## .I

# " ...: -. :0

.

....

## ;/:~;. VICTOR ATIYEH COVF.RNOR 

# Department of Environmental Quality

522 SOUTHWEST 5TH AVE. PORTU-ND. OREGON MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1760, PORTLAND. OREGON 97207



# •



# • November 17, 1980 Hearings Officer EPA

- Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101

SUBJECT: Public Hearing To Consider Oregon Application fqr InteriII1 Authorization of a State Hazardous Waste Control Program

. November 17, 1980


### You have before you a decision very important to the people of Oregon, the regulated cc:mmunity and the Department. We believe our application speaks for itself and that it demonstrates substantial equivalence. The thrust of our testimony will be to suggest a context within which to make your decision on substantial equivalence. Should you find our recommended
context reasonable, we believe you will arrive at a similar conclusion: Oregon has a substantially equivalent program.

UNIVERSE OF WASTE

The announcement for this hearing suggests that the universe of waste is

an item of major interest to EPA. Based on our application, the
announcement identifies areas where Oregon's universe of waste is not ,.. .;



# • identical to EPA's. Since the announcement was published some federal
events are noteworthy. For example, Congress 

### has passed and the President has signed a RCRA reauthorization bill which, among other things:

# • Hearings Officer Page 2

1. 

### Places coal mining wastes and overburden under the' sole authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

I :

# • 2. Exempts from Subtitle "C" regUlations for up to two years, drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development or production of crude oil or natural gas

or geothermal energy; and

3. Exempts from subt.Itle "C" regulations for up to three years fly ash, bottom ash**~aste,** 

### slag waste and flue gas emission control waste generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels; solid waste from the extraction, benefication, and processing of ores' and minerals, including phosphate rock and overburden from the mining

In the "Hazardous Waste News" newsletter of October 27, 1980, it is 

### reported that EPA is intending, before November 19, 1980, to:

1. 

### Delist' waste associated with the leather tanning industry, and

2.· Change total chromium to 

### hexavalent chromium in the Extraction Procedure Toxicity Chart.


# • The significance of these events is that without Oregon adopting any temporary'rules, as has been strongly urged, our universe of waste is 

### now closer than ever because Congress and EPA are changing their universe even before they become effective!

# •

• Hearings Officer Page 3

A much more somber thought, however, is that had we adopted temporary rules based on EPA's promulgated rules, our program credibility -would now slowly but surely be eroding because of the these recent retreats at the federal level.

-Recognizing .that further federal. changes to. add or delete wastes are likely, Oregon finds it unacceptable to use its temporary rule making authority to change its universe of waste until EPA'S definition process achieves sane level of stability not observed to date.

LaStly, no recognition has been given to those areas where Oregon's universe is greater than EPA's, such as:

1. A corrosive characteristic that covers solids as well as liquids and
wastes with a pH greater than 12.0 not 12.5.

2. A toxicity standard that not only covers pure chemical substances but covers dilutions of pure chemical substances and,

3. SInall quantity exemptions, except for EPA's acutely hazardous small quantity exemption, that are substantially less than EPA'S 1000 kilogram per month.

In smmnary, we believe we meet a substantial.1y equival.ent test on the universe of waste question.

# •

•

• Hearings Officer Page 4

INTERIM STATUS STM"DARDS

The next area of major interest to EPA is Oregon's inability to apply standards similar to EPA's Interim Status Standards (ISS) to storage and
treatment facilities located at the site of generation (State statutes exempt, from the licensing requirement only, those generators who store

or treat on-site). While EPA's ISS are very practical requirements, which

we intend to adopt in the future, a close reading reveals that they cover largely administrative matters at this time (i. e. , .having certain plans

on file, keeping inspection logs, usihg sound containers, etc.)

For a facility to achieve "Interim Status" only three criteria had to be
met:

1. The facility must be in existence prior to November 19, 1980.

2. The operator must have notified EPA by August 18,1980, of the facility's existence.

3. The operator must file a Part A permit·application by November 19, 1980.

To gain Interim status. does not require any demonstration of the adequacy of the facility. The "Inside EPA" newsletter of September 19, 1980, reports that EPA is giving serious consideration to stiffening their ISS

# •

• Hearings Officer Page 5



### to -get rid of the bad actors ••• - that is, prevent eXisting facilities that are badly in need of retrofit from gaining operating status.- In

a Supplemental Notice of Proposal Rulemaking in the October 8,1980, Federal Register EPA indicates its intent to app+y their yet to be promulgated technical standards for new facilities to any major expansion of an existing facility.

Again, while we acknowledge the practical nature of the ISS in their present form, they do little to insure protection of public health or the environment at existing facilities. Being mainly cosmetic, their prime value is to raise industry's consciousness as to what's coming down the road and we believe they will serve that purpose whether they exist in Oregon law or not. We have enough knowledge of. and confidence in our regulated community to know that most will voluntarily comply with EPA's ISS. Further, our generator standards s till apply even though a license may not be required and cover such items as using adequately constructed containers and tanks, properly storing volatile wastes, proper identification of wastes on site and obtaining authorization (not a formal license, however) if storage is to exceed six months.

In summary, for those most critical facilities, that is, those storage,
treatment and disposal facilities that handle multiple wastes from multiple companies, we can and do intend to apply standards similar to the ISS through the licensing process. For those companies who store or treat

• on-site we will be involved with these facilities through our generator program which alloW'S us to apply the more important ISS even though we cannot legally require some of the plans EPA would like to see on file.Hearings Officer Page 6 

# •

As far as immediately amending existing licenses to reflect the ISS it

car s down to time and resources. We intend to modify as time, resources and public participation requirements perInit, the existing licenses. Best assured that in the meantime the licenses do speak to the issues of public health and environmental protection as well as compliance with the State's hazardouS waste management program. We believe we are substantially equivalent to the intent of the ISS.

MOVING TARGET SYNDROME

On February 26, May 19 and July 16, 1980 EPA promulgated Phase I of its

• long-a;.,raited hazardous waste management program. EPA has suggested its rule.promulgation program will be a "dynamic program" in that frequent changes can be expected as the full impact of RCRA is achieved. While the impression given is that mainly additions to the program can be expected, as noted above," major deletions can also be expected on short notice. As if to reinforce that fact the "Hazardous Waste News· newsletter

. . of"October "ZO" and 27 ,i980, and the "Ins"ide EPA· newsletter of October 10, 1980, report that over SOlitigants have raised over 30 issues dealing with the Phase I rules. The EPA, Department of Justice and the .litigants are currently meeting to determine which issues can be


# • consolidated, solved by RegUlatory Interpretive Memorandums, solved by rule change or must be litigated. What this obviously suggests is that EPA's program a year from now may be substantically different than it is today.Bearings Officer Page 7 

# •

Under these circumstances, for EPA to suggest that a state with an existing, operational program rush through rule amendments that

..adopt the federal program verbatim is simply not reasonable! While we don't envy EPA's task of meeting RCRA mandates, we ask you to consider the devastating effect constant rule changes at the federal and/or state level have on program**c~edibility~** 

### One presumed advantage of the**In~erim.Authorization** program provided for by Congress is that it allows EPA's Regional Administrators to approve substantially equivalent existing state programs and avoid the moving target syndrome for up to two years.

Furthermore, even after achieving final authorization states will have

• one year to keep their rules up to date and two years to keep their
statutes up to date.

Oregon's existing, operating hazardous waste program currently has the support and trust of the public and regulated conununity. We believe one major reason for that is that we developed the program over the last ten years at a pace that the public and regulated community could relate to and were involved in. Don't ask us to violate that trust by using our temporary rule making authority to facilitate the moving target syndrome.

TEMPORARY RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

• As stated in our application, the Environmental Quality Commission could adopt an identical program tomorrow, These hastily adopted rules would be effective for 180 days only unless the EQC moved to adopt them as permanent rules following all the legal requirements for rUlemaking.

# •

•

• Hearings Officer Page 8

We do not consider any of the existing deficiencies to be of such Import.ance that it warrants the EQC .adoptdnq temporary rules. Even before EPA institutionalized it, public participation has been required by the EQC. Considering the strong emotional aspects surrounding hazardous waste activities nationwide, we have strived to maintain active pUblic participation in our hazardous·waste rulemaking proceedings. The public and regulated community has had access to our hazardous waste rulemaking procedures and we believe that is another reason the program has their
current support and trust.

Rest assured that if any person or company attempted to use the differences between our programs to create a public health or environmental threat in Oreqon, we would not hesitate to use this ·temporary rulemaking authority
to protect the pUblic health or the environment. However, that would be responding to a real need not a perceived need.

ARLINGl'ON POLLUTION CONTROL CENTER

Early in the development of i t:s hazardous waste management program, Oregon realized that one vital key to a successful hazardous waste management program was having an operating disposal site. Following private industry initiative, full public review and EQC action that requirement was realized in March 1976 with the issuance of a hazardous waste disposal site license
to Chem-Security Systems Inc. for the Arlington Pollution Control Center•

# •

•

• Hearings Officer Page 9
Subsequent to Oregon licensing it as a disposal site, EPA issued ChernSecurity a permit to dispose of PCB s'olids under the authority of the Toxic Substance Control Act. ':Qualified persons who have examined the site describe it as one of t'he most geologically secure sites' in the United States. Since its opening, Chern-Security and the State (who owns the active portions of the site) have taken the responsible, but potentially unpopul.ar, position of operating it as a regional disposal'

. site. Besides Oregon, the States of Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Wyoming and Utah, and the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewen and Manitoba have used the site.

