Document zzaK9XK0jDzMbL0o2KVOGKbez

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT (11/10/87) TESTIMONY OF THE CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, UTILITIES SOLID WASTES ACTIVITIES GROUP AND NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 3070 Before the House Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism and Hazardous Materials November 18, 1987 INTRODUCTION --St The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA Cl?t i 1 i tjLae --- -------- ---------...........................-------------------v ""---- -Solid Wastes Activities Group (USWAGn andANational Electri cal Manufacturers Association (NEMA) appreciate the opportu nity to appear here this morning. As members of the PCB Consensus Group, we have worked closely with EPA to develop sound regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act {TSCA) for control of activities Involving PCBs. Through the efforts of the Consensus Group, whose members also in clude representatives of the^Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council, the TSCA PCB regulations have becommee a sound framework through which the Congression- '^7* of fcSj al goal oV fA controlled use and disposal is A being successfully implemented. PCB-ARCH-EXT0371929 2 Along with other members of the PCB Consensus Group - both the environmental groups and other industry organiza tions including the American Association of Railroads and Hazardous Waste Treatment Council --we have over the past year been addressing a variety of issues related to PCB dis posal. The PCB Consensus Group proposed to EPA this August specific regulatory language to amend the TSCA disposal rules in the areas of manifesting, intermediate activity permitting, and financial responsibility.-- the same areas (Xus <W that are addressed in H.R. 3070encouraged the Agency to work expeditiously to adopt such changes.and thus welcome in _____ TV* the Agency's announcement^that a^rulemaking is now planned. ...._._ BACKGROUND OF THE PCB DISPOSAL ISSUES ADDRESSED IN H.R. 3070 lO(X0 Because -of t-he sound framework^established in the ex isting PCB TSCA disposal rules, we believe the vast majority of all PCB-containing wastes in this country are currently V being handled responsibly and safely. Because^ the rules have been in effect for more than a decade and have become well-understood by the regulated community, compliance with the rules is the norm. In addition, the stability of the rules has encouraged investment in technologies that, con sistent with the rules, encourage and accelerate safe dis posal methods. Although there have been incidents of improper PCB dis posal -- some of them well-publicized -- we do not believe / <? /I6/87 11:36 NO.005 0B3 PCB-ARCH-EXT0371930 3 the cause of such incidents wsb an inadequate regulatory framework. In each of those instances, existing rules were being violated, EPA was aware of the violations, and the fault, if fault is to be found, is that enforcement for such violations was not swift and comprehensive. We nonetheless agree with the concerns expressed by the er\, sponsors of H.R. ^030 that some changes in the TSCA PCB die- posal rules would be appropriate to -assure that sound man agement arwji-eegulafreyy practices currently employed for most PCB disposal activities_>ae Aemployed universally. Qur-Au- gn-st1 propcrere1*~to--EPA- r-o44.ec.ted~ -these- -chart-gee. We also believe it important, as do the sponsors of *. H.R. 3070, that any such changes be implemented through TSCA rules rather than through transferring PCB disposal regula- > s y * \ tion to the Resource Conservation.Recovery Act (RCRA) frame- \ * \work. As EPA found when it was reviewing the possibility of \ moving PCB disposal to RCRA, the TSCA framework^was specifi cally adopted to handle the unique features of ^disposal j Pc_^5 *. / thit^sehe*ftiw4 and equipment in which f't'-t'sr contained, and / much would be lost If the current workable framework were eliminated. ^--------The PCB Consensus Group's proposal to EPA for TSCA rule amendments addaeeeeie*,,,the H.R. 3070. issues also addressed in As ll/lS-'-'SV 11:3? HO. 805 004 PCB-ARCH-EXT0371931 4 First, it would require manifesting of PCB wastes be- JtA rt <\li i i - tween generators and disposal. Most PCB disposal is cur ve HurtWx jyi ^ rently manLifested; {/and a requirement to that effect seems reasonable to assure all such wastes are tracked. pior\v4Hnj tofiuli o- Second, -44--wou-l-d pomri-re ^intermediate activities 'ter be - permitted.^ persons currently involved in treatment or dis posal of PCBe.-are--required -pcTnrt%tg<^{ extending such requirements to other persons involved in the disposal sys tem seems appropriate. Third, thiree^rCX'idyYffTsesehnssthtrrs-'fh*'*^^ financial toou lJ r+yu^rPvV ?er responsibility requirements^*?* any TSCA PCB treatment, in termediate activity or disposal permit. EPA has been impos ing such requirements in permits for PCB disposal activiJZ*is ties; -assuring that such requirements are uniformly imposed seems appropriate. .