Document 44v4jXj88KV0KpLE8Zo3NqBG

G."r.~T'f~ OP I.IIHF/EGO?A. Ea M I?'~N I{~,[~?A ~)1.1J lq'IOM TTT, STAT F~,q HNT ~P AgD F~ASONAnI,ENI;SS wn TABLE O~ CONTENTS ue IZI. IV, Overview of ~ha Proposed Amendments , , + , , , , ,4 ~aate l~.ulee ~n~ the Propose4 ~endmenta ~ereto .................. ? rteerl for the Prorx)sed .,%men4men,&l. .......... ll A. EPA Authori=ation Proceea ......... . , 12 B. Require~ents of Hinn. Star. ~ 116.07. Subd. 4h Reaaonahleneea o~ the Proz~oied ~J~endmente', .... 17 A, Introdu~tl~n .................. 17 6 MCAR ~ 4,9100 - 4.910~ ....... ~ . , , 19 6 HCAR 4.912R - 4,9137 ............ 2~ C~pter ~hree. Standar,le applica))le to Generator~ O~ I~ardoua Waste, ~ M~AIt ~ 4.92~0 - 4,~22~ ........... 50 -2- PRET 6 tICAR 4.~2~D - 4.9216 , , ......... 6 'IL'AR 4.9380 - 4.9422 . . . . , , , .... 124 Manaqeinen~ o,f S~eclflc llazardo~e Wastes [nls 6 t.~AR ~ a. 94S0- 4.9481 ............ ~bap~er l~ight Interim gten~ards ~or NeW im=ardous Waste L~nd Disposal Pacllitle~ 3. Chapter Nine, C~unt Regulation. ~f VII. Lia~. O,f F:xh/bite .................. 10~1 App~ndi~ B Appendix C ~hart ~howi~g rele~ionehID of o~neRte Definitions ESonesn 304.0001 3043.0001 -187- K. Repealers Rules 6 MCAR 4.9004, 4,90061., 4.9008 and 4.9010 and the VI. Conclusion Appendices to the existing rules are being rep.eale~. | enorwn sso it i ees Rule 6 HCAR 4.9004 governs the lo~ation, operation and closure of a hazardous waste facility. This subject is ad~ressed The Agency staff has, in this document and its exhibits, made eminentnt wes st its presentation of facts establishing the need for and reasonableness of the ~ropoeed amendments to the hazardous waste by the propose~ rules in Chapter Five ~e proposed rules are rules, 6 MCAR 4.9100 - 4.9560. This document constitutes the mu~h more comprehensive than the existing rules and retaining the Agency's Statement of Nee~ and Reasonableness for the proposed existing rules would be redundant. Rule 6 MCAR 4.9006I. sets fort~% the persons an{I/or facilities which are not required to have a hazardous waste .facility permit. amendments to the hazardous waste rules. Part VII. List of Exhibits, These exemptions are now covered by proposed rules 6 MCAR a-- a sot 2 his Erte 4.9128C.0 4.9129 and 4.9280. be redundant. Betaining the existing rul~ would 0 wweves an wrtsr vet2% In compiling the .proposed amendments to the hazardous waste rules, the Agency staff relied on documents prepared by EPA to explain the reasoning and supportive data used in developing E?A's Rule 6 MCAR 4.9008 governs the ~ee of hazardous waste hazardous waste regulations and on the information published in shipping.papers. The provisions of this rule are now contained in the Federal Register in conjunction with the publication of the proposed rules 6 MCAR 4.9212, 4,9213, 4.9255, 4.9256 and 4.9257 and retaining this rule would be redundant. EPA regulations. The following documents were utilized by Agency staff in developing these rules and are relied on by the Agency as Rule 6 MCAR 4.9010 covers apillages and leakages of further support for t~ reasonableness of a 6 MCAR 4.9100 - hazardous waste. The provisions of this rule are now contained in ope. proposed rule 6 ~CAR 4,9259 and in the pro|~osed rules in me iets iin i emt nn + at Chapters Five an~ Six. Retaining this rule would also be 4.9560. These documents ere available for review at the Agency's office at 1935 West County Road B-2, Roaeville, Minnesota A. General redundant. Because the provisions of these rules are severed in the proposed rules, the existing rules are no longer needed. It ~s therefore reasonable to repeal these rules. U.S,E.P.A. BaCkground Document~ Regulatory Analysis, April 5,0, 1980 B. Cha~ter One U.S.E.P.A. Backqrou~] Document| Definitions and Provisions of Confidentiality (Part 260) April, 1980 043.0002 3043.0002 "TEE Federal Register= 45 F.R. 33066 45 F.R. 72027 pure Ma~ 19, 1980- October .30,.1980 45 F.R. 76618 November 19, 19~0 46 F.R. 2344 January 9, 1981 46 F.R. 35246 July 7, 1981 {ocC. sme 46 F.M. 56581 ChapterTwo Novel~er 17 1981 U.S.EIP.A. Background Doc~ment~ Criteria or Identifying ERT EAA Characteristics of Hazardous %~aste ( 261.10) : Criteria for Listing' Hazardous l~aste ( 261.ii); Petitions to Amend Pa.~t 261 to ~xclude a %~aste Produced at a Particular Pacillty ( 261.11) Aprll 30, 1980 tS ie ceot Sci U.8.E.P.A.. Background" Document= (Part 261.22) May 2, 1980 U.S.~.P.A..eack6round (Part 261.21) May 2, 1980 Characteristic of Corrosovity Characteristic of Ignitabllity U.S.'E.P.A. Back~rouhd Document~ Characteristic of Reactlvi~y (Part 261.23)Hay 2, 1980 U.S.~.P*A. Backgr0~nd' D~cument= ~P Toxicity Characteristic SE SE ES (Part 26!.24) [~aY 2, 1980 U.S.E.P.A, Backg round Listing of Hazardous~aste (Parts 261.31 a~d. 261.32), May 2, 1980 Appendix A = Health and Environmental Profiles,. April 30, 1980 Appendix B - Fate and Transport o~ Hazar:~ous Constituents, EU Menten wt et of May 2, 1980 U.S.E.P.A. Background l~ocument= Identification anrl Listing of Hs z.ar~ous %~aste, April, 1980 U.S.E.P.A. Back~round~ Document.. Hazardous Uaste ro~ Discar,~ing of Commercial Chemical. Products an4 the Containers and []pill Res~du~s q~\ereof (Par~ 261.33) April 30, 1980 U.S.E.P.A. background Document= Degree of Hazard, April, 19~0 Pederal Register= 45 F.R. 33084 May 19, 1980 45 F.R. 47832 July 16, 198~ 45 F.R. 72035 October 30, 1980 45 F.R. 74884 ~/ovu.mber 12, 1980 45 F~R. 78524 November 25, 1980 45 F.R. 80286.Dece~ber 4, 19~0 46 F.R. 4614 January 16, 1981 +D. smn Chapter Three . U.S.