### ." 

# • June 2000 Comments and Responses'

This section of the Responsiveness Summary contains summaries ofall ofthe public comments that Ecology received on the proposal and Ecology'sresponses. The comments and responses are organized in the orderthat the relevant sections appear in the Dangerous WasteRegulations. Copies of the letters and the public hearing testimony are included as Appendix 

### C.

Preamble

Comment 

### 1: Ecology has improved in recent years at providing preamble explanation for the rule changes; nonetheless, more effort should go into developing and explaining the basis for the proposals, particularly where Ecology proposes departures from the federal rules. Response: Comment noted.

Comment

### 2: The commenter appreciates the time Ecology took in publishing the preamble. The explanation ofdifferences was appreciated. 

# • Response: Comment noted .

WAC 173-303-040 Definitions

Comment3: The commenter appreciates that a reference to ChemicalTestingMethods has been included in the definition of HOCs, and notes that it will help in understanding the regulations. Response: Commentnoted,

Comment4: Ecology has proposed a definition of"Iamp" that is different than EPA's definition in 40 CFR 260. With a different definition and no explanation why Ecology chose a different definition, the regulated community would interpret this to mean Ecologybelieves their definition has the same meaning as EPA's. Differences in definitions can lead to unintended consequences when interpreting the definition on compliance inspections. The commenterrequested that Ecology change theirdefinition of "lamp" to be consistent withEPA's definition from 40 CFR 273.9 (64 FR 36489). The commenter also requested that Ecology specifically mention incandescentlamps under examples ofUniversal Waste lamps. Response: WhileEcology worded the definition ofa lamp somewhat differently than the federal rule, there are no critical differences between our definition and EPA's. Our definition is somewhat less wordy than the federal definition, but it stillincludes the types of lamps most commonlyfound in business, industry and public utilities. Also, the

17

# c definition does not exclude othertypes of dangerous waste lamps. Since incandescent . lamps are more common to household use than business use, they aren't specifically

mentioned, but again, they are not excluded by definition from being managed as universal waste. EPA's definition found at 40 CPR 273.9 (64 PR 36489) also does not list incandescent lamps specifically.


### Comment 5: Change the last sentence of the definition of large quantity handler of universal waste to: This designation as a large quantity handler of universal waste is retained through the end of the calendar year in which 11,000 pounds or more total of universal waste and/or 2,200 pounds of lamps is accumulated. 

### Response: Ecology agrees with the commenterthat the addition of this phrase pertaining to the lamp accumulation limit in the definition will provide clarification. This language has been added to the definition.


### Comment6: Add "fertilizer" after "Micronutrient", which will make it easierto understand that this is the definition for "Micronutrient Fertilizer". 

### Response: The definition will be amended as suggested. The change will also make the definition identical to Chapter 15.54 RCW Fertilizers, Minerals, and Limes.


### Comment 7: In the sixth line of the definition change "micronutrients are" to "micronutrients include" so the Department ofEcology's definition will be the same as the one used by the Department of Agriculture. 

### Response: The language will not be amended as suggested since it is already consistent with Chapter 15.54 RCWFertilizers, Minerals, and Limes. This is the law that defines "Micronutrient" for the Department of Agriculture.


### Comment 8: There is a typographic errorin the last sentence of the definition of "Processed scrap metal" that refers to shredded circuit boards beingrecycled. 

### Response: The reference will be correctedto read WAC 173-303-071(3)(gg) in the final rule.


### Comment9: Ecology uses the words "public" and "human" many places in the proposed and currentregulations. The use ofthese two words in WAC 173-303 appears interchangeable. The word "people" is used in the proposed -280(6).. This is a third term adding confusion regarding the scope of WAC 173-303. Ecology should use a single term consistently, like "public" throughout the regulations.

-, Responses The terms are used interchangeably in the regulations. Ecology deals with the health and safety of all "humans" in various settings, for example, in the workplace and in public and government settings in relation to dangerous waste management. The Dangerous Waste Regulations have evolved overmanyyears making itdifficultto now select and use only one ofthose terms. It would not be practical, and possibly

18

# •

•

• inappropriate to select only one ofthese terms because one term might not encompass the full range of effectedparties. Forexample, the term "public" couldbe chosen and used as in the term "public health" (rather than "humanhealth"). However, government agencies, government contractors, and any other employermight then try and make the argument that a certain dangerous waste rule would not apply to them or their staff because they would not be considered "public". The term "people" is defined in Section -040 and used appropriately in Section -280(6).

WAC 173-303-070 Designation ofDangerousWaste

Comment 10: The modification in WAC 173-303-070(5) appears to be a changerather than a clarification as stated in the preamble explanation to the rule. The three additional designation circumstances are viewed as independent circumstances based on the same designation results from subsection 070(3). The added text in the middle of the paragraph implies otherwise and appears to be a change in how waste designations are performed in the regulations. Response: The language was modified so that this subsection now reads correctly.' The clarification was made to correct the way the provision read and does not change the meaning of the requirement as it was previously adopted. These are still the three situations where additional designation is required. It was pointed out to us followirig the previous rulemaking that the wording was inaccurate because it lumped all three situations together, that is, that all three situations would be the result of designation via the characteristics or lists. The previous language did not make it clearthat designation by the criteria may be a precursorto the need for further designation in situations covered by "(c)". The language change reflects that further designation under "(c)" is necessary if the waste has been designated underthe lists, characteristics, orcriteria. This change does not affect the way wastes are designated underWAC 173-303-070(3)prior to getting to this requirement where wastes may need to be further designated.

Comment 11: Itis unclear to us what Ecology's currentpolicyis on immediate on-site recycling when there is no intervening storage or accumulation. Now wouldbe a good time to clarify or re-state your countingpolicy on implementation ofSection 070(7)(c)(iv). Response: Ecology has a regulation addressing countingratherthan a policy. The following is the counting exclusion at WAC 173-303-070(7)(c)(iv): "When making quantity determinations

...generators must include [count] all dangerous waste they. generate, except dangerous waste that: Is recycled, without prior storage or accumulation, only in an on-site process
... " Ecology appreciates the opportunity to add clarity to some ofthe aspects ofthis counting regulation. Basically, ifwaste is stored or accumulated priorto recycling, the waste is counted. "Storage" means the holding ofwaste for a temporary period and begins as soon as waste is placed into a storage unit. Storage units include, but are not limited to,



### 19

# C tanks and containers, such as a can, pail, bucket, or drum. There is no size limit to a containernor is there a time limit for "temporary period" in the definition of storage. A "temporary period" couldbe a year, month, day, minute, etc. There are, however, generatorexclusions from storage if certain "accumulation" provisions are complied with (See WAC 173-303-200). Like storage, the accumulation provisions are used to hold and manage dangerous waste and begin when waste is first placed in the accumulation tank or container. Forexample, if a bucket is used to collect waste dripping from a waste generation unit, accumulation of waste is occurring, which requires that the waste be counted. Although waste needs to be counted when stored or accumulated prior to being recycled, the advantage to the generatoris the avoidance of a dangerous waste storage permit for the storage activity.



### WAC 173-303-071 Excluded Categories ofWaste

Comment 12: Ecology did not update the provisions of WAC 173-303-071(3)(k)(i) and (ii) when the EPA issued the TSCA PCB disposal rule amendments of 1998. The PCB exclusion should be updated to be consistent with the TSCA PCB regulations. 

### Response: Ecologyis concerned with the 1998 TSCA amendments in reference to the disposal options allowed under those amendments. It appears that a disposal option under some of those amendments is for the allowance of certain wastes to be land disposed in a municipal solid waste landfill. With the existing language of the PCB exclusion in the Dangerous Waste Regulations, there is an assurance that dangerous waste being excluded "into the TSCA program" will be managed under the TSCA program and not end up in municipal landfills. This assurance will be lost if the PCB exclusion is updated as suggested. Ifit were updated as suggested, some dangerous waste being excludedfrom the Dangerous Waste Regulations could be disposed of under the TSCA program into municipal landfills. This would circumvent the original intent of Ecology's PCB exclusion.


### Comment 13: The commentersupports the proposed changes regardingreused spent wood preserving solutions at WAC 173-303-071(3)(w).- 

### Response: Commentnoted.



### . WAC 173-303-100 DangerousWaste Criteria

Comment 14: WAC 173-303-100(5)(b)(ii) uses a 

### formula that assumes that the hazards based on fish, rat inhalation and rabbit dermal toxicities are additive. Itis more reasonable to assume that these toxicity values are independent and should not be added together. A preferable approach is to rate the components of a mixture for each.type of toxicity and add only with each toxicity criteria, ratherthan adding the highest hazard from across the different toxicitycriteria. 

# o

20

# •

•

.' Response: This suggestion is beyond the scope ofthe current proposedrule package

. However, Ecology appreciates the comment provided and will review it for consideration during the nextrule makingprocess.
Comment 15: In WAC 173-303-100(5)(b) there is a methodfor book designation. There
are wastes that designate as DW or EHW based only on inhalation toxicity data, yet the waste is not in a physical form that would cause an inhalation exposure. Would the State consider adding a provision to the section indicating wastes will not be considered a DW
or EHW if designation as such solely based on inhalation data and the.waste is notin a physical state that wouldresult in an inhalation exposure?
Response: Again, this comment is beyond the scope ofthis rulemaking. However, Ecology will considerthis suggestion for the next rule makingprocess.

WAC 

### 173·303·120 Recycled, Reclaimed, and Recovered Wastes

Comment 

### 16: WAC 173-303-120 appears a little confusing when comparing subsections (1), (5) and (6). It appears that subsection (1) needs to acknowledge subsections (5) and (6). Also subsections (5) and (6) should be combined.
Response: Ecologyconcurs with the comment. Subsection (5) will be removed since it
was added when the Solid Waste Program was writing the used oil regulations. It'was intended to provide a linkbetween the two programs for purposes ofauthorization from EPA to implement the used oil regulations. Proposed subsection (6) will be renumbered as (5). Subsection (1) mirrors the federal rule. It would notbe appropriate to add a reference to (5) basedon the existing wording.

WAC 

### 173·303·180 Manifest

Comment 

### 17: Thecommenterurges Ecologyto adopt the manifestexemption at WAC 173-303-180(6) exactly as EPA adopted the federal version at 40 CFR 262.20(f) without the caveat that Ecology must approve an alternative papertracking system. Response: Ecology gave a considerable amount ofthought as to whetherornot the manifest exemption that would allow wastes to be transported alongpublic rights ofway between contiguous properties ownedby the same person shouldbe adoptedinto the Dangerous Waste Regulations. The manifestis the document thatkeeps theRCRA cradle to grave systemintact.

Ratherthan not adopting an exclusion from manifesting underthese limitedconditions, Ecology proposed a "middle ground" solution ofproviding relieffrom a manifest, but , continuing to require that shipping documents containing similarinformation accompany the waste shipment. This middle ground solution benefits everyone byprovidingreliefto generators, butcontinuing to help assure that wastes are safely managed andtransported.

21There has been some confusion on the part ofgenerators as to what is allowed by this exemption sinceEPA originally proposed changing the definition ofon-site. By 

# c
retaining approval overthe alternative shipping documents, Ecology will also be able to prevent generators from misinterpreting the exemption, thinking they will be exempt from otherrequirements such as the needfor an illnumber, accumulation limits, etc. This exemption would not, for example, allow wastes to be consolidatedin ways other than is allowed under currentregulation.

Entities likely to be able to take advantage ofthis exemption already tend to have alternative shipping documents in place for their own tracking purposes. Ecology will be able to look at those documents and approve their use in lieu ofa manifest at the regional office level, providedthey contain the same type ofinformation found on a manifest. Adopting the modified version ofthe exemption reduces the regulatory burden of having to manifest wastes in these limited circumstances while continuing to retain assurances that wastes are being carefully tracked and transported along public rights of way.

Comment 18: WAC 173-303-180(7) specifies a new shipping name for WA state only waste. Ifthe purpose ofthis change is to makeit clearer on the manifest what the particularhazard is, it would seem more effective to create labels for WA state corrosive, toxic, and persistent wastes. The labels would be a more effective warning to personnel handling the waste as well as emergencyresponders. The waste codes WT**, WP**, or WSC2 could still be used on the manifest so the manifest also communicates the hazards. For the manifest, the commenter suggested using the names "non-RCRA Waste Liquid"**C~.** or "non-RCRAWaste Solid". This would simplify the labeling and manifesting process. Response: Ecologyformed a TransporterExternal Committee to review, among other things, potential shipping descriptions for state-only dangerous waste that does not also designate as a DOT49 CFR hazardous material. The suggested shipping descriptions using the words "non-RCRAWaste Liquid" or "non-RCRAWaste Solid" and the use of state only waste codes in the shipping description were also reviewed. Upon review of various potential shipping description options by the TransporterExternal Committee and by Ecology, it was decided that the shipping descriptions as describedin the proposed rule at WAC 173-303-180(7) wouldbe the most appropriate to describe a state-only dangerous waste. We wanted to keep the shipping description short enough to fitwithin the space on the manifest for Item#11. We agreed that the proposed shipping description communicated sufficient information on the hazards associated with the waste in that package.

