National Oil Recyclers Association
Christopher Harris, General Counsel
1439 West Babcock  Bozeman. Montana 59715  (406) 586-9714  FAX (406) 586-9720

                          Comments of
             The National Oil Recyclers Association
                   concerning the proposal by
       The United States Environmental Protection Agency
                      to amend and clarify
               The Used Oil Management Standards
                       40 C.F.R. Part 279
                   Docket No. F-98-CUOP-FFFFF
                          June 4, 1996

     The National Oil Recyclers Association ("NORA") submits the
following comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's
proposed rule to amend certain provisions of the used oil
management standards. 40 C.F.R. Part 279. The proposed rule was
published at 63 Federal Register 25006-25010 on May 6, 1998.

     Founded in 1984, NORA is a non-profit trade association
representing America's oil recycling industry. NORA's members
manage most of the used oil that is recycled in the United States
and process substantial quantities of oily waste water, used
antifreeze and oil filters. NORA's 147 members -- most of whom
are small businesses -- provide collection and recycling services
in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

     NORA offers comments on two components of the proposed rule:
clarification of record-keeping requirements and mixtures of
CESQG wastes and used oil.

Clarification of Record-Keeping Requirements

     NORA fully supports the proposed amendment to 40 CFR 
279.74(b) which would clarify that the marketer who first claims
that used oil constitutes on-specification used oil fuel need
only retain a record of the shipment to the facility receiving
the used oil from such marketer. Section 279.74(b) has been read
by some state agencies to require the initial marketer to track
all shipments including the final shipment to the burner. As EPA
has recognized, this interpretation conflicts with the reality of
used oil marketing practices. The initial marketer often sells
on-spec fuel to a blender who further processes the used oil and
sells it in different formulations to other marketers and to
end-users (burners). The blender may not know the final
destination of the fuel and, in any event, will certainly not
provide his customer lists to the initial marketer. In other
words, the interpretation made by some state agencies placed a
regulatory requirement on the initial marketer which was
impossible to fulfill.

     Nor is such an interpretation needed to provide adequate
controls.  Under EPA's proposed clarification the initial
marketer remains responsible for assuring that the used oil that
he sells meets the specification criteria. All subsequent
marketers as well as the end user have both economic and
regulatory incentives to maintain the status of the used oil as
specification used oil fuel. In the highly unlikely event that a
subsequent marketer blends a specification used oil fuel in a way
that creates an off-specification product, this marketer cannot
legally sell this fuel as on-specification fuel and, in fact,
must comply with all applicable rules for managing and marketing
off-specification used oil fuel. Thus, EPA's proposed
clarification conforms to real-world transactions in the used oil
fuel industry but does so without sacrificing any enforcement
safeguards. Accordingly, NORA commends EPA for this worthwhile
clarification and urges the Agency to adopt this revision.

Mixtures of CESQG Wastes and Used Oil.

     NORA agrees with the common sense approach that EPA has
taken in harmonizing the conditionally exempt small quantity
generator provision, 40 CFR 261.5(j), with the Part 279 used oil
management standards. While this revision is needed and should be
adopted, NORA also urges EPA to consider using the final rule to
provide a clarification of the regulatory status of mixtures of
CESQG wastes and used oil. This would be particularly useful in
the context of the rebuttable presumption. As the Agency is
aware, there is no chemical or physical difference between a
molecule of a chlorinated solvent waste generated by a large
quantity generator and a molecule of the same type of waste
solvent generated by a CESQG. Nonetheless, the large quantity
generator waste is regulated as hazardous while the CESQG waste
is not.

     In a typical scenario, a used oil transporter collects used
oil mixed with hazardous wastes from different types of
generators, including CESQGs, all of which are mixed together in
his tank truck during the day's collection activities. (It is
simply not practical for a transporter on a used oil "milk run"
to segregate different categories of used oil generators.) The
used oil in the tank truck is tested and shows 1005 parts per
million. Can the presumption of hazardousness be rebutted by
demonstrating that the CESQG wastes, if subtracted from the
mixture, would bring the total halogen level below 1000 ppm? This
scenario is at the heart of the regulatory compliance dilemma
that confronts most used oil transporters and processors and it
should be squarely addressed by EPA.

     NORA is not aware of any interpretive letter or guidance
document which sheds any light on this particular issue. Because
it is a recurring question that arises in every part of the
country, NORA suggests that EPA take advantage of the opportunity
provided by this rulemaking to clarify the Agency's policy. For
the record, NORA believes that the "subtraction" approach is
entirely consistent with the purpose of the rebuttable
presumption as well as the CESQG provisions. Obviously, the
burden of proof remains with the entity attempting to rebut the
presumption. However, there is no reason why a "mathematical
proof" should be automatically rejected. We urge the Agency to
address this issue in the preamble to the final rule.