Prepared for
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Submitted by:
Western Governors' Association
600 17th Street
Suite 1705 South Tower
Denver, Colorado 80202-5442
(303) 623-9378
February 1991

Western Governors' Association
600 17th Street
Suite 1705 South Tower
Denver, Colorado 80202-5442
(303) 623-9378
George Mickalson
Governor oi South Dakota
Michael Sullivan
Governor of Wyoming
Vice Chairman
FAX (303) 534-7309
lamei M. Souby
Executive Director
February 13, 1991
Regional Coordinators
Capacity Assurance Planning
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
FROM: Ronald W. Ros
Program Manager
SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Minimization Plans for Those Western States Which
Participate in the Western Regional Agreement
This report on western states' hazardous waste minimization strategies is submitted in
fulfillment of the Supplemental Conditions placed on the approval of those states
participating in the Western Governors' Association Regional Capacity Assurance
Agreement for Hazardous Waste. The report provides both a regional overview of the
states' activities and a summary submitted by each state.
This report is submitted on behalf .of all the western states in compliance with their
individual supplemental conditions.
I am available to respond to any questions regarding this submission.
# # # # #

Letter of Transmittal
Purpose		1
Overview		1
Summary of Waste Minimization Program Activities		2
Mandatory Programs		2
Voluntary Formal Programs		3
Voluntary Informal Programs		3
Waste Minimization Submissions from the western states. They appear by the
type of waste minimization programs they have adopted.
North Dakota
South Dakota

This report provides a regional overview of waste minimization programs in those western
states participating in the Western Governors' Association regional capacity assurance
agreement (circa 1989).' This report is submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in fulfillment of the waste minimization reporting requirement included as part of
the supplemental conditions imposed upon the states by EPA regional offices. These
supplemental conditions were made as part of EPA's approval of the individual states'
capacity assurance plans.
The first section of the report describes the context within which WGA is making this
report and provides a brief overview of the individual state submissions. This text is
followed by thirteen attachments which provide the complete text of the individual state
submissions. The states included in this report are: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
In 1986, the United States Congress amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfiind) with a provision which required
each state to provide "adequate assurance" that treatment and disposal capacity will be
available for the hazardous waste generated within the state during the twenty-year period
following the date of assurance. Additionally, Section 104(c)(9) stipulated that, after
October 17, 1989, no Superfund remedial action monies can be provided to a state unless
it has offered such an assurance.
The member states of the Western Governors' Association (WGA) identified the Section
104(k) requirements as highly complex and requiring a regional approach. WGA in August
1988 received a grant from EPA to provide both direct financial and technical assistance to
member states for the purpose of complying with the CERCLA requirements. WGA also
developed and implemented a regional approach for the western states' capacity assurance,
including the preparation of individual state and regional capacity data and capacity
assurance plans. These state and regional capacity assurance plans were submitted in 1989
to EPA Regions VIH, IX and X for approval.
In approving the individual states' capacity assurance plans, EPA imposed supplemental
conditions which required the states to undertake specific activities designed to enhance
hazardous waste data and future capacity assurance plans. One specific supplemental
condition is the requirement that states develop a hazardous waste minimization strategy.
Thirteen western states originally participated in the Western Governors'
Association capacity assurance agreement: Alaska, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming. In 1990 the states of Kansas and New Mexico
requested to participate in the western agreement. They will be incorporated
into the regional capacity assurance data and plan as part of the 1991 update.

WGA Capacity Assurance Update
Waste Minimization Submission
February 13, 1991
The state strategies are to identify a program development plan that includes requiring
facilities to assess the opportunity for waste minimization through permits, through manifest
compliance inspections, and through creating incentives to minimize waste. States also are
to identify in the strategy other activities that will be undertaken to encourage waste
minimization by hazardous waste generators. This report provides information on all
western agreement states' waste minimization activities in fulfillment of this supplemental
For purposes of presentation, states have been categorized into one of three program
categories: mandatory, voluntary formal, and voluntary informal programs. A program is
categorized as mandatory if it operates under legislative authority requiring hazardous waste
generators to undertake specified waste minimization activities. With the exception of such
legislative requirements, mandatory programs tend to share many characteristics of voluntary
programs (as discussed below).
Voluntary programs are those which have no legislative mandate requiring waste
minimization efforts on the part of hazardous waste generators. Within this category,
however, two types of programs can be distinguished: formal and informal. A formal
program is defined as one which has discreet and formal resources, staff, and activities,
independent of other regulatory programs within the relevant agency. Informal programs
are those which have no discreet resources; waste minimization activities are incorporated
into on-going staff responsibilities with no specific program presence being established.
Within each category - mandatory, voluntary formal, and voluntary informal - state programs
are summarized generally, drawing upon the commonalities in or ranges of the activities
undertaken by the programs. Specific details of individual state programs are provided as
attachments A through M. The states are listed according to the level of hazardous waste
minimization programming they have adopted. The text in these attachments was prepared
by the individual states and constitutes their submission to EPA in accordance with their
individual waste minimization supplemental conditions.
Summary of Waste Minimization Program Activities
Mandatory Programs
Oregon and Washington both recently enacted legislation requiring generators of hazardous
waste, in amounts exceeding specified thresholds, to develop waste minimization plans.
Oregon's legislation includes the requirement that the hazardous waste generators develop
two and five-year performance goals as part of their planning process. Washington's

WGA Capacity Assurance Update
Waste Minimization Submission
February 13, 1991
legislation levies two fees which will help fund the state's waste minimization program and
provide funding to local governments for undertaking technical assistance and compliance
education for small quantity generators. Both state programs offer telephone hotline
assistance and on-site technical assistance. On-going efforts also include developing printed
fact sheets, guidance manuals, and case studies; maintaining an information clearinghouse;
and conducting workshops for targeted industries. Please refer to Attachments A and B for
further details of the programs in Oregon and Washington.
Voluntary Formal Programs
The States of Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, and Nevada are in various stages of
developing or operating formal waste minimization programs. Colorado and Hawaii are
in the process of hiring one full time employee (FTE) each for their programs. Surveys of
the regulated universe undertaken by Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, and Nevada are assisting .
those states to refine their developing programs. The surveys act to highlight the specific
needs of particular industries on the basis of the types and quantities of hazardous waste
generated within the states. Idaho is sponsoring three pilot projects to address its specific
concerns, including community and state office recycling programs. An activity common to
many of the state programs, including Alaska, Colorado, and Hawaii, is investigating the
inclusion of waste minimization concerns in hazardous waste compliance inspections and
enforcement efforts. Attachments C, D, E, F, and G provide each state's submission.
In addition to its on-going waste minimization program efforts, California has recently
initiated a waste minimization project targeting incinerable wastes. California selected this
waste stream for special focus because it has insufficient treatment and disposal capacity
for these wastes, as documented in their 1989 Capacity Assurance Plan. The two-year
program encourages the historically largest generators to enter into a voluntary agreement
with the California Toxic Substances Control Program for staff assistance in implementing
waste minimization programs at the facilities. Non-participating companies will be
monitored for the effectiveness of their unilateral efforts; waste minimization language will
be included in their permit renewals and modifications, and in corrective action orders and
enforcement agreements. Attachment H provides California's submission.
Voluntary Informal Programs
The states of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming have
incorporated waste minimization activities into their existing hazardous waste management
programs. Each of the states is undertaking different types of needs assessments or analyses
of the regulated universe to determine the potential for waste minimization, especially
within a limited number of large-generator industries. The results of these efforts will assist

WGA Capacity Assurance Update
Waste Minimization Submission
February 13, 1991
the states in modifying the focus of their waste minimization activities to better serve the
needs of the regulated universe. In addition, regulatory staff in Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wyoming are receiving training in identifying waste minimization
opportunities during routine hazardous waste compliance inspections, and/or in
incorporating waste minimization clauses in permits and enforcement actions.
Ongoing activities of the states' waste minimization efforts include providing technical
assistance, including workshops and seminars, for targeted industries. Educational activities
include: mailings to notifiers to share with them EPA and other publications on such topics
as the environmental and economic benefits of waste minimization; and the utilization of
media, such as trade association publications and other newsletters, to provide current
information to members of industry. Attachments I, J, K, L, and M provide the states'


DATE: November 19, 1990
TO:	Roy Brower
FROM: Marianne Fitzgerald
SUBJECT: CAP Update Worksheet
I've reviewed the CAP Update Worksheet for Waste Minimization
Initiatives sent through the Western Governors Association.
Here's a draft response, adapted to our program as best I
1.	No Public Sector Waste Minimization Initiatives:
Not applicable.
2.	Program Needs Assessment/Planning in Progress:
Not applicable. Program has been in place since 1987.
3.	Legislative/Executive Support for Waste Minimization
The Oregon Legislature enacted the Toxics Use Reduction
and Hazardous Waste Reduction Act in 1989. The law
requires that all large toxics users, large quantity
hazardous waste generators and small quantity hazardous
waste generators develop plans to reduce the amount of
toxics used and hazardous waste generated at their
Reduction plans are due on September 1, 1991 for large
users and generators, and September 1, 1992 for small
quantity generators. The baseline year is the year
preceding the plan deadline. The plans will include
performance goals for reducing toxics and wastes for a two
year and a five year period (1992 and 1995 for large users
and generators; 1993 and 1996 for small generators) .
4.	Program Authorization:
Oregon's toxics use reduction and hazardous waste
reduction program is authorized by the Oregon Legislature
under ORS 465.012. The program has not yet been submitted
to EPA for authorization under the HSWA amendments,
although we are planning to do so in 1991.
5.	Program Implementation:

In addition to the activities described in #6 below, we
are planning on expanding our technical assistance program

Memo to: Roy Brower
November 19, 1990
Page 2
to include on-site assistance to help users develop
reduction plans. Also, we are developing an awards
program to recognize successful reduction efforts.
6. On-going Program in Place:
The DEQ has had a hazardous waste reduction technical
assistance program in place since 1987. Some of the on-
going programs include:
information clearinghouse
technical library and published bibliography
telephone hotline assistance
printed fact sheets, guidance manuals and case
hazardous and solid waste resources directory
technical workshops
One of the most effective portions of our program is the
training workshops. We have sponsored or participated in
over 25 workshops in 1990 and provided training to over
750 persons. Also, we have provided telephone assistance
to over 185 persons during the past year.
The worksheet does not include any estimation of waste
minimization achieved or projected to be achieved. We should
add a statement that our law requires us to monitor the use of
toxic substances and the generation of hazardous waste and
report back to the legislature in 1993 on the effectiveness of
the toxics use reduction and hazardous waste reduciton program.
We are participating in a regional study on measuring the
effectiveness of reduction programs which is expected to make
its recommendations sometime in 1992.


via,/ S(op PV-ll • Olvmpta. Washington 98504-3771 • ,20b) 459-vdOO
November 1, 1990
TO:	Rob Greenwood, Ross and Associates
FR:	Susan Ridglev
SUBJECT: Monitoring Capacity Assurance Efforts
Apologies for being late on this update. It's surprisingly difficult to pull
this kind of information together, which is one of the reasons why we'll be
using some of our 1990 EPA CAP funding to create an "integrated capacity
database". So hopefully, this will get easier over time.
As I mentioned to you on the phone, I had a hard time with your survey form. In
lieu of that, I have taken leave to send the information in a form that was
simpler for me.
I.	New TSD Capacity
There is a flow chart and supplementary information enclosed for each of the
proposed new RCRA facilities (Attachments 1, 2, and 3). Obviously, the
highlighting indicates the current status of the particular facility.
I have not included any packet for the two proposed Hanford facilities. Although
they were reflected in the original Western capacity tables (11,54-7 tons each of
aqueous organic and inorganic treatment, and 172,800 tons of stabilization),
these facilities will only accept radioactive and mixed radioactive wastes. I
still think inclusion of that capacity in the aggregated tables is somewhat
misleading (although in keeping with EPA's guidance). All RCRA-only wastes
generated at Hanford will continue to need off-site management.
The onl^ important xinange in statCis during^the past y«^ax that i s^rrtTt-re fleeted-
by the/enclosed materials is iiy^Cabanco 1 s^fSroposal (Grknt CountV/tfaste Manageafent
Facility) . Thear original oermit application consisted of /an incinenarfor of-
approximately /3 5,000 tons per year; the revised^permit application -£nclu£€s a
proposed capacity increase/to 74,000 fpy. They have also definately dropped the
landfill po/tion of the application, although that proposal wasn't reflected in
the wGA tables anyway.
II.	Existing TSDs
No TSDs ceased operation during the last year, nor are there any planned closures
at existing TSDs that would impact capacity (that I know of -- this was an area
where che information is widely scattered). Three of the planned closures for
1991 are at TSDs which were part of che original TSDR survey, but all consisted

of storage tanks or surface impoundments which do not contribute to treatment or
disposal capacity.
III.	Siting Criteria
The only other activity which occurred during the last year which mav impact
current or future capacity is the completion and promulgation of the siting
criteria (Attachment #4). These regulations apply to both proposed new
facilities and expansions of existing facilities. The regulations became
effective on October 22, 1990 and affected facilities facilities must demonstrate
their compliance with these regulations within 90 days. The impact of these
regulations is not fully known at this time.
IV.	Waste Minimization Initiatives
Washington had a well-developed waste reduction and recycling program at the time
of CAP submittal, and the program has continued to evolve at a rapid pace.
Probably the most significant action in the past year was the passage of ESHB
2390. Attachment #5 provides a brief summary of the this act - its impact on
waste generators is expected to be far-reaching.
In addition, Ecology's waste reduction program has been growing rapidly as it
utilized the funding which resulted from the passage of SB1340 during the 1989
legislative session. The number of Ecology staff engaged in waste minimization
activities has approximately doubled in the last year. These staff have
continued to develop workshops and manuals to assist waste generators, and to
provide grants to local governments and others to encourage waste reduction and
recycling. Finally, many staff are involved in innovative research in these
areas as well.
Please let me know if you need further information on Ecology's programs or the
status of TSD facilities.

ITiiinHI iril T '
SB Frills	
New law sets 50 percent reduction goal
The 1990 Legislature, in ESHB 2390, set a state policy to encourage reduction of hazardous-
substance use and hazardous waste generation whenever economically and technically
practicable. The Legislature adopted a goal of reducing the generation of hazardous waste
by 50 percent by 1995.
The primary method the new law utilizes to achieve this goal is requiring large hazardou;
waste generators and hazardous substance users to prepare plans for voluntarily reducinz
use or hazardous substances and hazardous waste generation. The act also provides gran:;
to local governments for small quantity generator technical assistance ana compliance
education. Two fees are established. The first is a base fee imposed upon every known and
potential generator of hazardous waste doing business in Washington. An additional re-r
will be assessed the hazardous waste generators and hazardous substance users requirec
prepare plans.
Who must prepare a reduction plan?	
Facilities required to report under SARA Title HI, Section 313, or who generate in excess o;
2,640 lbs. of hazardous waste per year are required to prepare comprehensive hazardous
substance use/ hazardous waste reduction clans. These plans will need to address, in car:
specific questions about current use and waste generation practices, current hazardous
substance use, waste reduction, recycling, and treatment activities, five-year performance
goals, and realistic opportunity/ impediment analyses. Ecology must adopt a rule guidir.;
preparation of the plans by April 1,1991.
New Hazardous Waste Fees	
A new hazardous waste tee of $33 will be assessed to all known and potential hazardous
waste generators. An additional fee will be charged to those facilities required to submit
plans. This fee will be established bv rule.
Technical Assistance to Business and Industry	
Ecology will provide advice and consultation on waste reduction and hazardous substance
use reduction techniques, assistance in preparation or modification of plans, executive
summaries, and annual progress reports, and provide assistance in the implementation of
the plans.
Grants to Local Governments	
Ecology will provide grants to local government for small quantity generator technical
assistance and compliance education as described by the local agency's moderate risk
wasteplans. This grant program will be combined with a hazardous waste implementsr:.
grant program funded by the Local Toxics Account.
Tune 1990

Penalties for Non-Compliance
Ecology may assess a penalty if a hazardous substance user or hazardous waste generator
fails to complete an adequate plan, submit an adequate executive summary or annual
progress report, or pay the fee.
For More Information
Contact: Waste Reduction, Recycling and Litter Control Program
Washington Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
Waste Reduction, Recycling and Litter Control Program
Washington Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olvmpia, WA 98504-8711

• tll'tllM SUM
Ot'itrvtl! If
Proposed Rules Establishing Criteria For The Siting
Of Dangerous Waste Management Facilities
On May Z 1990, the Department of Ecology filed its proposed criteria /or siting dangerous waste
management facilities. These criteria will become part of the state's dangerous waste regulations
(Chapter 173-303 WAC).
The Reason For The Proposed Rules	
Ecology has been working for several years to develop statewide siting criteria for dangerous waste
management facilities. These criteria will be used in the early stages of developing a project so that
locations which are unsuitable are disqualified from further consideration.
Washington's Hazardous Waste Management Act requires companies proposing such facilities to
submit applications for a state permit. The permit process is lengthy, to be sure a successful
application protects both the environment and human health. These proposed siting criteria would
be used to immediately disqualify proposed sites which are unsuitable or inappropriate.
A proposed site which is not disqualified by the siting criteria still must go through the state's
permitting process. Here it would be subject to rigorous site-specific requirements and
environmental studies before a decision is made on its suitability.
How the proposed criteria were developed	
Siting a dangerous waste management facility is difficult. There generally is little support and a lot
of opposition by people who live near a proposed site. Ecology's efforts have been complicated bv
the fact that two proposed hazardous waste management facilities are now in various stages of the
permitting process. Both will be subject to the new siting criteria.
We knew we could develop successful criteria only if we had a logical, deliberate process with
continuous interaction from the public. Ecology has held 39 public hearings and workshops and
mailed many documents, notices and press releases. While these draft rules don't include all the
public's suggestions, we seriously considered all comments.
Ecology staff has looked at all other states' and several other nations' hazardous waste siting criteria
and a consultant has prepared extensive technical information memoranda for every aspect of the
Highlights of the proposed siting criteria	
The proposed criteria will apply to all new dangerous waste management facilities, including those
proposed by Rabanco and ECOS companies. The criteria will also apply to expansions of more than
25% capacity of existing facilities.
The criteria are; for the most part, exclusions or setbacks. A company proposing a dangerous waste
management facility will be able to look at a map and determine, without extensive on-site work, if
that site meets the statewide criteria.
May 1990

Compliance with the siting criteria does not imply that a given project at a given location poses an
acceptable level of risk, nor does it commit the department to the issuance of a dangerous waste
permit. However, they will provide some level of protection to human health and the environment.
Additionally, the department will review a very comprehensive evaluation of site specific
characteristics during the permit and SEPA process before taking action on a dangerous waste
The criteria will require that dangerous waste management facilities be excluded from areas subject
to natural hazards such as flood plains and unstable soils. They will also require that dangerous
waste management facilities be excluded from certain environmentally or culturally sensitive areas
such as sole source aquifers and designated historic areas.
Setback distances are proposed between facilities and certain resources or places. Land disposal
facilities, for instance, must be located at least 1 /4 mile from perennial surface water bodies.
For container storage; tank storage; incineration facilities (nonland-based), the other minimum
requirements arc
¦	500 feet from surface water, dwellings and wells.
¦	500 feet from prime farmland, wetlands, parks and wilderness areas
¦	10 feet above groundwater
For land-based facilities (eg. landfills, waste piles, surface impoundments), the other minimum
requirements arc
¦	One-fourth mile from surface water, dwellings and wells
¦	One-fourth mile from prime farmland, wetlands, parks and wilderness areas
¦	50 feet above groundwater
¦	Not within the 500-year flood plain
For incinerators, the other minimum requirements are:
¦	500 feet from surface water, wells, prime farmland, wetlands, parks, and wilderness areas
¦	10 feet from groundwater
¦	one-fourth mile from dwellings.
The proposed siting criteria also require that nonland-based facilities be 200 feet from the facility's
property boundary. Land-based facilities must be 500 feet from the property boundary.
New Site Specific permitting requirements	
The proposed siting criteria are part of a protection package. Ecology also is proposing additional
site-specific permitting requirements. The new requirements are:
¦	Groundwater protection: In addition to current groundwater monitoring.required beneath a
disposal unit, new studies would be required regarding the geohydrological conditions
beneath the disposal unit to the nearest property boundary. An applicant would have to*
develop a contingent groundwater remediation plan which would insure that contaminants
would never reach the property boundary.
¦	Resource protection and public involvement This re "-lation would apply to all proposed
incinerators. It includes:
•	The applicant must develop an outdoor air monitoring program and test the air before
the facility begins operation. These data would be used to measure air, water, soils and
plants to determine if the operating facility is impacting the environment.
•	The applicant must develop, with the community, methods to allow community review
of facility monitoring results.
•	The applicant must submit an impact mitigation plan which demonstrates a satisfactory
plan to mitigate all probable significant impacts because of facility location and

