Page Additional material supplied for the hearing record: Booth, George T., III, president, Booth Oil Co., and president, Association Cadwell, Charles A., deputy chief counsel for advocacy, U.S. Small Busi- Gunkel, Kathryn O'Connor, director, Environmental and Safety Oper- Higgins, Ralph G., vice president and general manager, Statewide Waste Porter, J. Winston, Assistant Administrator, Solid Waste and Emergency Rasheed, Vic, executive director, Service Station Dealers of America, Inc. Warren, Jacqueline, staff attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, Willey, Cliff R., chief of technical services, Maryland Environmental APPENDIXES A. Additional material submitted by Vic Rasheed, executive director, Service 251 B. Prepared statement submitted by Richard L. McConnell, Wiley & Rein, 337 C. Prepared statement, with exhibits, submitted by Stephen A. Van Dyck, 345 402 E. Comments to notices of proposed rulemaking by EPA, submitted by Robert 404 423 G. Prepared statement of Terry Westhafer, president, American Retreaders' 434 H. Prepared statement of the American Metal Stamping Association. 438 444 J. Additional material (letters) submitted by Ralph G. Higgins, Jr., vice presi- 448 450 451 USED AND RECYCLED OIL: PENDING EPA RULEMAKING MONDAY, MAY 19, 1986 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2359-A, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Charles W. Stenholm (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN STENHOLM Mr. STENHOLM. Good morning. This meeting of the Subcommittee on Energy, Environment, and Safety Issues Affecting Small Business is officially convened this morning to address the existing and potential implications for small businesses and the environment resulting from used oil regulations proposed by the EPA on November 29, 1985. These regulations were issued pursuant to the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980, Public Law 96-463, and sections 241 and 242 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Amendments of 1984, Public Law 98-616. On November 29 of last year, the EPA proposed to amend the hazardous waste regulations by listing used oil as a Superfund waste, and to establish standards for the control and management of recycled oil. In reaching these preliminary decisions, EPA determined that: Used oil typically and frequently contains highly toxic contaminants in significant quantities, that these contaminants are mobile and persistent in the environment, and that used oil is generated in large quantities. Thus, these wastes could pose a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the environment if improperly managed. The effect of the two proposals, if promulgated, would be to control the generation, transportation, accumulation, storage, treatment, and disposal of used oil by subjecting each of these phases of the used oil management system to full hazardous waste regulations under Superfund. A large number of small businesses comprising a significant part of the Nation's used oil management system have raised the legitimate observation that by bringing their operations under the provisions of the Superfund law, the EPA may be promulgating the destruction of a viable, functioning national recycling program. (1) The potential threat for imposing strict, joint and several liability, even when small businesses comply with the final EPA management standards, could result in a severe shift away from recycling by transforming used oil from a commercial product to a commercial liability. Indeed, it would appear that there is an ever-growing evidentiary record to show that the blanket Federal regulation of used oil as a hazardous waste could harm many voluntary and nonvoluntary State used oil collection programs. Eight States-California, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Vermont-to some extent regulate used oil as a hazardous waste. However, most of the used oil regulations issued by these States are far less stringent than EPA's proposed regulations and some have commented publicly that they find EPA's proposals overly rigid and severe and thus potentially difficult to enforce. For example, California, a State which already regulates used oil as a hazardous waste, maintains a voluntary collection program for its used oil through 2,500 service stations. However, the State has expressed the view that this voluntary program will be hurt if used oil becomes listed as a hazardous waste nationally because of additional reporting, paperwork, and permitting that would be required of used oil collectors. California has also commented to EPA that many service station operators who now collect used oil under the State's program will stop taking in oil because of increased costs and liabilities they might have to face. The end result of this shock to California's used oil collection program could be drastic, and it seems certain that the volume of used oil which would be returned for recycling would significantly decrease as a result. In Missouri, used oil regulations exist primarily for monitoring purposes. The State requires the registration of used oil handlers and manifesters. Missouri does not become involved with permits and liability insurance. Missouri commented to the EPA that the Agency's used oil proposals are "unsound" and that because used oil reclamation is a marginally profitable business, EPA's proposal would thus "encourage unsafe disposal methods in lieu of recovery." New Jersey's used oil regulations are among the strictest in the Nation, but still the State urged EPA not to resort to a blanket listing of used oil, and noted that EPA's proposed regulations would impose extensive burdens on small businesses. On July 1 of this year, Oregon hopes to fully implement its Opportunity to Recycle Act, which would establish an onroute recycling program for the door-to-door collection of used oil and other recyclable materials from both small businesses and households. The State has commented to EPA that the Agency's proposed rulemaking may shut the program down even before it begins. Oregon's statute requires minimum, monthly collection of identified recyclable materials in cities with populations of 4,000 or more, and establishes recycling depots at disposal sites. Under the State law, an identified recyclable material is defined as that material which can be collected and recycled for less than or equal to the cost of collection and disposal. Oregon has informed EPA that the Agency's proposal to list used oil will render it impossible for the State's onroute recycling collection program to pick up small quantities of oil from households and small businesses. The increased costs to oil collection operators resulting from EPA's regulations would not enable used oil to meet the State's criterion for recyclable material. Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality concludes that: "Most collection programs and disposal site recycling depots will drop their recycling activities." Arkansas, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania agree with Oregon. These States have asserted that the EPA proposal would have a negative impact on recycling, would hinder or ruin the collection programs they operate, and have a serious economic impact on the majority of used oil generators that responsibly manage used oil. In Oklahoma, used oil is regulated as a hazardous waste in some circumstances. However, used oil destined for recycling is exempted from classification as a hazardous waste. The State has found that, as a result of this exemption, used oil recycling has been encouraged, and improper disposal of used oil has lessened. Wisconsin, a State with an extremely progressive environmental history, is especially strident in its opposition to EPA's proposals. In its comments to EPA, the State said that EPA's proposal for a blanket listing of used oil as a hazardous waste is not justified, and that the proposed management standards EPA has offered are onerous, and lack significant environmental benefits. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources calls EPA's waste oil proposal "unworkable." This comment comes from a State which maintains a collection program for all communities with 3,500 or more residents. Each such community in Wisconsin is required to set up a collection center for used oil to prevent the disposal of used oil from household oil changes into the sewage system or into landfills. Pursuant to this declaration by the State agency, the Wisconsin congressional delegation, comprised of six Democrats and five Republicans, liberal and conservative, wrote to EPA arguing that under EPA's proposed regulations, all of the State's collection centers, "would be designated as hazardous waste sites and would incur all the problems associated with such designation. Thus, waste oil would be converted from an asset to a liability." This final point, expressed so succinctly by my colleagues from Wisconsin, serves, in my mind, as the focal point for looking at the EPA proposal. How do we as a nation best regulate used oil, and treat it as an asset rather than a liability? Logic and reason indicate very strongly that the comments EPA has heard from a number of States from across the country-irrespective of whether or not they already regulate used oil as a hazardous waste-are part of a strong, national consensus of opinion against EPA's blanket listing of used oil. EPA's proposed regulation is, to a great extent, seen to undercut, not foster, environmental protection at the State level. Before turning the hearing over to our witnesses, I must emphasize that strict adherence to the 5-minute rule will be necessary if we are to conclude today's hearing within a reasonable timeframe. The number of individuals scheduled to testify is extensive for the purpose of establishing as complete a record on the used oil issue as is possible within the context of a 1-day hearing. I ask each and every witness, therefore, to honor the 5-minute time restriction for your oral testimony. Written statements will be printed in the record in their entirety. I thank all of the scheduled witnesses for appearing today. Also, I extend my appreciation to the Small Business Ombudsman's Office at EPA for all the assistance and information it has provided the staff in preparation for this hearing. Mr. Combest. Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have no statement. Mr. STENHOLM. Next my colleague from Louisiana, Mrs. Long. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY (MRS. GILLIS) LONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISI ANA Mrs. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our distinguished subcommittee chairman, Congressman Stenholm, for holding this hearing. This investigation comes in response to the numerous calls and letters we have received from States, small businesses, trade and insurance associations, and environmental groups who will be affected in some way or other by the EPA's proposed ruling. EPA's proposal will affect the owners and operators of service stations, other generators of used oil, the transporters of this oil, and the companies that operate recycling facilities, to name a few. As we discuss the pros and cons of this issue, we will examine the ramifications our actions could have on the environment and our energy needs. We will examine the dimensions of the problems as the participants provide insight and suggest possible solutions. I join with the other members of our subcommittee in welcoming all the witnesses who will share their expertise with us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mrs. Long. Next we will hear from our first witness, our close friend and colleague, Hon, Ike Skelton of Missouri, a longtime leader on this issue in the Congress. Ike, welcome. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Mr. SKELTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate this opportunity to share a few thoughts and comments with you. I would like to commend you for holding this hearing. This is on a unique subject, a unique segment regarding the regulation of used oil. What is unique about it is that it is a valuable asset, reusable, and it is generated by everyone, everyday. |