urograms, but may supplement that
format as approprtaM to meet specific
requrlemenu or needs.
(v) IdrnliAcattan at resources The
Regional Administrator shall evaluaM
the resources proposed by an appli-
cant Sum to be applied to IU hazard-
ous wasu management program la
order to ascertain that the SUM Is
able to administer and enforce the
program successfully The Regional
Administrator shall consider the fol-
lowing facton in evaluating the ade-
quacy of the Sum's proposed re-
sources: (A) A comparison with levels
of resources known to have been ap-
plied In other States of commensurate
size, hazardous wuu generation and
disposal frequency, and (B> the ade-
quacy of those resources In relation to
the level of success of those other
SUM programs. Consequently, SUM
applications for full authorization
under Section 3000(b) shall clearly
Identify the personnel and the mone-
tary resources to be used to carry out
each responsibility necessary to con-
duct a comprehensive hazardous waste
management program.
(vt> fnterao*nctr delineation. A SUM
seeking full authorization In which
more than one agency Is Involved in
the administration and enforcement of
the SUM hazardous wasu program
shall explicitly delineate the responsi-
bilities of each such agency which
relate to hazardous wasM manage-
ment. and shall deslgnaM a ' lead
agency", for the purposes of these
Quldellnea. to facilitate communica-
tions between EPA and the agencies
responsible for the SUM program, and
to receive such grant funds u may be
made available under section 1011 of
the Act. This "lead agency" may be
the same agency designated under 40
CPA Part 233. Identification of Re-
gions and Agencies for Solid Wane
Management (Interim Quldellnea) '
The 'lead agency" should provide for
coordination with the SUM agency re-
sponsible for the regulation of tnjeo-
tlon wells under the Underground In-
jection Control (TIC) program admin-
istered under Part C of- the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Pub. L.
9J-J32. 43 0.S.C. lOOf et seq.) unless
the agency responsible for the TIC
program is the same as the 'lead
agency" described above
Publie participation. A SUM
seeking full authorization shall submit
a public participation plan aa part of
the application which complies with
the guidelines EPA has promulgated
pursuant to section TOOvb) of the Act
(40 CPR Part 149>
(2) Cantuuncv- A SUM seeking full
authorization shall demoattrau the
' consistency" of tu program with the
Federal program or SUM program*
applicable in other State* In order for
the SUM program to be authorised.
Such States shall satisfy the require-
ments of both the free movement of
hazardous wastes across sum bound-
aries and the degree to which SUM
standards may vary from thoae of
EPA or of other State*, except that
States which vlolaM these require-
ments on the date of promulgation of
these guidelines may request a tempo-
rary suspension of this requirement.
The Regional Administrator may
grant a temporary suspension of this
requirement for a period not to exceed
July I. 1984. upon a showing that the
SUM Is working towards elimination
of this violation. For purposes of this
subpart, the phrase '• • • SUM pro-
grams applicable in other States ' " "
refers onljr to thoae programs which
have received full authorization under
section 3008< b) of the Act.
(I) free ifot*mm( of Haiardou*
Waste* (A) Any SUM program which
includes a ban on the Importation of
hazardous wastes from other States
which are destined for treatment, stor-
age. or disposal facilities having ha*-
ardous rate permits under the Sum
program will be deemed InconslsMnt
for the purposes of section 300Mb)
Therefore the Regional Administra-
tor shall not grant full authorization
to a SUM program Including such a
ban.
(B) Any SUM program which ap-
plies one standard to hazardous wastes
originating within its borders, and a
different standard to hazardous wastes
originating elsewhere, will be dtemed
InconslsMnt with the Federal program
and with those programs applicable In
other States. Therefore, the Regional
Administrator shall not grant full au-
thorization to such a SUM program.
(Ill Dissimilar standards. When the
proposed SUM program Includes stan-
dards which are significantly different
from the Federal standards, the Re-
gional Administrator shall determine
whether such Sum standards substan-
tially Impede the movement of hazard-
ous wastes Into or out of the SUM,
and whether such SUM standards pro-
tect public health and the environ-
ment to aubatantlally the same degree
as do the Federal standards. If the Re-
gional Administrator determines that
fucb StoX£ lUadirdi do substifiUtUj
Impede the movement of hazardous
wastes Into or out of the SUM. then
the SUM program is Inconsistent for
the purposes of section lOOttb). unless
such standards protect public health
and the environment to substantially
the same degree aa do the Federal
standards. If the Regional Administra-
tor does not authorize a SUM program
due to this determination of Incoruis-
tency, the SUM may continue to oper-
aM lu hazardous wasM program In
parallel with the Federal program.
(1) Adequacy a/mfitrermenL A SUM
seeking full authorization shall dem-
onstrate that the enforcement provi-
sions of the proposed SUM program
are adequate, and that the SUM Is
able to adminisur and enforce lu pro-
gram successfully The Regional Ad-
ministrator shall consider the pro-
posed Sum enforcement procedures,
practices, and penalties, comparing
them with those contained In the Act,
and with those Implemented by the
Environmental Protection Agency for
the Federal program in evaluating the
adequacy of the SUM'S proposed en-
forcement program. The Regional Ad-
ministrator should employ the follow-
necui tMtfiBL vac «x mo. b—wedmsmt, nwuA«T i, im
-------
4372
toecriteria In regard to penalty «»";
n^wit to evaluating tba adeqiiary of
enforcement a! e State Program that
legislation til*** tuUiorlilu dill and
olmlnal p****1"** with a deterrent
value adequate to handle ilmmt til
enforcement actloni tad that th*
legislation provldea that such tan!"
tie* be sought In appropriate drcuia-
noroaa tutu
(b) Partial aotliarUattaa. The Re*
^nn«i Administrator mr authorise a
to ¦rtmtrifi'-* and enforce sele&*
ed components of & hasardouswaste
mutiuvT program u described in
1230 72(sXlXl> while retaining respon-
sibility for such part or parts tot
which SUU legislative luOiorttr is
absent. A negotiated Memorandum of
Undimandlnc as described tn
12S014(a) la required for partial su-
taomttion.
Cl> Application. Stales mar apply
for partial lutbortzation only II Slate
hrgtalath- authority does not exist for
certain program component*. Partial
authorization of the hazardous waste
program may only be granted IX such
components meet the three qtterla of
equivalency. consistency. and enforee*
ability In all case*, the combination of
the State and EPA hazardous waste
magna mail meet the sub*tantlv»
and procedural requirement! of a full
hmdoui waste program desrlbad la
I3S0.TH1).