¦	Seismic risk consideration. This regulation requires a protect proponent to demonstrate that the
dangerous waste management facility can ana will be designed to resist ground motion
resulting from earthquakes.
¦	The department is also clarifying a project proponents responsibility to coordinate
preparedness and prevention planning and contingency planning efforts with local emergency
planning committees pursuant to Title HI of the 1986 Superrund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act.
Public Hearings Planned	
Public hearings will be held at 7 p.m. at:
Betlevug Tuesday, June 5, King County Building and Land Division, Hearing Room 2,3600136th
Place SE.
BflHnpham: Wednesday, June 6, Whatcom County Courthouse Chambers, 311 Grand.
Kglao: Thursday, June 7, Kelso High School Conference Room.
Tacnina: Monday, June 11, Tacoma World Trade Center Main Conference Room, 3600 Port of
Tacorna Road.
Spokane: Tuesday, June 12, Spokane Health Department Auditorium, Room 140,1101 College Street
Riteville: Wednesday, June 13, Adams County Courthouse, 210 West Broadway
Mnaes Lake: Thursday, June 14, Big Bend Community College, Student Center Auditorium.
For More Information	
Contact Curtis Dahlgren, Department of Ecology, Mail Stop PV-11, Olvmpia, WA 98504 (206)

cts- )eso:a
*HtiP*TOHT SECTIOM (Amending Order 88-29, filed 9/6/88)
MAC 173-303-281 MOTICE Of XITEIT. (1) Purpose. The purpose of
this sectioa is to provide notification to the department, local coa-
¦aaltles and the pabllc that the siting of a dangerous waste manaoe-
aeat facility is be lag considered. Also, to provide general
iaforaatioa about the proposed facility owner/operator, the type of
facility aad the types of wastes to be manaqed and coaplia&ce with the
sitiaq ((standards)) criteria.
(2)	Applicability. This sectioa applies to owners ((aad))£ooer-
ators of proposed facilities. This section also applies to ((owners
»ad — operators—•<)) existing facilities {(«ith--iaterin— ee--final
states)) foe which the departaeat receives aa application for expan-
sion- This section does not apply to owners/operators	gf	facilities
or	portions of facilities who are applying for research, development
and demonstration peralts. pursuant to sectioa 300s7g> of the Resource
Conservation and Recover? Act, codified In ttO CfP	?art	270.65.	£s
addition, this section does not apply to owners/operators of faclllt
ties operating under an emergency permit pursuant to	»AC	173-303-gQg
21	to persons at facilities conducting on-site cleanup of sites under
the Comprehensive Cnvlronnental Response	Compensation and Liability
Actj	chapter 70.105 RC». or chapter 70.IPSO BCW. provided the cleanup
activities are being conducted under a consent decree.	agreed	order.
or enforcement order. As used la this section: ~
(a) "Proposed facility" means a facility ((that-does-net-fcave
tnterim-or-fiael-stetes-oa-the-effeetiTe-date-ef- this-seetiony-and- f or
• Meti-the-owner/operator-applies-for-an- interim-or- final- -sta tus—per-
mit 7- «n4ee-V*6-*73-393-895-er-t7 3-393-8967- after)) vhlch has not g 'J 31 -
11 led	foe	interim status	under WAC	1 73- 303-905	or for which the
department has not issued a final	facility permit under	AC	T 7 3- 3 ? 3-
906 prior to the effective date of this section:
(hi "Existing facility" means a facility ((fer-whteh-as-tntert*
oe-ftnal-states-per m it-has-been-issued- by-the-department- -poesa*nt--t a
»*€-- *73-383-89S—or— *73-393-896)) which	has	3uaiIii3d_for_i nler 1«
status under MAC 173-303-805 or for which the department has Issued	a
final	facility permit	under MAC 1 73-303-806 prior to the effective
date of this section: aad
(c) "Expansion" aeans the enlarqeaeat of the land surface area of
aa existing facility from that described la aa interim status permit
application or final status permit, the addition of a new dangerous
waste management process, or au Increase In the overall deslqn capac-
ity of existing dangerous waste management processes at a facility.
((* 0»evee7-a-praee33-er-eqatpmeet-eha~nge-with in-1 he-ei 1st tn?--handiin«
eode---(no t-te-*nei«de-»et her »)•-as-defined-a ndee-MA€-* 73-393-3 8 9-
•ill-not-be-eonsidered-a-new-daageroaa-waste-management -ptoeessi
ffc is-see t ion-does- aot-apply-to-owners/oper a tor s-of-faeiii ties--or
atr at ion-permits;-parsaant-to-3eetio«-3995''-ef-the-Resource—eonser-
ve t ion-end-flees very- Aet7-eodifted-in-*9-€PR- Pa rt-*79»65»--in-additi en 7
*his--seetiea—dees-net-apply-to-me bile- fee ili ties- for-en-site-eteanep
at-treatae«it7 — star aqe--«r — disposal—feetlities--endergoing--closere7
f aeilitles--eperattnq--and er--an-emerge ney-per mtt-perseant-to -MAG-*73-
393-8 9a 7-oe-f aeiiities-fer-oa-site-eieannp-of-si tes-under-the--€empre-
tiensive— environmental — Response—Compensation--and — fci ab i lit y-Act; -or
(3)	Notice of Intent to file for an	Interim status or a danderous
waste permit.	~~
(a) The notice of Intent to be prepared by the owners/operators
of the applicable facilities shall consist of:
(I)	The name, address, and telephone number of the owner, opera-
tor, and corporate officers;
(II)	The locatlom of the proposed facility or expansion on a top-
ographic map with specifications as detailed in K AC 173-303-^06
(«) (a) (xviil) ;
(ill) A brief description of the types and amounts of wastes to
be managed annually;
[ 1 ]

OTS-3 3 51
(iv) * brief description of the sajor eauipaent lteas proposes,
if idy, and the waste aaaaqeaent actur.ies requiring a cerait ::
revision of an enstinq pecait;
(*) la environmental checklist froa the State Envieonaental Pol-
icy Act rules, chapter 197-11 wac:
(vi)	((Soeaaeatatien-that-the-proposed-faetitty-er-evfianstofl-s: *-
aee«3-the-"feqa*rea«i»t3-o* -«*€-» ?3-399-"-J97-£*tt9a-3--Preit"i-
0T5-38S0: u
waste aanageaent facilities froa operating at or below theic present
level of activity.
I proposed site which is not disqualified under these criteria
will be further studied to deteralne if It qualifies under site spe-
cific rules. Coapllaace with the siting criteria does sot iaply that
a gives project at a given location poses an acceptable level of risk,
nor does it coealt the departaent to the issuance of a dangeroas aaste
peralt. Projects that deaoastrate coapllaace with the siting criteria
will be subjected to coapreheasive environmental and technical review
parsaast to applicable lavs aad regulations before the departaent
¦akes a final decision on a dangeroas waste peralt*
The departaeac aay dear a peralt or reqglre protective aeasures
soch as engineering enhanceaents or Increased setback distances froa
resources la order to ensare protection of haean health and the
(2)	Applicability.
(a)	This section applies to:
(I)	Owners/operators of proposed facilities; and
(II)	Owners or operators of existing land-based facilities at
which an expansion is proposed;
(ill) Owners or operators of existing incinerators at which an
expansion is proposed; aad
(lv) Owners or operators proposing a significant expansion of
other existing dangerous waste aanaqeaent facilities not subject to
(e)(1), (11) aad (111) of this subsection, unless the owner/operator
caa deaoastrate to the satisfaction of the departaent that the pro-
posed expansion will provide a net increase In protection to huaan
health anl the enviroaient beyond that which is currently provided at
the facility. However, demonstrations under this subsection (iv)
shall not result ia treatment or stocage facilities expanding into
land-based or incineration facilities If siting criteria cannot be
(b)	This section does not apply to:
(1) Owners/operators of facilities or portions of facilities who
are applying for research, davelopaent aad denonstration peralts, pur-
suant to section 3006(g) of the Resource Conservation aad Recovery
Act, codified in 40 era Part 270.65;
(ii) Owners/operators of facilities operating under an eaergency
peralt pursuant to VAC 173-303-904;
(lii) Persons at facilities conducting oa-site cleanup of sites
under the Coapreheaslve Environmental Response Coapensatloa and Lia-
bility Act, chapter 70.105 8CB, or chapter 10.10SD RCV, provided the
cleanup activities are being conducted under a consent decree, agreed
order, or enforcement order, or the departaent or Onited States Envi-
ronmental Protection agency; or
(lv) Persons managing solid wastes who becoae subject to danger-
ous waste regulations through aaendaents to this chapter after the
effective date of this section. This provision applies only to those
activities conducted prior to becoming subject to Dangerous waste reg-
ulations, chapter 173-303 VAC or expansions, if it can be deaonstrated
to the satlsfactloa of the departaent that the proposed expansion will
provide a net increase la protection to huaan health and the envlron-
nent beyond that which is currently provided at the facility.
(3)	Definitions. Any teras used In this section that are not
defined below shall have the aeanings provided in VAC 173-303-040.
Tor the purposes of this section, the following teras shall have the
described leanings:
(a)	"Aquifer of beneficial use" seans an aquifer that contains
sufficient quality and quantity of water to allow It to be withdrawn
for beneficial uses which include, but are not Halted to, uses for
doaestic, stock watering, Industrial, commercial, agricultural, irri-
gation, lining, fish and wildlife maintenance and enhanceaent, or rec-
reational purposes.
(b)	"Displacement" aeaas the relative aoveaeat of any tvo sides
of a fault aeasured in any direction*
(c)	"Doaestic water use" aeans any water used for huaan consump-
tion, other doaestic activities or livestock watering for which the
t 3 ]

departaeat has Issued a oeralt of water right for sacfica water diver-
sions pursuant to chapter *0.03 RCV, or for a well pursuant to chaster
90.aa ncv, or for which the department has received a well water
report pursuant to RCI 18.104.050, or for any other valid water right
clalaed Is accordance with chapter 90.11 BCK. This does not apply to
wells abandoned 1b compliance with chapter 173-1 SO VAC.
(d)	"txisting facility" leios a facility which has qualified for
interim status under VIC 173-303-805 or for which the departaent has
Issue* a final facility peralt under lie 173-303-806, prior to the
effective date of this sectloa.
(e)	"Expansion" means the enlargement of the land surface area of
an existing facility froa that described la an lnterln status permit
application or final facility peralt, the addition of a nan dangerous
waste management process, or an Increase la overall design capacity of
existing dangerous waste management processes at a facility. However,
a process or equipment chanae within the existing handling code (not
to lnclade "other") as defined under ViC 173-303-380 (2) (d) will not
be considered a new dangerous waste management process.
(f)	"faolt" aeans a fracture along which rocks or soils on one
side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side.
(g)	"ffoloceae" aeans the most recent aooch of the uaateraary
period, extending froa the end of the Pleistocene to the present.
(h)	"Land-based facility" aeans a dangerous waste management
facility which falls under the definition of land disposal as defined
In Section 3001(k) of the Resource Conservation ani Recovery let.
These facilities include, but are not liaited to, landfills, surface
Impoundments, waste plies, and land treatment facilities. Tor '.he
purposes of this section, this woald not lnclade waste piles In which
the dangerous wastes are stored inside or under a structure that pro-
vides protection from precipitation and when runoff, leachate, or
other types of waste dispersal are not generated under any conditions.
(i)	"Vonland based facility" aeans a facility which does not use
the land as an integral part of Its waste management method and Is not
subject to the requirements of H»C 1 73-303-806 («) (a) (ni). These
facilities lnclade, hat are not liaited to, tanks, containers, and
(J) "Perennial surface water body" means a surface water body
which is ooraally continuous with natural flows throughout the year or
an annually recurring body of water including lakes. rivers, ponds,
streams, reservoirs, inland waters, and saltwaters. This does not
Inclode roadside ditches or storm drains. Bovever, this definition
does apply to irrigation or domestic water supply channels existing,
or planned and appealed by a 
(a) "Proposed facility" leiuj a facility which has aot qualified
foe Interim status under HAC 173-303-805 or for which the department
has aot issued a final facility peralt under mac 173-303-306 prior to
the effective date of this section.
(a) "Public gathering places" aeans a place such as a public or
private health care or child care facility; an educational institu-
tion; a church; a government institution not associated nits dangerous
wast a aanageaent; ir a retail shopping center.
(0)	"Residence" teans any duelling including, but not United to,
private hoaes, rental hoaes, boarding houses, apartaeats, aotels, or
(p) "Significant expansion" leans an expansion of an exlstinq
facility* operating under laterla status oc a final status peralt,
that is considered a class three aodlflcatioa as designated by «0 crR
Parts 270.91 and 270.42. Exaaples include, but are not Halted to, a
aodlflcatioa or addition of container units resulting in greater than
a tweaty-five percent Increase la the facility's container storage
capacity, storage of different wastes la containers that require addi-
tloaal or different nanageaeat practices froa those authorized under
laterla statas or by a final status peralt, and a aodlflcatioa or
addition of task gaits resulting In greater than twenty-five percent
lacrease la the facility's capacity. for the purposes of this sec-
tion, a single or caaalatlre increase of greater than twenty-five per-
cent of the process design capacity as described In the facility's
original Part 1 pecait application shall be considered a significant
(q) "Slope and soil instability" leans areis foe which there is
credible evidence of, or the potential for, landslides, slumps, ava-
lanches, earth or and flows, or oth*»r unsuitable slope conditions.
(r) "Subsidence" leans areas for which there is credible evidence
of. or potential for. sinking of the land surface. Areas of subsur-
face sines, caves, cavernous aaterlals, oc where there has aeea sig-
nificant ceaoval of fluids aay provide credible evidence of
(s) "Wetland" neans land transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic systeas where the water table is usually at or near the sur-
face or the land Is covered by shallow water, ror purposes of this
classification a wetland aust have one or aore of the following these
attributes: (1) At least periodically, the land suoports predoai-
nantly hydrophytes; (11) the substrate is pradoainantly undrained
hydrlc soil; and (ill) the substrate is nonsoll and is saturated with
water or covered by shallow water at soae tlae during the growing sea-
son of each year. The Joint rederal Methodology for Identifying end
Delineating Wetlands shall be used for defining the upland boundary of
wetla nds.
(U) Iapleaentatlon.
(a)	Submittal of information to deaonstrate compliance. Docuaen-
tatlon that a proposed facility or expansion site aeets the siting
criteria shall be subaltted to the departaent:
(1)	la the notice of Intent for those facilities for which a
aotlce of intent is filed after the effective date of this section; or
(11) Ulthin ninety days of the effective date of this section for
proposed facilities for which a notice of Intent or an application has
been subaltted to the department prior to the effective date of this
(b)	Consultation by depactaeat. The departaent shall consult
with the lead local government as defined In VAC 173-303-902 (
OTS- 3950: u
owner oc operator aay resubmit the demonstration of compliance »lth
complete lnforaatlon; or
(11) Sender a written tentative decision to dppcore or den; the
leaonstcation of compliance.
(4)	Public notice and heart no, process. The departaent In aakln]
a tentative decision to approve or deny a demonstration of compliance
with this section shall take the following actions:
(I)	foe land-based facilities:
(A)	The department shall publish a notice of Its tentative deci-
sion la a daily or weekly newspaper of general circulation la the
potentially affected area, and shall give notice by other reasonable
¦ethods to persons potentially affected.
(B)	The departaent shall hold a public hearing at a location con-
venient to the pabllc in the potentially affected area. notice of the
date, tiae, purpose, and place of the haarlaq shall be provided in the
publication of notice.
(C)	The departaent shall accept coaaents on its tentative deci-
sion for a alnlaaa of forty-five days.
(0) lfter evaluating ail pabllc coaaents the departaent will take
a final decision In accordance with chaster 39.0 5 RCV. The departaent
will either approve or deny the owner/operatoc's deaonstration of
(II)	for nonland-based facilities:
(A)	The departaent shall publish a notice of Its tentative deci-
sion in a dally or weekly newspaper of general circulation In the
potentially affected area, and shall give aotlce by other reasonable
aethods to persons potentially affected.
(B)	Opoo the written request of mj interested person, the
departaent aay hold a public hearing to consider public caraents on
the ownec or operator's demonstration of compliance. L person
requesting the hearing shall statt the Issues to be raised and explain
why written coaaents would aot suffice. In any case, if ten or aoce
persons request a public hearing on the subject of the department's
tentative decision, the departaent shall hold a public hearing for the
purpose of receiving coaaents.
(C)	The departaent shall accept coaaents on Its tentative deci-
sion for a alniaua ot forty-five days.
(0)	After evalnatiag all pabllc coaaents the departaent will aake
a final decision la accordance with chapter 3».05 3CU. The departaent
will either approve or deny the owner or operator's deaonstration of
(5)	Appeal of a depactaent decision, iny person who is adversely
affected by a decision of the departaent under this section say appeal
the decision to the pollution control hearings board pursuant to the
authority of WAC 173-30 3-8»5.
(6)	Criteria for eleaents of the natural environaent. The fol-
lowing siting criteria establish locations froa which facilities are
iicluded and establish alniaua sateaci distances froa identified
resoorces. Onless otherwise stated, setbaci distances are measured
horizontally froa the danoeroas waste aaaaaeaent unit boundary to the
identified resource.
These criteria shall be used as an Initial screening tool in the
selection of sites which may be considered by the departaent for the
purpose of aanagiog dangerous waste. 1 aore comprehensive evaluation
of locatlonal factors will occur durinq the deoartaent's review of a
oecalt application. The department may deny a oerait or lapese addi-
tional setback distances or other per»it. requicements if necessary to
protect huaan health and the environaent.
(a) Earth. The Intent of this subsection is to reduce the poten-
tial for the release of dangerous waste Into the environaent becaase
of structural damage to facilities subject to the hazards identified
below. The owner/opera toe snail provide supportive geologic,
geotechnIcal, and soils inforaation.
(1)	Seisaic risk. All danqeroos waste sanageaent facilities
shall be located such that the dangerous waste aanageaent unit bound-
ary is located at least five hundred feet froa a fault which has had
displacement In Kolocene tlaes.
I « ]