~.P.A. Background Document= Special Requirements for Hazardous %4aste Generated by Small Quantity C~nerators (Part 261.5) April 28, 1980 "EE ane Federal Register= 45 F.R. 33084 45 F.R. 33140 May 19, 19~0 May 19, 1980 45 F.R. 76618 ~]ovember 19, 198D +. Sten 45 F.R. ~8524 .November 25, 1980 45 .F.R. 86966 De~ember 31, 1980 Chapter Pour |Federal 45 45 Rue alm Register= V~R. 33150 P.R~ 86966 May 19, December 31, 1980 - F. Chapters Five and.Six U.S.E.P.A% Background Document= General Facility Standards= General Waste Analysis an~ Interim Startle Standards for General ~4aste Analysis (Parts 264.13 and 265.13) April 29, 1980 TE TE RT BE ar U.S.E.P.A. Background Document= General ~acility Standar~]s= Stan~ards of Security (Part 264.14)~ Interim Status Standards for Security (Part 265.14) April 29, 1980 U.S.E.P.A. Background Document= General Facility Standards= Cg mt: gt Re Standards for Personnel Training (Part 264.16); Interim Status Standards for Personnel Trainin~ (Pa~t 265.16) April 2~, 1980 U.8.E.?.A. Background.Document, General Facility Standar,|s= Preparsdness and Preventiont Contingency Plan F~nergency Procedures, April, 1980 U.S.E.P.A. Background Document= General Facillty Standards= Manifest System, Re~ordkeeping, and Reporting (Part 264 and Part 265) April, 1980 U.S.Z.P.A. 8aqkground D0cu~ent~ Groundwater Monitoring (Part 265) May 2, 1980 U.S.E.P.A. Bachground Document~ Interim Stat~s Standards for Closure andPost-Closure Care-(Part 265) April 19fl0 U.S.~.P.A. Background Document~ Interim Status Financial Requirements (P.art 265) April 25, .1980 3043.0003 3043.0003 -191 ..... TRA RA, ERfe U.S.E.P.A. Background Document= Parts 264 and 265, Subpart Financial Requirements, Final Regulations, December 31, 1980 o crams G. ChapEer Seven -192- U.S.E.P~A, Background Document= Interim Status Standards for the Use and Management of Containers (Part 265)~ Interim Status E Ia Standards for Waste Piles |Part 265) April, 1%80 U.S.E.P.A. Background Document~ Interim Status Standards'for Tanks (Part 265); Interim Status Standards for Chemlcal, Physical and Biologlcal Treatment (Part 265) April 29, 1980 U.S,E.P.A. Background Documents Interim Status Standards for Land Treatment Facilities (Part 26B) April 30, 19NO U.S.E.P.A. Background Document= Interim Status Standards for Landfills (Part 265) May 2, Federal Register= 45 F.R. 76074 Novemb~'r 17, 1980 E aERSUbe tm U.S.~.P.A. Memorandum on E~A .Regulation of Utility Waste, ~ebruary ~,. 1901 with attached letter to Paul Emler Jr, from N. Dietrick dated Jani~ar~ 13~ 198] H. Chapter Eight Federal Register~ 46 F.R~ iII~6 46 V.R. 12414 February 5, 1981 February, 13, 1981 U.S.B;P.A. Background Document= Interim Status S~andards for Hazardous Waste Incineration (Part 265) April, 19~0 U.S.E.P.A. Backqround. Documen%= Interim Status Standards for Hazardous Waste Facilities for Thermal Treatment Processes Other than Incineration and Open Burning [Part 265) April, 198C Dated= June 4, 1982 LO~IS J. B~I~4~BST Executive Director U.S.E.P.A. Background Document= Standards for Inspection (Part 264.15)~ Interim Status Standards for ~nspection [Part 265.1B) I RT April, 1980 U.S.E.P.A. Background Document~ Section 265.220 Final Interim Status Standards for Surface Impoundments, April 28, 1980 General Issues Concerning Interim Status Standards, April, 1980 U;S.E.P.A. Background Document= Incineration Standards (Parts 264 265) December, 19~0 Federal Reglstert 45 F.R. 33154 45 F.R. 66816 45 F.R. 72024 45 F.R. 76618 45 F.R. 82964 45 F.R. 86966 46 F.R. 28~2 46 F.R. ~666 46 F.R. ~7119 46 F.R.. 38.313 May 19, 1980 October 8, 1980 October 30, 1980 November ~9, Ig80 D~cember 17, 1980 December 31, 1980 January 12,-198| January ~3, May 18, 1981 May 26, 1981 30830008 3043.0004 ATTACHHENT 1 sonurns 3 ies S111 Definitions {6 )ICAR The Agency staff as evo 4..91011} has reviewed 1the ccoomeu,natnsts, rseeceiinvesd ffrroomntthhe Hisests.... I~,lnnesota, Assocletl.on of..Comerce and Industry (I.IACI) regai~ding the definition (ect(on of TABLE OF CONTERTS A : P^GE BA Definitions .............................................................. I | erp mn--------------m2 PERE are Exempt Wastes - Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, etc .................................. 3 the proposed hazardous waste rule~. The staff has ompared the definitions in question to current, state and federal rules, and has taken into consideration the intent behind each definition inmaklng the following reom~end.~tions, E.G. * "Components of the Waste" - this definition was taken from the present hazardous waste rules and was origina11~ intended to cover not only the chemical elements .contained in a partlcular waste but also those knbwn to occur as a result of decomposition Exempt Wastes - Sewered Wastes .............,,; ........................... 4 of the waste. The staff agrees with MA~I that the recent inclusion of th~ definitions for "constituent" and "d~compos~tlon b~pro~ucts" renders the definition of "co~ponent~of the waste" obsolete. Identification and Listing - Criteria .,, ................................. Therefore, the staff has remov{d this definition f~om the proposed Corroslvlty ............................... ~ ........................ " ...... 7 hazardous waste rules, A,20. - ~0Jscarded" - this definition included .no~ only discarded Toxicity ...................... ' ............................... '.~ ......... B wastes but also wastes which may be discarded in ord~" to cover the same waste universe as the federal regulations, This is needed to PCB's .............................................. ~ .................... 11 obtain tnterlm..authorlzation. Yhe.federa] rules define their Disclosure Preparatlo~ and Generator Identl.flcatlon Numbers .............. 12 verse of waste in the deflnltioos of solid and hazardous wastes, This was not possible to do'In the sta~erules slnce ~olld waste and hazardous.wast~ are defined by statute,. Therefore~ having been Hanlfests ................................................................ made ~ware of industry's, co~c~rn over thls.defin!tlon durlng.earIier ST AT pn . Small Quantity Generator ................................................. 17 Management of Haz.ardousWaste byUse, Re-Use, Recycling and Reclamation .......................................................... 