(}) PttfdrtOfi putlil laUwt&Uoa
.^»n be effective (or a Axed duration,
agreed upon mutually by the State
¦nH (iu Regional Administrator and
not to exceed S yeaia. and shall apply
lo complete and discrete components
of ute gnoim from among thoee
m—«in« the State Is willing and able to
t successful hazardous wisu
nrocrim. which, at a minimum, com-
piles with 123013 (bxi) through
(bxai. . . ..
(1) AuOiorUatian plan. A State seek-
ing Intertm authortzatlon shall submit
ta •mthnrlTT""" plan" as part of Its
The authortzatlon plan
rmii describe the additions or modlfl-
nooeosary to qualify the State
program for full authortzatlon under
Section IQOOtb) by October 21. 1880.
together with the ttftertule which the
Stale proposes to achieve those addi-
tion or modifications. Failure to meet
the schedule may be cause for wlthr
drawal of Interim authorization.
(2) icplstofloe aufftonte A State
((eking interim authorization shall
demonstrate legislative authority to
control at least either o&elte or off-
dta hazardous waste disposal faculties,
(.wmHiiiy the authority to rnndiHt la-
ipecUonj institute enforcement
proceeding*. Legislative authority to
control hazardous waste treatment or
f^Hiin»« is not requited (or In-
urta >hil'w*1 pnpun as da*
sslbed in f 23013(b)(3) Evaluation of
fho ujfvcQliflCt ifid enforcement
pam "ID be u the discretion of the
Regional Administrator
(ID a surveillance and enforcement
effort which Is Insufficient for full au>
Umrttatlon may be sufficient for inter-
tm authorttatlon. Where the State
proposal provides for a surveillance
and enforcement program which does
not satisfy the requirements tor full
(Utnonzatlon, the State Authortzatlon
Plan must describe the activities. In-
cluding those ulieila described in
I 23012«a*3) regarding penally assess-
ment. through which the Stat* ex-
pects u> become eligible for full an-
thortauon during the twenty (our
month period for which the Interim
tothortzallon I* effective.
123174 PadMl omigtu of «ilbo(tt«4
After an other requirements have
been satisfied and before receiving an-
thorbation under Section 30091b) or
Section 3OWc) of the Act. the State
shall agree with the Regional Admin-
tstrator on an overnight procedure
which will allow SPA to monitor the
State's hazardous waste program to a^
certain Uut the program Is being ad-
ministered snd enforced successfully
tn accordance with the Act The over^
sight procedures shall becom* part of
the Memorandum of Understanding
required under |2301«a> of the**
Ouldeilna-
(a) VmoraaAn of gadervfnarflep
In order to reoelve authortzatlon
¦~w section 20064 b> or Section
j0064 c) of tha Act. a Memorandum of
rnuw"~"'"f shall be negotiated be-
tween the State and the Regional Ad-
ministrator. The Memorandum of un-
dentandln* shall describe in detail the
oversight procedures to which th*
m.n trrf D)g Regional Administrator
have agreed, and may Include such
other terms, conditions, or agreements
as are relevant to the administration
enforcement of the State's ha»
ardous waste regulatory program. At a
—me Memorandum of Oadsr-
(taadlng shall Include the Items d^
¦oltMd tn 1230.14 (aKlMaK4).
tl) Prooram tpolanrtoa. Ttie State
.h^i allow EPA to rensw such Slate
records, reports, or Die* as are rel-
evant to the administration and en-
forcement of the Stata hasardou*
wast* regulatory program no less than
m each flral year for which the
tm received authortzatlon nnrtftT
}00«b) or 3006(c) of the Act.
Uk program review may be scheduled
io u to cotndde with the annual grant
mid-year review
(1) IUvUv a! permU appHcoftoaa
The Memorandum of Understanding
VOL 41 MX a—¦
ar. wmt t, t«n
-------
ptorasco tuns
4373
shall specify the bull on which the
Redo tuU Administrator mar select
permit (epilation of the State for
rerlew The Regional Administrator
may review and comment to Uie Stats
on up lo ten 110) percent of the permit
application received Or the State In
each fiscal rear for which the Stato
haa received authorisation under Sec-
tion 3000(b) or Section 3000(c) of the
Act; the Rational Administrator and
the State mar asm to a lower per-
centage limitation where the Regional
Administrator believes such an agree-
ment to beuaafuL
(J) Inspection*. The Memorandum
of Undemanding shaU specify the
basil on which the Regional Admlnl»
trator may select facilities within the
State when hazardous waste la gener-
ated. transported stored. treated, or
disposed for federal Inspection. The
Regional Administrator or his drttf-
nee mar conduct Inspections of up to
ten (10) percent of the generators,
transporters, treaten. stows, and dls-
poeen In a State In each fiscal rear for
vhlch the State has received authori-
sation under Section 1000(b) or Seo-
Hon 3000(e) of the Act. The Regional
Administrator utd um sum osy
agree to a lower percentage
when the Regional Administrator be-
lieves such an agreement to be useful.
Except In the case al an imminent
hsaard within the m«—niny of Section
TOO* of the Act, the Regional Admlnl*
tntor shall notify the State at lean
seven (T) caknrtar days before each
such Inspection and allow the State
tbo oppoftu&ity to ttito the initial
contact with the facility or site owners
or operator*. ETA shall give the State
the opportunity Co lead anr Inspection
or visit conducted br CPA pursuant to
this Subpart,
(4) AmotU. The Memorandum of
Undent tnrtlng shall specify the fre-
quency and content of such reports as
are required to be submitted br the
State to ZPA. but In no event shall the
frequency of such reports be less than
once in each quarter of anr fiscal rear
for which the State has received au-
thorisation under Section 10064b) or
Section WWc) of the Act. Hi* con-
tent of tuch reports shall be specified
In the Memorandum of Undemanding
and may be etnahlnrt with grant re-
ports where applicable.