In its Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of october 8, 1980, EPA propcsed a broad outline for protecting groundwater from new landfills, land treatment facilities and unlined surface impoundments. While supportive of the proposed concepts for new facilities, we are extremely concerned about EPA's intent to apply those same standards to major expansions of existing facilities, including existing state-licensed facilities. While we can share your concern that the existing nInterim Status Standards concept," could allow some inadequate sites to continue
to operate and expand (see our discussion on ISS above), we are concerned that the following scenario may adversely affect Arlington:

1. Oregon not granted Interim Authorization--EPA program effective November 19, 1980.'

# •• .nearings Officer Page 10

2. Arlington Pollution Control Center (a likely candidate for Interim Status) under jurisdiction of both EPA and DEQ.

3. No expansion at Arlington possible until EPA permit issued.

4. No EPApermit issued until EPA rules are promulgated.

5. EPA rules are delayed one, two even three years because of extensive
comments received, petitions filed or court suits initiated. 

# • 6 • RArtificialR shortage of capacity created at Arlington because of "federal moratorium" on major expansions at existing facilities.



# • While our scenario may be considered "farfetched," EPA1s track record in the promulgation of its hazardous waste management program does not encourage optimism. Considering that Arlington is operated as a regional disposal site at this time, the stakes are high and the consequences of delay dire.

A finding of substantial equivalence, which we believe we1ve demonstrated in our application, insures that this scenario would not come to pass.



### }

# •

• Bearings Officer Page 11

SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE

For the first time ever in delegating an environmental program to the State, Congress granted EPA broad authority to phase in a State's program. To achieve Final Authorization, a State program must be equivalent, consistent and enforceable. Equivalent has been defined· as -equivalent in effect- not necessarily identical. For up to 

### two years following initial program promulgation, however, State's have to show only "substantial equivalence" (substantially equivalent in effect). Presumably State's that had moved ahead of EPA would have an opportunity to have their existing program authorized rather than rushing through wholesale changes• State's that did not move ahead, however, have little reason not to adopt the promulgated program. The congressional concept suggests that a State's**initia~iVe** would finally be recognized.

Following today's hearing a decision has to be reached on substantial equivalence. We would like to suggest that that decision is less one of finding Oregon substantially equivalent on paper but more one of finding that our operating program is not sul::stantially equivalent in effect.

That is, we maintain that unless you can conclude an interim program under your authority would result in improved public health or environmental protection in Oregon you must find our program substantially equivalent

in effect.

# •

•

• Hearings Officer Page 12

Considering what Oregon has accomplished to date, and what we can acr,mplish if we're not reduced to mere paper shufflers, we expect you

can reach the same conclusion Oregon has: Tne 

### application as sul::mitted demonstrates substantial equivalence in effect

- Phase I Interim Authorization should be granted.

We appreciate the opportunity to offer this testimony into today's hearing record. Sincerely,

# -~/~ William H.

## y~ Director RR:f ZF288 (2)



### cc: Don Dubois, Regional Administrator Doug Cootie, Administrator Victor Atiyeh, Governor::"
" 

# ttW \'2\ 

# •

•

• DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY P. O. Box 1760 Portland,**O~egon** 

### 97207 JAN 13 

### 1981



### Mr. Donald P. Dubois Regional Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 HW 1.

### 21 Dear Mr. Dubois: Pursuant to' staff discussions that have occurred since EPA's November 17, 1980 public hearing on Oregon's Phase I Interim Authorization Application, it is obvious we were too conservative in describing pther environmental programs that may have a bearing on this decision. Specifically, we have very clear and broad authorities in our water quality program to accomplish the intent of the interim status standards for certain land storage, treatment, and/or disposal facilities that may handle hazardous waste (i.e., pits, ponds and lagoons). In order that we may identify these authorities for you, I request that you extend the 90 day application review period to allow us to submit specific citations related to our water quality authorities. Our submission will also contain a schedule, time frame, and justification for modifying or issuing Water Pollution Control Facilities permits to those companies who store or treat**haza~dous** 

### wastes in on-site facilities. I would expect such submission to be mailed by January 23, 1981.

William H. Young, Director Department of Environmental Quality
cc: Ray Underwood

. Dept. of Justice Ernest Schmidt, Administrator Solid Waste Division

### U. S. EN V IRONMENTAL PROT EC TION REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

# 4,~ AGENCY

# "~



# • REPLY TO 

### MIS 530 ATTN OF: 

### JAN 2 3 1981



### William H. Young, Director Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 1760 ..Por-t

### land, .OR 97207.



### Dear Mr. Young: We have received your request for an extension of the review period of your application to us for Phase I Interim Authorization of your hazardous waste management program. Your request references additional authorities under your State water pollution control program. Since these authorities were not discussed in your initial application, you have proposed to document them in a submittal which we will receive ·shortly. Our preliminary discussions indicate that these authorities may have significant implications regarding your ability to regulate surface impoundments used for management of hazardous wastes. We therefore wish to notify you that we will extend the review period. When we receive your submittal, we will establish a date for completing our review and making a final decision on your application. If 

### we find that we are able to approve your application, we would then establish an effective date for interim authorization. This date would be based upon your timetable for incorporation of standards substantially equivalent to the Interim Status Standards into licenses and permits issued under both the hazardous waste and water pollution programs. Furthermore, we will publish a Notice in the Federal Register announcing the extension of the review period and giving notice of our intended actions up until the time we render a final decision on your application. appreciate the excellent cooperation your agency has shown this complex process.



# • onald P. Dubois Regional Administrator
cc: Rich Reiter, DEQ State of Oregon DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

# {ffi~@~UW~[ID JAN 28 ·1981 OffiCE OF THE DIRECTOR

# •

• February 3, 1981

Donald P. Dubois, Regional Administrator EPA--Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Re: HW 1.2l-RCRA PhaseI--Interim Authorization Dear Mr. Dubois: On January 13, 1981, I asked that you withhold making a decision on our Phase I--Interim Authorization application to allow us to submit clarifying information on Oregon's water pollution control program. Attached to this letter is information that we believe is pertinent to your decision. On page 3.6 of our September 16, i980 application, reference is made to other existing, aggressive non-hazardous solid waste, water quality control and air pollution control programs that already are controlling hazardous and non-hazardous waste streams. On page 6.6 (Number 5), we state that licensing on-site hazardous waste management facilities will be simplified because other DEQ programs (i.e., water pollution control) already permit (license) industrial treatment facili-ties, surface -impoundments, land treatment**f~cilities** and incinerators. Table 1 describes the current permit situation relative to the eleven (11) facilities ,that notified EPA--Region X that they store, treat or dispose of hazardous waste on-site (and are, therefore, exempted from the licensing requirements of our hazardous waste program):

Table 1



# • Perma Post Products Hillsboro, OR J .H.:Baxter The Dalles, OR J.H. Baxter Eugene, OR Union Carbide Portland, OR WPCF* (3211)



### WFcF (3151) NPDES** (29l8-J)

1.6

# • Donald P. Dubois, Regional Administrator February 3, 1981 Page 2

Gilmore Steel Corp. Portland, OR Widing Transportation**por~land,** OR Widing Transportation Springfield, OR Umatilla Army Depot Umatilla, OR Borden, Inc. La Grande, OR Pennwalt, Inc. Portland, OR NPDES (2234-J) WPCF (2315)

. WPCF

Application pending WPCF (3113) NPDES (2764-J) NPDES (28l3-J) Portland Willamette Company Bortland, OR 

# • * ** NPDES (289l-J)
Oregon Water Pollution Control Facility Permit Oregon· National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit It is interesting to note that of the eleven facilities, nine are under existing permits, one permit is in the draft stage and one facility is unpermitted at this time. Without knowing the specifics of J.H. Baxter, The Dalles, I believe this again demonstrates that where potential environmental problems exist, Oregon is knowledgeable and involved! Our specific clarifying information is as follows: Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Addition to Program Description Part H - page 3.54 Supplemental Attorney General's statement ORS Chapter 468 (Water quality**portions)~** OAR Chapter 340, Divisions 11, 12, 14, 41, 42, 43, 44 and**45~** Interim Policy on Groundwater**Protection~** ORS 161.635(1) (a) 

# • In addition to Appendices A, Band C, we are on a schedule to**inspect~** determine if a hazardous waste is being managed (by federal**definition)~** and then issue or modify the necessary water quality permits (to achieve the equivalent of the Interim Status Standards through a properly conditioned permit) by March 15, 1981. We continue to take exception to your policy that these permit actions have to be completed before you make a decision on Phase I--Interim Authorization.. If you conclude we have sufficient authority to regulate these sources, that should be the pertinent point. working together (as partners), we should**b~** able to 1.7

# •

•

•

-" 

### Donald P. Dubois, Regional Administrator February 3, 1981 Page 3



### insure that the permit actions are taken in a timely manner consistent with the permittee's right to appeal and the pUblic's right to be involved. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me or Richard Reiter, Supervisor, Hazardous Waste program. Sincerely,

# W~}!'!fJ William H. 

### Young Director

RPR:c ZC407 

### cc: Ray 

### Underwood, Department of Justice Harold Sawyer, Administrator, Water Quality Division Pat Amedeo, Assistant to the Governor

1.8$O;,d**W:;~tQ** Dlvl!':ion Dc;>t. ot**t:n'iironmonl~,1** ':.iUlllity 

# 00 Ui

# M~Rr~**1~81[~** rID - 'j .- -'"

REPLY TO ATTN Of: 

### -O. S. EN V I RON MEN TAL PROTEeT ION REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101



### MIS 530 AGENCY



# •

• MAR 3 1981 

### Richard Reiter Hazardous Waste Program Department of Environmental Quality

. P.o. 