Comment 19: In WAC 173-303-180(7)(b),Ecology is proposingregulation for transport of state-only dangerous waste without clearly addressing all the types ofstate-only dangerous waste requiring transport. WhileEcology is addressing the state-only dangerous waste designated with state-only waste numbers for toxicity, persistent and solid corrosive, Ecologyis not addressing listed state-only dangerous wastes and stateonly dangerous wastes designated with Federal listed and characteristic waste codes. There are listed wastes (e.g., WOOl, state-onlyF003) and characteristics wastes (e.g.,

22

# • separatedcharacteristic residues in empty containers) that are state-only dangerous wastes. 

### Response: WAC 173-303-180(7)(b) is meant to apply only to state-only dangerous waste that does not also designate as a DOThazardous material and as a federal hazardous waste (one with a federal waste code). Ifa dangerous waste designates as a DOT hazardous material and as a federal hazardous waste, then WAC 173-303-180(7) does not apply. The commenteris correct that there are some wastes that designate based on the federal system oflists and characteristics, but that can be considered state-only wastes. Forexample, certain hazardous wastes excluded underRCRA are not excluded by Ecology and so are state-only wastes. Ecology has not created new waste codes for these state-only wastes. When such waste is generated, it is subject to full designation and federal RCRA waste codes are applied. Any state only dangerous waste that designates via the lists and characteristics, and is assigned a RCRA waste codemust meet the packaging, labeling and marking requirements ofWAC 173-303-190(1), (2) and (3).


# • In regard to the commenter's proposed change in WAC 173-303-180(7)(b), please read the previous response to 173-303-180(7). The commenter'sproposed language change in 173-303-180(7)(c) to add PCB (i.e., state-only waste WOOl) as anotherexample was considered. While it was not added as another example in the rule language, a person could certainly use this waste description if in fact they are preparing a state-onlyPCB waste for transport

. 

### WAC 17-303-190 

### PreparingDangerousWaste for Transport

Comment 20: WAC 173-303-190(5) is a little confusing. From the reading ofthis section it appears we will be required to label WA state-only waste differently than RCRA waste. If a new label is required, the label couldbe used to reflect the specific hazard associated with the waste. Ifyou do not agree with the comment on WAC 173­ 303-180(7), I believe itwould be helpful, if you split this section in two. One section for RCRA waste and one for State only waste. 

### Response: Thecommenterreferred to the proposedrule underWAC 173-303-190(5) as a labeling requirement, which it is not. A "label"is a DOT label that defines the hazard class. A packaging (drum, bulkcontainer, portable tank, etc.) holding a state-only waste that does not also designate as a DOT49 CPR hazardous material is notrequired to be labeled per the requirements of49 CPR part 172.400.

The proposedrule, at WAC 173-303-190(5), is a markingrequirement for a packaging holding a state-onlydangerous waste. A "marking"is any marking otherthan a label- for instance, the words hazardous or dangerous waste, a shipping description, or a manifest number. The state-only dangerous waste shipping description,as described in WAC 173­ 

# • 303-180(7), that is marked on a packaging will provide the necessary information to communicate the hazards associated with the contents ofthe packaging

.

23

# c Proposed WAC 173-303-190(5) regulates state-only dangerous waste and does not regulate DOThazardous materials and RCRA wastes. Ecology does not want to require
a packaging that contains a state-only dangerous waste to be marked perthe requirements ofWAC 173-303-190(3) when that packaging does not also contain a DOT hazardous material or RCRA waste. Moreover, 49 CPR part 172 prohibits the use ofDOT specification labels and markings on packagings that do not contain a DOT hazardous material.

WAC 173-303-200 AccumulatingDangerous Waste On-site

Comment21: Ecology added text to WAC 173-303-200(1)(b)(i) and (ii) to incorporate Subparts AA, BB, and CC requirements for 90-day accumulation activities. Ecology can improve clarity by referencing WAC 173-303-630(11) and -640(11) rather than WAC 173-303-690 through 692. The phrase "the applicable requirements of' should also be removed. Response: Commentnoted. Both the changes will be made to the final rule. The proposed wording is redundant since the language referencing the air emission standards was added at WAC 173-303-630(11) and -640(11). The additional phrase is also no longernecessary.

WAC 173-303-240 Requirements for Transporters ofDangerous Waste 

# o

Comment 22: The amendments to WAC 173-303-240 will require transfer facilities to meet requirements ofa 90 day accumulation area by what is being included in -240(6). Under the definition ofa transfer facility provided.in -040, a transferfacility could include merely a parking area, where waste is merely'transferred from one transport vehicle to another (i.e., no actual facility is involved). This will have significant impacts
on our operations and may require establishment ofa whole new facility. Ecologyhas asserted in the preamble language to the TransporterAmendments that ''TheExternal Committee and Ecology came to consensus as to what these standards shouldbe: Security, maintaining 10 day storage records, facility inspections, training, preparedness and prevention, contingency aridemergencyplans, and containermanagement". Recommendations from the External Committee and Ecology appearto exceedEPA's program found in 40 CPR 263. Itis unclearfrom the preamble discussions what harm is evident to public health andthe environment such that it would cause a reaction to impose stricterrequirements on transporters and transfer facilities. Response: The commenteris correct in that a transferfacility couldinclude a parking lot where shipments are transferred from one transport vehicleto another. A parking lot couldbe defined as a transferfacility. Operating a transferfacility in 

## aparking lot would be allowed, provided that the transporter who owns or leases and operates the transfer facility complies with the proposedregulations underWAC 173-303-240(6)

.. A person 

# o

24

# • would not be required to establish a whole new facility in orderto comply with the proposedrequirements.

The commenteris also correctin that the proposed transfer facility requirements are more restrictivethan 40 CPRpart 263. Ecology found that there are transporters who operate a transfer facility in a parking lot that handle, transfer and store hazardous waste shipments in open, unsecured transport vehicles. In addition, Ecology found transporters who operate underno contingency and emergency plans, had insufficient training for employees who may also implement a contingency plan, had no facility inspection records, and were not prepared to prevent and mitigate a spill. Ecologyhas documented cases where transporters are storing shipments of hazardous waste for months on end at a transfer facility as well as spilling such waste onto the ground. Ecology has found that there are currently some transfer facilities operating in Washington state that receive, store and handle over a million pounds ofhazardous waste each month. An interstate transportercan operate a transfer facility in Washington with their out ofstate ID#, which does not allow Ecology or the public to have knowledge of who the transporter or operatoris and where all transfer facilities are located.

Under the currentWAC 173-303-240 and40 CPRpart 263 regulations, a transporter may store waste, transfer waste from containerto container, and transfer shipments from transporter to transporter at its transferfacility. Ecology does not wantto disallow these 

# .' .activities to occur at a transfer facility. Ecology believes that the proposed transfer facility standards will protecthuman health and the environment, plus they provide a means toregister and identify all transfer facilitylocations and their operators in Washington State.

Comment23: Ecologyhas proposed security requirements at WAC 173-303-240(6)(c) that go beyond TSD securityrequirements regarding unauthorized entry. Security systems can neverprevent unauthorized entry, they can preventthe unknown entry of people (see 45 PR 33180, May 18, 1980). Recommend you modify the rule to read "prevent unknowing entry". Response: The recommended language change was considered and "unknowing entry"
was added to the paragraph in WAC 173-303-240(6)(c)in the final rule.

Comment24: Myonly concern and request in this area (transportation) is that the state take a very close look at the responsibilities, the time involved, the reporting andthings that coulddrive the cost for transporters up. Right now, transporters have it pretty easy. They register, they do the paperwork and they are done. Mostofthe onus for responsible recording lies with the generator and the receiving facilities, andin most cases, the transporteris either a brokeror an agent for eitherthe transporteror the facility. My primary concern is that ifwe put too much regulation and too muchresponsibility for duplicate reporting on the transporter, we will drive up costs. Thosebusinesses that would have acted responsibly with theirwaste are now looking at increasedcosts and 

# • start driving it to the woods where we don't want them to take it.

25

# c Response: In the past, Ecology had little knowledge concerningthe handling and temporary storage ofhazardous waste at l.O-day transfer facilities in Washington and decided to conduct a TransporterProject to obtain more information on transport activities. Duringthis project, Ecology found that there are many interstate transporters who operate a transfer facility in Washington with their out ofstate ID#. This situation does not allow Ecology or the public to have knowledge of who operates the transfer facility and where all transfer facilities are located. Undercurrentregulations this is allowed.

Activities that may occur at a lO-day transfer facility include storage of an unlimited quantity of hazardous waste with all potential waste codes, transfer ofwaste from containerto container, and transferof shipments from transporter to transporter. Ecology believes that, should. such activities occur, then the proposed transfer facility standards will help protect human health and the environment, and also provide a means to register and identify all transfer facility locations and operators. A transporteroperating a transfer facility will notbe required to complete an annual report and record all hazardous waste quantities and waste codes that are handled at their transferfacility. Ecologyprepared a Small Business Economic Impact Statement (SBEIS) as requiredby chapter 19.85 RCW (Regulatory Fairness Act) on the proposed amendments, which included the transfer facility proposal. The rules were reviewed to determine ifthere
were disproportionate impacts upon small versus largebusinesses. Ifdisproportionate impacts are found during this review, mitigative provisions mustbe provided to the extent feasible and legal under the statute being implemented. SinceEcology had consideredpotential economic impacts during rule development and built in certain exemptions, the SBEIS concluded that the exemptions that were proposed mitigated many potential impacts ofthe rule. , Duringthe rule developmentprocess a TransporterExternal Committee was formed that
was composed ofmembers from small and large transportercompanies, a local governmentrepresentative, andEcology to provide input into the content of the proposed rules. During the rule developmentprocess, specific exemptions from secondary containmentrequirements, which couldbe the most costlyrequirement, were proposed provided that the transporter stored shipments in secure, enclosedtransport vehicles, intermodal containers, portable tanks, and transport units. In addition, a secondary containment exemption for waste stored within a building was proposedprovided that the building floor is impervious andis designedto adequately contain any leaks or spills. 

### A transporter would also be exemptfrom full transferfacility requirements in the event of

# a spill or otherunforeseen events during transport over a public right-of-way. These

.exemptions made good sense and helpedto mitigate the economic impacts of the proposedrequirements. During the TransporterProject, Ecology visited 63 different transporters in Washington State. Ecology found thatmany well run, prudent waste transportation companiesand transfer facilities have their own internal company polices that they operate under that 

# o

26 

# c

# • would be in accordance with many of the features of the proposed requirements. In this case, the costs to meet the proposed regulations would not be a big impact. Ecology also noted during the TransporterProject that transporter companies wanted all transporter company to operate on the same level playing field, and they believed that any proposed transfer facility requirements, when enforced, would ensure that everybody operates the same.

Comment25: Proposed language at WAC 173-303-240(11) indicates that the standards applicable to the transport of solid waste military munitions would be detailed in WAC 173-303-578. The commenterrecommends adding the alternative standards at WAC 173-303-578(6).



# • Response: Ecology did not propose the alternative standards for transporting certain munitions between military installations; however, the October 1999 public draft version of the proposed amendments added these requirements to the normal transportation requirements ratherthan offering them as an alternative to traditional hazardous waste transportation requirements. Ecology agreed that the extra transportation requirements (adding to the existing manifest requirement) did not make sense and removed them prior to proposal. The proposed language at WAC 173-303-240(11) was inadvertently left in the proposal although the language from WAC 173-303-578 was removed prior to formal proposal. The remnant language at WAC 173-303-240(11) was removed and will not appear in the final rule. Munitions being transported between military installations are subject to the same transportation requirements as all other hazardous wastes for reasons set out in the preamble that accompanied the proposedrule. A copy ofthe preambleis included in this Responsiveness Summary.

Comment 26: The wording in the preamble implied that the transfer of munitions between military installations will require a manifest in Washington regardless of whether or not they are hazardous. The preamble should make clearthat it is not Ecology's intent to require manifests for the transportation of munitions between military installations.