V Ckonpf (n ovmigtU require-
The oversight out.
lined above and agreed upon br a
State and Region shall be binding on
both parties except when the Regional
Administrator has reason to believe
that the State program Is not In com-
pliance with requirements of 1250 73
(a) and (b> or 1230 73 and all Subparts
thereunder. In such a case, and after
notice to the State, the Regional Ad-
ministrator may Institute such over-
sight procedures u he deems neces-
Mfy to l&fo(l|it4 Uio sltuitlon 101JL
where warranud. to Insure a return to
T"*-'—
1230.75 AfoUemtloo Proctdua.
The State application shall include a
narrative description of the State ha»-
ardous waste regulatory program. Tha
State application shall provide Infor-
mation sufficient for the Regional Ad-
mlnlatmor to auk* 4 dticn&lniilOQ
on the adequacy ol the States pro-
gram. At a minimum, the followtng
Information shall be submitted. Appli-
cation describing Hazardous waste pro-
gram as It relates to suldellnes (full,
partial, and Interim authorization):
Memorandum of Undemanding de-
scribing oversight provisions (full, par-
tial, and Interim authorization e au-
thorisation plan describing deficien-
cies and planned milestones to achieve
full authorisation (Interim authorisa-
tion).
(a) Public hearing. After preparation
of the draft application, the State
shall give notice to all Interested par-
ties of the State's intention to seek au-
thorization. Public notice shall be
such that all Interested parties will be
given reasonable opportunity to com-
ment on the draft application. Copies
of the draft application shall be made
available to the public for comment.
Upon request, the State shall hold a
public hearing to the State's
application to conduct the hazardous
waste program. All Interested parties
will be gtven reasonable opportunity
to present written or oral testimony
on the State's application at the
public hearing,
(b) SttOmtsston a/ application to
SPA. After consideration of comments
received from the public notice and
public hearing, the State snail prepare
a completed application, signed by the
appropriate State official In charge of
the designated lead agency, for sub-
mission to the Regional Administra-
tor (Three (31 copies of the final ap-
plication shall be submitted.)
(c) Notice and d* termination of find-
(ftps, Within M days following submis-
sion of a completed application for
program authorization, the Regional
Admlnlsumtor shall issue a notice as to
whether or not he expects such pro-
gram to be authorized. Within to days
following such notice and after oppor-
tunity for public hearing the Regional
Administrator th*J| publish his find-
ings as to whether or not the State
will be given authorisation to operate
the hazardous waste regulatory pro-
gram. Public notice of the hearing. If
held, will be such that all Interested
parties will be given reasonable oppor-
tunity to present written and oral to
tlmonr on the State's application at
the public hearing.
| Z54L7I Withdrawal ot aaihoiiiaxloik
Section 3000(e) of the Act requires
the Administrator to withdraw au-
thorization of such Slate program and
establish a Federal program where the
Administrator determines, after hold-
ing a public hearing, that the State
program Is not In compliance with the
requirements of 1230 71 (a) and (b) or
1230 73. A Regional Administrator
having reason to believe that a State Is
not administering or enforcing an au-
thorized program in accordance with
the Act. shall follow the procedure de-
scribed In 1230 71 (a) through (d)
(a) Nottct to Stat* of puMlc hnrtnei
A Regional Admlnlsumtor having
reason to believe that a State Is noc
administering or enforcing IU autho-
rized program In compliance with the
requirements of Section 3000 and this
Subpart, shall Inform the State br
registered mall of the specific areas of
alleged noncompliance, and that a
publlo bearing will be held to discuss
withdrawal of the State's program as
required under Section 3004(e) of the
Act. If the State demonstrates to the
Regional Administrator within 30 days
of such notification that the State
program Is In compliance, the Re-
gional Administrator shall lata no fur-
ther action toward withdrawal.
(b) Public fuming. Where the Re-
gional Administrator still has reason
to believe that the State Is not In com-
pliance 30 days after notification, a
public hearing shall be scheduled not
less than <0 days or more than 73 days
following the Initial notification date.
All Interested parties shall be given
opportunity to present written and
oral testimony on the withdrawal of
the State's program at the public
hearing.
(c) Notice to Stal* of Jlnd
-------
STATEMENT AND COMMENTS
ON PROPOSED USEPA GUIDELINES FOR THE AUTHORIZATION OF
STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS TO OPERATE IN
LIEU OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAM
(43 Federal Register 4366-4373, February 1, 1978)
Presented at the USEPA Public Hearing
New Orleans, Louisiana
March 9, 1978
By: Jeffrey R. Diver
On Behalf Of. Waste Management, Inc.
-------
My name is Jeff Diver and I reside at 194 Merton Avenue
in the Village of Glen Ellyn, Illinois. I am appearing
before you today in two capacities, one professional and one
personal. In my professional capacity, I appear on behalf
of Waste Management, Inc., whom I serve as Counsel for
Environmental Affairs. Waste Management is a publicly-held
corporation, employing more than 3600 persons in over half of
the states. Additionally, through subsidiaries, the company
operates in Canada and Saudi Arabia. As the name implies,
we are engaged in providing solid waste management services,
covering collection, disposal and resource recovery. I-ncluded
in our operations are treatment and disposal facilities for
hazardous, or, as we prefer to call them, special wastes.
In my personal capacity, I appear as both a private
citizen and as a former administrator of a state environmental
agency. During 197 3 to 1977 I served as Deputy Director and
Chief Counsel of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, having the responsibility to develop, structure and
enforce state environmental programs, including hazardous
waste management programs. More to the present inquiry, it
was my responsibility to deal with the federal Environmental
Protection Agency in the negotiation of annual air and water
program grants and in the drafting of Illinois's Memorandum
of Agreement for assumption of NPDES authority: a Memorandum,
i might add, which was four years in the making. As a
(1)
-------
result of that state experience, I have gained an appreciation
of the problems involved in state assumption of federal
environmental programs.
Enough of introductions. I have come today to comment
on your proposed guidelines for authorization of state
hazardous waste programs. To get right to the point, my
greatest concern relates to "interim authorization" of state
programs. The proposed guidelines, in the "Supplementary
Information" portion, use up a lot of ink in an attempt to
justify the Agency's conclusion on what Congress meant by
"substantially equivalent". Yet, nowhere is there a clear
statement of what are the consequences of a determination
that a state program is "substantially equivalent" to the
federal program. If you are serious about seeking Congressional
intent, look at the objectives spelled out in P.L. 94-580:
for hazardous waste purposes, the objective, clearly stated
in Section 1003, is "to promote the protection of health and
the environment". Now, look at what occurs once the Regional
Administrator concludes that a state program is "substantially
equivalent": for two years, from October 21, 1978 to October
20, 1980, the only control over hazardous waste generation,
transportation, treatment, storage and disposal is whatever
control the state has under its legislation and regulations.