(It) Subsidence. to dangerous v aste (anageaciL
Emergency flanagement Aqency taps. Xonland-based facilities '111
require special design features so as to prevent flooding of the dan-
gerous waste management unit la the event of a five hundred-fear
(III)	Land-based facilities shall not be located within the fir?
hundred-year flood plain as Indicated in the aost current rederal
Emergency Ranagenent Agency maps.
(IT) Dangerous waste management facilities shall not be located
in areas subject to seiches, or coastal flooding including tsunamis or
storm surges as indicated in the most current maps of the lational
Flood Insurance Program of the rederal Emergency Nanagement Agency.
(B)	Perennial surface water bodies.
(I)	Honland-based facilities shall be located such that the dan-
gerous waste management unit boundary is at least five hundred feet
from a perennial surface water body.
(II)	Land-based facilities shall be located such that the danger-
ous waste management unit boundary is at least one-quarter tile from a
perennial surface water body.
(C)	Surface water supply.
(I)	No dangerous waste sanaqeient facility shall be located ia a
watershed identified in the report submitted to, ana approved by, the
department of health under the authority of UAC 2«8-Sa-225(3), Water-
shed control.
(II)	Honland-based facilities shall be located such that the dan-
gerous waste management unit boandary Is it least five hundred feet
from the nearest surface water intake for domestic water.
(III)	Land-based facilities shall be located such that the dan-
gerous waste management unit boundacy is at least one-quarter lile
from the nearest surface water Intake for donestlc water.
(11) Ground water. To the extent feasible, proponents of land-
based facilities should seek sites with natural site characteristics
which are capable of providing protection of ground water resources.
Natural features such as low permeability soils and substrata, rela-
tively siaple geologic formations, and high rates of
evapotransporatloa la relation to the seasonal occurrence of precipi-
tation ire preferable for the locitions of land-based facilities.
Proposed land-based facilities shall, comoly with the con* '.agent ground
water protection program, WAC 173-303-806 («) (a) (n: -...ring the per-
mitting process.
C 7 ]

(6)	Depth to ground water.
(I)	lonland-based facilities shall not be located in areas where
there is less that tea feet vertical separation between the lowest
point o£ the dangerous waste aanageaent unit and the seasonal high
water level of the upperaoat aquifer of beneficial ose.
(II)	Land-based facilities shall not be locate^. In areas where
there is less than fifty feet vertical separation between the lowest
point of the dangerous waste aanaqeaent unit and the seasonal highwa-
tec level of the uppermost aquifer of beneficial use.
(8) Sole soacce aquifer. Mo land-based facilities shall be
located over an area designated as a sole source aquifer under section
1 «2«(e) of the rederal Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523).
(C)	Ground water aanageaent areas. Owners/operators of facili-
ties shall identify whether the proposed facility locatioa is within a
ground water aanageaeat area, as proposed or certified pursuant to SC'J
90.au.130. Is order to aaintaia consistency with the purpose and sub-
stantive requirements of certified ground water aanageaeat area plans,
the departaeat aay require additional protective measures or reject
inconsistent projects.
(D)	Ground water intakes.
(I) Honland-based facilities shall be located such that the dan-
gerous waste aanageaent unit boundary Is at least five hundred feet
froa the nearest ground water intake for doaestic water.
(Ill Land-based facilities shall be located snch that the daager-
oos waste aanageaent unit boundary is at least one-quarter aile fro*
the nearest ground water Intake for doaestic water.
(d) Plants and aaiaals: Intent. To reduce the potential for
dangerous waste contaainatlng plant and aniaal habitat in the event of
a release of dangerous wastes.
(1) .ion land-based facilities shall be located such that the dan-
gerous waste aanaqeaent anit boundary Is at least five hundred feet
froa the following areas:	•
(A)	Wetlands;
(B)	Designated critical habitat, for federally listed threatened
or endangered species, as defined by the Endangered Species Act of
1 973 (P.L. 93-205) ;
(C)	Habitat designated by the Washington departaeat of wildlife
as habitat essential to the aalnteoaace' or recovery of any state
listed threatened or endangered wildlife species:
(0)	Statural areas which are acquired or voluntarily registered or
dedicated by the owner under chapter 79.70 sew, vatural area pre-
serves; and
(E)	State or federally designated wildlife refuge, preserve, or
bald eagle protection area.
(li) Land-based facilities shall be located such that the danger-
ous waste aanageaent unit boundary is at least ^ne-quarter aile froa
those areas specified in itea (1) above.
(7)	Criteria for eleaents of the built -?n 11 r on aen t. The follow-
ing siting criteria establish locations froa which facilities are
excluded or which regulre separation froa Identified land uses.
(Tnless otherwise statej, setback distances are aeasured horizontally
froa the dangerous waste aanageaent unit boundary to the identified
land use.
These criteria shall be used as an initial, screening tool in the
selection of sites which aay be considered by the departaent for the
purpose of managing dangerous waste. A sore comprehensive evaluation
of locational factors will occur during the departaent's review of a
perait application. The departaent aay deny a perait or iapose addi-
tional setback distances or other perait requlreaents If necessary to
protect huaan health and the environaent.
(a) Adjacent land use.
(1)	Von land-based facilities shall be located such that the dan-
gerous waste aanageaent unit boundary is at least two hundred feet
froa the nearest point of the facility property line.
(11) Land-based facilities shall be located such that the danger-
ous waste aanaqeaent anit boundary Is at least five hundred feet froa
the nearest point of the facility property line.
[ 8 ]

(b)	Special land uses.
(I)	Wild and scenic rivers. Dangerous waste aanageaant facill-
tl«s shall not be located within the vlevshed of users on wild and
scenic rlv«rs designated by the state or federal government.
(II)	3onland-based facilities shall be located such that the dan-
gerous waste management unit boundary is at least fire hundred feet
fror the following:
(A)	State oc federally designated park, cecreatloa area, or
national aonuaent;
(B)	wilderness area as defined by the wilderness let of 196u
(P.L. 85-577); and
(C)	Land identified as prlae fataland at the tiae a notice of
intent is sabaitted to the department.
(III)	Land-based facilities shall be located such that the dan-
gerous Haste aanageaeat unit boundary is at least one-qaarter sile
froa those land uses specified In Itea (11) above.
(c)	Residences and public gathering places.
(I)	loalaad-based facilities itith the exception of incineratloa
facilities shall be located snch that the dangerous waste aanageaent
anit boundary is at least fire hundred feet froa residences or public
gathering places.
(II)	Incineratloa and land-based facilities shall be located such
that the dangerous waste nanageaent unit boundary is at least ow-
qoarter aile froa residences or pnblic gathering places.
(d)	Land is* compatibility. Owners/operators of nonpr^eaptei
facilities shall conform with local land use zoning designation
regoireaents, as approved by the departaent under chanter 70.105 SCV.
(e)	Archeoloqical sites and historic sites. la dangerous waste
nanageaent facility shall be located in an archeological site or his-
toric site'designated by the state or federal gorecnaent.
TITLE Ill COOROIR1TI0I. (1) Owners or operators shall coordinate pre-
paredness and prevention planning and contingency planning efforts,
conducted under VAC 173-303-300 and 173-303-350, with local emergency
planning coaalttees established pursaaat to Title til of the 1986
Saperfund inendments and Reauthoriiatlon Act.
(2) Appropriate and generally accepted computer aodels should be
utilized to determine the iapacts of a potential catastrophic air
release due to fire or eiplosion. Evacuation plans prepared pursuant
to VIC 1 73-303-3S0 (3) (d) shall inclode those effected persons and
areas identified through these modelling effocts.
uncuQATOm SECTIOw (Amending Order 98-2<», filed l/n/89)
WAC 17 3- 30 3-806 fUAL TACILITT PEPBITS. (1) Applicability.
This section applies to all dangerous waste facilities required ts
have a final facility perait. The final facility perait reqaireaents
are applicable to:
(a)	Final status TSD facilities;
(b)	Special waste manageaent facilities; and
(c)	Certain recycling facilities that are not exempt from the
permit requirements.
(2) Application. Any person subject to the permit requirements
of this section who intends to operate a new TSD facility must comply
with VAC 173-303-281 and apply for a final facility perait. The
department nay, at aay time. require the owner or operator of an
C » ]

*xistlnq TSO faci11ty to apply toe i final f act 11ty peralt. Such
j«D«r or operator will Be allowed one hundred elahty days to suoait
his application; the deoartaent iar extend the length of the applica-
tion period If It finds that there are good reasons to do so. The
owner oc operator of an existing TSO facility nay voluntarily *pply
for a final facility peralt at any-, tlae. Any person seeking a final
facility peralt shall complete,	-and subalt an aopllcation to the
departaent. An application shall consist of a part a peralt fori
(which can be obtained froa the departaent), and the contents of ?art
3 as sp«cifled la suDseetloa (») of this section.
(3) Effective regulations. A final facility pecait will include
all applicable requlreaents of this chapter which are in effect on the
date that the peralt is Issaed by the departaent. VAC 1 73-303-310 (7)
provides a aeaas for reopening peralt proceedings at the discretion of
the departaent where new -requirements becoae effective during the per-
alttlng process and are of snfflclent aaqnitode to sake additional
proceedings desirable. Any other changes to the final facility peralt
will be In accordance with the peralt aodlflcatlon requlreaents of f AC
I 7 J-303-830 •
(0). Contents of Part B. Part B of a peralt application shall
consist of the lnfocaatlon required in (a) through (h) of this
so bsection.
(a) General requirements. Part 8 of the permit application con-
sists of the general lnfornation requirements of this suosectlon, and
the specific lnfornation requlreaents in (b) tfcrouqh (h) of this sab-
section as applicable to the facility. The Part 3 lnfornation
requirements presented in (a) through (h) of this suDsectloo, reflect
the standards oromulTated in VAC 173-303-600. These lnfornation
requirements are necessary in order for the leaartaent to detenine
compliance with MAC 173-303-600 throuqh 173-303-670. If owners anc
operators of TSO facilities can ieaonstrate that the information pre-
scribed In Part B cannot be provided to the extent required, the
department aay make allowance for submission of such information on \
cas«-by-case basis. Information required la Part B shall be submitted
to the depactaent and slqned In accordance with requlreaents is vac
17 3-303-810(12). Certain technical data, soch as design drawings and
specifications, and engineering stodies shall be certified by a regis-
tered professional engineer. The following information is required
foe all TSO facilities, except as VAC 17 3-303-600(31 provides
(ij i general description of the facility.
(li) Chemical, biological, and physical analyses of the dangerous
waste to be handled at the facility. At a minimum, these analyses
shall contain all the information which must be known to treat, store,
or dispose of the wastes properly In accordance with ikC 173-303-600.
(iil) A copy of the waste analysis plan required bj rfAC 173-303-
300(5) and. If applicable VAC 17 3- 303-300 (51(a).
(i») A description of the security procedures and equipment
required by VAC 173-303-310, or a justification lemoostrattng the rea-
sons for reguesting a waiver of this requirement.
(v)	l copy of the general inspection schedule required by vac
17 3-303-320(2): Inclade where applicable, as part of the Inspection
schedule, specific requlreaents In VAC 173-303-395 H)(d), 173-303-
630(6), 1 7 3-30 3-6UO (*) and (6), 1 7 3-303-650 («). 173-333-655 (U), 173-
303-660 (U) and (5). 1 73- 303-665 (0). and 1 7 3-303-670 (7).
(vi)	A justification of any request for a «al»er|s) of the pre-
paredness and prevention requirements of VAC 173-303-3u0, or a
description of the procedures used to compl7 with these requlreaents.
(viil A copy of the contingency plan required by WAC 173-303-350:
Include, where applicable, as oart of the contingency plan, specific
requirements la rfAC 173-303-6u0(8), 17 3-30 3-650(5) and 17 3-303-660(6).
(vlli) A description of procedures, structures, or equlpaent used
at the facility to:
(A) Prevent hazards and contain spills In unloading/loading oper-
ations (for eraaple, rimps, berms, pareaent, special forklifts);
C '0 1

(B| Prevent tus-otf fro* danqetoas *aste hanaliag areas to other
aceas of the facility at environaent, or to prevent flooding (for
etaaple, eeras, dikes, trenches);
(C) Prevent contaaiaation of water supplies;
(0)	(litigate effects of eqoipaent filiate and power outages; aad
(1)	Prevent uadae eiposare of personnel to dangerous waste (for
exaaple, protective clothiag).
(lz) 4 description of precautions to preveat accidental Ignition
or reactloa of lgaitable, reactive, or lncoepatlble wastes as required
to deaoastrate coapliaace with VIC 173-303-395 incladlng docuaentatlon
deaonstratiag coapllaace with MAC 173-303-395 (1)(c).
(x) Traffic patteca, estiaated volaae (saabec. types of vehicles)
and control (for exaaple, show tarns across traffic laaes, aad stact-
lng laaes (If appropriate); describe access road surfacing and load
bearing capacity; show traffic control signals).
(ii) ((Facility-location-taforaattonr
<4)--ln-op4ef-t9-de teniae- the—applicability—of— the—earthgaate
fatlt—eritefia---(«*e--*?3-30 3-«Jfl-(3>->-—the-ewaef-er-opet a tor -«f-i-«e«
•f€eaaeat»—if- th e-eoa at y-is-aot-lia* ed*33-39 S-aiO-'HMcl'T
fto-fattber-iafetBotioa-ia-fegateed-to-deaaastf ate-eoapiiaaee-with--«A€
the-f aeilit.y- is-proposed-to- 6e--toeated-t«- a-eonnty-Hate^
asing-eitber-pablished-geologic—data—or—data--obtatned— f t oa--f ield
investicsttona-carr ted -oat-by-the-applteaatr—*>ie-intoreatton-pro»j dea
aaat--oe-of-aach-ga aii t y- to-be -acceptable -to-geolog iats-e*per ienced -it
identifying-and-evalaatiag-seisaic-activity *--The-iafarnatioa--aabatt-
pteaestT*b«-*®-lia«at laas-whteh-aaggeat-ihe-pteaeaee-of-a-f «a It- {whies
(aeility-ate-pteseatj- based-«a-dnt«-ftoat — Ptbllah»d-g«tolo'jie-3tad test
aer ial--fecohaalsaaaee— ©€--the-«f ea-withia-a-five-aile-radias-ffea-the
faeill*yt-aft-aaaiyais-of-aetial-photographs-«ave ring-a-three--thowsaad
a-reconaaiaaaaee-baaed-on-walHiig-pott lo«3-«f-the--area— withln--th t ee
• ill--he-eoad aetedj--based-o«-dot a-f to a-a-ea«#feh«ii3tve-geologic-aaaly-
ais-of-the-si te»--B nless-a-ait«-aaalysis-is-atherwiae-eanelaaive—con-
cerning -the-abaeacs-of-faaIts---fiood-a«o7-if-a3ed7-or-the-ealc«l3tiOB3
and--aapa--ased--where-in-f1*-aap-ia-not-available*— inforaation-shall
also-be-provH-d-idea tif ying-'the-one- haad red-year-flood-lev el-and— any
o'ther— aped* • • loodiag-factors--(e*g*7-wave-setionh-whieh-aBat-be-con-
sidered -i a-d e = t gn ia g? --coo st r act iagy--opera tiag? — or—aai a taming--the
r " i

OTS - 3350: u
pfod«€ed-by-'the-Federal-ia38faaee-*daiat3ttat»on--f-»hethee-a--«a$laeeria g-aaaiysis-to-ladleate-the-*arioas-hydrodynaate-aad
hydrostatic--forces —e*peeted-to-fesalt-at-the-3lte-as-the-eoaseqaence
¦fiIV-Stractara l-ar-other-eBqlaeerlaq-stadles-showlnq--the--deaiqn
of--apetatteaal-aalts--—at-the-f ae*llty-aed-how--these—will
—applicabler--8#d--li»-lle«-of--(aH* tHE> -of
tfci3-sttb3eet4ea7-a-deta41ed-de3et4pt4en-ef-proeedar es-to--he--foli awed
laq—estiiated—tiae-ta-ao»e-the-wa3te7-te-aho«-that-3«eh-aowe»eBt----t9--whteh--the-w»3te-wt li - be-*a red--sad-demon 31 rat ia«
aeeordaaee-wtth-the-feqalatlass-uBder-this-efcaptef?- the-planned-af «*
be submitted sixty days prior to the laltial receipt of dangerous
wastes, If that Is later than the submission of the Pact a.
(ivl) where applicable, the aost recent post-closure, cost esti-
mate for the facility prepared in accordance with VAC 173-303-5 20(5)
plos a copy of the documentation required to demonstrate financial
assurance under MAC 171-303-6 20(6). rot a new facility, a copy of the
reqaired documentation may be sabaltted sixty days prior to the ini-
tial receipt of dangerous wastes, if that Is later than the submission
of the Part 8.
(itll) Where applicable, a copy of the Insurance policy or other
documentation which comprises compliance with the requirements of HAC
173-303-620(8). ror a new facility, documentation showing the amount
of insurance meeting the specification of VAC 173-303-620 (8)(a) and,
if applicable, lie 173-303-620 (8)(6). that the owner or operator
elans to have in effect before Initial receipt of dangerous waste for
treatment, storage, or disposal. A request for a variance la the
amoaat of reqaired coverage, for a new or existing facility, nay be
sabaltted as specified In VAC 173-303-620 (8)(c) .
(xvlli) A topographic map showing a distance of one thousand feet
around the facility at a scale of 2.S centimeters (1 inch) equal to
not more than 61.0 meters (200 feet). Contoars must be shown on the
map. The contour Interval eust be sufficient to clearly show the pat-
tern of surface water flow in the vicinity of and from each ooera-
tlonal unit of the facility, ror example, contoars with an interval
of 1.5 meters (5 feet). If relief Is greater than 6.1 meters (20
feet), or an interval of 0.6 aeters (2 feet), if relief is less than
6.1 aeters (20 feet). Owners and operators of TSO facilities locate'!
In aouotainoas areas should use large contour intervals to adequately
show topographic profiles of facilities. The aap shall clearly show
the following:
(I) Hap scale and date:
(B)	One hundred-year floodplain area;
(C)	Surface waters including intermittent stteaas:
(0)	Surrounding land uses (residential, commercial, agricultural,
(E) A wind rose (i.e., prevailing windspeed and direction);
(T) Orientation of the aap (north arrow);
(G)	Legal Boundaries of the TSO facility site;
(H)	Access control (fences, gates):
(1)	Injection and withdrawal wells both on-site and off-site;
(J) Buildings; treataeat, storage, or disposal operations; or
other structure (recreation areas, run-off control systems, access and
internal roads, storm, sanitary, aad process sewerage systems, loading
and aaloadlng areas, fire control facilities, etc.);
(K) Sarrlers for drainage or flood control; ind
(L) Location of operational ualts wlthm the TSO facility site,
where dangerous waste Is (or will be) treated, stored, or disposed
(Include equipment clean-op areas).
(Iota - ror large TSO facilities the depactient 
OTS-3350: u
(C) On the topographic ug required under (a)(xvlii) of this sub-
section, a delineation of the waste aanageaent area, the property
boundary, the proposed "point of coapllance" as defined under VAC 173-
303-645(6), the proposed location of ground water tool toeing wells as
required under HAC 17 3-303-646(8), aid, to the extent possible, the
Information required in (a)(u) (B) of this subsection:	•
(0)	A description of any pluae of contaalnation that has entered
the ground water iron a regulated unit at the tine tha.t the applica-
tion was sobaitted that:
(1)	Delineates the extent of the pluae on the topographic map
required under (a) (xvlli) of this subsection;
(CI) Identifies the concentration of each constituent throughout
the place or identifies the aaiiaua concentrations of each constituent
In the pluae. (Coastituents ace those listed In MAC 17 3-303-9905, and
any other constituents not listed there which have caused a aanaged
waste to be regnl&ted under this chapter.);
(t) Detailed plans and an engineering raport describing the pro-
posed ground water aoaltoring prograa to be lapleaented to aeet the
requirements of «4C 173-303-645(8);
(P) If the presence of iangeroas constituents has not been
detected in the ground water -it the tiae of perait application, the
owner or operator aust subait sufficient lnforaation, supporting data,
and analyses to establish a detection aoaltoring prograa which lefts
the requireaents of "'AC 1 7 3-30 3-605(9). This subaission aust address
the following lteas soeclfled under *AC 173-303-645(9):
(I)	Ik proposed list of indicator paraaeters, waste constituents,
or reaction products that can provide a reliable Indication of the
presence of dangerous constituents In the ground water;
(II)	A proposed ground water aonitorlng system;
(III)	Background values for each proposed aoaltoring parameter or
constituent, or procedures to calculate such values; and
(IV)	1 description of proposad saaoling, analysis and statistical
comparison procedures to be utilized In evaluating ground water aoni-
torlng data;
(C) If the presence of dangerous constituents has been detected
In the ground water at the point of coapllance at the tiae of permit
application, the owner or operator aust sabalt sufficient lnforaation,
supporting data, and analyses to establish a compliance aonitorlng
prograa which aeets the requireaents of vie 1 73-303-645 (10) . The
owner or operator east also submit as engineering feasibility plan for
a corrective action prograa necessary to aeet the requireaents of
1 73-30 3-645(11) except as provided in \IAC 173-303-645 (9) (h) (v) .
Alternatively, tha owner or operator can obtain written authorization
la advance froa the departaent to subait a proposed peralt schedule
for developaent and subaittal of such lnforaation. To deaonstrate
coapllance with vac 17 3-30 3-645(10), the owner or operator aust
address the following lteas:
(I)	A description of the wastes previously handled at '.he
(II)	A characterization of the contaalnated ground water, includ-
ing concentrations of dangerous constituents and paraaeters;
(III)	1 list of constituents and paraaeters for which compliance
monitoring will ba undertaken in accordance with i'AC 173-303-645 (3)
and (10) ;
(IV)	Proposed concentration limits for each daoqerous constituent
and paraaeter, based on the crit'erla set forth in JAC 1 7 3-303-645
(5) (a) , Including a justification for establishing any alternate con-
centration Halts;
(V)	Detailed plans and an engineering report describing the pro-
posed ground water aonitorlng systea, in accordance with the require-
ments of VAC 173-303-645(8); and
(VI)	A description of proposed saapllng, analysis and statistical
comparison procedures to be utilized in evaluating ground water aoni-
torlng data; and
(H) If dangerous constituents or paraaeters have been aeasured In
the ground water which exceed the concentration Halts established
I I* 1