. Response: The preamble was written to accompany the proposedrule, so the preamble itselfcannot be changed. However, for the record, manifests are required for the transportation of munitions that designate asdangerous waste. Munitions that do not designate as dangerous waste do not have to be manifested.

WAC 173-303-281

Notice of

### Intent

Comment27: Ecologyintroduced the term "significantexpansion" in WAC 173-303­ 281(2). Elsewhere in this section the terms "expansion" and "significant change" are defined. Ecology needs to provide clarification on the terms significant expansion, 

# • expansion, and significant change.

27

# c Response: The changes to WAC 173-303-281 were made to accommodate EPA'srules
on public involvement and to narrow the state-only requirements for a notice of intent (NOI) to significant expansions rather than to any expansion.

The words "forwhich the department receives an application for expansion" were changed to "applying for a significant expansion". The notice ofintentrequirement is associatedwith sitingrequirements (see WAC 173-303-281(1)) and with Ecology's need to be alerted to upcoming large workloads. We chose the term "significant expansion", already defined in WAC 173-303-282, because it is directly related to the siting criteria and it indicates a potential workload we may need to plan for. However, Ecology agrees that using the term here is confusing without a reference to the definition. Therefore, such
areference was added to the final rule.

Note that to determine ifa change is a "significant expansion," first determine if it is an "expansion" underWAC 173-303-281(2)(c). Next determine ifit meets the definition of
a "significant" expansion under WAC 173-303-282(3).

The term "significant change" comes from public involvementrequirements we picked up from EPA. Because the term is broader than Ecology's definition of a "significant expansion", we were unable to merge the two terms. As defined in WAC 173-303­ 281(4)(a), the "significantchange" language applies only to "initial permits" and permit renewals (see the first two sentences in this subsection).

A typographical error appearedin the proposal at WAC 173-303-281(5), which referred to WAC 173-303-840(4)ratherthan 830(4). This was correctedin the final rule.

Comment 28: Itis unclearhow the pre-application public meeting and notice requirements in WAC 173-303-280 [sic] (4) apply to Ecology-initiatedpermit modifications under WAC 173-303-830. Response: Thepre-application meeting/notice applies only to initial applications and renewals and not to modifications. See WAC 173-303-281(4)(a).

Comment29: A typographical error seems to have appeared at WAC 173-303-280 [sic}

. (4)(d)(i). The word "forms" shouldbe "forum"

.. Response: Forms is the word EPA used to begin the listing for the various ways in which an applicant must publish notice. Whileit might not be the best word for that sentence, it seems accurate enough for the purpose of the section, so Ecology will keep the federal language. Please note that we appreciate having these types of things pointed out because mistakes do get made when translating federal language into state rule. 

# ()

28 

# c

# •

•

• WAC 173-303-370 Manifest System

Comment30: 

### InWAC 173-303-370(4)(b) Ecology is proposing to change the word "or" to an "and". This is not consistent with EPA's requirement and will impose unnecessary burdens on the regulated community. Ecology should not promulgate a program element more strict or broader in scope than EPA. Response: Generators are ultimately responsible for the propermanagement of their wastes and to assure the accuracy of their shipping papers. Underexisting language, if a significant discrepancy is found by the receivingTSD on the generator's manifest concerning their waste, the TSD can elect to reconcile that discrepancy with the transporterinstead of the generator and without the generator's knowledge. Ofcourse the generator will be notified about the course of action taken, but not until after the fact. Since the generatoris ultimately accountable for their waste, the proposal will provide the generator the input, knowledge, cooperation and ability to agree or disagree with any change in the final destination and management of their waste before those changes occur. Ecology does not anticipate that the proposal will impose unnecessary burdens on the regulated community, but instead views the change as an aid to generators in managing their dangerous waste.

WAC 173-303-380 Facility Recordkeeping

Comment 31: Ecology added the term "waste determinations" to the operatingrecord requirements at WAC 173-303-380(l)(c) while also adding references to 40 CFR 264.1083 and 265.1084, the Subpart CC waste determination procedures. In orderto prevent confusion regarding waste determinations and waste designations, Ecology should add that the waste determinations are Subpart CC waste determinations. Response: This suggestion will be added to the final rule for clarification. While the proposed language is identical to the federal rule, the commenter makes a good point that without the clarification the new requirement couldbe confusing.

WAC 173-303-400 Interim StatusFacility Standards

Comment32: The proposed language at WAC 173-303-400(3)(c)(xii) deviates from the federal rule at 40 CFR 265. 1202(a) by adding a sentence that modifies the federal rule language that has been incorporated by reference. Themodification excludes the

. exemption for hazardous wastes managed under40 CFR 261.3(d). The intent of this modification is not clear. Response: In the State Dangerous Waste Regulations, Ecology has neverrecognized (or adopted) the federal exemption found at 40 CFR 261.3(d). WAC 173-303-400(3)(c)(xii)



### 29

# c is not intended to create a new subcategory of listed waste nor does it mean that Ecology will not allow decontamination of structures during closure or post-closure (possible interpretations that the commenter offered). Itis included for consistency with the rest of the Dangerous Waste Regulations. Ecology does not let wastes out of the hazardous waste system in the same manner that EPA does at 40 CPR 261.3(d). Since the Part 265 requirements are incorporated by reference, it is necessary to add this provision so that users of the regulations are aware that they cannot utilize EPA's provision that is not recognized by the State.

Comment 33: WAC 173-303-400(2)(c)(xiii)(C)requires compliance with interim status facility requirements by "[a]nyperson who is covered by (c)(xiii)(A) of this section and who continues or initiates dangerous waste treatment or containment activities after the immediate response is over." The language restricts compliance to someone who both engages in immediateresponse activities and engages in post-emergency management of residual contamination. The proposed language also shifts the focus from management of the residual contamination to compliance with interim status facility requirements at the site of the emergencyresponse. Response: The State's proposed wording is identical to the federal requirement. This provision is not intended to limit responsibility only to immediate responders. It says that immediate responders who conduct additional treatment or containmentrequirements are subject to additional regulation. The overallprovision describes when an immediate responder isnotrequired to comply with interim status requirements, then goes on to state when the responder conducting additional activities becomes subject.to the applicable regulatory requirements. 

# o

WAC 173-303-505 Special Requirementsfor RecyclableMaterialsUsed in a Manner Constituting Disposal

Comments34: Elimination ofthe K061 exclusion at WAC 173-303-505(1)(b)(i) Many commenters expressed support for removing the K061 exclusion.

One commenter supportedremoving the K061 exclusion unless there isrisked-based research that indicates that this material poses less risk than otherfertilizer products.

Two commenters noted that this amendment is negative to Washington State agriculture. Growers in Washington State will be at an economic disadvantage compared to farmers in other states. While the cost ofzinc micronutrients is small comparedto other fertilizer products that growers purchase, it is a needed component to successful crop production. Growers in otherstates will have the benefit of buying much cheaper zinc fertilizer, which is derived from**K~61.** Washington farmers will pay as much as forty percent more for zinc fertilizer when K061 products are not available. 

# o

30

# • Response: Itis Ecology's understanding that K061 derived zinc micronutrients have not been manufactured in Washington State for about a year and that previously manufactured material is through the channels oftrade and currently not available to growers in the State ofWashington. This amendment ultimately does not eliminate the use of steel mill flue dust (known as K061) as a raw material for zinc fertilizers in the State of Washington. It does require that zinc fertilizer manufactured from K061 meet the same Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) standards as zinc fertilizer manufactured from otherhazardous wastes, such as ash from the combustion of tires (known as "Tire Ash"). Both hazardous wastes have been used to manufacture zinc fertilizer in Washington State. Ecology believes that "leveling the playing field" between the hazardous waste
sources is appropriate since K061 has about 5 times more cadmium and 10 times more lead than Tire Ash based on data reported in Ecology's 1997 report, "Screening Survey for Metals in Fertilizers and Industrial By-ProductFertilizers in Washington State".

Comment

### 35: One commenteropposes application offederal LandDisposal Restrictions (LDR) at WAC 173-303-505(1)(b)(i) to fertilizer products that contain wastes that are regulated as hazardous wastes in the State of Washington ifthese wastes are excluded from federal hazardous waste regulations in the states where they are recycled into fertilizer products.
Response: Ecology chose not to adopt some federal exclusions for wastes during past 

# • , rulemakings. Imported wastes and waste generated within Washington must meet the
same standards when disposed of within Washington. Similarly, this proposed rule requires that waste-derived fertilizers manufactured in other states and imported for use in Washington meet the same standards as waste-derived fertilizers manufactured and used in Washington.

Comment

### 36: Theinitial criteria at WAC 173-303-505(l)(b)(i) should be based on the
sources of materials in fertilizers. Theproposed "one listfits all" criteria will waste
resources and not protectthe soil. Each general type offertilizer source material should have unique review criteria.
Response: The initial criteria are based on the standards that are applicable to the most
common types ofhazardous wastes usedin fertilizers. A fertilizer manufacturer can choose to skip the initial criteriatests and, underthe secondarycriteria, have a custom review based on the actual raw materials in a particularfertilizer. Ecologybelieves that these two options provide the most efficient and effective review process at this time.

Comments 37: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (pAR) test One commenter suggestedretaining the testing requirement at WAC 173-303-505 (1)(b)(i)(A)(III) for certain PAH's, those that are carcinogenic (as defined in MTCA) or the PAH's listed on Ecology's list ofbioaccumulativechemicals ofconcern (i.e. anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(a)anthracene, perylene, and 

# • phenanthrene). Information about whetherthese mightbepresent in waste-derived or micronutrient fertilizers is valuable to the public

.

31

# C One commenterexpressed concern that future products may evade full review without this test. The commenterpointed out that it may be premature to remove the test requirement altogether since it has only been in effect for one registration cycle. The commenter also pointed out that applicants with products that have been through that cycle will not have to test again unless the products are reformulated. This also serves to reduce registration costs.
One commenter felt the test shouldbe retained because this is still a very unknown field.

Several commenters suggested that the PAH test couldbe used at the option ofEcology when there is potential to find PAH's due to knowledge about the source ofthe material.

Several commenters expressed support for removing the PARtest requirement, primarily based on reducing testing costs for applicants. Response: The PARtest is one ofthe tests used by Ecology to determine if a waste should be subject the Dangerous Waste Regulations. In Ecology's experience, the PAH compounds specified in this test are associated with certain petroleum and coal wastes such as gasoline, diesel, coal tar, and coke oven residues. Itis unlikely that these types of wastes are used in the manufacture of fertilizers. The test results from the fertilizers registered in ,1999 indicate that few fertilizers have detectable levels ofPAHs. Out of 184 samples only 17 had detectable levels of PARs. The total PAH values ranged from 0.002 to 1.85 ppm. The currentregulatory limit is 10,000 ppm. This test can account for approximately 50% ofthe total analytical costs to register a fertilizer. Ecologybelieves**C~"** that these funds would be better spent on monitoring fertilizer production with routine sampling and analysis to ensure that the Washington standards are met and urges manufacturers to do so. In view ofthis, Ecology will remove the PARtest from the initial criteria. However, this test may still be used as part ofthe secondary criteria, when examining specific fertilizer raw materials.

Comments38: TCLPTest One commenter suggested that the test requirement shouldbe retained since there is at least one incidence of a product that failed the TCLP test even though it would not have failed the "twentytimes" criteria.

One commenter suggestedthat the TCLPtest shouldbe retainedbecause it is supported in federal regulation and is a direct measurement ofavailability oftoxins leaching into the environment.

Two commenters supported allowing the fertilizer applicant the option ofchoosingeither the TCLP test or the "twenty times" criteria. They commentedthat the TCLP was designed to be, and in reality is, a very effective test at determining the leachability of various metals ofconcern. As' such, it is much more effective at predicting the potential environmental impact of land application of fertilizer products derived from K061 (or any otherRCRA waste) than a total metals test. 

# C)

32

# • Two commenters supported allowing the fertilizer applicant the option of choosing either the, TCLP test or "twenty times" criteria, primarily because the "twenty times" criteria may be more stringent than the TCLP test in some cases. The existingTCLP standards are already overly conservative regarding the potential health risks from using fertilizers because the TCLP test clearly does not recreate the physical realities of using fertilizers.

One commenter supported removing the TCLP test.

Two commenters suggested that the TCLP test be used as a verification test to override a failure of the "twenty times" criteria.