Now, look again at what you have proposed to accept as
being "substantially equivalent": a state program with no
(2)
-------
control over on-site disposal; a state program with no
control over generators, transporters, treaters or storers;
a state program with no waste tracking system; a state
program with no regulations defining what is a hazardous
waste. As you put it yourselves, in Section 250.73(b)(5),
you propose that "substantially equivalent" means "a minimal
program". I sincerely hope the Agency does not truly believe
Congress Intended to protect public health and the environment
by giving a two-year "free pass" to generators, transporters,
storers, treaters and on-site disposers.
Indeed, if we refer back.to the statute, it is clear
that Congress Intended that all existing hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facilities would have gone
through the USEPA permit review process (or have applications
pending) before any State assumed "interim authorization".
Under the statutory time schedule, facilities are required
to have permits by October 21, 1978, which date, coincidentally,
is the first day of the "interim authorization" period. We
all know, however, that this permit deadline, intended by
Congress, will not be met, because of the delay in issuing
the regulations which underlie the permit program.
As a former environmental administrator, I cannot and
will not fault USEPA for these delays: hazardous waste
management is a new field for most of us, the Office of
Solid Waste has been conscientious in soliciting broad-based
commentary (if not true participation) on internal Agency
(3)
-------
drafts, and there ]ust wasn't enough money to staff up to
meet the deadlines. At the same time, however, I do not
make excuses for the Agency in its choice for resolving the
dilemma.
No one, least of all the people and the States, is
well-served by the selection of an option which call3 for
regulation of the States instead of regulation of the handlers
of hazardous waste. In granting "interim authorization" to
a State, USEPA does three things: (1) it allows itself
to avoid the obligation to administer its own hazardous
waste program; (2) it grants absolution for those who would
be regulated were it not Cor the gaps in the state program?
and, (3) it imposes on the State, via the Memorandum of
Understanding and the required "authorization plan", the
requirements to "shape up" the state's program, to open the
State's files to USEPA, to provide a minimum of quarterly
reports, to allow USEPA to second-guess the State on 10% of
the permits, and to allow USEPA to conduct inspections at
10% of the generators, transporters, treaters, storers and
disposers in the State. It is difficult to see how this
advances the stated Congressional objectives.
However, criticism without alternatives is unfair. So,
what do I suggest as a resolution of the problem, a resolution
which will advance both USEPA'S goal of encouraging maximum
state participation and the Congressional goal of protecting
health and the environment? USEPA has already suggested the
(4)
-------
answer: extend the concept of "partial authorization" to
the two-year "interim" period. For example, if a State has
control over off-site, but not on-site disposal, let the
State have "interim authorization" to administer the off-
site disposal program, while USEPA retains the responsibility
for administering the on-site disposal program. Or, if the
State has no control over waste tracking, let USEPA administer
the manifest system. In the event the State obtains, during
the period of "interim authorization", additional regulatory
authority, those additional program elements can be transferred
from USEPA. to the State.
Allowing "partial authorization" in the "interim period",
It seems to me, offers several benefits, in addition to
satisfying stated EPA and Congressional goals;
1. It allows USEPA to experience, first hand, the
problems involved in actual administration of the
federally-established program. USEPA personnel,
through this sensitizing and educational process,
would be better able to provide constructive
assistance to the States when they seek additional
program elements;
2. It provides an incentive to those who will remain
under USEPA control to seek enabling legislation
or regulations which will allow State take-over of
those program elements;
3. It avoids conflicts with existing State programs,
as USEPA would retain responsibility over only
those elements for which the State has no control;
4. It allows the States to better plan and phase in
their additional control mechanisms, without
feeling that the time spent in good faith deliberation
was working to the benefit of those yet uncontrolled
by State law.
(5)
-------
The "Supplementary Information" in the proposed guidelines
discusses the drawbacks to the concept of partial authorization,
saying, and I quote:
"... the regulated community has strenuously
contended that a single entity should carry out
the entire program in a given State, arguing that
a sharing of responsibility would result in confusion
and duplication of effort for the agencies, and
greatly increased complexity for regulated firms."
(43 FR, at 4368).
I represent a regulated company, and we do not strenuously
object to, but rather support, the concept of partial
authorization. Obviously, we would prefer to have to work
with only a single entity - an entity at the state level.
But, we are pragmatic enough to realize that it will take
time and the expenditure of large resources before many
states are in a position to take control over all of the
federal program elements. I also know that attempts to
accelerate complete State take-over, through the coercive
measures of withholding grant moneys, or tying grant moneys
to the establishment of specific program elements, or brow-
beating the States during annual program reviews or in
public meetings, is counter-productive. The States will
seek "full authorization" when they are convinced that it
will be to the benefit of their people, and when they see
that the federal commitment to state administration is
matched by the commitment of federal dollars.
Use of partial interim authorization, conditioned on
the requirement that the State show a good faith effort to
(6)
-------
procure needed legislation or regulations, will allow
orderly development of state programs, during both the
interim and post-interim periods, while assuring that
hazardous wastes are necessarily managed in accordance with
the federal program.
One last matter deserves comment before I leave: that
is the subject of hazardous waste importation bans, be they
created directly by law or indirectly by excessively stringent
or burdensome regulations. Most of us in this room, I
imagine, would agree that such bans are impediments to sound
hazardous waste management: they present the very real
threat of cutting off access to high quality facilities, and
of causing the economics of disposal to become so high that
generators, transporters and disposers will be willing to
violate federal or state laws against surreptitious dumping.
Nevertheless, we must recognize that such bans, for the most
part, are founded on political and not environmental grounds.
As such bans are political in nature, they must be dealt
with politically and not through the empty threats which are
implicit in your proposed guidelines.
All you have done in this proposal is advise the
States: (1) that they had better get their bans on the
books by the date of final promulgation of the guidelines;
and, (2) if they do so, you will (albeit, grudgingly) accept
the ban for 3even years. If you final regulations continue
this folly, you will have foreordained that there will he no
(7)
-------
political solution until 1984. How can USEPA, after publishing
a guideline which allows bans until 1984, go before Congress
and seek an earlier cut-off?
My advice, offered gratuitously, is to omit any and all
reference to importation bans in these guidelines, and not
to threaten to cut off your nose to spite your face. If a
State has an approvable program for managing hazardous
waste, even if it only covers intrastate waste, that program
should receive federal authorization. Threatening to withhold
authorization or grant funds, to put it in the vernacular,
just doesn't cut any political ice.
