SW-50p          United States        Office of
             Environmental Protection    Solid Waste
             Agency          Washington DC 20460
             Sol id Waste
             Public Hearing
             on Proposed
             Hazardous Waste
             Regulations

             February 14-16, 1979
             St. Louis, Missouri

             Transcript

-------

-------
                        TRANSCRIPT


                          Public Hearing

              on Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations

             February 14-16, 1979, St.  Louis,  Missouri
     This hearing was sponsored by EPA,  Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-50p)  are repceduced entirely as transcribed
      by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
               U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               1979

-------

-------
 1


 2


 3


 4


 5


 6


 7


 8

 9


 10


 11


 12


 13


 14


 15


 16


 17

 18


 19


 20


 21

 22

 23


 24


25
                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       In the Matter of:

   Public Meeting on Improving

    Environmental Regulations
                              Breckenridge Pavilion Hotel,
                              One Broadway,
                              St. Louis, Missouri,
                              Wednesday, February 14, 1979.

          The public hearing in the above-entitled matter

was convened, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 o'clock a.m.,

Dorothy A. Darrah, presiding.

BEFORE:

                        PANEL
     DOROTHY A. DARRAH,


     AMY SCHAFFER,


     JOHN P. LEHMAN,





     ALFRED LINDSEY,





     ALAN CORSON,
Office of General Counsel,
EPA, Washington, D. C.

Office of Enforcement, EPA,
Washington, D. C.

Director, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, Office of
Solid Waste, EPA, Washington,
D. C.

Chief, Implementation Branch,
Hazardous Waste Management
Division, Office of Solid
Waste, EPA, Washington, D. C.

Chief, Section 3001, Guide-
lines Branch, Hazardous Waste
Management Branch, Office of
Solid Waste, EPA, Washington,
D. C.

-------
 1


 2


 3


 4


 5


 6


 7


 8


 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
CHET MC LAUGHLDJ,
Solid Waste Branch, EPA,
Region VII, Kansas City,
Missouri.

-------
 1                        CONTENTS

 2    Opening Remarks                                 Page
         Carl Bloagren, Director, Air and
 3       Hazardous Materials Divison                  3A

 4    Opening Remarks
         Tom Jorling, Assistant Administrator,
 5       Water and Waste Management                    5

 6    Opening Remarks
         John Lehman, Director, Hazardous
 7       Waste Management Division                     10

 8    STATEMENTS OP:

 9       Dr. Stacy L. Daniels, Dow Chemical            23

 10       Dr. Barry Commoner, Washington University     40

 11        Joe Found, American Admixtures                57

 12         Kay Drey                                     73

 13        Robert  M. Robinson, Director of Solid Waste
         Management Program for Missouri Department
 14        of Natural Resources                          82

 15       Kenneth Smelcer,  Executive Vice President,
         Industrial Association of Qulncy              US
 16
         Brooks Becker, President of Residuals Management
 17       Technology,  Inc.                               98

 18       Frank Stegbauer,  Vice President of Southern
         Towing Company                               118
 19
         James A. Kinsey,  Minnesota Pollution Control
 20       Agency                                       124

 2]        Roland C. Marquart, Transportation Services  139

 22
      Separate Transcript  for question and Answer Session
 23     Pages  151 thru  226

 24
      Hearing Inserts:       PP.  39,  8l
25

-------
 2              MR.  BLOMGREN:  Good morning.



 3              I'm  Carl  Blomgren, director, Air and Hazardous



 4    Materials Division, EPA, Region VII, office  in Kansas  City.



 5              I bring you greetings from our  regional  adminis-



 6    trator, Dr. Kathleen Camin, and welcome you  to this winter



 7    wonderland of  the Midwest.  We appreciate your interest in



 8    these regulations which will shape  the implementation  of  the



 9    Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act's  Subtitle  C.   I am



10    particularly interested in the issues and concerns which  you



11    have with these regulations and offer to  work with you in



12    developing equitable regulations which provide for adequate



13    controls of hazardous waste.



14              The  states in Region VII  have built an admirable



15    record of interest  and success in striving to implement



16    comparable state hazardous waste management  programs.  Kan-



17    sas and Missouri have passed new state hazardous waste man-



is    agement legislation and are in the  process of implementing



19    these statutes.  Nebraska is developing regulatory controls



20    without additional legislation, and  Iowa has  introduced



21    hazardous waste management legislation to their Legislature



22    which will provide  them with authority to conduct  the



23    national program.   We are proud of  this progress.  According



24    to the consultants, WAPORA Study for the  Office of Solid



25    Waste, the number of impacted industries  in  Region VII is

-------
                                                               5
 i    8,600 in Missouri, 2,700 in Nebraska, 5,400 in Iowa, and
 2    3,000 in Kansas.
 3              It is with great pleasure that Z welcome you to
 4    Region VII  for what I hope will be a fruitful and spirited
 5    discussion of the Section 3001, 3002, and 3004 hacardous
 6    waste regulations.
 7              With that, I will introduce our assistant adminis-
 8    trator for Water and Waste Management, Ton Jorling.
 9              Tea.
10              MR. JORLING:  Thank you, Carl, and good morning.
11              I, too, would like to welcome you.
12      •        This effort is part of sort of a road show that EPA
13    has under way in the rule-making process.  We initiated the
14    formal hearings on the R.C.R.A. hazardous waste regs in New
15    York last week, move back to Washington next week, and then
16    move back west to Denver and San Francisco in the remaining
17    two weeks, and the comment period then closes, and the Task
18    sets out to take the proposal from its stage now into the
19    final rules so that we can bring into being a program of reg-
20    ulation which the statute calls for and the American people
21    are asking for.
22              R.C.R.A. was enacted to give the Environmental Pro-
23    tection Agency authority and the states authority in 1976 in
24    the area of hazardous waste.
25              The statute called for, the regulations which we

-------
      arc holding these hearing* on, to be promulgated to be in



  2    effect by June of 1978.  they have an effective date after



  3    promulgation of «ix months.  We are obviously behind that date



  4    We were subject to several complaints in federal court be-



  5    cause we had failed a nondiscretionary duty, and the courts



  6    issued us an order which calls for these regulations to be



  7    promulgated by December of 1979.  The effective date would



      then be 1980.



  9              I say that because many have said, "Gee, you're



 10    moving too fast."  In fact, we are not moving too fast.



      We're probably moving much too slow, at least when we apply



 12    the regulations to the dimensions of the problem; but on our



 13    schedule, which is an ambitious one, we will not have these



      regulations into being and have their effect until July of



      1980, and that requires everyone then to stick to the rulen



      we have laid down on the rule-making process so that we can,



      in fact, achieve that objective.



                Many have asked why hazardous waste has been a



 19    problem which the government is now only responding to.  la



 20    contrast to air and water pollution, which are immediately



 21    obvious to the people, to the public—they see the water,



 22    they breathe the air.  Hazardous waste has been a practice



 23    which generally occurs on private property.  The disposal



 24    practices have been out of sight and out of mind.



25              Another difference from the two earlier pollution

-------
                                                                  7
  i    areas in which there have been aggressive action i* that the
  2    pathways of effects are often very indirect.  They are down
  3    through ground waters, migrating ground waters, and then con-
  4    taminating public or private wells, so that the cause-effect
  5    relationship is opened up and spread out; and, as a result,
  6    we have not at the federal level moved in the area of hazard-
  7    ous waste.
  8              I would also like to note that the program we are
  9    holding these hearings on is the one that is directed at
 10    present and future activities, and that certainly is an am-
 11    bitious task of itself.  We have estimates or our estimates
 12    show that some thirty to thirty-five million tons of waste
 13    will be classified as hazardous; and of that amount, roughly
 14    80 to 90 per cent is at the present time being improperly
 15    disposed of, and improperly disposed of here means by infer-
 16    ence that it does represent threats to public health and the
 17    environment.
 18              We are also intersecting with this rule-making
 19    package a business/commercial pattern which is extremely
 20    complex, and, as a result, the rule-making is itself complex
 21    to match that complexity; but there should be no doubt as to
 22    the need.  As we have begun investigating these efforts
 23    seriously and the events have been disclosed, such as Love
 24    Canal in Salsbury Labs in Iowa, the result is an accumula-
25    tion of additional cases across the country of great magni-

-------
                                                                  8
  l    tudc, but those kinds of problems will not b« addressed

  2    specifically by these regulations.  It's another dimension

  3    of the program or the problem which our statute at present

  4    doesn't give us a great deal of authority, and we are pres-

  5    ently investigating other types of statutory authority which

  6    would help us and the states and local communities address

  7    accumulated abandon problems that exist across the country-

  8    side; but this program is very ambitious.  It requires

  9    "cradle to grave management" of hazardous wastes.  There-

 10    fore, it requires generators, transporters, and storers and

 ll    disposers to undertake certain duties and obligations.

 12              There is a manifest system to track the movement

 13    of hazardous waste,  there are requirements for issuing per-

 u    mits to both on- and off-site disposers.  All of these are

 15    very ambitious tasks that will tax and test our ability as

 u    government both at the federal and state level to carry out.

 17              One of the things we're very interested in are re-

 18    actions with respect to the administrative capability in

 19    implementing this program.

 20              Th« purpose of these hearings, as standard rule-

 21    making hearings, is to hear from the affected public or the

 22    interested public on the regulations which we have proposed.

 23              Ihe proposal that we are holding hearings on

 24    covers many of the provisions in the overall hazardous waste

25    program.  There are still some to come, especially in the

-------
                                                               9




 i    administrative permit part of activity in  the state activity.



 2    Those regulations will also be subject to  public hearings be-




 3    ginning in approximately six weeks.   I don't know whether



 4    there is any scheduled for St. Louis, but  they will be held



 5    around the country in the permit areas, but it is to hear



 6    from those who have read these regulations, evaluate how



 7    they apply to them if they be in the  regulated community; or



 8    if they be in the interested community, whether or not die



 9    regulations provide the degree of public health and environ-



10    mental protection the statute calls for, and people's re-



11    action to them with respect to their  just  general applica-



12    tion and whether or not they will achieve  the results that



13    are expected.



14              So our purpose is in listening to the reaction  of



15    the proposal that we have made.  We look forward to that.



16    We find these hearings very, very helpful.  Their rule-



17    making process is one in which there  is tremendous inter-



is    action between our agency and the affected community, and we



19    expect these regulations will be improved  as a result of



20    this process.



21              So I would like to welcome  you and look forward to



22    the testimony that you will be giving.  I won't be able to



23    attend a great deal of the hearings,  but it is something  that



24    you can well Imagine is a very high priority in our agency.



25              We hope to keep the program on schedule, and we

-------
                                                                 10



  1     will deliver a product which the people can be proud of in



  2     the time frame we have now set forth for ourselves;  namely,



  3     by December of this year,  so we look forward to your partici



  4     pation in that.



  5               Now, Jack, you have some opening remarks that will



  6     help people put the overall set of regulations into  con-



  7     text, and then we will move on.



                 MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you, Tom.



  9               My name is John  Lehman.  I'm the director  of the



 10     Hazardous Waste Management Division of EPA's Office  of Solid



 li     Waste in Washington.



 12               For  a brief overview of why we are here,  the EFA,



       on December 18, 1978, issued proposed rules under Section!



       3001, 3002, and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as



 is     substantially amended by the Resource Conservation and Re-



 16     covery Act of 1976, Public Law 94-580,  better known  by this



       acronym of R.C.R.A. or "Ric Ra".



                 These proposals  respectively cover, first, the



       criteria for identifying and listing hazardous waste,



 20     identification methods and a hazardous waste license; sec-



 21     ond, standards applicable  to generators of such waste for



 22     recordkeeping, labeling, using proper containers and using



 23     a transport manifest; and, third, performance, design, and



 24     operating standards for hazardous waste management facili-



25     ties.

-------
                                                                11
  1               these proposals,  together with those already pub-
  2     lished pursuant to Section  3003,  on April 28,  1978;  Section
  3     3006,  on February 1,  1978;  Section 3008, on August 4,  1978;
  4     and  Section 3010, on  July 11,  1978; and that of the  Depart-
  5     ment of Transportation pursuant  to the  Hazardous Materials
  6     Transportation Act proposed on May 25,  1978, along with the
  7     Section 3005,  permit  regulations, which Tom mentioned  earli-
  8     er,  constitute the hazardous waste regulatory  program  under
  9     Subtitle C of  the Act.
 10               EPA  has chosen to integrate  its regulations  for
 11     facility permits pursuant to Section 3005 and  for state
 12     hazardous waste program authorization pursuant to Section
 13     3006 of the Act, with similar  proposals under  the National
 14     Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  required by Section
 15     402  of the Clean Water Act  and the Underground Injection
 16     Control Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
 17               This integration  of  programs  will appear toon
 1s     as proposed rules under 40  CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124.
 19               This hearing is being held as part of our  public
 20     participation  process in the development of this regulatory
 21     program.
 22               1 would like to introduce the panel  members  who
 23     share  the rostrum with me;  and from your left  to right,
 24     they are:  Chet Mclaughlin  of  the Hazardous Waste Manage-
25     ment Section,  Hazardous Materials Branch, in Region  VII in

-------
                                                                12
  1     Kansas City; next, Amy Schaffer with  our  Office  of Enforce-

  2     neat, headquarters in Washington; next, Dorothy  Darrah  from

  3     Office of General Counsel in EPA headquarters  in Washington;

  4     Fred Lindsey who is chief of the Implementation  Branch  of

  5     Hazardous Waste Management  Division in Washington; Alain

  6     Corson who  is  the chief of  our Guidelines Branch in  the

  7     Hazardous Waste Management  Division,  again  in  Washington;

  8     and, of course, Mr. Jorling whom you  have met.

  9              As noted in the Federal Register, our  planned

 10     agenda is to cover comments on Section 3001 today, Sections

 n     3002 and 3003  tomorrow, and Section 3004  the next day.

 ]2     Also, we have  planned an evening session  tomorrow night

 13     covering all four sections, and that  session is  planned pri-

 14     marily for  those who cannot attend during the  day.

 ls              The  comments received at this hearing  and  the

 16     other hearings, as noted in the Federal Register, together

 17     with the comment letters we received, will  be  a  part of the

 18     official docket in this rule-making process.   The comment

 19     period closes  on March 16 for Sections 3001 through  3004.

 20              This docket may be seen during normal  working

 21     hours in Room  2111D, Waterside Mall,  401 M  Street, N. W.,

 22     Washington, D. C.

 23              In addition, we expect to have  transcripts of

 24     each hearing within about two weeks of the  close of  the

25     hearing.  These transcripts will be available  for reading

-------
                                                                13




 1 "  at any of the EPA  libraries.  A list of these locations is


 2 II
 *• "  available at the registration table.



 3 I'            With  this as background,  I would like to lay the



 4 "  groundwork and  rules  for  the conduct of this hearing.



 5 "            As Tom mentioned,  the focus of a public hearing is



 6 II  on the public's response  to a regulatory proposal of an agen-



 7 'I  •*>«*•« or, in this  case, agencies, since both EPA and the De-



     partment of Transportation are  involved.


 9 II
  11            I might  point out for our hearings tomorrow  on



10 I'  Section 3003, there will  be a representative of DOT present.



11 I'            The purpose of  this hearing,   as announced in the



12 II  April 28, May 25,  and December  18 Federal Registers, is to



13 I'  solicit comments on the proposed regs,  including any back-



14 "  ground information used to develop  the  comment.   So this pub-
15
17
20
     lie hearing is being held not  primarily to  inform the  public,
16    nor to defend a proposed regulation, but  rather to  obtain the
     public's response to these proposed  regulations  and the re -
18 "  after revise them as may seem appropriate.

   II

19 "            All major substantive comments made at  the hearing
     will be addressed during preparation of  the  final  regula-
21    tions.



22              This is not a formal adjudicatory hearing with  the



   "  right to cross-examination.  The members of the  public  are  to



24  "  present their views on the proposed regulation to  the panel,


25  I
   11  and the panel may ask questions of the people presenting

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                        14
statements to clarify any ambiguities in their presenta-
tions.  Some questions by the panel may be forwarded in
writing to the speakers.  His or her response, if received
within a week of the close of this hearing, will be in-
cluded in the transcript.  Otherwise we will include it in
the docket.
          The Chairman reserves the right to limit lengthy
questions, discussions, or statements.  If you have a copy
of your statement, please submit to the court reporter.
          Written statements will be accepted at the end of
the hearing; and if you wish to submit a written rather than
an oral statement, please make sure that the court reporter
has a copy.  Ihe written statements will also be included in
their entirety in the record.
          Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have
not made an advance request by telephone or in writing
should indicate their interest on the registration card.  If
you have not indicated your intent to give a statement and
you later decide to do so, please return to the registration
table, fill out another card, and give it to one of the
staff.
          As we call upon an individual to make a statement,
he or she should come up to the lecturn and identify him-
self or herself for the court reporter and deliver his or
her statement.

-------
                                                                15
  1              At  the  beginning of the  statement,  the Chairperson
  2   will  inquire  as to whether the speaker is  willing to enter-
  3   tain  questions from  the  panel.  The  speaker is under no ob-
  4   ligation  to do so.   Although within  the spirit of this
  5   information-sharing  hearing, it would be of great assistance
  6   to  the agency if  questions were permitted.
  7              Our day's  activities, as we currently see  them,
  8   appear like this.  We will break for lunch at about  12  o'cloc
  9   and reconvene at  2 p.m.   Then, depending on our progress,  we
 10   will  either conclude the day's session or  break for  dinner
 11   at  about  5 o'clock.
 12              Phone calls will be posted on the registration
 13   table near the entrance  to the hotel, and  restrooms  are lo-
 14   cated immediately outside of this  room directly down the
 15   hall  on your  right-hand  side.
 16              If  you  wish to be added  to our mailing list for
 17   future regulations,  draft regulations,  or  proposed regula-
 18   tions, please leave  your business  card or  name and address
 19   on  a  three by five card  on the registration desk.
 20              Now, the regulations under discussion at this
 21   hearing are the core elements of a major regulatory  program
 22   to  manage  and control the country's  hazardous  waste  from
 23   generation to final  disposal.   The Congress directed this
 24   action in  recognizing that disposal  of  hazardous waste  is a
25   crucial environmental and health problem which must  be  con-

-------
                                                               16



 l     trolled.



 2               In our proposal,  we have outlined requirements,



 3     which set minimum norms of  conduct for those who generate,



 4     transport, treat, store, and dispose  of hazardous waste.



 5     These requirements, we  believe,  will  close  the circle of  en-



 6     vironmental control begun earlier of  regulatory control of



 7     emissions and discharges of contaminants to the air,  to the



 8     water, and to the oceans.



 9               We do not underestimate the complexity and  dif-



10     ficulty of our proposed regulations.   Rather they reflect



11     the large amounts of  hazardous waste  generated and the com-



12     plexity of the movement of  hazardous  waste  in our diverse



13     society.



14               These regulations will affect a large number of



15     industries, other nonindustrial  sources of  hazardous  waste,



16     such as laboratories  and commercial pesticide applicators,



17     as  well as transporters of  hazardous  waste  will also  be in-



18     eluded.



19               EPA has information on over 400 cases of the hara-



20     ful consequences of inadequate hazardous waste management.



21     These cases include incidents of surface and ground water



22     contamination, direct contact poisoning, various forms of



23     air pollution, and damage from fires  and explosions.



24               Nationwide, half  of all drinking  water is supplied



25     from ground water sources,  and in some areas contamination

-------
                                                                 1
       of ground water resources currently poses a threat to pub-
 2     lie health.
 3               EPA studies of a number of generating industries
 4     in 1975 show that approximately 90 per cent of the poten-
 5     tially hazardous waste generated by those industries was
 6     managed by practices which were not adequate for protection
       of human health and environment.
 8               Subtitle C of R.C.R.A. establishes a comprehen-
 9     sive program to protect the public health and environment
 10     from improper disposal of hazardous waste.  Although the
       program requirements are to be developed by the federal
 12     government, the Act provides that states with adequate pro-
 's     grams can assume responsibility for regulation of hazardous
 14     waste.
 15               The basic idea of Subtitle C is that the public
 16     health and the environment will be protected if there is
       careful monitoring of transportation of hazardous waste and
       assurance that such waste is properly treated, stored, or
 19     disposed of, either at the site where it is generated,
 20     which we usually refer to as on-site, or after it is car-
 21     ried from that site to a special facility or an off-site
 22     facility in accordance with certain standards.
 23               I'm going to review briefly for you the seven
 24     guidelines and regulations which are being developed and
25     either have been or will be proposed under Subtitle C of

-------
                                                              18
1     R.C.R.A.

2               Subtitle C creates a management control system

3     which,  for those wastes defined as hazardous,  requires a

4     cradto-to-grave cognizance,  including appropriate monitoring,

5     recordkeeping, and reporting throughout the system.

6               It is also important to note  that the  definition

7     of  solid wastes in the  Act  encompasses  garbage,  refuse,

8     sludges, and other discarded materials, including liquids,

9     semisolidfs and contained gases, with a few exceptions,

10     from both  municipal and industrial sources.

n               Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set  of all solid

12     wastes, and which will  be identified by regulations  proposed

13     under Section 3001, are those which have particularly signi-

14     fleant  impacts on public health and the environment.

15               Section 3001  is the keystone  of Subtitle C.  Its

16     purpose is to provide a means for determining  whether a
17     waste is hazardous for  the  purposes of  the Act and,  there-

is     fore, whether it must be managed according to  the other Sub-

19     title C regulations.

20               Section 3001(b) provides two  mechanisms for deter-

21     mining  whether a waste  is hazardous; first, a  set of charac-

22     teristics  of hazardous  waste and, second, a list of  particu-

23     lar hazardous wastes.  A waste must be  managed according to

24     tiie Subtitle C regulations  if it either exhibits fay of the.

25     characteristics set out in  proposed regulation or if it is

-------
                                                                19



 1      listed.   Also,  EPA is  directed by Section 3001(a)  of the



 2      Act  to develop  criteria for identifying  the  set of charac-



 3      teristics of hazardous waste and for determining which



 4      wastes to list.   In this proposed rule,  EPA  sets out these



 5      criteria, identifies a set  of characteristics  of hazardous



 6      waste, and establishes a list of particular  hazardous waste.



 7                Also,  the proposed regulation  provides for demon-



 8      stration  of non-inclusion in the regulatory  program.



 9                Section 3002  addresses standards  applicable  to



10      generators of hazardous waste.   A generator  is  defined  as



11      any  person whose  act or process  produces a hazardous  waste.



12      Minimum amounts  generated and disposed of per month are es-



13      tablished to further define a generator.   These  standards



14      will exclude household hazardous waste.



15                The generator standards will establish require-



16      ments for:  recordkeeping,  labeling  and  marking  of con-



17      tainers used for  storage, transport,  or  disposal of hazard-



is      ous  waste;  use of appropriate  containers,  furnishing  infor-



19      mation on the general  chemical composition of a  hazardous



20     waste; use  of a manifest  system  to assure  that a hazardous



21     waste is  designated  to  a  permitted treatment, storage,  or



22      disposal  facility; and  submitting reports  to the Adminis-



23      trator, or  an authorized  state agency, setting out  the



24     quantity  generated and  its  disposition.



25               Section 3003  requires  the development  of  standards

-------
                                                                20



  1     applicable to transporters of hazardous waste.  These pro-



  2     posed standards address identification codes, recordkeeping,



  3     acceptance, and transportation of hazardous wastes, compli-



  4     ance with the manifest system, delivery of the hazardous



  5     waste; spills of hazardous waste and placarding and marking
  6
       of vehicles.  The Agency has coordinated closely with pro-
  7    posed and current U. S. Department of Transportation regula-



  8     tions.



  9               Section 3004 addresses standards affecting owners



 10     and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and



 11     disposal facilities.  These standards define the levels of



 12     human health and environmental protection to be achieved by



 13     these facilities and provide the criteria against which EPA



 14     or state officials will measure applications for permits.



 15     Facilities on a generator's property as well as off-site



       facilities are covered by these regulations and do require



 17     permits.  Generators and transporters do not otherwise need



 18     permits.



 19               Section 300S regulations set out the scope and



 20     coverage of the actual permit-granting process for facility



 21     owners and operators.  Requirements for the permit applica



 22     tion, as well as for the issuance and revocation process,



 23     are defined by regulations to be proposed under 40 CFR Parts



 24     122, 123, and 124.



25               Section 3005(e) of the statute provides for in-

-------
                                                                21



  1     tertm status during the tine period that the Agenc& of the



  2     states are reviewing the pending permit applications.  Speci



  3     al regulations under Section 3004 apply to facilities during



  4     this interim status period.



  5               Section 3006 requires EPA to issue guidelines



  6     under which states may seek both full and interim authoriza-



  7     tion to carry out the hazardous waste program in lieu of an



  8     EPA-administered program.  States seeking authorization in



  9     accordance with Section 3006 guidelines need to demonstrate



 1°     that their hazardous waste management regulations are con-



 'i     sistent with and equivalent, in effect, to EPA regulations



 12     under Sections 3001 through 3005.



 13               Last but not least, Section 3010 requires any per-



 14     son who generates, transports, or owns or operates a facili-



 15     ty for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste



 16     to notify EPA of this activity within 90 days after promul-



 i?     gation or revision of regulations identifying and listing a



 18     hazardous waste pursuant to Section 3001.  It is important



 i'     to note that no hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C regu-



 20     lation may be legally transported, treated, stored, or dis-



 21     posed of after the 90-day period unless this timely notifi-



 22    c ation has been given to EPA or an authorized state during



 23     the above 90-day period.  Owners and operators of inactive



 24     facilities are not required to notify.



25               As Tom mentioned, EPA intends to promulgate final

-------
                                                              22



 l     regulations under all sections of Subtitle C by December 31,



 2     1979.  However, it is important for the regulated communi-



 3     ties to understand that the regulations under Section 3001



 4     througi 3005 do not take effect until six months after



 5     promulgation.  That would be approximately June of 1980.



 6               With that as a summary of Subtitle C and the pro-



 7     posed regulations to be considered at this hearing, 1 re-



 8     turn the meeting to our Chairperson, Dorothy Darrah.



 9               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  thank you.



10               Before we get started, I would like to make a



11     couple of announcements.



12               First of all, there were some corrections to our



13     December 18 proposal.  Some of you may have been looking for



14     a lost paragraph or two or thought that sane of the numbers



15     didn't quite jibe, and 1 want to let you know that in to-



16     day's Federal Register our correction notice is being pub-



17     lished which is it's just mainly typographical errors that



18     you're just going to have to go through and change.



19               Secondly, I think you probably realize that the



20     comment period does close March 16.  We had announced in



2i     the previous preamble for 3003 that the comment period



22     would remain open until 60 days after all the regulations



23     had been proposed.  In February 7th's Federal Register



24     there was an announcement which gives you our explanation



25     for the March 16 closing date which is that we are, as Tom

-------
                                                                23



 l     mentioned, under the court-ordered promulgation schedule, so



 2     that the comment period of 3001, 3002, 3003, and 3004 does



 3     close on March 16.



 4               We do have nine speakers that I have on my list



 5     who want to speak this morning.  I think that probably most



 g     of you have kept your remarks fairly limited.  1 will not be



 7     cutting people off unless they go more than 15 minutes or



 8     so, and, also,we will probably not cut off questions for the



 9     panel unless there seems to be some line of discussion that



10     isn't getting resolved.



u               So with that, let me go ahead and call Dr. Stacy



12     Daniels from Dow Chemical to start off.



13                     STATEMENT OF STACY L. DANIELS



14               MR. DANIELS:  Good morning, Ms. Chairperson, and



15     Panel.



16               I'm Dr. Stacy L. Daniels, research specialist in



17     environmental sciences of the health and environmental



18     sciences department of Dow Chemical U.S.A.



19               As chairman of our corporate RCRA Task Group, I



20     would wish to summarize our concerns in response to the Agen-



21     cy's solicitation for a comprehensive review of all issues



22     raised by the Agency in the preamble to the Proposed Guide-



23     lines and Regulations for Hazardous Waste, the background



24     documents, and the drafts of the Environmental Impact State-



25     ment and the Economic Impact Analysis.

-------
                                                             24

                We have worked closely with the Agency, and with

      various trade associations, professional societies, and
2

      standard setting groups, over the past two years to help


      develop a consistent set of meaningful regulations for
4

      hazardous waste management that will provide adequate bene-


      fits in protection to public health and the environment
6

      from unreasonable risks while demanding realistic expendi-


      tures of resources.
8

                Toward this goal, we are providing comments per-
9

      taining to all major aspects of the draft regulations and
10

      those previously proposed.  Today we wish to summarize our


      major concerns and recommendations in three areas; one, the

12
      schedule for promulgation; two, the interpretation of ha-


      zard; and, three, the general regulation of hazardous waste
14

      management facilities.
15

                In regard to the schedule for promulgation, all
16

      regulations for Subtitle C are scheduled for promulgation in


      11979, as Jack indicated.  We agree that reflation of hazard-


      ous waste is a time-consuming and difficult undertaking re-
 17

      quiring careful assessment of many complex issues.  We state
20

      for the record that although the regulations for Sections
21

      3001, 3002, and 3004 were proposed on December 18, 1978, the
 22

      4,294 pages of background documents were not available for
 23

      review until January 8, 1979, and published copies of the
 24

      draft Environmental Impact Statement were not available for

-------
                                                              25



 1     distribution until early February.



 2               The integrated permit regulations pursuant to



 3     Section 3005 of the RCRA and the National Pollutant Dis-



 4     charge  Elimination Systems  and Underground Injection Con-



 5     trol  Programs have yet  to be proposed.   Regulations for



 6     Sections 3003, 3006,  3010,  and 4004 were previously proposed



 1     in mid-1978 before characteristics  of hazardous  waste were



 8     fully developed and will require modification.   This piece-



 9     meal proposal and promulgation has made  coherent  overall as-



10     sessment of the kaleidoscopic changes occurring  among the



11     individual sections of  the  regulations  extremely difficult.



12               We recommend,  therefore,  that the comments on all



13     sections of the regulations, the EIS, and the EIA be ac-



14     cepted  until closure  of  the comment period for the last sec-



15     tion  of Subtitle C to be proposed.



l6               In regard to  interpretations  of hazard, the inter-



17     pretation of what actually  constitutes  a hazardous waste is



18     the most critical decision  in the entire set of  regulations.



19     If characteristics of hazard, specific  listings,  and testing



20     protocols are adopted as presently  proposed, it  will result



21     in essentially all solid wastes in  many industrial and rauni-



22     cipal sectors being classified as hazardous. The total volum^



23     O£ such wastes  may exceed the total economically available



24     U.  S. disposal  capacity.  Inherent  in the Agency's interpre-



25     tation  of hazard is the  application of  the worst possible

-------
                                                               26
 1     scenario of improper management to all discarded material*.
 2     This approach does not recognize that there are varying de-
 3     grees of hazard and that hazard is a function of both ef-
 4     feet and exposure.  The Agency has confused characteristics
 5     of effect with characteristics of exposure.  Certain charac-
 6     teristics of effect, such as toxicity and outagenicity, arc
 7     overemphasized while other characteristics of exposure, such
 8     as persistence and degradability, are generally ignored.
 9               We recommend that the characteristics of both ex-
10     posure and effect be restructured to recognize the degrees
11     of hazard.
12               Ihe quantity of waste constituting generation has
13     been a major issue.  Ihe Agency has proposed a conservative
14     exclusion of 100 kilogram per month or less from these regu-
15     lations.  A higher level of 1,000 kilograms per month is
16     considered within the EIS and EIA.  The approach of hazard
17     because of quantity alone, however, does not recognize the
18     associated factors of concentration and chemical form; that
19     is, availability, which together quantitate exppsure.
20               Ihe  Agency has attempted to regulate certain
21     large-volume, low-hazard wastes by either specific exclusion
22     such as sludges from publicly-owned treatment works, POIWs,
23     or by creation of six special waste standards within RCRA.
24     We agree with the categorization based on both hazard and
25     volume.  We do not agree that sludges from non-POIWs are

-------
                                                              27
i    categorically more hazardous  than sludges from POTWs.
2              Me recommend  that reasonable levels of exclusion
3    be established and the  factors of concentration and chemical
4    form as well as quantity be considered.
5              The Agency has proposed a maximum of three months
6    beyond which a discarded material is allowed only in per-
7    mitted storage facilities.  This limit is overly stringent
8    and does not recognize  many commercial operations of reclama-
9    tion and reuse which occur further in time.  The Agency has
10    moderated their original approach and now proposes to allow
n    certain used materials  to be  reused such as not to constitute
12    disposal.  The recovery of energy values from used oils and
13    other materials, an objective of the RCRA, however, has not
14    been accepted.
15              We recommend  that the storage period for materials
16    that are used for energy and/or material recovery be extendec
17    to one year.
18              A dichotomy exists  in the listing and delisting of
19    specific hazardous waste, sources, and processes.  Testing
20    for inclusion is restricted to only four characteristics:
21    ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, and toxicity, for
22    which specific testing  protocols were considered to be avail-
23    able for verification or refutation.  Testing for exclusion,
24    however, includes additional characteristics:  mutagenfcity,
25    bioaccumulation, and toxic organic substance, for which

-------
                                                             28
 1    testing protocols are unavailable and which are still under
 2    consideration within the ANPR.
 3              We recommend that all  listings based solely on  the
 4    characteristics of mutagenicity, bioaccumulatton, and toxic
 5    organic substance be delayed pending further review.
 6              And the third area, hazardous waste management
 7    facilities--the Agency has recognized that many operations
 8    involving storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous
 9    wastes may be fully integrated within the same corporation
10    and conducted entirely at a single site.  We encourage thin
11    approach which reduces duplicate monitoring and reporting.
12    Sufficient latitude should be given, however, to the inter-
13    pretation of "on-site".  This will avoid needless duplication
14    of facilities for locations in proximity but not necessarily
15    geographically contiguous.
16              We recommend that "on-site", therefore, be inter-
17    preted to mean on the same or geographically contiguous
18    property, or on adjacent property separated by rights-of-way,
1'    or within reasonable proximity.
20              The adequacy of solid waste management facilities
21    (4004 facilities) does not prevent the disposal of  low-hazard
22    wastes therein, but rather it is the supposed lack  of con-
23    trol over transport and the potential for mixing with de-
24    gradable, nonhazardous waste which could develop into a
25    hazardous condition.  Manifesting could be required, however,

-------
                                                                29
 l    from the generators of all industrial wastes transported off-
 2    site while providing the option for segregated disposal of
 3    certain low-hazard wastes into solid waste management facili-
 4    ties.
 5              We recommend that disposal of low-hazard wastes be
      allowed in segregated solid waste management facilities.
                Another major concern is the overspecification of
      design and operational guidelines by the Agency.  We be-
 9    lieve that the regulations would be greatly streamlined by
 10    prescribing what performance is required and allowing flexi-
      bility in what procedure be used.  Overspecification of pro-
 12    cedural guidelines complicates the regulations, restricts
 13    flexibility of choice, and demands demonstration of equi-
 14    valent performance to obtain variances using alternative
      procedures.  The combined effect is the suppressed develop-
      merit of new technologies and more cost-effective solutions.
 17              Effective destruction of hazardous wastes is ob-
 18    viously preferrable to perpetual care.  The overly stringent
 19    procedand. guidelines for incineration, however, may force
 20    the disposal of wastes by less desirable modes of disposal.
 21     The Agency contends that solid wastes require greater manage-
 22    ment than pure materials or the same wastes under existing
 23    Air, water, wastewater, transport, or occupational safety
 24     regulations.  Yet the Agency has transferred wholesale lists
25     of hazardous materials, testing protocols, and operating

-------
                                                               30
 1      standards from regulations developed for pure materials for
 2     different reasons.
 3               We recommend that all procedural guidelines be
 4     deleted and provided in a manual of recommended practices.
 5               There are several examples of regulatory overlap
 6     in the proposed regulations.  We object to the specific in-
 7     elusion of surface  impoundments and basintt, and other
 8     facilities which are used exclusively for chemical, physi-
 9      cal, or biological  treatment of dilute aqueous wastes.
 10      Such facilities are already adequately regulated under the
 11      Clean Water Act. We also object to the inclusion of oil
 12      production brines as special waste.  Such brines are speci-
 13      fically cited and are to be regulated within the Under-
 14      ground Injection Control program of the Safe Drinking Water
 15      Act.
 16                We recommend removal of unwarranted regulatory
 17      overlaps pertaining to wastewater treatment facilities and
 18      underground injection control facilities.
 1'                The Agency has relied heavily on waste-specific
 20      standards of management but applies industry-specific staji-
 21      dards to listing of processes by Standard Industrial Code.
 22      The proposed regulations reflect standards that do not va.ry
 23      according to the source and the contention that most hazard-
 24      ous wastes require  similar management techniques.  The Agen-
25      Cy contends, however, that hazard is a result of improper

-------
                                                                31



 1     management which  indeed is dependent upon site-specific



 2     disposal operations.  We encourage the consideration of



 3     waste-specific effects and site-specific exposures.



 4               We recommend that waste-specific effects and site-



 5     specific exposures be considered in the regulations.



 6               The Agency has considered the possible phasing of



 7     the Subtitle C program within the EIS by progressively re-



 3     dueing the quantity of waste constituting generation and the



 9     time of storage over a period of five years, and by peri-



10     odicaliyproposing additional characteristics of hazard and



n     new listings of specific wastes.  We agree that hazardous



12     waste management  is a dynamic situation subject to future



13     assessment of new data and technology.  We do not believe,



14     however, that phased implementation of the regulations will



15     serve any useful  purpose and will result only in further



15     confusion.



17               We recommend, therefore, that phased implementa-



13     tion be discouraged.



19               We will provide detailed comments on specific



20     sections of the regulations at future hearings, and thank



2i     you for the opportunity.



22               This concludes the remarks. I have an attachment



23     to these comments, a bibliography of our papers, comments,



24     testimonies, and previous presentations on solid and hazard-



25     ous wastes.

-------
i               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Dr. Daniel*, thank you.



2               Would you answer questions from the panel, pleane.



3               DR. DANIELS:  Yes, I would.



4               MR. LINDSEX:  Dr. Daniels, one of your recomneniia-



5     tions which I would like to explore  a little further if we



6     could, you say that we recommend that storage period for



7     materials that are used for energy and/or material recovery



8     be extended to one year.  It was our intent with the who lit



9     90-day storage, I guess you could call it exclusion, the



10     intent here is to allow the accumulation of economic quan-



11     tities for shipment off site without unduly burdening the



12     nation with paperwork that might not be needed.  We were



13     afraid, however, that if the storage goes on too long with-



14     out, in an uncontrolled manner; that is, without permits



15     and so forth involved, that we would begin to see the de-



16     terioration of drums and other containers in some fashion.



17     Do you think we are off base on that, that we can safely go



13     to a year in that regard?



19               DR. DANIELS:  I think the original assumption is



20     flawed partly in that you are assuming that all materials



21     will be going off site for recovery.  I am also considering



22     on-site recovery, particularly those plants that generate



23     materials for recovery that are block operated or operated



24     on seasonal products, and these require more extended stor-



25     age periods or, for example, the dredging of a lagoon once a

-------
                                                                33



 l      year  or something like  this  for recovery of the material,



 2      something that is over  a longer time period.



 3                MR.  CORSON:   The  last comment that  you offered had



 4      to do with your concerns about the phased implementation;



 5      and in  that, you indicated  that we do intend  to add to the



 6      lists,  we further intend to  possibly add characteristics.



 7      Are you suggesting that you  think we should either hold up



 8      until we have  all of  the characteristics of concern,  all



 9      the lists of concern, before we promulgate or propose, or



10      that  we should take what we  have gotten and quit at that



11      point?



12                DR.  DANIELS:   I guess that was primarily directed



13      at the  phase implementation  of the quantity from a million



14      kilograms per  month down to  100 kilograms per month within



15      five  years or  the storage period from twelve  months down to



16      three months within a five-year period.   I think that's



17      just  a  target  and doesn't serve the purpose.



18                With regards  to the list and things like this, I



19      believe that there should be further justification for



20      quite a number of the compounds on the appendicized list



21      because,  while the Agency is contending that  there may be



22      160 odd processes in hazardous wastes, by the time you add



23      up all  the materials in the  appendices,  this  could be



24      several thousand.