¦anaec JAC 1 7 3-303-695(5), Table 1, or if groaad water aoaitorlaq coa-
ducted at the tiae of perait application under UO CFR 265.90 through
265.94 st the Haste boundary indicates the presence of dangerous con-
stituents ftoi the facility la ground water o»«c bactqround concentra-
tions! the owaer oc operator mst subait sufficient information,
supporting data, and analyses to establish a corrective action prograa
which aeets the requireaents of VAC 173-30 3-645(11). However, an
owner or operator Is sot required to subait laforaation to establish a
corrective action progra '.f he deaoastrates to the departaeat that
alternate concantratloa ilts Mill protect huaaa health and the eavi-
ronaeat after consider. ; the criteria listed la VAC 173-303-645(5).
la owner or operator who is not reqalred to establish a corrective
action prograa for this reason east instead subait sufficient laforaa-
tion to establish a coapliance aonitorlaq prograa which aeets the
reqnlreaeats of VAC 173-303-64S (10) and (a) (xx) (T) of this subsec-
tion. To deaoastrate coapliance with VAC 173-303-645(11), the owner
or operator aast address, at a ainiaua, the following iteas:
(I) A characterization of the coataalnated ground water, includ-
ing concentrations of danqerous constituents and paraaeters;
(XI) The concentration Halt for each dangerous constituent and
parameter found in the ground water as set forth la Vic 173-303-
6«S (S> ;
(lit) Detailed clans and an eaqlneerlnq report describing the
corrective action to be taken;
(IT) A description of how the ground water aouitorlng prograa
will deaoastrate the adequacy of the corrective action; aad
(V) The perait aay contain a schedule Cor soQalttal of the infor-
lation required in (a) (xx) (H) (III) and (IV) of this subsection, :ro-
flded the owner or operator obtains written authorisation ftoa the
iepartaeat prior to subalttal of the coaplete perait application.
ij i	Contingent around water protection prograa. The following
actions are required	for owners or operators	of	proposed land-based
facilities aad aaT be required for owaers/ocerators of existing land-
based facilities, except as provided in VAC 173- 303-6*15 7l) fb) I
(A) Contingent around water protection prograa. The owner or
operator shall develop a contingent ground water protection prograa.
The purpose of this prograa will be to prevent the ajgratlon of dan-
gerous waste	or	danqerous waste constituents ftoa waste aanaqeaent
anlts to the nearest hydraullcallv downqradlent receptor at	any	11 ae
during the life of the facility. Tor the purposes of	this subsection.
the downqradlent receptor shall be the facility property line, peren-
nial surface water or doaestlc well, whichever Is nearest to the	dan-
ger ou 3 waste «anage»ent unit. The contingent ground water protection
prograa shall at a ¦Inlaua:
(I) Define the local and regional hydroaeoloqlc	charact eri st 1 cs.
The contingent around water protection prograa shall be basel on a
sufficient understanding of site geology, hydrology, aod other factors
to allow evaluation of its	adequacy By the •iepartaent.	Site	cha£i£-
terlzatloa	shall	be oerforaed in sufficient detail to provide, at a
	the following	inforaatloe: Site geostrat loraohy:	site
ildlSil ratlgraohv; 	Identification of	aflulfgci^.	i2HXli£dsJ	and
agqlclades: flow »od»ls for each stratna (i.e.. pocos aedla	oj	£SS£Z
ture flow): the distribution of yertlcal and horliootal hydraulic con-
ductlvlti:_ effective	porosity: horizontal	and	*erti£3l	hydraulic
gradients; ground water travel tiag to receptors;	and heterogeneity
for each stratjgraphlc unit. Site interpretative nodels shall include
ranges of tested nines: The provisions of lie T? 3-30 3-906~7i) f a j" 71 rf
and 17 3-303-645. shall be used as guidance In the developaent of the
contingent groond	water protection prograa.
ftII	Identify the range of potential release scenarios that cauld
occur daring	facility oparatior aad the postclosure care	pec 1od.	The
scenarios shall	incorporate	-.he intended design (s) of the danqerous
waste vanageaent	unittsl . wastes to be placed la the	d anqe rous	"d (xxl) ;
[ )

din Inclnde specific cntsical action to ae talten if dangerous
waste oc dangerous »nt« constituents arc detected la one or mora ot"
the	mooltorlng wells. The physical actions shall	be Based upon engi-
neer lag feasibility stadias describing	SSiSllii	^cttons	established
froe slte specific conditions and waste	features. Such actions ut
Include Installation of a pomp and treat system Between the monitoring
well and the receptor or Installation of a section of slurry wall	to
decrease ground water travel times. The description of the systems
shall also ororlde how the remediation system	will	achieve" cleanup.
Its efficiency, and the timeframes InrolTed;
(IT! Incorporate the design, construction, and saeoUflq methods
aiUlaaA-iJ-»AC	(»}(«;>. (ilx-lal. (».-Aaa-iaLL-ajd
(T) Include reporting procedures to the department.
presence of dangerous waste or dangerous waste constituents hate	aeen
detected at the point of compliance in accordance with MAC 173-30 3-6US
f91 (g).	and shall continue until the concentration of dangerous waste
or dangerous waste constituents under 8*C 173-303-645(m are	reduced
to levels below their respectlfe concentration llnlts specified in »ac£
statement's health rislc assessment and/or other	Assess neat s	spec1f i c
to	the proposal	or available to the scientific caamunlty regarding
emissions from daaqeroas waste management facilities and their	poten-
tial human health and envlronmental effects.
(1*1	Identify sensitive Indicator	pi ants	and	anlnals	£2 r
blonoo1 torlng . Identify specific	chemical	constituents	of	concern.
sanpllag locations, sampling frequency. sanpTIaq and analytical aeth-
ods. chala of custody procedures. ooallty	assuraace/qualitr	control
procedures.	reporting tlaes. recordkeeping procedures, and data evalu-
ation procedures.
(91	Environmental review	jrocedures.	The owner/operator shall
establish orocedores to alio* for public review of facility	operat ion
and	all ipnltorlnq data required by the facility's permit.	In devel-
oping this process, the owner/operator shall, at a minimum;
(II Coordinate this effort with the public and Interested	local
(III Identify the informational needs	of	the	community and
develop a public Information process which meets these needs: and
IIIII	OeveTop orocednces allowing fall access By	the	public	to
all monitoring data required bv the permltT
( 16 ]

(CI t ipact _¦!11 gat 1 on. jr.lg£_i3_i.nf _fl galeae at _isSu U) :
f W 1

(A)	Detailed plans and mqueetioa and hidrogeologlc reports, as
appropriate, describing alternate desiqa and operating practices that
will, m conjunction with location aspects, prevent the miqratloa of
any daogerous waste or dangerous constituents Into the ground water or
snrface water daring the life of the facility: or
(B)	1 detailed assessment of the substantial present or potential
hazards posed to huaan health or t.*re environment should a release
enter the environment.
(it) Description of controls and practices to prevent spills and
overflows, as required under MAC 173-303-640 (5) (b) ;
(z) Tor task systeas la vhlcfa lgaitable, reactive, or incompati-
ble wastes are to ba stored or treated, a description of how operating
procedures and tank system and facility design will achieve compliance
with the regulreaaats of VAC 173-303-6#0 (9) and (10);
(xi)	A description of the marking and/or labeling of tanks; and
(xii)	Tank design to prevent escape of vaoors and ealssions of
acately or chronically toxic (apoa inhalation) ?H«.
(d) Specific Part 8 Information requirements for surface impound-
ments. except as otherwise provided la VAC 17 3-303-600(3), owners and
operators of facilities that store, treat, or dispose of dangerous
waste in surface impoundments must provide the following additional
(I)	A list of the dangerous wastes placed or to be placed In each
surface Impoundment;
(II)	Detailed plaas and an engineering report describing how the
sarface impoundment Is or will be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to meet the requirements of DIC 17 3-303-650(2). This sub-
mission must address the following items as specified in VAC 173-303-
(A) The liner system (except for an etistinq portion of a surface
lmposndmest) , Including the certification required by VAC 173-303-650
(2) (a) (i) (D) for EHV management. tf an exemption from the requirement
for a liner Is sought as provided by VAC 1 73-303-650 (2) (b) , submit
detailed plans and engineering and hydrogeologic reports, as appropri-
ate, describing alternate design and operating practices that will, la
conjunction with location aspects, prevent the migration of any dan-
geroas constituents Into the ground water or surface water at any
future tlae;
(3) Prevention of overtopping; and
(C)	Structural Integrity of dikes:
• (ill) If any exemption from VAC l73-303-6«5 Is sou;ht, is pro-
vided by VAC 173-303-650(3), detailed plaas and an engineering report
explaining the location of the saturated tone In relation to the sur-
face Impoundment, and the design of a double-liner system that Incor-
porates a leak detection system between the liners:
(iv)	k description of how etch surface Impoundment, including the
llaer and cover systems and appurtenances for control of overtoppino,
will be Inspected in order to meet the retirements of VAC 173-303-650
(») (a) and (b) . This information should be included in the inspection
plaa submitted under (a)(v( of this suosectioa;
(v)	1 certification by a qualified engineer which attests to the
structural Integrity of each dike, as required under VAC 173-303-650
(4)(c).	for n«> units, the owner or operator must submit a statement
by a qualified engineer that he will provide such a certification upon
completion of construction in accordance with the plans and
(vl) l description of the procedure to be used for removing a
surface Impoundment from service, as required under VAC 173-303-650
(5)	(b) and (c) . This Information should be Included In the contin-
gency plan submitted under (a)(vli) of this subsection:
(*11) A description of how dangecous waste residues and contami-
nated materials will be removed from the unit at closure, as requlced
under VAC 173-303-650 (61(a)(1). for any wastes not to be removed
from the unit upoa closure, the owner or operator must submit detailed
plaas and aa engineering report describing how iAC 173-303-650
(6)	(a)(11) and (b) will be complied with. This information should be
( 18 ]

Included la the closare plan and, where applicable. the post-closure
plan suaaltted under (a) (xi.ll) of this subsection;
(rill) If ignitable or reactive wastes are to be placed in a sur-
face lapOQndaent, an explanation of how VAC 173-303-650(7) will be
coaplled with;
(lx) If Incompatible wastes, oc lacoaoatlble wastes aad aaterials
will be placed in a surface lapoundaeat, an explanation of how vac
173-303-650(8) will be coaplled with; and
(x) Hhere applicable, a waste aanageaeat plan for Dangerous Haste
¦os. r020, P021, r022, P023. r024. or f027 describing how the surface
lapoundaeat Is or will be designed to aeet the requlreaeats of VAC
(e) Specific Part B laforaatlon reqalreaents for waste piles.
Except as otheculse provided la WiC 173-303-600(3), owners aad operat-
ors of facilities that store or treat dangerous waste in waste piles
aust provide the following additional lnforaatloa:
(I)	A list of dangerous 'astes placed or to be placed in each
waste pile;
(II)	If an exeaptloa Is sought to WIC 17 3-303-650(2), aad 173-
303-6QS as pcovided by VAC 173-303-660 (1)(c), an explanation of how
the standards of VAC 173-303-660 (1)(c) will be coaplled with;
(ill) Oetalled plans aad an eaglaeeclag report describing how the
pile Is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and aalntained to
aeet the reqalreaents of VAC 1 73-303-660 (2). This subaisslon aust
address the following Iteas as specified in VAC 17 3-303-660(2):
(A)	The liner systea (except for an eilstlnq portion of a pile),
Including the licensed engineer's certification wnen required by WAC
' 73-303-660 (2) (c) . If an ereaotloo froa tie requireaeat £or a liner
is sought, as provided bj vac 1 73-303-660 (2) (d), the owner or opera-
tor aust subalt detailed plans and enqineeclaq and hydroieolooic
reports, as applicable, describing alternate design and operating
practices that will, la conjunction with location assets, prevent the
aigratloa of an; hazardous coastltuents Into the ground water or sur-
face water at any future tlae:
(B)	Control of run-on;
(C)	Control of run-off;
(0) Banageaeat of collection and holding units associated with
run-on aad run-off control systeas; and
(E) Control of wind dispersal of particulate satter, where
(Iv) If an exeaptlon froa VAC 173-303-695 is sought as provided
by VAC 1 73-303-660 (3) or (®) , subalt detailed plans and an engineer-
ing report describing how the requlreaeats of WAC 173-303-660 (3) (a)
or (
should be Included in the closure plan and, where applicable, t.ic
post-closure plan submitted under (a) (1111) of this subsection:
(x) Where applicable, a waste management plan foe Dangerous vast*
*os. F020. r021» T022, r023. r026, or 1027 describing how a waste pile
that Is not enclosed (as defined is WAC 1 73-303-660 (1)(c)) is or will
b« designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to neet the
requirements of MAC 17 3-30 3-660(10).
(f) Specific Part B information requirements for incinerators.
Except as iAC 173-303-670(1) provides otherwise, owners and operators
of facilities that incinerate daageroas waste aust fulfill the infor-
mational requirements of (f) of this sabsection.
(I)	When seeking an exemption under HAC 173-303-670 (1) (b)
(ignitable or reactive wastes only):
(A)	Documentation that the waste Is listed as a dangerous waste
la HiC 173-303-080, solely because it Is Ignitable; or
(8) Documentation that the waste Is listed as a dangerous mst»
la VAC 173-303-080, solely because It Is reactive for characteristics
other than those listed in HAC 173-303-090 (7) (a) (it) and (») . ani
will not be burned when other daegerons wastes are present in the cot-
bostlon zone; or
(C)	Documentation that the waste is a dangerous taste solely
because it possesses the characteristic of lgn1tabllity, as determined
by the tests for characteristics of dangerous waste under vie 173-303-
090; or
(D)	Documentation that the waste is a dangerous waste solelT
because it possesses the reactivity characteristles listed tn fic 173-
303-090 (7) (a)(1), (11), (lii), (vi) , (»t i) . and	and that i t
will not be burned when other dangerous wastes are present in the coi-
bostion zone.
(II)	Submit a trial burn plan or the results of a trial burn,
including all required determinations, in accordance with iAC 173-303-
(III)	la lieu of a trial born, the applicant may submit the fol-
lowing information;
(1) An analysis of each waste or mixture of wastes to be burned
(I) Seating value of the waste In the form and composition In
which It will be burned;
(TI) rlscoslty (if applicable), or description of physical form
of the waste, and specific gravity of the waste;.
(III)	in identification of any dangerous organic constituents
listed in VAC 173-303-9905 or, if not listed, which cause the waste(s)
to be regulated, which are present la the vaste to be burned, except
that the applicant need not analyze for constituents which would rea-
sonably not be expected to be found in the waste. The constituents
excluded from analysis aust be identified and the bssis for their
exclusion stated. The waste analysis must rely on analytical tech-
niques specified in WAC 173-303-110(3), or their equivalent;
(IV)	An approximate quantification of the dangerous constituents
Identified In the waste, within the precision produced by the analyti-
cal methods specified In VAC 173-303-110(3); and
(T) A quantification of those daaqeroos constituent? In the waste
which may be designated as principal organic dangerous constituents
(POOC's) based on data submitted from other trial or operational burns
which demonstrate compliance with the performance standards In vac
(B)	A detailed engineering description of the incinerator.
(I) Banufacturer*s name and model number of incinerator;
(TI) Type of Incinerator;
(III) Linear dimension of incinerator unit Including cross sec-
tional area of coabnstloa chamber;
(IT) Description of auxiliary fuel system (type/feed);
(T) Capacity of prime mover;
(VI)	Description of automatic vaste feed cutoff system(s);
(VII)	Stack gas monitoring' and pollution control monitoring
[ 20 ]

OTS-38 SO:u
(Till) Nozxle aad burner design:
(II) Coastructloa itcecUli; and
(Z) Location aad description of teaperatare. pressure, and flow
Indicating devices aad control devices;
(C)	1 description aad analysis of the waste to be burned coapared
with the waste for which data froa operational or trial barns are pro-
vided to support the contention that a trial burn is not needed. The
data shogld include those lteas listed in (f) (Hi) (A) of this subsec-
tion. This analysis shoald specify the principal organic dangerous
constituents (POOC's) which the appllcaat has ideatified la the waste
for which 4 peralt Is soaght, and any differences froa the POOC's is
the waste for which bara data are provided:
(D)	The design aad operating conditions of the incinerator unit
to be ased, coapared with that for which coaparative burn data are
(C) k description of the results submitted froa any previously
conducted tclal barn(s) Incladlag:
(I)	Saapliag and analysis techniques ased to calculate perfora-
ance standards In WAC 17 3-303-670(4); and
(II)	flethods and resalts of aoaltoriag teaperatures, waste feed
rates, carbon aoaoxlda, and an appropriate Indicator of coabustion gas
velocity (Including a stateaent concerning the precision and accuracy
of this aeasareaeat);
(F)	The expected Incinerator operation inforaation to deaonstrata
compliance with HAC 173-303-670 (a) aad (6), Including:
(I)	Expected carboa aonoxide (CO) level in the stack exhaust gas;
(II)	Haste feed rate;
(III)	Coabastioa zone teaperatore;
(IT) Iadicatioa of coabustion qas reloclty;
(T) Expected stack gas roluae, flow rate, and teaperature;
(»I) Computed residence tine for waste in the coabustion zone;
(Til) Expected hydrochloric acid removal efficiency;
(Till) Expected fugitive emissions and their control procedures;
(IX) Proposed waste feed cutoff Halts based oa the identified
significant operating paraaeters;
(G)	Sach sappleaental inforaation as the department finds neces-
sary to achieve the purposes of this subsection;
(B) Waste analysis data, Including that sabaitted la (f) (lii) (A)
of this subsectioa, sufficient to allow the department to specify as
peralt principal organic dangerous constituents (peralt POOC's) those
coastltaeats for which destruction and reaoval efficiencies will be
required; aad
(I) Test protocols and sampling and analytical data to demon-
strate the designation statas ander HAC 173-303-070 of:
(I)	Incinerator ash residues, if any; and
(II)	Residues froa the air pollution control devices.
(lv) The departaeat shall approve a peralt application without a
trial burn If the departaeat finds that:
(A)	The wastes are sufficiently similar; and
(B)	The incinerator units are sufficiently similar, and the data -
froa other trial boras are adequate to specify (under WAC 1 7 3-303-
670(6)) operating conditions that will ensare that the performance
standards la MAC 173-303-670(*) will be met by the Incinerator.
(g) Specific Part B Information requirements for land treatment
facilities. Except as otherwise provided la VAC 17 3-303-600(3), own-
ers and operators of facilities that use land treatment to dispose of
dangerous waste aust provide the following additional Inforaation:
(i) A description of plans to conduct a treatment ieaonstratIon
as required under KAC 173-303-655(3). The description aust Include
the following Information:
(A)	The wastes for which the deaoastratloa will be aade and the
potential dangerous constituents la the waste;
(B)	The data sources to be used to aake the deaonstration (e.g.,
literature, laboratory data, field data, or operating data) ;
(C)	Any specific laboratory or field test that will be conducted,
t 21 1

