.I

"

... : -. :0.

. ...;/:~;.

VICTOR ATIYEH COVF.RNOR

Department of Environmental Quality

522 SOUTHWEST 5TH AVE. PORTU-ND. OREGON

MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1760, PORTLAND. OREGON 97207

•

•

November 17, 1980

Hearings Officer

EPA - Region X

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

SUBJECT: Public Hearing To Consider Oregon Application fqr InteriII1

Authorization of a State Hazardous Waste Control Program .

November 17, 1980

You have before you a decision very important to the people of Oregon,

the regulated cc:mmunity and the Department. We believe our application

speaks for itself and that it demonstrates substantial equivalence. The

thrust of our testimony will be to suggest a context within which to make

your decision on substantial equivalence. Should you find our recommended

context reasonable, we believe you will arrive at a similar conclusion:

Oregon has a substantially equivalent program.

UNIVERSE OF WASTE

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

an item of major interest to EPA. Based on our application, the

announcement identifies areas where Oregon's universe of waste is not

,...;

•

identical to EPA's. Since the announcement was published some federal

events are noteworthy. For example, Congress has passed and the President

has signed a RCRA reauthorization bill which, among other things:
•

Hearings Officer

Page 2

1. Places coal mining wastes and overburden under the' sole authority

of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

I :

•

2. Exempts from Subtitle "C" regUlations for up to two years, drilling

fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the

exploration, development or production of crude oil or natural gas

or geothermal energy; and

3. Exempts from subt.I tle "C" regulations for up to three years fly ash,

bottom ash ~aste, slag waste and flue gas emission control waste

generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels;

solid waste from the extraction, benefication, and processing of ores'

and minerals, including phosphate rock and overburden from the mining

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

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

1. Delist' waste associated with the leather tanning industry, and

2.· Change total chromium to hexavalent chromium in the Extraction

Procedure Toxicity Chart.

•

The significance of these events is that wi thout Oregon adopting any

temporary' rules, as has been strongly urged, our universe of waste is now

closer than ever because Congress and EPA are changing their universe even

before they become effective!
•

•

Hearings Officer

Page 3

A much more somber thought, however, is that had we adopted temporary rules

based on EPA's promulgated rules, our program credibility -would now slowly

but surely be eroding because of the these recent retreats at the federal

level.

-Recognizing .that further federal. changes to. add or delete wastes are

likely, Oregon finds it unacceptable to use its temporary rule making

authority to change its universe of waste until EPA'S definition process

achieves sane level of stability not observed to date.

LaStly, no recognition has been given to those areas where Oregon's

universe is greater than EPA's, such as:

1. A corrosive characteristic that covers solids as well as liquids and

wastes with a pH greater than 12.0 not 12.5.

2. A toxicity standard that not only covers pure chemical substances

but covers dilutions of pure chemical substances and,

3. SInall quanti ty exemptions, except for EPA's acutely hazardous small

quantity exemption, that are substantially less than EPA'S 1000

kilogram per month.

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

universe of was te ques tion.
•

•

•

Hear ings Officer

Page 4

INTERIM STATUS STM"DARDS

The next area of major interest to EPA is Oregon's inability to apply

standards similar to EPA's Interim Status Standards (ISS) to storage and

treatment facilities located at the site of generation (State statutes

exempt, from the licensing requirement only, those generators who store

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

we intend to adopt in the future, a close reading reveals that they cover

largely adminis tra tive matters at this time (i. e. , .having certain plans

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

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

met:

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

2. The operator must have notified EPA by August 18,1980, of the

facility's existence.

3. The operator must file a Part A permit·application by

November 19, 1980.

To gain Interim status. does not require any demonstration of the adequacy

of the facility. The "Inside EPA" newsletter of September 19, 1980,

reports that EPA is giving serious consideration to stiffening their ISS
•

•

Hearings Officer

Page 5

to -get rid of the bad actors ••• - that is, prevent eXisting facilities

that are badly in need of retrofit from gaining operating status.- In

a Supplemental Notice of Proposal Rulemaking in the October 8,1980,

Federal Register EPA indicates its intent to app+y their yet to be

promulgated technical standards for new facilities to any major expansion

of an existing facility.

Again, while we acknowledge the practical nature of the ISS in their

present form, they do little to insure protection of public health or the

environment at existing facili ties. Being mainly cosmetic, their prime

value is to raise industry's consciousness as to what's coming down the

road and we believe they will serve that purpose whether they exist in

Oregon law or not. We have enough knowledge of. and confidence in our

regulated community to know that most will voluntarily comply with EPA's

ISS. Further, our generator standards s till apply even though a license

may not be required and cover such items as using adequately constructed

containers and tanks, properly storing volatile wastes, proper

identification of wastes on site and obtaining authorization (not a formal

license, however) if storage is to exceed six months.

In summary, for those most critical facilities, that is, those storage,

treatment and disposal facili ties that handle mul tiple wastes from mul tiple

companies, we can and do intend to apply standards similar to the ISS

through the licensing process. For those companies who store or treat

• on-site we will be involved with these facilities through our generator

program which alloW'S us to apply the more important ISS even though we

cannot legally require some of the plans EPA would like to see on file.
Hearings Officer

Page 6

•

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

car s down to time and resources. We intend to modify as time, resources

and public participation requirements perIni t, the existing licenses. Best

assured that in the meantime the licenses do speak to the issues of public

health and environmental protection as well as compliance with the State's

hazardouS waste management program. We believe we are substantially

equivalent to the intent of the ISS.

MOVING TARGET SYNDROME

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

• long-a;.,rai ted hazardous waste management program. EPA has suggested its

rule.promulgation program will be a "dynamic program" in that frequent

changes can be expected as the full impact of RCRA is achieved. While

the impression given is that mainly additions to the program can be

expected, as noted above," major deletions can also be expected on short

notice. As if to reinforce that fact the "Hazardous Waste News· newsletter

. .

of "October "ZO" and 27 ,i980, and the "Ins"ide EPA· newsletter of

October 10, 1980, report that over SOlitigants have raised over 30 issues

dealing wi th the Phase I rules. The EPA, Department of Justice and the

.litigants are currently meeting to determine which iss ues can be

•

consolidated, solved by RegUlatory Interpretive Memorandums, solved by

rule change or must be litigated. What this obviously suggests is that

EPA's program a year from now may be substantically different than it is

today.
Bearings Officer

Page 7

•

Under these circumstances, for EPA to suggest that a state with an

existing, operational program rush through rule amendments that .. adopt the

federal program verbatim is simply not reasonable! While we don't envy

EPA's task of meeting RCRA mandates, we ask you to consider the devastating

effect constant rule changes at the federal and/or state level have on

program c~edibility~ One presumed advantage of the In~erim.Authorization

program provided for by Congress is that it allows EPA's Regional

Administrators to approve substantially equivalent existing state programs

and avoid the moving target syndrome for up to two years.

Furthermore, even after achieving final authorization states will have

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

statutes up to date.

Oregon's existing, operating hazardous waste program currently has the

support and trust of the public and regulated conununity. We believe one

major reason for that is that we developed the program over the last ten

years at a pace that the public and regulated community could relate to

and were involved in. Don't ask us to violate that trust by using our

temporary rule making authority to facilitate the moving target syndrome.

TEMPORARY RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

• As stated in our application, the Environmental Quality Commission could

adopt an identical program tomorr ow, These hastily adopted rules would

be effective for 180 days only unless the EQC moved to adopt them as

permanent rules following all the legal requirements for rUlemaking.
•

•

•

Hearings Officer

Page 8

We do not consider any of the existing deficiencies to be of such

Import.ance that it warrants the EQC .adoptd nq temporary rules. Even before

EPA institutionalized it, public participation has been required by the

EQC. Considering the strong emotional aspects surrounding hazardous waste

activities nationwide, we have strived to maintain active pUblic

participation in our hazardous· waste rulemaking proceedings. The public

and regulated communi ty has had access to our hazardous waste rulemaking

procedures and we believe that is another reason the program has their

current support and trust.

Rest assured that if any person or company attempted to use the differences

between our programs to create a public health or environmental threat

in Or eqon, we would not hesitate to use this ·temporary rulemaking authority

to protect the pUblic health or the environment. However, that would be

responding to a real need not a perceived need.

ARLINGl'ON POLLUTION CONTROL CENTER

Early in the development of i t:s hazardous waste management program, Oregon

realized that one vital key to a successful hazardous waste management

program was having an operating disposal site. Following private industry

initiative, full public review and EQC action that requirement was realized

in March 1976 wi th the issuance of a hazardous waste disposal site license

to Chem-Security Systems Inc. for the Arlington Pollution Control Center•
•

•

•

Hearings Officer

Page 9

Subsequent to Oregon licensing it as a disposal site, EPA issued ChernSecurity a permit to dispose of PCB s'olids under the authority of the Toxic

Substance Control Act. ':Qualified persons who have examined the site

describe it as one of t'he most geologically secure sites'

in the United States. Since its opening, Chern-Security and the State

(who owns the active portions of the site) have taken the responsible,

but potentially unpopul.ar , posi tion of operating it as a regional disposal' .

site. Besides Oregon, the States of Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii,

Montana, Wyoming and Utah, and the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta,

Saskatchewen and Manitoba have used the site.