-'T^r-ecnfensus Croup/ropoeal also address^s-'two issues not oddroeood-by 3070, It would require notification to EPA of the location of commerciai^tfreas storing PCBs for / disposal. would also ^public notice of requests for perm/ts. In proposing amendments to the TSCA disposal rules, the Consensus Group recognized there-we-re a number of detailed fc>A questions that- neededf te.-ase resolved in order to develop meaningful regulations. For example, there is a need to de termine at what point in the disposal chain the manifesting requirements begin; exactly which -persono should be PCB-ARCH-EXT0371932 classified as intermediate activities,* and what types of fi nancial responsibility requirements make sense for each type of intermediate activity, treatment and disposal activity. EPA, too, recognized the need to look closely at these and other issues in thel~r September 18 response to the Consensus Grouj^. THE MERITS OF LEGISLATION ON PCB DISPOSAL REGULATION EPA has already announced the initiation of a program that will lead to manifesting and notification requirements for PCB disposal activities. The Agency has further indi cated it will be providing uniform guidance for financial responsibility requirements in permitting. Should EPA act expeditiously to accomplish these programs, the^ would be ^ he OvC <V\ ?.<** * fadoeagig--of H.R. 3070, to--a-e-eoroplioh ito under 1-y- j-na goal-gbr"^0^ Mil* tal6 fiaVc-*1 i #<wouiC6jjfa Pf ft -b fufio'a .. Va j ye are concerned that passage of H.R. 30^ slow ^ <JL down progress toward TSCA regulatory changes. As noted above, a number of questions exist about how manifesting. permitting and financial responsibility requirements should be implemented. We believe i-t quite 11-tee-Ly that, even were H.R. 3070 enacted, ther* wou 1 d~frer a TreearTfflTEPA regulations clarify***-and detail**^ the statutory mandates. We do not want then AyuneryT- and hape EPA deeo-.net .1 --4" temp ate, stop; work awaitfettra determination of whether A . X gl;l{ 11/16/87 11:40 NO. 006 002 PCB-ARCH-EXT0371933 6 a<\ t'l ir'ot'tl* legislation is forthcomin^. Rather, we hope u/v& TSCA regulatory amendments of the type we proposed -woul-d is- sue soon. T-~ , We tii'V wUo f/orv ms+trv =r^u4a-ted^onttftuni And=^the-t^- / ___f__ >n Si *o`7o rrw^-j 1* a orwl cam^4>< :%>lel atl J^9.L~t,hat they hud contributed lusnid cui rfehe rtfU^V'% ^ fc'M'*, <cnJ W**,i 4 Agdttey--fcq nnaot lliUUGi 'uhftivguu enpodi tiouely . - (*ju*.r $ r*^ *f ojr 4L_ friA~y^ >4,} c V Ck~v -W ,`*iA W ,& l 0 o<S '*0-Ccue+l a cM o r\ / A / 3o~?o .Uju iV ft t nfet. & a O <i & ft Vw * nc to (* hi rt^u.. xf ,.<** <a ^ u-C porv<1 *6 ( ^ W rt> jj 11/16/87 11:41 MO.006 go: TOTAL P.03 PCB-ARCH-EXT0371934 NQU--16--' 87 14:42 ID:KIRKLRND*ELL IS WASDC TEL NO:202-737-8470 8620 P02 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT 11/16/87 SPECIFIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION COMMENTS ON THE LANGUAGE OF H.R. 3070 The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) PCE Program Panel understands that the intent behind H.R. 3070 is not to change existing definitions and regulatory controls under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations for PCB disposal, 40 C.F.R. Part 761, but rather to supplement those regulations. Supplementary regulations would be enacted in three areas: {1) manifesting, (2) permitting of intermediate activities, and (3) financial responsibility requirements for permittees. In furtherance of this aim, we would like to bring to the Committee's attention three areas of clarification. First, we assume that the exception from the manifest requirement in Section 1(a)(6)(C) would cover not only the defined generators but also transporters of materials from such generators. Second, we would recommend that the provision in Section 1(a)(8)(E) allowing already-permitted activities to continue without obtaining additional permits should cover persons with approval from the Administrator to "treat or" dispose covered polychlorinated biphenyls. The addition of the phrase "treat or" would clarify that this provision covers all persons EPA has granted TSCA PCB disposal permits whether the activity is considered treatment or disposal. EPA has under TSCA used its disposal permitting authority to cover both types of activities and, on occasion, has even indicated that, incineration is treatment rather than didposal. Third, we would recommend that the definition of "c vered polychlorinated biphenyls" in Section 1(a)(9)(A) be worded in terms of "polychlorinated biphenyls that are subject to the disposal regulations issued by the Adm istrator as of July 1, 1987." This wording clarifies that he PCBs subject to the disposal rules both now and after the legislation passes are those materials with concent rations of 50 ppm ox greater. .-.-41.-16/87 13:21 NO.00? 002 i_ PCB-ARCH-EXT0371935