### Box 1760**'Pbttla~d~** OR 97207



### Dear Mr. Reiter:

.As you are aware, one of our main concerns with Oregon's application for

interim authorization is the absence of a complete set of standards substantially equivalent to the Interim Status Standards as part of the State's Rules. While we have in the past encouraged the State to adopt

.emergency rules to include all of the ISS, we have also noted that it would be acceptable for DEQ to incorporate the ISS into existing State licenses, and thereby provide effectively the same coverage as adoption of emergency rules. Having revieweo draft licenses which you' propose to issue, we feel that these licenses do not fully incorporate the ISS, and therefore do not adequately address the· concern raised in our initial review of your application. As an example, Section A6. of the draft treatment site license for Pacific Chemical Laboratories, Inc. includes an outline of the requirements contained in the ISS. However, none of the detailed requirements of 40 CFR Part 265, which define such terms as "contingency plan" or "closure plan," have been included in the draft license. Without such detail, we remain concerned with DEQ's ability to require compliance with the ISS. Because of the significance of the ISS issue, our review of draft licenses becomes an important consideration in our determination of whether Oregon's hazardous waste program is substantially equivalent to**t~e** 

### Federal program. We therefore strongly encourage you to modify the proposed licenses in one of the following ways: (1) include the ISS directly in the lisences, (2) develop a set of standards analogous to the ISS and incorporate them into the licenses, or (3) include appropriate !-"'-=•••

# •

•

,- -2- \ \, 

# .. 

# . references to the Code of Federal Regulations to specify detailed requirements for compliance by the licensee. Please recognize that if the second approach is taken, EPA will 

### have to review the standards developed by the State to determine whether they are substantially equivalent to the ISS. We appreciate your cooperation, and look forward to completing our review of your interim authorization application. Sincerely,

# ?deJ

Ke neth D.

# Feigner~ Waste Management Branch cc: Ernie Schmidt

# • u. 

### S. EN V I RON MEN TAL PROTEeTION AGE N C Y REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

REPLY TO 

### MIS 530 AnN OF: 

### 1SSi



# •

• Richard Reiter Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 1760 Portland,. ·OR ·97207. Dear Mr. Reiter: As a follow-up to our letter to you of March 3, 1981, we would like to provide several more detailed recommendations for revising existing licenses and permits to incorporate the Interim Status Standards for hazardous waste management facilities•

.To go back-to our earlier example,-the Pacific Chemical Laboratories

permit included a section A6. which we -felt_was not detailed enough to be considered substantially equivalent to the ISS. In our discussion with you, you proposed, and we indicated our concurrence with inclusion of a reference here to 40 CFR Part 265 to incorporate detailed requirements. We would like to make two points. First, the reference should cover all of Part 265. This is important for items such as waste analysis and

. inspection where requirements appear in more than one place in Part 265: For example, requirements for inspection appear in 265.15,265.174, 265.194, and 265.226, according to the type of facility under consideration. Second, while this reference to Part 265 would clearly ensure an equivalent set of standards for all of the items covered in A6., there are other elements of the Interim Status Standards which are not addressed in this or any other section of the proposed license. We recommend that these also be incorporated into the licenses. Specific items which have not been included are discussed below, with references given to the substantial equivalence checklist for Section 3004 of RCRA which you completed as part of your interim authorization application. 1. Item 7.5 of the checklist discusses an operating record to be held on-site and refers to 265.73(b). Nothing in the license addresses the requirement of 265.73(b)(2) for specifying the location of wastes in the facility. In (b)(3) there is a reference to "trial tests" in addition to waste analysis. This term also appears in many other sections of Part 265. We recommend that it be included with the requirement already in the license for waste analysis• 2. Item 7.8 discusses reporting (265.75), and no requirement appears in the license which addresses reporting the method of storage of the wastes (265.75(e)).

# •

•

• -2-


### 3. Item 7.10 discusses reports necessary under certain conditions. Although OAR 340-63-420(3) requires that the Oregon Accident Response System be contacted when discharges occur, no reports are required by the license in the event of explosions or fires. 4. Items 8.3 and 8.4 discuss reconciliation and reporting of manifest discrepancies. No similar requirements appear in the license. 5. The notification discussed in item 9.2(a) (regarding receipt of foreign wastes) does not appear in the license. 6. The requirements of OAR 340-63-420(1) and license condition B15. do not incorporate the more**detaile~** 

### requirements for ignitable, reactive, and incompatible**wast~ "in~luded"iri"265.198arid**  

### "265.199, ahd 265.405 and 265.406. (See items 9.7(g) 

## &(h) and 9.14(g) 

## &(h).)o 7. Items 9.7(c) and 9.14(c) reference requirements for continuous feed systems. Similar requirements are not included in the license, and may be appropriate. Regarding the addenda to the water pollution control facility permits, which we recently received, the above points would also be applicable. We feel that**ref~rences** 

### to 40 CFR Part 265 would also be necessary here. We also note that no-ref

### erence to site security has been included• Furthermore, the effective date of May 19, 1981 would be appropriate only for certain of the ISS (completion of personnel training, closure and post-closure plans, and cost estimates for closure and post-closure). The remaining ISS are in effect now, and their applicability should not be tied to a date in the future. Also we note that there is no provision in the permit analogous to Section B4. of the Pacific Chemical Laboratories license discussing compliance with plans and procedures which are maintained at the site. Such a provision should be included. Finally, there are two additional points regarding surface impoundments. The groundwater monitoring program required in the permit should be specified in greater detail, preferably by reference to 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart F. Also, specific requirements from Subpart K, as summarized in item 9.8 of the checklist, should be included. (We note that the requirement for maintaining a minimum freeboard of two feet has already been incorporated.) We are pleased to see the inclusion of the financial responsibility requirement in the permit. Please contact us to discuss any of the points noted above. We look forward to reviewing licenses and permits as you approach their final issuance. Sincerely,

# ~-dJd-d**~~~;eth~.** Feigner, Chief Waste Management Branch cc: Ernie Schmidt

# • u. s.

REPLY TO 

### MIS 530 AnN OF: 

### MAR 1 9 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTL E, WAS H I N G TON 9 8.1 0 1



# •

•• Rich Reiter Hazardous Waste Program Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 1760



### .**Portl~nd,.OR** 

### 97207



### Dear Mr.**Reiter~** 

### On February 3, 1981, 

### we received from you additional material in support of your application for RCRA Phase I Interim Authorization. Included in that submittal was a supplemental Attorney General's Statement. As we discussed earlier, clarification is needed of the provision in Section VIII (Authority to Share Information with EPA) which states that "most" information will be available to EPA upon request and without restriction

. Among the requirements for a state to receive interim authorization, 40 

### CFR 123.132 

### states that**"~** 

### information obtained or used in the administration of a state program shall be available to EPA upon request without restriction". Oregon's original submittal of September 16, 1980 

### also contained the same qualified statement that "most" information would be available. This. was clarified by the State's submittal of an amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on November 17, i980 

### (Section II.B.2.d) and a corresponding supplement to the Attorney General's Statement on December 9, 1980, 

### which certified that the amendment enabled the State to make "all" information available to EPA. However, the February 3, 1980 

### submittal again contained the provision that "most" information' would be available. Assuming that Oregon wants to extend the policy as set forth in Section II.B.2.d of the MOA to include information obtained pursuant to Oregon's water pollution authorities, an amendment to the MOA will be necessary as well as clarification of the Attorney General's Statement. Presently, only information obtained pursuant to ORS 459.410-459.690 

### is covered by the MOA. Although the provision has been found adequate under the NPDES program, the water pollution control authorities submitted by Oregon cover a much broader range of activities than those included in the NPDES program.

# • -2-



### It will therefore be necessary for Oregon to close the gaps in the MOA and certify that all, not most, information will 'be' available. I have included a sample amendment to the MOA which would satisfy our concerns. In addition, a corresponding corrected Section VIII of the Attorney General's Statement should be submitted, stating that "al l " information is available to EPA. Since the correction had previously been submitted by the Attorney General, this· llsecond ll 

### correction need only be transmitted with a statement of clarification signed by Ray Underwood, Assistant Attorney General. We appreciate your cooperation in clearing this up. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely,

David A. Hanline Program Development Section
Enclosure
• cc: Ray Underwood



# •

# •

•

• Add the following to Section 11.8.2.0:
The Director will not accept any**record~ report~**  

### or information obtained pursuant to DRS 468 and rules adopted thereunder which is purported to be confidentia.l unless the confidentiality has first been confirmed by the Regional Administrator. When the**information~** 

### if made**pUblic~** 

### would'divulge a seCret**proce~s~ devic~~**  

### or method of**manufact~ring** 

### or production entitled to protection as trade secrets and has been determined by the Regional Administrator to warrant confidential**status~** 

### the Director will then receive such information**and~** 

### upon a showing ,satisfactory to him, shall classify it as confidential in accordance with ORS 468.095(2) .

'",- ",

VICTOR ATiYEH GOVERNOR 

## Department of Environmental Quality

522 SOUTHWEST 5TH AVE. PORTLJ..ND, OREGON MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1760, PORTLAND, OREGON 97207 April 6, 1981



# •



# • Dave Hanline MS 530 EPA .: Region 10 1200 6TH Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Phase 1- HWl.2l-RCRA

.Interim**A~thorization** Dear Dave: As you know, we are currently in the process of modifying 11 Water Quality permits to incorporate conditions substantially equivalent to the Interim Status Standards (ISS). It is interesting to note that of the 11 Part A applications evaluated, only one seems to accurately depict a hazardous waste being discharged to a surface impoundment. Two apparent reasons for these conservative filings are: . 1) Companies did not understand your form; and 2) Rather than test, companies just declare their waste to be hazardous. Testing, if necessary, is done later. The other interesting thing to note is that of the 11 companies identified· by you, our**W~ter** Quality Program had 9 current permits in effect, ·one was being drafted, and one company had a tank (concrete basin) rather than a surface impoundment. Considering you selected the companies, we believe such a record clearly indicates Oregon's environmental programs are on top of things when we need to be! We continue to move as fast as we can to resolve these 11 permit actions (DEQ issue a permit or company submit revised Part A applications to EPA). Further, we will include the substantially equivalent conditions in future Water Quality permits if a hazardqus waste (not an industrial waste) is discharged to a surface impoundment. While we proceed to resolve these permit actions, three other minor matters still appear to concern some of EPA'S review team. 1) Designation of an "authorized" management facility. 2) Exemption from the manifesting requirements of shipments under 2,000 pounds." 