25                With regards  to the characteristics,  I firmly be-

-------
                                                                34
 l     lieve that there are a number of characteristics which just

 2     definitely require further consideration before they are

 3     promulgated in the form presently proposed.

 4               MR. CORSON:  One other question area, I think

 5     right at the beginning, your concerns about interpretation

 5     of hazard, and you have indicated in your comments some de~

 7     sire or a need you feel for categorizing certain wastes by

 8     degree of hazard.  As you are aware, I'm sure, in the pre-

 9     amble, we did indicate at least in a discussion with regard

10     to small quantity generation that we are considering or

11     will be considering some relation of that small quantity to

12     degree of hazard.  I am wondering whether you can possibly

13     furnish to us in your written comments, if not today, what

14     thoughts you might have on how we might take care of degree

15     of hazard, particularly as we consider the waste movement

16     through its normal pathways from the generator to disposal,

17     recognizing that degree can change at each of die steps

18     along the line.

19               DR. DANIELS:  We have that intention, to provide

20     an alternative classification of hazard to the Agency, be-

21     cause we feel that the Agency has already recognized three

22     and possibly four different areas of hazard from the special

23     wastes under the 3004, the 4004 wastes, and also the small

24     generators already, and what we are proposing in addition,

25     that there should be a tiered approach within the 3004, and

-------
                                                               35
 l     this could result in either an increase or a decrease in the
 2     quantity per month that would constitute hazard, but it also
 3     should recognize concentration and both effect and expo-
 4     sure.
 5               MR. JORLING:  I have just one question on that
 6     theme.  Does Dow presently categorize its waste according
 7     to relative hazard?
 8               DR. DANIELS:  Yes, we do.
 9               MR. JORLING:  Could you make that categorization
10     available for the record?
n               DR. DANIELS:  We have already submitted a previous
12     document, about one year ago, to this effect.
13               MS. SCHAFFER:  Dr. Daniels, I have a couple of
14     questions, one going back to Fred's question concerning the
15     length of time for storage.  If you think we should extend
16     the storage period for energy and material to be recovered,
17     how can we or can you give us some suggestions as to how we
18     can enforce that storage versus storage of other material
19     that is Just being sent off site, so that we can tell the
20     difference between what is going to be used as energy and
21     recovered material versus that which is just being gathered
22     for economic transportation?
23               DR. DANIELS:  Sometimes it is not easy to separate
24     energy recovery from material recovery.  In some cases, you
25     are recovering both energy and material from tie same product

-------
                                                                36
 1     One of the concerns that is hard for both sides really is

 2     the accumulation of a material in a storage tank that is

 3     constantly being depleted on the other end for resource re-

 4     covery, and this inventory problem is something that should

 5     be addressed within the regulations rather than a discreet

 6     amount of waste that is being piled up for off-site re-

 7     covery.

 8               IC.SCHAFFER:  One other question concerns your

 9     definition of on-site rather.  You said that we should ex-

10     tend the definition of on-site to include sites within rca-

ll     sonable proximity.  Can you give us an example of what you

12     mean by reasonable proximity?

13               DR. DANIELS:  Some of the states have had probably

U     extreme limits of upwards of 50 miles or so.  I don't be-

15     lieve that that type of a number is useful; but if there

16     are plants that are across the street from each other but

17     down the road apiece, this should be considered so that you

18     don't have to build a several million dollar incinerator on

19     both sides to take care of essentially the same waste, or

20     possibly two or three plants located in the same town.

2i               MS. SCHAFFER:  Thank you very much.

22               MR. MC LAUGHLIM:  Doctor, one further question.

23     Some of the states have been allowing surface impoundments

24     to go into operation that are designed to leak, and it is

25     my understanding that this regulation is meant as an attempt

-------
                                                               37



      to plug that hole in the regulatory programs of the states

 2
      that are allowing the discharge, direct discharge, of haz-


      ardous materials into the ground water, and I don't under-

 4
      stand your allusion that there is an overlap here.


                DR. DANIELS:  I am thinking specifically of those

 6
      that are in the train of the waste water treatment plant;


      the basins,clarifiers, large containments such as that

 8
      where waste is in a dilute form flowing through, sludge is

 9
      removed and treated effluent is discharged.  This is strict-


      ly an N.P.D.S. facility.


                MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  But N.P.D.S. facilities do not

12
      cover impoundments that do not have a discharge, and many

13
      of these impoundments are built so that they don't have a

14
      discharge to avoid an N.ED.S. permit, yet they leak out the


      bottom, and they still avoid an N.P.D.S. permit.

16
                DR. DANIELS:  But that's not entirely clear by the

17
      regulations.


                MR. LEHMAN:  Dr. Daniels, I'd like to clarify that

19
      if I might, you alluded to the fact that the Agency had pro-

20
      vided specific exclusion, for example, sludges from publicly

21
     owned treatment works, and then later-on you say:

22
                 Ve do not agree that sludges from non-POTWs are

23
      categorically more hazardous than sludges from POTWs.

24
                I would like to, just for the record, make it

25
      clear that the Agency intends to regulate sludge management

-------
                                                               3d
 1     from POTW's under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act, and,
 2     in effect, the Agency has dual authority under RCRA and
 3     under the Water Act, and we do not intend to allow POTW
 4     sludges to escape any regulatory permit.
 5               DR. DANIELS:  Yes, we recognize that, Jack.  It'«
 6     just that we feel that sanitary sludges from non-POTWs
 7     should be in the same category, realizing that there is some
 8     difficulty in transferring those type of sludges from Sec-
 9     tion 405 of the Clean Water Act.
10               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I just wanted to clarify one
n     remark you made.  When you I think answered Fred's question,
12     you said that other than the four characteristics for which
13     we give tests you didn't agree that we should be basing
14     listings on the mutagenicity, bioaccumulation, and toxic
15     organic, and then you later said that there were some charac
'6     teristics that you thought weren't well developed enough.
17     Were you referring to specifically those characteristics
18     rather than the four?
19               DR. DANIELS:  Yes, the ones in the ANFR; muta-
20     genicity, bioaccumulation—that one, incidentally, is the
21     one with some merit which we will comment on later; but bio-
22     accumulation by itself should not be a characteristic of
23     hazard.  We feel that this dichotomy of requiring testing
24     for delisting but not testing for listing indicates that
25     these petitions to put these compounds on lists should be re

-------
                                                                  3
  l      solved.  We  don't  believe  that  the method*  are  currently

  2      available  for  these  particular  characteristics  that are

  3      cited within the  ANPR at  this  present  time and require

  4      further study.

  5                MR.  LINDSEY:   You are referring to the protocols

  6      for delisting?

  7                DR.  DANIELS:   Yes,  they are required,  but yet

  3      they are only  offered in the  ANPR.

  9                MR.  LINDSEY:   You feel that they  are  not suf-

 10      ficiently  available  or developed to do  that?

 n                DR.  DANIELS:   No.

 12                MR.  LINDSEY:   As opposed to that,  then what al-

 13      ternative  approach would you  recommend  for  delisting, if

 14      you will,  if we don't use some  sort of  testing  protocols,

 ]5      and what other option would there be, or are you saying we

 16      should not have any  means of  delisting?

 ]7                DR.  DANIELS:   Definitely there should  be a means

 is      for delisting, but they  should  be limited to tb«-  four char-

 19      acteristics  for which there are tests.

 20                MR. LINDSEY:   In other words, the  only way to get

 2]      on the list  is by meeting one of the characteristics that's

 22      under the  previous section, then, right?

 23                DR. DANIELS:   that has acceptable  tests.

 24                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Thank you very much.

25                 (The document  referred to follows:

                              HEARING  INSERT

-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
      Hazardous Waste Management
           General Comments




                  by




          Dow Chemical U.S.A.




                to the




 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency




  Hazardous Waste Management Division




        Office of Solid Waste
            Public Hearing




          St. Louis, Missouri
           February  It,  1979

-------
Mr. Chairman, I am Dr. Stacy L. Daniels, Research Specialist




in Environmental Sciences in the Health and Environmental




Sciences Department of Dow Chemical U.S.A.  As Chairman of




our corporate RCRA Task Force, I wish to summarize  our con-




cerns in response to the Agency's solicitation for  a compre-




hensive review of all issues raised by the Agency in the pre-




amble of the Proposed Guidelines and Regulations for Hazardous




Waste (43 FR 58946-9, December 18, 1978), the background docu-




ments, and the drafts of the Environmental Impact Statement




(EIS) and the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA).









We have worked closely with the Agency, and with various trade




associations, professional societies, and standard  setting groups,




over the past two years to help develop a consistent set of




meaningful regulations for hazardous wa<3te management that




will provide adequate benefits in protection of public health




and the environment from unreasonable risks while demanding




realistic expenditures of resources.  Toward this goal, we have




provided comments pertaining to all major aspects of the draft




regulations and those previously proposed.  Today we wish to




summarize our major concerns regarding:  Cl) the schedule for




pr-mulgation, (2) the interpretation of hazard, and  (3) the




general regulation of hazardous waste management facilities.

-------
                             -2-
(1)  Schedule for Promulgation






All regulations for Subtitle C are scheduled for promulgation




in 1979.  We agree that regulation of hazardous waste is a




time consuming and difficult undertaking requiring careful




assessment of many complex issues.  We state for the record




that although the regulations for Sections 3001, 3002, and




3004 were proposed on December 18, 1978, the 4,294 pages of




background documents were not available for review until




January 8, 1979, and published copies of the draft Environ-




mental Impact Statement (EIS) were not available for distri-




bution until early February.  The integrated permit regulations




pursuant to Section 3005 of the RCRA and the National Pollutant




Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) and  Underground Injection




Control (UIC) programs, have yet to be proposed,,  Regulations




for Sections 3003, 3006, 3010, and 4004 were previously  proposed




in mid-1978 before characteristics of hazardous waste were




fully developed and will require modification.  This piece-meal




proposal and promulgation has made coherent overall assessment




of the kaleidoscopic changes occurring among the individual




Sections of the regulations extremely difficult.

-------
                             -3-
We recommend that comments on all  Sections  of  the  regulations,
the EIS, and the EIA be accepted until  closure  of  the  comnent
period for the last Section of  Subtitle C to be proposed.

-------
                             -4-
(2 )  Interpretations of Hazard


The interpretation of what actually constitutes a hazardous

waste is the most critical decision in the entire set of

regulations.  If characteristics of hazard, specific listings,

and testing protocols are adopted as presently proposed, it will

result in essentially all solid wastes in many industrial and

municipal sectors being classified as hazardous.  The total

volume of such wastes may exceed the total economically available

U.S. disposal capacity.  Inherent in the Agency's interpretation

of hazard is the application of the worst possible scenario

of improper management to all discarded materials''1.  This approach

does not recognize that there are varying degrees of hazard

and that hazard is a function of both effect and exposure.

The Agency has confused characteristics of effect with character-

istics of exposure.  Certain characteristics of effect, such

as toxicity and mutagenicity, are overemphasized while other

characteristics of exposure, such as persistence and degrada-

bility, are generally ignored.



We recommend that the characteristics of both exposure and

effect be restructured to recognize degrees of hazard.
"Unsegregated disposal of hazardous and solid wastes in an
 unlined landfill and subject to biological degradation
 resulting in leachate capable of migrating with  only minimal
 attenuation directly into an underlying aquifer  which is an
 immediate source of drinking water.

-------
                             -5-
The quantity of waste constituting generation has been a major




issue.  The Agency has proposed a conservative exclusion of




100 kg/mo or less from these regulations.  A higher level of




1000 kg/mo is considered within the EIS and EIA.  The approach




of hazard because of quantity alone, however, does not recog-




nize the associated factors of concentration and chemical form




(availability) which together quantitate exposure.









The Agency has attempted to regulate certain large-volume,




low-hazard wastes by either specific exclusion, e.g. sludges




from publically owned treatment works  (POTW's), or by creation




of six special waste standards within  RCRA.  We agree with




categorization based on both hazard and volume (quantity).




We do not agree that sludges from non-POTW's are categorially




more hazardous than sludges from POTW's.









We recommend that reasonable levels of exclusion be established




 and the factors of concentration and  chemical form as well




as quantity be considered.








The Agency has proposed a maximum of three months beyond which




a discarded material is allowed only in permitted storage faci-




lity.  This limit is overly stringent  and does not recognize many




commerical operations of reclamation and reuse which extend

-------
                             -6-
further in time.  The Agency has moderated their original




approach and now proposes to allow certain used materials to




be reused such as not to constitute disposal.  The recovery




of energy values from used oils and other materials  (an




objective of the RCRA), however, has not been accepted.









We recommend that the storage period for materials that




are used for energy and/or material recovery be extended




to one year.









A dichotomy exists in the listing and delisting of specific




hazardous wastes, sources, and processes.  Testing for




inclusion is restricted to only four characteristics  [ignita-




bility (I), corrosiveness-(C), r-eactivity (R), and toxicity  (T)]




for which specific testing protocols were considered  to be




available for verification or refutation.  Testing for exclu-




sion, however, includes additional characteristics [mutagenicity




(M), bioaccumulation (B), and toxic organic  substance  (0)] for




which testing protocols are unavailable  and  which are  still




under consideration within the ANPR.









We recommend that all listings based solely  on the character-




istics of mutagenicity, bioaccumulation, and toxic organic




substance (M,B,0) be delayed pending further review.

-------
                              -7-
(3)  Hazardous Waste Management  Facilities



The Agency has recognized that many  operations  involving


storage, treatment, and disposal  of  hazardous wastes  may  be


fully integrated within the  same  corporation  and  conducted

entirely at a single site.   We encourage  this approach  which


reduces duplicate monitoring and  reporting.   Sufficient lati-


tude should be given,  however, to the  interpretation  of "on-


site" to avoid needless duplication  of facilities for locations


in proximity but not necessary geographically contiguous.





We recommend that "on-site"  be interpreted  to mean on the


same or geographically contiguous property,  or  on adjacent


property separated by rights-of-way, or within  reasonable


proximity.




The adequacy of solid waste  management facilities (M-004 facili-


ties) does not prevent the disposal  of low-hazard wastes  therein,

          .•f
but rather^is the supposed lack  of control  over transport and


th.e potential for mixing with degradable, non-hazardous waste


which could develop into a hazardous condition.  Manifesting


could be required, however,  from  the generators of all  indus-


trial wastes transported off-site while providing the option


for segregated disposal of certain low-hazard wastes  into solid


waste management facilities.





We recommend that disposal of low-hazard  wastes be allowed


in segregated solid waste management facilities.

-------
                             -8-
Another major concern is the overspecification of design and




operational guidelines by the Agency.  We believe that the




regulations would be greatly streamlined by prescribing what




performance is required and allowing flexibility in what




procedure is used.  Overspecification of procedural guidelines




complicates the regulations, restricts flexibility of choice,




and demands demonstration of equivalent performance to obtain




variances using alternative procedures.  The combined effect




is the suppressed development of new technologies and more




cost-effective solutions.









Effective destruction of hazardous wastes is obviously pre-




ferrable to perpetual care.  The overly stringent procedural




guidelines for incinerati'on, however, may fo^ce the disposal




of wastes by less desirable modes of disposal.   The Agency




contends that solid wastes require greater management than pure




materials or the same wastes under existing air, water, waste-




water, transport, or occupational safety regulations.  Yet the




Agency has transferred wholesale lists of hazardous materials,




testing protocols, and operating standards from regulations




developed for pure materials for different reasons.









We recommend that all procedural guidelines be deleted and




provided in a manual of recommended practices.

-------
                              -9-
There are several examples of regulatory overlap in the proposed




regulations.  We object to the specific inclusion of surface




impoundments and basins, and other facilites which are used




exlusively for chemical, physical, or biological treatment




of dilute aqueous wastes.  Such facilities are already adequately




regulated under the Cl^an Water Act.  We also object to the




inclusion of oil production brines as special waste.  Such




brines are specifically cited and are to be regulated within




the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program of the Safe




Drinking Water Act.









We recommend removal of unwarranted regulatory overlaps per-




taining to wastewater treatment facilities.









The Agency has relied heavily on waste-specific standards of




management but applies industry-specific standards to listingof




of processes by SIC*.  The proposed regulations reflect:  (a)




standards that do not vary according to the source and (b)




the contention that most hazardous wastes require similar




management techniques.  The Agency contends, however, that




hazard is a result of improper management which indeed is




dependent upon site-specific disposal operations.  We encourage




the consideration of waste-specific effects and site-specific




exposures.









We recommend that waste-specific effects and site-specific




exposures be considered in the regulations.









'"'Standard Industrial Codes

-------
                            -10-
The Agency has considered the possible phasing of the Subtitle C




program within the EIS by progressively reducing the quantity




of waste constituting generation (1,075,000 to 100 kg/mo)




and the time of storage (12 to 3 mos) over a period of five




years, and by periodically proposing additional characteristics




of hazard and new listings of specific wastes.  We agree that




hazardous wastes management is a dynamic situation subject




to future assessment of new data and technologies.  We do




not believe, however, that phased implementation of the regula-




tions will serve any useful purpose and will result only in




further confusion.









We recommend that phased implementation be discouraged.









We will provide detailed comments on specific Sections of the




regulations at future hearings.  Thank you for the opportunity




•to summarize our general concerns.
ATTACHMENT




Bibliography of papers, comments, testimonies, and presentations




on solid and hazardous wastes by Dow Chemical U.S.A.

-------
                     BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.  Beale,  J. S., Industrial Wastes,  Hazardous Waste and Dow
    Chemical U.S.A., presented at a meeting of the Illinois
    EPA, September 6-7, 1978.

2.  Beale,  J. S., The Future of the RCRA - Let's Do It Right:,
    presented as part of a panel on Managing Hazardous Waste -
    What Change Is Ahead, International Waste Equipment and
    Technology Exposition, sponsored by the National Solid
    Waste Management Association, San Francisco, California,
    September 21, 1978.

3.  Daniels, S. L., Product Stewardship for Chemicals Used in
    Water and Wastewater Treatment, Proceedings of the 1974
    National Conference on Control of Hazardous Materials Spills,
    San Francisco, AIChE, New York, 1974, pp. 31-37.

4.  Daniels, S. L., and Beale, J. S., Perspectives of Solid and
    Hazardous Waste Management as Impacted by the Resource
    Conservation and Recovery Act, to be presented at the
    Symposium on Solid Waste Disposal, AIChE 86th National
    Meeting, Houston, TX April 4, 1979.

5.  Daniels, S. L., and Conyers, E. S., Land Disposal of
    Chemically Treated Waters and Sludges, in Proceedings of
    the Second National Conference on Complete WateReuse,
    Chicago, Illinois, May 4-8, 1975, pp. 697-704.

-------
                             -2-
 6.   Daniels,  S.  L.,  The  Role  of  Producers  of  Chemical Waste/



     presented as part  of a  panel discussion,  Sixth National



     Congress  on  Waste  Management Technology and  Resource  &



     Energy  Recovery, cosponsored by  the  National Solid Waste



     Management Association  and the U.S.  Environmental Pro-



     tection Agency,  November  14,  1977.








 7.   Daniels,  S.  L.,  The  Impact of the Resource Conservation



     and Recovery Act (PL 94-580)  on  Hazardous Chemical Waste



     Management,  presented at  the Symposium on Land Application



     Technology for Industrial Wastes,  AIChE 70th Annual Meeting,



     New York, November 17,  1977;  also presented  at the Fall



     Scientific Meeting,  Midland, Michigna, October 29, 1977.








 8.   Daniels,  S.  L.,  Perspectives of  Governmental Impact on



     Industry  - Environmental  Evaluation, presented at the



     34th Fall Scientific Meeting, Midland, Michigan, November 4,



     1978.







 9.   Daniels,  S.  L.,  Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act



     (RCRA)  and the Management of Hazardous Solid Wastes,



     presented at the 34th Fall  Scientific Meeting, Midland,



     Michigan, November 4, 1978.








10.   Hamaker,  J.  W.,  Interpretation of Soil Leaching  Experiments,



     in "Chemicals, Human Health, and the Environment", Vol.  I,



     pp. 21-30, Form No.  160-592-75.

-------
                             -3-
11.  Moolenaar, R. J., Conyers, E. S., Plynn, J. P., Hyser,



     W. D., Matthews, R. E., and Novak, R. G., Land Disposal



     of Solid Wastes, in "Chemicals, Human Health and the



     Environment", Vol. 2, pp. 156-171, available from Dow



     Chemical U.S.A. Form No. 160-801-77

-------
                             -4-
Comments, Testimonies,  and Presentations





1.  Daniels, S. L., Comments on Hazardous Waste Guidelines



    and  Regulations, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,



    letter to Alan Corson, U.S. EPA July 1, 1977.








2.  Daniels, S. L., Comments on Prior Notice of Citizen Suits,



    letter to Jeffrey L.  Lilliker, U. S. EPA, July  29, 1977.








3.  Daniels, S. L., Comments on Solid Waste Planning and Dis-



    posal, letter to Kenneth A. Shuster, U.S. EPA,  August  5,



    1977.








4.  Daniels, S. L., Testimony  on Draft Proposed Regulations



    for  Hazardous Waste Management, Public Meeting  on PL 94-580



    conducted by the U.S.  EPA, Rosslyn, Virginia, October  11,



    1977.








5.  Daniels, S. L., Comments on RCRA Draft REgulations -



    Hazardous Waste Management, letter to John P. Lehman,



    U.S. EPA, December  23, 1977.








6.  Sercu, C. L.,  Comments on  Public Participation  in  Solid



    Waste Management,  letter to Steffan Plehn, U.S. EPA,



    February 16,  1978.








7.  Daigre,  G.  W.,  Testimony on State  Hazardous  Waste  Programs -



    Proposed Guidelines,  Public Meeting on  PL 94-580,  Section 3006,



    conducted by  the  U.S. EPA, New Orleans,  Louisiana,  March 29, 1978

-------
                             -5-
 8.   Daniels,  S.  L.,  Comments on State Hazardous Waste Programs -
     Proposed  Guidelines,  letter to Steffan Plehn,  U.S.  EPA,
     March 31, 1978.

 9.   Beale, J. S., Testimony on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities -
     Proposed  Criteria for Classification,  Public Meeting on
     PL 94-580, Sections,  1008(a)  and 4004 (a),  conducted by the
     U.S.  EPA, Kansas City, Missouri, April 24,  1978.

10.   Daniels,  S.  L.,  and Gledhill,  J.  R. , DOW Concerns on RCRA,
     presentation to  staff of House Oversight  Subcommittee and
     General Accoungting Office, Hay 2, 1978.

11.   Daniels,  S.  L.,  Proposed Criteria for  Classification -
     Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, letter to Kenneth A.
     Shuster,  U.S. EPA, June 12, 1978.

12.   Daniels,  S.  L.,  Comments on Draft Regulations for Criteria,
     Identification Methods, and Listing of Hazardous Waste
     (3/24/78), letter to Alan Corson, U.S. EPA, June 19, 1978.

13.   Daniels,  S.  L.,  Beale, J.  S.,  and Fagley, R. ,  Dow Concerns
     on RCRA,  presentation to EPA  Office  of  Solid Waste  personnel,
     June  21,  1978.

14.   Beemer, B.,  Testimony on Proposed Procedures for Prelimi-
     nary Notification of Hazardous Waste Activities, Public
     Meeting on PL 94-580, Section 3010, conducted by the U.S.
     EPA, San Francisco, California, August 24,  1978.

-------
                              -6-
15.  Daniels, S. L., Testimony on the Proposed Schedule of



     Regulations and Guidelines, Public Meeting on PL 94-580,



     Washington, D.C., September 15, 1978.

-------
                                                                                                                   ©
                                                          A^/' curvet.,  a — «$  \[) £cc^.

                                                *     '

                                                                     jJ-0^ f  £/
                                                                        '                           &
r
                                         U'&JlSUl
                                                                                                      [/
                                     *




                                     f&-v 4^t~4Hji~-<-*-' Xx-»- A^t? d&i&*sutj(

                                                                                                 .<3t»< ,fcJ^H^L
                                     'tf               /     0                                 (/


-------
<

                                                                          JZ^stSLy,  *&£J?-T^ .
  /


^r  S-£
    X
                     %*\&U~-U ii/Hjfe^,    i^^  ?r^K^£~ £&*."£- Oo
                   ex                     -*
                                        &-**-e'-c^-*~jt&.  f/ &-^*>*  l-VR^iJ&x.  ti-,
                                                          0
                                                            )/fis^jJ&r-CCc^—f ^   C2&*
          /

                            J                           d-               -pj   .jt ff
              <2>^-*&sr^4**~jC~ &Sl~~a^^sr>SlJji^ /(ZA^, ^?)  f ^fjLj^hiAj.0  "Z-CJ2,
                   (37 L4S*L-a~te*i-s  {-v^t-s (_Si-tU*^e^ .
                                                                                    ^"2t*-
   /Uk^ffr^-Uivr^/
                              USL*^*-  <*-**- -*-?^~t^<-A*4.  .

                                                      ' £S_.

-------
STJHI*JL£L—. cst>->>~**
-------
0                           P          '  /
^-y-^/\_A^^M^tx^-^L   ^-^
                                                   2— vJL T_^x   f) -*?'! i-C "T- '
                                                          /H'i^
                                                                     ^C<~t~
                                                                                         ,

                                                                                V

-------

-------
             ._ (!
wn^ ^i
         3D




 
-------
      /


                t**4i^
-------
            -  2 2,6



              /      ^
'^eJLt*
           I
                                                            /
                                         L? ^ -
                                    b^i

-------
s r


-------
Z.

-------
                                                                 40



 1               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   la Dr.  Barry Commoner here?



 2                    STATEMENT OF BARRY COMMONER



 3               DR. COMMONER:  I don't have  any  written  remarks,



 4     but I will be glad to take a few minutes to share  with you



 5     some thoughts about the regulations and the problems that



 6     lie behind them.



 7               First, I am not particularly concerned with the  de-



 8     tails of the regulations, although I will  make a few remarks



 9     about that.   I think there are general problems that the



10     regulations are going to run into as they  develop, and I



11     want to discuss those.



12               The first question I want to take up is  why are



13     these regulations needed, what is there about the  industry



14     that produces these wastes that leads  at this late date, be-



15     cause the industry developed very rapidly  after World War  II



16     why is it that now, 30 years later or  more, we suddenly have



17     to have fairly stringent regulations to control the indus-



18     try.



19               For example, when the explosives industry was



20     developed, everyone knew right away that you needed regula-



21     tions.   Why the lag in this case?  Well, in my opinion, the



22     reason for the lag is that the industry failed to recognize



23     from the beginning that it was dealing with inherently dan-



24     gem us  substances.   What I am saying quite specifically is



25     that the post-war development, particularly of the synthetic

-------

-------
 1     chemical industry, represented the production of very large



 2     amounts of materials, which on their face, siaply by their



 3     chemical composition, needed to be regard as inherently



 4     capable of causing serious biological effects.



 5               I'll be very  blu**..  Synthetic organic chemicals



 6     should be regarded as probably dangerous until proved other-



 7     wise, biologically.



 8               Now, why do I say that?  I say that because bio-



 9     logical systems, which goes on in living cells, carry out



10     their basic functions by means of reactions among organic



11     chemicals generally of the type that appear in the industry.



'2     Biere are benzene rings, et cetera, all of these things are



'3     there.



14               Now, unlike the petrochemical industry, the living



15     system has had three billion years in which to correct its



]6     mistakes.  What I mean by that is that the living chemical



17     system has evolved over a three billion year period, and



18     those chemicals which are incompatible with the chemistry of



19     the cell are rejected during the course of evolution.  To



20     put it very simply, my guess is that maybe two billion years



21     ago, some cell took it into his head to synthesize DTT and



22     hasn't been heard from since.



23               What that means practically is this, that an or-



24     ganic chemical that does not occur in living things is very



25     likely to be an evolutionary reject, and, therefore, if syn-

-------
                                                               42
 1     thetically made and introduced into the living environment,
 2     may well cause trouble.  Now, I think there if a good deal
 3     of evidence that that is exactly what happened.  In other
 4     words, you take the love Canal kind of situation, which ob-
 5     viously is going to be reproduced all over the country, it's
 6     clear that when that material was dumped, the industry wan
 7     unaware that it contained materials which would have seri-
 8     ous biological effects.  At that time, for example, very
 9     little was known about the numbers of chemicals that caused
10     mutations and cancer.  One of the interesting things that
11     has been happening is that the numbers of chemicals that we
12     now know cause cancer has been going up year by year.  In
13     other words, in the last ten years, the number of new car-
14     cinogens discovered was twice the number discovered in the:
15     preceding ten years.
16               Now, there are two reasons for that.  One is that
17     the industry keeps making new materials, and the other is
18     that more  research is being done to detect these things.
19     So the point I am making is that you are dealing with a situ
20,    ation which involves unknown hazards that are built into the
21     structure of the industry.
22               At this point I want to remark about a comment
23     made by the previous witness having to do with the detection
24     of mutagens.  As I understood it, the Dow position is that
25     mutagenicity should not be used at this time as an index of

-------
                                                                43
 i    degree of hazard, and I think  that  is a very bad  idea;  that
 2    is, the Dow idea, because it so happens that the  mutagenicit
 3    is probably the easiest and most sensitive way  to detect
 4    biologically hazardous wastes.
 5              As you probably know, there are very  rapid- met-
 6    hods for detecting mutagens.   Or I will put it  to you again
 7    in a very simple, operational way.  In my opinion, had muta-
 8    genicity; that is, tests of material in the area  of  Love
 9    Canal been used, that area could have been detected  years
 10    ago.  If, for example, seepage into the basements of the
 11    people living in that area had simply been collected and
 12    tested by the Aims Test, which is a fast way of getting muta-
 13    genicity data, in a matter of weeks one would have known tha
 14    biologically active material was leaking into the  basements
 15    of the people who lived there.
 16              In fact, I would suggest, since we now  know that
 17    there are some hundreds of some similar situations all over
 18    the country, I would suggest that the most rapid, effective
 19    way of detecting would be the extensive use of  the Aims Test
 20    on water seepage, on soil.  For example, soil samples can
 21     very readily be--in four days you can analyze the mutagen
 22    content of a soil sample.  In work done in our  laboratory,
 23    for example, we have shown that in the area of  the steel
 24     mills in Chicago, which put out mutagens and carcinogens,
25     when they fall on the soil, it's very easy to analyze the

-------
                                                               44
 1      soil and show that it's there.   So that I am shocked to find
 2      that the Dow Chemical people are proposing that the best
 3      tool that you have got to monitor the hazardous waste situ-
 4      ation is the one that you shouldn't use.   Now, I am also
 5      surprised because it is my guess that Dow makes very heavy
 6      use of that technique itself, and that leads me to another
       point because I think this type of measurement is so import-
 8      ant.
 9                I think it would be very important for Dow and
10      the other chemical firms to release all of the information
       that they are getting on mutagenicity from different com-
12      pounds.   Now, how do I know that they are getting that in-
13      formation?  It so happens that the bacteria that are used
       in this  test all come from one  place, from the Aims Labora-
15      tory, and I think if you asked Dr. Aims for a list of the
16      chemical companies who have gotten material from them, you
       will discover, I think, that most of the  chemical companies
18      in the United States are doing Aims testing.  I have seen
19      very few results from those laboratories.  Very often com-
20      mercial  laboratories do testing of chemicals, and they do
21      it under a code name and never know the substance that they
22      have been testing.  So 1 happened to seize on this because
23      I think  that this is probably the most important way to
24      monitor  the situation, and I am rather surprised that the
25      DOW witness chose that particular thing to hold off.

-------
                                                                45




 1                The  last  thing I want  to  say is  that  it seems  to



 2     me you're  going  to  run  into  trouble carrying  out  these reg-



 3     ulations,  and  I  want  to talk about  some of the  trouble that



 4     I think you're going  to run  into.



 5                I  think it's  important to recognize it  because of



 6     the  experience of OSHA,  for  example,  in finding that  its



 7     attempt to put across regulations based on hazard have been



 8     confronted by  economic  arguments, and I think you're  going



 9     to run into  economic  arguments,  too.



10                The  point I want to make  is that since  the  chemi-



U     cals that  are  involved  here  are  very  largely  inherently  in-



12     volved in  the  chemistry of this  industry,  what  you're really



13     talking about  is a  pattern of the distribution  of these



14     materials  throughout  the United  States.  Just stop and think



15     for  a moment what happens to the movement  of  chemicals that



16     are  synthesized  by  the  chemical  industry.   In this room,



17     they are in  the  plastic  soundproofing;  they are undoubtedly



18     in the plastic covering of the seats;  they're in  the  syn-



19     thetics that a lot  of people are wearing;  they're in  the



20     frame of my  eyeglasses;  they're  all over.   Now, what  you are



21     doing is asking  where are they being  consciously  dumped, and



22     it's  clear from  the experience in the last few  years  that



23     we don't know  where they have been  dumped,  and  what I am



24     saying is  that a pattern of  the  production, voluntary and



25     involuntary  movement  of  these hazardous chemicals is  what's

-------
                                                                 46



 1    behind  the  issue  that  you  are  trying to  get  at.     In other



 2    words,  what we  need  is a picture  of  the, so  to speak, of



 3    the metabolism, the  movement of these chemicals  throughout



 4    the United  States.   I  don't think that the regulations will



      produce that.



                What  you have got to do, it seems  to me,  is to



      develop information  about  the  whole  pattern  of movement, and



      it is going to have  a  very practical effect  on what you  are



 9    trying  to do.   For example, one thing that is  not clear  to



 10    me from the regulations is when you  ought to move something



 11     and when you ought to  keep it  where  it is and  try to deal



 12     with it.  The reason why 1 say that  is that  the  shipment of



 13     hazardous wastes  is  itself hazardous.



 14               One of  the reasons why  we  are  seeing more and  more



 15     chemical accidents on  railroads and  roads is the simple  fact



      that the rate of  movement  and  the amount of  material moved



      has gone up so  fast  because of the development of the in-



 18     dustry.



                Now,  1  don't understand what effect  your  regula-



 20     tions will  have on the flow of hazardous material because,



      for example, if you  set up an  authorized dump, and  there are



 22     going to be relatively few of  them,  that will  mean  that



 23     movement of wastes will have to be carried to  that  dump.



 24     la other words, what I am  saying  is  you  need an  optimiza-



25  !   tion study. You  have  got  to figure  out  the  relative value

-------
                                                                 47
 l     of detoxifying or storing a hazardous waste where it exists
 2     or where it has been produced and compare it with the haz-
 3     ards that are involved in moving it, and I don't know that
 4     that has ever been done; and I think until you do that, you
       don't know the relative value of storage in one place or
 6     another.
 7               Finally, what that is going to lead to, I think,
       is a good deal of evidence that certain wastes from certain
 9     processes are going to be so difficult to handle that the
 10     costs of handling them will outweigh the benefits to be de-
 ll      rived from the material.  In other words, I think you are
 12     going to run into very serious cost-benefit problems, and I
 13     noticed that the present administration keeps raising econ-
       omic issues about the enforcement of regulations, and I
       think that you have got to be prepared for the likelihood
 16     that what you're going to require the industry to do will,
 17     in effect, put certain substances off the market.
 18               I want to say, though, that that isn't so bad be-
 19     cause practically everything that the petrochemical industry
 20      has introduced has replaced something that existed before.
 21      You know, 50 years ago, these chairs (indicating) would
 22     have been upholstered, too.  They would be here.  People
 23     would not be sitting on hard chairs.  Ihe chairs would be up-
 24     bolstered in wool or leather, and it isn't as though the
25     world would end if there were no plastics.

-------
                                                                48
 1               So what I am saying  is that  I  think you are going
 2      to run  into a very serious economic situation which will re-
 3      quire us  to examine the benefits of the  industry that is
 4      causing all this trouble.
 5               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Thank you.
 6               Before I see if the  panel has  any questions,
 1      could you identify yourself  for the court  reporter?  I
 8      don't believe you did that.
 9               DR. COMMONER:  Yes.   I'm Barry Commoner, director
10      of the  Centerfor the Biology of Natural  Systems at Washing-
11      ton University, St. Louis.
12               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Thank you.
13               Would you answer questions for us?
U               DR. COMMONER:  Yes,  of course.
15               MR. CORSON:  Dr. Commoner, I was just wondering
16      whether you had had a chance in your review of our regula-
17      tions to  note that in the advance notice of proposed rule-
18      making  where we suggest that there are other properties of
19      toxicity  which should be considered to further define that
20      characteristic, that probably  our major  concern in that area
21      was one of the mutagenetic activity, and we are suggesting
22      in that ANPR a battery of at least three tests, one of which
23      would be  the Aims Test, and  I'm wondering  whether you can
24      possibly, either today or in some other  comment, provide to
25      us your opinion as to whether  or not the battery we have

-------
                                                               49

 i      suggested would be appropriate for the industries  of con-

 2      cern or whether you think we could stop with just  the Ai*»

 3      Test as a for example.

 4                DR. COMMONER:   First let me say I have read that

 5      section of the regulation.  My remarks were not directed

 6      towards your proposed regulations  but toward the objection

 7      of the  previous witness  to those sections of the regula-

 8      tions.
•
 9                Our group has  concentrated on the MM Test and

 10      we have done a good deal of work on environmental  materials.

 11      I have  the distinct impression that where you're interested

 12      in a rapid screen; that  is, rapidly picking up trouble  spots

 13      the most efficient way of doing it is to concentrate on the

 14      •fc&ttfc Test.  In other words, I would say that the battery

 15      ought to have another characteristic; that is, which do you

 16      start with.   In most cases, if something has been  picked up

 17      by the  Mi* Test,  it is  going to be a biological problem of

 18      some sort.  It may be a  carcinogen.  It i* certainly a  muta-

 19      gen, and mutations are serious, and I think that because it

 20      is so much easier  to do  and can give you results so fast,  I

 21      would prefer to see it as the immediate, in other  words, I

 22      would use that even if the rest of the battery, for example,

 23      isn't ready to be  carried through, I would get that infor-

 24      mation  first; and, then, on that basis, go to other tests,

 25      rather  than say we're not going to pay any attention to re-

-------
                                                               50
 l     suits until we have looked at  the entire battery.
 2               MR. LINDSEY:  Can I  follow up on the Aims Test a
 3     little bit?  We have received  comments from  time  to time on

 4     the Aims Test that perhaps it's not—it's relatively new and
 5     has not been sufficiently verified and may not be sufficient

 6     ly precise in terms of identifying all of the things that
 7     may be mutagenic to be used in a regulatory  mode and per-

 8     haps to be acceptable in a court of law.  Do you have any

 9     comments on that?
10               DR. COMMONER:  Yes,  I do.  In the  first place, on

11     the question of its use, if you could find the legal basis

12     for requiring all laboratories that have done Aims Tests to

13     release their information, my  guess is that  the amount of
14     information would go up tenfold at least.  So the argument

15     which usually comes from people who have been doing results
16     that they haven't reported is, shall we say, in bad taste.
17               Now, the question of what is the meaning of an
18     Alias Test result, yes, it's true that you may miss some
19     mutagens with any test; but the point is that we are ex-
20     posed probably to ten or twenty times more mutagens than we

21     are even aware of because they keep finding  new ones, and  I
22     fail to see any reason why the fact that a test is not com-
23     plete should be an argument against using it.  What it means
24     is that we're not in perfect knowledge of our situation, but

25     that's a lot better than the situation that  we're in now,

-------
                                                                51
 ]      and,  as I say,  I go back to the question of the Love Canal
 2      type  of situation.   It seems to me that there ought to be
 3      an immediate program.   I understand that EPA now has some
 4      ideas about where these places are.  It seems to me that an
 5      immediate program of soil testing, and, as  a matter of fact
 6      it might even be possible to do tests of biological materi-
 7      als as well. An immediate testing with the Aims Test would
 3      probably give you more information about where the worst
 9      situations are  than any other way of going  about it.
]Q                Now,  the  other side of it is--and it's a very
11      strange thlng--mutagenicity, and by inference, carcinogen-
12      icity, it's probably the most effective test we have  for
]3      biological toxicity now,  much more effective than skin
14      tests of varios  kinds  and so on.   In other  words, it  hap-
15      pens  to be, I think,   that if you look at the battery of
,6      biological problems,  neurotoxicity, let's say various sys-
17      temic effects, if you  take into account sensitivity,  accur-
18      acy,  and the ease of carrying it out,  mutagenicity tests,
19      and particularly the Aims Test,  are far and away the  best
20      tool  that we have for  picking up something  that is bio-
21      logically active; and  I'm amazed to find that this has  been
22      singled out as the  thing  that we shouldn't  do because it
23      stands  out as being the  one  thing that will help us straight
24      en  out the situation.
25                It may be that  some people are afraid of the  infor

-------
                                                                52
 l      nation because every time we use Che Aims Test we keep dia-

 2      covering more and more active material, and I know, you

 3      know, if you're manufacturing this stuff, you worry about

 4      it.