Pursue the fourth alternative you outlined at page
4368: seek a Congressional amendment to abolish or pre-empt
bans. I am prepared, as I believe are most people in the
regulated industries and in the regulatory agencies, to
stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in approaching Congress,
and pushing for the amendment. If we fail, after having the
opportunity to present our case, at least we will know that
it is the will of the people, as expressed through their
elected representatives, to run the very definite risks
created by bans.
Z want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to
speak my mind. Although my remarks up to now have not
indicated it, I do support most of what you have proposed,
especially the concept of a uniform national manifest. I
ask only that in drafting the final guidelines you keep in
(8)
-------
mind two things: (1) that your overriding purpose, above
all others, is to establish a program which will, as soon as
possible, afford protection to the public and their environment;
and, (2) that the States will serve as your partners in this
endeavor, if they are treated as full, consenting partners.
(9)
-------
STATE-TUT Ot: CCII^LF OF TIIC
iiATirit:;j, govewors association
TO
TIIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGARDING
PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS PURSUANT
TO SECTIOM 3006
OF
THC RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1«7 6
PL 94-^80
March 9, 1978
New Orleans, Louisiana
-------
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today regarding
the proposed guidelines for state hazardous waste programs pursuant
to Section 3006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976. My name is Jay Snow. I am Chief of the Solid Waste Unit,
Texas Department of Water Resources ind I speak to you today
representing the Hazardous Wdste Task Force of the national Governor's
Association Standing Subcommittee on Waste Management. The partici-
pating states on the NGA Hazardous Waste Task Force have monitored
closely the development of these proposed guidelines. The states
recognize the importance of these guidelines in light of the clear
Congressional preference contained in the law for state admi'ii^trj"-ion
of hazardous waste programs which fulfill the requirements of
Subtitle C of the \ct. On behalf of the states, I appreciate the
open manner in which these guidelines have been developed to date,
and the earnest efforts on the behalf of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) staff to solicit and consider states' views in developing
the document. I think the document we have before us today has
benefited from this process of state participation.
I think the document in its proposed form by and large will
prove to be an effective instrument in fostering and facilitating
assumption of the hazardous waste program by the states. However,
there are a few provisions in the proposed document which could
either prove to be an impediment to state assumption or hamper the
effective administration of state programs once authorized by EPA.
1 will attempt to briefly summarize the states' position on these
matters.
-------
-2-
The first of these issues regards the free movement of
hazardous waste proposed in Section 250.72 as a measure of con-
sistency and specifically, the so called importation ban provision
which would render a state ineligible for authorization. As I
have communicated to EPA in the past, the states uniformly oppose
this provision for a variety of reasons. Basically, the provision
is seen as an unnecessary impediment to state assumption of the
hazardous waste program and as such, counter productive so Congress1
clear preference for state assumption of the program. Speaking as
one who has been involved in a progressive state hazardous waste
program for several years, I can assure you that the public, as
they should, will continue to exercise a degree of control over
disposal site location and disposal site service areas. I think
that the bans, in whatever form they may take, that have been placed
in effect should be considered as actions taken in cognizance cf
public opinion and as such, should not be disregarded. Therefore,
I would think that such a provision would be ineffective in
discouraging or removing such bans, would serve simply to define
disagreement between EPA and some state programs, and result in
unnecessary dual program administration in some states, and unnecessary
federal administration in others. I recognize the options considered
by EPA in developing this guideline. With regard to those six
options, I would think that option 5. - taking no action on the
hazardous waste importation ban issue - would be the most appropriate
action for the initial promulgation of these guidelines. Should
EPA choose to retain the importation ban provision, providing the
-------
-3-
authority for Regional Administrators to grant authorization
for a limited period, as proposed, would definitely be the
preferable arrangement.
Another area of concern to the states regards the potential
of the hazardous waste program delegation paperwork to command an
inordinate share of state resources. In several areas of the
guideline, this potential has been minimized. However, further
revision may be necessary in Section 250.74, Federal Oversight of
Authorized Programs. This section for the most part appropriately
limit3 the Pegional Administrator to a reasonable level of review
and oversight. However, in Section 250.74(a)(4) dealing with
reports, the opposite approach has been chosen by necessitating
that the Regional Administrator require quarterly reports. This
seems to be an unreasonable frequency, especially in light of the
Regional Administrator's ability to impose such oversight procedures
as he deems necessary under Section 250.74 (b). The Task Force
states have expressed on nunerous occasions their concern that such
provisions have in the past and could possibly in the future demand
staff time that could otherwise be devoted to more beneficial program
elements. I would therefore strongly recommend that as a minira'in,
the reporting requirements be made a negotiable item between the
Regional Administrator and the state. This approach wo'ild allow
the Regional Administrator to tailor reporting to EPA's needs with
respect to each state, considering the type of authorization, the
level of funding, etc.
-------
-4
Another area of concern recently discussed by the NCA
Hazardous Waste Task Force at our meeting in Denver, Colorado
centers around the anticipated application of the term "equr'aleno,
in assessing the adequacy of each element proposed to ho subject
to examination in Section 250.72(a)(1). More specifically, the
states are concerned that the measurement of equivalency could go
beyond the assessment of state program elements to determine the
achievement of "equivalent effects" and extend to methods and
procedures which the state has established to administer that
program element. For example, in Section 250.72(a)(1)(li) and (iiil,
the guideline indicates that a permit mechanism consisting of certain
specified components must be present, and further, that the state
may not impose any requirement which is "less stringent" than
prescribed by EPA regulations to be promulgated pursuant to Section
3005 of the Act. Since the federal permit regulations are likely
to include procedural requirements for such matters as hearings,
application lead times, etc., would differing administrative methods
and procedural requirements pertaining to such matters established
by a state preclude the state's authorization due to inequivalences
or because of issues of stringency? The general drift of these
guidelines seem to imply that they would not. However, I would
recommend that additional language be proposed in the guideline to
clearly indicate that the assessment of program elements with rogard
to equivalency will be limited to the adequacy of the program element's
effect and not extend to methods, practices, and procedures by
which the program is administered by the state. In man> cases.
-------
-5-
stato aqencies arc bound to such procedures by state Law.
Once aaain, I appreciate tfio opportunity to address this
hearing pan-->l on behall of the ['n-ional Governors Association
I tfill he happy to ^ns/er any questions or further address an>
issues that the Environmental Protection Agency may have
-------
State Hazardous Haste Programs
Proposed Guidelines
PL 94-580, Section 3006
(40 CFR 250.6)
Comments by Dow Chemical U.S.A.