# •

•

•

.**~-** .- DAVE HANLINE April 6, 1981 Page 2

3) DEQ's ability to share all hazardous waste related confidential information received under the water quality program with EPA.

ISSUE I - Designation of a facility other than an REPA or state authorized" facility. EPA CONCERN - An Oregon firm could ship'waste to an out-of-state facility and DEQ could not take enforcement action against the Oregon generator even though the designated facility was not an "EPA or state authorized"**facili~y.** COMMENT

- Assuming that a company is filling out a manifest and designating a facility (DEQ requirement), that same company is probably keeping records and submitting quarterly reports to DEQ. Assuming that EPA actually lets us implement our program, it would be our intent to review quarterly generator reports in a timely manner and share out-of-state information with the appropriate state. Any use of an unauthorized facility should result in an inspection of said facility by the other state while we will increase our surveillance of the Oregon generator to insure the intent of 'RCRA is achieved for future shipments• Now assume, for the moment, that the Oregon generator is not filling out a manifest, not keeping records or submitting quarterly reports. At this point, it makes little difference whose rule is in effect, since the generator has to be identified first. What's on paper makes little difference unless staff time is devoted to actual field inspections and investigations. We continue to believe that our**~ule** is substantially equivalent, in effect, in that we will get the necessary information to work with Oregon's generators to ensure hazardous waste are being properly managed. ISSUE 11- Exemptions from Oregon's manifesting requirements for loads under 2,000 pounds. EPA Concern - A large generator could legally take a 20,000' pound shipment and break it down into 10-2,000 pound shipments thereby avoiding the manifesting, reporting and record keeping requirements. DEQ Comment

- If in fact a company wanted to become non-competitive, they could indeed do what EPA suggests. Keep in mind, however, that the wastes still have to be properly identified (63-225), packaged (63-220), and managed (63-215). While we exempt 2,000 pound shipments

# •

• DAVE HANLINE April 6, 1981 Page 3

from manifesting, reporting and record keeping requirements (paperwork) the waste still must be managed as a hazardous waste (protection of public health and environment insured) and the generator has to register with DEQ (unless the 2,000 pound shipment also happens to be the only annual shipment). In light of EPA's small quanity exemption of 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) per month for most waste, we are puzzled by EPA making this a significant issue. Further, since all we have exempted is the paperwork requirements rather than the management requirements, we believe we have a substantially equivalent progr.am·in·effect. ISSUE III

- DEQ's ability to share hazardous waste related information under Chapter 468 (water quality). EPA Concern

- with the water quality authorities submitted on February 3, 1981, DEQ stated it could share "most" but not**"all~** confidential information derived as a result of permitting surface impoundments that receive hazardous waste. DEQ Comment - As wi.th the authorities under.Chapter 459, the authorities in Chapter 468 on confidential information do not explicitly provide preferential status to EPA under all circumstances. Until we have a chance to correct the statutory difficulty, we propose to resolve this matter in the same way we did with Chapter 459. Attached is a new Section II.B.2.e. to be inserted into the Memorandum of Understanding to deal with handling of hazardous waste related confidential information when received under our water quality authorities. Also, attached is a letter from the Attorney General's Office clarifying the Attorney General's statement in this regard. Contrary to John's Skinner's**co~~ents** as reported in the State Regulation Report of March 5, 1981 (see attached) we don't consider it a "favor"**tha~** you're requiring a ."nearly identical" program rather than a "substantially equivalent" program. With everything else that is happening right now (i.e. State Legislative Session, TSD Inspections, Emergency Spill Response, Superfund, Phase II applications and clean up of Caron Chemical) we find you're insisting**o~** equivalency very perturbing and certainly not in the spirit of a "partnership". As we stated in our Phase I application of September 16, 1980, it is not in Oregon's interest to adopt temporary rules at this time. We would like to believe that if you're really objective and look beyond the interim authorization question as to all the other work you're expecting of us

# •

• DAVE HANLINE April 6, 1981 Page 4

(i.e. generator, transporter, and TSD Inspections; abandon site inspections; Phase II applications; superfund), adopting temporary rules at this time is not in your interest either. If there are any questions please call.

RPR:t ZTD35 (1) cc: Bill Youno Ernest Schmidt Ray Underwood Pat Amedeo, Office of the Governor Paul Henry, PUC David Duncan, ASTSWMO

# •

• Add Section II.B.2.e:

The Director will not accept any hazardous waste related record, report, or information obtained pursuant to ORS 468 and rules adopted thereunder, which is purported to be confidential unless the confidentiality has first been confirmed by**t~e** Regional Administrator.**Whe~-~he** information,- if made**~blic,** would divulge a secret process, device, or method of manufacturing or production entitled to protection

as trade secrets and has been determined by the Regional Administrator
to warrant confidential status, the Director will then receive such information and, upon a showing satisfactory to him, shall classify it

as confidential in accordance with ORS 468.095(2)

.

5.6b

# •

• Statement of Clarification of Supplemental Attorney General's Statement of January 30, 1981

I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Oregon and in accordance with Section 3006(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (42 USC 691, et**~)** 

### and 40 CFR 123, that in my opinion the supplemental Attorney General's statement of January 30, 1981, signed by Dave Fz

### ohnmayer , .Attorney· General.·of Oregon, regarding the Program Description sUbmitted ·by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, continues fully applicable, and includes applicability to the following addition to Section II.B.2.e of the Program Description contemporaneously being submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: "The Director will not accept any hazardous waste related record, report, or information obtained pursuant to ORS 468 and rules adopted thereunder which is purported to be confidential unless the confidentiality has first been confirmed by the Regional Administrator. When the information, if made public, would divulge a secret process, device, or method of-manufacturingor production entitled to protection as trade secrets and has been determined by the Regional Administrator to warrant confidential status, the Director will then receive such information and, upon a showing satisfactory to him, shall classify it as confidential in accordance with ORS 468.095(2)."

# ~fw~ Assistant Attorney General State of Oregon

Date

.

## ~~ 

# 'State 

# ReguiatJon Report**~Page** 31 SKINNER DEFENDS EPA STATE PROGRANS, CITES CQt.1t1UNICATION PROBLEMS Defending Environmental Protection Agency positions on several state-related '.issues against criticisms from state officials and industry representatives, John Skinner, Director of State Programs and Resource Recovery Division at EPA head-

. quarters, told SRR that many problems between EPA and the states are based on misunderstandings and lack of communication.

. In an exclusive interview with SRR, Skinner observed that EPA's criteria for granting interim authorization under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are really more flexible than states are willing to admit. He noted that the term "substantially equivalent" is used in the act as the criterion for judging interim authorization. He said that in interpreting this term EPA feels it must make sure that states cover the same waterfront as the Federal rules. Consequently, even for interim authorization, EPA has been looking for the states to control the same or a greater universe of generators, facilities and wastes. He said the flexibility under interim authorization has come in how EPA has allowed such waste to be handled. Skinner pointed out that final authorization programs must be both "equivalent and consistent," noting that much of the flexibility in how things are handled will be eliminated at that stage and.that many states .will have to revise their regulations to qualify for final'**au'thoriiat'i~n:'** . . . Admitting that many states have objected to EPA's interpretation of "substantially equivalent" claiming that what EPA is really looking for is "nearly identical," Skinner noted that in the long run the agency would not be doing the states a favor to give interim approval to plans with little chance for final approval. Skinner Denies That EPA Sets Rigid Quotas for State Inspections Responding to objections voiced by some states who have received interim authorization that EPA is setting rigid quotas on how many compliance inspections and enforcement actions they expect per year under RCRA, Skinner said this was an over-

• reaction. He admitted that Federal EPA does have a computerized workload model called ORIA which is used to develop budgets for interim authorization programs and cooperative arrangements. The model makes assumptions about the costs and manpower needs to perform a set number of inspections

.. Then the regions and states negotiate how much enforcement work states should be able to do based on the model. He said the system is flexible, involves state input and will be changed as the field work indicates .the need. Skinner also observed that under cooperative arrangements, where EPA maintains basic regulatory control, the numbers are more important than under interim authorization.



# :.

..**~.** .... States Can Take Responsibility for Delisting If Procedures Are Approved Discussing the issue of delisting, Skinner said the agency has been guilty of using the word loosely to mean both actually removing wastes from the EPA lists and for site-specific delisting based on petitions from firms. He told SRR that if EPA has approved a state's delisting procedures, firms requesting delisting for a particular waste at a particular facility can go directly to the states with their petitions.**\~1en** it comes to removing wastes taken off the EPA lists from their own lists, states have the flexibility to either remove the wastes or not. Since states are allowed to have more stringent programs than EPA, Skinner said many will choose not to change their O\VU listings. On the general issue of states having more stringent rules, Skinner said that EPA did not intend to get too involved in the issue. Skinner told SRR that a guidance document on how EPA intends to operate the savings clause allowing Federal interim permitting for new land disposal facilities will be issued as soon as the regulatory freeze is lifted. He said the policy will make clear that EPA wants the states to work closely with the regional offices in the interim permitting process. A Phase II manual for interim authorization under components A and B will be ready in a month or so, Skinner said. He told SRR that in about a week state representatives, regional personnel and EPA headquarters staff will meet in St. Louis, Mo., to agree on changes for the final draft of the manual.