19 .discussions and since coverage e~ulvaIeht to the feder~1 progra~ Is ER ByTE weT obtalnab]e through other nechanis~ the staff had rcn~oved the ph~'ase "may be .discaFded" .from this de~inltlon, llowever, the change was ~ot 'made on the original copy and this overslgl~t'~as missed before the latest issue of &he r~]es was printed. i s--_ Mixtures ................................................................. 22 Loading of Hazardous Waste ,.,,,,,,, ...................................... 24 Financial Requirements ................................................... 25 Thermal Treatment Standards ............................................... 27 BR Er A.66, -"Owner.or Operator"- the comblnIDg of state an~ federal rules was intehded to eliminate the need to contlnual|y.repeat t~e terms owner and operator and not to elevatea crew foreman to the status of an owner. The staff agrees width I~ACI that unnecessary confuslon.ls caused, by~o~blnlng the deflnltions and wil| revise the proposed rules accordingly, Burlington Nortl}ern also commented on the definition section. They have suggested that the incluslor of transport vehicles in the definition of.con-. talner is lhappropriate. The. incl-usi~n of transpor~ v~hiles .in th~s defln~tion was Intende~ to eliminate the long term Storage of.wastes in transport vehlcles . without any Safeguards. Howe~er, the requlre~nent ~hat a hazardou~ waste must be removed.from a site w~tliln gO day~ or that slte must obtain a storagepermit thus comply ~Ith the appllcab]e requirements eliminates this concern, Therefore, the.staff agrees with Burllngton Rorthern and wi}1 revise the proposed hazardous waste rules to eliminate transport vehicles.fro~ the deflnltinn of container provided they are on site less than. gO days, 20630008 3043.0005 ; . - ' aT RR 1 SL, A.66. - "O~ner or Operator"- the combining of state and fedoral rules was Intended to ellmlnate the need to contlnually repeat the terms o~ner and operator and not to el.eyrie a crew foreman to the status of an owner, The staff agrees with HACl that unnecessary confusion is caused by combining the definitions and will revise ERE, the proposed rules accordingly. Burlington Eorthern also commented on the definition section. They have suggested that the inclusion of transport vehicles in the definition of container is inappropriate. The inclusion of transport vehicles in this definition was intended to eliminate the long term storage ofwastes In transport vehlcles without any safeguards~ However, the requlre(nent that a hazardous waste must be removed from a site within gO days or that site must obtain a storage permit and thus comply with the applicable requirements eliminates this concern. Therefore~ the staff agrees with Burlington Northern and will revise the proPosed hazardous waste rules to eliminate transport vehicles from the definition of ontalner provided they are on site less than 90 days. . * Sm Ex.._~mpt ute Hastes o- ie 0, ites bi Fl~ Ash, Dottom Ash= 85etc. The Minnesota/Wisconsin Power Suppliers have raised two issues, in their con~nent lettenl concerning the exemption geanted to fl~ ash. bottom ash, slag, and flue gas emission control waste from the state hazardous waste rules (6 HCAR ae 4.9130 B;7.), The issues concern the extent to Which other utility ~astes are exempt and why the exemption does not include utility wastes if hazardous waste is included in the fuel. The Agency staff has reviewed the corr:nents and will respond to each issue separately. Issue I. The exemption given in draft 6 )ICER 4.g130 B.7. does not apply to other utility wastes that have already been excluded by the U.S, EPA, In reviewing the comments receivedby the Power Suppliers and the attached documentcontatnlng EPA's Interpretation of the federal exemption rule~ the Agency staff disagrees that the state exemption' of utility ~astes should be extended to other wastes generated in conjunction with the burnln0 of fossil fuels and codtsposed or cotreate~ ~tth the already mentioned exempt was~es, The hazardous waste programs, both, or the state and federal level, are based on regulating oroccss wastes;' Htth.this approach= wastes are e~aluated before being mixed ~ith ~ther wastes to gauge the potential hazard posed by that waste stream. Ba(ed on that evaluation, the proper management for that waste stream can be determined. This approach to $~aste evaluatlon is currentlyrequlred of a11 generators of hazardous waste. The Agency staff sees no cow,pelting reason why the utili- ties should not slmilar)y evaluale each of thai, waste st),eams. Issue 2. The exemption given in draft 6 MCA~ 4.9130 B.7. ~oe~ not apply to any utility Wastes if any amount ofhazardous waste is being burned as a fuel for the purpose of recovering usable energy. This comment is a reversal of the position taken by the power suppliers fn a meeting with the staff; however, the staff has reviewed the~e c~nonts in conJunction wlthEPA's interpr~atlon, as well as, the Agency's objectives Fr ERR earning the hazardous waste program. The Agency staff does not disagree that the burning of so~e types of hazardous waste is good a .management technique for fr REmEa RR En S disposing of the waste and yet recovering some benefit f~om it. However, the fS ocE i EE J staff can not agree that allowing this practice should exclude the residues generated from being evaluated and managed as a hazardous waste if it meets the appropriate cha~acterlstlcs. Addltlonally, neither the federal nor state hazardous waste program e~cludes w~stes from regulation based.on future propar management techniques as this does not remove the inherent hazardous properties a waste may have. - Both of these issues deal .primarily with waste evaluatlonand do not require any additional "burden" beyond providing the Agency with the evalu~tlon if that evaluation sho~s that public health and the environment is not adversely affected. soss0008 3043.0006 -5- Tr fom, froin SET Si Exempt Wastes - Sewer~d Waste~ discussed earller, Currently, the t4~]cc pretreatment program has not been" " approved by tize AgenCy, and, thu~, tl~e Agency fs responsible for the quantity The Agency staff has reviewed the Minnesota Association of Con~nerce and and quality of process wastewater discharged to the sewer system, The Agency PERE Yn, BYCOTA SrADe Industry's .