 5                MR. LEHMAN:  Dr. Commoner, one of your remarks

 6      dealt with the, and I believe yourstatement, if I may para-

 7      phrase it a little bit, was "Shipment of hazardous waste is

 8      in itself hazardous," and I want to just clarify whether

 9      by inference you are suggesting that the Agency should en-

 10      courage on-site disposal as opposed to off-site disposal j.n

 11      regional facilities?

 12                DR. COMMONER:  The point of my remark was to say

 13      that there is a mathematical relationship between the choice

 14      of leaving something where it is and moving it, and, them-

 15      fore, you cannot judge which is the least hazardous step

 16      unless you take into account the hazards that will arise be-

 17      cause of transportation accidents.  That has never been

 18      done.  As a matter of fact, it hasn't been done—1 want to

 19      make that very clear.  What you need is a total pattern of

 20      where the products of the chemical industry are and how

 21      they move, in what amounts where.

 22                Imagine a motion picture going on showing PCB's--

 23      well, we're not making them any more as of a couple years

 24      ago--but let's say insecticides and the waste product, you

25      want to know where they a re being produced, where they're

-------
                                                                 53

  l     being shipped, in what amounts, where  the  residues  are


  2     being stored; and what I am  saying  is  once you've got that,


  3     you then can optimize for  the decision as  to whether some-


  4     thing should be kept where it originated or Whether you

  5     ought to move it; and that will take into  account,  for


  6     example, the condition of  the railroads.

  7               You see, one of  the outcomes on  analysis  like

  8     that might be that we're going to get  into deep  trouble be-

  9     cause the railroads are deteriorating; and you might, for

 10     example, get data that would show that until the railroad

 11     tracks are improved, it would be better to leave the waste


 12     where it is.  That's the kind of information that you're

 13     going to have to have before you can make  the decision  as

 14     to whether something should  be moved or not; and I  think

 15     you ought to have a kind of  research program attached to


 16     this entire program in order to work that  out.

 17               MR. CORSOM:  One more question.   1 would  like to

 is     follow up with regard to the general area  of the Aims Test.

 19     To my knowledge, what little bit I  know about the Aims  Test

 20     most of the work that has been done in the  past  has essen-

 21     tially been done on testing  pure substances where a company

 22     may be introducing a new product and is concerned about the

 23     mutagenicity of that particular product, and, as you are

 24     aware, in the proposal which we published  on December 18,
                                                    /'.'-<•>'.
25     we are suggesting that for toxicity we would "-.••.*•,, an ex-

-------
                                                                54
  l     tracted procedure because our concerns are with the toxicant

  2     that might be released from the wastes.  I am wondering what

  3     your feelings are about how effective the Aims Test might be

  4     on these undefined mixtures and whether or not you think

  5     that its use is suitable as a screen for these combinations

  6     of things, taking into account the fact that we have used ar

  7     extraction procedure to get there with an acetic acid ex-

  8     tract.

  9               DR. COMMONER:  Our laboratory has been doing pre-

 10     cisely that, measurements on unknown mixtures for five yeari

 11     now, and, as we have shown, the Aims Test is very effective

 12     on urban air particulates.   We did an entire study on dust

 13     in Chicago, and it very clearly picks up mutagenic material

 14     in such a mixture.  We have shown that it's effective in

 15     analyzing soil.  We have shown that it's effective in ana-

 16     lyzing foods, again a complex mixture.  We have used it on

 17     the effluent of a waste treatment plant in the Houston ship

 18     canal which is an extraordinarily complex mixture, and we're

 19     able to pick out of it two  particular substances that were

 20     responsible for the mutagenicity.  We have used it extensive

 21     ly urine of animals that are experimentally exposed to car-

 22     cinogens and the urine of people who smoke cigarettes and

 23     the urine of workers exposed to mutagens and carcinogens in

 24     the workplace, and we can characterize, for example, in the

25     urine of cigarette smokers  two characteristic mutagens that

-------
                                                               55 ;




 l     turn up in the urine in the midst of other materials,  such




 2     of which have effects on the bacteria, for example, toxicity




 3     So that at this point there is, I think,  very extensive in-




 4     formation on the ability of the Aims Test to deal with mix-



 5     tures; and I might say, without getting too technical, one




 6     of the best ways of handling this is to use separation



 7     techniques together with the Aims Test.




 8               What we do typically is to run the chromatogram




 9     which separates out different substances.  Then we take each




10     section of the chromatogram and run an Aims Test on it.  In




n     that way, we can track down biologically and characterize




12     specific ingredients.  I think that kind of information,for




13     example, on again soil in a Love Canal type of area would be




14     extraordinarily useful; and again, for example, an analysis




15     of soil of that sort, you can have that done in an ordinary




16     laboratory in a week.  In other words, you take up the soil



17     sample; and in a week,  you would know whether there are




18     agents in it that are active in the Aims  Test and roughly



19     how many.




20               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   How much would a test of a




21     soil sample cost if done with your chromatogram?



22               DR. COMMONER:  I was afraid you were going to ask




23     me that because—we're  a university laboratory, and it's




24     very easy to misjudge.   You know, we have to pay for the




25    mowing of the law and so on—that's overhead.   I don't know,

-------
                                                                56



 i      I would say,  let's say a soil test without chromatography



 2      would probably cost in the order of 100, 200 dollars in



 3      terms of labor and materials, with chromatography maybe



 4      another $100.   You're talking about that order.



 5                Now, incidentally,  one of the things that ought



 6      to be done is  to automate some of this stuff, and then it



 7      could go a lot faster and cheaper.



 8                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I wanted to follow up on



 9      your comments  also about gathering data.  We received a



 10      lot of comments in New York,  and I think Dr. Daniels



 II      recommends that we characterize wastes by degree of hazard,



 12      and I take it  that some of the thrust of your remarks is



 13      that you would want us keeping particularly hazardous sub-



 14      stances on site or--you're worried about transportation.



 IS      Assume for a minute that we have very limited authority and



 16      that the primary aim is to give people performance standard*



 17      or design standards for disposing of certain materials.  Do



 18      you have any suggestions as to how we should be, if we de-



 19      cide to do it, to characterize by hazard, degree of hazard?



 20                DR.  COMMONER:  That's an almost impossible situ-



 2i      ation.  I think that you have to recognize that  you are try-



 22      ing to correct a horrendous mistake made by a huge industry



 23      many years ago.  I mean how are you going to characterize a



 24      mixture of materials which may interact chemically,which



25      may interact biologically. For example, as you  know, many

-------
                                                                57




 1     carcinogens  are  active  only in the  presence  of what's callec



 2     a promoter or a  co-carcinogen.  Now, what  that means is  that



 3     you  may have a substance which is a carcinogen that will be



 4     relatively harmless  because the co-carcinogen isn't in that



 5     drum of junk; but next  time it turns up  in a drum with a
 6
15
24
      co-carcinogen,  now it's become very dangerous; and  I don't
 7    know how you are  going to be able  to do  that.



                 I suppose  that it would  be useful  to develop a



 9    kind of  concept of genetic toxicants;  that is, things which



10    are  capable of causing mutation, birth defects, carcinogens,



11    and  I would give  those extra weight because  of the fact



12    that we  won't see the  biological effects for many years,



      and  that would require, in my opinion, at least on moral



14    grounds, a kind of extra caution;  and  1, myself, would think
      that a high  level  of mutagens  in a drum full of waste would
16    mark it as very hazardous and something that ought to be



17    handled in a particularly careful way.



18              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K., no more questions.



19    Thank you very much.



20              Next speaker this morning, it would be Mr. Joe



21    Pound of American Admixtures Corporation.



22                  STATEMENT OF JOE POUND



23              MR. POUND:  Thank you, Madam Chairman.
                My name is Joe Pound.  I'm vice president of
      American Admixtures Corporation in Chicago.

-------
                                                              58
 1                My purpose today is to present in concise form
 2
       the position of American Admixtures regarding RCRA and its
       impact upon our company and industry.
 4               American Admixtures is an experienced, success-
       ful marketing and recycling disposal contractor for the b-y-
 6     products of coal-burning electric power plants.  For over
 7     30 years, we have actively and aggressively promoted the
 8     commercial use of fly ash, bar slag, and bottom ash from
 9     coal into numerous commercial applications.
10               Our present staff of engineers, chemists, and
11     geologists, we utilize marketing, recycling, and ultimate
12     disposal techniques as they are required and have the capa-
13     bility to plan and design, contract and operate our own aith
14     removal equipment and disposal sites for the coal-burning
15     utilities.
16               Presently we have marketing contracts with ten
17     different utilities in eight different states in the Mid-
18     west, including three contracts with three different utili-
19     ties for total ash removal combining, marketing, recycling,
20     and disposal.
21               During the course of the past 30 years, we esti-
22     mate we have sold over ten million tons of fly ash counter-
23     daily.by incorporating the fly ash into durable concrete
24     of many types, from enormous dams to highways; and during
25     the past 20 years, we have been directly responsible for

-------
                                                                59
 ]    the disposal of approximately twenty million tons of coal by.
 2    products from seven station locations.

 3              Now we would like to list some of the specific
 4    concerns we have with RCRA as an impact on our company and
 5    the coal ash industry that we are a part of, which is best
 6    represented by the National Ash Association in Washington,
 7    D. C.

 8              No. 1, the proposed special regulations imply by
 9    association that fly ash has inherent hazardous character-
 10    istics even though these products have been placed in a
 n    "special category" awaiting final determination.  The fact
 ,2    that we are in the regulation at all builds a case for guilt
 13    by association which we consider unfair and inappropriate
 14    since the scientific evidence is not present for evaluation.
 15              No. 2, the acid extraction procedure, the E.P.,
 16    except in cases where the product is placed as a structural
 17    fill, co-disposed in a strip mine or sanitary landfill, does
 18    not represent in any way a condition typical of disposal
 19    techniques as we know them, with which we are responsible or
 20    intend to be responsible.
 21               These worst case scenarios simply are not real
 22    scenarios where segregated and isolated disposal operations
 23     are predetermined, executed, and monitored by a permit sys-

 24     tern.  We, therefore, strongly urge that acid be changed to
25     water as recommended by ASSJl. Committee 0-1912, when acid

-------
                                                                60



 1      i»  predetermined  to be  present  in  the segregated  disposal



 2      site,  then use both acid and water to leach.



 3                Further, we believe that a sample of  less  than



 4      100 grams, as provided  by  theE.P., with  fly ash,  cannot  be



 5      representative of a large  scale reality  of 100,000 tons  of



 6      coal ash  per year typical  of many  coal-burning  utility



 7      plants.



 8                No. 3,  the structural integrity test, the  S.I.T.,



 9      does not  offer relief where the utility  or the  recycling and



10      disposal  contractor make the decision to stabilize the fly



11      ash or sludy waste into a  low strength,  low permeability,



12      cemented  condition that can prevent it from releasing any



13      potential heavy metals  that it  might contain  in trace



14      amounts.



15                The specifics of the  present S.I.T. are best com-



16      pared with the sledge hammer test  used as a preparation



17      method before checking  the quality of your car  windshield.



18                Our company is actively  supporting  major modifi-



19      cations of the present  S.I.T. through efforts of  ASTM Com-



20      mittee 0-19 as well.



21                Mo. 4,  we are concerned  that the time frame in



22      which  this act has been required be implemented does not



23      allow an  orderly  process of engineering  technological deve-



24      lopments  to speak to the potential dangers that any  waste



25      can generate.

-------
                                                                61




 1              With any waste, potential dangers are always  real



 2    if you include the possibility of being buried alive  in it.



 3    Therefore, we urgently request that the Agency use maximum



 4    efforts in extending the time required to adequately  develop



 5    the technology to both control the release of any potential-



 's    ly dangerous materials from our products and to recognize



 7    that 30 years of commercial application of coal ash could



 8    well be destroyed if a hasty and ill-advised approach is



 9    taken to the implementation of these proposed rules.



 10              Further, we urge that the concept of using  worst



      case scenarios be modified to reflect reality rather  than a



 12    hypothesis that has not been documented or experienced  in any



 13    spplJ^ttificuNttit, which we are familiar concerning coal ash.



      We are reminded of the recent decision of EPA to back off



 15    on too stringent standards on air pollution after experi-



 16    ence indicated that the preliminary regs were too tough and



 17    unnecessary



 18              No. 5, we believe fly ash, as we have known it for



      30 years, can best be called a valuable natural resource as



 20    the States of Maryland and Massachusetts have declared by



      law.  The best way to control indiscriminate disposal is to



 22    first provide every possible freedom and incentive to market



 23     it into its numerous commercial uses.



 24               Fly ash is not a hazardous waste as we sell or



25     dispose of it and never will be unless you make it so by

-------
                                                               62
  1     tests that do not reflect any reality with which we are

  2     familiar,  therefore, we urge you to consider your decision

  3     in the context of a valuable natural resource, of energy

  4     conservation through recycling of byproducts, and land

  5     reclamation and conservation.  Making it hazardous "des-

  6     troys" these advantages.

  7               Next, we see our future task as the following:

  8               No. 1, continue to develop meaningful, scientific

  9     data to support and encourage commercial uses and recycling

 10     of coal ash.

 11               No. 2, continue to develop stabilization techni-

 12     ques for recycling and disposal toward the goal of assuring

 13     that our coal ash is never judged to be hazardous.

 14               Three, continue to encourage and execute good

 15     management techniques regarding coal ash collection, re-

 16     cycling, and disposal operations.

 17               And as a corollary, we see your challenge as fol-

 ia     lows:

 19               Strive for an optimum balance between environ-

 20     mental protection and the encouragement of recycling using

 21     industrial byproducts such as coal ash.

 22               Two, special care in evaluating the microscopic

 23     test procedures for determining toxicity of coal ash within

 24     the context of the microscopic quantities of coal ash pro-

25     duced, which today in the United States amount to about 70

-------
                                                              63



 1     million  tons  annually, while  our industry is  currently mar-



 2     keting about  25  per  cent  of that total,  or 17 million  tons



 3     according to  recent  information I obtained from John Faber



 4     at National Ash  Association.



 5                In  conclusion,  we reiterate  our desire to support



 6     the  technological  developments  you require.   That support



 7     includes  full fly  ash testing laboratory facilities located



 8     in Chicago.   Our technical staff will  be pleased to advise



 9     and  support the  ongoing educational requirements that  are



10     necessary to  reach an intelligent and  rational Solution to



11     the  opportunities  that exist  for marketing and correct re-



12     cycling  disposal of  coal  ash.



13                For example, our company has developed informa-



U     tion on  the radioactive characteristics  of most of the  fly



15     ash  sources with which we are  familiar and work with regu-



16     larly.  We are reporting  on this subject as well as new



17     developments  in  our  fly ash marketing  and recycling dis-



18     posal efforts at the Fifth International Symposium of



19     National  Ash  Association  to be  held February  26 and 27  in



20     Atlanta.



21                We  will  mail you a copy of our remarks,  along



22     with these published technical  reports that we feel support



23     our  arguments, and we thank you for this  opportunity.



24                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Thank you very much.



25                Will you answer questions  if there  are  any?

-------

-------
                                                  February 14, 1979
                                                  Joe Pound, Vice President
                                                  American Admixtures Corp.
                         FINAL DRAFT

TO:  U.S.E.P.A., Office of Solid Waste Management

FROM:   AAC
SUBJECT:  Position Paper for St. Louis Hearings on Proposed RCRA
          Regulations, February 14, 1979

     Ladies and Gentlemen, my purpose today is to present in concise
form the position of American Admixtures Corporation regarding RCRA
and its impact upon our company and industry.  American Admixtures
is an experienced and successful marketing and recycling disposal
contractor for the by-products of coal burning electric power plants.
For over 30 years, we have actively and aggressively promoted the
commerical use of fly ash, boiler slag and bottom ash from coal into
numerous commerical applications.  With our present staff of sales
and technical engineers, chemists and geologists, we utilize marketing,
recycling and ultimate disposal techniques as they are required and
have the capability to plan, design, construct and operate our own
ash removal equipment and disposal sites for the coal burning utilities.
Presently, we have marketing contracts with 10 different utilities in
8 different states of the midwest including 3 contracts with 3 different
utilities for total ash removal, combining marketing, recycling and
disposal.  During the course of the past 30 years we estimate that
we have sold over 10 million tons of fly ash commerically,  (primarily
by incorporating the fly ash into durable concrete mixes of many types
from enormous dams to highways.), and during the past 20 years have
been directly responsible for the disposal of approximately 20 million
tons of coal by-products from 7 station locations.

     Now, we would like to list some of the specific concerns we have
with RCRA as it can impact on our company and the coal ash industry
that we are part of and is best represented by the National Ash in
Washington, D.C.
     (1)  Your proposed special regulations imply by association
     that fly ash has inherent hazardous characteristics, even
     though these products have been placed in a "special category"
     waiting final determination.  The fact that we are in the regu-
     lations at all builds a case for "guilt by association" which

-------
                        - 2 -

we consider unfair and inappropriate since the scientific
evidence is not present for evaluation.

(2)  The acid extraction procedure (EP),  except in cases where
the product is placed as a structural fill co-disposed in a
strip mine or sanitary landfill, does not represent in any way
a condition typical of disposal techniques as we know them with
which we are responsible or intend to be responsible.  These
"worse case scenarios" simply are not "real" scenarios where
segregated and isolated disposal operations are predetermined,
executed and monitored by a permit system.  We, therefore,
strongly urge the "acid" be changed to "water"as recommended
by ASTM D 19.12.  When "acid"JLS predetermined to be present
in the disposal site then use both acid and water to leach.
Further, we believe  that a sample of less than 100 grams,
as provided by the EP with fly ash, cannot be representative
of the large scale reality of 100,000 tons of coal ash per
year, typical of many coal burning utility plants.

(3)  The structural integrity test (SIT)  does not offer
relief where the utility or recycling/disposal contractor
makes the decision to stabilize the fly ash or sludge waste
into a low strength, low permeability cemented condition
that can prevent it from releasing any potential heavy metals
that it might contain in trace amounts.  The specifics of
the present SIT are best compared witha"sledge hammer" used
as a preparation method before checking the quality of your
car windshield.  Our company is actively supporting major
modification of the present SIT through efforts of ASTM
Committee D 19.12 as well.

(4)  We are concerned that the time frame in which this act
has been required to be implemented does not allow an orderly
process of engineering technological development to speak to
the potential dangers that any waste can generate.  With any
waste the potential dangers are always real, if you include
the possibility of being buried of alive in it.  Therefore,
we urgently request that the Agency use maximum efforts in
extending the time required to adequately develop the technology

-------
                       - 3 -

to both control the release of any potential dangerous
materials from our products and to recognize that 30 years
of commerical application of coal ash could well be de-
stroyed if a hasty and ill advised approach is taken to
the implementation of these proposed rules.  Further, we
urge that the concept of using "worst case scenarios" be
modified to reflect reality rather than a hypothesis that
has not been documented or experienced in any application
with which we are familiar concerning coal ash.  We are
reminded of the recent decision of EPA to back off on "too
stringent" standards on air pollution after experience indi-
cated that preliminary conclusions were too tough and un-
necessary.

(5)  We believe fly ash as we have know it for 30 years can
best be called a "valuable natural resource" as the States
of Maryland and Massachusettes have declared by law.  The
best way to control indiscriminate disposal is to first
provide every possible freedom and incentive to market it into
its numerous commerical uses.  Fly ash is not a "hazardous
waste" as we sell or dispose of it, and never will be unless
you make it so by using tests that do not reflect any reality
with which we are familiar.  Therefore, we urge you to consider
your decision in the context of a valuable natural resource
of energy conservation through recycling of by-products and
land reclamation and conservation.  Making it "hazardous"
destroys these advantages. Next we see our future taks as the
following:
     1.  Continue to develop meaningful scientific data to
     support and encourage commerical uses and recycling of
     coal ash.
     2.  Continue to develop stabilization techniques for re-
     cycling and disposal toward the goal of assuring that
     our coal ash is never judged to be hazardous.
     3.  Continue to encourage and.execute good management
     techniques regarding coal ash collection, recycling
     and disposal operations.

As a corollary, we see your challenges as follows:

-------
                            - 4 -
          1.   Strive for an optimum balance between environ-
          mental protection and the encouragement of recycling
          using industrial by-products, such as coal ash.
          2.   Special care in evaluating the microscopic test
          procedures for determining toxicity of coal ash within
          the context of the macroscopic quantities of coal
          ash produced,  which today in the United States amount
          to about 70 million tons annually while our industry
          is currently marketing about 25% of that total or
          17 million tons, according to recent information I
          obtained from John Faber at National Ash Association.

     In conclusion, we reiterate our desire to support the techno-
logical developments you require.  That support includes full fly
ash testing laboratory facilities located in Chicago.  Our techni-
cal staff will be pleased to advise and support the on-going edu-
cational requirements that are necessary to reach an intelligent
and rational solution to the opportunities that exist for both
marketing and correct recycling/disposal of coal ash.  For example,
our company has developed information on the radioactive character-
istics of most of the fly ash source with which we are familiar
and work with regularly.  We are reporting on the subject as well
as new developments in our fly ash marketing and recycling/disposal
efforts at the 5th International Symposium of the NAA to be held
February 26th and 27th in Atlanta.

     We will mail you a copy of our remarks along with  published
technical reports that support our arguments.  We thank you for
the opportunity to present our case.

-------
                                                                64
  1               MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Pound, I wanted to explore with
  2     you some of your earlier remarks.  You indicated that the
  3     inclusion of utility wastes as in a special waste category
  4     under Section 3004, if I remember your remarks, "established
  5     guilt by association", or words to that effect.  First of
  (>     all, 1 think it's important for the record, for further
  7     clarification here, to realize that nowhere in our proposal
  8     do we list fly ash as a hazardous waste, and you do under-
  9     stand that?
 10               MR. POUND:  I do.  I am referring back, of course,
 11     to the title of the document.
 i2               MR. LEHMAN:  the situation is under Section 3004
 13     that if a waste is found to be hazardous, the utility waste
 14     is found to be hazardous, then it is subject not to the full
 '5     range of Section 3004 regulations but to somewhat more
 16     limited requirements under the special waste category.   Are
 17     you suggesting that we remove utility wastes from the speci-
 18     al wastes category?
 "               MR. POUND:  No.  Allan and I talked about this at
 20     some length, and really you are dealing with a semantic
 21     problem in part, but you are also dealing with the question
 22     of who were the brilliant ones who figured out that any-
 23     thing in that document ought to be called hazardous as  con-
 24     trasted with degree of hazard or control or numerous other
25     words that could be used in lieu of hazard, because there's

-------
                                                               65
 l     enormous implication that, just the fact  that the word
 2     comes out in  the document, that John and  Mary Q. Public
 3     might feel  that somehow you are a hazard; and if you want
 4     to carry it to extremes,  it's certainly possible.   Certain-
 5     ly something  alive  in it  is a hazard,  that's the problem
 6     that we have, and we've heard people say  that,  therefore,
 7     aren't you  suspect  before you begin, and  I'd have to say
 8     it depends  on your  reading; and the reading that most are
 9     getting is  that somehow we're hazardous because we  all
10     breathe air.  Publish this, and all of the  sudden we've  got:
11     a labeling.   It may be gray, it may be almost white, but
12     you've still  got the attempt.
13               MR. LINDSEY:  Let me follow up  on that, then.
14     Presumably, what you are  saying is that you would like to
is     have fly ash  exempted in  some fashion completely; and our
16     information indicates that sometimes fly  ash fails  the
17     characteristics test under, what is that, 250.13 of our
18     Act; and the  question is  then if it fails those characterin-
19     tics, and assuming, and which was our intent, that  those
20     characteristics were developed so as identify the material!!
21     which are hazardous, then are you saying  that the charac-
22     teristics are too strict  and that we ought  to make  those
23     more lenient  in some manner so that materials like  fly ash
24     and things  that may be similar to that do not ever  fit into
25     the picture?

-------
                                                               66
  1               MR.  POUND:   I  think  the difficulty we have  is the
  2     fact  that the  scientific evidence and  the scientific  com-
  3     munity have no basis at  this time to make a judgment  that
  4     we're hazardous to any degree  in relation to the proposed
  5     standards; and I guess I would conclude  that they are too
  6     strict at this point if  they are applied carte blanche.
  7     Theoretically, the special category puts us into a special
  8     determination  category as well; but the  implication and the
  9     time  frame—and remember, I'm  combining  the two--are  that
 10     we will never  be able  to find  the adequate amount of  infor-
 11     nation prior to the time of implementation.  So, therefore,
 12     one will conclude we'll be in  limbo at the very best  for
 13     quite some period of time.
 14               MR.  CORSON:  I have  a couple questions, Joe.  One
 15     has to do with sampling.
 16               One  of your comments indicated that you thought
 17     that a 100-gram sample was inadequate, and I think what we
 18     are trying to  do in our regulation—and  perhaps you can
 19     help us with that--is  to suggest that they take a repre-
 20     sentative sample.  We have referenced where we knew them,
 2i     certain ASTM sampling procedures, and obviously that  in-
 22     eludes all this standard business of quartering and quar-
 23     tering and quartering, but eventually you end up with some
 24     small size sample.   Do you have a feel for what size  that
25     has to be?  This quartering, if you use  this to represent,

-------
                                                              67
 l     in essence, the equivalency of thousands or millions of
 2     tons, why cannot we get down to 100-gram sample for running;
 3     the extraction procedure?
 4               MR. POUND:  Alan, to reflect on that 100-gram
 5     point, this was under the S.I.T. comments, and so I am re-
 £     ferring to that sample of 1.3 inches by 2.8 inches that
 7     represents a small representative sample of stabilized ash,
 8     so-called, or stabilized waste, so-called, and the difficult;
 9     there is you are not going to be quartering and all that
10     routine.  That comes with the dust, and that is a possibili-
ll     ty, but that's one of the serious questions we want to
12     raise, as the point of the test or the timing of the test
13     in the so-called pattern of flow of the product from the
14     coal in the ground to the ash in its disposal site or, hope-
15     fully, commercial application.  Where you make the test and
16     when you make the test is, of course, critical, but the
17     S.I.T. does give us a theoretical advantage in that it is
18     encouraging, as the Act states, stabilization to prevent amy
19     possible undefined hazard from leaking out; but when you end
20     up with a sample that weighs 100 grams to represent literal-
2i     ly hundreds of thousands of tons, and nationwide millions,
22     those are the kinds of relationships that I think are poorly
23     understood, and I'm not sure that we understand it.  It just
24     seems that you are dealing with a fantastically small amount
25     when you deal with thousands of tons.

-------
                                                                 68
  1               MR.  CORSON:   Following up on the S.I.T.  question
  2     again,  the structural  integrity test,  what we have done,  for
  3     clarification  of those who may not  be  aware of the approach
  4     that we called for in  the  regulation,  we originally looked
  5     at taking a sample of  waste and somehow reducing its size
  6     or the  pieces  in size  so it could go through a three-
  7     eighth  inch screen. The comment was given to us in our
  8     development process that this  was penalizing those who
  9     stabilize wastes, and  we felt, in our  minds at least,  that
 10     the question of crushing to three-eighth inch size was
 11     really  not crushing but was allowing for the kinds of, do
 12     we say  degradation of  the  structural integrity of  the  waste
 13     that could occur in a  land disposal operation or through
 14     freeze/thaw cycles of  the  ground, and, therefore,  we tried
 15     to develop something like  what we call the structural  in-
 16     tegrity of test as an  alternative to grinding,  and we  would
 17     appreciate it  if you can provide, if you are running it in
 18     your lab, some data that you think  is  more representative,
 19     recognizing again that our goal is  to  replicate what could
 20     happen  in that sort of disposal environment.
 21               MR.  POUND:  1 agree, and  we  certainly will try  to
 22     get that kind  of--that's primarily  why we are involved in
 23     ASTM; but S.I.T., a structural integrity test,  is  really  a
 24     misnomer of first order.   It's much more of a structural
25     destruction test and not structural integrity.

-------
 1               MR. CORSON:  Maybe we're victims of an acronym



 2     problem.



 3               MR. POUND:  In more ways than six.



 4               MR. CORSON:  One further question I would like to



 5     explore with you with regard to the extraction procedure.



 6     Somewhere in your comments I think you indicated that you



 7     felt that where there might be a co-disposal operation or



 8     where the waste might go to a site where acid might be



 9     available, that an acetic extraction might be appropriate,



10     and 1 am wondering whether you have any thoughts as to how



11     we segregate those wastes at the generator's station.



12               MR. POUND:  We have two possibilities ourselves



13     right now, one of where we are proposing to co-dispose in



14     a sanitary landfill simply because of the geography, the



15     sort distance from the generator's location, of the utility



16     plant location; and because that is, you know, a thoroughly



17     approved sanitary landfill under the present environmental



18     regs, one could quickly argue that the possibility of co-



19     disposal and acid infiltration or permeation is possible,



20     that it would simply be handled in a conventional way be-



21     cause it's confined to the clay liners that are required



22     under the present regs.



23               The second location is a proposal to take coal anh



24     as a matter of disposal and put it into the very exception



25     I mentioned in my paper about strip mining areas where acid

-------
                                                                70
  1     mine draining is a very serious reality.  There again I
  2     think you are facing two operations.  One is that the
  3     utility is hopeful that they can do that simply because the
  4     can moderate the acid toxicity of the acid sine drainage
  5     using the very fly ash that they are attempting to dispose
  6     of; but there's a serious problem in terms of interaction
  7     which you're concerned about in co-disposal techniques, and
  8     our conclusion is at this sitting that the co-disposal
  9     element there will be the overriding consideration, and,
 10     therefore, the utility may decide no, we choose not to do
 11     that, limply because a marginal hazard at best, and maybe
 12     nonhazard as a possibility, could be jeopardized, that
 13     category could be jeopardized by going into that codisposal
 14     operation because fly ash does have some acid neutralizing
 '5     effects potential.
 16               Does that deal with your question?
 17               MR. CORSON:  I'm still confused a little bit as
 18     to how we would develop some enforceable regulation that
 19     allows us to make the distinction of those which are going
 20     to Place A versus those which are going to Place B, because
 21     from the point you have made, Place A is O.K. and water
 22     extract might work, and Place B it will not.  Mow, this is
 23     the flexibility that we have provided through the 3004,
 24     3005 process rather than 3001.  Site specific, waste speci-
25     fie interactions are accommodated in the facility permit

-------
                                                               71



 i     combination.  We have chosen to make a definition distinc-



 2     tion at 3001 level.  I an wondering what your thought* are



 3     aa to how we might mechanize in terms of making sure we are



 4     aware, transportation and what else make that distinction



 5     so the ones go where they have to go.



 6               MR. POUND:  It seems to me that the performance



 7     standard is the way to go in general, Alan, that the ulti-



 8     mate disposal must reflect particular performance require-



 9     ments; but in the interim, until we get to the point we



10     understand what the performance requirements will be--and



11     I'm convinced that EPA still has only a drop of information



12     as to what those performance standards should be, that you,



13     just simply say that if there is a co-disposal operation



14     proposed, that the greater hazard shall dictate.  I don't



15     know any other possible way to do that, and we recognize



16     that.  All I am saying is that the utility generator, or we



17     as a contractor, must make the decision that is co-disposal



18     economically and environmentally sound, and it may not be—



19     that isolated, segregated single site, single-source waste



20     products may be the only logical answer because we are



21     jeopardizing our category by co-disposal.



22               MR. LINDSEY:  You indicated sometime back that you



23     felt that our regulations, the stances that have been taken



24     in these regulations, would, in fact, prevent, would cut off



25     the use of fly ash in some fashion.  Let me just indicate

-------
                                                                72
 1  II    that it is not our intent to cut off the acceptable use, or

 2      disposal for that matter, of any material; and, as Alan

 3      pointed out, that's taken care of in the regulations under

 4      3004 and -5.  On the other hand, I guess my question is did

       you come to that conclusion, that we were going to cut off

 6      in some fashion the use of these materials in an acceptable

 7      manner based on the regulations say.  In other words, is

       there something in there that you have interpreted that

 9  II    would prevent this, or is it a matter of this guilt by

10      association kind of thing that you mentioned earlier which

n      would have the effect of cutting off the demand?

12                MR. POUND:  Correct, the latter.  It's the problem]

13      of being just a little bit pregnant.

14                CHAIRPERSON OARRAH:  I hate to end on that note,

15      but we'll end on that note.

16                We're going to take about a 15-minute break and

17      reconvene promptly at 10:43.

18                Off the record.

19                (A short recess was taken.)
20

21
22

23

24

25

-------
 10



 11



 12



 13



 14



 15



 16



 17



 18



 19



 20
25
                                                        73



          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   A couple of quick  announce-


ments .



          First of all, we are  not trying to wear you down.


We are trying to make them turn down the heat in  this room.


          Secondly, for tomorrow's meeting and for the final



day's meetings, we will not be meeting in this room.  We will



be in the Ball Room rather than here.


          Lastly, the background documents were mentioned, I



guess, by Dr. Stacy and, as mentioned in the Federal Register.,



those are available in the libraries in the Regional Offices



of EPA for,  and I guess you probably have loan copies as well



as copies to read in the library.



          MR. MC LAUGHLIN:   We have one copy available in our


Regional Office library.  The other one should be reproduced


so that we have three copies available for loan and anyone


wishing to borrow them, we will be glad to talk to them and



make arrangements.



          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Thank you.


          Back to comments to us on the regulations.



          Is Ms. Kay Drey here?
21                   STATEMENT OP KAY DREY
22


23  Louis.
              MS. DREY:  My name is Kay Drey and I live in St,
_,             When I first started reading about nuclear power,
24
    over four years ago, I was constantly amazed by the seemingly

-------
 1





 2





 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
 infinite number of ways in which men and machines could func-




 tion contrary to plan.   I was  also  amazed by the quantity of




 potentially hazardous situations for which no plan even ex-



 isted.   The fact that no one knows  yet  how or where to  dis-



 pose of  the hazardous wastes from the very first successful




 atomic chain reaction 36 years ago,  becomes all  the more in-



 credible when we realize that  this  ignorance has not de-




 terred our nation's  government or industries from bringing




 additional millions  of  tons  of radioactive wastes into  our



 planet's only biosphere.




           I am appearing  before you  today as a concerned



 housewife,  mother and citizen  to thank  you for your efforts




 to try to  find solutions  to  the fact  that  our nation is



 generating,  according to  your  own EPA figures, some 35



 million  metric tons  of  hazardous wastes,  plus another several



 hundred  million  tons  of lower  risk, but also  dangerous,



 wastes every year.   Since we cannot allow  these  wastes to  be



 released into  the  air,  onto  the  soil  or into  the  irreplaceable




 surface  or  ground  waters, we must have to  survive,  your  op-




 tions seem  to  be mutually exclusive.  Are  we  to  store in-



 creasing amounts of these wastes  in 55-gallon drums  or



 canisters pretending, then, that  they have been  isolated



when we have actually merely delayed finding a solution?



 Perhaps the only permanent answers are to  support the effects




 of the EPA's Office of Toxic Substances to reduce the amount

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                            75
     of wastes we create.
          At the now closed Maxey Flats, Kentucky, NRC-



licensed burial site a few years ago, it was found that the



exceedingly hazardous substance, plutonium, had migrated not



an inch in a quarter million years as expected but several



hundred feet or more in a decade.




          I would like to submit an article from Science




Magazine of June 1978, if I may, about a group of chemicals




which may not themselves be hazardous but which increase the




potential health impact of certain hazardous wastes.  In this




article geochemists from Princeton and Battelle-Columbus sub-




mit that the reason  radioactive wastes buried in Oak Ridge,



Tennessee, had migrated far more rapidly than anticipated



was due to the presence in the waste materials of certain




chemicals which had been used to solubilize and therefore




remove radioactive corrosion products and other wastes from



naclear facilities.  The class of compounds is called



chelating agents and has the property of tightly binding



certain metallic elements, Including radioactive ones.  The



encrusted insoluble radioactive materials become soluble by




binding to the chelating agents and can thereby be removed.



          The resulting complex, however, consisting of radio-



active metals entrapped in chelating agents, can spread



readily through ground water and be taken up by the plant and




animal links in the human food chain If it leaks or is re-

-------
10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18
                                                              76



     leased.  Furthermore, the chelating agents have been found to




     be surprisingly persistent in the environment.  I would like




     to urge the EPA to consider adding a class of compounds that




     could perhaps be called promoters or additives which have the



     potential to act synergistically to increase the hazard of



     environmental contamination.  While this article from Science



     Magazine deals with the rapid migration of radioactive sub-



     stances, this same synergistic action could conceivably occur




     with other hazardous wastes as well.




               I would like to suggest that consideration be given



     to changing the text in Section 15,  Paragraph (a) (5),  in some




     way so that a radioactive waste not  be defined as  being "non-




     hazardous"  if it emits the amounts you presently propose,



     that  is five picocuries per gram for solids or fifty



     piocuries per liter for liquids when radium 226 and  radium 228




     are both present or if the wastes contain a concentration of




     ten microcuries per,  I don't  know what measure,  of radium 226
     al*ne.



 19             According to the EPA's  "Statement  of Basis  and  Pur-




 20   pose" for  the Safe Drinking Water Act's radioactivity regula-



 2]   tions dated  August 15, 1975, which, in turn, were based on



 22   the estimates of the 1972 BEIR Committee report, consumption



 23   by the population of two liters of drinking  water per day



 24   contaminated with five picocuries per liter  of either radium




25   226 or 228 "may cause between 0.7 and 3 cancers per year per

-------
 10




 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19





 20




 21
                                                         77




 million  exposed  persons.   Almost  all  of  these  cancers would



 probably be fatal."   That  is,  if  America's 200 million citi-



 zens were to be  exposed to radium in  a concentration of five



 picocuries per liter  or ten picocuries per day, the incidence



 of cancer could  increase by as many as 600 per  year.  If we




 accept the EPA's linear hypothesis of an increased radiation



 dose leading to  an increase in health efforts, a hypothesis




 which, by the way, I  think underestimates the  risk, your



 proposal  to exclude liquids with  as much as forty to fifty



 picocuries per liter  could cause  an increase of some six




 thousand  cancer deaths per year.




          I believe it is absolutely misleading for the EPA



 to define or describe such levels as "non-hazardous" thresh-




 olds as you have in the proposed regulations.  The Nuclear



Regulatory Commission gets around this problem by describing



 such concentrations as being "permissible" rather than "non-



hazardous".  Unfortunately, most radiation workers, employers



and even government officials have been led to believe that



the NEC's permissible levels are safe, which they are not.




Epidemiological evidence to the contrary is at last beginning



to be made public.
22            As an example of inadequate data upon which the



    original estimates of toxicity were based, even radium, whose



24  radioactivity and carcinogenicity were recognized and have



    been  studied for many more years than any other element, even

-------
 10




 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                            78




   radium has taken  scientists by surprise recently.  Whereas  in



2  the 1950's, when  today's radiation standards were initially




   recommended and published, the International Commission ori




4  Radiological Protection had assumed that radium 226 posed a



   far greater health risk than radium 228.  Studies published



   in 1972,  however, indicate that the opposite may well be the




   case.  I would suggest that more than likely, no one knows,




   radium 228 has a half life of about six years and radium 226




   has a half life of about sixteen hundred years and, personally



   I don't want  to drink either of them.




             Mistakes on estimates of the toxicity of virtually
   permanent toxins are irreversible mistakes.  At the least, I



   believe that EPA should not tell the public and industry that



   there is a threshold of exposure or concentration below which



   there is no hazard.  If you have decided that testing below a



   given level would be either technologically or economically



   infeasible, then I think you should say that and not use the



   description "non-hazardous".