One commenter suggested the language should be amended to read: "In the event Of particularmetals failing the total metals criteria, the registrant can elect touse the TCLP test for final determination." Response: Basedon comments received, Ecology is concerned that there may be cases where the "twenty times" a criterion is less stringent than the TCLP test. Since the initial criteria are used as an indicatorof compliance, Ecologywill retain the TCLP test and withdraw the "twentytimes" option. As a point ofclarification, Ecology did not choose to use the TCLP test because it mayor may not model the actual risks of hazardous waste-derived fertilizers. The TCLP test is used because it is indicative of the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) standards that apply to metal bearing hazardous wastes when they are used to make fertilizer products. These wastes are among the most likely type of hazardous waste to be used in the manufacture of fertilizers. The LDR standards are generally not risk based, instead, they are set at the level that can be obtained by using the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) to treat the waste to remove the hazardous constituents, for example lead. The LDR standards are much lower for each metal, Cadmium for example, than the corresponding standard set by the Washington FertilizerLaw.

Comments39: Secondary Criteria at WAC 173-303-505(1)(b)(i)(B) Two commenters felt that requiring fertilizer manufacturers to report all the rawmaterials they use to manufacture waste or hazardous waste derived fertilizers will.contribute to an uneven playing field because Ecologyhas questionable authority over out-of-state manufacturers and no authority overforeign manufacturers. This rule will put Washington State manufacturers at a significant competitive disadvantage to those outside the state and particularly off shore. The emphasis offertilizer regulation and protection needs to remain with the finished product, as is the intent of the Washington FertilizerLaw passed two years ago. The state has a regulation for controlling the impurities in fertilizer finished products. Ifit is not satisfactory, change it. By requiring manufacturers using waste and hazardous waste raw materials to do additional testing and meet different standards than manufacturers using non-waste raw materials, you create the ultimate in uneven playing field. Virtually identical products can be made from using non-wastes, wastes, or hazardous waste for raw materials

. 

# •

33

# c Response: The secondary criteria where manufacturers report the origins of wastederived fertilizers, are optional and have been used by manufacturers to demonstrate that products are not made from hazardous waste. HoweverEcology agrees there is not a level playing field due to the much more stringent standards that apply to hazardous waste derived fertilizers compared to the Washington FertilizerLaw standards that apply to all fertilizers. Ecology is concerned that the difference between the standards may serve to reduce the amount ofhazardous waste recycled into fertilizer even if these wastes are safe and effective as fertilizers. Ecology's rules on hazardous waste-derived fertilizers must be as stringent as the federal regulation therefore Ecology supports uniform national fertilizer standards as the way to level the playing field.

Additional Fertilizer Comments40: Many commenters urgedEcology to prohibit the use ofK061 for fertilizer based on the evidence that it contains dioxins. Several also suggested that without a ban, Ecology cannot ensure that K061 will not be used in fertilizers. One commenter suggested the following language be inserted in WAC 173-303-505: "(e) the manufacture or use of K061 in commercial fertilizer is prohibited." Many commenters urgedEcology to include a prohibition on the use ofdioxin-laden waste in fertilizers. One commenter suggested that the following language be inserted in WAC 173-303-505: "(t) Any solid wastes, hazardous wastes, by-products, or co-products resulting from an industrial process that may create or release dioxin are prohibited from use in commercial fertilizer."

Two commenters strongly urged Ecology not to isolate or single out K061 for special restrictions or requirements. K061 is still a very valuable source ofZinc. The technologies exist to remove the constituents ofconcern and recycle the beneficial elements and it wouldbe a shame to eliminate it as a source ofrecyclable material.

Several commenters urged Ecology to reduce or ban metals such as lead and particularly wastes in fertilizers. Many commenters felt that citizens have the right to know which chemicals are mixed in with fertilizers. Labeling should identify fertilizers that contain waste so the public can choose which products to avoid;

. One commenterfelt there shouldbe an annual accounting ofwhich wastes are used in fertilizers.

Several commenters felt that asbestos shouldbe bannedfrom lawn care products based . on the recent information about tremolite asbestos in one source ofvermiculite.

One commenter suggestedthat Ecology adopt rules that hold fertilizer and steel mill companies liable parties for contamination and health problems causedby hazardous . wastes in fertilizers. These rules shouldinclude misuse by any user, and problems caused

by the build up of the contaminants in soil overtime. 

# ()

34 

# -0

# •

•

• One commenterrequested that Ecology provide citizens with the right to sue if toxic fertilizer damages theirhealth or crops.

One commenter felt Ecology should hold public hearings closerto rural areas where commercialagriculture is taking place. Response: These comments are beyond the scope ofthe proposedregulations. However, these issues are ofgreat concern to Ecology and we are continuing to work on these issues beyond the currentrulemaking. Because so many commenters expressed concern about dioxins in fertilizers, we want to inform the commenters ofour efforts to address this issue. Ecology is seeking to reduce the dioxins in hazardous wastes used as fertilizers. K061 is not currently being used to manufacture zinc fertilizers in the State of Washington. This rulemaking related to K061 not only creates a more even playing field, it also indirectly bring levels ofdioxin down in the material. That is because it is our understanding that in orderfor fertilizer companies to meet the new metal standards for K061, they will have to process the material in a way that will also reduce the levels of dioxins. Another area we are working on relates to the pulp and paperindustry. We have had meetings with the pulp and paperindustry (wood ash) and specific fertilizer companies to see if we can come up with a formal agreement for them to voluntarily not use material with amounts of dioxin above a certain level. We hope we are successful. If not, we may reconsider a regulatory approach. A ban similarto the ones suggested is still under consideration. Finally, we are working with EPA to encourage a national approach to dioxin and heavy metals in their upcoming fertilizer rule-making activities. We expect to see a proposed federal rule before the end ofthis year.

Comments41: Ecology received 1747 postcards with the following message: Toxic wastes from pulp and papermills, steel mills, and tire incinerators are being "recycled" as fertilizer that is used to grow our food here in Washington state. Some of these wastes include dioxin which can cause cancer, birth defects, and learning disabilities. In recent testing, Ecology stafffound significant dioxin concentrations in steel mill waste-derived fertilizers. In someinstances, concentrations exceededthe state's standard for dioxin at hazardous waste sites in residential communities by 130 times. Please seize this important opportunity to protectpublic health, the food supply, and water quality by banning steel mill and other dioxin-laden wastes in fertilizer.

Petitions with 795 signatures were submitted with the following messages:


### WashPIRG'sBan Toxic

### Fertilizer CampaignPetition We, the undersigned citizens and residents ofWashington State, hereby urge the Department ofEcology to ban all toxic wastes, which include known carcinogens, from beingrrecycled" in fertilizers. We also demand full labeling offertilizer products, because consumers have the right to know what they are purchasing. Furthermore, we must develop and implement a plan to clean up the land and waterways that have been

35

# c damaged by toxic fertilizers. Finally, citizens must have the right to legal recourse if their health or crops are damaged by toxic fertilizers.


### WashPIRG's Campaign to BanToxic Fertilizer In the next few months, the state Department ofEcology will decide whether or not to ban steel mill waste in fertilizer. In recent testing the Department of Ecology found significant dioxin concentrations in steel mill waste-derived fertilizers. In some instances, concentrations exceeded the state's standard for dioxin at hazardous waste sites in residential communities by 130 times. 

### To protectpublic health, thefood supply, and water quality, I support a ban on steel mill and otherdioxin-laden wastes in fertilizer.

. - Response: Thefollowingletter is being sent in response.

DearConcerned Citizen:
Thank you for taking the time to contactEcology with your concerns about the practice of using wastes in fertilizers in Washington State. Because we received many comments on the Dangerous Waste Regulations, specificallyregarding the issue of fertilizers, we
are providing this response to you. It is very helpful for us to hear what the public, as well as the regulated community, has to say on these issues. Ecology is greatly concerned about the issue of toxics such as dioxins and heavy metals in the environment.

. . We have taken steps during the past two years to limit toxics and metals that can go into fertilizers; First, we worked to get a law passedby the Legislature in 1998 to limit the 

# o amount of heavy metals that are allowed in fertilizers that are registeredfor use in Washington. Second, the recently concludedrule process withdrew an exclusion, or a special allowance for fertilizers that are made from steel mill flue dust (K061). This means that if K061 is used to make fertilizer in the future, it will be subject to the same standards as other wastes. And finally, we are continuing to work on solutions that will further limit toxics and dioxins in fertilizers.

The elimination of the exclusion for K061 not only creates a more even playing field by subjecting all wastes that are used to make fertilizer to the same standard, it also indirectly brings levels ofdioxin down in the material. That is because it is our understanding that in orderfor fertilizer companies to meet the new metal standards for K061, they will have to process the material in a way that will also reduce the levels of dioxins. As a point ofinformation, steel mill flue dust, or K061, is not currently being used in the manufacture of zinc fertilizers in the State ofWashington.

Another area we are working on relates to the pulp and paperindustry. We have had meetings with the pulp and paperindustry (wood ash) to see if we can come up with a formal agreement for them to voluntarily not land applymaterial with amounts of dioxin above a certain level. We hope we are successful. If not, we may reconsider a regulatory approach. A ban similar to the one suggested in comments we received was not part of the scope of this rule process, but it is still an option for a future rule process. 

# ()

36

# • Useful metals, such as zinc, are necessary ingredients for some fertilizers. Ecology believes that it makes sense to allow recycled metals to be used in fertilizers rather than mining more raw materials, provided there is not a threat to public health or the environment from other contaminants that come along in the process. Itis also important to note that we have conducted some testing ofsoil in the State of Washington. We found no evidence of increased dioxins in farmland. In fact, farmland had the lowest levels of dioxin compared to forestland, open land, and urban areas. Ourefforts will be directed towards keeping dioxin levels low on all types of land. Finally, we are working with EPA to encourage a national approach to dioxin and heavy metals in their upcoming fertilizer rule-making activities. We expect to see a proposed federal rule for hazardous waste derived zinc fertilizers before the end of this year.

Ifyou would like to receive a copy of the Responsiveness Summary in which Ecology responded to all comments on the recent amendments to the Dangerous Waste Regulations, please call Dave Zink at (360) 407-6752 or send an e-mail to dzin461@ecy.wa.gov. The Responsiveness Summary can also be found at http://www.wa.gov/ecology/leglactivity/wac 173303.html.


### WAC 173·303·515 Standardsfor theManagement ofUsed 

### Oil

• Comment42: The definition of used oil needs to be the widest possible to capture the maximum recoverable material. Petroleum solvents are used oil. Response: The definition of used oil found in WAC 173-303-040 is identical to the federal RCRA definition found at 40 CPR 279.10. The definition of used oil is also being placed in WAC 173-303-515 (the used oil regulations) for consistency. EPA has made it very clear in the Federal Register (Sept 10, 1992, page 41574) and in memo (EPA Permit Policy Compendium document number 9592.1997(02», and Ecology concurs with them, that petroleum solvents are not used oil. As EPA states it: ''Today's definition does not include oil based products used as. solvents refined from crude oil or manufactured from synthetic materials. The Agency has always viewed petroleum based solvents as wastes separate and distinct from used oil."

Aside from the definition of used oil, overall, the used oil rules being adopted are . . somewhat broaderthan they were in the past in relation to allowing othernon-traditional

oily waste streams to be managedunderthe used oil regulations in Washington. Those non-traditional waste streams are found underthe applicability statements ofthe rule. See WAC 173-303-515(3). 

# • Comment43: While it is common for used oils to be screenedfor total halogens, most . people use the results to classify the oil per Table 1 [WAC 173-303-515] and to evaluate

37

# c the rebuttable presumption. Most people do not use the information to designate their wastes for persistent halogenated organic compounds. As presented on page 25 of Chemical Testing MethodsforDesignating Dangerous Wastes, Publication Number 97­ 407, wastes with a total halogen testresult exceeding 1000 ppm designate EHW and therefore may not be managed as used oil when burned for energyrecovery.
I encourage Ecology to provide educational materials to the regulated community that: 1)Explain how to designate waste for persistent halogenated organic compounds, as presented in Chemical Testing MethodsforDesignating Dangerous Wastes, 2) List common, yet not widelyknown, sources ofhalogenated organic compounds, and 3) Clarify how an EHW designation for persistenceprevents the waste from being managed as used oil. 

### Response: In response to the commenter'srequest for specific educational materials, 1) Chemical Tesiing MethodsforDesignating Dangerous Wastes (Publication #90-407)
was written as guidance and to provide educational materials to the regulated community on the testing procedures required by the Dangerous Waste Regulations. Therefore, Ecologyis not planningto develop educational material on this publication. 2) Since there are thousands ofhalogenated compoundspotentially regulated under the regulatory definition ofHOC, a list ofcommon sources ofhalogenated organic compounds is not practical. 3) Ifit is determined at a laterdate that more guidance to clarify how an EHW designation for persistenceprevents a waste from being managed as used oil is needed, then Ecology will consider such a request. 