(MACI) comments concerning the .proposed exemption of se~e~ed ~astes (6 MCAR 4~g130 B.2.(b)). 0nder this paragraph, any mixture of untreated sani- iS, however, ~or~Ing closely with the HWCC in obtaining an approved pretreatment program. o RIRESERNERLAESSLIRGET, rnre, tery sev~age and other.wastes discharged to a sanitary Sewer system is excluded As mandated by state law, the metro counties are currently administering .F from regulationunder the hazardous waste rules; but the tnd.tvidual waste streams are not. bt~CI has expressed concern over the more restrictive nature of hazardous Waste ru~es which are essentlally Identical to the state r, les- the EI ey this exemption compared to th~ federal e~emptton Vntch excludes any mtxture difference being .the county programs have a fee structure for hazardous waste licenses. Tl~e fee is currently based on the volume and nuznber.of wastes and.~as passing through a sewage system to a publtcl~ owned treatment facility. established to pay the costs of adpdnlsterin~ the program. The counties are As. discussed in the HACl comment letter, there are two programs (the pretreatment andthe metro cQunties hazardous waste programs) which regulate process wastewater streams discharged to a sanitary sewage system, The objectives of each program will be outlined in addition to a discussion on the need for MPCA regulation of these.process streams, currently reviewing the fee structure in order to remOve the flnanclal burden on industries sewering large quantities of hazardous waste caused by the overlap in fees paid to a county and H~CC. This would, along with a re~iew of current county programs, assure consistency, and reduce the concerns HACI has expressed concerning the costs expericnced due to overlapping programs. The objective of a pretreatment program is the prevention of Interferi~g pollutants being introduced to a treatment system. The prog~am regulates the effluent from .pretreatment units to prevent.a treatment facility from exceeding permit standards, p~event the butld-up of hazardous waste residues in treatment sludges and prevent the pass-through of toxtcs into the environment.. Under the .Federal Clean Water Act and.the ~ational Pollutant Dl.scharge Elimination System (NPDE$) permit program, this regulatory .control may be delegated to indivi.dual SEE EIR DIR municlpalltles. In order to obtain this authority, the munlclpality oP other regulatory agency operating the treatment facillty must ~ubmlt a pretreatment program to the Agency for review and approval. Upon receiving this approval, the Indlvldual munlclpality would control the type, quality and quantity o~ process wastewater entering the sewage system with theAgency conducting periodic reviews. To date, these approvals have been limited.and no approval has been i.ssued concerning the program submitted by the Metropolltan Waste Control The reasons for maintaining severed ~astes in the hazardous waste are twofold, information and control. To establish and ~d~Hnlster an ~ffectiv~ program, the Agency~ counties, and municipalities requesting the authority to administer a pretreatment progra~ must be aware of the quantities, characteristics, 1ocatlon and management of each hazardous waste regardless of its destination. ~Is information iS needed in order t~ decide the proper management technique and level o~.control, lherefore, all wastes ~hich pose a hazard man LT Sanne to human health or the environment must be included in the system to ensure they are subject to the proper level of control. Not all wastes capable of be4ng discharged to ~ sewage system are suitable for treatment at a wate~ater treatnent f~cillty, and this c~n not be oete~,~Ino~ unless the type of waste is Known, Th~s, the coverage nf l~~dlvld,(al waste strea~Rs is retained ~Ithin the i~azardouS waste program. Commlssi~n (MWCC) for theseven county metropolitan area, Another problem is created when sewered wastes are exempted from the hazard- Co pEsrmhOrLE SEA. SELENE mame In reviewing each pretreatment program, the Agency must'be assured .that the proposed program will meet the previously discussed objectives and that ~he Indlvldual munlcipallty or other regulatory agency has the ability to monitor an~ enforce.~he program, The municipality must be able to analyze the effectsa particular Industry's was.te stream may have on the entire treatment process in ous waste program. This problem is the tendency to encourage sewering of hazardous wastes whether this is an appropriate manaoement technieue ~rnot. This undesirable effeCt wou.ld be aggravated by the fact that the pretrcatr;pnt program is aimed at process~wastes. Since not all hazardous waste~ are p-uces~ wastes, some wastes would probably be overlooked. order to meet the pretreatment program's objectives. This means having qu~llfled staff capable of analyzing a situation not onlx intultlvely but analytically, v~Ich could be a costly endeavor, A small municipality would nonnally not have the f!nanci~1 capabilities to hl.re quallfled staff in this area since the number of industries |peered in the com~unlty would not requ|re fu11;tlme FasEARI ERR staffing. Ie coin WEE 0 1m armies te m-- ate pretrestnnt In using HWC as an example, the Agency must approve their pretreatment program prior to relinquishing its regulatory authority to the ~omlssion. RE ~herefore, any discrepancies between the state hazardous'waste rules and s~hat is LCE ELEE acceptable f.or discharge under HWCC~s .pretreatment program ~ould have to coin, Finally, the Information obtained by i.nc~uding the effluent from pretreatment units within {he.hazardous waste program serves t~o porposes. In the pretreatment program~ the information protects the treatment facility and in ERR ee ERE turn the environment. In the"hazardous wasteprogram~ the .information will help assure all hazardous wastes are being ~roperly ~a~aged an~ wlll be useful in bib fee abies Colin -) making prograln management d~clslons by the counties and the Agency. cide Insuch..a manner .as to adequately ~eet the pretreatment.programobjectives 043.0007 3043.0007 k - .ldentt~l~!