(I)	The type or test (e.g.. caloan laachiaq. degradation);
(II)	Haterlals aad aethods, including analytical procedures;
(III)	Expected tlae foe coapletion; and
(IV)	Characteristics of the suit that will be siaulated in the
deaonstratloa, Including treataent lone characteristics, cllaatlc con-
ditions, aad operating practices;
(ii) I description of a laod treataeat prograa, as required under
VAC I 73-303-655 (2)• This Inforaation anst be subaltted with the plans
for tbe treataeat demonstration, and apdated following the treatment
deaonstratloa, Tbe laad treataeat prograa east address the followiag
{*) The Hastes to be laad treated;
(B)	Design aeasures aad operating practices necessary to aaxlaize
treataeat la accordance with MAC 173-303-655 {«)(») including:
(I)	Waste application aethod aad rate;
(II)	fleasures to control soil pil;
(III)	Enbanceaent of alcroblal or cheaical reactions; and
(If) Control of aoistura content;
(C)	Provisions for unsaturated zone monitoring, Including:
(I)	Saapllng egolpaeat. procedures, aad frequency;
(II)	Procedures for selecting saapllng locations;
(III)	Analytical procedures;
(IV)	Chain of custody control;
(V)	Procedures for establishing background values;
(VI)	Statistical aethods for interpreting results; and
(VII)	The justification for any dangerous constituents recoi-
¦ended foe selection as principal dangerous constituents, la accord-
ance with the criteria for such selection in w HC 173-303-655 (6) (a) ;
(D)	A list of dangerous constituents reasonably expected to oe
In, or derived froa. the wastes to be lind treated Based on waste
analysis perforaed pursuant to HAC 173-303-300;
(E)	The proposed dtaensloas of the treataeat zone;
(111) i description of how the unit Is or will be designed, con-
structed, operated, and maintained In order to aeet the requirements
of WAC 173-303-65 5 (fl). This sabaisslon east aldress the following
1 teas:
(i) Control of run-on;
(8) Collection and control of rnn-off;
(C)	Hinlalzatlon of run-off of dangerous constituents froa the
treataeat zone;
(D)	Banageaent of collection and holding facilities associated
with run-on and run-off control systeas;
(f) Periodic inspection of the anit. This information should be
Included in the inspection plan subaltted under (a) <») of this subsec-
tion; and
(f) Control of wind dispersal of particulate natter. If
(I*) If food-chain crops are to Be arown ia or on the treataent
zone of tbe land treatment unit, a description of bow the deaonstra-
tlon required under MAC 17 3-303-655(5) will be conducted including:
(A)	Characteristics of the food-chaia crop for which the demon-
stration will be aade;
(B)	Characteristics of the waste, treataent zone, and waste
application aethod and rate to be used la the deaonstratlon;
(C)	Procedures for crop growth, saaple collection, saaple analy-
sis, and data evaluation;
(D)	Characteristics of the coaoarlson crop Including the location
aad conditions under which It was oc will be grown; aad
(E)	If cadaiua Is present In the land treated waste, a descrip-
tion of how the reqolreaents of WAC 173-303-655 (5) (b) will be coa-
plied with;
(») 1 description of the regetatire cover to be applied to closed
portions of the facility, and a plan for maintaining such cower during
the post-closace cace period, as required under waC 173-303-655
(8)(») (rill) and (c) (11) . This lnforaatlon should be Included in the
closure plan and, where applicable, tbe post-closure care plan subalt-
ted under (a)(xlli) of this subsection;
C 22 ]

OTS-J8SO r rt
(»1) If ignitable oc teactlfe wastes will be placed ia or on the
treataeat :one, aa explanation of how the requireaeats of MAC 173-303*
655(9) vill be compiled with; and
(»ll) If incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materi-
als, will be placed la oc on the saae treatment -one, aa explanation
of how VAC 173-303-655(10) will be coaplied with.
(rill) Where applicable, a waste aaaaaement plan for Oanqeroos
Haste los. F020, P021, r022, F023, r026, oc P027 describing how a land
treataeat facility is oc will be designed, constructed, operated, and
aaiatained to aeet the requirements of VAC 173-303-655(12).
(h) Specific Pact B lafocaation cequireaeats for laadfllls.
Except as otherwise provided la VAC 17 3-303-600(3), owners and operat-
ors of facilities that dispose of dangerous waste In landfills aast
provide the following additional infocaatlon;
(I)	A list of the dangeroas wastes placed or to be placed in each
landfill or landfill cell;
(II)	Detailed plaas and an engineering report describing how the
landfill is or will be designed, constructed, operated and aaiatained
to comply with the reqaireaents of VAC 173-303-665(2). This submis-
sion mast address the followlnq it®as as specified la »AC 173-303-
665(2) :
(A) The liner system and leachate collection and removal system
(except for an existing portion of a landfill), including the licensed
engineer's certification required by VAC 173-303-665 (2)(a)(i). If an
exemption froa the reqaireaents for a liner and a leachate collection
and removal system is sought, \s provided by VAC 173-303-665 (2) (b) ,
submit detailed plans and engineering and hydrogealogic reports, as
ipproprlate, describing alternate (lesion and operating practices that
will, ia conjunction with location asiecu, prevent the migration of
any dangerous constituent Into the ground water or surface water it
any future time;
(8) Control of run-on;
(C)	Control of run-off;
(D)	Sanageaent of collection and holding facilities associated
with ran-on and run-off control systeas; and
(E)	Control of wind dispersal of particulate natter, where
(III)	If an exemption froa HAC 173-303-64S is souqht, as provided
by VAC 173-303-665(3), the owner or operator aust submit detailed
plans and an engineering report explaining the location of the satu-
rated zone in relation to the landfill, the design of a double-liner
systea that Incorporates a leak detection system between the liners,
and a leachate collection and removal system above the liners;
(iv)	A description of how each landfill. Including the liner and
cover systems, will be Inspected in- order to meet the requirements of
VAC 173-303-66S(1) . This Information should be Included in the
Inspection plan submitted uoder (a)(v) of tbis subsection;
(v)	Detailed plans and an engmeerLna report describing the final
cover which will be applied to each landfill or landfill cell at clo-
sure la accordance with VAC 173-303-665 (6)(a), and a description of
ho* each landfill will be maintained and monitored after closure In
accordance with V AC 173-303-665 (6) (b) and (c) . This Information
should be included in the closure and post-closure plans submitted
under (a)(xiil) of this subsection;
(vi)	If lgnitable or reactive wastes will be landfilled, an
explanation of how the standards of VAC 173-303-665(7) will be com-
plied with;
(vii)	If Incompatible wastes, oc incompatible wastes and materi-
als will be landfilled, an explanation of how VAC 173-303-66S (8) will
be compiled with;
(viii)	if bulk of noncontalnerlzed liquid waste or wastes con-
taining free liquids Is to be landfilled, an explanation of how the
requirements of WAC 173-303-665(9) will be complied with;
(lx) If containers of dangerous waste are to be landfi^ed, an
explanation of how the requirements of VAC 17 3-303-665(10) will be
coaplied with; and
( 23 ]

OTS-3850 : u
(x) rfher e applicable, a waste uoaqmeat olan tor Dangerous "as t e
»os. r020, r021. r022, r023, r026, oc r027 describing how a landfill
Is or will be designed, constructed, operated, and aaintalned Co aeet
the regulreaeats of VIC 17 3-303-665(11).
(5)	Construction. 1 person aay beg I a physical construction of a
new facility, or of sew portions of an existing facility if the new
portions woold aaoaat to reconstruction a&dar laterla status (Vic 173-
303-905 (7)j, only after complying with MAC 1 73- 303- 281 , submitting
Part 1 and Part a of the perait appllcatloa aad receiving a final
facility perait. til perait applications aust be submitted at least
one hundred eighty days before physical construction is expected to
(6)	fteappllcations• Any dangerous waste facility with an effec-
tive final facility perait shall sabait a aew application one hundred
eighty days prior to the expiration date of the effective perait,
unless the departaent grants a later date provided that such date will
never be later than the expiration date of the effective perait.
(7)	Contlnoation of expiring peralts.
(a)	vben the owner/operator sabalts a tlaely application for J
final facility perait and the application is deterained by the depart-
aent to be coaplete parsaaat to subsection (9) of this section, the
facility is allowed to continue operating oader the expiring or
expired perait until the effective date of the new perait.
(b)	Vben the facility Is not In coapllance with the conditions of
the expirlag or expired perait, the departaent aay choose to do any of
the following:
(I)	Initiate enforceaent action based upon the perait which has
been continued;
(II)	Issue a notice of Intent to deny the new perait. If th®
perait is denied, the owner or operator voald then be required to
cease the activities authorized by the continued perait or be subject
to enforceaent action for operating without a perait;
(lit) Issue a aew perait with appropriate conditions; and/or
(lv) fate other actions authorized by this chapter.
(8)	Completeness. The departaent shall not Issue a final facil-
ity perait before receiving a coaplete application, except for peraits
by rule or eaergency peralts. in application for a perait is coaplete
when the application foca aad aay sappleaental Information has been
subaltted to the departaent's satisfaction. The coapleteness of any
application for a perait shall be fudged Independently of the status
of aay other perait application or perait for the saae facility or
(9)	Becordteeplng. Applicants shall keep records of all data
used to coaplete the perait applications, and any supplemental infor-
mation submitted to the departaent for a period of at least three
years froa the date the application is signed.
(10)	General perait conditions. ill final facility peralts shall
contain general perait conditions described in vac 173-303-810,
(11)	Perait duration.
(a)	Tlnal facility peralts shall be effective for a fired tera
not to exceed tea years.
(b)	The departaent aay Issue any final facility perait for a
duration that is less than the full allowable tera.
(c)	The teca of a final facility perait shall not be extended
beyond tea years, anless otherwise authorized under subsection (7) or
this section.
(12)	Grounds for teralnatlon. The following are causes for tit-
alnatlng a final facility perait during its tera, or for denying a
perait appllcatloa:
(a)	Voncoapllance by the peralttee with any condition of the
perai t;
(b)	The peraittee's failure In the application or during the per-
ait issuance process to disclose fully all relevant facts, or the per-
mittee's misrepresentation of any relevant facts at any tlae;
(c)	I determination that the permitted activity endangers public
health or the envlronaeat and the hazard can only be controlled by
perait aodiflcatlon or teralaatlon; or
[ 2t ]'

(d) A deteraiaation that Oe ;er a i t sop 11 c jn t uas : ii1ea to - i: -
Isfy the performance standards of H1C 173-303-283.
(13)	Perait changes. *11 final facility jernt: snail oe £'n;^c'.
to the requirements of perait changes, vac 113-303-830.
(14)	Procedures for decision sating. Issuance oc final fjcili-'
peraits ulll be subject to the procedures for decision i8 RCV, the State Clean *ir let, chapter 70.9U RCV, etc.) yhici
Incorporates the requirements of this section, and H A C 173-303-5Cj
through 1 73- 303-525 for recycling facilities or ikC ' 73- 303-5S-
through 173-303-560 for special waste Cacilltles.
The following section of the Washington *d» i n i s t r a t i ve Co'.e : ~
JAC I 7 3-303-^20 SITING 3TAMDA80S.
[ -'5 ]

attachment c



P.O. BOX 0, JUNEAU, AK 99811-1800
(907) 465-2671
January 23,1991
Mr. Ron Ross
Program Manager
Western Governors' Association
600 17th Street, Suite 1705, South Tower
Denver CO 80202-5442
In addition to the information in Alaska's Worksheet for Monitoring Capacity Assurance
Efforts, sent to you on December 4, 1990, we are providing the following brief
description of Alaska's hazardous waste minimization activities for inclusion in WGA's
upcoming capacity assurance monitoring report to EPA.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has:
•	Began a program to train Department hazardous waste compliance inspectors
in waste minimization techniques;
•	Provided pass-through grant funding to the Alaska Health Project, an
independent non-profit organization, to provide a variety of hazardous waste
reduction services to Alaskans, including conducting waste reduction audits,
responding to technical assistance inquiries, developing a university-level waste
reduction course curricula, producing a quarterly waste reduction newsletter,
giving outreach seminars on waste reduction, and developing a community
waste reduction program;
•	Provided seed funds to the University of Alaska's School of Health Sciences to
develop and deliver a pollution prevention course in the Spring Semester of
1991; .
•	Sponsored six waste management and reduction workshops for photofinishers,
printers, and vehicle maintenance shops, in conjunction with the states of
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho;
•	Participated in a joint pollution prevention project with EPA at an Alaskan U.S.
Coast Guard facility;
•	Began development of a pollution prevention technical assistance resource
library for use by the Department and the public.

Ron Ross
January 23, 1991
•	Developed a waste minimization checklist for use during compliance inspections
of facilities that generate hazardous wastes;
•	Developed waste reduction planning provisions for proposed TSD permits,
where facilities also are waste generators;
•	Developed and distributed a supplemental waste minimization questionnaire with
Alaska's 1990 Annual Hazardous Waste Report for all hazardous waste
•	Developed waste minimization provisions for inclusion in hazardous waste
administrative enforcement orders;
•	Providing technical assistance to hazardous waste generators through written
materials and telephone or on-site inquiries;
•	Reviewing 1990 hazardous waste shipment manifests to assess the viability of
targeting specific waste generating facilities or waste types for special waste
reduction efforts;
•	Began development of a contract to develop and implement an Alaska local
government pollution prevention technology transfer roundtable that will provide
a forum for local governments representatives to learn about waste reduction
options and to share information about their waste reduction activities;
•	Began development of a contract to establish and deliver a toll-free, statewide
telephone service that provides pollution prevention technical assistance
information and to support the preparation, publication, and distribution of
pollution prevention newsletter; and
•	Actively participated in the Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Roundtable,
the Western States Recycling Coalition, the National Roundtable for State Waste
Reduction Programs.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information about any
of these items.
Jeffery L. Mach
Chief, Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management Section


FZB 07 '91 01:21PM WESTERN GOVS fiSSM 3035347309
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220-3716
Phone (303) 320-8333
Tel etif
(303) 322-9076 (VHin Suilrtlnj(/0<'nver|
(3031 3JO-1S2S (Hijfnwgjn Pttct/Denttr/
(3QJI i	(CfjnO I unction Regional OHice)
Roy Homer
Thomji M. Vernon.
EipcuIivu Oir#nor
February 4, 1991
Mr. Jame6 Scherer
Regional Adoinistrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
As a follow-up to our letter to you regarding the supplemental conditions
to Colorado's Capacity Assurance Plan, dated June 8, 1990, ve are
submitting the attached Waste Minimization Strategy. The other elements
of the Supplemental Conditions are being handled by the VJGA.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this strategy, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
David C. Shelton
Hazardous Materials and
Waste Management Division
cc; Governor Roy Romer
c/o Tim Holeman
Bob Duprey
Joel Kohn
Tom Looby
Ron Ross

FEB 07 '91 01:22PM WESTERN GOVS ASSN 3035347309
As a supplemental condition to Colorado's Capacity Assurance Plan,
the State was required to develop a hazardous waste minimization
strategy, which would include efforts to encourage waste
minimization through permits, compliance inspections, and
enforcement actions.
Strategy Outline
A.	Permits
All TSD facilities which are generators of hazardous waste and
which are not presently permitted will be required, through a
condition of their permit (when issued or reissued), to submit
a description of the facility's waste minimization program
which complies with the requirements of 6 CCR 1007-3, Section
264.73(b) (9) . This submittal would be reviewed for compliance
with this section of the regulations rather than being
reviewed for approval as part of the permit. This would save
time and effort for the permit writer and achieve the same
results. If the submittal is weak, the permit writer may be
able to use the submittal's inadequacy to provide some
leverage for the facility to request an audit or other
technical assistance from the Colorado Waste Reduction
program. In extreme cases, enforcement action may be
necessary to bring the facility into compliance. State permit
writers will attend the Waste Minimization Training Course for
Permit Writers, being developed by EPA.
B.	compliance Inspection
The Waste Reduction Program is developing a short description
of its services and assistance available to hazardous waste
generators. State hazardous waste inspectors will provide
copies of this description of services to generators at the
time of inspection. The inspectors will also inquire about
the "program in place to minimize waste to the extent
practicable" for each generator inspected. In addition, waste
reduction fact sheets for certain types of small quantity
generators, such as dry cleaners and vehicle repair shops,
will be given out by the inspectors, as appropriate.
C.	Enforcement Actions
Any settlement which results from enforcement actions taken
against hazardous waste generators will include a component
for waste minimization, if appropriate. The State intends to
follow guidance from EPA in this area, as such guidance
becomes available.

FEB 07 '=1 01:22PM WESTERN GOVS fiSSM 3035347309	P.4
D. Waste Reduction Program
The vorkplan for the Colorado Waste Reduction Program is
attached. This program is being funded by EPA through the
Pollution Prevention Grants program.

FEB 07 '91 01:23PM WESTERN GOVS ASSN 3035347308
Colorado Vasta Reduction Program
I. Program Elements
1.1. Seminars.
Assise CACI in providing seminars for solvent waste reduction and waste
reduction in metal finishing operations. Sponsor one seminar at CSU
during Che first year in principles of conducting audits, and possibly
one-two additional seminars at CSU during the second year, focusing on
other industry types such as electronic component manufacturing.
1.2	Information center.
In response to phone or walk-in requests, provide short written reports
on waste reduction options for particular industries, based on references
and accumulated case studies from throughout the country. The larger
generators could also be approached directly and assisted with this type
of information.
1.3	On-site technical assistance (for small or mediua-sixe companies).
Companies would be targeted based on size of company, volume of waste
generated, and type of industrial activity. In addition other requests
for assistance would be prioritized based on these sane factors.
1.3.1.	Perform shore "quick and dirty" audits, consisting of one-day
site visits to identify waste streams and follow-up reports listing
waste-reducing options.
1.3.2.	Perform feasibility studies based on short site-visits to
investigate particular waste-reducing options.
1.3.3.	Assist companies in starting their own waste reduction
program. This would consist of a quick, walk-through of the facility
and meeting with the key people to discuss how to create a successful
1.4.	Governor's award.
Give recognition to two or three outstanding examples each year of
successful waste reduccion efforts. CACX and CSU would be invlced. to
participate with CDH in the process of choosing the award recipients.
Criceria would be established wleh which to judge the applicants.
1.5.	Monitoring of pt"n|',r :;o.m i nn t.\s
1 5.2. MoiiiLor RC^KA S'AKA !51 1 annun! ropoi't	on	t.!on wi
Ii.iz.t i/tlnus w.-i.icc! ;uul t;e i;;. of li.c.riL-dou:; elusm i o,-i!