### r>. Comment 44: The proposal ofWAC 173-303-515(5)(a) appears to be subjecting all used 

# V oil with greater than 2 ppmPCBs to 40 CFR 761.20(e). If this sentenceis for information purposes please clarify. 

### Response: The statement was written to inform the generatoroftheirresponsibilities underTSCA. In orderto improve clarity, the second sentence will be changed to read as follows: "Note: materials managedunderthis section containing 2 ppm or greaterPCBs
are subject to applicable requirements of40 CFR 761.20(e)."


### Comment45: The proposedprohibition for metalworking fluids at WAC 173-303­ 515(5)(b) is unnecessary because the prohibition of(5)(a) [no burningEHW as used oil] has already addressed the problem ofburningchlorinated compounds in a more complete way. 

### Response: Ecologyfeels it is necessary to retain (5)(b) as a startingpoint in reducing the burning ofdioxin-forming chemicals in Washington State such as chlorinated metalworking fluids. Although there are manytypes ofmetal working fluids, subsection (5)(b)is limitedto metal working fluids formulated with chlorinated compounds such as chlorinatedparaffins orchlorinated alkene polymers. Section (5)(b) captures these specific chlorinatedmetalworking fluids while (5)(a) maynot. In the future, Ecology intends to evaluate otherwaste streams containing chlorine compounds that may contributeto the overall dioxin burden to the environment. TheeffortECology is taking

38

# '.



# •

• to reduce the dioxin burden through the used oil rule parallels Ecology's otherefforts to limit dioxins in fertilizers and dioxin emissions from the pulp andpaperindustry.

Comment 46: Chlorinatedparaffins are routinely added to many oils as part ofthe additive process. Prohibiting used-oil containing chlorinatedcompounds from the energy recovery process, as proposed in WAC 173-303-515(5)(b), places the entire used-oil recovery system injeopardy and will adversely affect every oil refinery operating in Washington State. We requestEcology to ensure a workable oil recovery system by removing this section ofthe rule and leave current federal standards in place.
Response: Ecology shared a similarconcern in drafting the prohibition and how it might effectrefiners. (Refineries re-refine used oils backinto usable oil stock.) With this concern, oil refinery operations in Washington State will benefit by the prohibition. The prohibition at section -515(5)(b) is very limited in its application in that it only applies to metalworking fluids formulated with chlorinated compounds such as chlorinated paraffins or chlorinated alkene polymers and only when those fluids are to be burned for energy recovery. With respect to the typical designation ofthe metalworking fluids in question as Extremely Hazardous Waste, those fluids are currentlybeingrecycledby rerefining or burned as a dangerous waste fuel (not as used oil). With these factors, the prohibition directs a relatively small volume ofmetalworking fluids with significant levels ofchlorine compounds to refiners that were not directed toward that recycling process before. When looking at the overall volume ofused oil generatedin Washington State, this particular oil waste stream makes up a small percentage. The prohibition of section -515(5)(b) encourages and supports the re-refining ofoil-based metal working fluids, which is a workable recycling solution in managing these particularused oils.
Comment47: WAC 173-303-515(5)(b) proposes to exclude metalworking fluids and oils used for energy recovery from the definition ofused oil. That exclusion encompasses oil or fluid withoutrespect to an)' quantity ofchlorinated paraffins. Tobe in compliance a generator would eitherhave to conduct very costly tests on each batch of used oil being generated or classify all his used oil as a hazardous waste. Both such options wouldbe enormously expensive; consequently, there wouldbe widespreadifnot universal noncompliance because generators would simplyignore this requirement. Moreover, no recycler would accept do-it-yourselfgenerated oil because ofthe overwhelmingprobability that such oil 90ntains some level ofchlorine.
Response: Ecology appreciates this opportunityto add clarityto some issues that appear to have been assumed ormisunderstood. First, the prohibition does not affect the definition ofused oil. The definition ofused oil, found in WAC 173-303-040, is identical to the federal RCRA definition found at 40 CPR 279.10. Second, as discussed above in previous responses, the prohibition is very limited. Itis limited to certain types of metalworking fluids, and only when those fluids are to be burned. Itdoes not apply to motor oil or do-it-yourselfoil that maybecome contaminated with chlorinated compounds through use. Therebuttable presumption can be used on motor oils and doit-yourselfoils by the recycler, ifneeded. Finally, since the prohibition is directed to a specific group ortype offluids, all the generatorneeds is to apply his orherknowledge

39

# c of the source ofthe waste stream (i.e., it is a metalworking fluid formulated with chlorinated compounds) to determine if it falls underthe prohibition. That knowledge may be obtained from the manufacturer of the fluids in the form of an MSDS sheet. No testing is required or needed for that determination or to be in compliance.

Comment48: In WAC 173-303-515(5)(e) [prohibition ofmixing dangerous waste] Ecology proposed language that EPA has determined to be overly burdensome and unnecessary for theirrulemaking. The EPA has addressed concerns regarding the mixing of hazardous waste and used oil in their rule development. Unless Ecology can demonstrate the necessity for such rulemaking, section -515(e) should be deleted and the federal standards shouldbe adopted. Response: WAC 173-303-515(5)(e), which prohibits the mixing ofdangerous waste with used oil, reflects the direction provided by Washington State Law (Chapter 70.951 RCW, Used Oil Recycling). By adopting the prohibition of section -515(5)(e),Ecology is not posing any new or additional restrictions on generators other than what they are currently subject to. Overall, the used oil rules being adopted will be somewhat broaderby allowing some "non-traditional" oily waste streams (waste streams not allowed under the original Washington used oil rules at WAC 173-303-515) to be managed under the used oil regulations. However, Ecology has found no compellingreason why other wastes and materials need to be mixed with used oil. Ecology believes that with the technologies available today there are more efficient, affordable, and healthiermeans ofrecycling dangerous wastes than simply adding them to the used oil waste streams and burned. The prohibition will make it easierfor generators of used oil to manage and market their used oil for energy recovery whether it is within Washington State borders, across the border, or across the country. The Dangerous Waste Regulations also provide counting exemptions for wastes recycled in certain ways. By reducing the amount ofwastes counted, generator status and regulatory requirements can be reduced.

Comment49: WAC 173-303-5.15(5)(e) would eliminate the used oil with dangerous waste mixture rule from Washington's Dangerous Waste Regulations. Such a change would not be a sound environmental policy. The proposed rule creates a zero tolerance for any intentional mixing ofused oil with hazardous waste. As a practical matter, this is
an impossible standard to comply with. De minimis quantities ofmineral spirits, solvents, kerosene and gasoline in used oil shouldbe allowed. Response: Ecology appreciates this opportunityto present some historical aspects concerning the used oil regulations in the State ofWashington. WAC 173:'303-515(5)(e), . which prohibits mixing ofdangerous waste with used oil, reflects the direction provided

by Washington State Law, chapter70.951RCW, Used Oil Recycling. For the past approximately 20 years, Ecology has not allowedused oil to be mixed with dangerous waste and the mixture then managed as used oil. This includes no mixing of dangerous waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators with used oil. The "no mixing" prohibition does not pose any change in how mixtures ofused oil and dangerous wastes are to be managed; that is, as dangerous waste. The prohibition of section ­ 515(5)(e) does not pose any new or additional restrictions on generators than what they 

# o

40 

# c

# • are currently subject to in relation to managing their dangerous waste and used oil waste streams separately.

The used oil rules being adopted do allow other non-traditional waste streams (waste streams not formerly allowed under the original Washington used oil rules, WAC 173­ 303-515) to be managed underthe used oil regulations. Forexample, Ecology is proposing to adopt 40 CFR 279.1O(d)(1) which allows mixtures ofused oil and fuels (like gasoline and kerosene) to be managed underthe used oil regulations. Mineral spirits (which are identified by RCRA as a hazardous waste) and petroleum solvents (which EPA supports) are not used oil and cannot be mixed with used oil. Ecology has found no compelling reason why dangerous waste and non-dangerous wastes and materials need to be mixed with used oil. Ecologybelieves that with the technologies available today there are more efficient, affordable and healthiermeans of recycling dangerous waste solvents than simply adding them to the used oil waste streams and burning them. The "nomixing" prohibition will continue to make it easier for generators ofused oil to manage and market theirused oil for energy recovery across the country, because it is "clean". The Dangerous Waste Regulations also provide counting exemptions for waste solvents recycled in certain ways. By reducing the amount of waste counted, generator status and regulatory requirements can be reduced. 

# • Comment 50: The language proposed in WAC 173-303-515(6)(a)(i) [closed containers] would place an undue burden on businesses and is unnecessary. Used oils typically do not pose the same risks inherent to some hazardous wastes, and therefore, should not be subject to the same management standards unless it is determined necessary. Funnels and related equipment which are commonly used to collect used oil and drain used oil filters may not comply with the proposed rule. Response: The storagerequirement for containers to be closed at all times, except when adding or removing materials, is not meant to be an undue burden on businesses. This containerrequirement requires no paper work, recordkeeping, approvals, special training,
or extra equipment purchases since most containers come with lids. Ecology feels this requirement is necessary based on field observations. Forexample, it has been observed that open containers ofused oil collect rainwater, causing overflows (spills) and resulting in clean up expenses. When used oil filters are actively being drained in a funnel attached to a container, that activity would be considered addingto the container and would not be considered a problemby the Department. When funnels and otherrelated equipment are not being used and remain attached to the container, they shouldbe closed to prevent contamination and/or overflows. Therequirement for closedcontainers is an inexpensive practice that will ensure a generator's used oil remains manageable underthe used oil regulations and help prevent generators from incurring undue waste management expenses. 

# • Comment51: The language proposed in WAC 173-303-515(6)(a)(ii) [container handling] would place an undue burden on businesses and is unnecessary. TheEPA rule adequately addresses Ecology's concern by requiring that containers and tanks be in good

41

# c condition, and not leaking. Taking into account the requirements of SPCC (40 CFR 112) and regulations governing USTs (40 CFR 280), the language proposedis not beneficial or necessary and should be deleted. Response: The containerhandling requirement requires no paperwork, recordkeeping, approvals, special training or extraequipment purchases to complywith. Ecology feels this requirement is necessary based on field observations for propermanagement of used oil storage. Therequirements under section 515(6)(a)(ii) are virtually no cost practices .that will ensure a generator's used oil remains manageable under the used oil regulations and help prevent generators from incurring undue waste management expenses. 40 CFR 112 deals primarily with bulk storage of petroleum products near waterways and 40 CFR 280 with the underground storage ofpetroleum and hazardous substances; the requirements of section 515(6)(a)(ii) provide preventative measures for the safe handling and storage ofused oil.
Comment 52: The languageproposed in WAC 173-303-515(6)(b) and (d) contains discretionary language that shouldbe addressed using other means such as administrative orders on a case-by-case basis. The proposed amendment gives discretionary authority extendingfar beyond the intent ofthe regulatory amendment. The proposed language places an undue burden on generators. Response: The secondary containment and additional reporting language found in -515(6)(b) is written to be applied on a case-by-case basis and will not become a burden on those who comply with the regulations. Secondary containment does not automatically 

# C

become a requirement for generators upon adoption, and Ecology does not intend to .-/ apply these requirements lightly. They were written in response to field observations and experience with real concerns for the propermanagement ofused oil. Section -515(6)(b) will allow the Department to address problems that can adversely affect human health and the environmentin a more timely manner. Note that WAC 173-303-515(6)(d) was inadvertently proposed in this subsection; it will be deleted and will not appearin this subsection in the final rule.
Comment 53: TheDepartment shouldinclude a time frame for facilities to comeinto compliance with the proposedrule. A twelve-month periodfor facility modifications would be,sufficient. Response: Ecology is aware that time maybe needed for facilities to obtain local buildingpermits in order to comeinto compliance with secondary containment requirements. In these situations, Ecologywill use enforcement discretion to aid in compliance with the used oil regulations.
Comment54: There is an increased emphasis on finding alternatives to petroleum solvents in parts cleaning, such an aqueous-based solvents. Itis ourexperience that aqueous based solvent/oil mixtures are generally hazardous 50% or more of the time due to metals and toxics. Because ofthe nature ofthese mixtures, they cannotbe easily or economicallyrecycled in a legitimate way, so they mustbe treated. Unlike petroleum 

# ()

42

# • solvent/oil mixtures, most of the aqueous solvent/oil mixtures are either discharged to local POTWs or are treated off-site. We suggest Ecologyclarify the regulatory status of aqueous!oil mixtures from parts cleaning so that a cleardirection andframework is established priorto it emerging as a big issue.
Response: In the Dangerous Waste Regulations, there is no special status given to a waste consisting ofaqueous based solvents and oil from a parts cleaner. When that waste is to be discharged to a publicly owned treatment works plant (POTW) the waste may be countedtoward generator status and the conditions ofthe domestic sewage exclusion must be met. When sent off site for treatment, the waste must be managed as a dangerous waste (assuming it designates), manifested and countedtoward generator status.