             While I spend my full time working toward a mora-



   torium on the generation of man-made radioactive materials,



   except as needed for medicine,  I know that virtually every



   one of our nation's industries  and all of our personal lives



   rely upon processes involving the creation and, therefore,



   potential dispersal of  other toxic substances,  many of which



   are as hazardous,  if not as persistent or long lived,  as the

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                             79



     radioactive ones.
2            I would urge you to listen critically to industry's



3 I well-financed campaign calling for deregulation.  Americans



4  are being overwhelmed right now by a barrage of propaganda



   focused on regulatory and administrative agencies like yours,,



   but I believe that,  if anything,  we need more protection from



   the government,  not  less.  The costs of health care,  evacua-



   tion of carelessly contaminated communities  and of trying to



   remove toxins released to our air and waterways,  will far ex-



   ceed the costs of regulatory permit programs,  government



   monitoring,  and  the  enforcement efforts designed to detect



   and isolate  hazardous wastes.  I  wish you success in  your



   objective to regulate wisely on behalf of the health  of our



   nation's citizens of today and of the future.
             Thank you.



             I would  also  like to  submit  an  editorial  cartoon,



   if  I may,  by  Tom Engelhardt which  appeared  in  the St.  Louis



   Post-Dispatch on February  2,  1979.
            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  That  should brighten  up  the
  Record.
            Would you answer questions  for  us?



            MS. DREY:  Yes.



            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   And  also let me  remind you and



  Mr. Pounds that if you do have  copies of  your statement,  if



  you could submit  them to our  court  reporter before  you begin

-------
 8




 9





 10




 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                         80





 speaking, that would be most helpful.  If you don't have more




 than one copy, if you could give us another copy later,  that



 would also be helpful.




           MS. DREY:   I have an illegible copy.  After I  type



 it,  where may I send it,  where I wrote initially?




           CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Yes,  you can address it to  us




 in Washington.



           Any questions?




           MR. LEHMAN:   Ms.  Drey,  the substance of  your remarks



 I  believe,  was that  our standard,  proposed  standard under




 Section250.15 (a)(5),  regarding radways thresholds was



 basically too high in that  you would recommend we  either



 lower that  threshold or make it  clear why it  is we're  setting




 that threshold and not  imply that  something below  that thresh-



 old is non-hazardous.




          Do  you  have  any suggestions,  if you believe  it is




 too high, as to  what  the appropriate  level should be?



          MS. DREY:  Zero but  I  think  that  it  is accepted




 nationwide, worldwide,  there is  no threshold  below which an



 exposure  to radiation is safe.  And  I don't think  anyone even



uses that term any more, even the NRC.  Everyone  has accepted




the fact  that there is no non-hazardous level  of radiation



exposure.  It really is unfortunate, the NRC and before it the



Environmental Protection Agency, the National  Council  on



Radiation Protection and the International  Commission  of

-------
                                                          81




     Radiological  Protection, they've all used the  term permissible



 2    maximum  permissible concentrations in air and  water.  But in




 3    the media and in material given to workers and everywhere,



 4    people think  it's safe.  Here you all aren't even saying



 5    permissible.  You're saying non-hazardous.  And I think



 6    that's extremely misleading.




 7             As  I tried to indicate, I was using  figures from the



     EPA which is  based on the Beir Commission, the Beir Committee




 9    and those are, I think, far too conservative of the potential



10    risk.  That's like 6,000 cancer deaths a year  if you say that



     there's a threshold of 50 picocuries per liter.  And I know,



]2    I guess, the  EPA for the Safe Drinking Water Act has



13    promulgated a level of five picocuries per liter which they



]4    say will lead to 0.3 or 7 or 6,  I can't remember,  cancer



     deaths per million people.



              I sort of think the public should be given the facts
to


17    and told, is  it O.K. if we  put this amount of flop in



     your drinking water, you're going to have this many ca



     and you agree to that.  We  haven't been told it in that many



    words, but I certainly don't think it's right to imply that




     the government,  at this point, is accepting a threshold level,,




              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much



              (The documents referred to follow)




                        HEARING INSERT
24




25

-------

                      ^-*

                                                                     J-t*~z_i&£ _
«/ ^
                                     ,_.
                                                                           >x^f*

                                                                               * -U,
   tfl



-------
Sf. Co u.is
            Technological Boomerang

-------
                                             Reports
 Migration of Radioactive Wastes:

 Radionuclide Mobilization by Complexing Agents

   Ahslr.icl Ion f \chunfjc, gel filtration chroinatoi-raphy, afid xronnd\. HCKIUM' il fortnt cxtftfniclv \lronn (.omplc\e\
 with rare eat tin and (ii tinidc\, LDTA or \inuhu ihflnt<>\ may al\o he contrthulium to
 the tnnhili.'tilion of tfie\c rtidtonuclide.\ Jrom vanotts  tenc^truil  Huiiotitltve  wtt\tc
 banal si/cv nrounJ the tountrv
  Fiom J9M through 1965, intermediate-
level  ladioactive  liquid  waste  at  Oak
Ridge National l.aboratoiy  (ORNL) in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was  disposed of
in  seven  ditleient  seepage pits   and
tiemhcs (/) Since  1944, solid waste at
ORN1 has routinely been buried m  shal-
low  uenches  in  six  different  burial
grounds (2). Ground burial of ladioactive
waste is an effective means of disposal if
the radionuclide can be confined to the
geologic column  through geochcmical
piocesses   Although  the  Conasauga
shale, the predominant bcdiock ot the
ORNL burial grounds,  has an extremely
high adsorption capacity for  most fission
by-products, trace quantities of certain
radionuchdes are migrating from  both
solid and liquid waste disposal sites (3)
  Se\eial factois have contributed to the
ladionuelkte mobilization One is  that
the anraial precipitation at «JRNL.  ovei
127 cm, is yrealei than at any other la-
dioactive waste burial site in  the country
(2).  As ,i lesult, water  infiltrates  into
trenches at a faster rate than it can be
dissipated and mixes with the waste In
addition  ground water  levels .ire  com-
p.iM!jvcly shallow  and a high-density
surface  drainage  netwoik   is present.
fheie is also an abundance  of fractures
in the nndei lying rock, which diminishes
the rock's sorptive capacity  because the
exchange  sites adjacent to  the fissures
are saturated with the exchangeable ions
in the w.iste (2) Finally, the  piesence in
the waste ot complexing agents such as
organic  chelates  used  m decontamina-
tion opeiations and natui.il oigamc acids
from ihe soil piomoies  the formation of
strong complexes  with  certain  radio-
nuctulcs that reduce the  adsoiption ca-
  •Ctt-Vt. VOL  200, Ml JliNt- 197K
                                        pacify of ihe shale and .soil for The jadio-
                                        nuclide
                                          It is this last factor th.it is of principal
                                        concern in this report, fhe isotope ""Co
                                        has been found in concentrations up to
                                        11K* dpm/g in the soil and up to 10' dpm/
                                        ml (450 pCi/ml) in the walei  in aie.ts ad-
                                        jacent to seepage tiench 7 and in lesser
                                        concentrations in the vicinity of tiench 5
                                        ;md pit 4 (Tig  1)  Traces of vanous ^
                                        pha-emilteis such .is isinnpes of II. Pu'.
                                        Cgv/rh. and Ra have also been detected
                                        jr^watej_or_soH_ from the  aiea  around
                                        trench 7 (2-4) We show heie that ''"Co is
                                        transported in the groundwatei horn ihe
                                        trenches and  pits as oigamc complexes
                                        A poition of the migialing  fil'Co is ad-
                                        sorbed by oxides of Mn in the shale and
                                        soil (4-6). Additional evidence suggests
                                        that  some U is  migrating by the same
                                        mechanism
                                          The following experimentally mea-
                                        suied distnhution coelhcients (A',,) illus-
                                        trate the pionounced eft eels  that  organic
                                        ligands h.tvc on  the adsuiption t.ip.icity
                                        of sediment  tor tiace metals. We detei-
                                        mmed that the  K,t  values  foi  ''"Co in
                                        weatheied Conasauga shale at p\\ 6 7
                                        and  120 wcic appaiximatc'/y 70 x JO1
                                        andO 12 x  101, icspcilwcly  In the pies-
                                        ence  of  1()~''A/  ethylenediaminetetia-
                                        acetic acid (ED PA) the /C'.i values weie
                                        reduced to 2 9 ,md 0 K (7)
                                          The actual  A,",, values calculated fiom
                                        h"Co  concentrations in soil  and water
                                        fiom  \aiious wells  in the ORNL bunal
                                        giounds are similar (A1)  1 he A.,, values for
                                        '•"Co horn wells in the vicinity of tiench 7
                                        lange from approximately 7  to 70, aver-
                                        aging about 15 (see Table 1)  1he/»H of
                                        well water ranges from fi 0 to8.5 (V). and
                                        the HDl'A concentration* arc
mately 3 4  x 10"7M (this study). Actual
A'.i values for "°Co in buna) ground wa-
teis are therefoic significantly lower than
the theoielical value for neutral systems
containing  no EDTA and aie somewhat
greater  than  the  experimental   value
foi  neutral systems  containing  10~*M
EDTA
  The  importance of sediment  sorplion^
capacity (or A",,) on radionuclide  migra-
tion rates within geologic substrates has
been modeled by Maisily et at. (9). Us-
ing variables  such  as  A',,,  rock pei-
meability.  and  hydraulic gradient, they
calculated  the  migration rales  of AWPu
buried at the bottom ot geologic forma-
tions 500 m thick. The results-show-tbaa,
-'"Pu with  a A',, of 2 x  10-', typical of a
chemical setting devoid of complexing
agents, rock fractures,  and similar fac-
tois tending to  icduce sediment adsorp-
tion, will not migrate to^ground  level un-
til mote  than 10" yeais aftei buna], the
mfgi.iljon rates being  slowest  in  those
geologic  foi mat ions  with  lowest per-
meability  With  a  half-life of  24,400
yeais,  Pu would essentially be complete-
ly decayed by the time of contact with
the surface envnonment.  At the  other
extreme, in a chemical setting charactei-
i/ed h> no_sorplion (A,,  =  (t), 1'u would
i each  the  enviionment  in 6 to  14,500
years,  depending on the penueahitay of
the geologic loimation (9). lhat  is, in the
most confining foi mation Pu would have
dec;i>ed about only one-half ot one half-
life hefoie  it reached the sin face  In for-
mations  of low to moderate peimeabil-
ity, migration of  Pu over 500 m would
have oi'cuiicd  in  onl>  tens to several
hundieds 01 years, the movement being
toui to live outers of magnitude more
rapid than in the situation A,i = 2 x JO1'.
  In the O.ik Ridge selling, the adsorp-
.tio_n_capaci_l_)_ol the Conasauga  shale lor
inorganic  foims  of Co is very  high.
Hence, mobilisation ot" this radionuclide
in I he  absence of  strong complexmy
agents, rock. trot_ujres. and other factors
tendmu to i educe sorntion would be neg-
ligible   Hmvejx'i.  m  the  presence of
stiong cheJates, rock fractures, and oth-
er factors tending loxlocrcaso soiption,
the A',, is diastically leduced and mobili-
zation  rates may be accelerated by sev-
eral otdeis ot magnitude
  A compilation of selected radionuclide
anal>ses toi hheted  \va_ie_r. ueatheied
Conasauea shale, and ^.oiLsamples col-
lected  between  June 19^4 and June W75
fiom  wells  in seeps adjacent  to pit 4,
tiench 5. and tiench 7 is guen in fable I
(Itn, I oc.iturn* i»f pit*  trenches, ami
        E sties »»re %JH>*n in PV. !•_*_

-------
made hy f  -\  Hondictti. was lhal '"'Co
in giounduatei  did not readily exchange
with ea!ion-c \chaiige icsms (Re\yn 101.
NaMoini)  Data  I mm sevei a I samples
show thai only  about  5 to  10 pciccnt of
the ''"Ci) could he adsorbed hy the lesm.
the oihet 90 to 95 percent being ienured
in solutiun as a tightly  bonded complex
It seemed appaient that  whaicvei agent
was icsponsihle for this  cfiect was also
proveiumg complete .idsoiption  ol cei-
tain iadionuclide-*  by  the Conasauga
shale and  soil
  Subsequent   ion-exchange  analyses
thai v,e Lamed out demonstrated that
the strength uf''"Co complexes with pos-
sible j£oij^micjii_ojmdwvjj:u. component-,
such as suit ate, nitiate. btcaibonale, cai-
bonale, ehlondc.  oilhophosphale, and
even stiongei  hgands such as pytophos-
phale  and  met, iphosp hale   was  in-
sulin, icnl  10  pi odiiee the  loii-L'Vehange1
elution behavn)! ot  ''"Co ohsciveJ in the
samples {//)  Howevei. in ihe piesenee
ol veiy low eonceniiations (10 "A/ and
less!  of  nuiltidentale ejKlaJjng agejTjs.
sui.li  its  dieihyleneli lammepentaacetic
acid (OII'A). eyclohexaiiediammelelia-
aeelie  aud  (CDl'A). 1 01 A.  and also
natiual oii-'-uiiLf such as hunite and iuUie
acids,  ''"Co lesisted  adsoiplion by  the
Tahii: I  Selected radionuclidc analyses ol wealhaed Conasaiiga shale and soil and filtered
walet samples (0 22 fxm) and cut lespunding A,,| value's trom wells in Ihe vicinity ol pil 4. lienth
5, and lieneh 7
Wo
tod

KM
KS^
KS7
17-1
17-1
17-1
T7-I
17-1
RSI
".Cl
dlkl 1

Dale

24 June 197S
2S June I97S
26 June 1974
it 31 July 1974
31 July 1974
8 Auyusi 1974
31 July 1974
31 July 1974
24 June 1975
M tN.H .m.ilyztd
1 PL IX LIU Jl'U) «WL!K
within .ippriwm.ilLl) '<) leu (4 m
Aqueous
(H
(dpm/ml)
1280
1290
WO
3910
14 SO
3740
1900
2090
3130
W.ilL-i Irciii KS7 iKd L
17-11 ihuniL.h 17 IS ,
i ol VM.II KS7 (4 5)
Aqueous
""C o
(dpm/ml)
90 0
390
669 ()T
S|8 0
5470
SI6 0
2270
153 0
80 9
>niuns7^p.il
L HOI dLplLlClJ

Adsoihed
""t-O /Mic''l*
(dpm/ml) "
NAt
NM
41,700 6S 1
16 900 12 6
2K 600 S2 1
24.SOO 30 0
6,600 29 1
1 1)60 6 9
N\r
PLT hillion n ! t1 1W * peictm J'"l.
in hi« 1 IhCM1 *LlK .111 IDL UL'L

  In oidei  to difleientiate between the
Ciidj^Q.lliilde:mo_bilu'in^ ^ejlects_ ot  syn^
ij-iciie__eh_el  lies oi low motec-ul.it wcjght
ami those o!  hiiiivc substances of higher
moleeulai   weighl,   we   fiactionaled
gKninJ'A'.ilci  samples, using ge! tiilu.lion
chi omatogi.iphy (tH C), a pioeess whiefi
sepaiales solutes aeeoidmg to si/e (12)
Since  most  weak  irun game,  metallic
complexes  ate sot bed dining the  GFC
PHK.CS>,, ihe picsenee \)1 liaee metal* in a
given itaction ot an eluiion prolile  dem-
ons u. tics an  as SOL, a!'.in  hciweeti ( ie
liaee melal andva Ng.i'iu in  hia! ti u t1 n
in, /J)
  f I tit ion  piotiles   ot  a  concent i at cd
gioundwalci  sample horn location KS7
neai Iicneh7loi Scphadex gels G-IO, G-
is,  ,md  (,-2^ aic illnsnated  in  Fig  2
Fach  of these eluiion piofiles conuuns
lliiec  t)actions deeieaMng in molecular
weight  lo  the nght  'Ihe blue Jotian
peak coincides with (he  tiaction ol the
sample  having moleeulai  weights above
700  Between % and 95  pciccnt ol the
''"( o and 70 peicent til ihe  U pteseit in
the  sample-   aie  coi i elated   with the
middle   liaction,   which  lepiesenis  ,t
gioupol oigame's with moleeulai  weights
less iliaii 7(H) plus the N.i'-sails ot S..VCI-
al pol>valent  anions  Between 5 and 10
peieetu ol  the ''"C'o and 10 pet cent ol the
L' aie associated v, uh the tiaction having
moleeulai  weigh!-,  above 700,  and no
""(.  o in  I' at e obsci \ ed with the sin, llest
moleeulai  ueiyht peak,  \\hieh  thiough
inttaied spectmphotonK ttv   was dc'tei-
mmed  lo  be com pi tstd pi tncip.illy o!"
N.iNO, and  NaC'l  Reliable I'u .malyses
of  ihe dK'  tiactions could  not he ob-
tained
  Inhaied spectiophotometiic data m-
dteale  lhal ihe laige nioleeulai w<:ight
tiaelions .issoeiatcd with mmoi ""Co and
U u.inspoil  ate  humie substances tie-
cause gioundwalei  in .md vet> close to
the tienehes is t>pically low m humit,
conieni, we  hehevc thai  hiinncs an. nut
maioi contiibutots to ladionuchde  tians-
poii I loin  ihe t tenches On  the conti ary,
\\e believe' lhal humies become associat-
ed  wilh  ladionuclidc-s   some  distance
tiom ihe  11 one hcs, paiiicuLuly  in  the
seeps,  wheie  gt oundwatet  humic con-
cenlialuins aie the gtealesl
   AlKi  we had completed the C.FC trac-
lionalions  ihe idenlitics ot  eompk \mg
age'iUs  in ihe ttiaioi iadumuciide-bcaui\g
11 act i ons \\eic still  unknown  We sus-
pected  lhal these m.ilei tals weil^'svnthet-
 ic  c he I ales,  but  humic substances  ot
 lowei   moleeiilai  weight  could not be
completeK  HI led   out,   paiticulaily  in
\ lew  ol then gieatei  acidity  and mctal-
coinpfe\mg  capaeii) iclative to the spe-
                      s( JhNCf-  \'OI  2M

-------
    .res  ot  higher  molcctiLn  weight  (/5)
      We euiaued ihe middle C.hC  fiac-
    tion, which contained the largest radro-
    nuclidc concentrations with chlorofoim
    to remove compound*) th.it would intei-
    fero  in the suhsequent analysis  All  the
    radio'UK.]idc icmamcd in  the  aqueous
    phase alter Ihc chloiofoim extraction
    The  aqueous tayeis were ihen evapo-
    laicd to dryness and meth>lated to facili-
    tate  jjas	chr_ojnai.ojji aphy-m.Lsi --p.il--
'   jHjmetiy (CiC-jdS) analysis (/6)
      Ihe  (jC profile  foi  the methylated
 '  haction is illustrated in I ig  .1  We used
    MS  lo deinonstiate  ihat  the  dominant
    peak represents the tetiamethyl  ester ol
.*.  fiD I A.  an jextiemely  stio_ng_che]ate
    commonly used jn jJt:ciini.jrnmanon_op-
    eialiuns  .q	nucjcaj Jaciljiies  (17)
    Through use of an rnieinal CDTA  stan-
    daul. the  KDTA concenti.nmn ol  this
    saipple  has been calculated to he  ap-
    puuirnitely'M  x It) 7A/, FDFA  has also
    been detected in samples KS? obtained
    neai  pit 4 and KS9 neai trench 5 (IN]
      Oihei constituents detected  in trench
   Jeachates include palmitic acid  phthalic
    acid (/V). and other mono- and dicaihox-
    >he acids, which are much weaker com-
    plexmg ugiinis th;m EDTA 'Ihe eoneen-
 f* trations ol  strong  chelates  similar  lo
'I  KDPA.  such   as   nitnlotiiacctic   acrd
  Lngi-
   J^'[|y_l1[^"^JI' in  the  waste (20)  Both
    Dl'PA  and other multidentate chel.nes
    were used only sparingly  m decontami-
    nation  ai ORNL duimg the 1950's and
    l%()\ and consequently  do not appeal
    to he siynihcant in the radionuclide mo-
    bili/ution at this site
      We ihus n.a-oned thal_EDTA is  the
^  jJoinin^uit _niohiij/jjT^_ageni  in  samples
    RS7. KS3. ,ind  RS9  A minor poilion ot
    the  migrating ''"Co and U is associated
    with natuial oiganics  Ligands  such  as
    phthalic, palmitic, and other taiboxyhe
    acids ma> also  he Lontnhutmg  lo '"'Co
    and U mobilisation to a small extent
      The identification ol KD1 A as  a ladio-
    nuclrde mobih/er in the OKNl  disposal
    aiea raises ^question abouLilie -Miit;
    abihjy t)tj_his^chela_ie_m_d_econlainmatK>n
    opei.ilions  Although  11DJA is  used in
    dcc-onlammation because of Us D°J£Cijul
                           lnis s'irnc *-hai-
                 leads to r.tdionucJjde JHO.-
    bili/ation  Ihe ladionuclide mobih/ation
    caused by hl)TA m  ihe  OKNL bunal
    giounds piob,ihl> does not at piesent im-
    pose a  health h.tzaid  HowevAii.  its con-
                                                             Sample  CS 1
  2  'Ihc (jFC clution pu
)|  |CiXii(tis> at l.ttnnt>ltn
                                  70        80
                              Elution volume (ml)
                            itniiulualci Mum KS7. a
                                                 small seep c.isi of trench 7 [trom
        Tetramethyl este
            of  EDTA
                   \
Tetramethyl ester
CDTA  added as
                                    probably the  dimethyl
                                             Methyl  ester ot small-
                                             molecular-weight  car-
                                             boxyhc acid
                             Methyl  ester of
                             palmitic acid
                                \
                               Time (rr
                           15
                                    -t-
  9
	1	
 UO
                                                       no
  3
—I—
 80
                                                     1 The CC profik
                           200       170
                              Temperature (°C)
                      of GFC-punlicil .inj nic-lli>l.iu-tl i;umnjw.iter sample RS7
                                                                     un

-------
 untied  use  in  decontamination  opera-
 lions around ihc countiy. and iheieloie
 its_pi esencc in jow-  and iniermediale-^
 level waste, co_nstit_utes_a potcnli.il loi
jhe release of undesuable amounts of_i_a-
 dionuclides  Because  HDTA is icsistani
  to decomposition by iadtaiion (2/), thei-
  mally veiy stable (22), and only slowly
  biodegradable (2.0, it is  extremely pei-
_ sistent in  the naluial environmu'ni  In-
  deed, the picscnce of significant concen-
  halions of F.DTA in waste  12 to 15 years
  old attests io MS pei silence  Theieloie,
  wheievei EDTA and similar compounds
  have been introduced into teiresljjal Ji^-

  tiarvsition metals, laic earths, and iians-
  uianics.  which  chaiacienstically  loim
  Jhe most stable complexes  wnh chelates.
  may  be augmented
    Thcie can  be no question about the
  stiong complexmg capacity  of hDTA
  and  similar  chelates foi  certain  tadio-
  nuclides mUudmgihe uire earths ,vnd M.-
  imides For example, all of the tnvalent
  rare e.ulhs along with Am", Cm", Pu",
  Pu", Pu1'*, and Th" possess at least as
  high  or highei complexity constants, A ,,
  for KDTA as CV (24}  Both EDTA and
  D'l PA arc used in the ItojjTCimi; icniov-
  al of tiansuianics  ingested  by humans
  he-cause of the strong complexe;> loimetl
  with  these elements (25)  Oui evidence
  suggests but  docs not piove that F.DI A
  is also contributing to the migtairon ol
  11 ace levels of Pu. Am, Cm, Th, and Ra,
  which have  been  detected  in the soil
  liom seep RS7 appioxiinaiely  100  yaids
  (W m) east ol ticnch 7 For example, ac-
  linrdes weie  found in concentiations of
  -43 r  K dpm/g of J"*Pu. 110 ±  7 dpm/g ol
  -'"Am. and 49S ± 20 dpm/g of J"Cm in a
  weatheied shale sample collected  at a
  depth  of 71 cm in  well  T7-I2, which is
  adjacent to well RS7 (4, 5)  In addition,
  thejalcs jncicase lhi- npl:ikt?_of ntimei-
  ^nis  trace elements by  pJonL*.  Con-

  ol ceitain ladionuchdes such js'-P|''Pu and
  J41Am, and therefore the possibility ol'
  i he n  cjucrmg human food  chains^ m-
  eieoses. in the pi esencc of  complexmg
  agents (2ft)
    In  the  United  States,  thcie aie  SJA
  lommeicial  and fivx  Fjicmv   Rescaich
  and  Developmeni AdrmpiMiaiion teiie_s.i
  t_naj. ladioitctive waste ^JJJiij^JLlc;s which
  have in the past  received 01 are cm rent I y
  r^ecci'-jng lowland  inUinTieduiejJevclja-
  jjjiucirve_vva_sics (27)  Vaiving levels ol
  r.idionuclidc rmgjation fioni  ouguul dis-
  posal sites haveTieen obseived•aijj^l1'. .oj.
  JMVse  waste bin i.il sues  o.yjcj_
  ORNL.  including  the  Savannah  River
   LJioiatoiy,   South Carolina  (2n opeialions,
and theicloie then piesence in low- and
mleimediatc-level  waste  in the United
Slates and the test i>t the woild,  is wide-
spiead (2/1, Throughout the woild. low-
.md mteimediate-level ladioacdve  waste
is being hut led along with chemicals that
.ue  likely to cause the migiation  of
hazaidous isotopes Mich as Pu over the
long tcim. Indeed. jj_,iee_Jevels  ot la-
dn>nuc[ides   .ue   he ing  le leased   by
tziounduaiei  ti.anspoiit  ^il man\  iadio_
active Waste disposal...sitc_s in  this cjtujij:
l\v^ and initiation ol ladioactive tiansi-
tton metals raie c\u ths, and ti aiistu.mics
is prob.ibly being ajite^Lby^chelate^ siuh
as  I-.D1  \ Consequently, il the use ot
 FDTA and sinnlai compounds is to ton-
linue, waste solutions shoukl he Heated
foi thelemovaUiLJ-l^siuicl'oilot the_cjie_-
          _10 ^na* disposal iii_ihc_giomul
available. Hot cells, nucleai equipment.
and icactois have been decontammuted
by means ot a wide vanety of reagent
including stiong acids, bases, 01 oxidis-
ing agents, which can  be ncutialued bc-
loie linal bunal,  01 iclatively  mild com-
plexmg agents such as citiate, Kutuite,
oxalate, gluconaie, phosphate, bisultati:,
and fluoiidc. which wjll contnbute to r.i-
ilionuclulc mobility m the cnvuonmeiit
to a much Icssei  extent lhan KD1 A.
   I \cellent icviews ol ditTcicnt decon-
tammaiion solutions and techniques aie
available (2/1  Many  of these icagcnis
used eithei alone, in  combination,  or in
successive tieaiments have been shown
to be exiiemely clleclive alternatives lo
l-.D'l A
                    Jl I fKl Y L Ml AMS
                      DAVID A  CKI KAR
ficptti tnit'til of(/t'f>if>.t!ti til <*nd
                                                                                                'wJrnev 1)8540
                                                                                                         JAMI sO. DUGUID
                                                                                    lMCHi\ und l.m uontncntul ^y\ii'in\
                                                                                    .\\\i'\\ntcnt Sc< tn'it,
                                                                                    lt{iiti'll('-t'olnnibn\ / ahunilory,
                                                                                    d>litnihn\. Ohio 4 1201
                                                                                               Rrfrr
                                                                                                      s and Notes
                                                                                     I  J  (. Slnivius>  fJnt KulKr NK\l  1M-1H M%2) W dc 1 .IRUIM, K  li
                                                                                       t..m-,oi, t  1   r.ukti.  S( ((W UN denei-a
                                                                                       ( <-ni V n < 2> i'2^1 I195HJ. p 101
                                                                                     :  I)  \ Wihsicr  (' V  (not Swn Open f-tte Rr,*
                                                                                       7f>-727 ilSCJh)
                                                                                                i  J lt.t>l>-.  1  C.
                                                                                                                           .
                                                                                                                     ihiJ  13,
                                                                                                                       iht.t
 Anothei aliemaiive would be to use suit-
 able substitutes, compounds that aie ct-
 teclive in decontamination but do not la-
 cilitale ladionuclide niobili/ation
   One such  uselul  subsiiiutc  may  be
 N1A, which is a  potential icplac'eiltent
 for phosphates in  dcteigcnis  this com-
 pound ts lapidly biodegiadable (2f) and
 is  a  stiong  ligand   alihough shghiK
 weakei  in  complexmg  c.ipacil\  than
 EDI A
   The bjijdjjgiad_ahjlM.y ot oihei chelates
 such as ti iclhylenelcliaaiiiuiehcxaacclie
 acid C1THA). h\dioxycth\lencdiamine-
 tnaceiie acid (HI DIA). ,\M2-h>dio\y-
 eihyl)-c't hylcnedi.mii net i racetic      acid
 (HI-I  D1A), elh>lenedianiinc  i!i-((Mi>-
 diox>phenylacel.itc>    (t DOHA)   and
 DIPA ^^app^iienlli;  not  v\ell knov*n__
 Some ol these compounds aie stronger
 hgands than FDI A ,ind [hcreloie \voukl
 be  more  ellcclive in  decontamination
 Howoei  the use of such compounds  it
 nonbiodcgtadablc. coukt JC.KJ to _y>CD
                . liom disposal  sites th.m
 thai caused by t Dl *.
   Numeious  othei  alternatives  to  the
 use ol \ Dl"A and  lelated compounds aie
                                                                                       l« 4h7(iv70» I  h  I iinu-nn-k .md D A '
                                                                                       IKI :hi,l  11 V>7(lsiM)  I  I  1 omenitk and 1
                                                                                       I.,111111 i  V.I/SM S,H \,H  I'm, 2»,1KMI%'I.
                                                                                       t' H  C.IIIIIMII Ji  t1 V  (""! Swi t'"'l ''<><>
                                                                                       •/**(, (IVMti  K  J  I'KkeiniB (' S (M../  Viirk
                                                                                       f'r,,, t',,,, JU/MIVb^.r S  <.„•„! \lirt  l'rlf
                                                                                       I'.if 4«-j tiv7oi      p H (.nnt:m Jf  , r
                                                                                       lamui.i  H M  \hn J M  lU'vtr.inf, K W  \ i-


                                                                                       pp ^7-fih J d  Outiitid Out* Kitlv? ftml /«>
                                                                                       A'

                                                                                     4 J  1  FAU ms  i>  \  don  J 0  Dut.uKl, O. k
                                                                                       finite ^l"' I «>' K'l' OK\l H \l i Hit llV7ftl
                                                                                     * J  i  Vk .11. n  \  CILIU  M  p  itousik J o
                                                                                       Dll^UlJ, Ml pl<-I1 ll.llK1!!
                                                                                     6 t   \ J(.init  mJ J  S  \V ihlhi'n; /r.j/is  Am

                                                                                     1 A.,   ['"to (dpmt.1  in scdtmtnt]  >. [""Co idpni/
                                                                                       mil in 0 2^ nm hlttrtd at[uti'Us phase]"  1 ah i-





                                                                                     K V\i takuLiicd ihi. .mil il A. i \ tines fiom en* i-
                                                                                       loimiiii! il suit mO  .isM'Li.ilid mliistitia1 M.itcr
                                                                                       s.impks  usmc ihi S.UIIL iklmilion as in l?\
                                                                                     •* (• di M.nsil>  I  I idou\, A l*.iitiKju, J  M.ir-
                                                                                       Kit  Si K in, 197  siy IIV771
                                                                                     111 (noiimlu iti-i s.niipks \nie^.olki.l(.'d m polvilh-
                                                                                       \luii  honks  uiJ  thin  imnKJnlJ>  Illlcr, J
                                                                                       ihioniih ishkss V\ h it nun  hltu papn ol nuxlu-
                                                                                       alf K-iiruuui and iht'n through 0 22 fi"1 Milli-
                                                                                              inhtan

                                                                                        htmdn_d nnlli In i. is (it i hi disinjsimplt ihioii|:h


                                                                                        r,.ii. ol  irpiK\iiTi.
-------
    lent and abiorbance at 254 nm u>mg an in-line        Nation  No  17.  Chemical  Society,  Lund on,
    ultraviolet  speclropholometer   We  analysed        1964)
    "to using a multichannel analyzer, and U was    25  A  C James and I) M Taylor Health Phv>  21,
    deieimmed by MS, with isotope dilution              II  (1971), V 11 Smith, ,W  22 7M (19721
11  J  L Means  D  A C*ierar  J  L  Amsler. I im-    26  A  WalUc ihitl  22 S59H972)  W V  I iptun
    nul  Otftinogr 22,957(1977)                        md A  S Coldm, thid  31,425(1976)  \   Q
14  H  R  PlumbaniiG  F Lee. Wuitr ftes 7 581        H.ile and A  Wallace. Soil \erutMn\ in ihi I  W/<
    tfum  Covmvcltim  Acid  38  141(1974), M A        fl n>ht-Water K<'-41, Irncigy  Rese.Hth ..nd Development  Ad-
16  We  methylated organic .itijs in GFC fr.iUions        miiistraiiitn, W.ishin^on, D C  .  1976),  vol 4,
    using  10 percent  HF, in meth.inol,  js pruposed        section 24 I
    by 1,  R KudlincltVtmrtti't  6, K71(1972)j       28  S  ()  KcKhert.  J   Givy/m   Rf\   67, 41ftl
17  J  A Ayrcs ftrtn<'J Nutlt-nr H,-,ir-        (1962)
    twtintiEquipment (RtmM. New York. l97t)j      29  S  M  Putc .md 1  I  Anu-s. in lr,m\uniniuni
18  h A  Bofidietti ofORNL was the first to SLIKKC-.I        NiHlnle-, in ill, I n\ironment (1'uhln.alKHi  SM-
    lh.il *"Cu w.is transponeil  as  a  complex  with        199/K7.  Intein-ilumal  Atomic I ncryy Agency,
    bDTA (4)  His suggestion w.is  bused ].iigcl> on        Vienna. 1976), P  191
    ion  exthange. Ui.ilysiN  and  paper chromalupa-    10  K  llecrandl'  iliskmd. S,-i rn Da\\ 1, 1 (1977)
    phy .malyses, and the knowledge  that hMIA    II  d  I  Wj;>et.  in rrat^untniutn  Nutli>ir\ in the
    W.IN commonly used in deci>nl,immalion opeui-        tn\irtmment  (PuNivatiun SM-199/105,  Ink-i-
    tions jt the laboratory                               national Alomn; t-nergy Agency, Vicnn.i. 1976),
19  I he dimethyl  ester  of phthalic acid  (probably        p  21!
    meift orpurMMppcarsin ihcCC profile of adif-    32  P  J  Parsons, in S< (,,,,d ConJ Proc ( twti  KH
    ft-rent sample from seep KS7                         tr  Ctirunlii  Hl> ?62ti <1%2).  p  16  tltoM.
20  R  D  Ssrnher T  A   T.tulli.  I  J  Makt,  m        f'h\ i  9.11(196*1

    Natural WHIM.  P C   Singer  Fd  (Ann Arbor        and Dtvckipmi.nl Admmisti.ilion suhcontratl S-
    Science, Ann Arbor, 1974), pp 237-264 C H        4228  We thank ()  M Se.iland ot OKM   who
    W.in en. in Survival in  Tom knMruHmtnl\  ( \c-        was of invaluable assist,,.KC in  the ciilkuion
    ademic Press, New York  /V75J. pp 47^-196.        and an.iljMs ot s.imp/es  We (hank B  F Amev
    M  K  Firestone and J  M  TiedjeMpp/  Micni-        and I  A Br^n c! the U  S Cicologic.il Sutvcy
    binl 29,758(1975)                                  Kcston  Va  .md  I  I .uiiui.i ,ind K A  Hondit-lti
21  J  ^ Ayte^.Battstle-Mortltueit Kep BNWL-B-        ol OkNl who otleiid nmMiuUive su^ttsiums

    \er  V4  177(1961)       '                           .issisl.mvc ol W  1 R.nnLy C A  Pnuh.ud  and
22  A  K  Manell, R  J  Motekailis A  R Fried  J        D C  Canada ot OKM  We thank R  1  W.ilku
    S Wilson  D  T  MdcMill.in.Cun J Chem  S3,        ol ORN1  who did  the  U ..n.il>scs and 1   C,
    1471 (1975)                                         SLOII ol ORNL  who drd  the i'u. Am.  and Cu
2»  1  M  Tiedje.App/ Mtcmhiul 30,127(1971) J        .inaly>is
    hH\trtm  QU,,I 6,21 (1977)
24  I,  Cj  Sillcn and A  E  Martell.  Ittahilitv Con-     8 DcLcmbci 1^77  revised 8 March 1978

-------
  6
  7
 10

 11

 12
 13
 14

 15
 16
 17
 18
 19

 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                         82
           CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   The  next  person on  the  list thi
 morning is a  representative  from the  St. Louis Regional
 Commerce and  Growth  Association.
           Hearing  no  answer, Mr.  Robert  Robinson,  Director,
 Missouri Solid Waste  Management,
                 STATEMENT OF ROBERT  M.  ROBINSON
           MR. ROBINSON:  I'm Robert M. Robinson, Director of
 the Solid  Waste Management Program for the Missouri Department
 of Natural Resources.
           We want  to  commend EPA  for moving towards develop-
ment and implementation of these  hazardous waste regulations.
We also  want to commend EPA for the outstanding effort they
are making to obtain  public comment on the regulations.
           The Department has a few comments to make regard-
ing the  regulations and will provide written comments and
details  at a later date.
           The regulations exclude sewage sludge from these
regulations on the basis of public ownership of the generating
facilities.  It is our opinion that this is contrary to
EPA's defined criteria for identifying the characteristics of
hazardous waste, th«  criteria for listing hazardous waste,
the integrated permit approach under Section 3006 of the Act
and the others,  which they are incorporating,  and is dis-
criminatory towards privately owned treatment  works.
          We recommend that EPA drop this special exclusion

-------
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                          83
 and return to defining hazardous  waste  on  the  basis  of
 characteristics  of  the waste  or exclude all  sewage sludge,
 except for industrial  treatment plant sludges.
           The waste from health care facilities have require-
 ments under these regulations for segregating,containerizing
 and handling infectious waste from their facilities which
 take into  account its  infectious  nature.  Yet  household
 solid waste will contain infectious agents comparable to
 these listed in this section from health care facilities.
 Therefore,  we  recommend that EPA  provide a broader exemption
 for health care facilities than the practices of autoclaving
 and incineration such  as special  packaging for the disposal
 in  a sanitary  landfill in readily  identifiable bags for the
 facility to  enable  immediate identification and covering.
           Another alternative which we would prefer would be
 to  delay the effective date of the implementation of the
 infectious criteria for health care facility in order to give
 such facilities more time to install necessary incinerators
and autoclaves and,  therefore, not interfere with implement-
ing controls of the more serious waste types.  These health
care facilities are already under some type of state regu-
latory control that  addresses waste storage  and disposal,
and we do not believe present a serious problem at this time.
          The background document  for this regulation states
that EPA has determined it has no  legal basis for issuing any.

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                        84




 state authority to  receive  notification  from persons  identified



 by this  identification  and  listing  as they are  required to



 notify EPA within 90 days of promulgation of Sub-part  (a).



 It is our opinion that  EPA  Is instructed under  the Act  to



 make  every effort to Issue  states.,  at least  Interim authori-



 zation,  if not full authorization.



          If the EPA meets  its court order for  Implementing



 Section  3005 and 3006 by October 31, 1979, then states  such



 as Missouri, with statutory author!  ty, a manifest system, a



 permit process and a comparable identification and listing



 of hazardous waste,  could be issued Interim authorization and



be authorized to receive the notification.  This would



 eliminate confusion, duplication and efforts on the part of



 persons affected.  We recommend that EPA make every effort



to concentrate on issuing states, at least interim authoriza-



tion, so that they may receive the notification required by



the Act.  Otherwise, generators of hazardous waste will be



required to comply with notification twice,  both EPA and the



state.  I have serious doubt that EPA can implement these



hazardous waste regulations In a timely manner.  Therefore,



the state should be  included in the implementation process



such as the notification and not confuse the generator and the



public relative to what  agency,  state or federal,  is re-



sponsible in an individual state for implementing the regu-




lations.

