Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0569
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-10-30T04:00Z

EPA Stakeholder Meeting

Meeting Summary

Meeting Time and Location:

March 16, 2007

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM

U.S. EPA Headquarters - One Potomac Yard

2777 South Crystal Drive, Arlington VA 22202

Briefing Panel:

Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)

Robert Dellinger, Director

Hazardous Waste Identification Divisions (HWID)

Charlotte Mooney, Chief

Resource Conservation and Recovery Branch (RCRB)

Invitees:

Invitees included state organizations, trade associations and
environmental groups who commented on the 2003 proposal or otherwise
demonstrated interest in the rulemaking. Approximately 15 persons from
these stakeholder groups attended.

Summary:

Ms. Susan Bodine gave a brief overview of the Agency’s proposed rule
and then opened the floor for questions from the attendees.

Comments and questions that were received are listed below:

The 60-day comment period is too short to address 158 different issues
EPA is asking for comment on. Commenter will request extension but
questioned why EPA is limiting the comment period to 60 days.

Ms. Bodine expressed interest in completing the rule quickly as EPA has
been working on it for a number of years. Mr. Dellinger added that this
was a re-proposal and that many issues have already been proposed in
2003, so commenters may have already addressed those issues.

Q. What happens when a state makes a non-waste determination? Does this
require a change to the regulations?

A.  In a non-waste determination, the state, or authorized regulatory
authority, would review the petition, request public comment and make a
final determination. This would not require a change to the regulations.

Q. Does the proposal allow for ‘categorical’ determinations or must
a determination be done for each facility?

A.  	The Agency will consider comments regarding categorical
determinations.

Q. Did EPA consider using different financial assurance requirements
than the existing mechanism for Subtitle C?

A.  Drafting new financial assurance requirements would require an
additional rulemaking that EPA is not pursuing at this time.

Q. What is the process for claiming a broader exclusion? Would
facilities have to request the exclusion?

A.  The exclusions are self-implementing so the facility wouldn’t have
to make a request. However, the facility would need to make a one-time
notification to the appropriate regulatory authority.

Q. What is the initial feedback from states?

A.  States seem pleased that they have the choice of adopting the rule
or not. They reacted favorably to the legitimacy criteria and are
generally positive on many aspects of the proposal.

Q. Relating to equivalency, and its consideration that a recycled
material should be analogous to a virgin material or product, what
happens if a virgin material or product changes? Does a recycled
material then fall out of the exclusion?

A.  Codification of the proposal’s legitimacy criteria does not affect
legitimacy determinations already made.

Q. The proposal includes much discussion on exports, but how does the
broad exclusion affect imports?

A.  EPA has not made a policy decision to specifically exclude imports;
however, for imports to be considered under the exclusion, the generator
must meet the conditions of the exclusion. Presumably, a generator
residing in a foreign country may have difficulty complying with some of
the conditions. Furthermore, reclaimers can still claim the exclusion
(provided they meet conditions) even if the generator does not.

Q. If a generator is currently sending materials to a non-permitted
recycler, would that recycler now need financial assurance under the
proposed exclusion?

	A. Yes, if they want to claim the conditional exclusion.

Q. In the existing RCRA regulations, lead acid batteries recycling has
its own exclusion. With this new proposal, which one takes precedence?

A.  For §261.4 exclusions from the definition of solid waste, the
specific exclusion takes precedence over the proposal’s broader one.
However, the proposal is silent on how the broader exclusions would
affect streamlined hazardous waste regulations, such as for lead acid
batteries and universal waste. EPA is open to comment on this issue. 

Comment:  The earlier EPA makes a decision regarding the request to
extend the comment period, the easier it is on the commenters. 

Q. Is there a schedule EPA needs to stick to? Will the extra 30 days be
significant?

A. An extra 30 days will add more time to EPA’s schedule.