~-e~d ~tst~nq - Crtter|e VED CUT TEA - The staf~.h~s ~evlewed the ~en~s by ~ACI ~hat t~e critert~ seet-t~ SI, yn SLO 8 {5 RC~R S 4.9132) ts e;sen~tal and shoul~ be tdentteel ta!tlally copied f~o~ [PA language, as was most of this set Ot rules merely as a j SE LAE EH TREATS Sah, starting polnt. Upon evaluatlon, the staff finds that both the crlterleand the ~elfsttn9 procedures (6 f~AR 4.9131B.) are redundant since the Agency has Ee throu~ run.eking ~h ~rOVldes ~ for~ fop input fr~ industry, vart~ce ~nls~. A va~ance ~equest u~der H~sOt; HC is the s~ ~se .by case fiextb,11"fty as ~e detl,stfng p~oc~ure. Therefor, stnce both of these p~oviston6 ere u~ecessary and add to ~e length 8hd c~plexi.ty of the ~ule~ they Sboul~ be ~lete~. " I RT Sr ... studies on corneal ttss~e ~e~o~st~eted that i~jury was sustained on on~ct with substances ex~tbfttn9 pH leve!s belo~ ~t IS dangerous to quote an ~le of ~e or t~o o~- )ounds ~Ich do pose a hazard and extend that to all other c~pounds,, People u|ll be exposed t~ these waste~ and should be protect~ bY p~ooe, containers, ~ebeiing. ao~ other proper management techniques, [PA has admtttedthat s.~e of-the wastes .they not regulating ~ ~ose a hal~rd ~ h~an health. ~he'~e ~eems to be no go~d reason f0~ the Age~y to creste a similar laCk of protection tn r,r 4 s0ss.0008 3043.0008 a - me . Toxtet~.v The Agency received the fo~1owing comments on the toxicity eharecterlstlc: I) A second testfor toxicity is inconsistent with {PA requirements. (Koch/Ashland and ~Cl) 2) The toxicity tests are unayai|able, not standardized, not reproduceab]e and.expensive, (Koch/Ashland, MACI~ and Power Suppliers) | pEnEES 3) The Agency has authority to 1~st toxic wastes. (Koch/Ashland and t.IACl) SREEao 4) The toxicity characteristic will res,lt in restriction on the free movement across .state borders of hazardous wastes for treatment, storage | PERERA, and disposal, (Koch/Ashland and MACI) 5) ~ndustry is unaware Of any waste streams which are toxic but not covered by the federal program, therefore, the problem is small or non-existent.(MACl) BA EhiE we ner 6) There are discrepancies between the criteria (6 MCAR 4.g132A) and thetoxicity characteristic (6.HCAR 4~g133 E,1.) (MACl) 7) The toxicity adds a third elementto the characteristics and llst system of regulatlng hazardous wastes. (Power Suppliors) The followlngresponse addresses e~ch of the industry comments in the order li~ted above~ |) The toxicity characteristic is not. the "~econd" test for toxicity, it .isth~ only one. The EP Toxicity test, as presented by the {PA, Is. actually a test for concentration in a leachate of fourteen substances with known toxic properties It evaluates only the presence of these coopounds, not their toxicity or the p~esence or toxicity 6f oth~r substances which may have equally toxic propertle~. TherefOre, the toxicity characteristi:c, which can evaluate the toxicity of.any waste stream, is different than the federal coverage. I.t definitely provides more adequate coverage of toxics, of which there are. many more than-fourteen, but is not inconsistent. The federal program as clearly stated InRCRA 300g: "Sac. 3009. Upon the effective date of regulations under this subti~le no State or oolltlcal subdivision may impose any requ|rements less Stringent than, those authorized under this subt|tle respecting the .same matter as governed by such regulatlons, except that;If appllcatlon of a regulation with respect to any matter under this subt|tle is. postponed or enjoined by the actlon of any court, no State or politica1 s~bdivision shall be prohibited from actlng wlth respect to the same aspect of such matter until such time as such regulation takes effect Nothing in this title shall be c~nstrued to prohibit any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing anyrequirements, including those for.si.te select~on, which are more stringent than those imposed by such regulatlons. | ESTEE The Minnesota hazardous waste program is not an Isolated, excessively res.trlctive program as oortrayed by representatives of industry. At least | tL RR s.~x of the states already authorized have larger "universes of waste." than i| - the federal system, In fact most states have Somewhat ~orn restrlctive FESR STR programs than the federal program which Is intended to be a "national minimum." The t~xlclty characterIstio is not an addltlon to the hazardous ~aste regulatory system as portrayed..It i~ a current state requirement has been fn effect since June, Ig~g. This means anyone subject to this: provlsion;should have complied long ago and should not be overly concerned about its continuance, ,, SRSnAR ROE ~} Toxicity testing is currently available through many labs in Minnesola. ESHER For the most part the labssubcontrac~ with another firm out of state for the toxicity testing but the service is readily available to Minnesota generators, Toxicity testing, by its nature, is less Standardized than many chemical tests but through the requirements of the rule the Important parameters such as dosage, t.i~ne, test animal, and nun~ber of animals are lald out. The fact .that toxicity test results are not exact)y reproducible EERE SIG EE does not mean that it is no~a valid indicator o~ the pntentlal hazard gp posed by a waste