In its Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of october 8, 1980, EPA

propcsed a broad outline for protecting groundwater from new landfills,

land treatment facili ties and unlined surface impoundments. While

supportive of the proposed concepts for new facilities, we are extremely

concerned about EPA's intent to apply those same standards to major

expansions of existing facilities, including existing state-licensed

facilities. While we can share your concern that the existing nInterim

Status Standards concept," could allow some inadequate sites to con tinue

to operate and expand (see our discussion on ISS above), we are concerned

that the following scenario may adversely affect Arlington:

1. Oregon not granted Interim Authorization--EPA program effective

November 19, 1980.'
••

.nearings Officer

Page 10

2. Arlington Pollution Control Center (a likely candidate for Interim

Status) under jurisdiction of both EPA and DEQ.

3. No expansion at Arlington possible until EPA permi t issued.

4. No EPA permit issued until EPA rules are promulgated.

5. EPA rules are delayed one, two even three years because of extensive

comments received, petitions filed or court suits initiated.

•

6 • RArtificialR shortage of capacity created at Arlington because of

"federal moratorium" on major expansions at exis ting facili ties.

•

While our scenario may be considered "farfetched," EPA1s track record in

the promulgation of its hazardous waste management program does not

encourage optimism. Considering that Arlington is operated as a regional

disposal site at this time, the stakes are high and the consequences of

delay dire.

A finding of substantial equivalence, which we believe we1ve demonstrated

in our application, insures that this scenario would not come to pass.

}
•

•

Bearings Officer

Page 11

SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE

For the first time ever in delegating an environmental program to the

State, Congress granted EPA broad authori ty to phase in a State's program.

To achieve Final Authorization, a State program must be equivalent,

consistent and enforceable. Equivalent has been defined· as -equivalent

in effect- not necessarily identical. For up to two years following

initial program promulgation, however, State's have to show only

"substantial equivalence" (substantially equivalent in effect). Presumably

State's that had moved ahead of EPA would have an opportunity to have their

existing program authorized rather than rushing through wholesale changes•

State's that did not move ahead, however, have little reason not to adopt

the promulgated program. The congressional concept suggests that a State's

initia~iVe would finally be recognized.

Following today's hearing a decision has to be reached on substantial

equivalence. We would like to suggest that that decision is less one of

finding Oregon substantially equivalent on paper but more one of finding

that our operating program is not sul::stantially equivalent in effect.

That is, we maintain that unless you can conclude an interim program under

your authority would result in improved public health or environmental

protection in Oregon you must find our program substantially equivalent

in effect.
•

•

•

Hearings Officer

Page 12

Considering what Oregon has accomplished to date, and what we can

acr,mplish if we're not reduced to mere paper shufflers, we expect you

can reach the same conclusion Oregon has: Tne application as sul::mitted

demonstrates substantial equivalence in effect - Phase I Interim

Authorization should be granted.

We appreciate the opportunity to offer this testimony into today's hearing

record.

Sincerely,

-~/~

William H. y~ Director

RR:f

ZF288 (2)

cc: Don Dubois, Regional Administrator

Doug Cootie, Administrator

Victor Atiyeh, Governor
::" "

ttW \'2\

•

•

•

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

P. O. Box 1760

Portland, O~egon 97207

JAN 13 1981

Mr. Donald P. Dubois

Regional Administrator

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98101

HW 1. 21

Dear Mr. Dubois:

Pursuant to' staff discussions that have occurred since EPA's November

17, 1980 public hearing on Oregon's Phase I Interim Authorization

Application, it is obvious we were too conservative in describing pther

environmental programs that may have a bearing on this decision.

Specifically, we have very clear and broad authorities in our water

quality program to accomplish the intent of the interim status standards

for certain land storage, treatment, and/or disposal facilities that may handle hazardous waste (i.e., pits, ponds and lagoons).

In order that we may identify these authorities for you, I request that

you extend the 90 day application review period to allow us to submit

specific citations related to our water quality authorities. Our

submission will also contain a schedule, time frame, and justification

for modifying or issuing Water Pollution Control Facilities permits to

those companies who store or treat haza~dous wastes in on-site facilities.

I would expect such submission to be mailed by January 23, 1981.

William H. Young, Director

Department of Environmental Quality

cc: Ray Underwood . Dept. of Justice

Ernest Schmidt, Administrator

Solid Waste Division
U. S. EN V IRON MEN TAL PRO T EC T ION

REGION X

1200 SIXTH AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

4,~ AGENCY "~

•

REPLY TO MIS 530 ATTN OF:

JAN 2 3 1981

William H. Young, Director

Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 1760

..Por-tland, .OR 97207.

Dear Mr. Young:

We have received your request for an extension of the review period of

your application to us for Phase I Interim Authorization of your

hazardous waste management program. Your request references additional

authorities under your State water pollution control program. Since

these authorities were not discussed in your initial application, you

have proposed to document them in a submittal which we will receive

·shortly. Our preliminary discussions indicate that these authorities may

have significant implications regarding your ability to regulate surface

impoundments used for management of hazardous wastes. We therefore wish

to notify you that we will extend the review period.

When we receive your submittal, we will establish a date for completing

our review and making a final decision on your application. If we find

that we are able to approve your application, we would then establish an

effective date for interim authorization. This date would be based upon

your timetable for incorporation of standards substantially equivalent to

the Interim Status Standards into licenses and permits issued under both

the hazardous waste and water pollution programs.

Furthermore, we will publish a Notice in the Federal Register announcing

the extension of the review period and giving notice of our intended

actions up until the time we render a final decision on your application.

appreciate the excellent cooperation your agency has shown

this complex process.

•

onald P. Dubois

Regional Administrator

cc: Rich Reiter, DEQ

State of Oregon

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

{ffi~@~UW~[ID

JAN 28 ·1981

OffiCE OF THE DIRECTOR
•

•

February 3, 1981

Donald P. Dubois, Regional Administrator

EPA--Region X

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

Re: HW 1. 2l-RCRA

PhaseI--Interim Authorization

Dear Mr. Dubois:

On January 13, 1981, I asked that you withhold making a decision on our

Phase I--Interim Authorization application to allow us to submit clarifying

information on Oregon's water pollution control program. Attached to this

letter is information that we believe is pertinent to your decision.

On page 3.6 of our September 16, i980 application, reference is made to

other existing, aggressive non-hazardous solid waste, water quality

control and air pollution control programs that already are controlling

hazardous and non-hazardous waste streams. On page 6.6 (Number 5), we

state that licensing on-site hazardous waste management facilities will

be simplified because other DEQ programs (i.e., water pollution control)

already permit (license) industrial treatment facili-ties, surface

-impoundments, land treatment f~cilities and incinerators.

Table 1 describes the current permit situation relative to the eleven (11)

facilities ,that notified EPA--Region X that they store, treat or dispose

of hazardous waste on-site (and are, therefore, exempted from the licensing

requirements of our hazardous waste program):

Table 1

•

Perma Post Products

Hillsboro, OR

J .H.: Baxter

The Dalles, OR

J.H. Baxter

Eugene, OR

Union Carbide

Portland, OR

WPCF*

(3211)

WFcF

(3151)

NPDES**

(29l8-J)

1.6
•

Donald P. Dubois, Regional Administrator

February 3, 1981

Page 2

Gilmore Steel Corp.

Portland, OR

Widing Transportation

por~land, OR

Widing Transportation

Springfield, OR

Umatilla Army Depot

Umatilla, OR

Borden, Inc.

La Grande, OR

Pennwal t, Inc.

Portland, OR

NPDES

(2234-J)

WPCF

(2315)

. WPCF

Application pending

WPCF

(3113)

NPDES

(2764-J)

NPDES

(28l3-J)

Portland Willamette Company

Bortland, OR

• *

**

NPDES

(289l-J)

Oregon Water Pollution Control Facility Permit

Oregon· National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

It is interesting to note that of the eleven facilities, nine are under

existing permits, one permit is in the draft stage and one facility is

unpermitted at this time. Without knowing the specifics of J.H. Baxter,

The Dalles, I believe this again demonstrates that where potential

environmental problems exist, Oregon is knowledgeable and involved!

Our specific clarifying information is as follows:

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Addition to Program Description

Part H - page 3.54

Supplemental Attorney General's statement

ORS Chapter 468 (Water quality portions)~ OAR

Chapter 340, Divisions 11, 12, 14, 41, 42, 43,

44 and 45~ Interim Policy on Groundwater

Protection~ ORS 161.635(1) (a)

•

In addition to Appendices A, Band C, we are on a schedule to inspect~

determine if a hazardous waste is being managed (by federal definition)~

and then issue or modify the necessary water quality permits (to achieve

the equivalent of the Interim Status Standards through a properly

conditioned permit) by March 15, 1981. We continue to take exception to

your policy that these permit actions have to be completed before you make

a decision on Phase I--Interim Authorization.. If you conclude we have

sufficient authority to regulate these sources, that should be the

pertinent point. working together (as partners), we should b~ able to

1.7
•

•

•-"

Donald P. Dubois, Regional Administrator

February 3, 1981

Page 3

insure that the permit actions are taken in a timely manner consistent

with the permittee's right to appeal and the pUblic's right to be involved.

If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me or Richard

Reiter, Supervisor, Hazardous Waste program.

Sincerely,

W~}!'!fJ

William H. Young

Director

RPR:c

ZC407

cc: Ray Underwood, Department of Justice

Harold Sawyer, Administrator, Water Quality Division

Pat Amedeo, Assistant to the Governor

1.8
$O;,d W:;~tQ Dlvl!':ion

Dc;>t. ot t:n'iironmonl~,1 ':.iUlllity

00 UiM~Rr~ 1~81[~ rID

-'j

.- -'"

REPLY TO

ATTN Of:

-O. S. EN V I RON MEN TAL PRO TEe T ION

REGION X

1200 SIXTH AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

MIS 530

AGENCY

•

•

MAR 3 1981

Richard Reiter

Hazardous Waste Program

Department of Environmental Quality . P.o. Box 1760

'Pbttla~d~ OR 97207

Dear Mr. Reiter:

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

interim authorization is the absence of a complete set of standards

substantially equivalent to the Interim Status Standards as part of the

State's Rules. While we have in the past encouraged the State to adopt . emergency rules to include all of the ISS, we have also noted that it

would be acceptable for DEQ to incorporate the ISS into existing State

licenses, and thereby provide effectively the same coverage as adoption

of emergency rules.

