Note
to
the
Docket:
F­
2001­
SPRP­
FFFFF
Standardized
Permit
Proposed
Rule
Meeting
Summary
April
16;
11:
00­
12:
00
noon
Melrose
Hotel,
Washington,
DC
Quarterly
meeting
of
the
Environmental
Technology
Council
(David
Case,
presiding)

Purpose:
meeting
requested
by
ETC
to
hear
about
EPA's
activities
with
the
proposed
rule
Attachment
1:
list
of
attendees
(ETC,
and
EPA
staff)

Attachment
2:
background
and
intent
of
proposed
rule
Attachment
3:
selected
comments
summary
Attachment
4:
financial
assurance
comments
summary
Attachment
5:
Summary
of
Discussion
Attachment
1
List
of
Attendees
April
16,
2002
ETC
Meeting
Briefing
Name
Company
1
David
Case
Environmental
Technology
Council
2
John
Corcia
Gulstream
TLC
Stablex,
Palm
Beach,
FL
3
Steve
DeLussa
Envirosource
Technologies,
Horsham,
PA
4
Jim
Gress
Ross
Incineration,
Grafton,
OH
5
John
Klepeis
ECO
Services
Rhodia,
Cranberry,
NJ
6
Scott
Maris
EQ
Company,
Wayne,
MI
7
Angie
Martin
Heritage
Environmental
Services,
Indianapolis,
IN
8
Shaun
McCabe
Waste
Control
Specialists,
Dallas,
TX
9
Bill
Morris
Norlite
Corp.,
Meriden,
CT
10
Mike
Parkes
Von
Roll
WTI,
East
Liverpool,
OH
11
Susan
Prior
Safety­
Kleen
Corp.,
Columbia,
SC
12
Fred
Sigg
Von
Roll
WTI,
East
Liverpool,
OH
13
Zul
Tejpar,
Bennett
Environmental,
Vancouver,
BC
14
Bill
Ziegler
Teris
LLC,
El
Dorado,
AR
15
Jeff
Gaines
US
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
16
Vernon
Myers
US
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
17
Dale
Ruhter
US
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
18
Malcolm
Woolf
US
EPA
Office
of
General
Council
Attachment
2:
background
and
intent
of
proposed
rule
power
point
document
Proposed
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
Rule
Jeff
Gaines
RCRA
Permits
Branch
April
16,
2002
Proposed
Standardized
Permit
Rule
z
The
Proposed
Standardized
Permit
Rule
will
streamline
the
permitting
of
facilities
that
generate
waste
and
then
manage
the
waste
in
tanks,
containers,
or
containment
buildings.

z
Permit
application
and
review
is
substantially
streamlined:

y
no
part
B
information
submitted
y
most
information
kept
at
facility
z
Public
participation
is
not
streamlined
Proposed
Standardized
Permit
Rule
(continued)

z
We
believe
the
standardized
permit
is
appropriate
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
buildings
because:

y
risk
of
managing
waste
in
these
units
is
sufficiently
low
that
it
can
be
addressed
through
standard
conditions
y
engineering
and
construction
skills
necessary
to
design
and
construct
these
units
is
relatively
basic
y
facilities
that
receive
waste
from
off­
site
are
not
eligible
for
a
standardized
permit
(We
are
asking
for
comment
on
intracompany
transfer
of
waste).
Proposed
Standardized
Permit
Rule
(continued)

z
Although
the
Standardized
Permit
streamlines
the
administrative
permitting
process,
the
technical
requirements
are
substantively
the
same
that
apply
under
the
current
permitting
system.
These
include
similar:

y
public
participation
requirements,

y
general
facility
standards
(waste
analysis,
personnel
training,
waste
compatibility,
location
standards),

y
preparedness,
prevention,
and
contingency
plan
standards,

y
manifest,
record
keeping,
and
reporting
requirements,
Proposed
Standardized
Permit
Rule
(continued)

y
closure
and
post­
closure
(no
up­
front
closure
plan
required
and
units
must
clean
close
or
apply
for
an
individual
permit),

y
financial
requirements
(modified
to
fit
the
situation
of
not
requiring
up­
front
closure
plan),

y
corrective
action
standards
(preamble
discussion
of
implementation
approaches),

y
technical
standards
for
tanks,
containers,
and
containment
building
(waivers
provisions
eliminated).
Corrective
Action
Approach
z
Preamble
discusses
several
approaches:

y
postpone
RCRA
corrective
action
decision
until
ongoing
state
corrective
action
activities
are
completed,

y
defer
RCRA
correction
action
to
states
with
acceptable
corrective
action
programs.
Financial
Responsibility
z
Request
comments
on
several
topics
y
Conclusion
of
the
Inspector
General's
report
on
financial
assurance
for
closure
and
post­
closure
that
"insurance
policies
issued
by
"captive"
insurance
companies
do
not
provide
an
adequate
level
of
assurance."