New Orleans, Louisiana
March 9, 1978
-------
Mr. Chairman. I am G. W. Daigre, Manager of environmental
Control for the Louisiana Division of Dow Chemical U.S.A. I
wish to present comments pertinent to the Proposed Guidelines
for State Hazardous Waste Programs (Section 3006 of PL 94-580).
These comments reflect our concerns and corporate philosophy m
the proper management of hazardous wastes to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment. These comments
are specific to: the manifest system, non-importation bans,
partial authorization, interim authorization, hazard criteria,
reporting requirements, and economic/environmental impact.
Manifest System
It should be emphasized m approved State programs that in
accordance with Section 3002(5) of the RCRA, the use of a
manifest is required only for those hazardous wastes which
"leave the site of generation", i.e., "premises", and are taken
only to permitted storage, treatment, or disposal facilities.
We feel that it should be clearly stated in the Proposed
Guidelines that manifests are not required for generator,
transporter, or storer/treater/disposer "on the premises." The
meaning of "on the premises" also should be broadened to allow
some flexibility in operation among neighboring but
non-contiguous sites. We suggest "on the premises" or "on-site"
be interpreted to include all fully integrated hazardous waste
operations of management which are conducted entirely under
-------
-2-
common management within a reasonable distance of each other
(50 miles) but require some movement across or along a public
road or waterway. To eliminate duplication, but still comply
with the RCRA, the record keeping for on-site generators should
be incorporated into the requirements for the 3torer/treater/
disposer who is also on-site under common management, and who is
subject to record keeping, as well as permitting and reporting
requirements. We will provide EPA with a more detailed assess-
ment of the manifest system and the reporting system as applied
to operations "on the premises".
Non-Importation Bans
We agree that adequate management of hazardous wastes demands
the free movement of such wastes to whatever facility or 3ite
that can best treat or dispose of them. We therefore encourage
EPA to authorize hazardous waste programs only for those states
which allow the importation of hazardous wastes to permitted
storage, treatment, or disposal facilities. Hie phase-out of
existing non-importation bans on both hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes also should be pursued.
Partial Authorization
We are concerned about the adequacy of allowing partial authori-
zation to a State to conduct a hazardous waste management
-------
-3-
program. A sharing of the responsibilities would result in
confusion and duplication of effort for the agencies and greatly
increase the complexity for regulated firms. We question
whether any states would seek a partial authorization. We
encourage the full authorization of state programs with as much
consistency as feasible among states recognizing differences in
facility siting and industrial composition.
Interim Authorization
We encourage EPA to allow interim authorization to those States
having existing hazardous wastes programs substantially squiva-
lent to the Federal Program under Subtitle C. The window for
application for interim authorization of 90 days should be
extended/ commensurate with the delays of promulgation of
Subtitle C regulations. Similarly, the operational period of
interim authorization of two years should be extended.
Hazard Criteria
It is very uncertain at the present time what actually consti-
tutes a hazardous waste in the Federal regulations and yet all
future State programs are required to define a hazardous waste.
Meaningful guidelines to Stata hazardous waste programs can not
be established until hazard criteria are fully defined under
Section 3001.
-------
-4-
There is overconcecn for control of potentially hazardous wastes
already properly managed so as to adequately protect human
health and the environment. Overregulation of so-called
"hazardous" wastes is evident in the proposed draft criteria of
Section 3001 which will result in essentially all municipal and
industrial solid wastes being declared as hazardous irrespective
of actual and proven hazard. This overclassification is
obviously contrary to the intent of the RCRA. individual States
must reflect the criteria for hazard in State regulations to be
substantially equivalent and as stringent as the Federal
criteria. It is difficult to perceive any greater stringency
than all solid wastes being declared hazardous.
The net results of overclassification of hazards are multiple.
Hazardous waste management facilities will be overtaxed beyond
capacity. Resource recovery, contrary to the intent of the
RCRA, is severely discouraged by classifying all wastes as
hazardous.
Reporting Requirements and Federal Oversight
We disagree that reporting requirements are "of a small or negli-
gible impact" as stated by EPA. We feel that an annual summary
report by the individual state to EPA is sufficient and that a
-------
-5-
quarterly reporting schedule is excessive. We feel that
Federal review of up to ten percent of the permit applications
and Federal inspection of up to ten percent of facilities in
each fiscal year is excessive and unnecessary. Such reviews or
inspections should be limited to extenuating circumstances upon
the request by the State assuming primacy. We agree that a
"memorandum of understanding" should be an integral part of the
State authorization program. These memoranda should be given
wide distribution to all affected par-ties.
Economic and Environmental Impacts
Analyses of the economic and environmental impacts should not be
restricted to the entirety of Subtitle C. They should also
include the substantial impact of Subtitle D. The economic
impact on the public resulting from Section 3006 implementation
while less than Sections 3001-5, nevertheless, is not negligible
as stated by EPA simply because the subject State programs must
be equivalent to the Federal program. In either case a costly
program of manifesting, monitoring, permitting, surveillance,
and enforcement is required. Evaluation of surveillance and
enforcement programs should be done on a State-by-State basis
reflecting individual characteristics and problems.
-------
-6-
We believe both the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the
Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) should be available to the
public, private industry, and individual states be£ore the
Proposed Guidelines for State Hazardous Waste Programs are
finalized.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns.
-------
Attendees March 9, 1978 The Bourbon Orleans, New Orleans, LA
Allgood, J. Charles
Route 2, Sox 12A
Livingston, LA 70754
Anderson, Craig
Environmental Department
Environmental Oualitv Sup
3600 Jefferson Highway
Jefferson, LA
Antle, Don
CLAW Corporation
PO Box 380B
°laauem1ne, LA 70764
Austin, John 0.
Counsel
American Mlnlnq Congress
1200 18th St NW
Washington, OC 20036
Baugljman, Robert L
Environmental Coordinator
"helps Oodqe Corooratlon
300 Park Ave
New York, NY 10022
Beadle, Kathy
S tudent
Tulane School/Publ1c Health
2300 Severn *N20l
Metalrle, LA 70001
Bearden, Chuck
Hazardous Waste Mngmt.
Brownlng-Ferr1s Industries
11455 Darryl Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70815
Belerle, Frederick 0
Pres1 dent
Southwest Environmental Co
PO Bo* 473
Livingston, LA 70754
Bent, Chuck
Toxic Materials Coordinator
Reynolds Metals Comoany
6601 W Broad St
Richmond, VA 23261
Berman, Eugene
Leqal Department
DuPont & Company
Wllmlnqton, DE 19898
Berry, F E.