Having revieweo draft licenses which you' propose to issue, we feel that

these licenses do not fully incorporate the ISS, and therefore do not

adequately address the· concern raised in our initial review of your

application. As an example, Section A6. of the draft treatment site

license for Pacific Chemical Laboratories, Inc. includes an outline of

the requirements contained in the ISS. However, none of the detailed

requirements of 40 CFR Part 265, which define such terms as "contingency

plan" or "closure plan," have been included in the draft license.

Without such detail, we remain concerned with DEQ's ability to require

compliance with the ISS.

Because of the significance of the ISS issue, our review of draft

licenses becomes an important consideration in our determination of

whether Oregon's hazardous waste program is substantially equivalent to t~e Federal program. We therefore strongly encourage you to modify the

proposed licenses in one of the following ways: (1) include the ISS

directly in the lisences, (2) develop a set of standards analogous to the

ISS and incorporate them into the licenses, or (3) include appropriate

!-"'-=•••
•

•

,-

-2- \

\,..

. references to the Code of Federal Regulations to specify detailed

requirements for compliance by the licensee. Please recognize that if

the second approach is taken, EPA will have to review the standards

developed by the State to determine whether they are substantially

equivalent to the ISS.

We appreciate your cooperation, and look forward to completing our review of your interim authorization application.

Sincerely,

?deJ

Ke neth D. Feigner~ Waste Management Branch

cc: Ernie Schmidt
•

u. S. EN V I RON MEN TAL PRO TEe T ION AGE N C Y

REGION X

1200 SIXTH AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

REPLY TO MIS 530 AnN OF:

1SSi

•

•

Richard Reiter

Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 1760

Portland,. ·OR ·97207.

Dear Mr. Reiter:

As a follow-up to our letter to you of March 3, 1981, we would like to

provide several more detailed recommendations for revising existing

licenses and permits to incorporate the Interim Status Standards for

hazardous waste management facilities •

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

permit included a section A6. which we -felt_ was not detailed enough to be

considered substantially equivalent to the ISS. In our discussion with

you, you proposed, and we indicated our concurrence with inclusion of a

reference here to 40 CFR Part 265 to incorporate detailed requirements.

We would like to make two points. First, the reference should cover all

of Part 265. This is important for items such as waste analysis and . inspection where requirements appear in more than one place in Part 265:

For example, requirements for inspection appear in 265.15,265.174,

265.194, and 265.226, according to the type of facility under

consideration. Second, while this reference to Part 265 would clearly

ensure an equivalent set of standards for all of the items covered in

A6., there are other elements of the Interim Status Standards which are

not addressed in this or any other section of the proposed license. We

recommend that these also be incorporated into the licenses. Specific

items which have not been included are discussed below, with references

given to the substantial equivalence checklist for Section 3004 of RCRA

which you completed as part of your interim authorization application.

1. Item 7.5 of the checklist discusses an operating record to be held

on-site and refers to 265.73(b). Nothing in the license addresses

the requirement of 265.73(b)(2) for specifying the location of wastes

in the facility. In (b)(3) there is a reference to "trial tests" in

addition to waste analysis. This term also appears in many other

sections of Part 265. We recommend that it be included with the

requirement already in the license for waste analysis•

2. Item 7.8 discusses reporting (265.75), and no requirement appears in

the license which addresses reporting the method of storage of the

wastes (265.75(e)).
•

•

•

-2-

3. Item 7.10 discusses reports necessary under certain conditions.

Although OAR 340-63-420(3) requires that the Oregon Accident Response

System be contacted when discharges occur, no reports are required by

the license in the event of explosions or fires.

4. Items 8.3 and 8.4 discuss reconciliation and reporting of manifest

discrepancies. No similar requirements appear in the license.

5. The notification discussed in item 9.2(a) (regarding receipt of

foreign wastes) does not appear in the license.

6. The requirements of OAR 340-63-420(1) and license condition B15. do

not incorporate the more detaile~ requirements for ignitable,

reactive, and incompatible wast~ "in~luded"iri"265.198arid"265.199, ahd

265.405 and 265.406. (See items 9.7(g) &(h) and 9.14(g) &(h).)o

7. Items 9.7(c) and 9.14(c) reference requirements for continuous feed

systems. Similar requirements are not included in the license, and

may be appropriate.

Regarding the addenda to the water pollution control facility permits,

which we recently received, the above points would also be applicable.

We feel that ref~rences to 40 CFR Part 265 would also be necessary here.

We also note that no -reference to site security has been included • Furthermore, the effective date of May 19, 1981 would be appropriate only

for certain of the ISS (completion of personnel training, closure and

post-closure plans, and cost estimates for closure and post-closure).

The remaining ISS are in effect now, and their applicability should not

be tied to a date in the future. Also we note that there is no provision

in the permit analogous to Section B4. of the Pacific Chemical

Laboratories license discussing compliance with plans and procedures

which are maintained at the site. Such a provision should be included.

Finally, there are two additional points regarding surface impoundments.

The groundwater monitoring program required in the permit should be

specified in greater detail, preferably by reference to 40 CFR Part 265,

Subpart F. Also, specific requirements from Subpart K, as summarized in

item 9.8 of the checklist, should be included. (We note that the

requirement for maintaining a minimum freeboard of two feet has already

been incorporated.) We are pleased to see the inclusion of the financial

responsibility requirement in the permit.

Please contact us to discuss any of the points noted above. We look

forward to reviewing licenses and permits as you approach their final

issuance.

Sincerely,

~-dJd-d ~~~;eth~. Feigner, Chief

Waste Management Branch

cc: Ernie Schmidt
•

u. s.

REPLY TO MIS 530

AnN OF:

MAR 1 9 1981

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION X

1200 SIXTH AVENUE

SEA TTL E, WAS H I N G TON 9 8.1 0 1

•

••

Rich Reiter

Hazardous Waste Program

Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 1760 . Portl~nd,.OR 97207

Dear Mr. Reiter~

On February 3, 1981, we received from you additional material in support

of your application for RCRA Phase I Interim Authorization. Included in

that submittal was a supplemental Attorney General's Statement. As we

discussed earlier, clarification is needed of the provision in Section

VIII (Authority to Share Information with EPA) which states that "most"

information will be available to EPA upon request and without restriction.

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

CFR 123.132 states that "~ information obtained or used in the administration

of a state program shall be available to EPA upon request without restriction".

Oregon's original submittal of September 16, 1980 also contained the

same qualified statement that "most" information would be available.

This. was clarified by the State's submittal of an amendment to the

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on November 17, i980 (Section II.B.2.d)

and a corresponding supplement to the Attorney General's Statement on

December 9, 1980, which certified that the amendment enabled the State

to make "all" information available to EPA. However, the February 3,

1980 submittal again contained the provision that "most" information'

would be available.

Assuming that Oregon wants to extend the policy as set forth in Section

II.B.2.d of the MOA to include information obtained pursuant to Oregon's

water pollution authorities, an amendment to the MOA will be necessary

as well as clarification of the Attorney General's Statement. Presently,

only information obtained pursuant to ORS 459.410-459.690 is covered by the MOA. Although the provision has been found adequate under the NPDES

program, the water pollution control authorities submitted by Oregon

cover a much broader range of activities than those included in the

NPDES program .
•

-2-

It will therefore be necessary for Oregon to close the gaps in the MOA

and certify that all, not most, information will 'be' available. I have

included a sample amendment to the MOA which would satisfy our concerns.

In addition, a corresponding corrected Section VIII of the Attorney

General's Statement should be submitted, stating that "al l " information

is available to EPA. Since the correction had previously been submitted

by the Attorney General, this· llsecondll correction need only be transmitted

with a statement of clarification signed by Ray Underwood, Assistant

Attorney General.

We appreciate your cooperation in clearing this up. Please call if you

have any questions.

Sincerely,

David A. Hanline

Program Development Section

Enclosure

• cc: Ray Underwood

•
•

•

•

Add the following to Section 11.8.2.0:

The Director will not accept any record~ report~ or information

obtained pursuant to DRS 468 and rules adopted thereunder which is purported to be confidentia.l unless the confidentiality has first been

confirmed by the Regional Administrator. When the information~ if made

pUblic~ would'divulge a seCret proce~s~ devic~~ or method of manufact~ring

or production entitled to protection as trade secrets and has been

determined by the Regional Administrator to warrant confidential status~

the Director will then receive such information and~ upon a showing

,satisfactory to him, shall classify it as confidential in accordance

with ORS 468.095(2) .

'"
,- ",

VICTOR ATiYEH GOVERNOR

Department of Environmental Quality

522 SOUTHWEST 5TH AVE. PORTLJ..ND, OREGON

MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1760, PORTLAND, OREGON 97207

April 6, 1981

•

•

Dave Hanline

MS 530

EPA .: Region 10

1200 6TH Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

Re: Phase 1- HWl.2l-RCRA

. Interim A~thorization

Dear Dave:

As you know, we are currently in the process of modifying 11 Water Quality

permits to incorporate conditions substantially equivalent to the Interim

Status Standards (ISS). It is interesting to note that of the 11 Part

A applications evaluated, only one seems to accurately depict a hazardous

waste being discharged to a surface impoundment. Two apparent reasons

for these conservative filings are: .

