_..~~-::....

I 

,.-,_.~

1J. 

• OFFICEOFTHE
 ATTOR~GENERAL

Inter-office Correspondence Date: August 24, 1984 

To: Charlie Roe 

~om: Charlie Dou~e

Subject: RCRA Final Authorization--Attorney General's Statement 

• 

As you probably recall, a June 25, 1984 letter to Mr. Donald W. 

Moos from you and I was submitted to the u.s. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) as part of this state's application for 

final authorization under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. EPA has 

determined that the application submitted is-Complete for the 

purpose of EPA's formal review process. EPA will determine in 

late September, tentatively, whether to grant authorization to 

the State of Washington • 

By letter dated~uly 27, 1984, the Regional Office of EPA submitted comments on Washington's application for final authorization. I am told that these comments reflect, in part, review 

by EPA'a Headquarters' Office. The comments include some items 

concerning the Attorney General's Statement. This memo is 

intended to list those items and to suggest a response. I do not 

now plan to make further formal response to EPA's comments, this 

is a matter ,which you and I should discuss. I am forwarding a 

copy of this memo, however, to the Department's hazardous waste 

program staff. 

Comment 1. Effective Dates. EPA requests that a statement be 

supplied to the effect that the authorities relied on in the 

Attorney General's Statement have been legally adopted, with the 

dates of adoption. All the authorities relied on in the Attorney 

General's Statement are presently effective. The Department of 

Ecology adopted amendments to its dangerous waste regulations, 

ch. 173-303 WAC, on two occasions this year. One batch of 

amendments was effective May 17, 1984, the second group of arnend~

. rnents was effective July 27, 1984. 

Comment 2a. Authority to Regulate Recyclers. I;:PA requests that 

a statement describing the Department's authority to regulate 

• 

hazardous waste recycling be supplied. This statement is supplied in the Attorney General's Statement at pages 8 and 9. The 

statement there refers to RCW 70.105.130, 70.105.145, and 70­

• 10SA • 060 (4) • 
• 

:nter-office Correspondence 

Charlie Roe 

Page Two 

August 24, 1984 

Comment 2b. Authority to Regulate Dangerous Waste Disposal. EPA 

requests clarification of the Department's authority to regulate 

disposal of dangerous waste. I consider this matter to be 

resolved on page nine of the Attorney General's Statement as 

submitted. I refer you to paragraph three on page.nine. 

Comment 2c. Authority to Regulate Generators. EPA requests a 

statement of the state's basis to regulate hazardous waste 

generators. The state's basis to regulate hazardous waste 

generators is included in the Attorney General's Statement at 

page 10. The statement at that page identifies the state's 

authority as being located in RCW 70.105.130, 70.105.145, and 

70.105A.060(4). 

Comment 2d. Authority to Establish Permit Requirements. EPA 

requests that the state's authority to establish requlations 

which have procedures to modify, revoke, reissue, and terminate 

• 

permits be described. This authority is identified at page 13 of 

the Attorney General's Statement. The authority to adopt regulations identified there is in RCW 70.105.130, 70.105.145, and 

70.10SA.060(4). 

Comment 2e. Authority of the Washington State Patrol. EPA 

requests that the effect of ch. 46.48 RCW, which authorizes the 

Washington State Patrol to adopt regulations concerning transportation of hazardous materials, be analyzed with respect to its 

effect on the state's RCRA program. The Washington State Patrol 

is an independent agency vested with its authority by statutes 

unrelated to the Department of Ecology. I do not expect the 

State Patrol's program of hazardous materials transport regulation 

to cause any conflict with the Department of Ecology's regulations. The Department of Ecology has independent authority to 

enforce its regulations. See RCW 70.105.080. This authority is 

unrelated to the enforcement authority included in ch. 46.48 RCW. 

Comment 3. Public Participation in Enforcement. The Department 

of Ecology, for interim authorization under RCRA, agreed not to 

oppose a request for intervention in civil enforcement proceedings 

brought under the dangerous waste statutes. This assurance was 

required by EPA regulations. The question EPA poses here is if 

the Attorney General's Office has. independent authority to enforce 

the dangerous waste statutes, then will the Attorney General's 

• 

Office also assure EPA that it will not oppose intervention in 

civil enforcement proceedings? My initial response is to suggest 

that the assurance of the Department, as the client and agency 

requesting civil enforcement be conducted by the Attorney General's 
*.'­

.;' 

Inter-office Correspondence 

• Charlie Roe 

Page Three 

August 24, 1984 

Office, should be sufficient to satisfy EPA's regulatory requirements. In the event, that this response is not adequate, 

then you and I should discuss further options. 

Comment 4. Signature of the Attorney General. EPA has requested 

a citation to the authority of Assistant Attorneys General to 

sign the statement on behalf of the Attorney General's Office. 

This was resolved once for interim authorization. I would refer 

EPA to RCW·43.l0.060. 

Comment 5. Indian Lands. EPA intends to act in accordance with 

its previous position, unless some guidance from the Ninth 

Circuit of the Court of Appeals is forthcoming before final 

authorization is granted. 

CKD:pk 

cc: Lynda Brothers 

• 

•'