# ji~**.~** VICTOR ATIYEH GOvF.RNOR 

# Department of Environmental Quality

522 SOUTHWEST 5TH AVE. PORTLt.ND, OREGON MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1760, PORTLAND, OREGON 97207 May 6, 1981



## • Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief waste Management Branch EPA--Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101

Dear Mr. Feigner: MiS 530

Re: _ HW.1.21 RCRA



# • We have considered your letters of March 3 and 6, 1981, and offer the following response. March 3, 1981 Letter While we don't necessarily agree that any changes are needed to show "substantial equivalence," we are prepared to directly reference Part 265 relative to site security, waste analysis, prevention and preparedness, contingency plan, training plan, inspections and closure plan (including cost estimates). Since it had been our intent to use Part 265 to judge compliance with these license requirements, referencing them should make it clear to both EPA and the licensee where the Department is corning from. March 6, 1981 Letter Using your same numbering scheme, our responses are:



# • 1.

2. 265.73(b2): Although we require this information for disposal sites, we are not persuaded it's useful information for storage and treatment facilities and have not revised our license in this regard. 265.73(b3): Since treatment site licenses limit what waste types can be received without prior approval, and since we would need this information to approve new waste types, we believe we have a handle on this subject where needed. Likewise, use of our disposal site is on a prior approval basis and, where needed, test data can be secured. No changes in the licenses were made in this regard. 265.75(e): We consider method of storage, and appropriate environmental safeguards needed for various types of storage, during plan approval. Once the methods and facilities are

# • Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief May 6, 1981 Page 2
approved, we don't see a need for this information on a continuing basis. No change in licenses made. 3. 265.56(j): Our requirements relate to discharges to the "environment" which we interpret to mean discharges to groundwater, surface water, air (fire and explosion) and adjacent property. No change made in license.
4. 265.72: While not as explicit or detailed as your rule, we believe that for Interim Authorization OAR 340-63-215(4) accomplishes the intent of your rules and is substantially equivalent. No change made in license.
5. 265.12: True, but we do require prior approval -of all wastes received at our licensed disposal site and we require storage, treatment and disposal sites to report all waste receipts after the fact (quarterly, quarterly, and monthly, respectively). No change made in licenses.


# • 6.

7. 265.198, 265.199, 265.405 & 265.406: We see these considerations as part of facility plan review and components of acceptable preparedness and prevention procedures. Our plan approvals limit storage in containers or tanks to only compatible materials identified in advance. No change made in license• 265.192 & 265.401: We see this as a consideration of our plan review, not as a license condition. We don't want to see something built that doesn't take these types of preventive measures into account. No change made in license. One anticipatory comment--no, we don't have any r-ules or guidelines for plan review. In the absence of clear direction from EPA until just recently, we developed Oregon's program regulating storage, treatment and disposal using Best Engineering Judgement. For purposes of Interim Authorization, we again remind you to look at what we have accomplished, and are accomplishing, not what we have on paper. As we've stated many times before, we fully intend to modify our rules to show equivalency, consistency and enforceability for Final Authorization. Surface Impoundments For waste analysis, inspection plan, contingency plan, preparedness and prevention, personnel training, closure plan and post-closure plan, Part 265 has been referenced. While the May 19, 1981 date was an obvious error on our part, it has no practical effect since your approval of our Interim Authorization will not occur until after that date. Site.security measures are identified, as required. While we have not specifically referenced Subpart K in the permit modifications, we assure you we will use it as the 9asis for compliance with the groundwater monitoring program. Lastly, through an earlier oversight on our part, we failed to send you complete permit copies which should answer the rest of your minor concerns. Enclosed is Permapost which is now officially modified. The others will be mailed as soon as the modifications are completed.

# •

•

-. Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief May 6, 1981 Page 3



### In summary, we 

### wish to reiterate that it's our 0plnlon for Interim 'Authorization that you need to judge whether or not our program is

accomplishing a substantially equivalent degree of public health and environmental protection, not "do the words on our paper match the words on your paper. a 

### We wish to again state that we have a substantially equivalent program in effect and should receive a concurrence by EPA on our Interim Authorization application. If there are any questions, please call.

Richard P. Reiter, Supervisor Hazardous Waste Section Solid Waste Division

RPR:c ZC594 

### Enclosure cc: Ernie Schmidt, Solid Waste Division Ray Underwood, Department of Justice Paul Henry, PUC Al Goodman, EPA--OOO""

.. "**~.-** 36844 .. Federal Register 

## I Vol. 46. No. 136 

## I Thursday. July 16. 1981 

## I Rules and Regulations 

# e ; theSeregulations are exemptfrom egulatoryFlexibilityAct (94Stat. (5U.S.C.**601~2)).** However. the .e:quirements of the Acthavebeentaken into consideration. andfor the reasons discussed above theseregulations are notexpectedtohave significant economicimpacton small entities.

In considerationof the foregoing. Part 117 ofTitle 33 of the COGe ofFederal Regulationsis amendedby revising paragraph (a), (d),and (e) of§117.660to read as follows: PART 117-DRAVISRIDGE OPERATIONREGULATIONS § 117.660 Root River. Racine. Wlsconsln. Main Streetand State Street Brldges.

(a)Thedrawsshall open onsignal; exceptas follows:

. (1) Main StreetBridge, (i) FromApri!.! through December1 from 6a.m,to 6p.m,the draw needopen only on signal every 20minutes (on the hour. 20minutes after the hour, and 20 minutes before the hour). The draw shall remainopen long enough during these periods of time to allow all awaiting vessels to safelypass.

(ii) FromDecember2 through March

. 31 the draw' shallopen on signalifat 

# e st two hours notice is given. 2)State StreetBridge. From October through April 30 the draw shall open on signal if at leasttwo hours notice is . given. .' (d) The draws shall open as soon as possible forpublicvessels of the United States, stateor local governmentvessels engagedin public safety or law enforcement activities, commercial vessels and vessels in distress even -though the closedperiods as specifiedin paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section are in effect.

(e) The ownerof or agency controlling these bridges shall keep a copy ofthese regulations conspicuouslypostedboth upstream and downstream, eitheron the bridges orelsewhere in such amanner thatit can be easilyreadfroman

_approaching vessel at all times;with

..

instructions stating exactlyhow notice is to be given to the authorized -representative of the bridge ownerto effect an opening during theperiods of closure specifiedinparagraphs (a) (1)

-and (2) of this section.

.

(33 U.S.C. 499, 49 U.S.C. 1655(g)(2); 49 CFR 1.46(c)(5), .33 CFR 1.05-1(g)(3))

_ enryH. Bell.

.**~~a:r** Admiral. Coast Guard. Commander, lflth Coast GuardDistrict. IFR Doc.el-2ll882 filed**7-1~:** 8:45 am] BlUING CODE 4910-14-101 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . 40 CFR Part 123' [SW-1o-FRL-1871-8] HazardcuaWaste Management ProgralJ1s: Phase I Interim Authorization for Oregon AGENCY: EnvironmentalProtection Agency. RegionX. ACTION: Final rule: Approval ofState Program. SUMMARY:The State ofOregonhas applied for interim authorization of its hazardous waste programunderSubtitle Cofthe Resource Conservationand RecoveryAct andEflAguidelines for the approval ofStatehazardous waste" programs (40 CFRPart123). EPA has determined thatthe State's program meets all applicable statutory and' regulatoryrequirements and is granting Phase I interim authorizationto Oregon to operate a hazardous waste program in lieu ofPhaseI of the Federal hazardous waste programin its jurisdiction. The practical effectofthis decisionis thatgenerators. transporters. and owners and operators ofhazardous waste managementfacilities in Oregon. will be subjectto the State ofOregon's hazardous waste programin lieu of the Federal hazardous waste program (40 CFR Parts 260-263 and 265)and will not again be subject to Phase I of the FederalProgramunless: (1) The State fails to obtain'final authorizationby 'the deadline specifiedin Section3006{c) of RCRA and implementing regulations, or (2)authorizationis withdrawnfor cause by EPA.

. EFFECTIVE DATE; July 16, 1981. FOR FURTHERINFORMATION COtiTACT: David Hanline, Waste Management BranchM!S 520, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 10, 1200Sixth Avenue. Seattle, Washington98101; (zoe) 442-1260 or rrs 399-1260

.. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The purpose ofthis notice is tograntPhaseI InterimAuthorization to the State of Oregon for its hazardous waste
.