1) Companies did not understand your form; and

2) Rather than test, companies just declare their waste to be hazardous.

Testing, if necessary, is done later.

The other interesting thing to note is that of the 11 companies identified·

by you, our W~ter Quality Program had 9 current permits in effect, ·one

was being drafted, and one company had a tank (concrete basin) rather than

a surface impoundment. Considering you selected the companies, we believe

such a record clearly indicates Oregon's environmental programs are

on top of things when we need to be!

We continue to move as fast as we can to resolve these 11 permit actions

(DEQ issue a permit or company submit revised Part A applications to EPA).

Further, we will include the substantially equivalent conditions in future

Water Quality permits if a hazardqus waste (not an industrial waste) is

discharged to a surface impoundment.

While we proceed to resolve these permit actions, three other minor matters

still appear to concern some of EPA'S review team.

1) Designation of an "authorized" management facility.

2) Exemption from the manifesting requirements of shipments under 2,000

pounds.
"

•

•

•

.~- .-

DAVE HANLINE

April 6, 1981

Page 2

3) DEQ's ability to share all hazardous waste related confidential

information received under the water quality program with EPA.

ISSUE I - Designation of a facility other than an REPA or state

authorized" facility.

EPA CONCERN - An Oregon firm could ship'waste to an out-of-state

facility and DEQ could not take enforcement action against the Oregon

generator even though the designated facility was not an "EPA or state

authorized" facili~y.

COMMENT - Assuming that a company is filling out a manifest and

designating a facility (DEQ requirement), that same company is

probably keeping records and submitting quarterly reports to DEQ.

Assuming that EPA actually lets us implement our program, it would

be our intent to review quarterly generator reports in a timely manner

and share out-of-state information with the appropriate state. Any

use of an unauthorized facility should result in an inspection of

said facility by the other state while we will increase our

surveillance of the Oregon generator to insure the intent of 'RCRA

is achieved for future shipments•

Now assume, for the moment, that the Oregon generator is not filling

out a manifest, not keeping records or submitting quarterly reports.

At this point, it makes little difference whose rule is in effect,

since the generator has to be identified first. What's on paper makes

little difference unless staff time is devoted to actual field

inspections and investigations.

We continue to believe that our ~ule is substantially equivalent, in

effect, in that we will get the necessary information to work with

Oregon's generators to ensure hazardous waste are being properly

managed.

ISSUE 11- Exemptions from Oregon's manifesting requirements for loads

under 2,000 pounds.

EPA Concern - A large generator could legally take a 20,000' pound

shipment and break it down into 10-2,000 pound shipments thereby

avoiding the manifesting, reporting and record keeping requirements.

DEQ Comment - If in fact a company wanted to become non-competitive,

they could indeed do what EPA suggests. Keep in mind, however, that

the wastes still have to be properly identified (63-225), packaged

(63-220), and managed (63-215). While we exempt 2,000 pound shipments
•

•

DAVE HANLINE

April 6, 1981

Page 3

from manifesting, reporting and record keeping requirements

(paperwork) the waste still must be managed as a hazardous waste

(protection of public health and environment insured) and the

generator has to register with DEQ (unless the 2,000 pound shipment

also happens to be the only annual shipment).

In light of EPA's small quanity exemption of 1,000 kilograms (2,200

pounds) per month for most waste, we are puzzled by EPA making this

a significant issue. Further, since all we have exempted is the

paperwork requirements rather than the management requirements, we

believe we have a substantially equivalent progr.am·in·effect.

ISSUE III - DEQ's ability to share hazardous waste related information

under Chapter 468 (water quality).

EPA Concern - with the water quality authorities submitted on February

3, 1981, DEQ stated it could share "most" but not "all~ confidential

information derived as a result of permitting surface impoundments

that receive hazardous waste.

DEQ Comment - As wi.th the authori ties under. Chapter 459, the

authorities in Chapter 468 on confidential information do not

explicitly provide preferential status to EPA under all circumstances.

Until we have a chance to correct the statutory difficulty, we propose

to resolve this matter in the same way we did with Chapter 459.

Attached is a new Section II.B.2.e. to be inserted into the Memorandum

of Understanding to deal with handling of hazardous waste related

confidential information when received under our water quality

authorities. Also, attached is a letter from the Attorney General's

Office clarifying the Attorney General's statement in this regard.

Contrary to John's Skinner's co~~ents as reported in the State Regulation

Report of March 5, 1981 (see attached) we don't consider it a "favor" tha~

you're requiring a ."nearly identical" program rather than a "substantially

equivalent" program. With everything else that is happening right now

(i.e. State Legislative Session, TSD Inspections, Emergency Spill Response,

Superfund, Phase II applications and clean up of Caron Chemical) we

find you're insisting o~ equivalency very perturbing and certainly not

in the spirit of a "partnership".

As we stated in our Phase I application of September 16, 1980, it is not

in Oregon's interest to adopt temporary rules at this time. We would like

to believe that if you're really objective and look beyond the interim

authorization question as to all the other work you're expecting of us
•

•

DAVE HANLINE

April 6, 1981

Page 4

(i.e. generator, transporter, and TSD Inspections; abandon site

inspections; Phase II applications; superfund), adopting temporary rules

at this time is not in your interest either.

If there are any questions please call.

RPR:t

ZTD35 (1)

cc: Bill Youno

Ernest Schmidt

Ray Underwood

Pat Amedeo, Office of the Governor

Paul Henry, PUC

David Duncan, ASTSWMO
•

•

Add Section II.B.2.e:

The Director will not accept any hazardous waste related record,

report, or information obtained pursuant to ORS 468 and rules adopted

thereunder, which is purported to be confidential unless the

confidentiality has first been confirmed by t~e Regional Administrator.

Whe~-~he information,- if made ~blic, would divulge a secret process,

device, or method of manufacturing or production entitled to protection

as trade secrets and has been determined by the Regional Administrator

to warrant confidential status, the Director will then receive such

information and, upon a showing satisfactory to him, shall classify it

as confidential in accordance with ORS 468.095(2) .

5.6b
•

•

Statement of Clarification

of

Supplemental Attorney General's Statement

of January 30, 1981

I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as an

Assistant Attorney General for the State of Oregon and

in accordance with Section 3006(c) of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act, as amended (42 USC 691, et ~) and

40 CFR 123, that in my opinion the supplemental Attorney

General's statement of January 30, 1981, signed by Dave

Fzohnmayer , .Attorney· General.·of Oregon, regarding the

Program Description sUbmitted ·by the Oregon Department

of Environmental Quality to the United States Environmental

Protection Agency, continues fully applicable, and includes

applicability to the following addition to Section II.B.2.e

of the Program Description contemporaneously being submitted

to the United States Environmental Protection Agency by the

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality:

"The Director will not accept any hazardous

waste related record, report, or information

obtained pursuant to ORS 468 and rules adopted

thereunder which is purported to be confidential

unless the confidentiality has first been confirmed by the Regional Administrator. When the

information, if made public, would divulge a

secret process, device, or method of-manufacturingor production entitled to protection as

trade secrets and has been determined by the

Regional Administrator to warrant confidential

status, the Director will then receive such

information and, upon a showing satisfactory

to him, shall classify it as confidential in

accordance with ORS 468.095(2)."

Assistant

~fw~ Attorney General

State of Oregon

Date .
~~ 'State ReguiatJon Report ~Page 31

SKINNER DEFENDS EPA STATE PROGRANS, CITES CQt.1t1UNICATION PROBLEMS

Defending Environmental Protection Agency positions on several state-related

'.issues against criticisms from state officials and industry representatives, John

Skinner, Director of State Programs and Resource Recovery Division at EPA head- .

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

In an exclusive interview with SRR, Skinner observed that EPA's criteria for

granting interim authorization under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are

really more flexible than states are willing to admit. He noted that the term "substantially equivalent" is used in the act as the criterion for judging interim authorization. He said that in interpreting this term EPA feels it must make sure that

states cover the same waterfront as the Federal rules. Consequently, even for interim authorization, EPA has been looking for the states to control the same or a

greater universe of generators, facilities and wastes. He said the flexibility under

interim authorization has come in how EPA has allowed such waste to be handled.

Skinner pointed out that final authorization programs must be both "equivalent

and consistent," noting that much of the flexibility in how things are handled will

be eliminated at that stage and.that many states .will have to revise their regulations to qualify for final' au'thoriiat'i~n:' . . .

Admitting that many states have objected to EPA's interpretation of "substantially equivalent" claiming that what EPA is really looking for is "nearly identical,"

Skinner noted that in the long run the agency would not be doing the states a favor

to give interim approval to plans with little chance for final approval.

Skinner Denies That EPA Sets Rigid Quotas for State Inspections

Responding to objections voiced by some states who have received interim authorization that EPA is setting rigid quotas on how many compliance inspections and

enforcement actions they expect per year under RCRA, Skinner said this was an over-

•

reaction. He admitted that Federal EPA does have a computerized workload model

called ORIA which is used to develop budgets for interim authorization programs and

cooperative arrangements. The model makes assumptions about the costs and manpower

needs to perform a set number of inspections.. Then the regions and states negotiate

how much enforcement work states should be able to do based on the model. He said

the system is flexible, involves state input and will be changed as the field work

indicates .the need. Skinner also observed that under cooperative arrangements, where

EPA maintains basic regulatory control, the numbers are more important than under

interim authorization.

:...~. ....