FEB 07 '91 01:23PM UESTERN GOVS PSSN 30353473G9
Page Two
Colorado Uaste Reduction Program
1.6 Training of ragulatory personnel.
Assise che OHE7 coordinator in providing waste reduction training to
hazardous waste, water quality, and air quality permit writers and
L.7. Assistance to Pollution Prevention Partnership. Provide limited and
focused assistance to the Pollution Prevention Partnership upon request
from the OHEP coordinator.
2. Implementation
2.1.	Staff.
The staff would consist of one full-time engineer, part-time assistance
from another engineer and part-time secretarial support, all employed by
CDH and under the supervision of Dave Shelton (Director of the Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division), One of the two engineers would
be the program manager.
2.2.	Location
The facility from which the program would operate would be located at che
main CDH building, but on a separate floor from che hazardous waste
ragulacory programs. A separate area from other offices of Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division would be designated as che Uasce
Minimization Program or Industrial Pollution Prevention Program.
2.3.	Training.
The two engineers will require training in how to provide on-site
technical assistance. The first part of the training will be a one-day
seminar at CSU in principles of conducting audits for waste reduction.
The engineers will then accompany CSU's technical assistance team on 2
audits during the first year of the program, and possibly one additional
audit during the 2nd year.
The second part of the training will be provided by Terry Foecke. che
National coordinator for waste reduction training, cogecher with che
State of Minnesota. The engineers will travel. Co Minnesota for 2-3 davs
in February of 1.991, during which tune they will receive Ins true clou from
Mr. Foeckc .is well as field experience with M nuicsota' s technical
assistance team. The program cost; (not i.nc l.uu i. nj't travel) won id ijc
approximately $300.

fir<§e0in'rte 01:24Ff1 WESTERN GOVS PSSN 3035347309	P.7
Colorado Waste Reduction Program
2.4 Schedule
1.	CACI Seminars on Solvent Use
2.	Hire Engines?
3.	Audit Workshop with CSU
4.	Preliminary brochure, fact sheets
telephone technical assistance
services available
5.	collection of- information and
training of engineers
Completion Date
October 10, 1990
January 1, 1991
March 1991
March 1, 1991
6. First site visits (audits) to
to provide technical assistance
March 1, 1991

FEB 07 '91 01:24PM WESTERN GOVS ASSN 3035347309
Survey of Needs
The attached survey will be mailed to the 70 manufacturers who are
also large quantity generators of hazardous waste. These
companies account for over 90% of all the hazardous waste generated
in Colorado and over 90% of all the toxic chemical releases.
The survey will tell us how many people work at each of these
companies, which will help in the targeting of on-site assistance.
The survey will also provide information on the companies' needs,
and will give us a preliminary indication of how receptive they
will be assistance from our program.
Based on the results of the survey, the focus of our program and
the appropriate blend of the various elements may change to better
fit the needs of Colorado facilities.
1.1	Seminars
It is unclear whether or not CACI still plans to sponsor the
metal finishing workshop. If so, we will definitely assist
them in any way we can (short of giving them money) . If not,
we will work with CSU and sponsor the workshop for metal
finishing and ask CACI to co-sponsor it. We will do the same
for a workshop for electronics manufacturing. Both of these
would be after June 1991 as soon as we can organize and
schedule them. We can afford approximately $3,000 per
workshop, which should be adequate, especially if CACI will
provide some assistance.
My review of the hazardous waste generation data and SIC codes
shows that these two industry types—metal finishing and
electronics manufacturing—have very good potential for waste
reduction and would be good targets for workshops. This is
because there are a significant number of facilities in these
categories (25 total) and they are mostly small or medium
size. Also, there is a substantial amount of technical
information available for these categories which could be
disseminated through workshops.
1.2	Information Center
Phone requests will be logged. The company and type of
request will be recorded. Follow-up surveys will be mailed
periodically to ask about general usefulness of the assistance
received and any waste reduction achieved.
The largest generators or largest polluters (according to the
TRI data) will be contacted directly and information will be
offered to them based on their sic codes.

FEB 07 '91 01:25PM WESTERN GOVS RSSN 3035347309
1.3 On-Site Assistance
During the second year of the program, we will be better
prepared to offer this type of assistance after attending the
training in Minnesota and conducting two audits with CSV.
We will target manufacturers below a certain size, such as 200
employees, who have the largest releases or volumes of waste
generated, and for which the best technical information is
In addition, as time allows, we will respond to requests for
this type of assistance from any manufacturer or large
quantity generator of hazardous waste.
1.5	Effectiveness Monitoring
In addition to monitoring the effectiveness of the information
center as described above, companies receiving on-site
assistance will be asked to provide follow-up information on
the effectiveness of the assistance, including amounts of
waste or releases reduced and dollar savings. In addition,
follow-up surveys will be mailed to workshop attendees to ask
about the general usefulness of the workshops and any waste
reductions achieved.
1.6	Training of Regulatory Personnel
At a minimum, inspectors should be made aware of the role of
pollution prevention/waste reduction in waste management and
in controlling water discharges and air releases, and of the
services offered by the waste reduction program.


In rcsly, picas* rtftr to:
January 24, 1991
Ron Ross
Western Governor's Association
600 17th Street
Suite 1705 South Tower
Denver, CO 80202-5442
Dear Mr. Ross:
Please find attached Hawaii's Capacity Assurance Plan update
as required by the supplemental conditions agreed upon by Hawaii
and EPA Region IX.
If you have any questions regarding this issue please call
Steven Armann at (808) 543-8234.
ARLENE M. KABEl, Manager
Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch

The State of Hawaii Capacity Assurance Plan committed the
state to address current and future capacity shortfalls through
three (3) activities.
1. Further minimization of the wastes generated in the
2.	Encouragement of hazardous waste treatment
technologies which are compatible with Hawaii's
fragile ecology.
3.	Arrangements with other states for the types of
management capacity which Hawaii is unable to
The supplemental conditions agreed upon by Hawaii and EPA Region IX
are addressed in the WGA regional response. The state of Hawaii
does not have any supplemental conditions which are exclusive to
The State of Hawaii is committed to pursuing hazardous waste
minimization opportunities to the fullest extent possible, given
the State's limited resources. The State approach to hazardous
waste minimization has been to allow the strong economic
disincentives—which-are-an inherent aspect of Hawaii's- isolated
location, _prop_e;l generators, to .minimize their waste generation.-
However, now that waste minimization is at the top of EPA's
hazardous waste management hierarchy and the state has agreed to
possibly address treatment and disposal capacity planning
shortfalls with waste minimization programs, the state is
developing a more active role in encouraging waste minimization.
The state program is one of encouragement rather than
requirement. At this time, the state does not believe that the
hazardous waste situation warrants the development of regulatory
mechanisms to induce waste minimization activities. First, the
economics disincentives are very strong in Hawaii and second, the
vast majority of the waste generated in Hawaii is from military
sources which are difficult to regulate. In addition, the military
in Hawaii has instituted a pilot waste minimization program,
H-HAZMIN, which has established a 20 percent waste reduction goal
for FY 1991 and a 50 percent reduction in overall waste generation
by 1992 (using 1987 as the base year) .
As noted in the 1987 CAP the economic disincentive to generate
hazardous waste is relatively high in comparison to generators
located in the Continental United States. The lack of commercial
treatment and disposal facilities in the state dictates that all

commercially treated and disposed of hazardous waste must be
transported approximately 2 500 miles across the pacific. In
addition, the relatively small quantities of waste result in small
transport loads which are more costly than bulked loads. The 1987
CAP estimated that it costs between $1,000 and $1,500 per 55 gallon
drum to dispose of hazardous waste generated in Hawaii.
The 1987 CAP revealed that the military in Hawaii accounted
for approximately 60% of the states total hazardous waste
generation (approximately 873 tons out of 1456 tons) . Hence,
commercial generation of hazardous waste accounted for
approximately 583 tons, some of which was managed at captive
facilities. Thus, the need to institute regulatory requirements
for waste minimization activities, at this time, is not necessary.
The State of Hawaii received §3011 grant funding to support
one waste minimization position. The position description has been
drafted (attached) and sent up the appropriate channels. The
Department of Personnel Services must allocate the position and
advertize the position prior to the Department of Health hiring an
individual to fill the position.
While awaiting the establishment of the position, Hawaii has
begun handing out waste minimization information to generators
during inspections. The state also sent three representative to
the waste Minimization Conference sponsored by EPA Region IX and
held in Lake Tahoe. The Department of Health's commitment to waste
minimization is exemplified by the fact that the Deputy Director
for Environmental Health attended the conference along with two
staff members of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch. The travel
report (attached) provided the Department of Health with very
specific recommendation for future waste minimization program
The State of Hawaii contracted with Ross and Associates, using
money appropriated from the CAP process, to investigate on-island
treatment and disposal potential, and waste minimization options.
The report was a very cursory investigation of this potential,
however the report was able to narrow down areas which appear to
have potential but which need additional study. The State is in
the process of negotiating with Ross and Associates to conduct an
in-depth study of the potential on-island treatment and waste
minimization options.
The state has encouraged on-island waste treatment by
contracting with Ross and Associates to study the potential for on-
island treatment. The draft report has been delivered to the State
and will be distributed throughout the hazardous waste industry
upon finalization. The report takes a cursory look at Hawaii's
waste streams and then identifies those waste streams which have
economic potential for treatment on-island. This study has
identified two treatment technologies which may have on-island

potential: halogenated solvents recovery and energy recovery. The
state is in the process of contracting with Ross and Associates to
conduct a follow up study the economic feasibility and barriers to
development of these treatment technologies on-island.
This commitment is fulfilled by remaining a good faith member
of the WGA regional Capacity Assurance Planning process. The State
intends to remain a member of the WGA regional agreement into the
foreseeable future.

Environmental Health Specialist III
This Environmental Health Specialist (EHS) III position is
located in the hazardous waste program of the Solid and
Hazardous Waste Branch, Environmental Management Division.
The goal of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch is to
protect public health and the environment from the improper
management and disposal of hazardous waste and solid waste,
and from the releases of petroleum and other hazardous
substances from leaking underground storage tanks.
Under general supervision and direction of the Environmental
Administrator (Chief) and the direct supervision of the
Environmental Health Specialist V of the hazardous waste
program, this EHS III position acts as the primary Hazardous
Waste Minimization officer. Through the exercise of
chemical, scientific and industrial process knowledge, and
independent initiative this position recommends and
implements innovative outreach programs-,- ixevievs- -waste?:
minimization plans, and provides public and technical
assistance to minimize the. generation of hazardous waste.
Additionally, this EHS III position is responsible for
recommending future administrative and regulatory programs
and approaches to waste minimization, the conduct of public
presentations, data gathering and analysis, assessing and
evaluating industrial and chemical process changes to
minimize waste generation, and the development of technical
publications. These primary responsibilities of the
position are achieved through advanced knowledge, training
and experience in hazardous waste minimization, hazardous
waste regulations, processes of the chemical industry,
electronic information management systems, and public
presentation procedures.

Environmental Health Specialist
Page 2
II. Maior Duties and Responsibilities
A.	Program Development Responsibilities
1.	Recommends to the Hazardous Waste Program
Supervisor and to the Environmental Administrator
various alternative program approaches which the
Department can implement to improve the
effectiveness of the waste minimization program.
2.	Responsible for coordinating the development of
all alternative programs and for implementing
appropriate programs as directed by the
Environmental Administrator of the Branch.
3.	Responsible for drafting hazardous waste
minimization legislation and writing legislative
testimony on the subject.
B.	Major Duties
1. Public and Technical Assistance	40%
a.	Conducts on-site assessments of hazardous
waste minimization opportunities, including
the quantification of hazardous wastes
generation data, the quantification of the
potential reduction in hazardous waste
generation, and the potential economic
benefit associated with specific industrial
process changes.
b.	Conducts on-site visits to the management of
hazardous waste generating facilities to
encourage and promote management support for
waste minimization activities.
c.	Evaluates and assesses alternative chemical
industry related industrial processes to
determine their effectiveness in reducing the
amount of hazardous waste generation.
d.	Assists the public in obtaining information
regarding the technology, benefits, barriers
and programmatic approaches to hazardous
waste minimization.
e.	Develops and maintains an information library
that acts 'as a clearinghouse for distribution
to the public and industry on hazardous waste

Environmental Health Specialist
Page 3
f. Conducts literature research on specific
waste minimization issues/approaches
pertaining to Hawaii's industry. Conducts
literature research for small quantity
generators to assist them with waste
minimization and recycling of small
quantities of hazardous waste.
2.	Waste Minimization Plans	3 0%
a.	Reviews EPA required Hazardous Waste
Minimization Plans to insure compliance with
Federal and State laws and regulations.
b.	Provides assistance and recommendations
regarding Hazardous Waste Minimization Plans
in order to provide the generator with
alternative approaches to waste minimization.
3.	Outreach Programs	3 0%
a.	Prepares publications which provide pertinent
and timely information on hazardous waste
minimization technology, including chemical
process changes.
b.	Prepares a periodic newsletter designed to
stimulate interest in waste minimization
alternatives; advertize the Department's
position on waste minimization; and to
provide continual interaction between
interested individuals.
c.	Conducts multi-media public presentations on
the economic, social and environmental
advantages of hazardous waste minimization.
Organizes forums, conferences, and meetings
designed to disseminate technical and
programmatic hazardous waste minimization
information to generators of hazardous waste.
d.	Gathers and analyzes information pertaining
to hazardous waste minimization technology,
regulations, processes and other pertinent
information for distribution to generators of
hazardous waste.

November 26, 1990
To:	Director of Health
Through: (1) Acting Chief, Environmental Management Division
(2) Deputy Director for Environmental Health
From: Manager, Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
Subject: Comments in response to Out-of-State Travel Report: Hazardous
Waste Minimization Conference, Lake Tahoe
The most striking comment made in this report is that which relates to the
conflict-of-interest involved when our HW regulatory program also assumes the
responsibility, for a HW minimjzati on .program. _ Wh ilje. we .expect .to_ play both,
roles simultaneously over the" next couple of "years, Biaha'geirtehf must "be_mfn
OOvimoo 0» kawwi
JOHN C. Llwm. M.D.
Siaicto* o» Xtitu
in rtDlT. mm r»»*r tc:
November 21, 1990
Director of Health
Through: 1) Manager, Solid and Hazardous Waste Branchy*
2)	Acting Chief, Environmental Management Division
3)	Deputy Director for Environmental Health
Subject: Out-of-state Travel Report - Hazardous Waste
Minimization Conference, November 13-15, Lake Tahoe,
In 19&Q--Congress.-declared that it is the national policy of
the United -States-"to minimize-"•¦•the generation _ofT.hazardous .wa:ste._
wherever feasible. • With this" inTQlnd, EPA restablished the
following hierarchy as the-priority for-.long term management of
hazardous waste: 1) Source Reduction, 2) Recycling, 3)
Treatment, and 4) Disposal. Source.reduction is simply another
term for waste minimization.
with this conference, EPA Region IX commenced its program of
hazardous waste minimization. John Wise, EPA Region IX Deputy
Regional Administrator, during his lunch time speech, emphasized
EPA Region IX's long term commitment to waste minimization and he
enthusiastically asserted that with the ushering in of waste
minimization/pollution prevention programs we are entering a new
era of environmental protection.
This conference "provided the state with the necessary
background information on present waste minimization efforts and
the possible future direction of the EPA program for the state to
begin to develop its own comprehensive waste minimization
program. The conference provided a forum for information
exchange and identification of information sources and
individuals to assist in the development of a state program.
From: Environmental Planner III
Environmental Health Specialist III

Thus, the conference provided the Hazardous Waste Program with
the necessary information to guide the direction and training of
the Hazardous Waste Program's Waste Minimization Coordinator.
The Hazardous Waste Minimization Coordinator is a federally
funded temporary position for FY91. The funding for this
position was obtained in the RCRA §3011 FY91 grant.
Unfortunately, the position has not yet been established.
Presently, the Position Description is in the draft stage and
will soon be sent up the appropriate channel.
While awaiting the establishment and filling of the Waste
Minimization Coordinator position, the state should continue its
present efforts. The present program consists of the following
1)	Developing a library of clearinghouse information.
2)	Providing limited technical assistance to generators of
hazardous waste.
3)	Attending waste minimization training courses and
conferences with EPA.
4)	Conducting limited SQG outreach programs.
5)	Obtaining waste minimization information through the
Pollution Information Exchange Service (PIES).
The conference began with three panelists discussing waste
minimization efforts at the national, regional, and local level.
Laura Yoshii, EPA Region IX Deputy Director Hazardous Waste
Management Division outlined Region IX's waste minimization
programs and goals. Donna Chen of the city of Los Angeles
provided anvoversri^v-.pfy the--program' tfrey-^nstitilths!v-5t£- ther eitYi
level and Lisa. Brown -of EPA's- Risk. Reduction £ngineer-ingv
Laboratory~~disc"ussed the efforts they are making in waste
Specific attention was given to the waste minimization
efforts in the state of California and in Region IV. California
has enacted a law (commonly called SB 14) which requires
generators of more than 1200 kg/month of hazardous waste to
prepare a waste minimization plan. The intent of this plan is
not to regulate generators but rather to make them aware of the
potential financial savings associated with waste minimization.
The waste minimization program in Region IV is well established.
The Region has a variety of established state programs as well as
a regional support program to assist the state programs. As a
matter of contrast, EPA Region IX is just beginning its waste
minimization program.
Break out groups were formed to discuss and brain storm
issues such as intra-state and inter-state strategies for waste
minimization, enforcement mechanisms to encourage waste
minimization, requiring waste minimization in TSD permits, and
using inspections to promote waste minimization.

Various speakers also provided information on waste
minimization training opportunities and future training needs.
The Director of the Tennessee Center for Industrial Service's
Program discussed their retired engineer training and technical
assistance program. Also a speaker from the EPA Pollution
Prevention Information Clearinghouse provided training on their
electronic information bulletin board.
Considering EPA's strong commitment to waste minimization we
should expect that additional funding for waste minimization will
be available in the §3011 grant in FY 1992. In addition, funding
sources for state hazardous waste minimization projects will be
published in upcoming Federal Registers. The state should
consider applying for upcoming grants and consider an increase in
the personnel size and budget during the FY 1992 §3011 grant
The State needs to begin planning a comprehensive waste
minimization program, possibly including legislation similar to
California's S3 14, which demonstrates our commitment to
hazardous waste minimization.
Any long term comprehensive hazardous waste minimization
program needs to be kept separate from the inspection/enforcement
activities and personnel of the hazardous waste program. An
effective waste minimization program, even with legislation, is
basically voluntary. During the conference it was.
overwhelmingly agreed that these two programs (waste minimization
and regulatory monitoring/compliance) cannot work effectively
together. First, an inherent conflict of interest will occur if
these two programs are combined using the same personnel. When
providing technical assistance an inspector may find a violation
and is then confronted with the dilemma of being an enforcer or
technical assistance provider. Second, generators are often
leery of inviting inspection/enforcement personnel to their place
of business regardless of their capacity as waste minimization
technical assistance provider. However, in the interim, prior to
development of a comprehensive program, inspectors should be used
to disseminate information and encourage generators to minimize
their waste generation.
Personnel responsible for implementing the state's waste
minimization program should be sent to a course to conduct waste
minimization assessments. Such a course is offered by the
Tennessee program for retired engineers, which was discussed
during the conference. This training is essential for any on-
site waste minimization technical assistance program.