.managementprogram. In the May 19, .1980.Federal Register (45FR33063).the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) promulgatedregulations, pursuantto Subtitle C ofthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Actof 1976 (RCRA), to protecthuman health and the environmentfrom the improper management ofhazardous wastes. Includedinthese regulations, which became effectiveonNovember 19, 1980, were provisions for a transitional phase during which States couldbe granted interimprogram authorizationprovided thatStateprograms were deterinIned to be substantially equivalentto the Federalprogram. The interim authorizationprogramis being implementedin two phases corresponding tothe two stages in which the underlying Federalprogram takes effect. . On September 16, 1980. the State of Oregon applied to EPA for Phase I Interim authorization of its hazardous waste managementprogram. On October 16,1980, EPA issued in the FederalRegister (45FR68693) a notice of the public commentperiod on the State's application. All comments received during this periodhavebeen noted andconsidered. as discussed below. Continuing discussions between . the State'andEPAresulted in a request from the State on January 13. 1981. to extend the reviewperiodof the applicationin orderthatcertain authorities and activities not documentedin the September 16 applicationcouldbe submitted for EPA's consideration. This material was

.receivedby EPA on February 5, 1981. An

announcementof the public comment period for the additional material was published in the FederalRegisteron February 20, 1981 (46FR13242). However, no public comments were receivedon this additional material. I. EPA's MajorConcerns

In reviewing Oregon's interim authorization application. EPAraised several concerns about whether Oregon's hazardous waste management programwas substantially equivalent to the Federal program. After careful consideration ofthese points, EPA has determined that while some ofthem representdiscrepancies between the corresponding aspects of the State and Federalprograms, none constitutes a significantgap in Oregon's ability to properlymanagehazardous wastes during the interimperiod. Following is a discussion ofthesepoints and EPA's basis for determining that they oughtnot to preclude PhaseIinterim authorization. 1. Universe,

### of WastesRegulated In considering the universe of hazardous wastes regulated under

. Oregon's program, three issues were

highlighted as potentialproblem areasOregon's exclusionofwastes from the leather tanning industry and the primary aluminum industry from regulation; Oregon's exemption ofshipments under 2,000 lbs. from manifest, recordkeeping, andreporting requirements; .and Oregon's exemptionfromregulation under the hazardous waste program of

# .- .Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 136 

### I Thursday. July 16. 1981 

### I Rules and Regulations



# •

•• radioactive materials which may also be defined as "hazardous."

First. in theFederalRegister of October30. 1980 (45 FR 72024). EPA excludedwastes from the leather tanning industryfrom the hazardous waste listing (theconstituentofconcern being trivalentchromium). Also, the October 30amendments suspendthe listing ofwastes from the primary aluminum industry from the Federal regulations. since primary aluminum reduction falls-under the exclusion for "extraction, beneficiation. and processing of ores and minerals" providedby the Solid Waste Disposal ActAmendments of1980, Pub. L.96-482.

Second. even with the exemptions from the manifesting. recordkeeping. andreporting requirements for shipments under 2.000lbs., Oregon's rules still require that the waste go to hazardous waste facilities. Applicable rules also specifyrequirements for packaging waste and labeling containers forshipmentFurthermore. waste managementfacilities in Oregon are required to report allreceipts of hazardous waste whetheror not the wastes are subject tomanifest requirements.

.

Third. Oregon's hazardous waste managementprogram does not 'control radioactive wastes, regardless of any other "hazardous" properties of the wastes. Authority forregulation of radioactive wastes rests with the State Departmentof Energy and the Health

,. Division. However. EPA is not aware of

any wastes in Oregon which are radioactive and would also be defined as hazardous for some otherreason. 2. InterimStatusStandards(ISS)- UnlicensedFacilities'

With the exception offacilities utilizing surface impoundments. Oregon does not at presentrequire hazardous wastelicenses of on-site treatment and

.. storage facilities. However, through its

generatorrequirements, Oregondoes require compliance by such facilities with standards substantiallyequivalent to the ISS.

Furthermore, generators cannotstore hazardous wastefor longer than six months without approvalfrom the State. This approvalisbasedon whetherthere is·a potential for reuse orrecycling. within a reasonabletime frame. Intheir interim authorization application. the State agreed to seek voluntary

. compliance by firms with all of the ISS

..' Furthermore, the State agreedto . undertakecompliance inspections of. facilities whichreturned PartApermit applications, but are unlicensedin Oregon. on a bi-yearly basis. 3.Interim StatusStandards-Licensed Facilities

Licenses are required ofdisposal facilities. offsite treatment and storage facilities. and facilities utilizing surface impoundments formanagement of hazardous wastes, andOregonhas sufficientlybroad authority to apply the ISS to these facilities. Certain'

- requirements includedin the ISS were not specified in Oregon's rules. however. and were not Includedin existing licenses. Inresponse to EPA's concerns. the Statehas modified these licenses to incorporate standards substantially equivalentto the ISS.Furthermore, the State has committedto include the ISS in all new. renewed. andmodified licenses issuedafterSeptember 1, 1980. II.Response to Public Comments

After an announcementin the Federal Registeron Octoberl6. 1980 (45 FR 68693), a publichearing was held on Oregon's applicationinPortlandon November 17, 1980. At this time, itwas decided that the commentperiodwould remain open until November24, 1980

.. Comments were received from representatives ofindustry. Most of the commenters didnot address the specific requirements for authorization ofState programs, nor how Oregon's program compared to the Federalprogram. Rather, commenters were mainly concerned aboutthe possibility of having duplicative State and Federal 'programs, whichhad the potential for confusion and increasedburden on those regulated.

While EPA is sympathetic to these concerns, they do not get at the heart of the issue at hand-whetherOregon's program. whichwould operate in lieu of the Federalprogram. is substantially equivalentto the Federal program. In the absence of an authorized programin Oregon, EPA's approach to minimize duplication and confusion would have been to encourage the State to enterinto a Cooperative Arrangementwith EPA so thatthe Statewould help to administer the Federal programto the maximum extent feasible. This approach would havemaximized and thus maintained direct contactbetween the State and regulated industryuntilauthorization could be granted. Clearly. EPA's decision tograntPhase Iauthorization will gofurther to eliminate the potential forduplication andconfusion.

Othercomments focused on the problems facedby Statesinkeeping abreastofregulatory changes at the Federal.level, suggestingitwould be betterto allow a Stateprogramwith a history ofreal-world application to operateduring the interim authorization 36845 

# - perioduntil the Federalprogramgained greaterstability. While there is merit to this argument. particularly considering .r:: the complexity of the Federal program :=:, as it has appeared innumerous issues of '<.:.'•... the Federal Register. it too, begs the fundamental question ofwhether the State's programis substantially

, equivalent to the Federal program. A more pointedcommentfocused on a requirementin the Federal regulations thatin landfilling, ignitable wastes must be treated. rendered. ormixed so that the resulting waste nolonger meets the characteristic ofignitability (40CFR 265.312). Itwas felt by this commenter that theprincipalhazardous waste disposal site in the area did not atthe timehave the capability toincinerate or otherwise treatignitable waste. On-site storage wouldbe necessary for some time. which wouldcause an increased potential for adverse environmental impacts and safetyproblems, as well as the need for a storage permit. The commenterconcludedthat interim authorization shouldtherefore be granted since thereis no similar requirementin effect at the State level, Consequently, the problems which were notedwouldnot arise.

This concernis one which was broughtto EPA's attention by many generators andlandfill operators commenting on the Federalregulations of May 19; 1980. in which the requirementfirst appeared. Inresponse to this concern. onFebruary 20. 1981 (46 FR13492), EPAamended this requirement, suspending it forliquid ignitable wastes in containers until**~1Ci:':** 19, 1981. The preamble to the February 20 amendmentgives considerable detail on this topic. EPAextended this suspension on June 29, 1981 (46 FR 33502). As a consequence of the suspension, the issue raisedrelative to interim authorizationin Oregon has been addressed.

.

Finally, two commenters in support'of grantinginterim authorization to Oregon emphasizedthatin some respects the universe'ofhazardous wastes regulated underOregon's program is more stringentthan thatregulatedby the Federal program. Examples notedwere a broadercorrosivitycharacteristic and certain smallgeneratorcut-offs which are more restrictive. Such areas of relativelygreaterstringencydo suggest a comprehensive definitionofhazardous wastes in Oregon. EPA's conclusion that the discrepancies between Oregon's definitionofhazardous wastes and the Federal definitionofhazardous wastes do not comprise significantgaps in the universe ofwastes regulatedin Oregon.

- has led EPA to judge Oregon's definition.:"-

### .., 36846 -

### -

- 

## - 'Federal Register 

## I Vol. 46.

### N~:-136 

## I**Thur~day.** July 16. 1981 

## I Rules and Regulations

[SW-4-fRL 1872-2) Hazardous Waste Management

. Program; Phase I Interim Authorization forTennessee
- AGENCY:EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region IV, ACTION:Fmalrole;

### Approv'~l ofState

.Program. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I.Background

.

In the May 19, 1980. FederalRegister (45FR33063). the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA)promulgated regulations, pursuantto SubtitleC of the Resource Conservation andRecovery Actof1976 (RCRA). to protecthuman health andthe-environmentfrom the impropermanagementofhazardous wastes.TheAct (RCRA)Includes

_ provisionswhereby a State agency may be authorizedby EPA-toadministerthe hazardous wasteprograminthatState in lieu of aFederally administered program. For a Stateprogramtoreceive final authorization. its hazardous waste programmust be fully equivalentto and consistentwith the Federalprogram under-RCRA.lnorderto expedite the authorizationofStateprograms, RCRA allows EPA togranta Stateagency interim authorizationifits programis substantiallyequivalentto the Federal program. Duringinterimauthorization. a State canmake whateverlegislative or regulatorychanges thatmay be needed for the State'shazardouswasteprogram to become fullyequivalentto the Federalprogram.The Interim authorizationprogramwill be

. implementedin two phases

correspondingto the two stages in which the underlying Federalprogram willtake effect.

The State ofTennessee submittedits draftapplicationforPhaseIinterim authorization on September8. 1980. After detailedreview, EPA identifie.d several areas ofmajorconcern and transmittedcomments to the State for its consideration. The State subsequently made revisions to its application for PhaseIinterim authorizationin orderto clarify those aspects of its program whichhadbeen questioned during the EPAreview.