States Can Take Responsibility for Delisting If Procedures Are Approved

Discussing the issue of delisting, Skinner said the agency has been guilty of

using the word loosely to mean both actually removing wastes from the EPA lists and

for site-specific delisting based on petitions from firms. He told SRR that if EPA

has approved a state's delisting procedures, firms requesting delisting for a particular waste at a particular facility can go directly to the states with their petitions. \~1en it comes to removing wastes taken off the EPA lists from their own

lists, states have the flexibility to either remove the wastes or not. Since states

are allowed to have more stringent programs than EPA, Skinner said many will choose

not to change their O\VU listings.

On the general issue of states having more stringent rules, Skinner said that

EPA did not intend to get too involved in the issue.

Skinner told SRR that a guidance document on how EPA intends to operate the

savings clause allowing Federal interim permitting for new land disposal facilities

will be issued as soon as the regulatory freeze is lifted. He said the policy will

make clear that EPA wants the states to work closely with the regional offices in

the interim permitting process.

A Phase II manual for interim authorization under components A and B will be

ready in a month or so, Skinner said. He told SRR that in about a week state representatives, regional personnel and EPA headquarters staff will meet in St. Louis,

Mo., to agree on changes for the final draft of the manual.
ji~ .~VICTOR ATIYEH GOvF.RNOR

Department of Environmental Quality

522 SOUTHWEST 5TH AVE. PORTLt.ND, OREGON

MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1760, PORTLAND, OREGON 97207

May 6, 1981

• Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief

waste Management Branch

EPA--Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

Dear Mr. Feigner:

MiS 530

Re: _ HW.1.21

RCRA

•

We have considered your letters of March 3 and 6, 1981, and offer the

following response.

March 3, 1981 Letter

While we don't necessarily agree that any changes are needed to show

"substantial equivalence," we are prepared to directly reference Part 265

relative to site security, waste analysis, prevention and preparedness,

contingency plan, training plan, inspections and closure plan (including

cost estimates). Since it had been our intent to use Part 265 to judge

compliance with these license requirements, referencing them should make it

clear to both EPA and the licensee where the Department is corning from.

March 6, 1981 Letter

Using your same numbering scheme, our responses are:

•

1.

2.

265.73(b2): Although we require this information for disposal

sites, we are not persuaded it's useful information for storage

and treatment facilities and have not revised our license in this

regard.

265.73(b3): Since treatment site licenses limit what waste types

can be received without prior approval, and since we would need

this information to approve new waste types, we believe we have a

handle on this subject where needed. Likewise, use of our

disposal site is on a prior approval basis and, where needed,

test data can be secured. No changes in the licenses were made

in this regard.

265.75(e): We consider method of storage, and appropriate

environmental safeguards needed for various types of storage,

during plan approval. Once the methods and facilities are
•

Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief

May 6, 1981

Page 2

approved, we don't see a need for this information on a

continuing basis. No change in licenses made.

3. 265.56(j): Our requirements relate to discharges to the

"environment" which we interpret to mean discharges to

groundwater, surface water, air (fire and explosion) and adjacent

property. No change made in license.

4. 265.72: While not as explicit or detailed as your rule, we

believe that for Interim Authorization OAR 340-63-215(4)

accomplishes the intent of your rules and is substantially

equivalent. No change made in license.

5. 265.12: True, but we do require prior approval -of all wastes

received at our licensed disposal site and we require storage,

treatment and disposal sites to report all waste receipts after

the fact (quarterly, quarterly, and monthly, respectively). No

change made in licenses.

•

6.

7.

265.198, 265.199, 265.405 & 265.406: We see these considerations

as part of facility plan review and components of acceptable

preparedness and prevention procedures. Our plan approvals limit

storage in containers or tanks to only compatible materials

identified in advance. No change made in license •

265.192 & 265.401: We see this as a consideration of our plan

review, not as a license condition. We don't want to see

something built that doesn't take these types of preventive

measures into account. No change made in license.

One anticipatory comment--no, we don't have any r-ules or guidelines for

plan review. In the absence of clear direction from EPA until just

recently, we developed Oregon's program regulating storage, treatment and

disposal using Best Engineering Judgement. For purposes of Interim

Authorization, we again remind you to look at what we have accomplished,

and are accomplishing, not what we have on paper. As we've stated many

times before, we fully intend to modify our rules to show equivalency,

consistency and enforceability for Final Authorization.

Surface Impoundments

For waste analysis, inspection plan, contingency plan, preparedness and

prevention, personnel training, closure plan and post-closure plan, Part

265 has been referenced. While the May 19, 1981 date was an obvious error

on our part, it has no practical effect since your approval of our Interim

Authorization will not occur until after that date. Site.security measures

are identified, as required. While we have not specifically referenced

Subpart K in the permit modifications, we assure you we will use it as the

9asis for compliance with the groundwater monitoring program. Lastly,

through an earlier oversight on our part, we failed to send you complete

permit copies which should answer the rest of your minor concerns.

Enclosed is Permapost which is now officially modified. The others will be

mailed as soon as the modifications are completed.
•

•

-.

Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief

May 6, 1981

Page 3

In summary, we wish to reiterate that it's our 0plnlon for Interim

'Authorization that you need to judge whether or not our program is

accomplishing a substantially equivalent degree of public health and

environmental protection, not "do the words on our paper match the words on

your paper. a We wish to again state that we have a substantially

equivalent program in effect and should receive a concurrence by EPA on our

Interim Authorization application.

If there are any questions, please call.

Richard P. Reiter, Supervisor

Hazardous Waste Section

Solid Waste Division

RPR:c

ZC594

Enclosure

cc: Ernie Schmidt, Solid Waste Division

Ray Underwood, Department of Justice

Paul Henry, PUC

Al Goodman, EPA--OOO
"" .." ~.-

36844

..

Federal Register I Vol. 46. No. 136 I Thursday. July 16. 1981 I Rules and Regulations

e; theSe regulations are exempt from

egulatory Flexibility Act (94 Stat.

(5 U.S.C. 601~2)). However. the

.e:quirements of the Act have been taken

into consideration. and for the reasons

discussed above these regulations are

not expected to have significant

economic impact on small entities.

In consideration of the foregoing. Part

117 of Title 33 of the COGe of Federal

Regulations is amended by revising

paragraph (a), (d), and (e) of §117.660 to

read as follows:

PART 117-DRAVISRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

§ 117.660 Root River. Racine. Wlsconsln.

Main Street and State Street Brldges.

(a) Thedrawsshall open on signal;

except as follows:

. (1) Main Street Bridge,

(i) From Apri!.! through December 1

from 6 a.m, to 6 p.m, the draw need open

only on signal every 20 minutes (on the

hour. 20 minutes after the hour, and 20

minutes before the hour). The draw shall

remain open long enough during these

periods of time to allow all awaiting

vessels to safely pass.

(ii) From December 2 through March

. 31 the draw' shall open on signal if at

est two hours notice is given.

2) State Street Bridge. From October

through April 30 the draw shall open

on signal if at least two hours notice is

. given. .'

(d) The draws shall open as soon as

possible for public vessels of the United

States, state or local government vessels

engaged in public safety or law

enforcement activities, commercial

vessels and vessels in distress even

-though the closed periods as specified in

paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section

are in effect.

(e) The owner of or agency controlling

these bridges shall keep a copy of these

regulations conspicuously posted both

upstream and downstream, either on the

bridges or elsewhere in such a manner

that it can be easily read from an

_approaching vessel at all times; with ..

instructions stating exactly how notice

is to be given to the authorized

-representative of the bridge owner to

effect an opening during the periods of

closure specifiedin paragraphs (a) (1)

- and (2) of this section. .

(33 U.S.C. 499, 49 U.S.C. 1655(g)(2); 49 CFR

1.46(c)(5), .33 CFR 1.05-1(g)(3))

_

enry H. Bell. .

~~a:r Admiral. Coast Guard. Commander,

lflth Coast Guard District.

IFR Doc. el-2ll882 filed 7-1~: 8:45 am]

BlUING CODE 4910-14-101

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY .

40 CFR Part 123'

[SW-1o-FRL-1871-8]

Hazardcua Waste Management

ProgralJ1s: Phase I Interim

Authorization for Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency. Region X.

ACTION: Final rule: Approval of State

Program.

SUMMARY: The State of Oregon has

applied for interim authorization of its

hazardous waste program under Subtitle

C of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act and EflAguidelines for the

approval of State hazardous waste"

programs (40 CFR Part 123). EPA has

determined that the State's program

meets all applicable statutory and'

regulatory requirements and is granting

Phase I interim authorization to Oregon

to operate a hazardous waste program

in lieu of Phase I of the Federal

hazardous waste program in its

jurisdiction. The practical effect of this

decision is that generators. transporters.

and owners and operators of hazardous

waste management facilities in Oregon.

will be subject to the State of Oregon's

hazardous waste program in lieu of the

Federal hazardous waste program (40

CFR Parts 260-263 and 265) and will not

again be subject to Phase I of the

Federal Program unless: (1) The State

fails to obtain' final authorization by 'the

deadline specified in Section 3006{c) of

RCRA and implementing regulations, or

(2) authorization is withdrawn for cause by EPA. .

EFFECTIVE DATE; July 16, 1981.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COtiTACT:

David Hanline, Waste Management

Branch M!S 520, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200Sixth

Avenue. Seattle, Washington 98101;

(zoe) 442-1260 or rrs 399-1260..

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

purpose of this notice is to grant PhaseI

Interim Authorization to the State of

Oregon for its hazardous waste .

.management program. In the May 19,

.1980. Federal Register (45 FR33063). the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

promulgated regulations, pursuant to

Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), to

protect human health and the

environment from the improper

management of hazardous wastes.