y
Whether
to
disallow
the
use
of
pure
captive
insurance.
A
pure
captive
is
a
subsidiary
that
a
company
establishes
to
provide
insurance
to
the
parent
or
sibling
subsidiaries.
(continued)

z
Requiring
a
minimum
rating
of
insurers
providing
financial
assurance
(Aaa,
Aa
or
A
by
Moody's,
or
a
rating
of
AAA,
AA
or
A
by
Standard&
Poor's,
or
A++,
A+,
A
or
A­
from
A.
M.
Best
Company).
Current
Schedule
z
FR
Proposal:
October
12,
2001
(66
FR
52192)

z
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
permit/
std­
perm.
htm
z
Comment
Period
Ended:
December
11,
2001
z
FR
Final:
Anticipated
February
2003
Attachment
3:
selected
comments
summary
power
point
document
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
Proposed
Rule
(October
12,
2001)

Environmental
Technology
Council
Meeting
Melrose
Hotel
Washington
DC
April
16,
2002
Jeff
Gaines
RCRA
Permits
Branch
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
2
Overview
z
Comment
period
ended
December
11,
2001
z
46
Comments
Received
(2
are
late
comments)

y
2
from
Federal
Agencies
y
15
from
States
y
11
from
Industry
y
9
from
trade
associations
y
9
others
3
Commentors
z
#
1
(Don
Webster)

z
#
2
(Horace
Lee)

z
#
3
(Cycle
Chem)

z
#
4
(Ross
Incineration
Services)

z
#
5
(SOCMA)

z
#
6
(DOE
)

z
#
7
(
Waste
Management,
Inc.)

z
#
8
(Edison
Elect,
et
al.)

z
#
9
(
Boeing
)

z
#
10
(Cal
DTSC
)

z
#
11
(OR
)

z
#
12
(
CSHEMA)

z
#
13
(
NE
)

z
#
14
(ACS)

z
#
15
(GA)

z
#
16
(Dominion
group)

z
#
17
(API)

z
#
18
(PIRG
Group)
z
#
19
(NADA)

z
#
20
(AR)

z
#
21
(
WA)

z
#
22
(Army)

z
#
23
(TN)

z
#
24
(Onyx)

z
#
25
(FL)

z
#
26
(MI)

z
#
27
(Safety­
kleen)

z
#
28
(Paul
Hastings,
LLP)

z
#
29
(Coalition
for
Responsible
Waste
Incineration)

z
#
30
(ASTSWMO)

z
#
31
(MO)

z
#
32
(AISI)

z
#
33
(American
Chemistry
Council)

z
#
34
(ETC)

z
#
35
(NJ)
4
Commentors
z
#
36
(Vermont
Captive
Ins.
Assn.)

z
#
38
(ETC)

z
#
39
(TNRCC)

z
#
40
(Andy
Maree
and
Associates)

z
#
41
(Ohio
EPA)

z
#
42
(GM)

z
#
43
(Polytek
Development
Corp.)

z
#
44
(Onyx
Environemtal
Services)

z
#
45
(NSWMA)

z
#
L1
(Illinois
EPA)

z
#
L2
(Congressman
Sherrod
Brown,
Ohio
­
#4)
5
Rule
Comments
z
Comments
generally
supportive
of
the
proposal
(e.
g.,
ASTSWMO,
industry)

z
Some
not
supportive
(e.
g.,
GA,
CA,
WA)

y
not
needed
in
their
state
(few
facilities
affected)

y
less
stringent,
conflict
with
state
program
y
another
set
of
regs
to
learn
6
Extended
to
off­
site
facilities?

y
Generally,
State
commentors
are
not
in
favor
x
Facilities
don't
have
good
knowledge
of
off­
site
waste
x
Facilities
that
accept
offsite
waste
are
generally
more
complex.

y
Industry
is
supportive
x
Commercial
facilities
are
better
prepared
and
equipped
to
properly
manage
their
storage
facilities.

x
Commercial
facilities
have
controls
in
place
to
assure
imported
wastes
are
managed
safely.
7
Should
a
fill­
in­
the­
blank
form
be
developed?