On October30,1980,Tennessee submittedto EPA a final application for PhaseIinterim authorizationunder RCRA. EPAHeadquarters and Regional personnelconductedan analysis of Tennessee's hazardous wasteprogram. The following issues were raisedby the review teams:

(a)Tennessee's hazardous waste legislationlimits the abilityof the State program officials to inspectgenerators.

(b) The State statutues do not permit the State to share proprietary

.informationwith EPA. (c) The State's universe ofwaste is notidenticalof EPA's.

(d) The State's delisting procedures are not substantially equivalent.

(e) The Attorney General does not provide assurances th-at the State will _not oppose citizenintervention in the enforcementprocess on the grounds that Authority"·

. ..

Thisnoticeis iSsued'underthe authority ofSections 2OO2(a}, 3006,and

.. 7004(b} of the SolidWasteDisposalAct. as amendedby the Resource ConservationandRecoveryAct of 1976; as amended. 42U.S.c. 6912(a).6926 and 6974-

Dated: May-20, 1981. - L. Edwin Coate, ActingRegionalAdministrator. (FR Doc.**81~** FIled7-1$-081:8:45 IUD) SIUJHG eeee 656O-3O-M

SUMMARY: The StateofTennesseehas -applied for interimauthorizationofits hazardous wasteprogramunder Subtitle C of the Resource Conservationaod Recovery Act(RCRA)aodEPA guidelines for the approval ofState hazardous wasteprograms (40 CFRPart 123).EPAhas determinedthatthe State'sprogrammeets all applicable statutory andregulatoryrequirements andis grantingPhaseI interimauJhorization toTennesseeto operate a hazardous waste programin lieu of - PhaseI of the Federalhazardous waste programin its jurisdiction.The practical effect of this decisionis thatgenerators, transporters, and owners andoperators ofhazardous wastemanagement.
. facilities in Tennessee will be subjectto the State ofTennessee hazardous waste programin lieuof

## theFederalhazardous wasteprogram (40CFRParts 260-263 and265)andwill notagainbe subjectto PhaseI of the Federal programunless: (1) The State fails to obtainfinal authorizationby the deadline specified in section3006(c) of RCRAand implementingregulations, or (2) authorization is withdrawn forcause by EPA. . . EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 1981. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas C. McCurry, Residuals

_ ManagementBranch, U.S. EPA,-Region IV, 345Courtland Street, NE.,Atlanta. Georgia 30365.Telephone (404) 881- 3016. 

# e azardous waste tobe

### sUbst~tially - review as requiredby ExecutiveOrder valentto the.Federaluniverse. - - -, 1Z291. _ _ -_"

-- •. -

. "'-'-..

- llL Decision

- -- - - -- -" .: - .. - EPAhas reviewed-the Stateof Oregon's complete application forPhase I interim:authorizationand has'

. determinedthatthe Stateprogram is ' "substantially equivalent" to thePhase I Federalprogramas defined in40CFR Part 123. SubpartF, In accordancewith Section3006(c)ofRCRA. the Stateof Oregonis herebygrantedinterim authorizationtooperate ahazardous

_ waste program in lieu ofPhase I of the Federalhazardous wasteprogram. The practicaleffect of this decisionis that generators. transporters. and owners andoperators ofhazardouswaste' -40CFRParf123

- - managementfacilities in Oregon will be subjectto the State-ofOregon's hazardous wasteprogramin lieu of the Federalhazardouswasteprogram (40 CFRParts 260-263 and 265)andwill not againbe subjecttoPhase I ofthe.. Federalprogramunless: (1)The State' fails to obtainfinal authorizationby the deadline specifiedin3006(c) ofRCRA andimplementingregulations. or (2) authorizationis withdrawn forcaseby _ . EPA.

_

• Compliance\Vith

# ~ecutive Order 91 -

-- UnderExecutive Order12291, EPA must prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis on "majorregulations". A "major.regulation" is defined as "any regulationthat is likely to result in:

(1)An annual effect on the economy o[ $100 million or more;

(2) A major increase in co-stsorprices for consumers, individualindustries, Federal. State, or local governmentagencies, or -geographicregions; or (3)Significantadverse effects on competition. employment. investment. productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-basedenterprises to compete withforeign-based enterprises in domesticor exportmarkets."

EPA's decision to approve Oregon's Phase Ihazardous wasteprogram isnot a major regulationbecauseits effect is to suspend the applicability ofcertain Federalregulations in theState of _ Oregon. In the absence of this decision, persons handlinghazardouswaste in Oregon wouldhaveto comply with Parts 260-263 and 265of Title 40 of the Code ofFederalRegulations in addition to all Oregon hazardous waste ' management regulations. For this reason - itis virtually inconceivable that this regulation would result in the significant impacts that characterize a "major regulation."

. .

This regulation was submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget for

# •

•

• APPENDIX A Program Description
Part H - Other Environmental Authorities

- Water Pollution Control

# •

•

• APPENDIX B Supplemental Attorney General's Statement

# •

• APPENDIX C
ORS Chapter 468 (Water Quality Authorities) OAR Chapter 340

- Divisions 12, 14, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 Interim Groundwater Quality Protection Policy ORS 161.635 (1) (a)'

. 

## .....
•**iiiif;!I~ii ~;ii~Hn~:~:~** 

### ~;HLL:~~



## r " "**~~~.4~~rn7'7;** 

## !!tmHllH 

### H

## ~iH!~m;;;Hii ! These regulations include provisions for uuthorization ofState programs to operate in lieu' of the Federal program. On September16, 1980. the State of Oregon applied for Phase IInterim Authorization. Today EPA is announcing the availability for public review ofadditional material submitted by the State in support oftheir application. and is giving notice that the review period for the Oregon application is being recommenced. DATE: Written comments on the additional material submitted by Oregon in support oftheir application mustbe received by March 23. 1931. Furthermore. ifsufficient public interest is demonstrated. EPA will hold a public hearing to receive oral comments on the additional material. Requests for 8 public hearing should be submitted to EPA by March 12. 1981. ADDRESSES: Copies of the motorial underreview are available at the following addresses for inspection and copyingby the public. Oregon Deportment ofEnvironmunlal

Quality, Solid Waste Division. 14th Floor, 522 SW .• 5th Street. Portland. Oregon. (503) 229-5913. Environmental Protection Agency.

, Region 10. Library. 12th Floor. 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington. (206) 442-1289. Comments and/orrequests fur a hearing shouldbe sent to: David Hanlinc. Program Development Section. M/S 530,Environmental Protection Agency. 1200Sixth Avenue. Seattle.

- Washington 98101. (206) 442-1260.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Same as above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In "the May 19. 1980Federal Register (45 FR 330(3) the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated Phase I ofits regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C ofthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (as amended), to protect human health and the environment from the improper management ofhazardous waste. EPA's Phase I regulations establish, among other things: The initial identification and listing ofhazardous wastes; the standards applicable to generators and transporters of hazardous wastes, including a manifest system; and the "interim status" standards applicable to existing hazardous waste management facilitius before they receive permits.

.

The May 19regulations also include provisions under which EPA can authorize qualified State hazardous waste managementprograms to operate in lieu of the Federal program. The regulations provide for a transitional 1981 

### I Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: EPA regulations to protect human health and the environment from impropermanagement ofhaznrdous waste were published in the Federal Register on May 19,1980 (40 FR 33063). Oregon Application for Interim Authorization, Phase I, Hazardous Waste Management Proqrarn AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Region 10. ACTION: Notice ofPublic Comment Period and Recomrnenccment ofReview Periods. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Proposed Revision of the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan; Correction AGENCY: EnvironmentalProtection Agency. ACTION: Correction-ofProposed Rule (Hearing Notice). ' 40 CFR Part 52 [A3 FRL 1758-8] Federal Register 

### I Vol. 46, No. 34 

### I Friday. February 20. 13242

_ RTH ER INFORMATION CONTACT: s Hayden of the Legislation and tions Division, Office ofChief

._..asel. InternalRevenue Service. 1111 ConstitutionAvenueNW., Washington. D.C. 20224.**202-5~935,** nota toll-free call. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The subjects of the publichearings are:

1. Proposed regulations relating to Secretarial authority to add items to the list ofitems eligible for the residential energy credit undersection44C(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of1964. These proposedregulations appeared in SUMMARY:This notice clarifies and the Federal RegisterforWednesday, corrects the language containedin the October 15, 1980 (45FR68399). preambleto EPA's proposedrevision to

2. Proposedregulations relating to Pennsylvania's State Implementation Secretarial authority to additems.to the, Plan. appearing at page 9128. inthe "category ofspeciallydefined'imcrgy' '**,Fedrirol'~egi5ter** ofWednesday. January property undersection48 of the Internal 28. 1981. Please note thefollowing Revenue Code of 1954.Theseproposed changes: regulations appeared In the Federal' 1. On page 9129. second,column. fourth full paragraph. fifth line. "permit' Registerfor Wednesday. January 7, 1981 should be corrected to read "prevent". (40 FR 1753). 2. On page 9130. second column.