Included in these regulations, which

became effective on November 19, 1980,

were provisions for a transitional phase

during which States could be granted

interim program authorization provided

that State programs were deterinIned to

be substantially equivalent to the

Federal program. The interim

authorization program is being

implemented in two phases

corresponding to the two stages in

which the underlying Federal program

takes effect.

. On September 16, 1980. the State of

Oregon applied to EPA for Phase I

Interim authorization of its hazardous

waste management program. On

October 16,1980, EPA issued in the

Federal Register (45 FR68693) a notice

of the public comment period on the

State's application. All comments

received during this period have been

noted and considered. as discussed

below. Continuing discussions between

. the State' and EPA resulted in a request

from the State on January 13. 1981. to

extend the review period of the

application in order that certain

authorities and activities not

documented in the September 16

application could be submitted for

EPA's consideration. This material was

. received by EPA on February 5, 1981. An

announcement of the public comment

period for the additional material was

published in the Federal Register on

February 20, 1981 (46 FR 13242).

However, no public comments were

received on this additional material.

I. EPA's Major Concerns

In reviewing Oregon's interim

authorization application. EPA raised

several concerns about whether

Oregon's hazardous waste management

program was substantially equivalent to

the Federal program. After careful

consideration of these points, EPA has

determined that while some of them

represent discrepancies between the

corresponding aspects of the State and

Federal programs, none constitutes a

significant gap in Oregon's ability to

properly manage hazardous wastes

during the interim period. Following is a

discussion of these points and EPA's

basis for determining that they ought not

to preclude Phase I interim

authorization.

1. Universe,ofWastes Regulated

In considering the universe of

hazardous wastes regulated under

. Oregon's program, three issues were

highlighted as potential problem areasOregon's exclusion of wastes from the

leather tanning industry and the primary

aluminum industry from regulation;

Oregon's exemption of shipments under

2,000 lbs. from manifest, recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements; .and

Oregon's exemption from regulation

under the hazardous waste program of
.-

.Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 136 I Thursday. July 16. 1981 I Rules and Regulations

•

••

radioactive materials which may also be

defined as "hazardous."

First. in the Federal Register of

October 30. 1980 (45 FR 72024). EPA

excluded wastes from the leather

tanning industry from the hazardous

waste listing (the constituent of concern

being trivalent chromium). Also, the

October 30 amendments suspend the

listing of wastes from the primary

aluminum industry from the Federal

regulations. since primary aluminum

reduction falls-under the exclusion for

"extraction, beneficiation. and

processing of ores and minerals"

provided by the Solid Waste Disposal

Act Amendments of 1980, Pub. L. 96-482.

Second. even with the exemptions

from the manifesting. recordkeeping.

and reporting requirements for

shipments under 2.000 lbs., Oregon's

rules still require that the waste go to

hazardous waste facilities. Applicable

rules also specify requirements for

packaging waste and labeling containers

for shipment Furthermore. waste

management facilities in Oregon are

required to report all receipts of

hazardous waste whether or not the

wastes are subject to manifest

requirements. .

Third. Oregon's hazardous waste

management program does not 'control

radioactive wastes, regardless of any

other "hazardous" properties of the

wastes. Authority for regulation of

radioactive wastes rests with the State

Department of Energy and the Health

,. Division. However. EPA is not aware of

any wastes in Oregon which are

radioactive and would also be defined

as hazardous for some other reason.

2. Interim Status Standards (ISS)-

Unlicensed Facilities'

With the exception of facilities

utilizing surface impoundments. Oregon

does not at present require hazardous

waste licenses of on-site treatment and

.. storage facilities. However, through its

generator requirements, Oregon does

require compliance by such facilities

with standards substantially equivalent

to the ISS.

Furthermore, generators cannot store

hazardous waste for longer than six

months without approval from the State.

This approval is based on whether there

is·a potential for reuse or recycling.

within a reasonable time frame. In their

interim authorization application. the

State agreed to seek voluntary .

compliance by firms with all of the ISS.. '

Furthermore, the State agreed to .

undertake compliance inspections of.

facilities which returned Part A permit

applications, but are unlicensed in

Oregon. on a bi-yearly basis.

3. Interim Status Standards-Licensed

Facilities

Licenses are required of disposal

facilities. offsite treatment and storage

facilities. and facilities utilizing surface

impoundments for management of

hazardous wastes, and Oregon has

sufficiently broad authority to apply the

ISS to these facilities. Certain' -

requirements included in the ISS were

not specified in Oregon's rules. however.

and were not Included in existing

licenses. In response to EPA's concerns.

the State has modified these licenses to

incorporate standards substantially

equivalent to the ISS.Furthermore, the

State has committed to include the ISS

in all new. renewed. and modified

licenses issued after September 1, 1980.

II. Response to Public Comments

After an announcement in the Federal

Register on October l6. 1980 (45 FR

68693), a public hearing was held on

Oregon's application in Portland on

November 17, 1980. At this time, it was

decided that the comment period would

remain open until November 24, 1980..

Comments were received from

representatives of industry. Most of the

commenters did not address the specific

requirements for authorization of State

programs, nor how Oregon's program

compared to the Federal program.

Rather, commenters were mainly

concerned about the possibility of

having duplicative State and Federal

'programs, which had the potential for

confusion and increased burden on

those regulated.

While EPA is sympathetic to these

concerns, they do not get at the heart of

the issue at hand-whether Oregon's

program. which would operate in lieu of

the Federal program. is substantially

equivalent to the Federal program. In the

absence of an authorized program in

Oregon, EPA's approach to minimize

duplication and confusion would have

been to encourage the State to enter into

a Cooperative Arrangement with EPA so

thatthe State would help to administer

the Federal program to the maximum

extent feasible. This approach would

have maximized and thus maintained

direct contact between the State and

regulated industry until authorization

could be granted. Clearly. EPA's

decision to grant Phase I authorization

will go further to eliminate the potential

for duplication and confusion.

Other comments focused on the

problems faced by States in keeping

abreast of regulatory changes at the

Federal.level, suggesting it would be

better to allow a State program with a

history of real-world application to

operate during the interim authorization

36845

- period until the Federal program gained

greater stability. While there is merit to

this argument. particularly considering .r::

the complexity of the Federal program :=:,

as it has appeared in numerous issues of '<.:.'•...

the Federal Register. it too, begs the

fundamental question of whether the

State's program is substantially

, equivalent to the Federal program.

A more pointed comment focused on a

requirement in the Federal regulations

that in landfilling, ignitable wastes must

be treated. rendered. or mixed so that

the resulting waste no longer meets the

characteristic of ignitability (40 CFR

265.312). It was felt by this commenter

that the principal hazardous waste

disposal site in the area did not at the

time have the capability to incinerate or

otherwise treat ignitable waste. On-site

storage would be necessary for some

time. which would cause an increased

potential for adverse environmental

impacts and safety problems, as well as

the need for a storage permit. The

commenter concluded that interim

authorization should therefore be

granted since there is no similar

requirement in effect at the State level,

Consequently, the problems which were

noted would not arise.

This concern is one which was

brought to EPA's attention by many

generators and landfill operators

commenting on the Federal regulations

of May 19; 1980. in which the

requirement first appeared. In response

to this concern. on February 20. 1981 (46

FR 13492), EPA amended this

requirement, suspending it for liquid

ignitable wastes in containers until ~1Ci:':

19, 1981. The preamble to the February

20 amendment gives considerable detail

on this topic. EPA extended this

suspension on June 29, 1981 (46 FR

33502). As a consequence of the

suspension, the issue raised relative to

interim authorization in Oregon has

been addressed. .

Finally, two commenters in support' of

granting interim authorization to Oregon

emphasized that in some respects the

universe' of hazardous wastes regulated

under Oregon's program is more

stringent than that regulated by the

Federal program. Examples noted were

a broader corrosivity characteristic and

certain small generator cut-offs which

are more restrictive. Such areas of

relatively greater stringency do suggest

a comprehensive definition of hazardous

wastes in Oregon. EPA's conclusion that

the discrepancies between Oregon's

definition of hazardous wastes and the

Federal definition of hazardous wastes

do not comprise significant gaps in the

universe of wastes regulated in Oregon. -

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

36846

-- - - 'Federal Register I Vol. 46. N~:-136 I Thur~day. July 16. 1981 I Rules and Regulations

[SW-4-fRL 1872-2)

Hazardous Waste Management .

Program; Phase I Interim Authorization

for Tennessee -

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IV,

ACTION: Fmal role; Approv'~l of State

. Program.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background .

In the May 19, 1980. FederalRegister

(45 FR33063). the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated

regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act of 1976 (RCRA). to protect human

health and the-environment from the

improper management of hazardous

wastes. The Act (RCRA) Includes _

provisions whereby a State agency may

be authorized by EPA-to administer the

hazardous waste program in that State

in lieu of a Federally administered

program. For a State program to receive

final authorization. its hazardous waste

program must be fully equivalent to and

consistent with the Federal program

under-RCRA.ln order to expedite the

authorization of State programs, RCRA

allows EPA to grant a State agency

interim authorization if its program is

substantially equivalent to the Federal

program. During interim authorization. a

State can make whatever legislative or

regulatory changes that may be needed

for the State's hazardous waste program

to become fully equivalent to the

Federal program. The Interim

authorization program will be

. implemented in two phases

corresponding to the two stages in

which the underlying Federal program

will take effect.

The State of Tennessee submitted its

draft application for Phase I interim

authorization on September 8. 1980.

After detailed review, EPA identifie.d

several areas of major concern and

transmitted comments to the State for its

consideration. The State subsequently

made revisions to its application for

Phase I interim authorization in order to

clarify those aspects of its program

which had been questioned during the

EPA review.