-------
  8




  9




 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                           85



           Relative to an earlier concern about the hazards of



 transporting hazardous waste,  I would point out that with few



 exceptions the railroad and truck spills we read about,  all




 are involved with the transportation of  hazardous materials




 and not  hazardous waste.   I recall  of only  one situation in th




 state  of Missouri where a  spill actually involved a  hazardous




 waste.



           Thank you.




           CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.




           MR.  LIMDSEY;  One of  the  points which you made,  Mr.



 Robinson,  regarded health  care  facilities,  as  I recall,  and




 urged that there  be some sort of  special consideration,  either



 in terms of the time  for implementing regulations, which refer




 then to something more  similar  to that.  I  think it was



 indicated  a little earlier  that,  I  guess Jack  Lehman mentioned




 it in his  opening remarks,  that the  regulations  for Section



 3005, which is the regulations  which set out the  procedural



 requirements for receiving  a permit, are not yet  proposed and



they will be proposed within the next four  to  six weeks, we




 hope should be.



          I should point out I think we're  going to make you



happy there in that regard.  If a hospital's facilities are



 overed now by a rather intensive or a state regulatory pro-




gram which addresses the waste from that hospital, even in




states where EPA may be running the program, there will be a

-------
 10




 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                         86




 special, rather less burdensome,  I guess is the word which



 I'm being coached on here,  set of controls which will recog-



 nize the degree of state controls that are involved.  In




 other words,  it will be relatively,  administratively more



 easy to get a R.C.R.A permit.   And I think, if I'm not mis-




 taken, that's the kind of thing you were getting at, is that



 right?  Would that solve your  problems?




           MR. ROBINSON:   Well,  I'm not sure that they need a



 permit.  But  one thing that  concerns me,  there are so many



 of  these facilities,  and you so broadly defined the amount of



 waste that's  included in these  facilities,  that we could




 essentially bog down the state  program or the  federal pro-



 gram,  whichever it might be, Just  in taking care of those



 facilities.  I don't  think that we've seen  the incidents of



 hazard although in some  cases they may not  be  handled in quite!




 a completely  satisfactory manner that you and  I might like



 to  see.



           We  have talked to  some of  these people and I don't



 think they fully realize as  to  how much waste  that you



brought under  this regulation,and many of  them  already have



 incinerators  or they  have autoclaves and  they  think they're




 covered so that  they're  going to take care  of  it.   But their



 facilities are relatively small and  they're really handling



 the  real  bad  waste which they are  more able to identify,



 I think,  than EPA or  the state  and they're  properly handling

-------
 10





 11




 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                         87



 those which you're bringing such a volume of waste under



 these regulations,  that  they're  going  to  be  overwhelmed  and




 going to  have  to  install much larger facilitie  is  the  view



 that  we have.




           MR.  LINDSEY:   So  your  problem then goes  to Section



 250.l4(b)(l) which is the health care  facilities and is




 basically,  then,  a  list  of  sources  of  materials which,if



 waste comes from  that source,  then  it's presumed to be




 hazardous,  and you  think that  that's too  extensive and should



 be modified in some manner?




          MR. ROBINSON:  I've  made that point in several other




 meetings, in fact,  recommended the whole  section be dropped on



 previous occasions  to EPA.




          MR. LINDSEYi  You think we should drop this whole




 section relative to health care waste?



          MR. ROBINSON:  I would for a couple of years until



 we know what we're doing and are able to implement a hazardous



waste management program on what I consider to be really a



 serious waste element.



          MR. LINDSEY:   Following on,  then, from your comment,



would there be any benefit,  in your mind,  to considering



 these kinds of wastes which are listed in Section 3001,



 that's Section 250.1^(b)(l), considering the disposal of them



as special waste while we presumably gather more information




on to specify how they should be controlled?

-------
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
23
24
25
                                                             88
              MR.  ROBINSON:   I think that will be  very  helpful,
     but  I would  reserve my approval of  that  approach  until  I  see
     the  regulations.
              MR.  CORSON:  I  think following up on that, I  do want
     to point out that in the  3004 regulations, the preamble does
     indicate that  we have received some information along that
     line from the  U. A. Army  Environmental Hygiene Agency and that
     we are considering and will be in-house studies but you have
     the possibility of creating a special waste category for
     these wastes.
              MR.  ROBINSON:   Very good.
              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I guess we have no more  ques-
    t ions .  Thank  you very much.
              The  next speaker this morning should be Robert
     Plank from City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri.
              No answer.
              Is Kenneth Smelcer from Quincy, Illinois, here?
              MR.  SMELCER:   Yes.
              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  We'll wait for you.
              MR. SMELCER:  I'm  not  sure  I'm  off  to  a  good  start.
    They told us they didn't have  a  room  ready and I'm on already.
                      STATEMENT  OF KENNETH SMELCER
20
21
22
              MR. SMELCER:  My name is Kenneth Smelcer.  I'm the
    Executive Vice-Presldent, Industrial Association of Quincy.
              Quincy'is about 45,000 people, about 100 miles

-------
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                         89
 north of St. Louis,  100 miles west of Springfield,  Illinois,
 and 100 miles south  of  Peoria. Sometimes  we're called
 Forgotonie  in Illinois.  But  in some  ways it  does help,  when
 we  try to make a  statement  of this nature,  that  we're some-
 thing of an isolated area and some of the things that happen
 to  us are the same that happen to  many of the other areas
 but  it's so much  easier for us to  see because there is a
 hundred  miles between us and  anywhere else.
          The association that I represent has about  50  member
 and  they run everywhere from  the small assembly  kind  of
 operation to the  large  metal  working.  We have livestock,
 feed type operations  and this  sort  of thing.   And we  have a
 new  $37  million sewage  treatment plant  that we refer  to  as the
 white  elephant.   And  now we have a  new Adams  County landfill
 that's brand new, we  thought was going  to be  a real answer
 and  last  year,we've been  waiting for  about a  year to  be  able
 to dump  some  of our industrial waste  in,  nothing very
 hazardous in  our  opinion, and  we've had troubles getting our
permits  and  so on which  is really an  argument with the state o:
 Illinois rather than federal.  But not  knowing what was going
to happen at the federal  level, we've been kept waiting.  Now
we do get a chance to see it and we're quite concerned because
we
   feel that we've been put in a box, and I won't try to be
too technical in this.  If we get technical, I'm going to
have to call on a couple of my cohorts back there.

-------
24
                                                             90
              Basically one of our problems boils down to paint
    sludge.  A lot of our companies are doing painting and when
    they're through, they have a paint sludge.  They're using the
    water pipe boots and so on, but we're not allowed to take
    these materials and it looks like under the regulations,  we're
    not going to be allowed to take them out to our new landfill-
    site either.
              Now, for us,  in our particular area,  this seems to
    be a real injustice because our landfill is really a clay
    type landfill and very little is  going to escape from the site,
    We will have people here  on Friday talking about the landfill
    situation from Quincy.  But it  is  an excellent  landfill.
    But we're having trouble  with this paint sludge, and it's not
    unusual for our companies  to  haue  a hundred barrels,  a hundred
    and fifty barrels stacked  some  place waiting to  try to get
    in.  We know we're going to get a  little relief  for a year.
    But the way the regulations are written,  it  doesn't appear
    we're going to be able  to  make  it  after that.  There are  some
    things  that may be  in the  generator portion  but  exactly what
    we're at is about,  it  says 200,000 but  my secretary made  a
    mistake,  that's about 150,000 gallons per year of  industrial
    sludges tiiat ire being classified as hazardous.
    paint  sludges  is  break this  down,  most  hazardous,  very  little
,s   hazardous or whatever you want  to  call  it,  mildly  hazardous,

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                          91




 so that some of these things can go into the type of landfill



 we have.  Our landfill people feel they have no problem what-




 soever handling it.  We do know that we have solvent problems



 from our machining areas and so on that we're going to have to




 talk about recycling and doing these things and most of them




 are already doing it.  Our big problem right now is what are



 we going to do  with things like the paint  sludge which comes




 in volume but yet do not really qualify as very hazardous




 material.




           We understand  that  we're  going to get caught  in a




 further box with this in that,  due  to  the  air standards,  we



 understand we may have to get rid of the water,  well,  not




 necessarily the  water but the solvent  based paints  and  go to




 the water  based paints, and our people  are  telling us once we




 do  that  we're going  to really be in trouble because then  when



 we  try  to  take that  to the landfill site,  leachability  of this




 is  going to  be quite  high and we could be  in worse trouble.



 So  we're going to be  dead whichevervay we  go.   This is  the



 Catch 22 part that we're  hoping that you will listen to and




 do  something  about.



           I think the other thing  i a  taking a look at  some



of the landfills and what they are like.  For example,  if it



was sand, I could see a different story. But with the clay,



we really don't have a problem.  And, in our case, again we're




not asking for the very hazardous material.

-------
 10





 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                       92




          One of the things that we have in our statement is



 raising the amount that you could put into the landfill.




 We're raising it from the hundred, we felt, to a thousand



 but that may be a topic for tomorrow.




          This is basically the problem we're having, the



 economic problem is going to be, frankly, some of the people




 in our smaller companies are going to take the law in their




 own hands and they're going to send it home with their




 employees, and I'm not sure it's beingdone now, but at some




 point it's going to happen.  It's been pointed out to us by




 some of our people with 150 barrels, in 90 days they're going




to be in violation of another standard.  They proposed to us




that maybe we can cheat, maybe we can put some emulsifiers



 in it and hold some water or something and we can get it out




that way.  But I don't think that's going to fool anybody for



 very long.  These are the kinds of problems we're having.



There's going to be an economic problem to us because again




we are so far from anywhere,  although I think that with these



regulations,  we're going to find very few sites in the



country that  are going to be eligible for these things, it is




going to be a large transportation problem.




          Our people are saying, maybe you're trying to tell




us we're going to have to set up burning sites or furnaces to




get rid of it this way.



          Recycling the paint sludge, for example, is not

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                          93



 going to work for us because we have no place to put it.



 We've been able to do things with some of  our sawdust,  things



 like this,  trying to use from our firniture people,  but  we



 can't see where we can get  rid of the  recycled paint sludge.



 For  primary paint too much (of it  is  left over.



           So our recommendations  are that  you take  a careful



 look at  the classification  that everything is not just



 classified  hazardous.  That  you have maybe most  hazardous,



 least  hazardous kind of  thing and that  some of these things



 can  be handled  in a  Class Cilandfill.



          I think that's probably the extent  of  remarks  I



 want  to make now.  They  are  different than the written



 comments, but we  tried to be specific there.   I  tried to tell



 you  about the situation we're  facing in a  small  town without



 the  real answer to us that is  going to be  readily available



 other than  long-distance hauling  or  setting up burning sites,



 it's going  to be  very expensive for us when we could see a



 little more  leniency on the  standards in some  areas  as far as



 hazardous could eliminate a  lot of our problems.



          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.



          Any questions?



          MR. LINDSEY:  Mr. Smelcer, I think you've hit on



one of the dilemmas that we had to face or trying to face in



developing these regulations and that is if the regulations
    oecome
       too stringent, then we, in effect, encourage illicit

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                          94



 disposal.   I think that's  one of  the  points you made.



           The other side of  that  dilemma is the fact  that



 if  the  public is  going to  accept  facilities which receive



 these kinds  of waste, then they need  to  be assured that their-



 safety  is  adequately protected and so we end up with,  sort of



 a dilemma  in that  situation.



           Let  me  ask you a question if I could.  You  indicated



 that your  new landfill with its fortunate location and



 probably good  design is satisfactory for handling  a great



 many wastes  as far as you can tell.  What is it, then, about



 the regulations which would cause that facility not to be



permitted, permittable?  I understand that maybe there are



 some things  in the regulations which would require some, per-



 haps, modifications in operation or something of that nature„



but if it's  a well designed, well located operation, maybe



 it would fit the bill.



          MR. SMELCER:   Again we're speaking to this on



Friday with the people, from the city and  county being here.



          But it's the cost of qualifying as a hazardous



landfill that's going to really drive us  out because we don't



have that many industries.  We're an industrial town,  about



 45,000,  and this is the part, we really  aren't saying we



want to put everything we've got coming  out of our companies



there, It's clay, it won't make any difference, we're not



 saying that.  Really our engineers are saying some of these

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                             95




1   things like the paint sludge are so close that somethinc like




   making a separate classification for something that's mildly



   hazardous, if you didn't handle it right, it could probably



   be a problem, but willing to handle it right and our landfill



   is willing to handle it and they see no problem with it at all




   and it's not going anywhere, it's in barrels and so on and,



   frankly, a lot of the stuff, we've even thought about this,




   just let it harden,  get solid like a rook and then take it




   out.  But, again,  these things  seem to be trying to get



   around the rules when we really should be speaking to the




   rule and if it's a little excessive,  then trying to back off
   from it.



             That's  going to  be our problem.   If  we try to



   qualify as a hazardous landfill  and that's  one of the things




   that our  engineers  are saying is there  really  isn't  any



   difference between  something that they  wouldn't want in



   there either,   they wouldn't want to  live there if you put  it




   there,versus something like  paint sludge which really is not



   going to  make  any difference. And, frankly, the amount of



   our  hazardous  material which we  tried to count up and the  way



   we're handling it right now  for  this  year,  they put  a barrel



   here,  they put another barrel there.  They're  so far away  from



   each other,  that  it  really doesn't  make any difference. In




   some of the  cases,  you're  talking about hauling things out



   there like whey almost, you  know,  grain derivatives  that dump

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                           96
 a  little  more  water in  it  and it meets  the  pH factors.   But

 again we  don't feel that's the way to handle it.   Number one,

 it's  going  to  cost  you  money  when  you dump  that water intthere

 when  we're  talking  about something that's really  not  what

 this  should probably be designed for.

          MR.  CORSON:   I guess I just want  to  focus a little

 bit on the  point that Fred made, Mr. Smelcer,  and even though

 I  do  know you  are making comments  on Friday, I think  it's

 important to note at this  time that the 3004 regulations

 really provide  for  an infinite amount of flexibility  in terms

 of the specifics which  a land  disposal site might  be  used.

 So that if  you  are  only putting paint sludges  in  and  our

 toxicity  definition is  based on what would be  leached from

 those sludges,  not  the  content of the waste Itself, if you

 could show  that that specific  waste disposed in -that  site

 would not present a problem, we see no readon  why  there would

 be any difficulty in getting a permit.
          Looking at the comments in your letter which was

 presented to me, you point out one of the case examples, I

believe, that someone has in their sludge 120 milligrams per

 liter of chromium where our standard is 5> and I guess we

don't see how that leach,  the mere fact it comes from paint

 sludge, would be reason to exclude it.
          Similarly you point out in one of your earlier ~

 comments in the letter that there may be facilities-fchat don't

-------
 10
 II
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                         97
 want  to  take  on the  record keeping and  monitoring and so on,
 and I thintc that  our problem has  been we're  not  sure  how we
 provide  for the requisite  protection of public health in-the
 environment without  getting that  kind of data from facilities
 that  are used to  dispose of waste which many have these
 toxicants  in-them.   And if  you're not going  to provide that
 kind,  that's  exactly the reason why we  need  the  permanent
 facilities  to assure that we can  get that data so that if
 for any  reason  in the future we find, as a result  of monitor-
 ing,  that something  has gone wrong, we  can try to  take the
 necessary corrective action without having to wait for the
 groundwork  perhaps to be so contaminated that it's beyond
 reclamation.
          MR. SMELCER:  Some  of my comments  are coming from
 small companies,  *n the back here where I say "here are some
 of our comments", but the companies are worried about the
 record keeping because of the small amount of people they
 have  and we're talking about  the  hauling and a lot of other
 things that enter into it.
          But I think basically they're not objecting, most
of our companies are not objecting to saying what's going out
there.  We're willing to say  and do what we have to to get it
out there.  But it is some of the things like the testing
facilities, I'm not that well acquainted with it, but our
testing now versus what it would have to be in the hazardous

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                         98




 waste  of  digging  underneath  and make  the monitoring areas for



 20 years  out  and  so  on,  they're Just  going  to make  it  abso-



 lutely prohibitive for us  if we have  to go  that far.  I'm




 sure our  county and  city are just not going to go for  that




 kind of reconstruction at  this point  almost to be able to take



 it.  We don't have a lot and I'm sure they're not going to




 want to spend these  huge amounts of monies  to us to  be able to
do that.
          But really in some of these things, we know we're
going to have problems with but wheni-they are hazardous, we



know we're going to have to deal with them, and our really



big problem right now Is these barrels and barrels sitting In



back of the plant that they can't do anything with filled with



paint sludge and this sort of thing.



          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  No more questions.  Thank you



very much.



          Dr. Robert Poston, Carmel Energy, Incorporated.



          (No response.)



          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Dr. Brooks Becker, Residuals



Management Technology.



                    STATEMENT OP BROOKS BECKER



          MR. BECKER:   My name is Brooks Becker.  I am presi-



dent of Residuals Management Technology,Incorporated.  We're



a solid waste management, hazardous waste consulting firm in



Madison, Wisconsin.  I want to tell you a little bit about th«

-------
 1





 2




 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10




11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        99



 background because,  my background particularly because I think



 it applies to talking about some of the regulations.



           I hold a Ph.D.  in chemistry and-for the  last eight



 years  prior to starting consulting firm,  I was director of



 Wisconsin's Air and  Solid Waste  Management Programs and



 helped initiate those regulations  up there.  Out consulting



 firm has, as the two  other principals, John Reinhardt and Tom



 Kunes, who may be in  the audience and you  have met  and  know.



 As chief  of the Wisconsin regulatory program  in waste  manage-



 ment,  I had the Job  of  not  only  developing  the state regula-



 tions  but implementing  them also in the field. One of  the



 things I  learned is  if  you  want  to  have a regulatory program



 succeed,  you have  to  pay  very close  attention to how it works



 in practice.   I think that's a lesson that  we have to  pay



 attention to  here  for these regulations being proposed.



 One  can over-regulate and by doing  that minimize the amount of



 implementation  that is  accomplished  in the  field.



           I  am  going  to talk today  about  just  some very narrow



 areas  in  the  regulations  and not try  to cover the whole



thing.



           As  consultants,  we have had a good  deal of practical



 experience in industrial hazardous waste  problems and working



with leaching tests in particular.    In fact, we're going to



be presenting a paper on the subject  shortly  based on some of




the data  we've  collected.

-------
                                                           100


 1             I would just like to share with you some of our


 2    experiences and focus on a couple of points as they apply to


 3    the regulations.  First, I think EPA should seriously con-


 4    sider an alternative approach to their single acid leach


 5    test for defining toxicity and thus hazard of a waste.  We


 6    believe an alternative approach is needed, not Just a differ-


 7    ent test.


 8             Second, the definition of "waste stream" needs


 9    considerably more thought in order to avoid much expensive


10   but useless testing by affected industries.


jl             We believe EPA should consider an alternate leach


12   test protocol with more steps which begins with a neutral


,3   leach test.  There are several reasons for this.  Clearly a


]4   single acid leach test,as proposed,  will define many low risk


15   wastes as hazardous primarily because of the heavy metal


16   content.  Other speakers this morning have alluded to that.


17   These low risk wastes do not  justify the strict criteria


,8   called for under Subtitle C.


]9             In their introductory discussion,  EPA points out


,0   that there ape mechanisms for getting approval for disposal


    of these low risk wastes under Subtitle D criteria or special


    disposal criteria under Subtitle C  in Sections 3004 and 3005


    that have  been referred  to.   The only new requirement,  be-
23

    cause of their definition as  a hazardous waste,  would be the
24

    transportation manifest  system to define where  the waste go»s

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                         101




 While, In theory, this is the case, and although the



 mechanism Is cumbersome,  I would have bo say in practice it's



 more than that,  the mechanism simply will not work.   I would



 submit that once a waste  has  been classified as hazardous,  no



 amount of further assurances  or technical data or discussion



 is  going  to change that classification  in the minds  of the



 public.   And in  establishing  a  place to dispose of waste,



 you have  to deal with  the  local public  emotional situation.



 EPA has a clear  example of that within  15 miles of here, the



 Wilsonville situation, where  EPA came in on  the side of  the



 Wilsonville site to try to keep it  open as a hazardous waste



 site and  was unable to do  so  because of the  emotional,



 political,  social  connotations  of being a hazardous  waste



 site.



           We feel,  from our experience  as regulators and our



 experience as consultants,  that  once  a  waste  is  classified as



 hazardous,  the public will  demand,  in fact, that full  Sub-



title C disposal protection be  given to  the waste regardless



of any data  that we produced to  the contrary.  Remember, I'm



talking here about low risk wastes, things like the  power



plant ash  that was referred to this morning, foundrywaste,



 some paper mill sludges, a  lot of high volume, low risk waste



that exists around the countryside.  I'm not talking about



the ones that are clearly high risk, high  hazard waste.



           I might just cite one  case we  had in Wisconsin, to

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                       102



 emphasize the point,  some years ago.  At one of our landfill




 sites people were disposing of a low level nuclear waste fro.m




 dismantling of an experimental reactor.   What it was was con-



 crete  from the surrounding building,  not the reactor shell,




 but  the surrounding building that  contained the facility.  The



 radioactivity was hardly  detectable  above background but




 because it  was  labeled as radioactive  waste,  there was great




 hue  and cry and finally the waste  had  to be removed from the




 facility and taken to an  AEC approved  site,  even though,  in




 any  technical sense, there was,  in-'fact,  no hazard associated



 with it.




          As a  result of  defining  almost  everything hazardous?




 through an  acid leach test,  now  I'm  again thinking of heavy




 metal,  the  central purpose of  controlling disposal of the



 major hazardous wastes whichK-create  the  environmental or



 health  problems that the  Act was intended to  solve,  we think



 will be  lost  and dissipated.   Instead much effort  andmoney



will be  spent both by industry and government in trying  to



 solve the problem that we  create ourselves  by defining too




many things  as  hazardous,  which really has  nothing to do with



protecting the  environment  and health.  The problem of how  to




dispose of low  risk, often  high volume waste, defined as




hazardous is the  one we have to face.



          Fortunately, a different protocol may  be  able  to




 solve this problem.  If one  begins with  a,  and  I'd like  to

-------
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                           103
1   suggest that one might begin with the neutral leach test, if
   one does that, some waste will be classified as hazardous any-
   way and we would suggest that those are the more hazardous
   materials and should proceed on through the Subtitle C con-
   trols.  Those wastes producing no hazardous leachates from
   the neutral test will then be addressed by the disposal
   techniques to be used.  If the wastevere destined for a
   municipal site, or another acid environment like is created
   in a municipal site of the acid test is supposed to simulate,
   then an acid leach test could be applied and if the waste is
   found to be hazardous for that disposal environment would be
   treated under Subtitle C.  On the other hand,  if the waste
   passed the neutral test and was scheduled for disposal in a
   segregated site for that waste only,  approval would proceed
   according to the requirements under Subtitle D and that waste
   would not be designated as hazardous  and would not carry the
   stigma of the hazardous regulations.   This approach solves the
   problem of disposal of high volume, low risk wastes in an en-
   vironmentally safe manner while avoiding most  of the problems
   cited earlier.  We think it is a practical alternative based
   on our experience.  It appears to be  the next  best thing to
   defining levels of hazard,  which has  been suggested by a
   number of people and would probably be a good  idea but KPA
   has chosen not to follow except in a  few exceptions.
             One subsidiary question should be dealt with.  EPA

-------
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                          104
 states  that  since  they  have  no way  of  knowing if  a  waste
 actually  goes  to an  approved facility  without bringing it
 under thenanifest  system, therefore, low risk wastes  should  be
 defined as hazardous that come under the manifest system  and
 be handled under exceptions  under 3004 and 3005 as  has  been
 pointed out  earlier.  On the other  hand, they propose  rules
 to exclude waste from coverage that go to reprocessors  or for,
 I guess, we  feel combustion  also.   I would submit in the  real
 world that those wastes, many of them,can be  hazardous  also
 and there is no way of  knowing if those wastes ever go  to
 reprocessors or, in fact, are even processed  by reprocessors.
 We had  a case some years ago, again I'll refer to a Wisconsin
 experience,  where a reprocessor took in several barrels of
 PCB's and, of course, he( didn't reprocess them, he  Just got
 rid of them  and there was a problem, first of all, they should
 never have gone there and, second of all, he  should never have
 disposed of  them that way.  So this seems to  be, to me, to be
 an inconsistency in EPA's approach.  They are willing to  over-
 look the control of the transportation and so forth of waste
 that go for reprocessing, but they say that they have to  do
 it from, have to control the low risk waste that are going
to a segregated disposal facility or whatever in order not to
miss something.
          I would suggest to you that any regulation cannot
 cover everything no matter how desirable that might be.   The

-------
                                                            105




 1    real world situation is that there is not enough regulatory
 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
 staff in the state, there is not enough regulatory staff in




 EPA to physically do it even if it's desirable.  What we




 would prefer to do, what 1 think makes a lot more sense is to



 focus on the real health and environmental hazards,  the major




 ones, and write the regulations focusing on those through



 some sort of a screening process that we suggest.




           I would like to turn Just  for a minute before clos-




 ing to the need for defining the term "waste stream"  and



 clarifying the question of sampling  procedures.  Here I



 simply want to raise some questions  that I think EPA  need




 to  answer.  For example,  where wastes from several collection



 systems from the plant feed into the same hopper,  does one




 sample each collection system,  does  one sample  the hopper,  or



 the mixed load as it goes to the disposal?   That is not de-




 fined anywhere in the regulations.   I think our experience




 shows in our work with industry that  this is  going to happen



 in  many,  many places where you have,  because  most  industries



 do  not segregate their waste streams  and it's going to be a



 question  of  what  do  you define  as a waste,  where do you sample



 it.   As  it  goes  further down the  line,  you  get  more and more



ciilwtiwtja  in effect,  if you are  only  generating one small



 segment of waste  that  is  "defined as  hazardous",by itself it.




 may  not be hazardous  later on.



           In most  industries small amounts  of many wastes are

-------
                                                           106




 1    put into containers of one sort or another. By the time they



 2    get out of the plant,  mixture is very heterogeneous.   What




 3    is the waste stream here and how is that  kind of a hetero-



 4    geneous waste to  be sampled?




 5              Is the  waste stream to be defined within a  plant



 6    or as  it comes out  of  the plant?  These are all  questions,  I




 7    think,  that  need  answering.   Practical experience dictates




 8    to us  that the place to start sampling is  where  the waste



 9    leaves  the property or enters the disposal area,  not  back in




10    the plant  looking at individual streams from each individual




11    collector  or whatever.




12              Those are all the  comments  I want  tonake.  I  would



13    be happy to  answer  any questions the  panel may have.  We  will




14    be submitting a more detailed written exhibit later.



1S              CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:   Thank  you,  Dr. Becker.



)6              MR.  LINDSEY:   Getting back-to your concept, Dr.



17    Becker,  of the  neutral  Leach test  as  opposed to the acid



18    leach test,  presumably,  then,  I  gather from  what  you're saying



19    that those materials which,  let's  say, pass  the neutral leach




20    test but would  have failed the  acid leach  test would  then  go




21    to a Subtitle  C facility.  In your opinion,  then,  I guess




22    what we're saying is that, what  you're saying is  that the



23    Subtitle B facilities and the designed criteria under which



24    those have been proposed, at  least at this  point,  and the



25    controls under  them, which.'really  are relatively  limited,

-------
  10


  11


  12


  13


  14


  15


  16


  17


  18


  19


 20


 21


 22


 23


 24

i
 25
                                                           107

1   they're limited only to EPA developing a list of which «nei

   pass and fail are sufficient for these wastes?


             DR. BECKER:   Yes,  I think that's true.  But you're

   not quite correct in your assumption,  those that would pass

   the neutral leach test,  if they are to go to a segregated  dis-

   posal site for that  waste only would then go under Subtitle D

   as  opposed to those  who  might be putting that waste in a

   municipal facility,  it would still  then have to  follow the

   acid leach test.

             MR. LINDSEY:   Oh,  I see,  if  a waste which would  fail

   the neutral test,  no, fail the acid test,pass the  neutral
   test,  if  it were to  go to  a municipal landfill  or  some other

   landfill  presumably  which  had an acid environment, then that

   would  be  subject to  the Subtitle C operation, right?


            DR. BECKER:  Right.

            MR. LINDSEY:  Let me ask you this, then, with re-

   gard to that.  Do you have any idea, an estimate or anything,

   on the volume of wastes which would exit the detail controls

   under  Subtitle C if  that change were made?  Are we talking

   about  a big percentage of the wastes which are in the system

   now that would not be in the Subtitle C system later, in your
 opinion?
            DR. BECKER:  In my opinion, I think, it depends on
  how you define big percentage.  I think you would find tonnage

  wise a fairly large percentage, yes, because you're talking

-------
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
                                                        108
 about  things  like  plant  ash and  some  paper mill  sludges and  E.
 variety  of  very  large quantity,  low hazard waste.   On  the
 other  hand, if you're talking about the amount based on a
 hazard factor of some sort,I would say.it would  not miss very
 much because  you will catch many, in fact, most  of the
 hazard waste  through a neutral leach test.
          MR. CORSON:  I guess just following up again for a
 moment on Fred's question, this  kind of implies  that you have
 some data available that indicates the amount of waste that
 would, after  extraction and analysis,  would flunk the present
 EP with the acid?
          DR. BECKER:  I have no data available that repre-
 sents  a survey of one or more industries and detailed tonnages
 or all that sort of thing. We were just talking about the
 impression 1 have from our knowledge of the various types of
 waste  and with waste, many of them that we're dealing with,
 have very large volume,  high tonnage waste, but relatively low
risk or no risk waste.
          MR, CORSON:  The main reason I was asking is we
 have done so far, we have sampled some paper sludges, some
fly ashes, not many yet,  and some foundry sands and found none
of these yet to fail the test after we run the EP.  So I was
just wondering.
          DR. BECKER:  You mean fail the acid test.
25             MR. CORSON:  That's correct.

-------
  5
  6
  7
 10

 11

 12
 13
 14

 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
                                                               109
               DR. BECKER:  Our experience, we have some data that
     we would be happyvto share with you and we will be putting in
     our written comments that show that there are, indeed,  some
     of these wastes that will flunk an acid test.
               MR. CORSON:  I«m sure there are.
               1 was also wondering from your comments,you raised
     the point which I think was sort of reflected by one of the
     earlier speakers this morning.  It would appear that you're
     probably at least as much concerned by the,  what I call,  the
     red filag word hazardous as you are by anything else. You do
     recognize that there are some  wastes that may require some-
     thing  other than the routine care of a Subtitle D facility
     which  does not involve  any record keeping,  any monitoring by
     way of a requirement, but  yet  the concerns you've expressed,
     once we use this word,  then we run into  the community problem
     regardless of  how good  the site may be.
               DR.  BECKER:   I think that  can't  be  overemphasized
     at  all because that  is  an  extremely important  thing  in  this
    whole hazardous waste question, as you undoubtedly know better
20 II than I, because having dealt  with many of the facilities like
21  Wilsonville.  My practical experience, both from the regu-
22  latory standpoint and as a consultant, shows that that often
23  becomes the overriding concern rather than actual data on the
24
25
    way the actual site specifications ana all of that.  It's
    just so critical in this program, I think that the whole thing

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                         110



 if you  don't  recognize  that  early  on  and take  account  of  it



 in the  regulations, the whole program is going to falter  be-




 cause there is no place to take all the stuff  defined  as



 hazardous.




          MR. CORSON:   Let me just follow up a little  bit, if




 I may.  Do I  interpret  that  your definition of low risk would




 be based on using the neutral extraction procedure and then



 some analysis from constituents and things which did not



 fail, would they be considered either low or no risk or what



 is your evaluation of low risk?




          DR. BECKER:   Basically the  neutral extraction pro-




cedure .




          MR. CORSON:  Are you--




          DR. BECKER (interrupting):   I would  not suggest



that something that flunks the neutral extraction procedure



and would be defined as hazardous under that should be de-




fined as non-hazardous or whatever.  But I would suggest that



anything that flunks that procedure,  if you want to look at



it that way,  would follow through Subtitle C procedure and be




declared as a hazardous waste.



          Now, this still doesn't get you away from the need




to look at levels of hazard,if you will, that other people



have alluded to,  but this is a way of at least skimming off



some of the low,  the really low hazard waste without going to




a full system of levels of hazardous.

-------
 6
 10





 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19





 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                        111



           MR.  CORSON:   You  also made  a  distinction,  I  believe,



 in your comments that  if the waste were going to be  mixed with




 municipal  waste, then  we shouB use the  acid extract. I am



 wondering  whether there might  be other  industrial waste with



 which  it might be mixed that would also suggest that we should




 use an acid extract.




           DR. BECKER:  Yes, that's right, and I suggested that




 municipal  waste or a similar environment such as the acid



 leach  test would apply to it.




           In other words, all  I'm saying is that the differ-




 ence in approaching, you have  to consider the disposal




 alternative that's going to be used.  If it does not flunk




 the neutral leach test, now you go to look at the disposal



 scenario that's going  to be used on waste and exclude it,  if




 you can, based on that.  Now,  the thing that this doesn't  do



 for you that you are trying to do in the ;current regulations




 is follow  every single waste that has any very slight poten-



 tial of being hazardous.  But I submit,  as I pointed out,  that



 you don't do that anyhow because^of the process or exemption,




 so forth.  Nor probably do you want to because you simply




 aren't going to have the mechanism to do that.



          I could submit another example from EPA programs,



 if you're familiar with the pesticide program and the vast



amount of material they collected early on in the regulatory




process,  which for all I know is still sitting in the basement

-------
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
                                                            112
     of Waterside Mall  and has  never been looked at since.  All
     I'm saying is you  don't  want  to get  into  a  paper program
     that is  meaningless  because you have^too  much material  to
     worry about.
               MR.  LINDSEY:   O.K., I guess I.have  one  last  thing.
     You discussed at some  length  the apparent paradox between  the
     fact  that  we  say we  need to use the manifest  system to  con-
     trol  the movement  of what you term low-risk  kind of hazardouis
     waste  in order to  be sure they  get from A to  B.  Yet, on the
     other  hand, the other  part of this paradox, that we do  not
     require the manifest to move  with waste which are going to
     reprocessors.
               I have one comment  on that and then I've got  one
     question.  Basically our rationale with regard to that  is
     that the materials which are moving to these  processors by and
     large  have a,  our  thinking is that they have an economic
     value  and  are  less likely to be  simply dumped.   On the  other
     hand,  that's not true of the  low-risk materials.  On the
     other  hand, you did point out,  and this,  I guess, is my ques-
     tion that you  knew of some problem areas that had occurred
    with waste which  were moving to reprocessors and then for
     some reason got dumped and maybe your argument here is more
     an argument that we require the manifest for waste moving
    to reprocessors rather than eliminating the manifest for low

25
24
    risk.   If you have information like that in your written

-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
                                                             113
     comments, examples or things like that,it might be helpful to
     us in making final determination along these lines.
               DR. BECKER:  I'm really not trying to make that
     argument.
               MR. LINDSEY: I'm sorry if I read that in.  But I
     could maybe make that argument from wha- you said.
               DR. BECKER:  You could make that argument,  but I
     think it's contrary Is—what I'm trying to get at is that you
     don't want to take on too much.  I think that's not what you
     have proposed for reprocessors.  It's not unreasonable at all
     even though it's quite true that,  I believe, you will lose
     some of tl   waste that never gets to-reprocessors.  But I
     think that's a risk you have to take because you simply can't
     be 100 per cent sure of  things and I'm saying the similar
     things should hold for a low risk waste,  too, so it's not,
     I think that's a little  different.
               MR. LINDSEY:   Nevertheless,  either way,  any prob-
     lems that you have specific cognizance of that have occurred
     because of this  would be halpful to us in making a decision
20   one way or the other.
21             DR. BECKER:   I certainly would be glad to provide
22   that.
23             MR. CORSON:   LIT. Becker, you asked  where the
24   sampling should be done.  I think you ended up with the way
2S   you're disposing,  actually it's an off-site, you're shipping

-------
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
    off,  that's the waste that you  sample.  You don't  consistentlj
    go back into the process and pick it up from each  line.
    The trouble will occur, we see from our own point  of view and
4   probably from an enforcement point of view, and the real
    problem is that if you should have »nc of the  listed waste
    streams, you now mix that with everything else coming out of
    the plant, what I think you have done is you've created a
    larger set of hazardous waste because we probably wouldn't
    include all of it as the listed waste.  What we think will
    happen and we think should happen probably as  a result of
   the listing of waste streams, is that plants should begin to
    segregate some of their waste so they're not by nature mixing;
   causing a larger volume to be in total hazardous waste and
   only manage the hazardous waste in the right fashion, then
   the non-hazardous portion^ yhere is nothing that says by our
   regulations all the wast in a'specific plant must go to a
   single facility.  You can send the office waste one place,
   the hazardous waste some place else.  Even though that may not
   sound practical, we think that makes eminently good sense.
             We also think the segregation of waste may, segre-
   gation and concentration may, also lead to enhance the re-
   source recovery Just by nature of the segregation and con-
  centration.
             But the other thing it does bring to mind is another
   question as to your comments for low-risk waste, arid that is.

-------
 6



 7



 8



 9




 10




 11




 12



 13



 14




 15



 16



 17



 18



 19




 20




 21



 22



 23
25
                                                        115



 the problem that the more stuff you mix,  the more difficult It


 becomes  to define a representative sample from that  plant  to



 make the determination as to  what  you*re  going to do with  it,


 whether  it belongs in the system or not as opposed to  single



 waste stream.



           DR. BECKER:   Let me comment that I think your



 points are well  made  that this  will lead  to more  segregation


 of  waste  streams.   On the other hand, there is  a  great deal  df



 uncertainty, I believe, from  our experience from  industrial



 clients right now  as  to the fact that that  is going  to be



 EPftts position that you don't have  to look at each stream.


 In many of  those cases, you have a  very,  very heterogeneous



mixture coming out and sampling  is  going  to  be  a representa-


tive  sampling.   It's  going to be very, very  difficult because



you have  some floor sweepings In this load  and  none  in the



next load and you have air pollution control equipment, dust


in one load and you have water treatment  sludge in^ another



load all; mixed with various things.  So the  representative


sampling will be very difficult.  The farther from the


source of the waste you get, the harder it is to find a repre-


sentative sampling procedure that does what you want it to do


and clearly you don't want to sample every load that goes



out.
„.             MR. CORSON:  Just one last comment.  I would
24
    appreciate, based on the industrial experience you have had,

-------
                                                             116




    anything you could provide to us to help us define a repre-



  2  sentative sample.  It will greatly help.  As you are aware, we



    |dld try, In the regulations, to suggest methods,calling from



  4  ASTM those we thought might be appropriate.   We will probably



  5  |ln the final promulgation be adding more ASTM methods that are



    appropriate for sampling.  We do reference a document which we



    had produced under study to Cincinnati  which does talk about



  8  how we sample things out of a tank -truck in the middle of a



  9  lagoon and we'll start with a bulldozer.
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
          But we would appreciate it if you can give us any



thoughts on what makes a representative sample and particularly



if you have any idea as to how we might solve the problem «f a



representative sample every time.  It would be greatly appre-
ciated.
          DR. BECKER:  I think Just one comment on that.  The
difficult balance here is between really an economic one, that



the cost versus the need for your information.  Obviously you



can sample every load.  That's the most costly approach and the



most costly extreme and that's not acceptable to anyone.  On




the other hand, making a sample once every five years probably



doesn't tell you much.  I would Just say we have some ideas




and it's a very difficult problem and I don't think there's any




clear cut one answer.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I guess we have no n«« questions
Thank you.

-------
                                                             117





 1              We'll break for lunch now and reconvene the hearing




 2   at 1:30  in this room.




 3              (Whereupon, at 12:10 o'clock p.m., the hearing was




 4        recessed  to reconvene at 1:30 o'clock p.m. the same day.)




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
 2
 10




 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24





25
                                                        118



                       AFTERNOON SESSION                1:30  p.m



           CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:  We would like to reconvene,



 please.