Comment 55: The federal used oil regulations and Washington's proposed rules do not explicitly or specifically address the regulatory status ofthe used oil separated from parts cleaning solvent via distillation from parts cleaning. In a March 28, 1996 letter, Ecology allowed the oily distillation material from an Ace unit to be mixed and managed with used oil if it met certain criteria. We would like you to memorialize this position as part of your used oil rulemaking. 

# • Response: Ratherthan "memorialize" letters intorule that were written allowing various activities to occur, Ecology will write guidance on the used oil regulations, including the circumstances described in the comment, following adoption

. Comment56: There is a situation that is not clearly addressed in yourpreamble language
on pages 7 and 8 related to mixtures ofsolvent and used oil which are created as part ofa manufacturing/production process. In parts cleaning, petroleum solvent mixes with used oil as part ofthe process ofcleaningparts. This situation does not appearto fall into your category distinctions of"incidental/unintentional" or "deliberate!intentional" because the mixing occurs as part ofthe production process itself. It is really a third category of"process" mixtures. The needfor explicitrecognition oftheircategoryis importantbecause ofits affect on the regulatory status ofrecycling the mixture via distillation. Do parts cleaning process mixtures described above fall into the material realm or the waste realm? Does that have any bearing on the distillation or otherused oil separation technologies, especially when done on-site or in a closed-loopfashion? We do not believeregulatory language needs to be added or changed butdo recommend clarifications, changes, to the preamble

.

.Response: The preamble to the proposedrule amendments is a document that can not be changed and so the following clarifications are provided. Cleaningparts is not considered a manufacturing or production process. A typical scenario ofusing a parts cleanerunitis in a maintenance or automotive shop where the unit uses solvents to clean tools, equipment andparts that havebeen worked on or priorto being worked on. The cleaning unit and the cleaning solvents have not producedormanufacturedthe part, tool 

# • or equipmentbutratherperform an ancillary function ofcleaning. Materials (like solvents) from parts cleaners are considered waste wheneverthey are regenerated or

43reclaimed, in other words recycled, in any fashion prior to reuse. For example, solvents that are filtered or distilled priorto reuse are considered spent, and therefore a waste. If a solvent is not regenerated or reclaimed after use and then reused, the solvent remains a product. The Dangerous Waste Regulations provide counting exemptions for generators that may apply in this case. Formore detail on counting dangerous waste refer to WAC 173-303-070(7). There is also a "closed loop" exclusion discussed at WAC 173-303­ 071(3)(q). Ecology sees no explicit need to recognize solvents used in a parts cleaner as a separate categoryfor regulatory purposes.
When solvents fitting the dangerous waste listing description for listed solvents are used for their solvent properties, e.g., to degrease or to clean, the waste, e.g., oily-solvent waste, produced from that activity becomes a listed waste (FOOl, F002, F003, F004, or F005). These wastes cannotbe managed as used oil. The same goes for solvents that would exhibit any dangerous waste characteristics or criteriaprior to or after their use.
Comment 57: The ability to haul over 55 gallons is helpful. Response: Commentnoted.
Comment 58: The proposed tank inspections at section WAC 173-303-515(9)(b) are concerning as the federal SPCC, storm water rules; etc. already provide protection and likely will guide DOEinspectors. Response: The tank inspection requirements at WAC 173-303-515(9)(b), "Additional reports", for processors and re-refiners are written to be applied on a case-by-case basis and will not become a burden on those who comply with the regulations. Those conditions do not automaticallybecomerequirements for processors and re-refiners upon adoption and Ecology does not intend to apply these requirements lightly, as the language indicates. They were written in response to field observations and experience with real
concerns toward the safety ofhuman health and the environment. WAC 173-303­ 515(9)(b) will allow the Departmentto address problems thatcan adversely affect human health and the environmentin a more timely manner. As a final note, the inspection requirements would not affect those used oil processors and re-refiners located outside Washington State.
Comment 59: The key problem is not allowing metal working fluids with chlorinated paraffins to be in used oil when going for energyrecovery (burned). There is a federal rebuttable presumption in place of 1000ppm. Does this mean if field-testing shows over 1000ppm chlorinated compounds they cannot be burnt? Can metalworking fluids be blended to less than iOOOppm and then burned? Ifnot, can they be burned as off spec used oil fuels in an industrial furnace or boiler? Response: The federal rebuttable presumption will continue to be used for all types of used oils, except for chlorinated metalworking fluids, when determining their on-spec status. Since metalworking fluids are prohibited from beingburned as used oil, even as off-spec used oil, the rebuttable presumption is not applicable to them. Blending 

# o

44 

# c

# • metalworking fluids with otherused oils to a level below the 1000ppmthreshold is dilution. Dilution is not a legitimate activity to enhance the option ofrecycling waste oil. Dilution will not destroy or remove chlorinated compounds. Metalworking fluids . formulated with chlorinated compounds typically exhibit 10,000(+/-) ppm ofhalogenated organic compounds (HOC) causing a designation as ExtremelyHazardous Waste. Ifthe intent is to burn metalworking fluids ratherthan recycle or regenerate them, then the metalworking fluids can be burned as hazardous waste fuels in RCRA peimitted boilers and/orindustrial furnaces underWAC 173-303-510.


### Comment 60: One has only to understand that if metalworking fluids are not allowed in the used oil system then one drop takes out millions ofgallons ofused oil makingit not recyclable for energyrecovery. Where will it go? Whathappens to the present used oil system and millions ofdollars that are already invested to protect the environment?



# • Response: The used oil regulations allow metalworking fluids intentionally mixed with used oils to be burned for energyrecoverunderWAC 173-303-510. Diluting metalworking fluids into used oil to evade the intent ofthe used oil regulations is not acceptable. The prohibition for burning metalworking fluids does not preclude the use of the rebuttable presumption for otherused oils or used oil contaminated with chlorinated compounds through theiruse(e.g., tramp oils contaminated with chlorinated metalworking fluids). Therefore, if a generator with used oil contaminated with chlorine
can successfully demonstrate that the source or origin ofthe chlorine in the used oil is legitimate (rebuttable presumption) then this used oil can continue to be managed as used oil underWAC 173-303-515. The prohibition at section -515(5)(b) is very limited in its application. Itis anticipated that the "usedoil system" will eventually show a shift in the management ofsome used oil. Most used oils will continue to be blended for energy recovery while metalworking fluids formulated with chlorinated compounds will be re- . refined backinto a usable oil stock or burned in RCRA permittedboilers and/orindustrial furnaces for energyrecovery.


### Comment 61: Since all used oil will contain some chlorinatedparaffin, as it is part ofthe additive package in many oils including motoroils, the whole used oil system fails. What studies, etc. support such a majorchange [re: the metal working oil prohibition]? 

### Response: The prohibition at WAC 173-303-515(5)(b) is very limitedin its application in that it only applies to metal working fluids formulated with chlorinatedcompounds such as chlorinatedparaffins or chlorinated alkene polymers and only when those fluids are to be burned for energyrecovery. The prohibition does not apply to otherused oils, such as engine motoroil, when burned for energyrecovery. Ecologydoes notforesee a failure ofthe used oil systemdue to this limitedprohibition being in place.

The prohibition is supportedby the knowledge that dioxin compounds can be generated and released to the environment from various combustion processes when chlorine donor compounds are present. These processes include the burning ofpetroleum products and 

# • used tires for power/energyrecovery. Ecologyis taking a proactive step in reducing the burning ofdioxin forming chemicals while at the same time encouraging the re-refining

45

# C of certain metalworking fluids. In the future, Ecology intends to evaluate other waste streams containing chlorine compounds that may contribute to the overall dioxin burden to the environment. The effort Ecology is taking to reduce the dioxin burden through the**.~** used oil rule parallels Ecology's other efforts to limit dioxins in fertilizers and dioxin emissions from the pulp and paperindustry.
Comment 62: There are no studies known to the commenterto support Ecology's metalworking fluid prohibition. Why not simply give the generators a recycling method already in place by simply making these fluids off spec used oil fuels when burnt for energyrecovery. Response: The metalworking fluid prohibition is focused on a small segment of fluids that typically designate under the Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations as Extremely Hazardous Waste (EHW). Declaring these fluids as simply off spec so they can be burned under the used oil regulations would not address the EHW status. With respect to the typical designation of the targeted fluids, Ecology is only further supporting the removal ofEHW waste from the used oil waste stream. For approximately the past 20 years, metalworking fluids designating as EHW have been prohibited from being burned as used oil. The prohibition directs a relatively small volume ofmetalworking fluids containing significant levels of chlorine compounds farther up the waste management hierarchy- to be re-refined. In this way, the metalworking fluids will be reused many times rather than usedjustonce, then burned.

Comment 63: The effect ofEcology's proposed elimination of the used oil "mixture rule" and the conditionally exempt small quantity generatorexemption is to transform great quantities ofwhat the federal rules classify as used oil into dangerous waste. The consequence ofEcology's proposal will be to create vast quantities ofhazardous waste out of used oil. This creates great uncertainty as to whether other states would ever allow this material to be managed as used oil in those states. The proposal will have serious adverse consequences beyondits borders. Response: Ecology appreciates this opportunity to present additional historical aspects concerning the used oil regulations in the State ofWashington. For approximatelythe past 20 years, the Dangerous Waste Regulations have not had a used oil "mixture rule" allowance nor an allowance to mix conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) waste with used oil. So, the proposed used oil regulations are not posing any additional or new restrictions on Washington generators in managing their used oils. Ecology's proposal will keep these waste streams, used oil and dangerous waste from CESQG, as well as any other dangerous wastes, apart- to be managed separately, as they should be. The Moderate RiskWaste Programs in Washington Statehave been very successful in providing a relatively inexpensive management option for CESQGs who cannot or choose not to recycle their dangerous waste. With the variety and accessibility ofon-site and off-site recycling, treatment, and disposal options available today, Ecologybelieves the used oil waste stream should not function
as a medium (a carrier) for·the easy and cheap disposal ofdangerous wastes. After all, 

# o

46

# •

•

• the used oil regulations are in place to allow a less rigorous pathway to recycle used oil. With the used oil regulations as proposed, Washington State generators will be able to market their used oil confidently across the State, it's borders, or across the country with relative ease due to the unadulterated nature of it.

Comment64: The commenterexpressed concern that the used oil proposal might have a confusing impactregarding what can be mixed with used oil, for example, possibly mixing things such as brake fluid with oil. Itmight require greatereducation ofthe citizenry in Whatcom County about what can and cannot be mixed with waste oil that is collected for recycling in this area. The commenter also encouragedEcology to make the new rules as stringent as possible for the protection of public health.
Response: In drafting the used oil regulations, Ecology maintained the position that dangerous wastes are prohibited from being mixed with used oil. On the otherhand, Ecology is allowing certain oily waste streams to be managed underthe used oil regulations. Formore detail please refer to the applicability statements in WAC 173-303­ 515(3). EPA considers brake fluid a type ofsynthetic used oil that can be managed under the used oil regulations. Ecology anticipates that written materials will be preparedfor the public and regulated communities concerning used oil management. In addition, counties may be drafting used oil guidance for homeowners and small quantity generators within theirjurisdiction.

Comment 65: We would prefer to see the 90 day requirement for entering used oil into an active recycling system extended to 120 days or more for awhile, to allow generators in remote areas to use responsible recyclers. There are certain operators in the state that
we as an institution do not feel comfortable doing business with, they unfortunately frequent our area. The ones that are more responsible operate less profitably and therefore come through less often.
Response: The 90 day requirement referencedby the commenterdoes not apply to generators ofused oil. It applies to the recycleronce the oil is brought on-site. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the generator under the scenario described above to wait the extra time for a legitimaterecycler whom they feel comfortable doing business with.

WAC 173-303-522 Special Requirements for Recycling SpentAntifreeze

Comment 66: In this section, used antifreeze is referred to as "spent antifreeze". Generators who label their accumuiation containers as "used antifreeze" should not be out ofcompliance because they didn't use the word "spent". The terms used and spent should be equivalent. Response: The terms "spent" and "used" are not equivalentin a regulatory scheme. "Spent" means a material that has been used and as a result ofcontamination can no longer serve the purpose for which it was produced without processing. If a "used"

47

# C material, like antifreeze, is recycled (by choice or need) in any fashion priorto reuse, the material is considered spent, or a spent material. The term "spent"brings on the weight of the waste management regulations. On the otherhand, "used" antifreeze removed/ from a radiator, for example, collected in a container, then later added back to the radiator without beingprocessedremains in the product realm. In this scheme the antifreeze
never became spent and therefore is not subject to the dangerous wasteregulations. WAC 173-303-522is meant only to apply to "spent" antifreeze.