On October 30,1980, Tennessee

submitted to EPA a final application for

Phase I interim authorization under

RCRA. EPA Headquarters and Regional

personnel conducted an analysis of

Tennessee's hazardous waste program.

The following issues were raised by the

review teams:

(a) Tennessee's hazardous waste

legislation limits the ability of the State

program officials to inspect generators.

(b) The State statutues do not permit

the State to share proprietary

. information with EPA.

(c) The State's universe of waste is

not identical of EPA's.

(d) The State's delisting procedures

are not substantially equivalent.

(e) The Attorney General does not

provide assurances th-at the State will

_not oppose citizen intervention in the

enforcement process on the grounds that

Authority"· . ..

This notice is iSsued' under the

authority of Sections 2OO2(a}, 3006, and ..

7004(b} of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

as amended by the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976;

as amended. 42 U.S.c. 6912(a). 6926 and

6974-

Dated: May-20, 1981. -

L. Edwin Coate,

Acting RegionalAdministrator.

(FR Doc.81~ FIled 7-1$-081:8:45 IUD)

SIUJHG eeee 656O-3O-M

SUMMARY: The State of Tennessee has

-applied for interim authorization of its

hazardous waste program under Subtitle

C of the Resource Conservation aod

Recovery Act (RCRA) aod EPA

guidelines for the approval of State

hazardous waste programs (40 CFR Part

123).EPA has determined that the

State's program meets all applicable

statutory and regulatory requirements

and is granting Phase I interimauJhorization to Tennessee to operate a

hazardous waste program in lieu of -

Phase I of the Federal hazardous waste

program in its jurisdiction. The practical

effect of this decision is that generators,

transporters, and owners and operators

of hazardous waste management. .

facilities in Tennessee will be subject to

the State of Tennessee hazardous waste

program in lieu of the Federal hazardous

waste program (40 CFR Parts 260-263

and 265) and will not again be subject to

Phase I of the Federal program unless:

(1) The State fails to obtain final

authorization by the deadline specified

in section 3006(c) of RCRA and

implementing regulations, or (2)

authorization is withdrawn for cause by EPA. . .

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 1981.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas C. McCurry, Residuals _

Management Branch, U.S. EPA,-Region

IV, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta.

Georgia 30365.Telephone (404) 881-

3016.

eazardous waste to be sUbst~tially - review as required by Executive Order

valent to the.Federal universe. - - -, 1Z291. _ _ - _" -- •. - . "'-'-.. - llL Decision - -- - - -- -" .: - .. -

EPA has reviewed-the State of

Oregon's complete application for Phase

I interim:authorization and has' .

determined that the State program is '

"substantially equivalent" to the Phase I

Federal program as defined in 40 CFR

Part 123. Subpart F, In accordance with

Section 3006(c)ofRCRA. the State of

Oregon is hereby granted interim

authorization to operate a hazardous _

waste program in lieu of Phase I of the

Federal hazardous waste program. The

practical effect of this decision is that

generators. transporters. and owners

and operators of hazardous waste' -40CFRParf123 - - management facilities in Oregon will be

subject to the State-of Oregon's

hazardous waste program in lieu of the

Federal hazardous waste program (40

CFRParts 260-263 and 265)and will not

again be subject to Phase I of the..

Federal program unless: (1) The State'

fails to obtain final authorization by the

deadline specified in 3006(c) ofRCRA

and implementing regulations. or (2)

authorization is withdrawn for case by

_ . EPA. _

•

Compliance \Vith ~ecutive Order

91 - --

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA

must prepare a Regulatory Impact

Analysis on "major regulations". A

"major. regulation" is defined as "any

regulation that is likely to result in:

(1) An annual effect on the economy o[

$100 million or more;

(2) A major increase in co-stsor prices for

consumers, individual industries, Federal.

State, or local government agencies, or

-geographic regions; or

(3) Significant adverse effects on

competition. employment. investment.

productivity, innovation, or on the ability of

United States-based enterprises to compete

with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or

export markets."

EPA's decision to approve Oregon's

Phase I hazardous waste program is not

a major regulation because its effect is

to suspend the applicability of certain

Federal regulations in the State of _

Oregon. In the absence of this decision,

persons handling hazardous waste in

Oregon would have to comply with

Parts 260-263 and 265of Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations in addition

to all Oregon hazardous waste '

management regulations. For this reason -

it is virtually inconceivable that this

regulation would result in the significant

impacts that characterize a "major

regulation." . .

This regulation was submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget for
•

•

•

APPENDIX A

Program Description

Part H - Other Environmental Authorities -

Water Pollution Control
•

•

•

APPENDIX B

Supplemental Attorney General's Statement
•

•

APPENDIX C

ORS Chapter 468 (Water Quality Authorities)

OAR Chapter 340 - Divisions 12, 14, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45