The rules of § 601.601(a)(3) of the second full paragraph. sixteenth line. "Statement ofProcedural Rules" (26 "will hold a public hearing on this" CFR Part 601)shall'apply with respect to should be corrected to "willhold a the publichearings. Persons who have publichearing at 9:00 a.m, onFebruary submitted written comments within the ,25, 1981 on this". ' time prescribed-in the respective notices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

• posedrulemaking and who desire Ed Shoener, Ll.SiEnvironmental sent oral comments at the Protection Agency. Region Ill. AirMedia ctive hearing on such proposed and Energy Branch. 6th and Walnut regulations should submit an outline of Streets. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the comments to be presented at the 19106, Telephone Number215/597-8174. hearing and the time they wish to devote Both of these corrections apply to the to each subject by April 16, 1981.Each preamble of the referencedrulemaking speakerwill be limited to 10minutes for notice, and do not affect the regulations an oral presentation on each ofthe thatwere submitted to EPA. above listed proposedregulations for (42 U.S.C. 7401-7642) which timely comments have been ' Dated: February 12, 1931. submitted. exclusive of lime consumed H. Glenn Hanson. by questions from the panel for the Chief. Pennsylvania Section, AirMedia and Government and answers to these EnergyBranch. questions. IFR Doc. 81-5921**~'i1ed** Z-1!Hll: 0:,45tim)

Because ofcontrolled access BIWNG CODE 6560-38-M restrictions. attendees cannotbe admitted beyond the lobby ofthe CFR P t 123 Internal Revenue Building until 9:45**a.~** 4U ar

This document does not meet the {SW'1Q-FRL 1757-6] criteria for significantregulations set furth in paragraph 8 of the Treasury Directive for improvinggovernment regulations appearing in the Federal Register for Wednesday, November8. 1978.



### ny direction oftheActingCommissionerof Internal Revenue: DuvidE.Dickinson.

- "/If!Director. LegislationandRegnlotions /OIl.

: " "'-5776 Filed Z-I9--8I: 8:45""'I -.", LING CODE 4830-01-M

# '::~l;j;~:)~~+**:~~**

..... -Federal Register 

### I Vol. 46, No. 34 

### I Friday, February 20, 1981 

### I Proposed Rules 13243

• WhiCh qualified State programs ranted Interim Authorization.

.

. erim Authorization program is 109implemented in two phases corresponding to the two stages in which the underlying Federal program will take effect. In orderto qualify for Interim Authorization, the State hazardous waste program must, among other things:

(1) Have been in existence prior to August 11,1980, and

(2) Be "substantially equivalent" to the Federal program.

A full description of the requirements and procedures for State Interim

. Authorization is included in 40 CFR Part 123 SubpartF, (45FR33419).

On September16, 1980, the State of Oregon applied to EPA for Phase I ' interim authorization oftheirhazardous waste management program. On October 16,1980, EPA issued in the Federal Register (45FR68693) a notice Jf a publichearing and comment period In the State's application. The public 'rearing was held in Portland on**~O\'ember** 17, 1980, and the comment oeriod remained open until November !4.1980.

I\S discussed in the October 16 "ederal RegisterNotice, one of the 

# 1'_'

sues ofconcern to EPA in
" Oregon's application was luck of full authority to apply
.1 ards substantially equivalent to he interim Status Standards (45 FR 

### .azaz. May 19. 1980) to facilities which Irl' not required to obtain licenses in Jregon (i.e.. on-site treatment and .ollection facilities). In-the course of liscussions with the State on this issue, he Slate pointed out that additional uthorities under the water quality

.ontrol program.offered the State a leans 10apply the Interim Status

.tandards to facilities in Oregon which tilize surface impoundments for on-site torage or treatment ofhazardous .rttstes.

.. Because these authorities were not Illy documented in their original pplicution, Oregon requested on inuary 13. 1981 that EPA extend the .view period of the application, and greed to submit additional material ertaining to'their authority to require

. irnpliance with the Interim Status tandards by facilities in Oregon tilizing on-site surface impoundments, .rough the water quality control

. .ogram. This material was received by PA on February 5, 1981. and is now
• -uilable for public review and

". t. he State's submission has been i y changed. the formal review ···'-...d for the interim authorization' iplication is hereby recommenced (40 CFR 123.123(c). 45 FR 33480). As noted above, requests for a hearing will be received until March 12, 1981 and wrillen comments will be received until March 23, 1981. EPA will make a final determination on Oregon's application within 90 days ofthe date ofthis Notice.

Dated: February 6, 1981. Donald Dubois, RegionalAdministrator. (FR Dec, 8Hi7ll7.-lIedz-ts-ar, 8:4S ami BILLING CODE 6560-3G-U

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 46 CFR Part 524 ·[Docket'No.81.,.18) Exemption ofAgreements Covering the Collection, Compilation and Exchange of Credit Information AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. ACTION: Proposedrulemaking. SUMMARY: This Rule would exempt agreements covering the collection. compilation, and exchange ofcredit information from the filing and approval requirements ofsection 15 ofthe Shipping Act, 1916. Experience has shown that this exemption would not impair the Commission's effective regulation. The exemption will reduce regulatory requirements. DATE: Comments (original and fifteen copies] due on or before April 21, 1901. ADDRESS: Address comments and inquiries to: Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Room 11101, 1100 L Street. NW., Washington, D.C. 20573, (202) 523- 5725. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis C. Hurney (202) 523-5725

. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Maritime Commission'is considering the promulgation ofa rule to exempt certain agreements covering the collection

.. compilation, and exchange ofcredit information from the filing and approval requirements ofsection 15 of the ShippingAct. 1916 (46 U.S.C. 841).

This category of agreements covers the collection, compilation and

. exchange ofcredit information. It does not include creditrule enabling authority found in conference'or ratamaklng agreements.

While current Commission'policy requires that the subject agreements be subjected to the full section 15 review process prior to their implementation. it is apparent that the resulling delay. and use ofstafflime that could be used more productively on other mailers. is not offset by a corresponding regulatory benefit under the Act.

Section 35 ofthe ShippingAct, 1916 (46 U.S.C. 833a) provides that the Commission. upon application or on its own motion, may by orderor rule exempt any class ofagreements between persons subject to the Act, or any specified activity ofsuch persons from any requirement ofthe Act. where it finds that such exemption will not impaireffective regulation by the Commission, be unjustly discriminatory. orbe detrimental to commerce.

Based on the information presently

. before the Commission, this exemption

would presentno impairment of the Commission's effective regulation of the parties' activities underthe subject agreements', nor would it be unjustly discriminatory ordetrimental to commerce.

The proposed exemption would not conferantitrust immunity. Section 15 approval consideration will. however, remain available to parties requesting it.

The Commission certifies that this proposed rule will not, ifpromulgated and adopted. have a significant economic impact ona substantial number ofsmall entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Ad. Pub. L.

. 96--354,94 Stal. 1164, September 19. 19!1O (5 U.S.C. 601 et scq.).

Therefore, pursuant to sections 15,

### :,5. and 43 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. 814. 83:1aand 841a). the Commission proposes to amend 4llCFH Part 524 as follows:

1. A new paragraph (e) would be added to § 524.2. Definitions, to read as follows: § 524.2 Definitions.

[e] Agreements covering the collection, compilation, and exchange of credit information, but not including credit rule enabling authority found in conference or ratemaking agreements.

2. A sentence would be added to § 524.3, Exemption ofagreements. to read as follows: § 524.3 Exemptionofagreements
.

.. •• Agreements as defined in paragraph 524.2(e) shall be kept by the parties and shall be available for inspection by the Commission during the term ofthe agreement and two years . thereafter

.

Bythe Commission. Francis C. Hurney, Sccrctarv.**(F1~** tJoc.·01-5U·W Filed 2-1P-Ol: 6:45 MOJ BILLING CODE 6730-01-101 

## .;;::,;;P='::',**:;:;.:;~ ~~:~:~t.**  t···:::····

## ~=**tHHHn~~::~~~ ~~~~~nH~n~;:** 

...... -" 

### -

# •

• u.s. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND RECOMMENCEMENT OF REVIEW PERIOD
OREGON APPLICATION FOR INTERIM AUTHORIZATION OF A STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL PROGRAM
SUMMARY: EPA regulations to protect human health and the environment from improper management of hazardous waste were published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1980 (40 FR 33063). These regulations include provisions fer authorization of State programs to operate in lieu of the Federal program. On September 16, 1980, the State of Oregon applied for Phase I Interim Authorization. Today EPA is announcing the availability for public review of additional material submitted by the State in support of their application, and is giving notice that the review period for the Oregon application is being recommenced. DATE: Written comments on the additional material submitted by Oregon in support of their app1ication- must be received by March 20, 1981; Furthermore, if sufficient public interest is demonstrated, EPA will hold a public hearing to receive oral comments on the additional material. Requests for a public**hea~ing** 

### should be submitted to EPA by March 10, 1981.

.l

# •

•

:.

".,.. 

### ADDRESSES: Copies of the material under review are available at the following addresses for inspection and copying by the public. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Sol id Waste Divi s i on, 14th Floor 522 S_W. 5th Street**Portland~** 

### Oregon (503) 229-5913 Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Library, 12th Floor

1200 Sixth Avenue**Seattle~** 

### Washington

(206) 442-1289 Comments and/or requests for a hearing should be sent to: David Hanline Program Development Section, M/S 530 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 442-1260
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Same as above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the May 19, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 33063) the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated Phase I of its-- regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery.Act of 1976 (as amended), to protect human health and the environment from the improper management of hazardous waste. EPA I 

### s Phase I regulations establish, among other things: The initial identification and listing of hazardous wastes; the standards applicable to generators and transporters of hazardous wastes, including a manifest system; and the "interim status" standards applicable to existing hazardous waste management facilities before they receive permits.

-2-

# •

• Since the State1s submission has been materially changed, the formal review period for the interim authorization application is hereby recommenced (40 CFR 123.123(c), 45 FR 33480). As noted above, requests for a hearing wi11 be received untilMarch 10, 1981 and written coounents will be received until March 20, 1981. 'IPA will make a final determination on Oregon's application within 90 days of the date of this Notice.

-4-**~.** ".",**::;~**.. £- ..-."