If the test is properly run the differene in results m ili hile, wok~Id onlymake a dlfference where the toxicity ~as close tothe dividing line between hazardous and nonhazardous. This problem is inherent with any criteria/test sltuatlon. As for expense, this c~Iteria l~as been in effect for 2 I/~ years and no actual examples ofunreasonable expense have been shoNn by industry, The reason for this is that most industries have been able io find the necessary Informatlon in literature at 11ttle . or no cost This data has been accepted by the Agency and the t~etropo1itan Couhtles.. However, if no Information is available on a particular waste stream, we do not see how that waste c~n be properly m~pag~ v, it~out knowing its hazardous properties, Theone-time cost o~ toxicity testlr~{! a fair trade for'the reduction of 11ahllity and pnter, tial health and the environment in future management of. the waste, .3) It is true that the Agency has the authority to 1ist wastes which have toxic properties. Unfortunately, there are problems with this approach. One problem, already being experienced by EPA, is. that lt is an e~pensive and slow process to list wastes, When this task is undertaken by government all new Wastes which could be .9~nerated by ~linna~ota's in~strle~ midst be evaluated. This process, which requi~'es significant a~di&ions to budg{~t and staff, is beyond toe Agency's c~pabilities and quite possibly beyond EPA's capabilities aS weT1. I~n addition, in order to list a waste as hazardous, the Agency must fi.rSt become aware of the waste and have knowledge of. that waste.'s characteristics. Again, thls mechanism ~ould be expensive to set up ~nd could easily be more of a burden to industry than the toxicity characteristic, Conversely, when the evaluation of EERLA new wastes is performed by industry, t~o benefits are created: I) the firm holding the responslb111ty and liability for the ~ase will kno~ledge of.the InhereD~ hazards presented by the waste and ~hich form Of management will be sa~e and acceptable; and 2) only those wastes which ~re actually produced, ln Mi~nnesota will be evaluated. soss008 3043.0009 BE 4) The cement that the toxicity characteristic wtl1 impede.free movement of wastes across state borders and is therefore prohibited by Section 123.32 of the federal regulations is without basis. As discussed in the~ general portion of this response many other states wtl1 have a different "universe of wastes" from the federal, some by additions such as California and Hfch|gan. others by deletions through the deltsting prooess. ]n any e~ent, some difference, in coverage of wastes fn each state is inevitable. S) A statement.by industry that they are unaware of any "Minnesota toxtc" waste streams ~nich are not otherwise covered by the federal progra~ FERaNaSiEiAiTaMnL E iiI n, somewhat less reassurrtng than a statement that there are none.. One of the ma|n gaps in the federal program ts the.it coverage of toxtcs. The approximately 400 c~mpounds on the 261.33 e. acute h.azardous waste list and the 261.33 f. toxic waste list are only covered in their pure form. This mans that any of these compounds, couldbe th a waste stream at up to a gg + % concentration and still not be classified as a hazardous waste under the federal system. An example wouldbe a pesticide, such as Thtmet. ~htch contains pl~erate. Phorate is listed by EPA on the acute hazardous waste 11st but Thtmet would not be covered. Thtmet was among several oLh~r pesticides and herbicides which became ~astesas a resull of the Btlge~ ~arehouse ftre In Htnneapolt.s tn 1980. S1nce Th~met an~ so~e of the other pesticides were .to~tc. the Agency ~as able to pre~ent thts matertal going to a santtary landfill. Instead. 1t was land treated on a ber~ed stte. a ~uch s~fer an~ more appropriate ~anage~ent technique. Another example of a waste ~tch ts toxtc and exists fn Hlnneso.ta but ts not covered as such by EPA ts trtfluoroaceLtc actd. Thts compoun~ has Loxtcity of 200 ~g/kg whtch eastly exceeds standard of 500 mg/k! but Js no~ lJsted'~y EPA. 6) There 4s a d4fference, bet~een EPA~s cr]terta wh4ch 11ststhe standards used to declare awaste actuely hazardous~ that Is.. dangerous even ~Jth careful h~nd~4ng, and the Hfnne~ota standard whtchwt11 cla~sJf~ these wastes as hazardous but ~tll also encompass those ~astes ~hJch should not be managed b~ ~outtne ~aste management techniques (e.g.. sent to a sanltar~ landfill). The A9enc~ recognizes this difference b~ using EPA's s~a11 EE SEL RE quanttt3 exemption level ofl kg/month for the actuel~ hazardous ~vaste list but us~n9 1000 kg/month for the toxtc~ty characteristic. Hastes ,htch are hazardous according to .the toxtclty Characteristic are. ~n general, less dangerous than those on the acutehazardous ~aste l~st butthe~ ~re stt~l ~azardous. 7) Toxfctt~ Js not a "third element" added tothe hazardous, waste regula- ft ERA R EL, tory program. It Is an already ~egulated characteristic which ts defined by 1is ability to adversely affect 11vtng tissue. LJke other characteristicS there ls data available for ~any compounds ~hJch tndtc8te t~e level of tox.