The state should take an active role in participating with
Region IX in the development of a regional waste minimization
program. This will include maintaining an open line of
communication with the waste minimization coordinator for Region
IX and attending EPA sponsored workshops
Env. Health Specialist
Environmental Planner


State of Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, Idaho 83706
January 29, 1991
Mr. Ronald Ross, Program Manager
WGA Hazardous Waste Technical Group
600 17th Street, Suite 1705
South Tower
Denver, CO 80202-5442
Dear Mr. Ross:
Enclosed is an update on the State of Idaho's waste minimization
programs and activities. If you have questions or comments, please
^ ^	Qr jqj^ Brueck at 208-334-5879.
Printed on Recycled Paper

Idaho Waste Minimization Program Activities
January 29, 1991
The Idaho Waste Reduction Assistance Program (IWRAP) , a federally-
funded seed program at the Division of Environmental Quality,
Department of Health and Welfare, has promoted reduction and
recycling of solid and hazardous waste. A data clearinghouse has
been developed, featuring a toll-free hotline and video-lending
library. The program responded to over 1,300 information requests
in 1990, providing assistance to individuals, businesses, and
government agencies. Many of these requests came from parties who
needed waste minimization assistance or were establishing recycling
programs. "WRAP-pak" information packages dealing with household
hazardous waste, used oil, and residential recycling were developed
and distributed. Through the program's efforts, Idaho was linked
to a number of waste exchanges operating throughout the Pacific
IWRAP has sponsored three pilot projects:
1.	A pesticide container management project developed in
conjunction with the University of Idaho's Cooperative
Extension system (District II) .
2.	A model was constructed for municipal governments to determine
the feasibility of community recycling programs. This was
developed through Boise State University.
3.	A recycling awareness program was developed and implemented
throughout the Division of Environmental Quality. This program
has prompted office recycling efforts in many state offices
as well as in private businesses.
IWRAP has linked Idaho to nationwide and regional recycling efforts
through waste reduction roundtable meetings. These roundtables
have served to facilitate the evaluation of a retired engineer's
program and participation in regional waste minimization projects.
IWRAP also seeks to integrate pollution prevention into regulatory
and legislative activities, and to raise the profile of waste
reduction concepts throughout Idaho.


BOB MILLER. Go.an.or
Admlataoattoii (702) 687-4670
Air Quality 647-SMS
Mlalaf Regulation and Reclamation 687-4670
Wuti Nkniflfincnt (702) 687-S872
Water Permit* and Compliance 687-4670
Water Quality Planning 687-4670
Wastewater Treatment Smlcn 687-5870
123 W. Nye Lane
Carson City, Nevada 89710
January 29, 1991
Ron Ross
Western Governors'Association
600 17th Street
Suite 1705 South Tower
Denver, Colorado 80202-5442
Dear Ron:
Enclosed is a description of Nevada's waste minimization
program for submission to EPA. This document should fulfill the
waste minimization requirement outlined in Nevada's supplemental
If you need any further information, please let me know.
coneen cripps, pn.D.
Environmental Specialist
Waste Management Bureau
cc: Rebecca Smith, EPA Region IX

Nevada's Waste Minimization Strategy
As of January 31, 1991, the State of Nevada is in the process
of developing a formal waste minimization program. This program
consists of three project areas.
First, the State has contracted with the Nevada Small Business
Development Center (NSBDC), of the University of Nevada-Reno, to
provide technical assistance and on-site waste audits, and develop
a waste minimization library. The NSBDC is in the process of
hiring the waste minimization personnel that will be providing the
technical assistance. It is anticipated that the waste audits will
be conducted by university faculty and graduate students in
Toxicology and Environmental Engineering knowledgeable in waste
Secondly, a generator survey is being developed under the
auspices of the Capacity Assurance Program. This survey is
designed to gather a wide range of information including a
description of any current waste minization efforts being conducted
by the businesses surveyed and will provide an indication of a
facilities interest in receiving waste minimization information
and/or participating in the on-site waste audits. Industry
specific waste minimization seminars will be planned based on the
information collected. This survey will be conducted door-to-door
and will include, not only known generators, but any business with
the potential to generate hazardous waste. At this point, the
survey is being limited to Washoe County, one of the state's two
population centers. Expansion of the survey to Clark County, the
State's other population center, will be considered based on the
results of this pilot project.
Finally, the State is considering developing a public
awareness and public participation campaign to include a partners
program, certificates of appreciation, brochures, and public
service announcements. Under the partners program, participating
companies would sign a contract agreeing to distribute waste
minimization brochures to employees, encourage employees to follow
good housekeeping procedures and implement any economically

feasible company wide changes that will result in waste
minimization. Certificates of appreciation would be presented to
businesses demonstrating the implementation of waste minimization
practices. Public service announcements, highlighting those
businesses with successful waste minimization programs, would be
developed and distributed to all television and radio stations
within the State. Those businesses that participate in the
partners program would also receive posters and window stickers
which would indicate to the general public that the businesses they
patronize are implementing environmentally sound practices. As the
general public becomes more environmentally aware, public pressure
will increase on those businesses that use hazardous materials and
generate hazardous waste. It is hoped that a campaign of this
nature will generate an interest in pollution prevention, and will
result in a statewide spirit of cooperation and public concern.


14/744 9 smrr
a aox 943733
(916) 323-9723
JUM 2 7 1990
Mr. Daniel W. McGovern
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Mr. McGovern:
Enclosed for approval is the State of California's submittal of the
first milestone of the Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP), as requested
in your letter of March 14, 1990. The submittal consists of the
following items:
o A summary of data regarding on-site waste generation and
management from California counties' hazardous waste
management plans (prepared pursuant to AB 2948 [Tanner]).
o A transmittal letter which accompanied the Department of
Health Services' (Department) submittal of 1987 Biennial
Generator Report data. This submittal was made earlier at the
request of EPA.
o A report on the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act survey
conducted by the Department as part of a mixed waste
management needs assessment.
o The status report on California's effort to minimize the
volume of incinerable wastes generated in California.
o A discussion of any short-term steps that could reduce the
need for incineration capacity in the short run.
o Reports on the status of siting and permitting of new
hazardous waste management capacity.
We will forward a copy of "California's Non-Recurrent Hazardous
Waste Report" under a separate cover. The report is in publication
and will be available in mid-July.
1 r- l!
FEB - 8 1S91

Mr. Daniel W. McGovem
Page 2
JUN 2 7 1990
If you have any questions about the enclosed material, please
contact me or Janes T. Allen, Ph.D., Chief, Alternative Technology
Division, at (916) 322-2822.
C. David Willis
Deputy Director
Toxic Substances
Control Program

The attached table summarizes on-site management of hazardous waste
in California, based on information obtained from the County.
Hazardous Waste Management Plans prepared under AB 2948 (Tanner,
1986). The data represent wastes managed in the year 1986. Both
RCRA and non-RCRA wastes are included, largely because counties
were not required to distinguish between the two categories, but
also because it is not always possible to separate RCRA and non-
RCRA wastes in California's waste reporting categories.
With over 14 million tons of management capacity, aqueous inorganic
treatment is by far the largest category, followed by aqueous
treatment with two million tons capacity and land treatment with
1.6 million tons capacity. Percent utilization ranges from 1.6
percent (land treatment) to 52.4 percent (solvents recovery).
Also attached is a letter which accompanied the Department of Health
Services' recent transmittal to Westat, Inc., EPA's contractor for
CAP data management. Westat, inc. received two 20 megabyte
Bernoulli diskettes containing 1987 Biennial Report data, which
includes on-site hazardous waste generation and management data.
Analysis of on-site hazardous waste management was required as part
of the CAP because any shortfalls in on-site management capacity
will impact commercial capacity. While projections of on-site
demand have not yet been made, it does not appear that any
shortfalls will develop. A more complete analysis of on-site
capacity and demand will be included in the 1991 CAP.

Sara Management
Demand (tons)
Metals Recovery
Solvents Recovery
Other Recovery
A, 460
Energy Recovery
/ / NA
Aqueous Inorganic
/ 8,^26,056
Aqueous Organic
/,592, 042
Other Treatment
/ 12^*21
Sludge Treatment
/ / NA
/ 11,840
Land Treatment
Deepwell Injection
/ NA
Other Disposal

* County Plans did not break incineration into liquids and solids/sludges.

714/74* 9 STRKT
P.O. KM *43733
SAOtAMCNTO. CA *4334-7330
(916) 324-1784	February 16, 1990
Ms. Cassie Thompson
Westat, Inc.
1500 Research Blvd.
Rood T0335
Rpckville, Maryland 20850
Dear Ms. Thompson:
Enclosed please find the State of California's 1987 Hazardous
Haste Report information. As previously discussed, the
information is inclusive of the data that was collected from the
State's generators and the treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities. It is being submitted on two 20 megabyte Bernoulli
If you have any further questions, please contact Dana Colclasure
of my staff at (916) 445-9529.
c7 *—7
Donald A. Johnson, Chief
Surveillance and Enforcement Unit
Program and Administrative
Support Division
Toxic Substances Control Program

Report to
California Department of Health Services
and the
States of the Southwestern Compact
Ebasco Environmental
December 22,1989

California has recently completed and submitted its Capacity
Assurance Plan (CAP) fulfilling the federal requirements of Section
(c) (9) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response and
Compensation Act (CERCLA). California's CAP demonstrates that
California will meet its hazardous waste management needs through
an integrated waste minimization program and future facility
sitings. California will not rely on other states' hazardous waste
capacity to manage California's hazardous waste. The CAP
identified a capacity shortfall for incinerable wastes in
California. Therefore, to meet its CAP commitments California will
focus on the minimization of wastestreams which require
This Incinerable Waste Minimization Project is a two year effort.
The Department of Health Services' (Department) Toxic Substances
Control Program will work directly with the historically largest
generators of the targeted wastestreams in California. The project
will focus on working with industry on a cooperative/voluntary
basis. Companies which enter into a voluntary agreement with the
Department will have the resources of Department staff available
for assisting them in implementing a waste minimization program in
their businesses. The assistance can be economic in the form of
a grant made under Assembly Bill 685, technology transfer,
information on regulations or their interpretation, or priority in
interaction with the Department. Regardless of the motivation for
participating in this project, these companies will have a definite
advantage when new and future regulations are in place requiring
waste reduction plans, such as California's Senate Bill 14.
Any companies which may choose not to participate in this project
will be periodically monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of
their hazardous waste management programs, including any waste
reduction technologies implemented. If these companies require a
permit renewal or modification, waste minimization language will
be included in the new permit by the Department. Also, if any
violations are noted during periodic inspection of these companies
by Department staff, waste minimization options will be
incorporated into any corrective action order or enforcement
The Department would like to work with industry on a voluntary
basis, but the Department also feels this project is a very high
priority for California. Therefore, the Department will include
all identified incinerable waste generators in this project.

California has developed several steps to implement the Incinerable
Waste Minimization Project (Project) described above. These steps
were developed with the specific objective of reducing the volume
of wastes requiring incineration by 50 percent by December 31,
1992. California has targeted its efforts on the largest
generators and facilities statewide. California intends to
accomplish the reduction with no net increase of incinerable wastes
from other facilities or to other media.
California has completed several of the Project's steps in order
to reduce the need for incineration capacity in the short term.
Among other things these steps include:
1.	Develop a comprehensive generator data base;
2.	Identify the largest generators;
3.	Meet with the largest generators and facilities;
4.	Finalize the Project strategy after meeting with the
generators and facilities;
5.	offer the generators and facilities voluntary consent to
comply with the requirements of the Project.
California has successfully adhered to the Project's time schedule
and is confident that the objective of the Project will be
accomplished by the December 31, 1992 deadline. Progress towards
this objective will be reported in subsequent milestone reports and
will form a major element of the October 17, 1991 Capacity
Assurance Plan.

(Expansions of Existing or New Facilities)
California's Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP) identified future
shortfalls in capacity for managing incinerable liquids and
solids/sludges. While California plans to rely primarily on waste
minimization to offset the need for new capacity, additional
capacity will also be necessary to meet current and future demands.
There are a number of proposed facilities vhich could provide
additional incineration capacity by 1995. The attached table
summarizes the status of these proposed or nevly permitted
facilities. Permit decisions are pending for two commercial and
two on-site facilities. These permit applications represent a
potential 228,400 tons per year of commercial and 7,000 tons per
year of on-site capacity. An additional 22,500 tons per year of
commercial capacity (California Thermal Treatment Systems) has
already been permitted but is not yet constructed. A fourth
commercial facility (National Cement) is planning to increase its
capacity to 38,986 tons per year, an increase of almost 19,000 tons
per year over the existing capacity reported in the CAP (Table 4-
la, page 97).
Permits have recently been issued for two on-site facilities,
adding a total of 3,522 tons per year of additional capacity.
Permits have been denied for three on-site facilities.
Future updates on permitting and construction activity will be
included in regular CAP milestone reports and in the 1991 CAP.

Status of Permits For New Incineration capacity
Facility Name
Capacity ftons/vr)
Existing Proposed
Energy Recovery
1. National Cement
Commercial Facilities
Permitted to increase
capacity 6/90
Incineration: Solids/Sludges
2. California Thermal
Treatment Systems	Los Angeles
3. Chemical Waste
Permitted but not yet
Permit decision pending
Incineration; Liquids
4. Rhone-Poulenc (Stauffer) Contra Costa
Permit decision pending
On-site Facilities
Incineration; Solids/Sludges
5. Dow Chemical	Contra Costa
Permit decision pending
Incineration; Liquids
6. Dow Chemical
Contra Costa
0	4,360
Permit decision pending

Status of Permits For Mew Incineration Capacity
Facility Name
Capacity (tons/vrl
Existing Proposed

Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau
OFFICE 836 Front SUmI
LOCATION: Halaaa. Montana
MAILZNG Cogiwll Buildinq
ADDRESS: HaJana. MT S9620
FAX *(406) 444-1499
Waste Management Section
(406) 444-1430
January 29, 1991
Ronald W. Ross
Program Manager
Western Governor's Association
600 17th Street
Suite 1705 South Tower
Denver, CO 80202-5442
Dear Mr. Ross:
Enclosed please find an update of Montana's current waste
minimization program and activities. I hope that this information
will be sufficient for the reporting needs to EPA.
If you have any questions on this matter, please call or write.
Don Vidrine
Hazardous Waste Program
¦*'. O'JAL OPfOfifUNlTY £ K'P'.OYZ*

It is anticipated that the assessment will be completed by the end
of January, 1991.
The SHWB currently is negotiating with the Western Governor's
Association to use a contractor to evaluate the potential of
requiring certain waste minimization/reduction conditions in RCRA
permits. It is anticipated that this evaluation will include: a
review of the legal limitations of imposing such conditions in a
RCRA permit; and an assessment of the impact of requiring such
conditions to specific permit applications.
The SHWB maintains a policy of, whenever applicable, including
waste minimization/reduction requirements in state hazardous waste
enforcement settlements. Such requirements are normally included
in overall waste management planning that is stipulated as a
condition of settlement. Currently, the bureau is involved in
three major enforcement actions where waste minimization/reduction
activities are being considered as partial conditions for
The SHWB continues to maintain a chlorinated solvent registration
program with 199 solvent users currently registered. While it is
difficult to quantify the impact of this program, it is apparent
that the registration requirements have been a factor in the
reduction of waste chlorinated solvents in the state.

The State of Montana through Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau
(SHWB) continues the maintenance of an overall waste minimization
program. A major portion of the program is channeled through the
Capacity Assurance Planning (CAP) process. The state of Montana
is participating in a regional CAP approach which is coordinated
through the Western Governor's Association. All states
participating in this regional approach are committed to
investigating and when appropriate implementing a waste
minimization program. The SHWB through the CAP process is
developing a strategy for the establishment of a waste minimization
plan. That plan which is formalized in an annual State EPA
Agreement, at a minimum, encompasses the following work tasks:
o identification of existing/potential waste minimization
processes available to Montana generators;
o Identification of resources and regulatory changes that may
impact the implementation of waste minimization programs;
o Evaluate the potential of including . waste minimization
requirements in facility permits;
o Identify specific potential waste minimization activities
through routine inspections of hazardous waste generators and
o Maintain a strategy for including, where possible, waste
minimization requirements in hazardous waste enforcement
Through a Western Governor's Association contractor, the SHWB has
completed an analysis of the major hazardous waste generating
industries and assessed the potential to minimize waste within each
of these industries. This assessment will be incorporated in the
final CAP document.
Through the CAP process, the state has identified that the
equivalent of a .5 FTE is devoted to waste minimization/reduction
effort. However, it must be understood that this work effort is
subject to change as program priorities dictate.
Again, through a Western Governor's Association.contractor, the
SHWB is completing an assessment of the impact of regulatory change
on hazardous waste generators. A major effort of this assessment
is to determine the impact as a result of the advent of the
Toxicity Characteristic rule on waste minimization/reduction.


State Capitol
Bismarck North Dakota 58505
1200 Missouri Avenua
P.O. Bo* 5520
RE: State Capacity Demonstration Project	Bismarck, North Dakota53502-5520
RCRA - Waste Minimization
January 25, 1991
600 17TH ST
DENVER CO 80202-5442
Subj: WGA Hazardous Waste Capacity Assurance Program
Dear Mr. Ross:
Enclosed is the Waste Minimization Program Strategy for North Dakota as
required by James Scherer, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region VIII. The
North Dakota Waste Minimization Program Strategy implements the requirement of
Supplemental Condition IV of North Dakota's Capacity Assurance Plan.
The Regional Capacity Shortfalls Update, Supplemental Condition I, is being
compiled by the WGA.
The strategies for Supplemental Conditions II and III, waste treated in exempt
processes and mixed wastes, were addressed in a letter from Governor Sinner,
North Dakota to James Scherer, USEPA Region VIII dated August 1, 1990
(enclosed). No further submissions are required at this time.
We understand that the WGA will combine all state reports and submit them to
EPA by February 15, 1991. If you have any questions concerning the Waste
Minimization Program Strategy, please contact me.
Martin R. Schock, Director
Division of Waste Management
MRS :PID:1jb
cc: Rob Greenwood, Ross & Associates
Francis Schwindt

State of North Dakota
(701) 224-2200
August 1, 1990
James J. Scherer
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA - Region VIII
Denver Place - Suite S00
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
Dear Mr. Scherer:
In your letter dated July 3, 1990, you requested out plans in the form of a Letter
of Intent for implementing requirements of supplemental conditions as a prerequisite
requirement of your approval of our State's Capacity Assurance Plan. The State of
North Dakota agrees to carry out these conditions by implementing the following:
A. By January 31. 1991. the State of North Dakota, in cooperation with
other western states and coordinated by the	Western Governors'
Association (WGAj. will provide est imates of	timelines when the
regional capacity shortfalls will be resolved.
D. Beginning November 30, 1990, and evoiy year vh»i<»a f tar, an update
will be provided to EPA regarding the statu? of treatment and
disposal facilities by states participating In the Western Regional
Capacity Agreement. This update will also bo coordinated bv th» VGA.
C. If capacity shortfalls continue and are not resolved by November 30,
1991, North Dakota, in cooperation witli th« other western states and
coordinated by the WGA. will provide milestones identifying specific
tasks and activities to address shortfalls. The specific task and
activities will be submitted with the November 30, 1991, Update
Report to EPA.
This State has no independent data col iocc ;or>. mechanisms to identify wastes in
this .:aLr»(jory. Tin* State will work with WGA and HPA to include (hese data in
the event that ~nr.li rtata bfienmo available through thf biennial, reporting
process or oth»ir national me^ns pr--». idr-M K» p.PA.
Enclosure (1)