Adv1sor/Env1ronmental Affairs
(Jul f 011 Chemicals Company
St James Plant
St. James, LA 70086
8ozeman, G F
Environmental Manager
Southern Pacific Transportation
913 Franklin Ave
Houston, TX 77002
Brandon, Dr Dale
Environmental Coordinator
Exxon Minerals Company, USA
PO Box 2180
Houston, TX 77001
Brannen, John C
Sr. Staff Engineer
Union Carbide Corporation
PO Box 50
Hahnvllle. LA 70057
-------
2
Brown, Rlckev
Assistant Biologist
New Orleans Bubl1c Svc.
PO Sox 50340 MU#35
New Orleans, LA 70160
Broz, Larry
Suoerlntendant
Oenka Chemical Corp
8701 Park Place Blvd.
Houston, TX 77017
Caban, Charles H
Project Manager
Stanley Consultants
2600 Century Pkwy NE
Atlanta. GA 30345
Carlson, A.W
Oeoartment Head
Union Carbide Corn.
PO Box 50
Hahnvllle, LA 70057
CarvH 1 e, Thomas E.
Engineer
CF Industries, Inc.
PO Box 468
Dona 1dsonvi11e, LA 70346
Chaddock, Or R £.
01r -Environmental Affairs
Hercules, Inc.
Wilmington, OE 19899
Charton, Steve
Assistant Director
Louisiana Chemical Assoc.
PO Box 1188
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Christie, David J
Vice President
Newmont Mining Corp.
300 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Clark, Donald C
Presldent
American Waste S Pollution Control
PO Box 26232
New Orleans, LA 70136
Clarke, Robert w
Environmental Engineer
American Cvanamld Co
10800 River Road
Westwego, LA 70094
Coleman, William T
Enforcement Agent
Department of Conservation
PO Box 44275
Baton Rouae, LA 70804
Dalgre, fierard w.
Research and Develooment
Dow Chemical U.S A
Building 2501
Plaquemlne, LA 70764
Darby, Oouglas
News Reporter
WWL-TV
1024 N Ramoart St
New Orleans, LA 70016
Oerdeyn, Michael
Landfill Ooerations
Browning-Ferris Industries
Fannin Bank Building
Houston, TX 77030
OeStefano, Guv
Pres1 dent
Acme Services Unlimited
3628 NW Terrace
Miami, FL 33135
DeVllle. William B.
Director of Research
Louisiana Governor's Office
PO Box 44066
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Dickinson, John
Hazardous Waste Coordinator
EPA Reaional Office
Atlanta, GA
Diver, Jeffries R.
Counsel/Env1ronmental Affairs
Waste Management Inc.
900 Jorle Blvd.
Oak Brook, IL 60521
-------
3.
Drake, L Evans
°pocess Engineer
Hooker Chemical Corn
PO Bo* 74
Hahnvllle, LA 70057
Duke, Ronnie
Environmental Analyst
T Raker Smith I Son, Inc
PO Box 2266
Houma, LA 70360
Dyer, Robert H
Asst General Manaqer
GijI f Coast Authori ty
910 Bay Area
Houston, TX 77058
Eatman, Arthur L.
Aleco Engineering
9000 Manchaca Road
Austin, TX 78745
Elklns, Butch
Browning-Ferris Industries
PO Sox 5416 Orew Station
Lake Charles, LA
Ferrand, Percy J.
Asst. Manager Technical Svcs.
Freeport Chemical Company
Uncle Sam, LA 70792
Fontaine, Ben
Educational Activity Coord.
American Lung Association
333 St. Charles Ave #1504
New Orleans, LA 70130
Fontenot, Martin H
Senior Chemist
CIBA-GEIGY Corooratlon
PO Box 11
St. Gabriel, LA 70776
Francis, Joseph
Regional Sales Manager
Ensco, Inc.
PO Box 1975
El Oorado, A/-k. 71730
Frank, L E
Engineering Soedalist
Monsanto Agricultural Oiv
PO Box 174
Lullng. LA 70070
Friloux, James J
Intergovernmental Relations
U.S OeDartment of Energv Region VI
333 Laurel St I600A
Baton Rouge. LA 70801
Glenn, B E.
Environmental Engineer
Texas Utilities Services, Inc
2001 Bryan Tower
Dallas, tv 75201
Glbertl , Richard A
Section Head
Ledgemont Laboratory
128 Spring St
Lexington, MA 02173
GrayVI11, Larry
Vice President/General Manager
Ensco, Inc.
PO Box 1975 •
El Dorado, Ark 71730
Griffith, L.B.
Chief, Technical & Regulatory Branch
Texas OeDartment of Health Resources
1100 w. 49th St
Austin, TX 78756
Hagen, Lawrence H
General Manager
Gary Development Comoany, Inc.
PO Box 6056
Gary. IN 46406
Hayes, G. Roy
Administrator, Solid Haste
LA Office of Health Services
PO 8ox 60630
New Orleans. LA 70160
Hebert, LE
Supervisor, Process J Environ Engineer
Hooker Chemical Coro.
PO Box 74
Hahnvllle, LA 70057
-------
4
Henderson, Russ
Volunteers of America
Ptl Box 15030
New Orleans, LA 70175
Henderson, Wallace J.
Counsel
LA House of Representatives
Natural Resources Comm/
PO Box 44333
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Houde, O.J.
.Environmental Engineer
Unlroyal, Inc.
PO Box 397
6e1smar, LA 70734
Hunt, E.C.
President
Superport
1130 Intl Trade Mart
New Orleans, LA 70130
Hunter, Elizabeth
Coordinator Educational Programs
Ecology Center of Louisiana
PO Box 19344
New Orleans, LA 70179
Jaoleson, William N.
Consultant
Oept of Natural Resources
PO Box 44156
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Johnson, R.L.
Chemical Engineer
Tennessee Eastman Company
Klngsport, TN 37662
Jones, Robert L.
Vice President-Southern Region
Rollins Environmental Services
PO Box 73877
Baton Rouge, LA 70807
Jordan, H. Glenn
Staff Attorney
Texas Oept of Water Resources
PO Box 13087 Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
Kelly , W1111 am G
Manager-Environmental Operations
AtlantlcRlchf1e1d Company
Public Affairs Division
515 S Flower St
Los Anqeles, CA 90071
Kennedy, Edward E.