### WAC 173-303-573 

### Standardsfor Universal WasteManagement

Comment 67: Itis not clear at WAC 173-303-573(2)(c)(iii) why you have this subsection discussing lamps in the section discussing generation ofwaste batteries. 

### Response: The placement ofthis subsection was a mistake. This subsection was moved to -573(1)(a)(iii) as intended.


### Comment 68: Ecologyhas deviated from the federal applicability condition for used lamps at WAC 173-303-573(5)(c) (see 40 CFR 275.5(c» without explanation. Ecology would have a used lamp become a waste "on the date it is permanentlyremoved from its fixture." This wording fails to recognize that there maybe reasons for removing a lamp from one fixture and storing it for use in another application. Forexample, a serviceable lamp maybe removed from.its fixture to be replacedby a higher wattage lamp. That shouldnot make the removed lamp a waste. Adoptthe EPA applicability statement for lamps (40 CFR 273.5(c». 

### Response: Ecology agrees with the commenterthat a lamp removed from a fixture may have use in another application. Ecologyhas changedthe language to reflect that a used lamp becomes a waste on the date it is discarded.


### Comment 69: Forboth small quantityhandlers andlarge quantity handlers there is a requirement to store lamps accumulated in cardboard or fiber containers indoors. To prevent any confusion, request you provide a definition for "indoors." 

### Response: Ecologyhas added language at WAC 173-303-573(9)(c)(iii) and573(20(c)(iii) to clarify the meaning of "indoors." Forthe purposes ofthis regulation "indoors" means in a structure sufficient to prevent a containerfrom being exposed to the elements. As explainedin the preamble to the proposedrule, the elements include, for example, sunlight, rain, condensation, and storm water.


### Comments 70: Lamp Crushing Ecologyreceived several comments on the proposal to include lamp crushing at WAC 173-303-573(9)(c)(iv) and-573(20)(c)(iv). One commenterindicatedthatthey liked the standards that hadbeen established for lamp crushing. Anothercommenter wanted clarification ofwhat Ecology was considering the lamp generation site for the purposes oflamp volumereduction. Othercomments stated that it was inappropriateforEcology (-)

48 

# c

# •

•

• to imbed self-implementing OSHNWISHArequirements for mercury exposure control into the dangerous waste rule. One commenterindicated that the requirements to manage lamps need to be consistent and contain the same requirements as EPA's rule. This commenter also stated thatEcology should not presume that residues from the lamp crushing activity would designate as dangerous waste and instead allow generators of thoseresidues to go through the designation procedure. Anothercomment objectedto the
use ofcarbon filtration as the only means ofcontrolling mercury emissions and preferred to see the rule allow a performance based standardratherthan a technology based standard. In addition to the comments addressing specific portions ofthe proposed language, a comment was received that listedreasons why the proposal to allow lamp crushing should be removed and that the rule should be rewritten to be more in line with the federal rule. There was also a commentrequesting clarification ofwhetherlamp crushing is considered treatment and referred to a previous response to comment#88 as found in ourResponsiveness Summary datedJanuary 1998, publication #97-439. This comment is addressed in a separate response dedicated to the request for clarification.
Response: One ofEcology's goals in including lamps as universal waste is to prevent the uncontrolledreleases ofmercury during collection and management ofthe lamps. The lamp crushing rules that were proposed at WAC 173-303-573(9)(c)(iv) and (v) and at­

.573(20)(c)(iv) and (v) have not been adopted. Furtherresearch indicates that lamp

crushing units currently on the market could not meet the performance-based standards that were proposed to ensure that the rule was protective ofhuman health andthe environment. As lamp crushing technology improves, it is possible that on-site lamp crushing maybe allowed under the universal waste rule at some future time.

The purpose ofthe universal waste management system is to streamline and simplifythe regulatory requirements for those universal wastes so that we promote the proper recycling and disposal ofthose wastes. Ecology has concludedthat the changes needed to the proposed language to ensure that crushing wouldbe protective ofhuman health and the environment would add layers ofcomplexityto the rule. Added complexityconflicts with the purpose ofthe universal waste management system,
Also, the intent ofthe rule is to promote recycling overdisposal through a treatment, storage and disposal facility. In light ofthis, it shouldbe noted that at this time it would most likely cost the handlerless to send intact lamps to a recyclerratherthan purchasing
a lamp crusher andpaying the highercosts for sendingcrushed lamps to recyclers.

Comment71: Ecologyneeds to clarify whethercrushing is considered treatmentin the response to comments document. The previous Responsiveness Summary, publication #97-439, dated January 1998, responded to comment#88: "If crushing orcompaction of fluorescent bulbs occurs - 1) solely for the purpose ofreducing waste void space, and 2)
as long as the activity is conducted in a mannerthat protects human health andprevents release to the environment, and 3) the activity occurs in compliance with section200(l)(b) and -395(1)(a) and (b), then that crushing activity is notconsidered treatment." Ecologyneeds to acknowledge previous rule makingresponse to comment

49

# c language when they provide the requested clarification and inform the public of any change in policy it is making in this rulemaking. Response: Ecology's response to comment#88 in the January 1998 publication#97­ 439 instructs the readerto refer to WAC 173-303-040 definition of "treatment" and section -600(3)(1). Section -600(3)(1) exempts activities such as compaction and sorting of wastes to reduce void space from being subject to final facility standards for treatment. Upon further review of this response and the definition ofcompaction versus crushing, Ecology now interprets that crushing of lamps to make them amenable for storage or to reduce volume is different than compaction. The crushing activity breaks apart the lamp into separate components whereas compaction would simply reduce void space, but leave the waste essentially intact. Therefore, the crushing of lamps to make the universal waste more amenable for storage or reduced in volume does meet the definition oftreatment as found at WAC 173-303-040. Ecology's 1998 response might have also been based on the fluorescent tube interimpolicy dated January 1995, which included management options for fluorescent tubes other than managing them as dangerous waste.

WAC 173·303·578 

### Military Munitions

Comment72: WAC 173-303-578(2)(e)refers to "closed" and "transferred" ranges, but neither is defined in the definitions section. Recommend definitions from the proposed Range Rule (62 FR 50796)be added. . Response: As the commenterpointed out, both definitions are from a proposed federal rule and maychange as that rulemaking proceeds. Terms that are not defined in WAC 173-303-040 have eitherthe same meaning as in 40 CFR Parts 260, 264, 270, and 124, or they have their (the term's) standard technical meaning. IfEcology were to adopt the proposed definitions, they couldnot be modified until the Dangerous Waste Regulations
are amended in the future. Itis more prudent to wait uritil EPA finalizes their rule to move forward. When the Range Rule is finalized at the federal level, we will evaluate the final definitions for inclusion in the nextrulemaking. Until that time, we will look to the definitions as proposed in the Range Rule as guidance for interpretation oftheir meanings.

Comment73: The commenteropposes adoption of WAC 173-303-578(2)(e), which purports to designate as discarded material any military munitions that were discharged during military activities and that are left on a range that is closed or transferredfrom military control. The commenter also urges Ecology to postpone a decision until the Department ofDefense (DOD) finalizes the Range Rule. (Specific points made by the commenter are addressed in the response.) Response: Ecology appreciates that the Range Rule is designed to address the clean up of military ranges and issupportive ofthat process. However, munitions are no different than other wastes that may designate as hazardous wastes. Wastes that were discarded

50 

# c

0

# •

•

• prior to enactment ofhazardous waste laws do not have to be cleanedup until they are generated. However, once they are dug up, or generated, they fall under existing State authority. EPA's original proposal that they withdrew and did not include in their final rule, but that Ecology proposed does not add a new requirement. Instead, it reiterates and clarifies that such wastes are considered solid, then possibly hazardous wastes. The fact that the question regarding this provision is asked in the first place illustrates the importance of clarifying State authority, so that as this question arises in the future, the answer will be clear- that these wastes are subject to the Dangerous Waste Regulations. Ecology partnered with the DOD on both the Military Munitions Rule and the Range Rule. Both the Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program and the Toxics Cleanup Program agree that it is in the best interests of the State to adopt the provision in question in order to clarify that these wastes must be cleaned up when generated.

The commenternoted that the proposal relies on "the time the range is closed or when the range is transferred from military control" as the criterion for classifying when munitions become hazardous waste as opposed to the usual criteria used for determining when something becomes a waste. The commenternotes that in their view, "munitions that were used during military activities are not discarded since DODretains statutory and regulatory responsibility for those items .. :;. This illustrates why it is important to adopt the proposed language identifying the time when these wastes are considered solid waste. There has traditionally been a discrepancy between when the time when the military considers their wastes solid wastes and when the Dangerous Waste Regulations deem them to be solid wastes. The point of when a munition becomes a waste was clarified in other parts of the Military Munitions Rule. Adoption of this provision clarifies the point for munitions on closed and transferred ranges and can be used for future discussions when this issue may arise again.

The commenterexpressed concern that this provision couldbe used by others to conclude that all munitions on all ranges are waste. Ecology would like to assure the commenter that this provision will not be interpreted to include munitions otherthan those munitions on closed or transferred ranges. If,following federal promulgation of the Range Rule, Ecology determines that it is appropriate to deferto the federal rule, a decision to that effect can be made at that time, and the rules amended accordingly. Ecology's regulations are not intended to interfere with the implementation of the Range Rule; they ensure that State requirements to protect human health and the environment are not overlooked.
WAC 173-303-600 Final Facility Standards

Comment74: The commenteris concerned that the proposed language at WAC 173­ 303-600(3)(p)(i)(D)(iii) implies that only emergency responders who engage in postemergency management ofresidual contamination are responsible for addressing any residual contamination from an emergencyresponse: Theynote that EPA stated in the

51

### 0 Federal Register Notice that the owner of the object, the owner of the property on which the object rests or where the response was initiated, or the requestor is responsible for addressing any residual contamination from an emergency response. 

### \J
Response: This requirement and the State's proposed rule language are identical to the federal rule. This provision does not limit responsibility for addressing residual contamination only to emergencyresponders. It states that emergencyresponders who continue or initiate dangerous waste treatment or containment activities after the immediate response is over are subject to all applicable requirements for those activities. See also the related response under interim status requirements.

WAC 173-303-610 Closure and Postclosure

Comment

### 75: The discussion introducing modifications to incorporate the post-closure permit and closure process requirements states that "regulations allowing alternative mechanisms to be used in'lieu ofpost-closure permits and amendments to the requirements for post-closure permit applications are not being adopted." Ecology's logic in rejecting these modifications is incomprehensible. With regard to the alternative mechanisms to be used in lieu ofpost-closure permits, the associated regulatory language is an integral part of the alternative requirement that Ecology claims to be adopting (e.g., see page 56, last paragraph, 1st sentence which specifically identifies Ecology's intended adoption of alternative requirements for postclosure care.) It appears that Ecology has erroneously concluded that certain Federal language is somehow separate from the alternative mechanism in lieu ofpost-closure care. As indicated at 63 Federal Register 56729, the provisions at 40 CPR 264.90(e) and 270.1(c) are part of the changes necessary to allow use of alternative authorities. Strangely, the Ecology discussion on page 58 of the draft proposedrule states that 40 CPR 270.1(c) is included in the draft amendments, but corresponding text does not appear in the draft rule. In a similar manner, the Ecology discussion states that language incorporating 40 CPR 264.118(b)(4) (necessary to allow use of alternative mechanisms in lieu ofpost-closure permitting) is present in the draft rule, but such language does not appear anywhere in the proposed changes to WAC 173-303-610(8). Corresponding language in the Federal rule for interim status facilities at 40 CPR 265.118(c)(5) is apparently incorporated by reference into WAC 173-303. With regards to the revisions to the requirements for post-closure permit applications, the Federal language at 40 CPR 270.28 was designed to identify appropriate information to be includedin post-closure permit applications. This action was taken in recognition of the fact that the existingregulatory requirements do not distinguish between information for operating permits and post-closure permits, but that certain informationpertinent to operating units may not be relevant to units in post-closure. As a consequence, EPA tailored the regulations to identify those information provisions appropriate to units in post-closure care. To address fears that additional information may be necessary for units subject to post-closure, EPA added a provision allowing the permitting authority to