z
Generally
supportive
8
Time
frame
for
draft
permit
decision
(120
days).

z
Comments
go
both
ways;
some
saying
120
is
enough,
others
not
enough.

y
Some
States
think
the
time
is
enough,
others
not
enough
y
Most
industry
comments
thought
it
was
enough.
9
Categories
for
permit
changes
­
modifications
y
Generally
supportive
of
going
with
routine
and
significant
categories
for
permit
changes.
10
Security
provisions
and
floodplain
waiver
z
Is
an
exemption
from
security
provisions
appropriate;
and
should
we
retain
the
floodplain
waste
removal
waiver?

y
Mostly,
the
answer
is
no
to
both
11
Closure
Plan
Submission
z
Should
we
allow
closure
plan
submission
180
days
prior
to
closure?

y
No,
most
commentors
preferred
submitting
the
closure
plan
with
the
application
12
Closure
time
period
z
Is
an
180
day
closure
time
period
appropriate
and
under
what
circumstances
should
it
be
extended?

y
Generally,
yes;
extensions
on
case­
by­
case
13
Tanks
­
underground
and
inground
z
Should
underground
and
in­
ground
tank
systems
be
excluded
from
standardized
permits?

y
Generally,
yes,
exclude
under
ground
and
inground
tanks.
14
Comments
­
specific
areas
z
Should
waste
analysis
plans
be
submitted?
Under
what
circumstances?

y
Generally,
yes,
especially
if
we
extend
to
offsite
facilities
15
Other
Activities
z
Ongoing
efforts
y
draft
permit
application,
and
checklists
y
model
standardized
permit
for
the
three
types
of
units
(containers,
tanks,
cont.
buildings)

y
e­
permitting
relationship
Attachment
4:

Financial
Assurance
Comments
C
About
60%
of
the
comments
addressed
financial
assurance
C
States
environmental
commissions
commenting
included
California,
Missouri,
Oregon,
Nebraska,
Georgia,
Arkansas,
Washington,
Tennessee,
Florida,
Michigan,
Illinois,
and
New
Jersey.

C
Associations
commenting
included
ASTSWMO,
American
Petroleum
Institute,
National
Automobile
Dealers
Association,
Vermont
Captive
Insurance
Association,
Environmental
Technology
Council,
U.
S.
Public
Interest
Research
Group,
and
National
Solid
Waste
Management
Association.

C
Companies
commenting
included
Waste
Management,
Onyx
Environmental
Services,
SafetyKleen
and
Dominion
Resources.
EPA
also
received
comments
from
a
legal
association
representing
Ross
Environmental
Services
and
Northeast
Indemnity
Company,
a
Vermont
captive
insurance
company,
and
a
representative
of
hazardous
waste
TSDFs
in
California.

C
Congressman
Sherrod
Brown
attached
a
copy
of
Ross's
comments
and
asked
EPA
to
investigate
them.

C
Captive
Insurance­
Industry
Supporters
of
Allowing
Captive
Insurance
C
Ross
Environmental,
Waste
Management,
Incorporated
(WMI),
Environmental
Technology
Council
(ETC),
and
NSWMA
provided
extensive
comments
calling
for
the
retention
of
captive
insurance.
C
Ross
objected
to
a
requirement
for
minimum
rating
of
a
captive
insurer
as
unnecessary
if
it
is
a
"fully
funded"
captive.
They
did
not
clarify
if
this
meant
that
the
captive
had
reserves
equal
to
its
environmental
obligations
as
calculated
under
EPA's
regulatory
methodology,
or
if
it
had
some
other
meaning.
C
WMI
argued
that
no
Vermont
licensed
captives
had
failed
and
that
the
Inspector
General
had
failed
to
make
a
case
for
disallowing
captives.
C
WMI
argued
against
the
assignment
requirement
of
the
current
regulations
and
recommended
promptly
issuing
interpretive
guidance
or
a
direct
final
rule.
C
WMI
provided
suggestions
for
minimum
requirements
for
captive
insurers.
These
requirements
included
minimum
financial
ratios
such
as
capital
to
policy
limits,
and
inspection
and
reporting
requirements.
C
WMI
objected
to
minimum
ratings
by
commercial
rating
services.
C
ETC
and
Ross
asserted
that
requiring
a
minimum
rating
could
cost
$20,000
to
$40,000,
could
affect
small
businesses.
and
necessitate
a
SBRFA
analysis.
C
ETC
noted
that
insurance
premiums
had
risen
without
any
benefit
to
the
hazardous
waste
companies.
C
Captive
Insurance
­
Objectors
C
States
generally
objected
to
the
continued
allowance
of
captive
insurance.
C
One
exception
was
Oregon
who
neither
endorsed
not
suggested
a
blanket
disallowance
of
captive
insurance.
C
Oregon
also
requested
EPA
address
the
importance
of
assignability,
particularly
for
captives.