           I do have the names of additional people who weren't



 on our original list who do want to speak and I'm going to




 go ahead and ask them  to give us tneir comments and then we'll




 go back to the people  who weren't here this morning and if



 there is anyone else who would like to offer comments on the




 record on  3001, you can indicate to the people at the regis-




 tration desk and they will bring up your name to us.




          The next person I have is Frank Stegbauer from




 Southern Towing Company.



                  STATEMENT OF FRANK STEQBAUER




          MR. STEGBAUER:  Good afternoon,  Madam Chairperson




 and members of the panel.  My name is Frank Stegbauer.  I'm



 vice-president of Southern Towing Company of Memphis,



 Tennessee.  I operate boats on the navigable waters of the



U.S.  I'm also representing American Waterways Operators,



which is a trade association of shallow draft towing in-



dustry with some 232 members in the towing industry.




          I think our basic concern over these regulations



is how to comply with them and where we fit in the scheme of



your system to collect hazardous waste.  It  seems like with



so many regulations that we get drawn into that seem to be to
    us
   basically oriented to industrial plants and not oriented
    to the parameters or constraints  we found ourselves operating

-------
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 IS
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                          119
 under in the marine environment.
           The one thing that  particularly concerns  us  is  the
 determination of  used lubricating oil  as  a hazardous waste.
 The  thousands,  and if you  include the  pleasure  boat owners
 it probably gets  up into maybe  millions,  I don't  know,  of
 people  that will  generate  used  lube oil.   We probably,  in the
 marine  boat,  are  different from the land  modes  in that  people
 in the  automobiles drop their used lube oil drippings in  the
 street  which,  in  turn,  go  down  the storm  sewers into our
 navigableveters and  the railroads,and  trucks drop it on the
 highways and  the  railroads probably on the  roadbeds, I  guess.
 We can't drop  it  even  if we Wanted to.  We're forbidden by the
 Clean Water Act.   So many of us have installed oil  separators
 on our  vessels and separate our bilge  slops or bilge accumu-
 lation, water from oil  of which probably  95 per cent of it is
water,  and  then the used lube oil we transfer to  our fuel
bunker  tanks and use it for fuel.  This arrangement has met
with approval of the Coast Guard on the philosophy that that's
better  than trying to pump it ashore because every time you
go into a transfer operation, you increase the risk of probabl;
a spill of  some of these oily materials.
          Of course we have no trouble in determining where
we stand on the Clean Water Act.  It's very clear as to our
obligations not to put oil and soon it will-be,  as soon as you
put
out your new hazardous material regulations, it will be

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                             120
very clear what new obligations we have under that provision
of Section 311 of the Public Law $2-500.   But we do have some
concerns in the fact that we don't generate a lot of used lube
oil.  I'm sure that, I know our vessels in my own company, we
would generate far less than 220 pounds of used lube oil per
month, except every two years when we overhaul our engines and
change oil in them, we will be faced with the disposition of
probably four to five drums of used lube oil.  Ordinarily we
will not be.  I would say the majority of the people on the
river are separating their slops and putting the used oil in
their bunkers and using it for fuel.
          We are concerned about some comments in here where
there is some detrimental effect on the Incineration of used
lube oil.  We are concerned when the regulation says persons
may not generate over 220 pounds and,still be exempt.  When
you say persons, does that mean the whole corporation as a
whole or does that mean each vessel that we operate?  My
company operates fourteen vessels and it is strung out from
one end of the river system to the other end of the river
system.  Collectively with those 14 vessels, we probably
will generate more than 220 pounds.   Singly we would be
considerably below that.  We are wondering what definition you
apply on that.
          We are wondering whether, because of the fact that
we might accumulate some used lube oil aboard, do we then be-

-------
 10





 11




 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19





 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                         121




 come a generator and since we are moving from, say, Houston




 to Pittsburgh,do we then become a transporter?  I guess what




 we're really looking for is some clarification and if you




 people have any of these answers, a number o'f our people  are




 here today and we would be most interested in hearing what




 your proposal means when it comes to U.S.  documented  vessels




 operating on the navigable waters of the United States.




           MR. LEHMAN:   Mr. Stegbauer,  I  think your comments



 are  well  made.   The basic  thrust  of the  regulatory program is




 toward  land transport.   You're  pointing  out  some aspects  of




 the  regulations  which I think perhaps  we have not  adequately




 considered as to what the  impact  of these  regulations  would




 be for  barge traffic  or any type  of river  traffic.




           We did consider  the interaction  between  this law



 and  the ocean disposal  law.   So we've  got  a  pretty good inter-




 face between those  two  laws.  But  I must say some  of the



 points  that  you  raised  here  Just  now are new to  us, and I



 think we *re  going to have  to  think about what you've brought



 up here and  see  which way  we  can  go on some  of these points.




           I  think I could  reply to  one of  the points that



you brought  up,  an  interpretation  of the word person with



respect to a  vessel such as yourself or a  corporation  or each



vessel.  The basic intent  there of what we were  trying  to  do




was to have that conditional  exemption apply to  each facili-




ty within  a corporation, assuming  they were  land based.  The

-------
                                                           122
   I
 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 analogy,  in your case,  I  think would  be  that  it  would  apply
 to each vessel as opposed to  the  total corporation.  But  I
 can see where  you had  some trouble  interpreting  this.
          MR.  STEGBAUER:   If  that be  true, it would be  a  much
 more  livable situation  with us.  I'don't think that we  have  a
 problem with disposing  of  the  waste unless you have some
 objection to us  using It as  fuel.  Our position is that  in the
 spirit  of the  law for recovery of energy, we are recovering
 this  as energy form by  using it as  fuel and it does very  well
 in  our  engines.   It doesn't have a  detrimental effect on
 them.
          Probably 220 pounds  is not a lot of oil.  I think at
 lunch we were  figuring that and, incidentally, we will  have
 comments to  file before the March deadline, but I think if .a
 service station  services and changes oil at approximately 17
 automobiles  a month, he is over the 220-pound limit.  So I
 don't know whether you all have considered  how many people
 are going to be affected by this,  individuals, people with
 particularly inboard pleasure boats, which there are thousands,
many more of those than there are tow boats,  mariners of all
 kinds.  When you say used lube oil,  you've Just about got
 everybody that drives an automobile or anything else.  It's
 going to be  pretty wide spread.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   We thank you for your comments

 and we'll certainly consider them.

-------
                                                              123


   1             Next  this  afternoon,  Harold Muth from the  American


   2  Waterways  Operations.
    II


   3             MR. MUTH:  Mr. Stegbauer covered all my points with


   4  the exception of the fact that under these rules, I think the


   5 JJ United States Navy and the United States Coast Guard would be



     considered generators of waste every time they changed oil in


     their engines also.
  8
 12



 13



 14



 15



 16



 17



 18



 19



 20
24
25
               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.
  9            MR. STEGBAUER:  Could I ask you one more thing?


 10            CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  If you will come to the micro-


 11  phone.  We will probably at the end of this time for comments
     take written questions  which will  be  off  the record so  if



     it's a  question,  you might  prefer  to  hold it until  then.


               MR.  STEGBAUER:  Well,  I've  just got one question.


     What is the philosophy  on declaring used  lubricating oil a


     hazardous  material?   The  reason  I  ask this is because we were



     probably sitting  back fat,  dumb  and happy and thinking  that


     we were so regulated by the Coast  Guard and all, thinking


     these regulations wouldn't  bother  us  and  then you threw this
    used lubricating oil in there and we find ourselves in the



21  II soup.


22             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Would you mind if we deferred


23   that to the question and answer period?
              MR. STEGBAUER:  O.K.



              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K.  You can be first in the

-------
  4
  5
 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25
                                                        124
 question and answer period.
           All right,  James Kinsey from Minnesota  Pollution
 Control  Agency.
                      STATEMENT OP JAMES KINSEY
           MR. KINSEY:  Good afternoon.  My name is Jim Kinsey.
 I'm with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  I'm chief of
 the Hazardous Waste Management Section in Minnesota.
           In 197^ the Minnesota legislature passed some en-
 abling legislation  in the Minnesota Hazardous Waste Act which
 parallels  in many ways  the U. S. Conservation Recovery Act.
 We have  been developing rules in Minnesota since then and
 still are trying to get them on the books.
           A  lot of our work was shared with the EPA when they
 began developing their rules and have been involved in
 watching the  drafts as they come through and I have been most
 pleased with how they've been improving.
          There are a number of things about this particular
 proposal that I think are finally beginning to take shape.
You have got  some clear criteria for establishing characteris-
tics and for  adding materials on to the lists and concurring
with those and I'm glad to see that kind of a process actually
 in the rules  themselves.
          We heard a number of comments today from people who
would like to—we disagree with the approach that the EPA is;
 taking with respect to ela'SSiifying wastes as. to the degree of

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23
25
                                                         125




 hazard.  I concur with the approach whereby  3001 criteria are



 used kind of as a tool or as a screening mechanism to get




 wastes into the system and then the degree  of hazard is  taken



 into account in the  3004,  3005 portion  of the rules with re-



 spect to matching it up with the proper management.




           The thing  most of  the comments against  that  particu-



 lar  scenario seem to have  in common or  at their base is  sort



 of a basic  distrust  or basic belief, perhaps,  that  environ-




 mentalists  tend to be fanatical and general public  tends to




 be irrational when it  comes  to  hazardous waste and  their way




 of wanting  to deal with that situation  seems  to be  to  not to




 bring things  out  in  front  of the  public,  to keep  things, to




 find  ways of  not  calling things  hazardous, to  zero  in  on the



 definition  of hazardous  and  not  so much  on the nature  of the



 relationship  they've  got with the environmentalists  and the




 general public, and  I  think  that the long range solution to



 that  kind of  an issue  lies more in trying to address the re-



 lationship  the industry  has  got with the general public and



 with the environmentalists by starting out to recognize that



both of them  do have valid concerns and  in attending various



conferences and such,  I hear  an awful lot of woe is me type




 stories where, gee, everything was technically O.K. but it



was the irrationality  of the  system or the lack of  some sort
24  of mechanism which meant that we couldn't use this ideal
    facility, some little lady in the corner with her dog and she

-------
                                                            126



 1    stopped us  all and bringing it  to  a  standstill.   And I  don't




 2    see  a  recognition  or  a willingness on  the  part of industry



 3    to recognize  the validity  of  a  lot of  the  concerns that are




 4    being  raised  there.   And I would rather see public information!



 5    type programs.  I  would rather  see efforts made to make the




 6    facilities more attractive to the  public.




 7             For instance, we recently  had the rather disastrous



 8    experience in attempting to cite a hazardous waste demon-



 9    stration project in Minnesota.  One  of the reasons why  we




10    were having so much difficulty was that there really wasn't



11    a demonstratable advantage  to having the particular facility




12    located in any one person's backyard or in their  area.   The



13    local residents got nothing at all except for an  increased



14    risk, and often the land is taken off the tax rolls.  There



15    is no money coming in from that type of facility.   Those types



16    of concerns aren't being dealt with.



17             I do have some problems, though, with other portions



18    of 3001, in particular the toxiclty characteristics.  One



19    comment has to do with the extraction procedure.   I really



20    don't understand what it is.  I don't know where  it came from.



2i    I don't know what it's going to do.  I don't know  what  wastes




22   will be hazardous and what wastes won't be hazardous.   The



23    equipment that it takes to run the extraction procedure, my




24    understanding, it is not available or if it is available, it



25    has Just recently been made available.  I'm not aware of any

-------
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 IS
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                         127
 work that's been done to look at the, at exactly how this test
 Is going to go about and what kinds of wastes are going to be
 classified as hazardous as a result of its use and what kinds
 aren't.
           It is,  from my point  of view,  an unproven,  untried
 test that  is being used in preference to a system i>f  de-
 termining  toxicity within waste that  is  used by state govern-
 ments for  many years now, that of utilizing direct toxicity
 data, either the  testing or the use of existing literature.
 data.
           I  also  have  difficulty with the  ten times the
 drinking water standards  that you're  applying it  to as was
 discussed  earlier today,  the maximum  permissible  levels of
 radioactive materials  don't necessarily mean  that you've got
 a  safe level,  and I  think much  the  same controversy bpills
 over on to the drinking water standards.   Many of them  have
 their origin and  levels of detection.  In  other words,  at the
 time when they came  up with them were  looked  at as being al-
most zero. Ten times zero is still  zero.   I don't see as to
where you end  up with any sort of validity based upon them
trying to make an  approach through  the EP as,  I don't see as
to where you can  say that it follows, bears on  any reality,
let's put it that way.
          I guess the final comment with respect to the
toxicity characteristic is that it's very limited in its

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                        128



 scope.  Toxlcity is  a very broad term and yet  the EPA  looks




 at  it from an extremely limited view that attempts to  evalu-




 ate the risk of exposure through ground water  contamination



 routes.  You're not  taking into account the fact that  a lot




 of  the wastes which  are going to be called not hazardous are




 going to be picked up by commercial haulers and they will end



 up  in packer trucks, they'll end up being compacted, they'll




 end upr-transportation personnel in our area,  lt*s nat «* all



 uncommon for them to get a face full of mist or dust or gasses



 from the truck itself, and the toxicity characteristic




 doesn't take into account the broader range of possible ex-




 posures during routine waste management.




          My final comment has to do with the way that the



 term discarded is being interpreted.  I understand that it



would greatly simplify the administration of the program by



not taking into account all materials that are being destined



for recovery.  But we have examples in our own state of re-



 source recovery firms that are operated in many ways like a



treatment facility which are covered under the rules, and




where we've had a great deal of difficulty in terms of how




they store the material on site,  ground water contamination as



a result of that facility being in existence, and the use of



poor operational standards in both their operation and in



their storage.  I would oppose a categorical kind of an ex-



 emption for recycled materials.  I think at a minimum we would|

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 IS




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                       129




 at least want to get  the commercial recycling facilities




 and that would include  the  barrel  reclaimers  also.




           CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Would you  answer questions for



 us?




           MR. LEHMAN:   Mr.  Kinsey,  you mentioned  that with




 respect  to the toxicity characteristics  that  you  believe we




 should use a  direct toxicity data  as you implied  many states




 do.  Could you amplify  and  expand  on that as  to what' do  you




mean by  that  in  a little more detail?



           MR.  KINSEY:   Well, most  states that have an ongoing



hazardous  waste  or solid waste management program make de-




terminations  as  to the  kinds of management that's appropriate




for a waste by looking  at the characteristics of  the waste




 itself.  They  want to have  information on the waste.  I've




been with  the  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency  for the last




three years and people  that have been there before me say




that they  have been looking at toxicity data as an important



step in determining what's  appropriate management for a given



waste.  The  acute toxicity data, the direct toxicity data is




used because it's available.  There is a lot of it out there.



It's kind of an approach, in my view, it is sort of a standard



for the regulatory industry right now, the regulatory people,



the regulatory program.   It makes more sense to me to try and




bring the states up to a common standard or common level in




terms of how it is they address hazardous waste and kinds of

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 S
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        130
 tools that they use than it does to establish a test that has
 no background, that has no experience with it, that we don't
 know how it's going to handle, try to take us to an imaginary
 point which is several steps beyond which most of the regu-
 latory agencies are now.
           MR. LEHMAN:   If I understood your remarks correctly,
 you're basically suggesting that we go back to acute
 toxicity information on pure substances that you find in
 waste.  In other words, there is no such thing,  to my knowledg
 at least,  on waste by waste basis of toxicity of waste.
 You're talking in terms of  a toxicity of components of that
 waste for  which there may or may not be data.  So going one
 step further from that, the implication, if I'm correct,  I
 want you to comment,  if you would,  the implication is that  if
you were going to draw,  then,  a line between hazardous and
 non-hazardous based on these toxicity characteristics is  that
 you would  not only have to  draw a line with respect to, say,
 LD-50 or some other toxological number,  but you would also
 have to draw a line with respect to concentration of that
 particular constituent  in the waste,  is that not true?
           MR. KINSEY:   I think that if you were to try to
 relate that standard to the characteristics of waste and  not
 to the characteristics  of the individual components, that that
 would not  be true.
           What you're  trying to evaluate is the characteristic

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                       131




 of  the waste.   You  could  utilize  purer  component  toxicity




 data  in  doing  that  evaluation, but that wouldn't  be the point




 at  which you could  regulate  it.   You would be regulating it



 from  the point  of view of the characteristic of the waste.



          MR.  LINDSEY:  That would require in every individual




 case  that the  toxological characteristics of each waste be



 determined on  the case by case basis, right, specifically if



 you're going to regulate that way?



          MR. KINSEY:  If you mean tested, no, I don't think



 that means tested.  I think that  the listing that you've got




 of  hazardous wastes, according to hazardous properties, a good




 deal  of  those processes have been identified as a result of




 acute toxicity data and that data was used, I think, pretty




 extensively in coming up with the list of hazardous materials



 that you  have.  If it was good enough for that, I submit that



 it  is good enough to try and formalize that process through




 the criteria to provide a minimum evaluation of each individual



 waste.



          MR. CORSON:  I guess I'm still a little bit con-




fused, Jim.  I wonder if you Gould go through for me one more




time how you would evaluate  specifically the hazards or the



toxicity of a waste.  Can you have a sample of the way you




assess its toxicity?



          MR. KINSEY:  What you're attempting to do is




 evaluate the toxological,  the toxicity properties of a given

-------
 10

 11

 12
 13
 14

 IS
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20

 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                       132
 waste,  you've  got  three different ways  in which you  can do
 that.   You  can test the waste itself.   You can take  a  look at
 the  existing data  either on the pure compounds that  are in
 the  waste or on the existing data of similar types of waste",
 or you  could use some sort of experiential  type of data re-
 lating  exposures to some descriptive standard.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Let me try and clarify one
 thing.  You complimented us on having these four characteris-
 tics but what you're essentially saying is get rid of the
 toxicity characteristic and Just put things on the list?
          MR. KINSEY:  No, I complimented you on having
 criteria for coming up with your characteristics: arid your
 lists.  The compliment kind of fell off there, how you apply
 those criteria to toxieity.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I Just wanted to clarify that „
          MR. KINSEY:   I think you kind of fell apart there a
little.
          MR. CORSON:   Let me follow up a little if I may,
Jim.  If we were to go back,  let me again Just try to do this
to get a further amplification of this approach that you're
referring to, if I were,  for the moment, to leave out the
extraction procedure,  I had some technique which would allow
me to analyze the waste,  reevaluate the waste, and that
technique would allow me to include the things that we now
have in the proposal,  which is the drinking water metals regu-

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                        133




 lated,  I would Include in it the ANPR which again uses all th




 toxicity data that  exists,  that  we're aware of,  is that  the




 kind of approach you're  recommending,  just  evaluate the



 toxicity of  components as one approach?  One you have  a




 specific incident from that  waste, which we know has caused



 damage,which is  another  approach.  And the  third one,  I  think



 if I heard you correctly, would  be to draw  the analogy be-




 tween this waste and another waste which is very similar.



 Do you  feel  that  would be a  proper thing?




          MR. KINSEY:  From  what I understand of  what  you're




 saying,  yes.  Similarly my analogy there was, my  comment there



 was  referring to  the possibility of industries, for  instance,




 the  metal plating industry being able to collectively  address




 the  types of waste that they  offer and to be able to do a



 study of the waste industry wide as opposed to each  individual




 industry studying its  own individual waste.




          What I'm looking for is more flexibility in  in-



terpretation of what is hazardous.



          MR. CORSON:  Let me ask another question.  We try-




st least part of our approach with using an EP, forgetting' for



the moment the specifics of the individual E^ves to  show



concern for contaminants that might be released from the waste



as opposed to those  contaminants which might be bound up.



I'm wondering whether in your system you would have  some con-




cept  which would allow out those things which while  analysis

-------
 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15
 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25
                                                         134
 might  show that  there's  arsenic  there,  we  still  want  to  give
 credit  to  the  fact  that  it's  bound  up  and  not  released from
 that waste in  the present form of the  waste.
           MR.  KINSEY:  Well,  first  of  all, the biological test
 to  some extent,  account  for that type  of thing in that in
 order fo-p  a chemical which is in a  waste,  say arsenic, to
 come in t»  exert  its toxic property, it  has to come into  con-
 tact with  the, it has to actually be absorbed into the
 organism and there you're taking into account some not only
 acquatic solubilities but also liquid solubilities.  So  the
 test animal itself does, to some extent, account for some
 of that.  But beyond that point,  I would like to see that
 be able to be part of the thing,  part of the evaluation.  But
 other than on a case by case basis,I'm not sure how you're
 going to establish standards to do that.
          The thing that bothers me most' about the way that
you've gone is that I would rather see you wait on that  type
of a standard where you're looking at that kind of an issue
because you don't even have the piece of equipment that  it
 takes to do the test available.  We haven't done that much in
the way of trying to determine what waste will or will not be
hazardous as a result of that test,  and I'm kind of at a loss
as to how to really comment about that EP without knowing
what it's going to do.  I understand that a year from now, you
may have an awful lot of testing done utilizing the EP,  but

-------
                                                              135
   1  that doesn't  help me today.
               MR. CORSON:  I guess one of the things that I find
     here is a problem for me, at least, our extractor is a very
     sinple piece of equipment, which I guess we think ought to be
     made in any garage shop.  Prom the drawing that's available
     in the proposal itself, someone could make it.  I think that
     all the industry has is that they are concerned if they make
  8
     one themselves, will we consider that to be an equivalent
  9  piece of equipment.  I think that's a different valid ques-
 10  tlon.  It has nothing to do with whether or, not we can make an
 11   extractor.
 12             MR. KINSEY:   My issue isn't whether or not they can
 13   make it.  But my issue is that the extractor itself just
 14   showed up in the Federal Register in December,  and I myself
 15   haven't seen any picture of it prior to that.  And even if I
 16   wanted to make it and  even if I had the money and the re-
 17
sources to start testing to find out how this extractor works
 18   and how this particular procedure with the specified
 19   dilution  and under the specified  acidic conditions,  if  I
 20   knew what  waste would and would not be hazardous;  under that
 2i   type of a  system,  but there's  been no,  virtually, testing
 22   done.  And yet  it's being proposed as  a standard.  It  would
 23   seem to me that what we would  want to  do at  this  point is
24
25
put that off for a year or so until you come up with a
standard.  In the meantime look at toxicity  from a point of

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                        136




 view where it  is  being looked  at  today by  regulatory agencies



 that  are  actually doing it.  In other words,  they  are talcing




 into  account existing  toxological data and they're doing  it



 in a  number of different mechanisms.  They do it either by




 requiring  testing on particular wastes.  They do it  by uti-




 lizing  f inney's equations and  similar types of  things  or




 calculating the toxicity of a given waste, or they utilize




 some  sort of a, there's actually  been a problem, some  kind of




 experience with the waste that demonstrates that t«xie«logical



property or the lack of it.




          MR. CORSON:  One last one If I may.  Would you



estimate,  if you can, whether you thlnkwe have more wastes



currently that would come into the system if we used the




approach that you're suggesting as opposed to whatever estimate




you may have on what would come in using the toxicity defini-



tion as included in the regulation?



          MR. KINSEY:  I wish I could,  but that's my comment,



I can't.  I have no idea.  The approach that I'm suggesting Is




the continuation of the one that's being used today with re-



spect t» t»xl'c*l«gLcal evaluation in those states that have got




ongoing programs.   And it would seem to  me to make, -more sense




;o upgrade the nation to those  minimal standards and to at a



later date introduce the leachate test  or the extraction pro-



cedure when we've  got a better idea as  to how that really re-




lates to the hazard we're trying to control.

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                         137



           MR. LINDSEY:   To change the subject a little bit to



 one of your other comments,  you had some problem with our




 definition of discarded materials  which would let  wastes



 which are  being recovered  in some manner into products which



 don't constitute disposal,would let them,  would identify them




 as  non-hazardous waste  or  non'waste,  I  guess.  The  problem




 which we come into here, one of the problems  associated with




 that  whole area is that  we have trouble identifying where a




 material is  a legitimate fey-product  which is manufactured er



 the myriad by-products which come out of  the  manufacturing




 industries today which are used as  Intermediate  and as  final




 products all  over the country and the entire  economy.   And




 those things  which seem  to worry you and which worry us,  to




 some  extent,  that  may be presented  as being recovered but  in




 actuality  are  not  recovered  and we  have trouble drawing  that




 line.




           The  way  in which we have  chosen  to  do it  is to  say



 that,  look, anything which has  a  value and which is going  to a



 resource recovery  facility is not as likely to get  lost.



But,  on the other  hand, it was  pointed out to us earlier that



 occasionally  something will get lost, somebody will simply




foul up the law and that will happen in any event I suspect.



          But  assuming you don't  like our approach to the




thing, how else would we draw that  line between what we'll



call legitimate byproducts and things which are waste which

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        138
 would be In the  system?  I  don't  think  it's  practical  to get
 all  byproducts into  the  system.
          MR. KINSEY:  In  Minnesota, we have the  same problem
 because  our definition of  what waste is is  also tied  to  the
 word discarded,  and  I recognize  that as a problem.
          I think my understanding of  the situation is that
 because  it  is a, in  our case, a  legislative definition, the
 court may be the only ones that  are going to be able  to de-
 termine whether or not that particular facility is handling
 waste or if it is handling some  kind of a raw material.  A
 byproduct is not a waste and, to me, there are situations out
 there that are under the guise, there are resource recovery
 situations out there that are definitely recovery of waste.
 And I would think that rather than closing the door to the
 possibility of your taking some action against that kind of
 a situation, you would want to go and keep that open.  You're
not going to resolve that difference, I don't think.  I don't
 think you can because the difficulty, the lack of clarity
 comes from the Congress itself when they said something was
discarded.  But in your interpretation.of that, I don't-under-
 stand why you want to preclude some action in an area where
you're actually needed.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  We don't have any more ques-
tions.  Thank you.
          Back to our original list.  Is the representative

-------
  3
  4
  5
  6
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                             139




     from the St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association
     here?
               MR. MARQUART:  Yes.
                     STATEMENT OP ROLAND C.  MARQUART



           MR.  MARQUART:   Thank you.




           I'm  not  a  technical person  per se.   I  have  a




 peripheral knowledge of  environmental matters  so I  can't  tell




 you  anything here  that Chet wouldn't—Chet  knows how  much I



 don't know.




           I am Roland C.  Marquart, manager  of  Transportation



 Services and secretary of the Environmental Committee of  the




 St.  Louis  Regional Commerce and  Growth  Association.




           The  St. Louis Regional Commerce and  Growth



 Association is an organization of over  3*000 members, repre-




 senting businesses and labor,  in an area having  a population



 of over two and a half million on both aides of the Mississippi




 and Missouri Rivers.  Our organization,also known as  RCGA,



 has its focus  on the  bi-state, metropolitan St.  Louis region.



 Our primary emphasis  is the economic development of that




 entire area.



          The basic statement I'm presenting here was pre-



 pared by a subcommittee of our Environmental Committee.  The



St. Louis  Regional Commerce and Growth Association—I'm



 skipping a couple of paragraphs there that aren't pertinent



per se or pettinent but not essential.  The many tragic in-

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                           140




1   oldents  associated with the improper handling and disposal



   of hazardous wastes have emphasized the need to develop con-




   trol measures.  Hopefully, the Resource Conservation and



   Recovery Act, Hazardous Waste Regulations coupled with the




   Toxic Substances Control Act and the Clean Water Act Pre-




   treatment Regulations will enable our society to preserve




   human health and the environment for ourselves and our de-



   scendants.




             The St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Associa-



   tion does not take issue with the intent of the proposed
   Hazardous Waste Regulations.  We do,  however,  wish to em-



   phasize the need for moderation during development of such



   regulations to insure against over-regulation.  So often we



   are  witness to growth stagnation from policies that  jeopar-



   dize the very existence  of  businesses which, have been the



   building blocks of  our great nation,  providing our people



   with the products and services we demand,  and  are the life-



   blood of our free enterprise system.   We  are particularly



   concerned with the  impact of hazardous waste and other sister



   regulations on small and medium sized businesses.  Large



   corporations have been forced to develop  staffs specifically



   assigned to handle  increased administrative burdens,  but the



   smaller company has been pushed to the limit of motivation



   and  lacks the resources  necessary to  handle the numerous and



   voluminous federal  regulations promulgated within the past ten

-------
                                                               141



   1   years.




   2            We  are concerned also that portions  of  the proposed



   3   hazardous waste regulations relating to intrastate controls on



   4   transportation, handling, and storing may be unconstitutionally



   5 I  intruding on  state sovereign functions.  We trust that ade-



     quate importance will be given to this possibility and that



     the implication of such deviation from the basic rights of
  8
     local and state governments will be thoroughly evaluated.
  9            As the time allows, we wish to address specific



  10 provisions and requirements presented in the proposed hazardous



  11  waste regulations as follows:
 12




 13




 14
          Section  250.13(d), we consider the definition  of a



toxic waste as related to the extraction procedure to be
     arbitrary and a fantastic notion.  The EPA has taken an ex-



 15  I! tremely ultraconservative position in considering a waste



 '6   hazardous if its EP extract shows more than ten times the



 17   levels of contaminants allowed by the National. Interim
 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
Primary Drinking Water Standards.  Using such criteria, every-



thing but drinking water will be considered hazardous.  The



main purpose of hazardous waste regulations is to control the



entry of truly hazardous substances into the environment and



thereby protect the public health.  The leaching of hazardous



wastes into ground water should be prevented.  The assumption,



therefore, that hazardous wastes will enter the ground water




and receive a tenfold dilution does not appear valid and

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                          142




 certainly should  not  be  used  as  the basis for  establishing  the



 toxicity  of  all hazardous waste  components.



           Section 250.l4(b)(ill), we do; not understand the



 reasoning nnderlying  the separation of publicly-owned and



 privately-owned treatment works which would, if treating



 domestic  sewage,  produce essentially identical sludges.  If the



 mrpose of such a provision is to control industrial treatment



 plant sludges, the intent could be better stated so as not to



 place an  undue burden upon those private companies producing



 and treating municipal sludge under contract as a business



 enture.  The intent and expanse of this provision is unclear.



          Section 250.15(f), authority is given to the Ad-



 ninistrator to approve or disapprove a demonstration and also



 the power to grant or not grant a public hearing if he solely



 considers there are or are not genuine and relevant factual



 issues to be resolved by such a hearing.  We consider a provi-



 sion such as this gives too much power arid authority to one



 individual who may or may not be qualified to make such deci-



 sions and rulings.



          Section 250.22, we agree whbleheartedly with the



 soncept of the manifest system as long as sufficient care is



 aken in defining hazardous waste and the administrative



burden is minimized.  The manifest system, if adhered to, will



 enable tracking of hazardous waste from its conception to dis-



 posal and insure adequate protection for the public and the

-------
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
20
21
22
23
25
                                                          143




 environment.  We recommend, however, that each load of hazard-




 ous waste, meaning each economically transportable quantity,



 have a separate manifest accompanying it on its Journey.




 If several separate shipments are covered under one manifest,




 the potential for the probability of error exists and keeping



 track of each shipment becomes more difficult.




           Section 250.29(a),  we do not  consider a waste,  if




 truly hazardous and the degree of hazard being  adequately



 defined,  should be allowed  to be discharged into  a facility




 not  specifically designed and operated  to  handle  and contain




 hazardous  waste no matter what the weight  or volume.




 Numerous generators of small  quantities  of hazardous wastes




 using  the  same  facility for disposal can, by their aggregate



 contributions,  create  the potential for  a public  health or




 environmental hazard.  More emphasis should be  placed on de-




fining what is  actually hazardous  rather than arbitrarily



 selecting  a 100 kilograms per month or even a thousand



 kilograms  per month exemption.   The degree  of toxicity Is the



most important  consideration  and should be  specified.




           Section 250.43-9, we are cognizant of the financial



problems associated with assuring proper closure and post-



closure of hazardous waste facilities and ascribe to the need



for such procedures.  Monies earmarked for  closure and post-



closure operations deposited initially in a  trust fund is one




way of providing future funds for proper closure and post-

-------
                                                          144



 closure of existing hazardous facilities.  Such a requirement



 may,  however, place a burden on the smaller operator who




 wishes to comply with hazardous waste facility regulations but




 does  not have adequate capital.  We are encouraged to see a




 provision included in the regulations which would allow the




 Regional Administrator to consider the financial status of the




 facility and provide for partial compliance and relief for



 the financial responsibility associated with closure and




 post-closure.  For new facilities placed in operation after



 the effective date of the hazardous waste regulations, a




 schedule of charges,  based on hazard category and weight or




 volume, could be developed which would enable the operator of




 a hazardous disposal facility to allocate a certain percentage



 of his disposal fee for closure and post-closure costs.  The




 portion of the disposal fee allocated for such closure



 operations could be placed in a controlled interest-bearing



fund.  The administration of the fund could be similar to sales



 tax collections with any left-over pprtion after satisfactory



closure assigned to the state government for use in other




 environmental protection activities associated with the con-




 trol and disposal of hazardous wastes or to establish a




disaster fund.

-------
 1





 2





 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





 0




 1





 2




 3




 4





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19





 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                        145




 posits for closure and post-closure operations  are  required.




 The potential for price fixing  becomes  apparent.  Whatever



 system is  ultimately  chosen  to  insure proper  closure, we trust



 that  some  means  will  be employed to prevent exorbitant  dis-




 posal charges being assessed on those companies who must com-



 ply with hazardous  waste regulations and dispose of their




 wastes at  such facilities.




           We  have  selected for  comment  today  those concepts




 and requirements which  we consider  have the greatest impact




 on  the various commercial aid industrial establishments we




 represent.  A more  detailed  evaluation  of the various tech-




 nical  aspects of the regulations by qualified individuals




within our organization will be prepared and  submitted at a




 later  date.



          We  thank you for the opportunity to voice our con-




cerns  and comments and trust that great care will be exercised




 in  preparing  the final hazardous waste regulations which we



deem to have  greater impact on our nation's business community



than the Clean Water Act, and respectfully submit it.




          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.



          I realize you did tell us that this was written by




one of your subcommittees.  I wonder if we might ask you some
questions.
          MR. MARQUART:  Certainly.



          MR. LINDSEY:  Mr. Marquart, one of the problems you

-------
  4
  5
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                          146
 addressed in the last  set  of  points  had to do with the small
 facilities meeting the financial  requirement.  Was the thrust
 of  that  that  they  would not be  able  to  meet the upfront—
           MR. MARQUART (interrupting):   Essentially, yes.
           MR. LINDSEY:  Therefore, I gather you would—-let me
 make one  point.  The provision  which you alluded to that allow
 the Regional  Administrator to make a determination if  a
 facility  couldn't  meet  that has only to  do with the position
 of that requirement during the  interim  status period?
           MR. MARQUART:  Not starting the new one.
           MR. LINDSEY:  And not after the facility has re-
 ceived a full permit.   In other words, when he  receives the
 full permit, he will have to have it all upfront.
          MR. MARQUART:  Yes.
          MR. LINDSEY:  Then are you saying that we should,
 as an alternative, then, that we should,  in some  way, expand
that so that the Regional Administrator  could take such
problems, financial probleas^ into account?
          MR. MARQUART:  A part of it, of course, was in
this,  providing for the charges that would be used to pay
this off, I think.
          MR. LINDSEY:   In other words, over a  period of time-
          MR. MARQUART  (interrupting):  Yes.  You said it
would be upfront.  It's a question of accumulating the money
over a
       period of time is what our recommendation is aimed at.

-------
 10




 11




 12




 13




 14




 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                           147




           MR. LINDSEY:  Let me just raise one of the problems



 that we considered that as an approach at one point and, as




 a matter of fact, if you've seen some of the preliminary



 drafts which have been floating around,you probably would



 have seen that provision in there.  But the trouble is with




 regard to closure requirements,  which is the only thing, if




 I'm not mistaken, it is the only thing that requires up-front




 money is that  we have too. many instances of facilities,  new




 facilities,  if you will,  or existing facilities  which simply



 go  under.   If  they go under before that money is built  up




 over a number  of years,  as I think your suggestion would be,




 then there  is  no money available  or insufficient amount  of




 money available  to close  the facility  out  properly which is




 the  most  important thing  when a facility  is  abandoned.



          MR.  MARQUART:   I recognize that  problem and realize




 there must  be  a  provision  for proper closure,  you can't  get




 away  from that.



          MR.  LINDSEY:  Then I would submit  that  your approach



 of allowing this  money to  be built  up  over a period of years




might  not adequately  provide  that  protection,  there wouldn't




be funds available.



          MR. MARQUART:  Well, if you're talking  about for



one single unit or whether you're talking  about  units as  a
group.
          MR. LINDSEY:  Well, the regulations, as they're

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
 written now,  apply to  each specific —



           MR. MARQUART (interrupting):   When you're talking



 about  trust funds,  you're  talking  about  something, like  you  have



 highway trust fund  and other  things like that where monies



 are  collected and  put  into  a  trust fund  which is  used over  a



 variety of things  and  allocated.   As  you.say, the practicality



 of that  for an individual thing would  be  questionable but an



 overall  industry wide  trust fund is really what we're talking;



 about,  the possibility should be considered.  We're not



 attempting to  say here today that that absolutely is what



 should  be  done.  It's  Just  a suggestion  as a possibility that



we would present for your consideration.



           MR.  LINDSEY:  So  as another option, we  would perhaps,



 thenr-let's see if  I understand what you're saying,  as another



 option, then, we would then perhaps consider requiring a state-



wide or perhaps even nation-wide trust fund to be  built up



for closure?



           MR. MARQUART:  Yes, I think on a state basis, yes.



           MR. CORSON:  I have;a couple of points, Mr. Marquarfc.




One is a question.  Earlier in your testimony you  indicated



that you felt that we were being ultraconservative with our



ten, times  standard for defining hazardous waste due to



toxiclty and later on you indicated you do not feel we should



allow  any hazardous waste to leach at all or leach into the



 system.  I'm wondering whether  your technical people may have

-------
 10





 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                          149




 some guidance or advice to us as to—




           MR. MARQUART (interrupting):  That would be a question




 I would ask them to present additional  material before the



 March deadline in writing on that.




           MR. CORSON:   Two other points I'd like just for




 clarification.  In your point two that  you raised with regard t\>




 our separation of POTW  sludge and  others,  that category is



 what  was  raised this morning,  all POTW  sludge  will be managed




 under Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act and the reason we




 are excluding it  is because there is  overlapping coverage. We




 don't  have  the authority under that section of the Act  to



 regulate  or to let out  nor.--POTW sludge  because that  Act  does




 not cover non-POTW sludge.




          MR.  MARQUART:   O.K.,  sir, thank you.




          MR.  CORSON:   The  next  clarifying  point,  and I'm just




 wondering which direction you're  coming from,  that  was  in




 your point  three, Paragraph 215(f), which relates  to  a  test



 that someone might do to demonstrate  that their waste does not



 belong in the  system and the purpose  of  that particular  sec-



 tion is essentially to  avoid what I call nuisance  type public



 hearings where someone  felt that  that' was the  case.   In  other



words, this is a case where an industry  can  submit data  to



 show their waste does not belong  in the  system.  If an in-



terested person, let me just say  somebody that  probably  be-




lieves that industry is trying to get   away  with bloody  murder

-------
 10
 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                          149-A



 here,  they just  can't  demand  a  public  hearing on  the  basis



 they want  to  hear the  record.   They've got  to have, as  it




 indicates  there,  genuine  and  relevant  factual information to



 indicate that  should come to  a  public  hearing.  If, on  the




 other  hand, the demonstration has been turned down, the data




 provided in the demonstration has been turned down by the




 Administrator, then the person  submitting it  may  request that




 public hearing.




           MR.  MARQUART:  I think maybe there  was  a misinter-




 pretation  of the  language there  it sounds to  me like.  Thank




 you  very much.
          MR. CORSON:  I felt that just from what you said
there was.



          MR. MARQUART:  I would presume because I think what




you're saying is really what it was directed to.



          MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  Roland,I'm kind of curious.  You




alluded to the possibility of potential price fixing.  How



would you suggest that we might approach .this?



          MR. MARQUART:  Well, I think that was all tied in




with this question of the trust fund type of thing and all.