~cJt~. For those, co~pounds whJch lack sufficient information. testing ts read11~ avaflable. mda soy | pCB~,s, .. ~he Hlnr=esota Association of Commerce and Industry and the Minnesota/ Nlsconstn Potter $~pplters commented that thore w~ duplication and Chrd.rad|Ctton between t~e CoPtiftc~te of Exemptt(,n rules (6~I~CAR 4.038) ~nd the Hazardou~ waste rules (6 HCAR 4.91~4 E.) arid therefore the hazardous waste rules ~ere not necessary and would cause confusion. The proposed PCB rule~ are Intended to co~p11~nent the Certificate of E DEMMEEa LIREEt ENEy S | Exemption rules, and "take ov~r" wheat PCB or PCB items beCome ~aste. Apollcable Certificate of Exemption rules and Federal PC~ regulations (40 CF~ 761.) referenced in.the imposed rules would provide coverage of a11 ~oncentrations of P~B. e~ulvalent to the federal system, in excess cF 50 parts per mi111on. This coverage does not affect the Certificate of Exemption appllcability since the hazardous waste rules deal with PCB and PCB Item, s when they bec~me ~aSteo The staff agrees that some clarifications are needed and propose to make the necessary additions or rewording as ap~'opriate. . = | 030010 3043.0010 : | `isR closre dE ronrasion sC egSomratT erJotstiO cotonmerR s (61H S 48000) Dl~clos~re Preparation and Generator Identlflcatlon. Numbers (6 t~CAR 4.g212) 11~e Agency staff received comments ~rom ~IACI regarding the dlsclosure pro- cess and the Informatlon contained In e hazardous waste dlsclosure, ~The com~en~s recomn~end that: 1) The Agency staff should Justify.the need for source/process information required in subparagraph C.I,; 2} Subparagraph C,~. which requires a ~Isting of all non-exempt wastes determined by the generator to be non-hazardous be deleted; 3} Subparagraph C,3, which requires the chemical cn~posltion of each hazardous waste and antlc~pated fluctuations during normal operations be deleted; 4) .Subparagraph C.4, which requires the conoentratfon of each kno~n or suspected EP Constituent in a waste be deleted; } PERSEnr mn 5) Subparagraph C.B. which requires a listing ofall the hazardous proper. ties displa~ed by awaste be delet~d~ 6) Subparagraph C.6. which requires, in the event of testing, the submission, of sampling procedures, test results and test accuracies be deleted.; ?) ~ubParagraph C.7. be modified in such a way that would allow the generator toslgn a certification that a contingency plan is being maintained on-site and i;~ available for inspection instead of submitting the contingency plan to the Agency; 8) Subparagraph C.8, which ~equlres information regarding the names.of : BeEY En transporters and facllltles as ~e11 as quantities expected to be generated during the year be deleted; 9) Changes in management from the information contained in a dlsc1~sure FEin terms of the generators reporting req~drements Is not adequately addressed; and lOS The disclosure is an unnecessary carryover of the existing state rules and should be deleted. The Agency staff has evaluated ~ACl's comments and the current draft of ny BH TT es Ct 6 MCAR 4.9212 and shall address the issues in order, The first issue regarding the source/process information is considered to be a necessary information requirement by the Agency staff. The hazardous ~aste program regulates individual process ~astes..The deletion of this information as.recommended by MAC; and the slmple reporting of '~WasteX" on a dlsclosut~e does not provide the Agen~y.~ith information needed in determining v~l~ether "Waste.X" is from one process or.isa mixture of.process wastes. In addition, dlsclosu~e.of the process/source.may::l) ihdlcate hazardous properties of the Co Ewaste ov~rlooked by thegeneratoh; ~) allow the Agency tn potentla1.1y reco~nmend EEERRINOEGES management changeswhlch wou~d reduce.the quantity of hazardous ~aste generated; and 3) allow the Agency to potentially r~co~end changes in ra~ products which | ERRERERAE IEG may result in redGced hazardous waste generation, The second issue involvin@ a list of nonexempt wastes determined by the } fTSTR SH SR Bo generator to be non-hazardous has proven to be veryvaluable information tu the Agency .and the ountles. Generators ~requentiy11st ~as~es as nonhazardou~ -13- OS EER Sbeecchasussettthhaeyy Bhuarvee eworrkkaedd wwiitthh (thhgesmuattaec~'iia.la,], hhaavvesneottddeevleeloppseddaaccuttse hh(e,a~l{t~hh : effects and/or have oat adequatel~ evalua~d the waste for hazardous p~'opertles," Sevecal instances have occurred .whore the staff has required additional eval- uation through..lierature and/or testing ~hlch lJas eeversed the generator's Initl.al nonhazqrdous d~termlnation. Generators frequently claim that a waste is nonhazardods because they are not aware of potential chronic health effects. and envlronmen~al hazards which may result fro~ mismanagement, The staff co~.. slders subparagraph C~2. asan essential element in a hazardous ~aste ~ disclosure. The third issue, regarding chemlcal composition Infm~atlon required in Subparagraph C,3. should be modif~e~ by requiritlg the chemlcal composition for wastes determined to be hazardous dde to the characteristics described in 6 MCAR 4.9133, The Agency staff agrees that this information is not necessary for Eh REE wastes considered hazardous because they meet a listlng ip 6 t~CAR 4,9134, The information is necessary, hewever, for ~astes considered hazardo~Js due to the characteristics described in 6 FICAR 4,9133 since it may be used to ensure that the generator has disclosed the ~ast~ as hazardous for a11 of the ch~racteristlcs Which it dlsplays. Tl~e fouTth issue. Involves information to be dlsclos~d regarding the con- . centratlon of each EP constituent known or suspected to be in the waste, This is necessary sl.nce a ~aste.may be hazardous or nonhazardous based upon the con* cent~atlen of EP constl.tuents. The Agency staff recognizes that a determination SL ETE SR RA must be made on a representative sample of the waste at the time of the dlscln- sure and that the concentration of an EP constituent in a waste may chang~ due to changes in raw products 'and.productlon upsets. As a result, the ~a~te may Eo ERR HhRo A change from a hazardo~s to a nonhazardous cl~sificatlon and vice versa. ]n this.case, the generato~ shall repor~ such a ch~n~e in the annu~1 rep(:rt. ~he Age~cy staff does not..intend that the g~nerato~', at the tl~e (~f l.l~o di~Iosure, be a~are of large concentration changes ~hlch ~,ay occur fo11G~Ing subniss)o~ of the disclosure. However, a representative sample of the waste may be taken if currently generated and evaluated. If the waste is newly ~enerated follo~Hng the submission of the dlsclosure, then this infonaatlon shall be reported in the el eT at FL? ann~al