North Dakota will identify data on RCRA hazardous waste being treated in
RCRA-exempt processes by the use of available data. Obstacles that may be
encountered in the collection of this data are possible mistakes made by the
generators when filling out the reporting forms. These mistakes may occur wh*n
the generator authorized agent completes these reporting forms but may be
unfamiliar with the generator's operation and/or RCRA process. Other
difficulties may be encountered in the interpretation of instructions for
completing the forms. The quality of the reported data for each generator will
be evaluated.
Non-federal mixed wastes are considered to be de minimis or controlled under a
separate set of federal statutes and not subject to this condition. However,
by January 31, 1991, if necessary, North Dakota can develop a state plan to
collect data on mixed hazardous and radioactive waste. In the plan, an
inventory of the facilities that generate mixed waste will be. identified.
There will be no need to provide methodology on how to obtain data from
remedial actions dealing with these mixed wastes due to the fact there are no
remedial actions ongoing or planned which will produce mixed radioactive waste.
Ross and Associates of Seattle, Washington is the consulting company currently
assessing the waste minimization potential for North Dakota. This study will
aid in determining if it is practical for the State to implement a formal waste
minimization program. The report should be completed in October, 1990.
By January 31, 1991, the State of North Dakota will develop a hazardous waste
minimization strategy including any necessary requirements of treatment,
storage or disposal facilities to assess the opportunity for waste
minimization, pursuant to Section 33-24-05-40(2)(i) of the North Dakota
Hazardous Waste Management Rules, Article 33-24, North Dakota Administrative.
Code (NDAC) (40 CRF 264.73(b)(9)). The State will monitor progress of these
facilities through manifest reviews and compliance evaluation inspections. The
State will consider creating incentives through enforcement consent agreements
with these facilities when appropriate, and on a case-by-case basis or with
waste generators.
If you have any questions concerning the State s intentions as described above.
please contact Martin R. Schock of the North Dakota State Department of Health and
Consolidated Laboratories, Division of Waste Management.
George A. Sinner
,'cc: Martin R. Schock
Ron Ross

As required by Section 104(c)(9) of CERCLA, on October 13, 1989 and as
subsequently revised on March 21, 1990, the State of North Dakota submitted
its hazardous waste Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP) to the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). In a letter dated July 3, 1990, the EPA approved
North Dakota's CAP with the understanding that the State would undertake
certain measures and provide information specified in Supplemental Conditions
enclosed with their letter. Supplemental Condition No. IV specifies the State
of North Dakota will develope a hazardous waste minimization strategy.
In developing an initial strategy, the report entitled "State of North Dakota
Hazardous Waste Minimization Program Planning," Volumes I and II, prepared by
Ross and Associates was utilized. In this report, three primary activities
were completed: (1) researching hazardous waste generation in the State; (2)
identifying waste minimization opportunities for selected industrial groups;
and (3) investigating the design and service components of public sector
programs that promote waste minimization in other states. Four primary
conclusions are indicated from this report:
1.	Current hazardous waste generation and minimization in the
State dictates the selection and design of service components
for a public waste minimization program.
2.	Hazardous waste generators can minimize the quantity of waste
they generate, but many have already done so.
3.	North Dakota may initially consider a low intensity waste
minimization program.
4.	Before attempting to design and implement any specific program
or options, North Dakota should complete a public waste
minimization program needs assessment.
A public waste minimization program needs assessment, expanding on the report
"State of North Dakota Hazardous Waste Minimization Program Planning," is
essential for evaluating the extent to which a waste minimization program is
to be developed.
As part of the CAP, Supplemental Condition IV, the State of North Dakota Waste
Minimization Strategy addresses the following items required per the letter
from EPA dated January 17, 1991:
1. Identification of the existing and potential new areas of waste
minimization for the State will be completed through a
Phase III Waste Minimization Workplan with Ross & Associates.
The Workplan covers four tasks: (1) identify industry focus;
Enclosure (2)

(2) characterize waste minimization potential; (3) conduct a
needs assessment; and (4) prepare the report.
In particular, the Workplan will include an effort to hold
meetings with a variety of hazardous waste generators to
ascertain their level of waste minimization awareness; to what
extent waste minimization activities have been undertaken; and
the type of public sector activity that can best inspire
further waste minimization activities.
2.	The Phase III Workplan with Ross & Associates will summarize
the current state of waste minimization activity and selected
industries and prepare recommendations for specific waste
minimization program activities. Presently, no constraints on
resources or authority impact implementation of this program.
3.	The State will participate in the permit writer's training
course being developed by EPA through their contractor, Science
Application's International Corporation, to fulfill the
requirement for review of RCRA permits for potential to include
waste minimization requirements.
4.	State inspections of RCRA facilities will include identifica-
tion of waste streams to determine if waste streams may be
potential candidates for waste minimization.
5.	The State will monitor progress of RCRA facilities through
manifest reviews and compliance evaluation inspections. The
State will consider creating incentives through enforcement
consent agreements with these facilities when appropriate and
on a case-by-case basis.
This waste minimization strategy will result in a report providing specific
recommendations for the type of waste minimization program initiatives which
will best make sense for the State of North Dakota.

999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405 ^^9202^
4 -
JAN 17 I99I	-r /y
Ref: 8HWM-RI	-
Mr. Jeffery L. Burgess, Coordinator	* *
Hazardous Waste Program	"•
North Dakota State Department of Health
and Consolidated Laboratories
P.O. Box 5520
Bismark, North Dakota 58502-5520
Dear Mr. Burgess:
As part of the Capacity Assurance Plan supplemental
conditions, the State of North Dakota agreed to develop a
hazardous waste minimization strategy that will identify a
program development plan. This strategy should address the
following items:
1 . Identification of the existing and potential new areas
of waste minimization techniques available to the
2.	Identification of the resources, authorities, and other
constraints or issues which could impact implementation
of these new programs.
3.	Review of RCRA permits for the potential to include
waste minimization requirements.
4.	State inspection of RCRA facilities to identify waste
streams which are candidate for waste minimization.
Development of a strategy for including waste
minimization requirements in State enforcement
settlements with RCRA facilities.
As we discussed during the last Western Governors
Association meeting, you should include the Permit Writers
Training Course being developed by EPA as part of your strategy.
It will fulfill requirement number 3 above. Additionally, .it was
agreed that the States would submit this strategy report to
Ross & Associates by January 31, i?9', who will combine all State
reports and submit them to EPA February 15, 1991.
Fnr T ne i i»*e ' ^

The information you requested on resources available to your
State agency from the CORE grant program for Capacity Assurance
Planning is detailed in the attached list.
If you have any questions concerning this information, I can
be reached at (303) 293-1705.
Marie B. Zanovick, Manager
Hazardous Waste Minimization Program
cc: Ron Ross, WGA
Bill Ross, Ross & Associates

The following
been provided
funding for Capacity Assurance Plan activities has
by U. S. EPA REgion VIII to the Region VIII States:
0.5 FTE at an hourly rate of $16.00
Total = $16,640/year
0.5 FTE to be used to fund a Project Engineer,
Project Management, and Technical Review.
Total = $24,108/year
CAP Development and Review
CAP Project Management Supervision
CAP Staff Supervisor
CAP Development and Review
Total = $l4,500/year
None requested
None requested
None requested
$ 3,900


Great Faces. GreatPlacesl
Joe Foss Building
523 East Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-3181
24 January 1991
Mr. Ronald Ross
Western Governors' Association
600 17th Street
Suite 1705 South Tower
Denver, Colorado 80202-5442
Dear Mr. Ross:
This letter provides you South Dakota's hazardous waste
minimization strategy. This strategy has been developed in
response to EPA's waste minimization requirements for approval
of our Capacity Assurance Plan. It is my understanding that
the Western Governors' Association will be providing EPA this
information, along with information from other states that are
part of the Regional Agreement.
I would like to discuss activities we have initiated to
encourage companies to reduce their generation of hazardous
waste, and then discuss our plans for future activities
concerning waste minimization.
1.	Through the Western Governors' Association's capacity
assurance process we were able to obtain assistance from a
contractor to conduct three waste minimization seminars in
this State during August of 1990. These seminars targeted
three types of generators that represent a majority of the
hazardous waste generators in South Dakota. We accomplished
two things: one, provided the industries with waste
minimization technologies that are currently available to
them; and two, provided a forum for industries with similar
waste streams to discuss ways that they have found to minimize
the volume and toxicity of wastes generated.
2.	Technical assistance is provided during all hazardous
waste inspections. Inspections are conducted of all
treatment, storage and disposal facilities, all large quantity
generators and at least thirty other small quantity generators
each year. As part of these inspections, we discuss the
Current Activities

possibility of minimizing their wastes based on information we
have obtained through literature, from EPA and through the
experiences of other generators. Technical assistance in the
form of daily telephone conversations, and training such as
the Waste Oil Training Seminar conducted by this Department
are a few more examples of technical assistance that we
continue to provide.
3.	We take advantage of opportunities to discuss our
hazardous waste requirements and advantages . of waste
minimization at meetings throughout the state. A few examples
of these meetings are the Petroleum Release Compensation Fund
Contractors Conference, the Consultant Seminar sponsored by
this Department, various Trade Associations conferences, the
Municipal League's Annual Meeting, Pesticide Applicators
Certification Seminars, etc.
4.	Mailings to all facilities who have notified of a
regulated activity also provides information on waste
minimization. Publications such as the EPA publication
entitled "Waste Minimization: Environmental Quality with
Economic Benefits" has been distributed to all notifiers;
additionally it is sent to any new notifier as part of an
informational package.
Future Strategy for Waste Minimization
1.	Continue to apply those techniques currently in use
that have been described above.
2.	Waste minimization will be used as a bargaining tool
during our enforcement negotiations process. It is my
understanding that training regarding incorporating waste
minimization in enforcement actions will be provided by EPA in
FY'91; we plan to attend this conference. We will also
address waste minimization as a permit condition where
3.	Forums such as the one conducted in August of 1990
will be conducted as time and resources allow. We had a
positive experience during our recent Waste Minimization
Seminars and hope to increase this kind of activity. There
appears to be money available through the WGA Capacity
Assurance regional process that will allow for this type of
activity to take place this year. Additional money may also
be available to fund this activity, through a Superfund CORE
grant we are currently negotiating.
4.	Trade Association publications and other Newsletters
are also used to provide current information. We plan to

increase the use of this type of media to provide information
on technologies that become available to us.
South Dakota's waste minimization program is and will continue
to be a voluntary program. Our experience with generators
located within this state has been that they are very
cooperative and receptive to the idea of waste minimization or
total elimination of hazardous waste generated for three
reasons: 1. the reduction of waste means less money spent
to dispose of the material; 2. most individuals that are
responsible for compliance with hazardous waste regulations
usually have a number of other responsibilities sometimes
totally unrelated to environmental regulations. If they
generate little or no more hazardous waste they become less
regulated or not regulated at all; and 3. the term hazardous
given to a chemical is sometimes enough deterrent that the
generator prefers not to handle it for safety and health
reasons. This cooperation and communication from generators
is critical to a voluntary program's success.
If you have any questions or need further clarification on
waste minimization efforts in South Dakota, please contact me
at (605) 773-3153.
Robert E. Roberts
cc. Tim Edman, Governor's Office of Operations
Steven M. Pirner, Division of Environmental Regulation


January 1991
In October, 1989, Utah submitted its initial Hazardous Waste Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP)
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with Section 104(c)(9) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Utah's
CAP was subsequently approved by EPA Region Vin with certain supplemental conditions. One
of the supplemental conditions requires the development of a state hazardous waste minimization
strategy. This document serves to meet EPA's capacity assurance supplemental condition
regarding hazardous waste minimization.
The role of waste minimization is becoming an increasingly important aspect of integrated
hazardous waste management. Various national laws and policies recognize that waste
minimization must be the first step in any sound, long-term plan for managing hazardous waste.
In the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), Congress declared it to be
"the national policy of the United States that, whenever feasible, the generation of hazardous
waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible" (§ 1003(b), RCRA). In
addition, Congress recently passed new pollution prevention legislation which declares that
"source reduction is fundamentally different and more desirable than waste management and
pollution control." (Pollution Prevention Act of 1990)
Utah concurs in the basic need for establishing this national policy direction for reducing the
amount of waste generated and managed in this country. Consequently, in developing this
strategy it is recognized that waste minimization has been both broadly and narrowly defined and
applied throughout the states. This is largely due to the varying needs, perceptions, and
technologies which currently affect public and private waste minimization efforts. This is
important to note because the objective of this initial strategy is not to provide a single, limiting
definition of waste minimization which restricts its application among hazardous waste generators
and facilities in Utah, but is designed to establish a firm direction for the Utah Bureau of Solid
and Hazardous Waste in its efforts to further waste minimization activities throughout the state.
Waste Minimization as Part of the Capacity Assurance Process
While not explicitly addressed in Section 104(c)(9) of CERCLA, EPA has identified, from the
outset of the capacity assurance process, waste minimization as having a key role. In accordance

with EPA's 1988 capacity assurance guidance, states were to describe current and future waste
minimization programs and activities in the CAPs.
Chapter IV of Utah's CAP provided a comprehensive description of the role of waste
minimization in the capacity assurance process for Utah. In that chapter, it was noted that Utah
had officially applied for a pollution prevention grant from EPA under the Pollution Prevention
Incentives for States (PPIS) program. Since the submittal of the CAP, Utah has received
notification from EPA Headquarters that it was not successful in obtaining a PPIS grant.
Therefore, an integral part of this strategy is to reaffirm Utah's commitment to apply for future
pollution prevention grants to the extent that such grants are available. The potential for
establishing a formal state waste minimization program in Utah is minimal without adequate
federal funding support However, this candid assessment does not ignore the Bureau's
willingness to explore and capability to continue developing less formal means of state waste
minimization activities. The following paragraphs describe past and current activities by the
Bureau which demonstrate our commitment and willingness to pursue this informal process.
Since August, 1988, Utah has participated with other western states under the auspices of the
Western Governors' Association (WGA) in a multi-phase capacity assurance project. This
regional effort was established under the direction of the governors to provide assistance to the
participating states in meeting their capacity assurance planning requirements.
For Utah, Phase I tasks of the WGA project were focused on preparing and submitting the 1989
CAP. A section of the CAP presented a brief analysis of the waste minimization information
reported by Utah generators and facilities in the 1987 Biennial Reports. Under Phase II, a study
was performed to 1) identify selected industry groups that generate large quantities of hazardous
waste and analyze the potential for waste minimization activities, and 2) produce a report with
detailed information on specific waste minimization program development options for Utah.
This report was recently completed by the contractor to the WGA capacity assurance project.
It addresses waste minimization program development options and serves as a comprehensive
"users guide" for state program staff involved with the design and implementation of new waste
minimization program initiatives.
Phase III will be implemented upon approval by WGA and EPA and will be directed entirely
to waste minimization activities. Specifically, this phase is designed to conduct the following
four tasks, of which the first two enhance the information already obtained from the first part
of Phase II.
1.	The primary industries upon which a waste minimization needs assessment will
focus will be selected.
2.	For the selected industries, investigate, through literature reviews and direct
contacts with industry officials, the overall potential for waste minimization.

3.	Organize meetings between the state and officials from the selected industries to
assess the level of awareness about and adoption of waste minimization activities.
This task is also designed to collect ideas from these officials of how the state can
facilitate the adoption of waste minimization practices in the industry.
4.	A final report will be prepared to summarize the data collected from the above
tasks and provide recommendations for specific waste minimization program
Approach for Implementation
Although Utah does not currently have an organized state waste minimization program, all levels
of generators are openly encouraged by the Bureau to develop and implement waste minimization
practices. The Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act provides for broad legislative authority to
establish a state waste minimization program by "preventing the unnecessary waste and depletion
of natural resources.* (§ 26-14-5(h), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended) This section
presents those waste minimization activities which the Bureau has identified as appropriate
within the context of existing authorities, including applicable authorities under state RCRA
primacy, and available resources.
Upon receiving notice of availability for federal pollution prevention grants, Utah will
prepare and submit a grant application for supporting state waste minimization program
activities such as technical assistance, educational seminars, and information exchanges.
For each hazardous waste reporting biennium, an evaluation of the waste minimization
information reported by hazardous waste generators and facilities will be made. This
information will be collated and summarized separately to monitor waste minimization
Require Bureau staff permit writers to participate in the Permit Writers Training Course
now under development by a contractor to EPA Region VIII. This training course will
be held in each of the Region VIII states and is intended to instruct state environmental
permit writers of ways to include pollution prevention (waste minimization) provisions
into state permits. Staff permit writers from the other bureaus within the Division of
Environmental Health will also be encouraged to attend the course to be held for Utah.
For new applications received by the Bureau, final RCRA operating permits (defined as
"plan approvals" under the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act), closure plan
approvals, and post-closure permits for which Utah is authorized to issue, will include
appropriate waste minimization provisions.

As on-site inspections are conducted of hazardous waste generators and facilities,
compliance with applicable state waste minimization certification requirements of the
biennial reports (R450-5-5, R450-7-12.6, R450-8-5.6, Utah Administrative Code,
equivalent to 40 CFR, 262.41, 265.75, and 264.75, respectively) will be evaluated and,
as appropriate, will be included in any enforcement documents issued.
As part of the Bureau's routine pre-inspection procedures, state hazardous waste
inspectors will be encouraged to ask the generators and facilities, at the time of the
inspection, about existing waste minimization practices and efforts. In the long term, the
Bureau will develop an approach to train inspectors in providing on-site technical
assistance by identifying waste minimization opportunities and distributing "self-audit"
checklists and relevant waste minimization literature.
The Bureau will explore the opportunity and potential for incorporating waste
minimization provisions in RCRA corrective action remediations, enforcement orders,
and negotiated consent agreements, where legally allowed.
Beginning with the State/EPA Agreement (SEA) for FY 1992, the Bureau will seek to
include waste minimization activities in the annual workplan negotiated with EPA
Region VIII. The realization of this strategy is dependent on the availability staff
resources and the level of effort necessary for meeting other program commitments with
a higher priority for accomplishment.
Strategy Implementation Assessment
A semiannual assessment of the level of implementation and effectiveness of this strategy will
be made. Revisions and updates to this strategy will be made as determined by the assessments
to be necessary.


Department of Environmental Quality
Herschler Building • 122 West 25th Street • Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
Administration	Air Quality Division	Land Quality Division Solid Waste Management Program	Water Quality Division
<307)777-7937	{307)777-7391	(307)777-7756	(307)777-7752	(307)777-7781
FAX (307) 634-0799 				FAX (307) 777-5973
January 22M &991
Mr. Ron Ross
Western Governor's Association
600 17th Street
Suite 1705 South Tower
Denver, Colorado 80202-5442
Dear Ron:
Enclosed is the summary for Wyoming's waste minimization
programs and activities for the January 1991 Capacity Assurance
Please feel free to contact me at (307) 777-7752 if you have
any questions about this summary.
I look forward to seeing you at the March meeting.
Patricia E. Gallagher
Region I Environmental Analyst
C: David A. Finley, SWM/Cheyenne
Carl Anderson, SWM/Cheyenne

Waste Minimization Strategy - 1991 CAP Submittal
The State of Wyoming is developing a waste reduction program
with the cooperation of a voluntary waste minimization work
committee comprised of representatives from the State's large
quantity hazardous waste generators. The committee will evaluate
various waste minimization technologies and identify new or
potential areas of waste reduction. Technologies that are judged
appropriate will be incorporated by participating generators.
Information developed by the committee will be distributed to all
of the state's large quantity generators. A training session is
planned to educate small-quantity generators on waste minimization
techniques. The waste minimization effort is being supported in
part through a "Pollution Prevention Grant" funded by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The State of Wyoming is not RCRA-authorized. The State of
Wyoming will incorporate waste reduction requirements in
RCRA permit applications, provide technical assistance and guidance
as part of inspections, and will include waste minimization
strategies in enforcement actions within 180 days after becoming
The primary barriers to implementing a waste minimization
program are the lack of funding and lack of regulatory authority..