Interim Groundwater Quality Protection Policy

ORS 161. 6 35 (1) (a)
' . ..... •iiiif;!I~ii

~;ii~Hn~:~:~

~;HLL:~~

r " "

~~~.4~~rn7'7;

!!tmHllHH

~iH!~m;;;Hii

!

These regulations include provisions for

uuthorization of State programs to

operate in lieu' of the Federal program.

On September 16, 1980. the State of

Oregon applied for Phase I Interim

Authorization. Today EPA is

announcing the availability for public

review of additional material submitted

by the State in support of their

application. and is giving notice that the

review period for the Oregon application

is being recommenced.

DATE: Written comments on the

additional material submitted by Oregon

in support of their application must be

received by March 23. 1931.

Furthermore. if sufficient public interest

is demonstrated. EPA will hold a public

hearing to receive oral comments on the

additional material. Requests for 8

public hearing should be submitted to

EPA by March 12. 1981.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the motorial

under review are available at the

following addresses for inspection and

copying by the public.

Oregon Deportment of Environmunlal

Quality, Solid Waste Division. 14th

Floor, 522 SW .• 5th Street. Portland.

Oregon. (503) 229-5913.

Environmental Protection Agency.

, Region 10. Library. 12th Floor. 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington.

(206) 442-1289.

Comments and/or requests fur a

hearing should be sent to: David

Hanlinc. Program Development Section.

M/S 530, Environmental Protection

Agency. 1200 Sixth Avenue. Seattle.

- Washington 98101. (206) 442-1260.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Same as above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In "the

May 19. 1980 Federal Register (45 FR

330(3) the Environmental Protection

Agency promulgated Phase I of its

regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act of 1976 (as amended), to protect

human health and the environment from

the improper management of hazardous

waste. EPA's Phase I regulations

establish, among other things: The initial

identification and listing of hazardous

wastes; the standards applicable to

generators and transporters of

hazardous wastes, including a manifest

system; and the "interim status"

standards applicable to existing

hazardous waste management facilitius

before they receive permits. .

The May 19 regulations also include

provisions under which EPA can

authorize qualified State hazardous

waste management programs to operate

in lieu of the Federal program. The

regulations provide for a transitional

1981 I Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: EPA regulations to protect

human health and the environment from

improper management of haznrdous

waste were published in the Federal

Register on May 19,1980 (40 FR 33063).

Oregon Application for Interim

Authorization, Phase I, Hazardous

Waste Management Proqrarn

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA). Region 10.

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment

Period and Recomrnenccment of Review

Periods.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

Proposed Revision of the

Pennsylvania State Implementation

Plan; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Correction-of Proposed Rule

(Hearing Notice). '

40 CFR Part 52

[A3 FRL 1758-8]

13242 Federal Register I Vol. 46, No. 34 I Friday. February 20.

_

RTH ER INFORMATION CONTACT:

s Hayden of the Legislation and

tions Division, Office of Chief

._..asel. Internal Revenue Service. 1111

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington.

D.C. 20224. 202-5~935, nota toll-free

call.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

subjects of the public hearings are:

1. Proposed regulations relating to

Secretarial authority to add items to the

list of items eligible for the residential

energy credit under section 44C (e) of

the Internal Revenue Code of 1964.

These proposed regulations appeared in SUMMARY: This notice clarifies and

the Federal Register for Wednesday, corrects the language contained in the

October 15, 1980 (45 FR68399). preambleto EPA's proposed revision to

2. Proposed regulations relating to Pennsylvania's State Implementation

Secretarial authority to add items.to the, Plan. appearing at page 9128. inthe

"category of speciallydefined'imcrgy' ' ,Fedrirol'~egi5ter of Wednesday. January

property under section 48 of the Internal 28. 1981. Please note the following

Revenue Code of 1954. These proposed changes:

regulations appeared In the Federal' 1. On page 9129. second, column.

fourth full paragraph. fifth line. "permit' Register for Wednesday. January 7, 1981 should be corrected to read "prevent".

(40 FR 1753). 2. On page 9130. second column.

The rules of § 601.601(a)(3) of the second full paragraph. sixteenth line.

"Statement of Procedural Rules" (26 "will hold a public hearing on this"

CFR Part 601)shall 'apply with respect to should be corrected to "will hold a

the public hearings. Persons who have public hearing at 9:00 a.m, on February

submitted written comments within the ,25, 1981 on this". '

time prescribed-in the respective notices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

•

posed rulemaking and who desire Ed Shoener, Ll.SiEnvironmental

sent oral comments at the Protection Agency. Region Ill. Air Media

ctive hearing on such proposed and Energy Branch. 6th and Walnut

regulations should submit an outline of Streets. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

the comments to be presented at the 19106, Telephone Number 215/597-8174.

hearing and the time they wish to devote Both of these corrections apply to the

to each subject by April 16, 1981. Each preamble of the referenced rulemaking

speaker will be limited to 10 minutes for notice, and do not affect the regulations

an oral presentation on each of the thatwere submitted to EPA.

above listed proposed regulations for (42 U.S.C. 7401-7642)

which timely comments have been ' Dated: February 12, 1931.

submitted. exclusive of lime consumed H. Glenn Hanson.

by questions from the panel for the Chief. Pennsylvania Section, Air Media and

Government and answers to these Energy Branch.

questions. IFR Doc. 81-5921 ~'i1ed Z-1!Hll: 0:,45tim)

Because of controlled access BIWNG CODE 6560-38-M

restrictions. attendees cannot be

admitted beyond the lobby of the CFR P t 123

Internal Revenue Building until 9:45 a.~ 4U ar

This document does not meet the {SW'1Q-FRL 1757-6]

criteria for significant regulations set

furth in paragraph 8 of the Treasury

Directive for improving government

regulations appearing in the Federal

Register for Wednesday, November 8.

1978.

ny direction of the ActingCommissioner of

Internal Revenue:

DuvidE. Dickinson.

-

"/If! Director. Legislation and Regnlotions

/OIl.

: " "'-5776 Filed Z-I9--8I: 8:45 ""'I

-.", LING CODE 4830-01-M

'::~l;j;~:)~~+ :~~ ..... -
Federal Register I Vol. 46, No. 34 I Friday, February 20, 1981 I Proposed Rules 13243

•

WhiCh qualified State programs

ranted Interim Authorization. .

. erim Authorization program is

109implemented in two phases

corresponding to the two stages in

which the underlying Federal program

will take effect. In order to qualify for

Interim Authorization, the State

hazardous waste program must, among

other things:

(1) Have been in existence prior to

August 11,1980, and

(2) Be "substantially equivalent" to

the Federal program.

A full description of the requirements

and procedures for State Interim .

Authorization is included in 40 CFR Part

123 Subpart F, (45 FR 33419).

On September 16, 1980, the State of

Oregon applied to EPA for Phase I '

interim authorization of their hazardous

waste management program. On

October 16,1980, EPA issued in the

Federal Register (45 FR 68693) a notice

Jf a public hearing and comment period

In the State's application. The public

'rearing was held in Portland on

~O\'ember 17, 1980, and the comment

oeriod remained open until November

!4.1980.

I\S discussed in the October 16

"ederal Register Notice, one of the 1'_'sues of concern to EPA in " Oregon's application was

luck of full authority to apply

.1 ards substantially equivalent to

he interim Status Standards (45 FR

.azaz. May 19. 1980) to facilities which

Irl' not required to obtain licenses in

Jregon (i.e.. on-site treatment and

.ollection facilities). In-the course of

liscussions with the State on this issue,

he Slate pointed out that additional

uthorities under the water quality

.ontrol program .offered the State a

leans 10 apply the Interim Status

.tandards to facilities in Oregon which

tilize surface impoundments for on-site

torage or treatment of hazardous

.rttstes. ..

Because these authorities were not

Illy documented in their original

pplicution, Oregon requested on

inuary 13. 1981 that EPA extend the

.view period of the application, and

greed to submit additional material

ertaining to' their authority to require

.irnpliance with the Interim Status

tandards by facilities in Oregon

tilizing on-site surface impoundments,

.rough the water quality control .

.ogram. This material was received by

PA on February 5, 1981. and is now

•-uilable for public review and

"

. t.

he State's submission has been

i y changed. the formal review

···'-...d for the interim authorization'

iplica tion is hereby recommenced (40

CFR 123.123(c). 45 FR 33480). As noted

above, requests for a hearing will be

received until March 12, 1981 and

wrillen comments will be received until

March 23, 1981. EPA will make a final

determination on Oregon's application

within 90 days of the date of this Notice.

Dated: February 6, 1981.

Donald Dubois,

RegionalAdministrator.

(FR Dec, 8Hi7ll7 .-lIed z-ts-ar, 8:4S ami

BILLING CODE 6560-3G-U

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

46 CFR Part 524

·[Docket'No.81.,.18)

Exemption of Agreements Covering

the Collection, Compilation and

Exchange of Credit Information

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This Rule would exempt

agreements covering the collection.

compilation, and exchange of credit

information from the filing and approval

requirements of section 15 of the

Shipping Act, 1916. Experience has

shown that this exemption would not

impair the Commission's effective

regulation. The exemption will reduce

regula tory requirements.

DATE: Comments (original and fifteen

copies] due on or before April 21, 1901.

ADDRESS: Address comments and

inquiries to: Secretary, Federal Maritime

Commission, Room 11101, 1100 L Street.

NW., Washington, D.C. 20573, (202) 523-

5725.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francis C. Hurney (202) 523-5725.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given that the Federal Maritime

Commission 'is considering the

promulgation of a rule to exempt certain

agreements covering the collection..

compilation, and exchange of credit

information from the filing and approval

requirements of section 15 of the

Shipping Act. 1916 (46 U.S.C. 841).

This category of agreements covers

the collection, compilation and .

exchange of credit information. It does

not include credit rule enabling

authority found in conference' or

ratamaklng agreements.

While current Commission 'policy

requires that the subject agreements be

subjected to the full section 15 review

process prior to their implementation. it

is apparent that the resulling delay. and

use of staff lime that could be used more

productively on other mailers. is not

offset by a corresponding regulatory

benefit under the Act.

Section 35 of the Shipping Act, 1916

(46 U.S.C. 833a) provides that the

Commission. upon application or on its

own motion, may by order or rule

exempt any class of agreements

between persons subject to the Act, or

any specified activity of such persons

from any requirement of the Act. where

it finds that such exemption will not

impair effective regulation by the

Commission, be unjustly discriminatory.

or be detrimental to commerce.

Based on the information presently

. before the Commission, this exemption

would present no impairment of the

Commission's effective regulation of the

parties' activities underthe subject

agreements', nor would it be unjustly

discriminatory or detrimental to

commerce.

The proposed exemption would not

confer antitrust immunity. Section 15

approval consideration will. however,

remain available to parties requesting it.

The Commission certifies that this

proposed rule will not, if promulgated

and adopted. have a significant

economic impact ona substantial

number of small entities as defined in

the Regulatory Flexibility Ad. Pub. L. .

96--354, 94 Stal. 1164, September 19. 19!1O

(5 U.S.C. 601 et scq.).

Therefore, pursuant to sections 15, :,5.

and 43 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46

U.S.C. 814. 83:1a and 841a). the

Commission proposes to amend 4ll CFH

Part 524 as follows:

1. A new paragraph (e) would be

added to § 524.2. Definitions, to read as

follows:

§ 524.2 Definitions.

[e] Agreements covering the

collection, compilation, and exchange of

credit information, but not including

credit rule enabling authority found in

conference or ratemaking agreements.

2. A sentence would be added to

§ 524.3, Exemption of agreements. to

read as follows:

§ 524.3 Exemption of agreements.

.. •• Agreements as defined in

paragraph 524.2(e) shall be kept by the

parties and shall be available for

inspection by the Commission during the

term of the agreement and two years .

thereafter.

By the Commission.

Francis C. Hurney,

Sccrctarv.

(F1~ tJoc.·01-5U·W Filed 2-1P-Ol: 6:45 MOJ

BILLING CODE 6730-01-101

.;;::,;;P='::',

:;:;.:;~ ~~:~:~t.

t···:::····

~=

tHHHn~~::~~~

~~~~~nH~n~;: ...... -" -
•

•

u.s. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 10

1200 SIXTH AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND

RECOMMENCEMENT OF REVIEW PERIOD

OREGON APPLICATION FOR

INTERIM AUTHORIZATION OF A

STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL PROGRAM

SUMMARY: EPA regulations to protect human health and the environment

from improper management of hazardous waste were published in the Federal

Register on May 19, 1980 (40 FR 33063). These regulations include

provisions fer authorization of State programs to operate in lieu of the

Federal program. On September 16, 1980, the State of Oregon applied for

Phase I Interim Authorization. Today EPA is announcing the availability

for public review of additional material submitted by the State in

support of their application, and is giving notice that the review period

for the Oregon application is being recommenced.

DATE: Written comments on the additional material submitted by Oregon in

support of their app1ication- must be received by March 20, 1981;

Furthermore, if sufficient public interest is demonstrated, EPA will hold

a public hearing to receive oral comments on the additional material.

Requests for a public hea~ing should be submitted to EPA by March 10,

1981.

.l
•

•

:.

".,..

ADDRESSES: Copies of the material under review are available at the

following addresses for inspection and copying by the public.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Sol id Waste Divi s i on, 14th Floor

522 S_W. 5th Street Portland~ Oregon

(503) 229-5913

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

Library, 12th Floor

1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle~ Washington

(206) 442-1289

Comments and/or requests for a hearing should be sent to:

David Hanline

Program Development Section, M/S 530

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 442-1260

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Same as above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the May 19, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR

33063) the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated Phase I of its--

regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery.Act of 1976 (as amended), to protect human health and the

environment from the improper management of hazardous waste. EPA I s Phase

I regulations establish, among other things: The initial identification

and listing of hazardous wastes; the standards applicable to generators

and transporters of hazardous wastes, including a manifest system; and

the "interim status" standards applicable to existing hazardous waste

management facilities before they receive permits.

-2-
•

•

Since the State1s submission has been materially changed, the formal

review period for the interim authorization application is hereby

recommenced (40 CFR 123.123(c), 45 FR 33480). As noted above, requests for a hearing wi 11 be received unt ilMarch 10, 1981 and written coounents

will be received until March 20, 1981. 'IPA will make a final

determination on Oregon's application within 90 days of the date of this

Notice.

-4-
~.

".", ::;~ ..

£- ..-."