report,' Flnally, the staf~ agrees that the last sentence of subparagraph ~.4. be deleted since the EP test prncedure is provided, The fifth issue regardlng.hazardous properties of the ~aste is considered an essential .element in the disclosure, Although a generator may declare a waste as hazardous due toIgnitabillty, the generator must know the other hazardous propertie~ of. the waste in order to: I) kno~ which rules be must comply with; 2). develop personnel tr~inln~, e~ergency procedure and contingency plan programs; and 3) ~n developlng options available for use, re-use, recycling, RSENS reclamatlon or disposal of the waste ye we mee ) The sixth issue involves the submission of sampllng procedures, test ~esultsand the accuracy of tests tf testing is pe'rformed during the evaluatldn. The Agenc~ staff concurs with t~ACIs reco~nendatlon that subparagraphs es wowee init. and C.6,c. be deleted slncespeclfic sampling and test procedures are required~ sussoott 3043.0011 However, the staff considers subparagraph C.6.b.. the submission of test results, essential inorder to conftrm ev~luation results. The current orogram has revealed errors tn disclosure Information after test results were submitted due to oversight by generators. The seventh issue tnvolves the submission of contingency plans by the | apmmmmsemccesmumin., generator to the Agency. F~C! has recommended that a certlf|catton be submitted stating 'that a certlflcatlon be submitted stating that a contingency plan Is Il IE MA Md avallaUle on-slte for Inspectlon. The Agency staff does not concur with ~IACI ATE RR LR Ee s|nce the certlflcat1on~ould requlre the Agency to Inspect the slte in under to ~evlew the contingency plan. The exlstlng draft a11ows the Agency staff to Tees 2 ST To hcteme 11 Chores 1d seat "ht 1 revlew the plan with the, dlsclosure for ompleteness and adequacy, The staff does, however, recocmen~ anen~Ing the draft ru.le to a11bw a certification by the | EERE ey genera.tot that the plan Is being malnta~ned for currency o~ information on-slte and is available for staff rev~ewo ll me en eet The etghth issue regarding waste management Information ts considered to be essential by the Agenc~ staff. The deletion of thls Informatlon would not allc~ SESE TET theAgency staff toe I) evaluate the com~liance of p~oposed monagement Uy the hazardous waste gene~ators~ 2) require mod|flcatlons In p~oposed management by new hazardous waste generators; 3) recommend alternatlves to proposed m~thods of SEER TI ~anagement by ne~ hazardous waste generators; 4) verify reported quantlt1~s by those oonslderlng themselves to be small q~antltygenerators~ 5) be a~are of and CR SR evaluate the acceptab111ty of dlscharges tote wastewater ~reatm~nt systems~ and 7) obtain Information for the Haste Hanagement Board's hazardous weste,facillty plannlng actlvlt1~s. The ninth issue involves changes In management during the year from disclosed information. It is the intent of the Agency staff that a11 changes in wastes, quantities,,anc manage:~ent be ornvfded by ~he gener~tor In the annual reoort, The Aoency staff concurs with HACI that 6 HCAR 4.9212 should be amended to clearly state the staff's intention. The last issue general13 Involves HA~l'sbellef that the d|sclosure is an unnecessary document and that the Agency should only uttl+ze manifest and annual report Information, The Agency staff does not concur with MAC; on thIs issue and indeed,considers thedtsclosure an essential document, The dlsclo.sure is only tobe prepared once and only by a new hazardous waste generator or a currently unknown generator, The staff believes that' It EIRNG a at i ed Sd re essential for a n~w hazardous waste generator to: 1) list and evaluate his wastes; 2) determine Whlch are hazardous and.for what reasons~ 3) develop a sound program for trai~ing personnel regarding waste hand, ling an~ emergency oreendures based upon the properties of the waste; 4) develop contlngencyplans In case of emergencles ant B) determine, based upon the properties of the waste, the use, re-use, recycling, reclamation and disposal options available to htm. The submission of the disclosure looters a hazardous )taste gener~tor Into the regulotory system, HACI's recommendation to only tmtlllze manifests an annual reports does not take into account ,ew ha(ardors waste generators and current gonerGors who have not disclosed and entered the system. Unless the Agency has a d4sclonur~, the staff rides hot kr, ow'~o should be using ~anife$t$ PREELSTS ERE E nor who shoul~be submitting annual reports. In addition, the disclosure pro- cess co~its the generator to carry out the polnt$ de~cr{bPd above, and allows the staff to evaluate the n~'~ generators hlformatlon and o~'ooo~ed at BATTS imTes aee t 5 peredt: a say RTE It is not ti~e staff's inte~atlon to require the generator to exactly predict ' del se SE changes In ~anagem~t plans, or the wastes and c~antltles to be generatd dur.tng the year. It Is designed to enter a new or prevlous!y u~kno~v~t go.orator Into ary ae Te Fattobire 20 tn 5 HEo htpastors the regulatory scheI:m,v The dlsclosure is not to be flled by those generators BEEI Sara nnaR with disclosures on flle, Such generators must only file an annual report order to maintain the currency of 1nformation, In sumner.y, the Agency staff considers the disclosure to be an essentlal gedEWE RARGAS ACE element of the hazePdou~ ~aste system and provides the staff with n~;ch b~tter Information I~ comp~'Ison to ~PA's notification widch only requires ~ list of NR a the hazardous wastes produced, lhe staff believes mh,cr changes In the di~clusure information as outllned Is acceptable, he,ever, repeal of the. disclosure requirement wouid cause slgnlf|cant problems to the Agency's hazardous waste RES MAIR TORE. program, eff6rts of the lfaste ~anagement Bo~rd, a,ld., in the long-term, genera- re tors of hazardous waste. - 030012 3043.0012