In other words, having provisions that would permit smaller




companies to get in business.  So there was no thought that the




EPA should be a Federal Trade Commission at any place,  along



the line but rather that the concern with these regulations



as they might prevent some smaller companies.from getting into

-------
  6
  7
  8
                                                          150
 competition,  that was the only thought there.
           CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much,  Mr.
 Marquart.
           Is  Robert  Plank from Springfield,  Missouri,  here or
 someone else  from City Utilities  of Springfield?
           (No response.)
           CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Is Dr.  Robert  Poston here?
           (No response.)
  9             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   O.K.,  that's  the  end of  my
 10  list of people who  asked to give  us their  comments.  Is there
 11  someone else who would  like to  speak  on  Section  3001?
 12
 13
           (No response.)
           CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K.  We will  officially  close
 14  the hearing record now on 3001 and we will,  I believe,  pass
 15 || out three-TDy-f ive cards  and if any of you would  like to  give
    us written questions, if you could keep it to 3001, we  would
 17 || certainly prefer that because we are going to be  discussing
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
two, three and four in the next couple of days,we will attempt
to answer your questions.  I guess we already have one from
Mr. Stegbauer and we'll start off with that.
          We'll take five minutes.
          (A short recess was taken.)
          ('See separate transcript for Question and Answer
Session.)

-------
SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT FOR QUESTION AND
ANSWER SESSION
         St. Louie, Mil»our1
        February 14, 1979

-------
                                                            151
 1               MR.  LEHMAN:   I'll start off the question and
 2      answer  session of our meeting.
 3               Mr.  Stegbauer asked the question,  basically
 4      why was waste oil considered to be not a—well,  I guess
 5      the gist of it was why was it singled out for special
 6      treatment under the regulations.
 7               The  answer is that we  know that the use of
 8      waste oils for suppression purposes, road oiling, use
 9      of the  incineration of these oils has been  known to cause
 10      serious environmental effects.   A very famous case occurred
 11      eight here in Missouri, Verona, Missouri, for example
 12      where a waste oil collector collected not only waste oil
 13      but other things and  sprayed a  horse arena  with  that
 14      material and  a lot of other roads in the area, and
 15      there were some very  severe environmental effects in-
 16      volving the health of children  and the death of  animals
 17      in that area.
 18               With respect to  the incineration of waste oils,
 19      we are  particularly concerned with the heavy metal con-
 20      tent of lubricating,  in particular automotive lubricating
 2i      oils.   We have some data  that indicates it's as  high
 22      as about 8,000 parts  of lead in certain automotive oils
 23      as a result of capture of the lead from leaded gasoline
 24      in the  crankcase oil.  We feel  that the incineration of
25      such oils could very  easily, if it was done in uncontrol-
       led manner, result in some serious environmental problems.

-------
                                                          152



 1      So,  for all of these reasons,  we have tended to believe



 2      that waste oils,  in particular automotive crankcase



 3      oils, but also I  might add certain other types of



 4      cutting oils,  industrial cutting oils and so on, which



 5      do  include among  them heavy metal shavings and so forth,



 6      do  deserve some special treatment under these regula-



 7      tionSo   That's the  basic rationale behind treating



 8      waste oil as we have,



 9               Now,  I have another question here relating to



10      waste oil.  It says, "Waste oils which are generated



11      within a facility and then burned on site for fuel, heat



12      value,  why are these considered hazardous and fall under



13      Subtitle C regulations?"



14               Well, here again the  waste oils that we are



15      talking about  here, depending on what kind of oils



16      you're referring  to, we are specific in Section 250.10-(b)



17      when it's saying, "Using lubricating hydraulic, trans-



18      former,  transmission or cutting oil"; if it's those



19      types of oils then they do fall into our definition of



20      discarded materials.  Other types of oils would not



21      necessarily.  I might comment  on transformer oils,that



22      the  obvious problem we foresee there is the possibility



23      that transformer  oils might contain PCB's, or even if



24      they were substituted into any kind of transformer oper-



25      ation which was drained of PCBfc and and then substitutec

-------
                                                            153

  1     other mineral oils could pick up other contamination

  2     with PCM*.   So,  we're concerned about those particular
               f*
  3     types of waste oil, and so It's a little difficult to

  4     answer this question without knowing explicitly what type

  5     of waste oil is  being discussed here; but I think the

  6     basic point is that while we recognize that we want to

  7     encourage energy conservation where possible,  that's

  8     also one of the  goals of the Resource Conservation

  9     Recovery Act,  it's not only public health and  environ-

 10     mental protection but it is also recovery and  reuse-of

 ll     materials for energy.  We recognize that, but  we're

 12     in essence  trading off these two goals at this point

 13     with respect to  waste oil.

 14              I  might also point out that it does not,  these

 15     regulations do not preclude the use of waste oil as

 16     a fuel, heat value source.   All we're saying is that

 17     if the type of waste oil that I've just discussed is to

 18     be used for fuel purposes then it requires a permit.

 19     In other words,  we want to know about it and we want

 20     to have some control over the type of oil that  goes in,

 21     the burning conditions under which it is burned, and so

 22     forth.  So,  that's that.

 23              All right, let's go on to some other  questions.

 24              MR. LINDSEY:  I have a couple here:

25              "Will the EPA and  the states be able  to process

-------
                                                            154
  1     disposable facility permit applications fast enough to
  2     accommodate the thousands of newly-designated genera-
  3     tors of hazardous waste as a result of these proposals?"
  4              First of all, the first point I want to bring
  5     out is the generators do not need permits, unless they
  6     treat, store and dispose on site.  Now, Congress recog-
  7     nized the fact that it would take some time for EPA
  8     and the states to process permit applications, and that's
  9     why the provision in the Act for interim status is
 10     there.  If someone has notified us under Section 3010,
 11     and has applied for a permit—in this case we'll have
 12     a two-part permit—has submitted Fart A, then they are
 13     considered as having a permit for purposes of continuing
 14     to operate until EPA acts on the permit.
 15              There are two reasons for that:  Number ore  is
 16     because Congress realizes it takes time to go through
 17     a backlog of permits, and another reason is because--
 18     it has been mentioned earlier here today I think--that
 19     there is a problem with the capacity of facilities.
 20     That is, there is not now sufficient acceptable capacity
 2i     available for permitting right off the top.  We expect
 22     to use this mechanism of interim status to help us time
 23     the permitting activity to correspond insofar as we're
 24     able with the availability of acceptable capacity,,
25              The second question is:  "IS it the Agency's

-------
                                                         155

 1     intent to  include normal silvicultural management in

      harvesting wastes which are usually  left  in  the forest


      as erosion control and game management aids  under the


      agricultural exemption, and if not, why not?"


               First of all, I doubt that  those materials would


      be hazardous under the definition of 3001; however,
 6

      insomuch as timber is a crop, I'll have to admit that


      it's not something which I personally have thought
 8

      about and  I don't know whether the rest of our staff


      has thought about it.  Should those kinds of materials


      turn out to be hazardous. I would think that we would
11

      look favorably upon them in the sense that they might


      be covered in the same way as farm waste  insofar as they


      are a crop, but I can't imagine them being hazardous.
14

      If somebody has information that indicates they are


      hazardous, where it would fail our definition here,
16

      maybe we would want to rethink that.


               MR. CORSON:  I have a couple of questions here:
18

               "In the seminar in Houston last year, a re-
19

      presentative Hawaii Conversion Incorporated  reported
20

      that the company used EPA's proposed construction pro»
21

      cedure on  a sample of concrete,contain ing a  level of
22

      .12 parts  per million of cadmium.  Two questions:  One,
23

      do you know about this and if yes, how valid is the


      claim; Number two, if the claim is valid  this sample would

-------
                                                            156
  1     make the weigh station hazardous waste,  and do we
  2     want that?"
  3              I guess I have heard that same report and I cannot
  4     assess the validity of the claim.  I'm sure if they
  5     recorded it, then in their conduct of the test that's
  6     what they found.  There have been changes made to the
  7     extraction procedure since that time. At that point
  8     we were using a buffered—a method of continuously
  9     adding acid to maintain a pH of 5 at the end of two 24-
 10     hour period,  so in 48 hours it always had enough acid
 11     in it with a final pH of five*  As a result of comments
 12     we got at that point in time we have modified the
 13     extraction procedure so we now have a maximum amount
 14     of acid that we add for the given sample, and I'm
 15     confident that at this point in time concrete would not
 16     fail—let me change the wording—that analyzing the
 17     extract from subjecting concrete to the  extraction
 18     procedures in the analysis, that would not fail.  Just
 19     as a matter of semantics, you don't fail or pass an
 20     E.P.  The E.Po is a method for extracting releasable
 21     contaminants through a solubility test for the waste
 22     and we then do evaluate it according to the standard
 23     shown for toxicity under the proposal.
 24              Another question related to "When does a
25     waste become a waste?  By way of description presently

-------
                                                             157
  l     used, sodium hydroxide to chemically metal aluminum.
  2     We discard it now, but in the future we will recover
  3     some of the spent hydroxide and reuse it.  What cannot
  4     be recovered will be disposed of.  Will then this
  5     sodium hydroxide solution be considered a waste before
  6     or after recovery?"  The answer is it will be considered
  7     waste when you get rid of it.  The recovered part is
  8     not a waste.  When you're through with the spent part
  9     and you're not using it anymore, then it is a waste
 10     and subject to evaluation according to our character-
 11     istics.
 12              Question:  "With regard to the ignitable waste
 13     definition as now written, any waste which ignites at
 14     140F, or burns air, burns vigorously or persistently
 15     when ignited, is ignitable regardless of ignition
 16     temperatures.  Was this the intent of this section
 17     or should the word 'or* really be 'and1?'1
 is              By way of explanation we're using 130 degree
 19     flash point for liquids.  We share with the rest of the
 20     people out there the difficulty for determining a de-
 21     finitive test for solids in terms of ignitability.  So,
 22     we have tried to describe those things which might
 23     cause, or which could define an ignitable solid.  One
 24     of them is something which will burn vigorously when
25     ignited.  The major reason for including it—and it is

-------
                                                         158
 1      meant to be 'or1 as it now reads—is we would like to
 2      make sure, and 3004 deems it so, that those kinds of
 3      materials are kept out of the landfill environment
 4      where fires are more likely to occur.  We really
 5      recommend that some other method of disposal or final
 6      disposition be used for ignitables.
 7               A question:  "How are the compounds listed
 8      in the priority pollutants list to be used in clas-
 9      sifying a waste as hazardous?"
10               That gives me a chance to offer an explanation
11      for three of the appendices that are listed.  These are
12      the appendices which have the selected cancelled and
13       Arfar pesticides, the D.O.T. Poison A, Poison B, A
14      list and the selected list of priority pollutants.
15      Because of the limited definition we have for hazar-
16      dous waste, we felt there were certain of these, to
17      use the word, pure materials, which if the material were
18      disposed of does require some special attention.  And
19      there are four categories that we mentioned, material
20      which is a discarded material but if it were shipped
2i      would be defined by any of the names listed on any of
22      those three appendices, the pesticides, the D.O.T,
23      priority pollutant, spill cleanup residues from those
24      same materials, off-spec materials if it's a discarded
25      material, and containers which are going to disposition,

-------
                                                            159
 1      unless they have been triple-rinsed.   So,  a container—

 2      just let me amplify the last one—container which is
 3      going to a reclaimer is not another discarded material,
 4      it  is not a solid waste, it is out of the  system In total.
 5      Now, a container from one of these materials which has
 6      been emptied,  the container is going  to disposition,
 7      you're going to bury it or whatever,  that  container
 8      has not been triple-rinsed, it is a hazardous waste.
 9               The other point that I should indicate at this
 10      time, though,  is that there is nothing about—even though
 11      it's part of tomorrow's discussion—you may still ship
 12      those empty containers using a manifest, or a shipping
 13      paper,  rather,  because they may still fit  in the D.O.T.
 14      standards as a  hazardous material,  even the ones that
 15      we  have left out of the system.
 16               Another question:   "Are hazardous wa£es destined
 17      for recovery or reclamation which do  not have a value
 18      to  the generator,  are they  considered hazardous and
 19      subject to 3001;  the generator pays to have it hauled
 20      off,  it does not have a value,  it's a reclaimer?"
 21               After  many discussions and deliberations we
 22      took out of our definition  of discarded material any
 23      association with value,  because it's  been  very difficult
 24      to  say how much this had to be worth, trying to put an
25      economic value  on it.  We really are  looking at it only

-------
                                                            160
  1     if it is being reused in a manner which does not con-
       stitute disposal,  and is not a used oil as defined.
       In those cases it  is not a waste, it's going to a re-
       claimer which is out of the system.
                Now, as indicated earlier as a result of one
  6     of our comments, we have made some of these decisions
  7     leaning in the direction of fostering and sponsoring
  8     resources, recovery of resources utilization, while
  9     at the same time providing what  we feel is an adequate
 10     amount of protection of public health and the environ-
 11     ment.   And we've left the door open,  for example, we've
 12     only listed certain waste oils as being always a dis-
 13     carded material.  We may add other things to that same
 14     list if we find that there are other  that deserve
 15     that distinction of always being considered a waste
 16     because the tendency to use them in an improper manner
 17     is too high, or the things usually are frequently con-
 18     taminated enough that they deserve and have the atten-
 19     tion of this regulation.
 20              MR. LINDSEY:  I've got one here that's kind of
 21     complex and I'll see if I can wind my way through it
 22     here.
 23              "I would  like to know,  or I'd like EPA to ad-
 24     dress  the question of what is considered, 'significant
25     reduction of odors, volatiles, and pathogenic micro-

-------
                                                        161

 1      organisms',  and how the wastes from holding pens at
 2
       packing houses be addressed by EPA.   Due to present
 3
       definitions  and interpretations it would appear that

       those waste  and sludge from activated sludge plants

       used by that industry, could not be applied to crop

 6      land."

                Well now, that gets into some,  gets in depth
 n
       in the identification here under one of  the lists,  and
 o
       if the person who asked this question happens to have

       a copy of the regs they will probably want to look  at

11      250.l4-(b),  which is where this particular quote comes

12      from.   It says:

13               "Hazardous waste sources and processors, sources

       generating hazardous wates.   The following sources

15      generate hazardous waste unless the  waste from these

       sources does not contain micro-organisms or elements of

17      C.D.C.  classes 2 through 5 of the etiologic agents  listed

18      in Appendix  60"

19               Well, first of all, off the top, I don't really

20      know whether these kinds of waste have those kinds  of

21      micro-organisms or elements in them.  Assuming that they

22      do, we'll go on to the next piece, which shows up under
23     little  iii down at  the bottom of  the  lefthand corner  of
24     that page  which says:
25              "Sewage  treatment  plants, with the  exception

-------
                                                           162
 1      of  publicly  owned  treatment works,  unless  sludge  gener-
 2      ated by  such a  plant has been  stabilized by means of
 3      chemical,  physical, thermal or biological  treatment  pro-
 4      cesses that  result in  significant reduction of odors,
 5      volatile organics  and  pathogenic micro-organisms."
 6              That specifically is  the quote that the
 7      gentleman  is interested in.  And these processes  are
 8      discussed  then  in  a document which  we have referenced
 9      here.  It's  an  EPA document, a process design manual
10      for sludge treatment and disposal.
11              Well,  to  address that partioiar point, first
12      of  all we  come  to  the  question is manure from feed lots,
13      is  that  sewage? And there is  at least question in my
14      mind as  to whether it  is'or not.  Now, I don't think
15      we've arrived at that.  Maybe  we need to look at  the
16      definition and  determine whether it should or shoJd
17      not be sewage.  If it's not sewage,  then it wouldn't
18      be  covered here, and I'm not sure I have the answer
"      for that right  now.  We'll have to  take that into ac-
20      count and  address  that point.
21              Second of all, if the gentleman treats it
22      in  an activated sludge plant as he  indicates is done
23      by  the industry, then  it's also not covered, because
24      that's one of the  process designs which is in this manual.
25      So, by and large,  through one  of the given situations

-------
                                                          163
 1      which he's  discussing here,  through one  of those three
 2      possibilities  that particular material is  probably not
 3      listed in the  sense that 250.14-(b)  identifies waste,
 4      and  thus  it could  be disposed of  on cropland, 1  would
 5      assume.   We will have to take a  look at  i( the one point
 6      which is  brought up here which I  don't think we  fully
 7      thought through, or if we have,  I'm not  aware of it,
       whether or  not feedlot waste constitutes sewage.  When
 9      we talk about  sewage we  normally  are talking about human
10      waste.
                In any event, I guess the  bottom  line of all
12      that  is that the material's  almost  certainly not covered,
       given the situation which he gave us.
                MR. LEHMAN:   I  have a number of people  con-
is      cerned about waste oil and I haven't gotten through all
       of these  questions,  but  I can answer one of them:
                "Waste oil,  I did not understand  your response.
       If you have waste  oil from motors,  hydraulic appli-
19      cations,  et cetera,  can  you  use it  in boilers, in-
20      cinerators,  liquid,  as fuel;  if not,  what  exactly do you
21      do with it?"
22               The answer is,  yes,  you  can use it in boilers
23      and  incinerators as  fuel.  I indicated that these regu-
24      lations did not preclude the use  of waste  oil in those
25      or for those purposes.   What you  do need,  though,  is a

-------
                                                          164



       permit to do it.   In other words,  you can do it if you



       have a permit.



                Here's another one related to some extent to



       this, but not really;  it says:



                "With  the current shortage of oil, namely



 6     gasoline, do you not feel that  these broad hazardous



 7     waste regulations will cause further shortage due to



       hauling hazardous waste long distances to permitted



 9     facilities?"



10              Well,  this is not a simple question to answer,



11     because our information is that there likely to be move-



12     ment in both directions.   In certain industries it ap-



13     pears that there will  be a shift from on-site disposal



       to  off-site disposal,  which would  imply further use of
15
       gasoline  to haul  it.   On the  other hand,  we have infor-
16     mation that there are  certain industrial sectors where



17     the opposite is  true,  where current off-site disposal



18     will shift to on-site  disposal,  because of the generating



19     industry wanting to have  better  control over the dis-



20     posal of waste it generates.  So,  at this time it is



       not—we are not able to say with any assurance which of



22     those two is going to  predominate.  The best information



23     we have right now is it looks like it might be a wash;



24     in other words,  there  will be about equal amounts shif-



25     ting from one type of  disposal to  the other, therefore,

-------
                                                           165
  1     we don't anticipate any impact on the shortage of
  2     gasoline.
  3              Another question,  different subject:
  4              "What medical advisory support does EPA have
  5     to aid you in medical-related concerns related to these
  6     regulations?"
  7              Well, the working  groups developing these
  8     regulations include, among  others, members not only from
  9     the office of Solid Waste,but-SPA biologists and toxico-
 10     logists from the Office of  Pesticides Programs,  Office
 11     of Toxic Substances, the Carcinogenic Assessment Groups,
 12     and so forth, and also biologists and toxicologists
 13     from the National Institute of Health.
 14              MR. LINDSEY:   I've got one more here.   This
 15     is anothir rather new question for me anyway:
 16              "Under what conditions can containers which
 17     cannot physically be triple rinsed—paper bags,  for
 18     example—can they be considered non-hazardous?   What
 19     procedures similar to triple rinsing can be used so that
 20     this  large volume of empty  cleaned containers can be
 21     disposed of in sanitary landfill?"
 22              Well, the answer that I have here from  the
 23     staff is that basically now triple rinse does not
 24     refer to anything except things which can be triple
25     rinsed in accordance with the definition, under  250.21,

-------
                                                        166



 1      so  that that definition would not now apply  to empty



 2      paper bags, for example, because as  this particular



 3      person points out you can't triple rinse them.  So,



 4      there is no procedure.  If in fact they flunk the charac-



 5      teristics, then they're hazardous and would  have to be



 6      disposed of accordingly.  On the other hand, staff



 7      indicates to me—and I'll throw this out—that there



 8      are—that they are considering and have considered



 9      some sort of a procedure which would be equivalent



10      and perhaps adding "or the equivalent" to the triple



11      rinsing definition, and that might include something



'2      like shaken, tapped, air-blasted, or some sort of



13      technique like that.



14              I guess the person who asked this question



15      might have some ideas along those lines, and we would



16      not be averse to hearing them.   If someone  wants to



17      make comments along the lines for containers which cannot



18      be triple-rinsed physically in accordance with the



"      definition here, what other alternative cleaning ap-



20      preaches for other kinds of containers would be equivalent



21      to triple rinsing?  If someone wants to make those



22      kinds of comments to us and get them in before March 16,



23      it might be helpful.



24              Another note here that I have from  the staff



25      is that the real test here might be what the Department

-------
                                                          167


 1     of Transportation considers  to be empty, and  if  the

 2
      question or intent here of the person's question is to


      dispose of large numbers of  bags off-site,  they  may also


      require D.O.T. shipping papers, irregardless  of  any


 5     regulations which we may have,


 6              Here's another one, and I think this person


 7     may be misinterpreting something:


 8              "The February 5 issue of the Oil and Gas


 9     Journal reported that EPA would require 300 days ad-


10     vance notice of intention to drill, which would  allow


11     time for I.S."—this is environmental statement—"and


12     public hearing before a permit is issued.  Could you


13     clarify this requirement on permits to drill, along


14     with the need for permits for creating surface pits,


15     ponds, et cetera, for drilling mud or wastes  of  that


16     nature?"


17              R.C.R.A. doesn'c require anybody to get a  permit


18     to drill for oil or gas, which I assume is what  this is.


19     However, under the Underground Injection Control Program,


20     injection of wastes, from the drilling perhaps,  brines,


21     et cetera, injection into subsurface, there is a set


22     of regulations which was proposed some time ago  and


23     will be re-proposed soon, which would address that.  We


24     are not versed well enough in that area to really take


25     detailed questions on that, and someone wants to see me

-------
                                                           168



 '      after the meeting,  I can  put you in touch with the people



 2      who you should talk to.



 3               On  the other hand,  the  question did go a  little



 4      bit further  and talk about surface  pits  and  ponds  for



 5      drilling mud and  perhaps  for storage of  brines and so



 6      forth.   If hazardous,  those  materials would  be covered



 7      by  the  Special Waste section,  under Section  3005,   That's



 8      included as  one of  the special wastes, and if I can



 9      find it here I'll tell you what  section  that is—3004,



10      excuse  me—regulations under 250.46-(6),  the last  thing



11      in  the  regulations,  in which those  materials are con-



12      sidered to be special  wastes until  we have time to



13      collect additional  information and  decide how or whether



14      these materials should be regulated in the broad sense.



15      It  gives me  a chance to explain  a little bit the special



16      waste categories.



17               The special waste categories are there because



18      by  and  large these  are very  large volume kinds of



19      materials which,  according to the limited information



20      we  have thus far, appear  to  in some cases fail the



21      characteristics or  some portion  of  them  does in many



22      cases.   Very large  volumes,  relatively low on the



23      hazard  scale; and appear  not to  be  particularly amenable



24      to  the  kinds of controls  that we've placed on other



25      hazardous wastes  under this  Section 3004 regulation.

-------
                                                           169
 l               We jvBt don't have enough Information to
 2      adequately decide how to regulate these particular
 3      things at the moment, and thus we will be collecting
 4      that information over the next period of years and
 5      will then propose some substantive regulations, probably,
 6      for those that fall out as hazardous.
 7               There are, however,  in special waste standards
 8      here,  some limited regulations which apply now to these
 9      kinds  of facilities.  They have to do with waste analysis
10      and some site selection criteria, security criteria,
11      keeping records and doing monitoring activities so that
12      we can gather information on  these particular wastes.
13               Incidentally, under  Section 3005, which has
14      not, as we pointed out earlier, been proposed yet—it
15      will be within the next four  to six weeks—we will be,
16      or I expect we will be proposing, I'm not so sure until
17      they show up, but I expect we will be proposing that
18      these  specific special wastes, wHLe during this period
19      while  we're considering them  to be special wastes, that
20      they will receive what we call permit by rule.  In other
21      words, if they meet these limited set of standards here
22      they will be considered as having a permit for purposes
23      of R.C.R.A.  If they do not comply with these set of

24      standards, then they will be  in violation of all of
25      the requirements.

-------
                                                           170



 1               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   One announcement:   There



 2      is an urgent message for Paul Williams someone brought



 3      up to me, if he wants to pick that up,



 4               I also have a question here:



 5               "Is the question of  raising the exemption



 6      limit from 100 kilograms to 1,000 kilograms still open?"



 7               The answer to that is yes.  If you look at



 8      page 58947, we positively solicit proposals on waste to



 9      treat waste between 100 and 1,000 kilograms, whether



10      there may be other alternatives.



11               The second part of this question is:



12               "If so, if it is still open,  how do you



13      see the chances of raising the limit?"



14               And the answer to that is, we don't see the



'5      chances until we see all the  comments  and supporting



16      data that: we get during the comment period and we have



17      a chance to analyze that.  We have to  base our decision



18      on our rule-making record, and there is really no way



19      we can assess that sort of issue until we see what the



20      comments are.



21               MR. LEHMAN:  I have  a question here.  I'll



22      read the question first and then comment onit, because



23      part of the question is—really makes  a statement, whidi



24      is incorrect, but I'll read it as submitted:



25               "if a company accumulates waste oil for reclama-

-------
                                                           171



 1      tion for more Chan 90 days and then has it reclaimed,



 2      the company would not be a generator of hazardous waste,



 3      but if after 90 days the company had to dispose of part



 4      of the used oil, would it then be a generator and storer;



 5      would it thus become a violator of R.C.R.A. regulations?"



 6               Well, first of all,  in the case that was dis-



 7      cussed in that first sentence, I'm assuming this accu-



 8      mulation is going on on-site.   If the company accumulates



 9      waste oil for reclamation on  site for more than 90 days,



10      the statement says the company would not be a generator



11      of hazardous waste,,   This is  not correct.  The genera-



12      tion of any waste oil makes you, assuming it's listed



13      In our hazardous waste list,  makes you a hazardous      ,



14      waste generator.  You Vrould also be • storer of hazar-



15      dous waste oil if you stored  for more than 90 days,



16      which requires a permit, under R.C.R.A.



17               Now, as to  the second part of that, if you



18      disposed of this would it then be a generator-storer?



19      Yes.  In other words, whether you dispose of it or whether



20      you s end it to a reclamation  thing, if you kept the oil



21      for more than 90 days on site, you're both a generator



22      and a storer anyway.



23               Then the last part of it:  "Would the company



24      thus become a violator of R.C.R.A. regulations?"  Well,



25      hopefully not.  Hopefully they will get the necessary

-------
                                                            172
 l      permits  and do it  right,   I  mean,  it's  not a  prior
 2      violation of R.C.R.A.  regulations  to store oil for 90
 3      days,  just have to have  the  right  permits  to  do it,
 4               Waste oil again;  I  don't  know  how we got

 5      started  on waste oil,

 6               "How will the performance standards  for

 7      incinerators alleviate the heavy metals problem?"
 8               Well,  we  have evidence that properly designed
 9      scrubbers can capture  at least some of  these  heavy metals
10      that we're worried about.  This may lead,  though, to

11      the fact that the  ash  or the scur  water may also be a
12      hazardous waste.   This is  discussed to  some extent in

13      our Section 250,45-(1) (e) regulations,  where we
14      discuss  the scrubber requirements  for hazardous waste
15      incinerators.   Basically,  though,  what  we're  really
16      driving  at here is the use of waste oil in an uncon-
17      troller  power boiler,  such as used in apartment houses,
18      schools—you name  it—where  the burning of many types
19      of waste oil can lead  to what we consider  to  be a public

20      health problem,
21               MR.  CORSON:   One  easy one because I'm going to

22      defer  it to tomorrow;  someone asks:
23               "Are Class C  explosives regulated as reactive

24      or ignitable wastes?   Can  anything be said about Class C
25      explosives as a group?"

-------
                                                            173



  1               Class C  explosives is a definition used by



        the  Department of Transportation,  and I don't know



  3      enough about their definition to answer the question,,



        Somebody  suggested the  questioner save it for tomorrow



  5      afternoon and we  will have a D.O.T,  representative here.



  6               Another  question:



  7               "For materials of marginal  reclaiming value



  8      for  which a  generator and/or a hauler must pay a re-



  9      claimer to take,  what is  to keep the material from being



 10      dumped illegally  under  the present definition of



 11      3001 and  3003?"



 12               I guess  there's  nothing that's going to prevent



 13      somebody  from doing something illegal if they want to



 14      do it, other than whatever penalties we assess when they



 15      get  caught.   If somebody  sets out to beat the system,



 *6      I guess they're going to  try until that time occurs.



 17      I only use it as  an analogy:   The I,BUS* has bem writing



 18      tax  instructions  for some number of  years now, and every



 19      year there are some people that are  taken to court



 20      who  are doing things improperly.   The only thing that



 21      will happen  I think, as a part of  our intent at least,



 22      is if we  find some of these things we are doing to



 23      encourage  resource recovery,  resource utilization,  are



 24      leading to a widespread practice of  trying to drive through



25      the  loopholes, then we are  likely  to  clamp down and

-------
                                                             174
       essentially remove all of those encouragements and make



       everybody suffer for the few.
 3
                Question:  "Have all the waste streams listed in
 4     the process description undergone the E.P,,, and if so



 5     what results—that is, have 100 per cent failed the



 6     E.P. test?"



 7              There are only a few of the wastes—and I can't



 8     name them—who are not listed and have undergone the E.P.



 9     The data on most of the, or behind most of the listings—



 10     and I encourage any of you whose wastes are listed to



 11     look at the background document.  There is a separate



 12     one- to three-page writeup for each of the wastes that



 13     is listed.  It gives the source of the data which iden-



 14     tifies that waste as hazardous.  In many cases this



 15     includes data from industry studies which EPA conducted,



 16     data from studies and samplings done by the Effluent



 17     Guidelines Division and some of their effluent guidelines



 18     work, and in many cases of those on the list, data



 19     coming off of manifests used in the State of California



 20     which is data supplied by the generator when he sent



 21     the waste to the hazardous waste facility, coming from



 22     those same industries.



 23              Another question:  "What about wastes such



 24     as asbestos?  I don't see where 3001 catches it."



25               We did quite a bit of looking at asbestos as

-------
                                                           175



 1      a problem waste.   Our analysis of the situation was



 2      that it appeared  to us that asbestos  is  adequately,



 3      or is managed adequately under the Air Act,  as  a



 4      hazardous air pollutant.  The Act does provide  that—I



 5      guess the only thing I thought I  saw  that might be missing



 6      covering asbestos might have been brake  shoes coming off



 7      of cars, but any  manufacturing operation, any renovation



 8      program, 1 think  they set some minimuu definition on



 9      number of apartments pulling down the piping and looking



10      at the asbestos insulation on pipes.   But that  does



11      provide for adequate management,  we felt, of asbestos



12      from those sources; therefore, we did not include asbestos



13      in any of our lists.



14               Question:   "Under what legislative  authority



15      are slimes, tailings and over-burns from phosphate



16      mining included in 3001 when R.C.R.A.  specifically



17      addresses those as  not being hazardous wastes since



18      this is return to the mine for reclamation?"



19               I think  what the Act is  referring to,  and I



20      don't believe that R.C.R.A. makes that distinction but



21      I believe that the  legislative history of the House



22      Report indicates  that those wastes going to  the mine for



23      reclamation are not to be included in terms  of  other



24      discarded material as defined in  the  act, but the \iery



25      next sentence in  that legislative history indicates

-------
                                                          176
  1     that this is not to stop us from naming certain of
  2     those wasts as a hazardous waste if we feel they present
  3     a problem.   It is on that basis we presented these
  4     phosphate mining wastes, because we felt their radio-
  5     activity is one that required some of these special
  6     management techniques that we've called for.
  7              "Why are nitrates and flourides that are listed
  8     in the Drinking Water Act toxic list, why have these
  9     been eliminated from the toxic list?"
 10 I             The second question:  "Do you think cyanide
 11     should also be on the toxic list?"
 12              What we do when we look at the Drinking Water
 13     Standards,  we selected those we felt were the key ones
 14     that we should deal with in terms of their release in
 15     the environment.  We did not—we felt that the flourides
 16     were taken care of through the Drinking Water problem
 17     and the nitrates were too frequently used in the fer-
 18     tilizer business, we were unable to get a good handle
 19     on what we  should do with it.
 20              I do want to call your attention though to the
 21     fact that cyanides are listed.  We do have, for example,
 22     on page 58S57, which is in the 250.14 (a) section, we
 23     do specifically list spent or waste cyanide solutions
 24     or sludges as being both reactive and toxic.
25              Under 250.12 (c), which relates to petitions

-------
                                                         177



 1      for listing hazardous wastes, is it the intention of



 2      the Agency to require all petitions requesting additions
                                 *


 3      to the list to supply the same information of others



 4      for demonstration of non-inclusion?"



 5               I guess I'd better go back and read what we



 6      said.   We didn't specifically state.  What we do indicate



 7      in 250012 (c), is we do expect a petitioner to show us



 8      how it meets the criteria that we have given for either



 '      identifying a characteristic, if the petitioner wishes



10      to add a characteristic, or how it meets the criteria



11      for listing given that that is the reason for which the



12      petitioner is requesting the addition.  So, we do expect



13      data to come with it, the petition, not just a request



14      to put something on the list.



15               MRS. SCHAFFER:  O.K., 1 have a couple of ques-



16      tions, the first two concerning the 100 kilogram limit.



17      The first one says:



18               "Does the 100 kilogram limit apply to the



19      total  body of waste or just the active ingredients?"



20               It's the total body of waste, unless that



21      waste  is separated out, and as we have discussed before,



22      it is  treated as a separate waste stream and can't go



23      to a hazardous waste management facility versus the rest



24      of the waste which is not hazardous can go to a Subtitle



25      D facility.   So, if you combine all your waste together,

-------
                                                            178



 1      it's  the  total  body of  waste  that are considered



 2      hazardous.
                                 *


 3               O.K.,  second question on 100 kilograms is:



 4               "Is  a  person who  generates  less  than 100 kilo-



 5      grams a month of a  listed  waste a generator?"



 6               No,  not if he  also dispcs es of that amount



 ^      per month.  So,  he  can  generate 99 kilograms and get



 8      rid of that 99  kilograms per  month without  coming under



 9      the R.C.R.A.  system.



10               My last question  is:



11               "How do you plan  to  enforce the  90 day



12      storage limit of the hazardous waste on site by a



'3      generator?"



14               It's kind  of a two-part answer:  First of all,



15      if the generator plans  to  send his waste  off site he



16      must, and he  does not want to come—he wants to be in-



'7      eluded in this  90 day exemption for  storage—he's got



18      to place  his  waste  in D.O.T.  containers.  If he places



i'      them  in 0.0.T.  containers  they must  be properly labeled



20      and on that lable is the manifest number, and that manifest:



21      number is a serially increasing number and  by using



22      normal business  records we can check to see when that



23      waste was generated and if we can find out  then we'll know



24      when  it's being held for more than 90 days.



25               Now, if it's an on-site--if the  generator dis-

-------
                                                        179
      poses of his waste on site he wiH. have a permit per se,
 2
      and will most likely that type of storage will come under
 3
      one of the permit conditions, will just be part of the
 4
      whole R.C.R.A. permit.
               MR. IEHMAN:  We're still back on waste oil.
      I'm the waste oil person today.
               Question:  "Would waste lubricating oil burned
 o
      in a gasoline or diesel engine mixed with proper fuel
      be allowed or prohibited?"
               Well, as I discussed earlier, our primary
      concern was the use of waste oil as a fuel in power
      boilers.  To be quite honest with you, I never even
      thought about the use of lube oil in a gasoline or
14
      diesel engine mixed with fuel.  I believe the answer to
      the basic question, though, is no, 1 don't think we would
      prohibit that.  In other words, we would allow that, and
      it wouldn't be our intention to deal with that use under
18
      our regulations.  But it does point out, however, that
19
      we may need to carefully reword that definition so that
      we take into account a lot of these cases that are being
      brought out here.
               Question, and this is a three-part question:
23              "Are oil re-refiners subject to the 3004 per-
24     mitting requirement?"
               Question two:  "If not, is a manifest required

-------
                                                           180



 l      to deliver waste  oils  to  the  facility?"



 2               Question three:   "Assuming re-refiners need



 3      a 3004  permit,  why don't  solvent recovery operations



 4      need one? After  all,  in  one  case waste  oils are re-



 5      refined and  in  the other  solvents are  re-refined."



 6               Let's  go back to question one:   "Are oil re-



 7      refiners subject  to the 3004  permitting  requirements?"



 8      The answer is not formally.   Now, this gets  back to



 9      the definition  of discarded materials  and Section 250.10,



10      where we have attempted,  as we  discussed earlier, to



11      draw a  line  between materials that are waste and  materials



12      that are not waste.  And  what we're really saying here



13      is that a waste oil which is  reused after re-refining



14      as a lubricating  oil,  which is  the basic purpose of re-



15      refining waste  oil,  then  that is not prohibited,  it does



16      not need a permit, and so on.  In other  words, we want



17      to encourage re-refining  of lubricating  oil, re-refining



18      of waste oil to make lubricating oil out of  it.  So, the



19      answer  to the first question  then is that oil re-refiners



20      would not normally need a permit, if the output or



2i      the product  they  re-refine is used as  a  used lubricating




22      oil.



23               I want to draw a distinction  here between  oil



24      re-refiners  and oil re-processers.  Oil  re-processing



25      does not necessarily result in  a product \vhich can  be

-------
                                                             181
  1     used as a lubricating oil  , particularly  in automotive
  2     engines.
  3              The second question was:   "If not"—and  the
  4     answer is probably not:—"is a manifest required to
  5     deliver waste oils to the  facility?"
  6              Here again the question is no, if the output
  7     is used as a lube oil.  If the output is  used in  these
  8     cases that we cited here, namely if the output is used,
  9     if it constitutes disposal, in other words land disposal,
 10     dust suppression and that sort of thing,  or if it is
 11     incinerated as fuel in boilers, then the  answer is yes.
 12     We want to keep that use under control, or those  uses
 13     under control.
 14              So, the answer to the third question is
 15     somewhat moot now in the sense that they were basically
 16     trying to say why do re-refiners need a permit if solvent
 17     recovery operations don't.  Basically what we're  saying
 18     is I think we've got a consistent practice here;  that
 19     we want to encourage solvent recovery and we want to
 20     encourage re-refining of oil.  So, neither one of them
 21     would need a permit under those circumstances.
 22              Well, let me answer another one.  I think
 23     I've finally got one that doesn't deal with waste oil.
 24              This goes back to the 1974 report to Congress
25     on hazardous waste management.  It says:

-------
                                                         182
 '              "Several issues were presented and then later
 2     aborted.  Can you explain why, or their current status?
              "One:  A relative toxicity index was presented;
 4     why was this abandoned?"
 5              Well, I draw a blank on that.  Members of
 6     my staff draw a blank on that.  Whoever wrote this ques-
      tion, if he would come up and see us after this session
 8     is over we'll have to discuss that some more, because
 9     we don't recall a relative toxicity—I don't have a copy
10     of the '74 report here with me, but I don't recall
11     that being in there.
12              Second point:  "A concept of government-owned
13     treatment sites for treatment of wastes; where is this
14     now?"
15              That's a reference to what was known as
16     the National Disposal Site Concept, and the thrust of the
17     1974 report to Congress was that if you had a set of
18     government-owned treatment sites but you did not have a
19     regulatory program to make it mandatory that the waste
20     be sent to such a site, that you would end up with
21     an ultimate billion dollar set of white elephants.
22     In other words, the cost of operating those facilities
23     would be considerably higher than current practice, and
24     so we recommended that rather than set up a series of
25     government-owned treatment sites that what was really

-------
                                                            183
 l      needed was a regulatory program—at least first you
 2      needed a regulatory program, which the Congress subse-
 3      quently took care of with U.C.R.A.
 4               And then the concept went further and said
 5      if you had a regulatory program then there was a great
 6      deal of incentive for the private sector to build
 7      and operate—in other words, the capital would come for-
 8      ward to build and operate hazardous waste disposals of
 9      various kinds.  And through the regulatory pressures
10      you are basically providing a lot of customers for
11      such facilities; therefore, you probably don't need
12      a set of government-owned treatment sites.
13               So, that's where it is now.  In other words,
14      the basic philosophy of R.C.R.A. follows what I've
15      just described.  The Congress in essence agreed with the
16      EPA philosophy in that 1974 report.  R.C.R.A, basically •
17      sets up a regulatory program, it does not have any
18      provisions within it for the setting up of government-
19      owned treatment sites; however, there have recently
20     teen some proposals to get close to that sort of  thing.
21      Congressman Finley of Illinois, who I understand will
22      be with us tomorrow, introduced a bill last August, I
23      believe which among other things would require that all
24      hazardous waste facilities would be sited on federal
25      land.  Now, that's different than the federal government

-------
                                                          184



 1      owning and operating facilities there.   I think the




 2      concept there was not necessarily the government putting




 3      up the capital for such site or for such facilities, but




 4      rather that all of these—in Congressman Findlay's




 5      amendment it would have meant that all  of the facil-




 6      ities would have to be located on federal land but not



 7      necessarily owned or operated by them.   But at any rate,




 8      there are at the present time, there is no provision




 9      within R.C.R.A. for this sort of series of govemme-nt-




10      owned treatment centers.