52 

# 0

0

# •

•

• specify additional information needs on a case-by-case basis. The U.S. Department of Energy, (USDOE) urges Ecology to adopt these common-sense provisions. Response: The commenterraises three issues. First, that Ecology should adopt new Federal regulations that allow alternative administrative mechanisms to be used instead of post-closure permits to impose post-closure requirements. Second, that Ecology did not appropriately adopt all of the necessary Federal regulations to, at certain dangerous waste treatment, storage and disposal units, allow for alternative requirements in lieu of existing closure, post-closure, ground water monitoring and financial assurance requirements. Third, that Ecology should choose new Federal regulations establishing alternative post-closure permit application requirements. Regarding the use ofalternative administrative mechanisms to imposepost-closure care requirements, Ecology is still not persuaded that it is appropriate to adopt these regulations at this time. As discussed in our preamble to the proposal, Ecology's decision is based primarily on three considerations. First, underexisting, informal, operating agreements with EPA Region 10,Ecology generally postpones decisions about postclosure permits at most facilities that remain subject to post-closure care until after completion of a cleanup underMTCA. This informal operating arrangement means that, in practice, Ecology is already implementing much ofthe flexibility that would be allowed under the new Federal regulations. Second, the Federal regulations do not allow alternative administrative mechanisms at facilities (such as Hanford)thathave already received permits and do not allow conversion ofpermits into orders or other alternative administrative mechanisms. (See, e.g., 63 PR 56717.) Third, gaining authorization to implement these requirements in lieu ofEPA Region 10, would likelybe a time and
resource intensive effort for Ecology. Ecology spent approximately three years working with EPA Region 10 to make the Region comfortable with limited use oforders issued under the Model Toxics Control Act and consent decrees at facilities subject to corrective action. In the end, we were never able to actually receive authorization ofthese MTCA orders and, instead, are still required to incorporate these orders by reference into state dangerous waste permits. We believe a similareffort would be required for EPARegion 10 to become confident that MTCA orders and consent decrees couldbe used to properly impose post-closure care requirements.

Given their limited application, and the time and effortthat would likely be involved in gaining authorization to implement these requirements, Ecology continues to believe it is not necessary to adopt these new Federal regulations at this time. IfEPA clarifies the regulations to allow for existing permits to be converted to alternative administrative mechanisms or ifthe universe ofpost-closure facilities in Washington changes, Ecology may reconsiderthis decision and may choose to adopt these regulations in the future. Regarding adoption ofnew Federal regulations to allow use ofalternative requirements in lieu of the existing requirements for closure, post-closure, ground watermonitoring and financial assurance at certain treatment, storage and disposal units, the commenterraises concerns about 40 CPR 264. 118(b)(4) and 40 CPR 270. 1(c)(7).

53**----~** -- -------­

40 CPR 264. 118(b)(4) provides that where alternative requirements are established at a unit required to have a post-closure plan, the post-closure plan must include eitherthe 

# C.

alternative requirements or a reference to the enforceable document containing the alternative requirements. These provisions were inadvertently omittedfrom the proposal. In response to this comment, this provision has been added at WAC 173-303­ 610(8)(b)(iv). As the commenternotes, the addition is consistent with Ecology's preamble discussion of its intent to adopt all of the Federal provisions necessary to support implementation of alternative requirements at eligible treatment, storage and disposal units. Itis also analogous to our proposal to adopt this requirement for closure plans at WAC 173-303-610(3)(a)(ix). Ecology notes that 40 CPR 264.118(b)(4) is not, as the commenter asserts, necessary to allow use of alternative mechanisms in lieu ofpost-closure permitting. Rather, 40 CPR 164.118(b)(4)provides that, where EPA has established alternative requirements for closure, post-closure, ground water monitoring, or financial assurance at a unit required to have a post-closure plan, the post-closure plan must contain the alternative requirements or a reference to the alternative requirements. Under the Federal regulations dealing with alternative mechanisms, the alternative mechanism must contain all postclosure care requirements. Itis these provisions which we have chosen not to adopt. Under the Federal regulations for alternative requirements (which we are adopting) the alternative requirements can be established in either a post-closure plan or an enforceable document, which is referenced in a post-closure plan.
40 CPR 270.1(c)(7) establishes that, at the discretion of EPA or an authorized state, a facility owner/operatormay obtain an enforceable document instead of a post-closure permit to impose post-closure care requirements. It also provides a definition of "enforceable document." As discussed above, Ecology is not, at this time, persuaded that it should adopt the Federal regulations allowing alternative administrative mechanisms to be used instead ofpost-closure permits. However, we agree that to support our adoption of Federal regulations allowing use of alternative requirements in lieu of the existing requirement for closure, post-closure, ground water monitoring and financial assurance at certain treatment, storage and disposal units, we need to establish requirements for "enforceable documents." To that end, Ecologyproposed a definition of "enforceable document" at WAC 173-303-040.

-Regarding adoption of Federal regulations establishing alternative information

submission requirements for post-closure permit applications, as discussed in our preamble to the proposedregulations, Ecology continues to believe that these provisions are not necessary because WAC 173-303-840(b) and existing guidance on post-closure permit applications already allows EPA and authorized states to determine that a postclosure permit application is complete even ifthe application does not contain all of the elements that would be necessary in a permit application for an operating facility. 

# o

54

# •

•

• WAC 173-303-646 CorrectiveAction

Comment76: The discussion on page 61 ofthe draft rule amendment states that "Ecology is adding an explicit requirement that corrective actions under WAC 173-303­ 646 meet the requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation. This provision is intended to clarify the application ofMTCA and "give additional certainty to members of the regulated community who might wish to begin corrective action absent Ecology oversight."

The commenter concurs that attainment ofthe MTCA cleanup standards should clearly demonstrate adequacy of cleanup and supports Ecology's recognition that voluntary cleanup actions may be performedby the facility owner/operator outside the context of Ecology oversight. Itis important; however, that the requirement to meet the requirements ofMTCA be properly placed within the context ofthe requirements for corrective action.

In orderto avoid the appearance of surreptitiously revising the scope ofthe historically documented WAC 173-303 corrective action program, the Ecology discussion ofthe rule amendment needs to be revised to explain that corrective action applies both to SWMUs and significant one-time spill events. Ecology shouldreiterate the definition ofa significant release, state that the facility owner/operatoris responsible for making this determination, with Ecology being responsible for ensuring accurate assessments. MTCA Policy 101 shouldbe identified as providing guidance as to when a one-time spill is considered to pose a threat to human health and the environment. Finally, the regulatory language in -646(2)(d) shouldbe revised to reflect that the requirement applies to significant releases. IfEcologyintends to impose a different application of corrective action from that described above, the discussion should provide an explicit discussion of the changes along with a request for comment. Response: As discussed in our preamble to the proposedregulations, WAC 173-303­ 646(2)(d) does not changethe scope or applicability of corrective action requirements. This scope and applicability is already defined at WAC 173-303-646(1) and WAC 173­ 303-646(2)(a), which reads, in part: "the owner or operatorofa facility must institute corrective action as necessary to protect human health and the environmental for all releases of dangerous wastes and dangerous constituents, includingreleases from all solid waste management units at the facility." Because thejurisdiction and scope of corrective action requirements are already defined in WAC 173-303-646(a) and WAC 173-303­ 646(2)(a), we are not persuaded that it is necessary to further define the scope and applicability of corrective action requirements in WAC 173-303-646(2)(d). Ecology confirms that documents citedby the commentercontinue to accurately express our policy on corrective action requirements for releases that are not from solid waste management units (SWMUs). (February 2, 1994 letter from Thomas Eaton, then Manger of the Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program to Kris Backes ofthe Association ofWashington Business and Toxic Cleanup ProgramPolicy 101.) We note that, since



### 55

# C 1994, in practice, the issue of non-SWMUrelated releases is generally addressed in permits. This includes in proposed permit conditions for the Department ofEnergy's Hanford Facility, by requiring corrective action for releases from SWMUs and "Areas ofj Concern" and including a definition of"Areas ofConcern" in the permit,


### Comment77: Ecology has proposedregulatory citations for WAC 173-303 when they should be WAC 173-340 in both the preamble text and the regulatory text. 

### Response: Proposed regulations at WAC 173-303-646(2)(d) properly cite the Model Toxics Control Act, Chapter 173-340 WAC.



### WAC 173-303-692 Air Emission Standardsfor Tanks, SurfaceImpoundments, and Containers

Comment78: Consistent with the corresponding Federal provisions, WAC 173-303­ 692(l)(b)(v) needs to be revised to acknowledge that the air emissions standards do not apply to waste management units storing or treating hazardous waste associated with remediation activities conducted under CERCLA authority or under an interim status RCRA corrective action order. 

### Response: The federal citations will be added in the final rule so that the State rule corresponds to the federal requirement.



### WAC 173-303-800 PermitRequirements for Dangerous WasteManagementFacilities

Comment79: Ecologyhas not adopted the federal exemption found at 40 CPR 270.1(c)(3)(i)(C) at WAC 173-303-800(7)(c)(i)(C). Theexemption has been proposed for adoption in sections -400 and -600. The language for exemptions should be identical in these three sections. 

### Response: The language from the federal citation will be addedin the final rule. Ecology proposed to update sections -400, -600, and -800 to correlate with the federal rule. The citation in question was inadvertently omittedfrom the proposal.



### WAC 173-303-803 PermitApplication Requirements

Comment 80: WAC 173-303-803(2)(b) and WAC 173-303-803(3) appear identical. Ecology should delete subsection (3) and renumber the remaining subsections of section· -803. 

### Response: The duplicate subsection (3) will be removed in the final rule.

56

# • Comment 81: Ecology added a paragraph relating to "dangerous debris" at WAC 173­ 303-803(4)(n). Ecology has not defined this term. Ecology should continue to use the term "hazardous debris" in order to be consistent with the rest of Chapter 173-303 WAC. Response: Ecology did not intend to introduce a new tenn. The tennwill be changed to "hazardous debris" in the final rule for consistency with the rest of the regulations.

WAC 173-303-805 Interim Status Permits

Comment 82: Ecology appears to have a typographical error at WAC 173-303­ 805(l)(b)(ii) in the reference to section -806. It appears that the correct reference should be to WAC 173-303-803(4). Response: WAC 173-303-803(4) is the new subsection that lists the contents of a Part A permit application. WAC 173-303-806 was referred to in the proposed rule because it contains the broaderrequirements for submitting a Part A application. It goes on to refer to WAC 173-303-803(4) for the contents of an application. However, since permit application requirements were added at WAC 173-303-803, it is more appropriate to change the reference to WAC 173-303-803 since it more closely correlates to the federal citation. WAC 173-303-803 then refers to other appropriate sections. WAC 173-303­ 

# • 803 will reflect this change in the final rule. Itwill also be modified to include a reference to WAC 173-303-800 to tie in all permit application requirements

. WAC 173-303-806 Final Facility Permits

Comment 83: In adding WAC 173-303-806(4)(m), Ecology appears to have overlooked updating subsection -806(4). Ecology should update the list to account for subsection806(4)(m).
Response: WAC 173-303-806(4), contents of Part B, will be updated in the final rule.

Miscellaneous Comments

Comment 84: The time between proposal and adoption, 30 days, is not sufficient time for the local solid waste handling agencies to promulgate their own rules and inform their customers. Response: The commenterhas a good point and we do take such things into consideration. Underthe Administrative Procedures Act, agencies must wait at least thirty days following adoption before rules can go into effect. While Ecology does have the authority to signify a later effective date, there are benefits to having the amendments become effective thirty days after adoption rather than waiting for a later date.

57

# c The rules are very diverse and don't all affect local solid waste programs. Also, while some of the rules being adopted are already in effect and are implemented at the federal level, many will be going into effect for the first time when Washington adopts them. These rules will increase environmental protection. The earlier that the amendments go into effect, the sooner many of the improvements for environmental protection can be implemented. Also, there are other rules, such as some conditional exclusions that some generators will want to begin implementing as soon as allowable. Ecology makes an early pre-proposal draft of the amendments available for public review both to obtain public input, and to let the public know which rules are being considered for adoption. The early involvement opportunity and notification increase awareness of new rules that will need to be complied with. A pre-proposal draft was made available in October 1999. With universal waste lamps in particular, Ecologyhas written articles and worked to notify effected people that this rule was expected to go into effect in early 2000. The work on this rule followedEPA's rule, which many people were aware of. Ecology realizes that there are administrative procedures that counties must follow. Ecologyrecognizes that there is a period of time following adoption where people are coming into compliance with the new regulations. Ecology takes this into consideration when evaluating instances of non-compliance and selecting appropriate remedies.


# o

o

58