C
Insurance
Comments
C
Georgia
recommends
disallowing
insurance
as
a
financial
assurance
mechanism
based
upon
their
experience
with
a
commercial
insurer
who
they
will
probably
have
to
sue
for
$8,000,000.
C
Dominion
Resources
supported
minimum
ratings
for
insurers
and
recommended
that
EPA
require
insurers
to
maintain
a
bond
to
ensure
the
payment
of
a
claim.
C
Washington
recommended
minimum
ratings
for
insurers
C
Michigan
recommended
minimum
ratings
for
insurers,
and
also
noted
that
they
disallow
captives
and
require
$7
million
in
unimpaired
surplus
funds.
C
Comments
supporting
and
critical
of
the
minimum
ratings
proposal.

C
Trust
Fund
Pay­
In
Period
C
ASTSWMO
and
most
of
the
states
recommended
that
EPA
require
fully
funded
trusts
and
rejected
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
a
three
year
pay­
in
period.
C
Industry
generally
favored
the
three
year
pay­
in
period
or
a
longer
one.

C
Cost
Estimating
C
Little
information
on
the
key
information
necessary
for
estimating
closure
costs.
C
Industry
commenters
objected
to
Option
V,
default
estimates.

C
General
Financial
Comments
C
National
Automobile
Dealer's
Association
supports
tighter
restrictions
on
financial
assurance
mechanisms
C
NADA
recommends
the
application
of
Part
264
requirements
for
corrective
action,
closure
and
post­
closure,
and
financial
assurance
to
used
oil
processors
and
re­
refiners.
C
Washington
recommended
that
EPA
study
all
mechanisms
and
propose
changes
that
would
apply
to
interim
status,
final
status,
and
standardized
permits.
C
Illinois
cited
Laclede
Steel
Company
who
passed
the
financial
test
and
then
entered
bankruptcy.
They
have
now
emerged
from
bankruptcy,
but
have
not
fully
funded
a
third
party
instrument
for
their
closure
and
post­
closure
obligations.
($
287,000
letter
of
credit
versus
over
$3.5
million
cost
estimate)

C
Support
for
analyzing
the
financial
comments
C
Work
Assignment
with
Industrial
Economics,
Incorporated
C
Will
support
analysis
of
the
comments
and
the
appropriations
report
to
Congress.
Attachment
5:
Summary
of
Discussion
Structure
of
meeting
Jeff
Gaines
gave
introduction
Vern
Myers
provided
background
of
proposed
rule
using
Attachment
2.

Jeff
Gaines
provided
summary
of
comments
using
Attachment
3.

Dale
Ruhter
provided
summary
of
financial
assurance
and
captive
insurance
comments
using
Attachment
4.
Comments
during
meeting:

Malcolm
Woolf
(EPA­
OGC)
mentioned
that
there
is
a
widespread
idea
that
RCRA
permitting
is
in
need
of
streamlining.
With
this
rulemaking,
we
wanted
to
provide
relief
where
possible.

Malcolm
Woolf
asked
specifically
that
if
we
were
to
"extend
to
offsite,"
would
that
provide
any
relief
to
ETC
members?

Heritage
Env.
­
Yes,
as
it
would
make
adding
or
replacing
tanks
easier
than
the
current
system.

David
Case
­
would
like
operating
flexibility
to
be
similar
to
production
facilities:
expanding
or
idling
tanks
based
on
market
needs.
Expanding
to
offsite
would
enhance
flexibility
for
tanks
and
container
storage
areas.

Vernon
Myers
(EPA­
OSW)
commented
that:
Resolving
the
corrective
action
aspects
of
the
proposal
are
not
critical
to
finalizing
the
rule.

ETC
member
asked
about
transitioning
from
general
permit
to
standardized
permit
in
the
light
of
epermitting
relief
from
renewal
process?

Vern
Myers
replied:
we're
looking
at
developing
clearer
guidance
for
renewals,
so
that
all
that
may
be
needed
is
what
has
changed
for
the
facility.