Environmental Coordinator
United Nuclear-Homestake Partners
PO Box 98
Rrants, NM 87020
Kerrigan, James E
Sr Environmental Engineer
AMAX Environmental Services
4704 Harlan St
Denver, CO 80212
Kesten, S. Norman
Assistant to Vice President
ASARCO
120 8roadway
New York, NY 10015
K1rby, T.W.
Chemist Associate
Cities Service 011 Company
PO Box 1562
Lake Charles, LA 70602
Knight, Bruce L.
Technlcal Coordlnator-Envlronment
Marathon 011 Company
539 S. Main St
Flndlam, OH 45840
Knudson, Dennis
Senior Chemist
Shell 011 Comoany
PO Box 10
Norco, LA 70079
Koloskl , Patrick J
D1rector
New Orleans Sanitation Department
City Hall Room 2W13
New Orleans, LA 70112
Larsen, Thomas B.
Envlronmental Control Engineer
AMAX, Inc.
4704 Harlan St
Denver, CO 80212
-------
s
Leonard, Terrence A
Environmental Affair] Specialist
Vulcan Materials Comoany
PO Box 12233
Wichita, ICS 67277
Llndsey, Alan M.
Coordlnator-A1r 4 Solid Waste
International Paper Company
PO Box 16807
Mobile, AL 36616
Lodge, William
Reporter
The State-Times
PO 8ox S88
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Lowery, Catherine
1025 Royal St
New Orleans, LA 70116
Mackay, Bentley B
President
Chemflx Incoroorated
PO Box 1572
Kenner, LA 70063
Mlchel, Larry G.
Environmental Analyst
Phillips Uranium
PO Box 26236
Albuquerque, NM
Miller, Richard L.
Environmental Coordinator
Union Carbide Corp
PO Sox 1029
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Nontjoy, Paul
Presldent
Gulf Coast Waste Olsposal Inc
PO Box 257
Waveland, MS 31576
Morrln, Anne M.
Student
Tulane School of Public Health
3101 St Charles Ave *J
New Orleans, LA 70115
Myers , William A
Environmental Scientist
Burk & Associates, Inc
4176 Canal St
New Orleans, LA 70119
Neal , Larry A.
Sr Environmental Engineer
Law Engineering Testing Co
2749 Oelk Road
Marietta, GA 30067
Odom, Claudia
Associate Professor
Tulane School of Public Health
1430 Tulane
New Orleans, LA 70112
Paine, Anne B
Newsletter Editor
Ecology Center of Louisiana
1434 Broadway
New Orleans, LA 70118
Parker, A 8
Sr. Conservation Engineer
Atlantic Richfield Comoany
PO Box 2819
Dallas, TX 75221
Parker, Vernon C
Chief, Environmental Programs
OHHR-OHSEO
PO Box 60630
New Orleans , LA 70160
Parrott, W Thomas
Environmental Engineer
Exxon Company, U/S.A
PO Box 551
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Polk, James S
Southwest Environmental Company
Livingston, LA 70754
Puckett, Terry M
Llcenslnq
Gulf States Utilities Company
PO Box 2951
Beaumont, TX
-------
6
Oulette, Raymond E
Senior Engineer
Shell 011 Company
PO Box 2463
Houston, TX 70001
Rlcou, Russell S.
Asst. to President
Ntl Environmental Controls
1675 A1rlIne 0r1ve
New Orleans, LA
Rogers, Marc J.
C1v1l Engineer
T Baker Smith & Son
PO Box 14
Gibson, LA 70356
Rose, Richard
Hazardous Materials Manager
In 11 Minerals 1 Chemicals
431 E. Hawley
Mundeleln, II 60060
Regan, T.J.
Intl Minerals & Chemicals
431 E. Hawley
Mundeleln, !L 60060
Sagona, Frank
S tudent
Tulane School of Public Health
933 Washington Ave
New Orleans, LA
Sales, James
Englneer
EPA, Oallas Office
1201 Elm St
Oallas, TX
Schulz, U.L.
Lab Olrector
Plttston Company
PO Box 966
Beckley, WV 25801
Shepherd, Leo
RR #1 Box 505P
Sulphur, LA 70663
Shepherd, Mrs. Leo
RR ft Box 5050
Sulphur, LA 70663
Shell, Maurice W
Solid Waste Control Division
Nebraska Dept of Environmental Control
Box 94877 Statehouse Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
Slaton, G.R.
Government Relations Coordinator
M1d-Cont1nent 011 1 Gas Assn.
519 Fidelity Bank 81dq.
Baton Rouge, LA 70801
Smith, Christopher J
Editorial 1 Entertainment Svcs.
1134 Eighth St
New Orleans, LA 70115
Snow, Jay
Chief, Solid Waste Oept Water Resources
National Governors Association
PO Box 15087
Austin, TX 78711
Tlerney, KarlIne K.
Chemlst
Allied Chemical Corporation
PO Box 271
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Tlesler, Thomas
Olrector, Solid Waste Management
Tennesse Department of Solid Waste
301 Seventh Ave N Suite 320
Nashville, TN 37219
Tt nto, William
6727 Foch Road
New Orleans, LA 70026
Tr1t1co, Michael
Director
RESTORE
3800 Ryan St
Lake Charles, LA 70605
-------
Tuddenham, W Marvin
Kennecott Copper Corporation
Research Center
ISIS Mineral Square
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Velasquez, Juan R.
Environmental Representative
Phillips Uranium Corp.
4665 Indian School Road NE Box 26236
Albuquerque, NK 37101
Vlllavaso, Stephen 0
Associate A.I.P.
Barnard & Thomas Engineering
3100 Ridgelake Drive
Suite 101
Metairie, LA 70002
Waddel1, Arthur F.
Environmental Coordinator
Unlroyal• Inc.
PO Bo* 73496
Baton Rouge, LA 70807
west, Ph111p W.
Boyd Professor of Chemistry
Environmental Sciences Institute
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge. LA 70803
Whiting, Ouane L.
Senior Hydrogeologist
Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc.
PO Box 8009
Salt Lake City. UT 84108
Whitley, B J
Mgr, Environmental Affairs
Tenneco, Inc.
PO Box 2S11
Houston, TX 77001
Williams, Earl M.
Bureau of Environmental Programs
South Carolina Dept. of Health & Environment
2600 Bull St
Columbia, SC 29201 uol674a
SU-35p
SH-680
------- |