MEMORANDUM

Date:  November 12, 1998

To:  Eric Hauxthausen, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Cc: Kevin Bromberg, Office of Advocacy, Small Business
Administration (SBA)

From: Damon Dozier, Office of Advocacy, SBA

Subject: Hazardous Waste Listing and the Management of
Cement Kiln Dust; Initial Thoughts

This memorandum highlights concerns with EPA's
aforementioned proposed rule.

1. pg. 166 - "With respect to the per-cent-of-sales cost
criterion, EPA's high end engineering cost estimates project
that not more than one or two small companies will
experience initial compliance costs greater than one percent
of baseline sales. In fact several of the small companies-
particularly those that do not land-dispose any wasted dust-
should thus realize higher net annual profits as a result of
these market impacts."  What is the sentence supposed to
mean? Not only is it confusing, but it is unsubstantiated as
well. How will companies make money? If facilities have to
construct "temporary bins" to hold CKD that is to be
recycled and do groundwater monitoring even if they are
managing CKD in a manner that exempts them from RCRA
Subtitle "C," how can they "make money on the deal? Are all
of these costs supposed to be passed through? If so, how
does EPA justify this pass through? I do not see anywhere is
the text where the cost and frequency of groundwater
monitoring are costed out.

2. It is disturbing that EPA relies on groundwater damage
cases to justify groundwater monitoring, instead of
modeling. Out of 110 plants in the universe, there are 13
identified damage cases, or less than 12 percent. As we
understand, most of these damage cases involve deposits in
floodplains or quarries before 1980 (with no management).
Obviously, these practices are not carried on to present
day.

3. The preamble calls for sampling of CKD to be used to as
an agricultural lime substitute (for six constituents of
concern), but it does not address the costs of the sampling
or the frequency.

4. EPA's assumption that "stigma effects" about CKD use (the
agency assumes for a variety of reasons that stigma effects
would have already been felt by the industry by now) seem to
be misplaced since this is the first formal rulemaking that
the agency has undertaken to address this issue. It is fair
for industry to assume that they will lose all of their
markets (or customers) especially since there are other
products that serve the same function as CKD does (for
example, fly ash). Therefore, the agency's certification
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities is incorrect.