11               A third point: "An estimate of $65 per ton




12      for hazardous waste treatment was presented in 1973 dollars.




13      Is that a good figure?"



14               I think that is a good figure;if you take that




15      1973 dollars and give 1979 dollars, you're probably



16      talking somewhere around $80-$90 a ton, and I thiuk




17      that's about in the range that we anticipate for treat-




is      ment0  It is also consistent with the costs that I know



19      are charged in Europe for this type of  treatment.




20               MR. LBJDSEY:  "if you are a disposer of hazar-




21      dous waste and the method of disposal is deep well



22      would you clarify the R.C.R.A. position?  The main




23      concern is the definition and permitting area."




24               Well disposal is covered under the Safe Drinking




25      Water Act, under the underground injection or what we

-------
                                                          185




 1      call  UIC  program.   It will  not be  covered by  R.C.R.A.



 2               There  is  an overlapping authority here, but



 3      we  have chosen  to  cover  that  under the  underground



 4      injection control  program.  Surface facilities, however,



 5      that  an operation  has that  also may have  a well would



 6      be  covered if they're handling wastes,  for example



 7      waste was trucked  in, goes  through some sort  of a treat-



 8      ment  mechanism  perhaps or maybe there is  some wastes



 9      are treated in  one way and  others  are well-disposed,



10      those would be  covered,  or  could be covered under



11      R.C.R.Ao  if the waste involved is  hazardous,



12               I should  also point  out that under the permit-



13      ting  regulations,  under  Section 30005 of  R.C.R.A., we



14      are currently integrating those procedural regulations



15      for getting a permit with similar  regulations under



16      MPDES and under the underground injection control program,



17      so  it will be possible for  those people who have a deep



18      well  disposing  of  hazardous waste  which would be covered



19      by  the underground injection  control program, and those



20      people who also have the need for  a R.C.R.A.  program



21      because of other treatment  or disposal  activities, to



22      make  their application all  at once,  if  you will, and the



23      processing of that application would be conducted to-



24      gether.   We're  even going so  far at this  moment as trying



25      to  come up with a  single permit application form and

-------
                                                           186



 1     things of that nature In order to speed this up.



 2     So, there is an integration activity going on there.



 3              Here's something that I should have given



 4     Mr. Lehman here because it has something to do with



 5     oils.  Anyway, I'll handle this one:



 6              "Are recycled transformer oils, cleaned and



 7     put in central receptacles for use in other transformers



 8     to be classed as hazardous, and would a permit be



 9     required?"



10              And there's a little footnote here which



11     says:  "Assume the absenceof P.C.B.", so that really



12     makes a change because P.C.B, is covered under phosphate



13     regulations.



14              The answer to that is no; if you look under



15     250.10, which is essentially the scope section of



16     the 3001, you can see how oils are handled, and I think



17     we addressed this before, but at the risk of being



18     repetitious I'll go over it again.



19              A waste which is reused is not part, is not



20     covered.  Mow, on the other hand, there is one minor



21     change to that and that is if the material is a waste



22     oil and is reused, and this would be a waste oil at this



23     particular instance, and that reuse is through incinera-



24     tion or burning—we're talking about plain combustion



25     here—then it would be covered.  But this is not plain

-------
                                                          187



 1      combustion, they're putting ic back into transformers,



 2      so it's simply a recycling method and the material



 3      would not be considered a hazardous waste for purposes



 4      of the definition under this Act.



 5               On the other hand, if you have waste oils and



 6      you either reuse them in such a way as use constitutes



 7      disposal, meaning spread them on the ground in some



 8      fashion,  or if you burn them through plain incineration,



 9      then they are covered;  otherwise, they are not.



 10               Hopefully,  that clarifies that a little more.



 11               "Is any concentration of a selected priority



 12      pollutant considered hazardous under conditions  outlined



 13      in 250.14 (a)"—that's  the hazardous waste list--"To



 14      qualify,  must the waste be shipped, stowed, or exist



 15      as a residue in a container?  There seems to be  much room



 16      for interpretation here."



 17               The intent here is that any material in those



 18      big long  lists, under—of chemicals, if you will, in



 19      Appendix  3, 4,  and 5, which are lists of chemicals—if



 20      those constitute a waste in themselves;  in other words,



 21      you have  a waste \vhich contains—I don't offhand have



 22      in mind what one of those chemicals is—here's a good



23      one—phenylanom-if you have phenylanom as a chemical



24      and you want to throw it away in a technical grade or



25      some reasonable concentration which is normally  a product

-------
                                                           108



 1      and you want to throw it away,  it will become a waste,



 2      a hazardous waste,  and will be listed.   On the other hand,



 3      a waste which incidentally has  a small amount, a few



 4      parts per million or whatever,  of phenylamon in it, in



 5      other words it is  not phenylamon as a  product, then



 6      it would not be considered phenylamon,,  It would not



 7      be covered unless  it failed or  met one of those



 8      characteristics which are back  in 3001,  If the material



 9      is spilled, a product is spilled and that spill-cleaned



10      material is then cleaned up and it is  phenylamon that



11      is spilled, then that would be  covered.  So, it's not



12      every material which contains some minute concentration



13      of a chemical which is listed that's covered.  list's



14      not the point.  The point is if a product gets spilled or



15      somebody wants to  throw it away  because it's a bad batch



16      or they no longer need it, then that would be covered.



17               "Will POWs"—publicly owned treatment works



18      for those of you who aren't into acronyms—"face the



19      same financial responsibilities, reporting requirements



20      and record-keeping requirements under  405 of the Clean



2i      Water Act as hazardous waste disposal  facilities managing



22      sludge from privately-owned sewage treatment works?"



23               I don't know the answer to that for sure.  A



24      different group of people are working  on those particular



25      regs.  I can say,  however, that the concept is that the

-------
                                                         189



 1     degree of control,  the degree of protection which would




 2     be provided under those  regulations is  to be  equivalent




      in the broad  sense  to our regulations,  I would  seriously




 4     doubt that the same mechanisms for providing  that pro-




 5     tection would be adopted under those regulations because



 6     of the difference in the nature of the  materials that




 7     are being involved.  But the degree of—the concept




 8     of equivalent control and equivalent protection  is




 9     what's being  put into those regulations.




10              "If  a manufacturer has not previously analyzed




11     his wastes, would they automatically be hazardous




12     since it appears most waste would be under the extraction




13     method?"




14              Well, our  information which we've got so far




15     on the testing we've done with the extraction procedure




16     against the regs which are here indicate that maybe




17     10 to 15 per  cent of industrial waste is going to be



18     hazardous.  On the other hand, the answer to  that would




19     be I wouldn't do it.  I wouldn't simply, unless  it was a



20     very small volume, I wouldn't simply assume that it was



21     hazardous.  On the other hand, one could do that; one



22     could just make the assumption, particularly  if  he has




23     a small volume of waste and doesn't care to test it or




24     have it tested, he may simply assume that it's hazardous




25     and treat it accordingly, enter it into the system, mani-

-------
                                                           190
1     fest it if he's shipping it and so forth.
2              We should also point out that small volumes,
3     if you get down to the 100 kilograms or below,are not
4     covered either, the generation of those wastes is not
5     covered.
6              I should also point out one complication here:
7     While anyone can consider their waste hazardous and enter
8     it into the system, there are some problems with doing
9     that under the D.O.T. regulations, under the Hazardous
10     Materials Transportation Act.  They have very specific
n     requirements with regard to placarding and things like
12     that, and if I understand their regulations correctly,
13     they don't like for people to put placards on the sides
14     of the truck and say "Poison A" or Poison 6, or whatever
15     the definitions they use are, if in fact the material
16     doesn't meet those characteristics.  So, for shipping
17     purposes you might have problems with placarding, but
18     otherwise, you can assume it is hazardous as far as
19     R.C.R.A. is concerned, if that's what you want to do.
20              "How will EPA determine what causes an KPES
21     facility to be included under R.C.R.A. regulations?"
22              Well, the only NPDS facilities which would be
23     covered under the R.C.R.A. regulations are those which
24     contain a lagoon basically9 which could leach, and in
25     that case one simply tests the contents of the lagoon

-------
                                                          191
 l      and if it's leaching, or has the potential to leach,

 2      then it would be covered if it meets the criteria of the

 3      hazardous waste; otherwise not.

 4               I should also point out that NPDS facilities

 5      as a result of clarification and other processes which

 6      are used there, might generate a hazardous waste, that

 7      is the sludge coming out of the clarifier for example,.

 8      if it meets the criteria could be a hazardous waste and

 '      thus if shipped off site would need a manifest or

10      if disposed on site, would  need a permit.

11               This is the last one I've got, and I'll turn

12      it over, because this is a rather complex one:

13               "If a manufacturer produces a small amount of

14      sludge with a low pH"—I'm assuming from this that it's

is      over the 100 kilogram limit,O.K.?  Because if it's

16      not then he wouldn't be covered. —"can that generator

17      mix this sludge with PK neutralizing waste as an

18      acceptable method of treatment for the troxivity

19      characteristics?  If so, at what point would this be

20      considered treatment and would heed to be licensed?"

21               The answer to that is yes, you can mix waste

22      together in order to .spynergistically reduce the hazard

23      level of them, there's no problem with that.

24               The second part of the question is:  "When

25      would it become a treatment process for purposes of

-------
                                                          192


 1     R.C.R.A, and does need a permit?"

 2
               O.K., this gets to a problem we've had all along,


      and that problem is trying to draw the line on where a


      waste becomes a waste and is not part of the process.


      As a means — and I'll admit it's got some problems with
 6
II
      it — but as a means of identifying that, we have been using
      what we call a pipeline concept in which we're saying


      that any treatment process which is hooked directly to


      a production process, be it a continuous pipe or


      conveyor operation, and from which materials can escape
      to the ground presumably, that those would not be covered
12     and this waste would not become a waste until it exits


13     that system, if you will.  Now, this is only for treat-


14     ment processes.  It has nothing to do with disposal.


15     Anything that ends up on the ground or anything of


16     that nature is, by definition, disposal and not treatment.


17     So, any treatment process which is hooked directly to


      a production manufacturing product production, manufac-


"     turing process, via direct, continuous pipe or conveyor


20     operation, would not be covered as a treatment process


21     for purposes of this.  Now, there may be some gray


22     areas here and as that occurs we'll have to make deci-


23     sions on those on a case by case basis.


24              MRS. SCHAFFER:  Two more questions:


25              "If distinct areas within a given plant generate

-------
                                                         193


       less than 100 ilos per month, can they be isolated?"

 2
       A good example:  A lab facility which may have a distinct

 o
       waste requiring totally different handling than the

 4
       process areas.'


                I think the real issue here is what is the


       definition of a person, and we've been kind of going


 7     over this in EPA and we'll try to clarify it in the final


       regulations.  1 think our intent is that a facility is

 q
       a person—or the person would be one facility—and if


       the two wastes that are being generated at the lab and in


11      the process are both hazardous and they total more than
12
       100 kilograms a month, then the facility is in fact a
       generator and must comply with the regs.


14               The second question is:


15               "Section 250.10 (d) (1) (4), which requires


16      that generators of solid wastes which are listed under


17      250.14 who have demonstrated that their wastes are not


       hazardous, must"—the requirement is that they repeat


19      the testing annually—and the question is:  "Why does


20      the generator have to repeat the necessary testing


21      annually if there is no change in the feed material?"


22               It's a precaution to make sure that there is


       also no change in the waste.  There caay be a process


24      change even though the feed material is the same, or


       there may have been testing inaccuracies in the original

-------
                                                          194



 '      testing.  And  I  think  it's a precaution on both  the




 2      generator's  side and on  the EPA  side  to make  sure




 3      that any hazardous wastes are being handled properly.



 4              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  "Under  Che integrated per-




 5      mit system being considered for NPEDS, UIC and R.C.R.A,




 6      under 3005,  would violation of one permit jeopardize




 7      the permit in  another  in any way.  For example,  an




 8      NPEDS violation  affeccing R.C.R.A. or UIC?"




 9              Now,  I'm answering this without benefit of




10      the proposed regulation, but as  of right now  the answer




11      is no,  these are separate permits and unless  the Act




12      that pucs the  permit holder in violation of one  permit




13      is also an Act that puts you in  violation of  your other




14      permit, then you wouldn'c—there isn't a connection just




15      because there's  an integrated system, as they are




16      separate permits.



17              We're going to  take a 10-minute break now.



18      We'll come back  at 4:00  o'clock  and we'll go  until



19      5:00.   I think we probably have  enough questions to do




20      that.



21              (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)




22              MR. CORSON:   We're going to  try to start again,




23      and I'll get rid of a  couple of  easy  ones first. Someoae




24      questioned—without embarrassing me too much—apparently




25      we have picked a bad number or bad ASTM spec  for sampling

-------
                                                          195



 1      soil like material.   Evidently,  at least according to




 2      this coouient, they say methods for sampling to determine




       ground water levels—well then obviously we picked a bad




       one.  You caught our boo boo, and our intent there i&




 5      to offer where  we can sampling protocols that other people



 6      are using, and  when  we promulgatewe will have additional




 7     ASTM methods listed.




 8               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Let me just interject




 9      something here:  If  anybody—I realize there's an overlap




10      between comment and  questions—if the answers to ques-




11      tions lead you  to think that  we  ought to change the




12      regulations it  would really be helpful if you would



13      submit something in  writing.   You can do tba t either




14      with your over-all comment March 16, or you could also




15      do it orally the next two days,  or you can just write




16      something up, attach your card or sign your name, and



17      submit it to the court reporter  for the record, because




18      this is a comment for the record; because we are off



19      the record as we're  answering your questions, and cer-



20      tainly we're going to be taking  things into account, but




21      it's very helpful if we do get things in writing or in



22      the formal hearing that we're conducting here.  So, just




23      try and keep that in mind, if you would.




24               MR. CORSON:   This next  one fits in the same




25      category.  In our definition  of  reactive waste we use

-------
                                                        196


1      the word,  "mildly acidical base condition".  I'd like

f\
       to get that back in the way of a comment.  We will better


       define that when we promulgate.  We will define the


       limits on  pMwe're talking about in terms of mildly


       basic or mildly acidic„
 6
               This is a question—let ma answer an easier
      one first—one that Fred answered this morning or this


      afternoon, which talks about the dilution of hazardous

 Q
      waste with an inert substance, and that's fine. We are


10     worrying about the waste as disposed and we then look only


11     at the resultant ways to see whether or not it met our


12     hazardous characteristics.


13              This is another question with regard to priority


14     pollutants and how they are covered by the Act.  As a


15     result of discussions I've had during our short break,


16     let me make a couple of clarifying statements so every-


17     body understands where we're coming from.


18              As the regulations are now proposed in toxicity


19     when you do the extraction procedure the only thing you


20     are evaluating for are the eight listed metals and six


21     listed pesticides, that's all.  Correct definition of


22     toxicity includes only those things, it does not include


23     any list of priority pollutants or any list of D.O.T.


24     hazard items, just the listed metals and pesticides.


25              We have, however, in the ANPR indicated an intent

-------
                                                            197



       downstream in time to modify ths toxicity definitions by



       including other properties of toxicity.  That is likely



       then to include many of the organic toxicants that



       occur on the priority pollutant list.   We are only



       looking  at priority pollutants in the fashion they are



 6     defined in the listing.  That is, if you were shipping



       the material, and in shipping it you would have to use



       a name that is in that priority pollutant list, the



 9     D.O.T. list,  or the cancelled or selected pesticides list,



10     then—and it's a described material—then it is a hazar-



11     dous waste.  We are not analyzing  wastes to look at



12     parts per million or things that are in the priority



13     pollutant list.



14              This is a Jack Lehman question, but I'll answer
15     it  anyhow:
16              "We are presently purchasing non PCE filled



17     capacitors.   The oil  is  produced by  General Electric


18
       who  has  done many toxicity bio-accumulation, et cetera,



19     tests, and found no evidence of any  sort of hazard.   Will



20     these capacitors when disposed of be considered a hazar-



21     dous waste?   Can adequate  information on lack of hazard



22     allow us to  dispose of these in a landfill permanent



23     under Sub-title  D?"



                The answer  certainly to the second half is



25     yes, you don't necessarily have to generate new data

-------
                                                          198



  1     to be responsive to us.  If you already have  that  data



  2     that describes all the properties  that we are using  in



  3     our proposed regulation to define  a hazardous waste, you



  4     don't have  to generate it again.   I think that answers



  5     that one.



  6              Another good comment, I think it's a comment



  7     with a question:



  8              "There have bean several  comments today recora-



  9     mending that EPA establish regulations based  on the



 10     degree of hazard.  What are the major stumbling blocks



 11     to this approach?"



 12              Well, that depends really on what someone means



 13     by degree of hazards in these regulations.  We thought



 14     when we wrote the regulations the  way we did  that  we



 IS     would accommodate this problem by  using the 3001 regu-



 16     laUion as a go-no-go gauge to determine those -wastes



 17     which require something other than very routine manage-



 ]8     ment, which is what we define in Sub-title D.  And we



 19     allowed for what we consider to be almost infinite



 20     flexibility in 3004.



 21              Now, apparently some people are having a  little



 22     difficulty with the notes approach that we usad in 3004;



 23     under many  of the requirements of  3004, we've indicated



 24     a note which indicates that there  can be a deviation



25     from the standard, given that you  can show that this

-------
                                                           199



 1      accomplishes the objective of that particular approach.



 2     So,  we think we have  a  degree of flexibility in which



 3     provides  for a degree of hazard.



 4              If  you are referring—and I  think many people



 5     have been—that we should define degree  of hazard  in 3001,



 6    then  we solicit your comments  in  writing  supported  by



 7     data if you  can,  to help us do that.  Now,  we recognize



 8     that we may  also say  in our officiality  under 3002,



 9     which uses some thresholds for establishing quantities



 10     with regard  to degree of hazard,  again based on some



 11      artificial basis, because we  indicated that we would



 12      look at that,  and we  will. We offer  that  option by



 13      stipulating  it in the preamble.   But  we  do  find that we



 14      have some problems with degree of hazard.   We think  that



 15     we've got to make the association with where the waste



 16     is in its management  cycle.   Certain  characteristics are



 17     a different  hazard in transfer,  during the  transportation



 18     load,  for example; we're more concerned  about ignitability



 19     and  possibly reactivity than  we  are when something is



 20      buried 30 feet under  the ground,  whereas in the  ground



 21      we are very  concerned about the  toxicity.



 22               We  similarly have concerns,  we  looked at  one



 23      point,  the point that Jim Kinsey  made this  morning of



 24      using  Finney's Additive Law which comes  up  with a  tech-



25      nique  for adding plant  toxicity  to marine  toxicity to

-------
                                                          200



 l      fish toxicity  and coming up with an over-all toxicity




 2      rating and that presents some problems because we do




 3      have some cases, some people can get very unhappy because



 4      the waste might not fall under any individual constituent




 5      toxicity but might fail if we added them up«   Similarly




 6      we have the problem of, do we raise the case  now




 7      where by putting a lot of low toxicity items  into a single




 8      land disposal environment, at some point along the line




 9      that land disposal environment now becomes a  high tox-




10      icity environment because it has crossed some threshold



11      by nature of the quantity of low-toxicity items that it




12      has accepted.  So, we recognize that we have  a very




13      complicated problem there, looking at the degree of




14      hazard.   We do solicit any information you can provide




15      to help  us define that.  We are noC opposed,  if we can



16      come up  with a way of doing it which doesn't  make the 30G4




17      regulation even more complicated than we feel they are



18      today.



19               I've got another one of—this is Fred's ques-




20      tion:



2i               "Would sawdust be considered hazardous, wood-




22      chips,  bark; has the TEP been tried on these  materials?




23      If these are hazardous, could these wastes be considered




24      a special waste like utility fly ash?"




25               I guess I can't conceive of sawdust, woodchips

-------
                                                          201


       or bark flunking the extraction procedure.  I guess it


 2
       is conceivable in my mind that sawdust at a given


 3

       constituency, degiree of fineness, might be explosive.


 4

       Bui I would defer that to my D0O.T0 counterpart tomorrow



       who has much more experience wich it,,  But in the event



       that these things did fail, and it could happen, obviously



       we've opened the door on special wastes,  I think we

 p

       would want to see data provided to us to show that these


 9

       things fie the same sort of category as we did with the



       other wastes which are listed as special wastes.



 11              "Do the SIC's listed in 250.14 (b) imply


 12
       that all manufacturing processes listed under a specific



 13     SIC coda"—SIC code--"are covered by Section 3001, Sub-



 14     title C, or just specific process associated with



 15     specific SIC come under the 3001 sub-title?"



                I guess that's one we thought we had explained



       and obviously we didn't.  What we are trying to indicate


 18
       there is the SIC number is there as advisory only.  Any


 19
       industry that has the specific listed waste stream, that



 20     is a hazardous waste.  But lr regard to specific questions,



 21     for example, if I pick up 2865, we are not trying to imply



 22     that all waste streams produced by anyone that is covered



 23     by 2865 has a hazardous waste.  It is only the specific


 ")A
       listed waste streams under 2865 that are hazardous.



25              Question:   "Is the intent of the EP to find

-------
                                                         202



       out what is leachable or what may happen to a particular



 2     waste in a landfill,  or was EP designed to simulate



 3     landfill conditions?"



 4              I guess the  answer is part of all the above



       and not any of all of the above.



 6              What we did  do with the  EP, if you go back,



 7     for example, to—we were faced with a problem defining



 8     a hazardous waste with the problems presented to us by



 9     both the requirements under Section 3001,  which told us



10     to define the criteria for and characteristics and list



11     of hazardous wastes,  as well as the definition of hazar-



12     dous waste in Section 1004.  And  Section 1004 (27), if I'm



13     correct— (5), rather, which defines a hazardous waste,



14     does indicate that it can be a waste without using all



15     of their words, which present some problems if improperly



16     managed.  So, as we explained in  the preamble, and we a



17     further detailed explanation of it in the toxicicy



18     background document—again, that's available for reading



19     and possibly copying  at regional  office libraries or



20     the headquarters reading room—what we were trying to do



21     was to essentially model improper management.  And our



22     modeled improper management was the co-mixture of the



23     waste with waste that was similar to municipal waste



24     in a land environment such that there was ready access



25     of the leaching to the ground water.  And that's all we

-------
                                                         203




 1     were trying to do.  So, it is in essence a solubility



 2     test, it is not meant to replicate any existing or any



 3     proposed or any specific land disposal environment.  And



 4     as we have tried to say, the site specific, waste specific



 5     interactions, your waste might Interact in a specific



 6     land environment that is a 3004-3005 problem.  We think



 7     it appropriate, we believe the notes cover that you could



 8     produce site-specific leaching data to show how that



 9     waste would operate in that site and use it in applying



 10     for the permit.



 11               MR. LEHMAN:  There's a question here concerning



 12      the notification regulations, Section 3010.  I'm not



 13      going to answer—maybe we should have made this clear



 14      at the beginning <£ the proceeding.  It is really not



 15      appropriate for us to discuss Section 3010 regulations



 16      because the comment period on Section 3010 las closed



 17      and we are really not at liberty to discuss that now.



 18               This is another question similar to the one



 19      that Al just answered, but I'll do it again:



 20               "Under processes generating hazardous waste,



 21      is SIC 2911 API separator sludge specific to the petro-



 22      leum refining industry?  API separators are used in



 23      numerous industries and the sludge may or may not be



 24      hazardous."



25               Well, let's go back to what Alan just said.

-------
                                                           204



 1     You've got to see a note  which Is associated with



 2     Section 251.14.   Let me just read it.   It  says:



 3              "Process waste streams are listed by standard



 4     industrial classification or SIC codes  for ease  of



 5     reference only.   SIC classification of  the industry



 6     generating the waste has  no effect on the  listing of



 7     that process  waste as hazardous."



 8              Therefore,  API separator sludge,  which  is



 9     listed under  2911 is a hazardous waste,  regardless of



 10     what industry sector it happens to be in.



 11               It says, "The commercial product  section



 12      provides a suggestion that if a recycled product does



 13      not pose a greater threat to the environment than the



 14      virgin product it replaces, it would no longer be



 ]5      subject to Sub-title C."   Question:  "How  does EPA



 16      propose to determine the  environmental  impact of this



 17      recycled material?"



 18               First of all, the commercial product section



 19      that this question is aimed at, I believe, unless I«m



 20      reading an old draft, is  not in the regulations, it's



 21      in the preamble.   Aside from some very  explicit  require-



 22      ments for certain radioactive waste products in  the



 23      special waste section, there is no commercial products



 24      section in the regulations.  As we stated  in the preamble



25      we did consider  having commercial product  regulations at

-------
                                                           205
  1      one point.  But we decided not to for the proposed rule

  2      making; however, we did—the gist of this Card's statement

  3      is from the preamble in which we said this is one

  4      possible way to get at this whole issue, and we requested

  5      comment on that,

  6               So, rather than for me to say how does EPA pro-

  7      pose to determine the relative environmental impact

  8      of this recycled material, I would just alert you to the

  9      fact that we have flagged that issue and are requesting

 10 i     comments or suggestions as to how to do it, so I'll

 n      throw that ball back in the court.

 12               This question has to do withatrial applicators

 13      of pesticides.  It says:

 14               "If ananrial applicator of pesticides triple

 IS      rinses his pesticide containers would he be considered

 16      a generator of hazardous waste?"

 17               The answer to that is no, probably, in the

 18      sense that if he triple rinses the containers, the

 19      containers are no longer hazardous because of Section

 20      250.14 (a), the last listing there.  It says, "Containers"

 21      —this is saying what is hazardous, and it says, "Con-

 22      tainers, unless triple rinsed, which have contained

 23      materials normally shipped using names listed in Appendix

 24      2, 3, 4, or 5."  And so, basically what we're saying is

25      if you do triple rinse a container that has contained one

-------
                                                            206



 l     of those materials, then the container is no longer



 2     a hazardous place; however, the rinse agent that you rinse



 3     it with, unless you put it back in the spray tank, could. .



 4     easily be a hazardous waste, and therefore, an aerial



 5     applicator could be a generator of hazardous waste in



 6     that sense.  You would not be a generator if he put the



 7     rinse agent back into the mixing tank, however,



 8              Another question, same card:



 9              "Anaerial or custom applicator doesn't appear



10     to meet the i«nner definition, therefore is not eligible



11     for exemption."



12              That is true. Aerial applicators are not eligible



13     for the farmer exemption.  We are reserving that for



14     those whose principal occupation is farming.



15              Third part of this question says:



16              "How does EPA approvedpesticide label fit with



17     this—fit in with this proposal?"



18              Well, EPA-approved labels are legally binding



19     on the users, and therefore, the users must follow them.



20     The R.C.R.A. regs basically provide only that triple



21     rinse—that the rinse agent, triple rinsing, be added—



22     excuse me—that we will be adding to the label require-



23     merits a requirement for triple rinsing in order to get



24     out of the hazardous-based category.  This has not yet



25     been posed, but it is our intention, we are working with

-------
                                                         207



 1     the Office of Pesticide Programs, that wfe will add onto




 2     the label requirement a requirement for triple rinsing,,




 3     So, basically we feel that the regulatory scheme under




 4     the FIFRA will be adequate to handle the disposal problem




 5     for farmers and their pesticide containers.




 6              Here's some quickie answers:



 7              Question:  "Is a vessel that holds its sewage




 8     on board in conformance with the Clean Water Act a




 9     generator of hazardous waste?"




 10              No.




 11              "Is used oil which is to be re-refined, that is,




 12     returned to new condition, not a hazardous waste?"




 13              True, it is not, as we discussed earlier.




 14              "Does a crude oil refinery which recovers



 15     slop oil from waste water treatment, then adds the oil




 16     back into the fracttonation system to redistribute it




 17     into its proper place in the refinery product, does it




 18     need a permit, do you need a perrait to put the oil back



 19     into the s>stem?"




 20              No, lube oil additives, et cetera, would have




 21      been added .  The answer is no, we have no intention of—



 22     we consider that to be really basically part of the re-




 23      fining process itself.




 24               I think that we've answered most of this, but




25      I'll go over it once again:

-------
                                                           20S


                "What prompted EPA to classify used lube oil
 2
       as a hazardous material?"


                I think we've gone through that.   1. won't go


       through that one again,


                "It is common practice for a towing vessel to


       use used lube oil as a fuel for its vessel propulsion


       engines and electrical generators.  Do you see any prob-
 p
       lem in continuing this practice?"

 9
                No.  We mentioned earlier that was not our intent


       to get at the use of lube  oil or used lube oil in that


       type of application.

 1 0
                Question:   "If we can continue to uae used


       lube oil for fuel in our vessels,  does this procedure

 14
       make us a generator of hazardous waste with the attendant


       paperwork associated with  its designation?"

 16              „
                No,


 17              Question:   "Will  this disposal method require

 18
       governmental approval as a disposal facility with atten-


 19     dant paperwork?"


 20              No,


 21               O.K., 3001:  "You stated  that a material is not

 22
       considered a waste until it is gotten rid of, but you


 2      also state the intent of including lube oil as hazardous


 24      is to prevent errors, such as the  horse track incident.

nc
       If a generator has intent  to use waste lube oil as dust

-------
                                                            209



 1      control on roads, is the waste oil a hazardous waste




 2      while being stored before use?"




 3               The answer to that is yes.



 4               MR. LINDSEY:  "If material from a chlorinated




 5      solvent plant is incinerated to produce salable grade




 (,      hydrochloric acid, would that incinerator need a permit?"




 7               Not normally; normally that would be a reused,




 8      a product which is being reused and would not then be a




 9      waste under Section 250.10.  On the other hand, I should




 10      point out that if we find some of these things that do



 II      cause problems the way in which we would handle those—I'm




 12      not sure this does create an environmental situation




 13      that we need to worry about, but if it should, we could




 14      make the decision under 250.10 (b) (2) (ii), which is




 15      under the scope of this regulation, which lists waste




 16      oil, the thing we've been talking about all afternoon;




 17      that is, where waste oil is listed as a material—where



 18      it is listed as hazardous waste regardless of the reason.



 19      If we have the same problems with something else what




 20      we can do is take Piece B, where it says "reserved"




 2i      and add on to the list and thus then include it, and



 22      we can do that at a later date.  If you will notice




 23      there is a note which says "other materials" in there,




 24      and it will be included to an amendment on this list




25      that upon a finding by the EPA it is necessary to con-

-------
                                                            210



 1      trol such practices.  So, that's the way we work it.




                "I understood you to say that a treatment




       facility which comprises part of a continuous process



 4      system would not require a permit.  Would this en-




 5      compass an incinerator which is tied into a process



 6      system  or would that also require a permit?"




 7               That gets back to the pipeline concept thac




 8      we worked on before, and as I indicated our problem




 9      here is trying to decide where the process ends and the




10      waste treatment starts.  What we're trying to do is to




11      get into the system in some way which is reasonably




12      clear, most-of those things that we need to control and




13      get out of the system those things that we don't need to



14      control.  The best way we've found so far is the pipe-




15      line concept.




16               Under this question, if there is an incinerator



17      I suppose you call it a boiler which is tied directly to



18      ths process system—by process system, we're talking about




1'      production line, production line under the way we in-




20      terpret this—now, this would not be covered.



21               I guess I should point out that we don't think




22      this has very much—as a matter of fact, I don't know




23      of anyplace where it happens.  If it does, however, and




24      we find it becomes very widespread, then I suspect we




25      would probably change the regulations, because incinera-

-------
                                                          211



 1      tion of hazardous waste is one of the things which



 2      Congress intended that  we control.




 3               I did give an answer, which was not wrong when




 4      I gave it, but maybe a little bit misleading:  That has




 5      to do with the paper bag and triple rinsing, if you can




 6      remember back to that.   And I said  there really was no




 7      way» equivalent way, to handle paper bags, at least under




 8      the regs, and I should point out, however, that under



 9      250.29 (b) (1), if the material,  if that bag contained




10      pesticide and if the person  wanting to dispose of it




11      is a farmer,  if he follows the regulations which are, the




12      regulations—if you read that little paragraph you'll




13      see what I'm  talking about—if he follows the 250 regu-




14      lation and the information that's on the label, then he




15      can dispose of it in accordance with those.  In addition,



15      he has to be  a farmer,  it has to  be a pesticide.




17               "Many industries will generate greater than




18      100 kilograms a month of hazardous  waste from one pro-



19      cess and will be subject to all the regulatory require-




20      ments  under R.C.R.A.,  but the same  generator will



21      generate less than 100 kilograms per month of ether



22      hazardous waste from support facilities such as mainten-



23      ance generated waste solvent.  Is there some thought



24      toward a categorization by major  and minor generators




25      to exempt industry from all the record keeping, et cetera,

-------
                                                             212



 1     required for limited small quantities of numerous



 2     waste materials?"



 3              Some thought, yes; I think the intention  in



 4     these regs is no.  The intent for getting the small



 5     generator, and by that the small volume generator,



 6     those who generate only a small volume out of the  system,



 7     is because we have found that by and large they are



 8     handled in conjunction with the routine municipal waste



 9     kind of activity and they don't have information that



10     indicates that creates a problem, plus the fact that



11     tryfag to apply the control procedures to all of this



12     additional large quantity of generators that would be



13     included if we included only those small people, the



14     total number of generators that would be in the system



15     would swamp it with paperwork.  Those are the two



16     considerations that went into the snail generator  exclu-



17     s ion,,



18              What we have here is the same plant who is



19     already in the system because he's got one or more large



20     volume wastes, and he also happens to have a couple of



21     small ones; well, that doesn't enter any significant



22     additional paperwork that we can see, and normally



23     large generators of waste don't handle the waste in the



24     same way that small generators do that, along with muni-



25     cipal trash and garbage.

-------
card--"includes certain wastes"--no, excuae »e.
                                                              213

 l               Someone nay want to stake some coowients on



 2     that because, as I say, we have thought about such an



 3     approach from tine to tine, and this person may want



 4     to address that in some comments.



                "Section 250.14 (a) and (b)"--this looks like



 6     the sane person, writes very snail,  gets a lot on the




 7


 8               "Section  250.14 (a) and (b) includes certain



 9     industries under R.C.R.A."--let ae address that first:



10               It doesn't include certain industries; it



      includes certain wastes which may come froa industries.



      It doesn't include an industry as  such and all the waste



      .from an industry.  It only includes  the waste which is
10


14     listed there.



                . .By so doing this will place a double burden



      on these industries.  They must categorize and report
16


.      all hazardous waste under R.C.R.A. requirements and



.„     they will have the additional burden of testing an
lo


      application  for exemption under 250.15 for those wastes,



      products or  streams that are not hazardous."



                Well,  I'm not sure we don't have a misinter



      pretation here.   Just because one  waste stream from



      an industrial category,  SIC category, is listed does



      not aean that all the wastes fron  that industry are listed.
24


      OnV the ones specifically lined out  there are con

-------
                                                          214



 '      sidered by the Agency to be hazardous.   Thus;, if the




 2      satae plant or industry has a variety of other wastes




 3      which are aot listed, they're not necessarily hazardous



 4      aud would uot have to go through this whole business of




 5      getting an exemption to the list.




 6               From ths tone of the question  I gather that




 7      there might have been a misinterpretation.  t




 8               "Since the penalties for not reporting are




 9      stringent and EPA must rely on generator's  initial



 10      assessments of his sampling and waste categorization,




 11      why are the regulations proposed in this matter?"




 12               I guess when we get right down to  it we're




 13      talking about why do we have tnese lists?  First of all,




 14      let me address that:  We give these SIC codes here,




 15      four-digit SIC codes, for example, and  we don't—I guess



 16      we don't think it's difficult to determine  whether or not



 17      you're in that category or not, for the most part.  In




 18      some of the other lists which don't have SIC codes,



 19      things like surgery departments and wards and things




 20      like that, we don't think that it's going to be terribly




 21      difficult to determine whether or not a plant fits those




 22      categories.  But to get to the broader  question, why




 23      do we have lists?  Well, the lists were designed as a




 24      means for those wastes which we find are always hazar-




25      dous, or almost always hazardous, of making it easier for

-------
                                                            215



 1      the regulated community to know whecher they are in this




 2      system or not In the system,




 3               Theother alternative is just Co go with an




 4      expanded set of criteria or characteristics and have




 5      everybody then pretty much having to ran tests to




 6      determine whecher they're, in or out, unless they know an




 7      awful lot about their wasta.



 8               There's another very good point which is




 9      the statute says we have to have lists; that's another




10      good reason.  Of course, the question is to what extent




11      do you have them, and the reasons why that I addressed




12      had to do with why the lists are this extensive.




13               "Do you interpret the regulations to mean




14      that an industry"—this is the same person here—"Do



15      you interpret the regulations to mean that an industry




16      which treats a waste stream prior to discharge"—in




17      other words by neutralizing—"to be a generator and a




18      hazardous waste treatment facility?"



19               Well, I've got a lot of questions I'll pump




20      back to this person.  Discharge to where?  Where is he




21      discharging?  If he's discharging this as an effluent to



22      the stream then he's not covered under R.C.R.A. unless




23      he does his neutralization in a leaching lagoon, in




24      which case he would be covered,,




25               Another question:  Is the resulting waste

-------
                                                          216



 l      hazardous, this v,aste that he discharges, assuming he




 2      discharges it to land, is that hazardous?  And if the




 3      answer is no, that's not hazardous, then he wouldn't




 4      need a permit to discharge it.  If the material going




 5      into the process were hazardous, we come back to that




 6      whole business of the pipeline that we've talked about




 7      before.  If the process, the neutralization proces—




 8      and this frequently is the case—is simply attached to




 9      the production process in a continuous manner, then no,




10      that wouldn't be covered.  A lot of industries and plants




11      have neutralization facilities that are virtually



12      integrally incorporated into the exit of the process




13      waste from the production process.




14               Ninety-day storage limit:  "Are items which are




15      being stored for the purpose of going to a waste ex-



16      change subject to the 90-day storage limit?"



17               Yes; for example, if it takes six months to



18      accumulate, say, one ton or three or four barrels, enough




19      to justify transport, if it's beyond 90 days he would have



20      to get a permit to store it.  There is, of course, this




21      100 kilogram limit, and that could enter in if it's




22      small enough volume.  This gets to the whole problem,




23      though, of people that said, "Well, look, if it's going




24      to go to recycle or recover, you're not going to covtr it




25      anyway downstream, so why have them subject to the 90-day

-------
                                                          217



 1      storage limit?



 2               Well, the problem here is that we have trouble



 3      with companies, or we understand there are problems with



 4      companies, who simply pile stuff or dump it in the lagoon,



 5      et cetera, and when asked say, "Well, I'm going to



 6      recover that some day when the economics gets better



 7      or next year or five years fmn now, or whatever"^ and



 8      maybe their intent is to that and maybe it isn't.  So,



 9      what we're saying here is if you're going to store stuff



10      for more than 90 days and it's the kind of thing which



11      is normally a waste, you're going to have to get a per-



12      mit for that, because we don't know whether you're really



13      storing it or not storing it—I mean, if you're really



14      going to recycle it or not recycle it, and your options



15      along those lines might change as economics change.



16               If then later, at the end of a year—you have



17      a storage permit and at the end of a year you decide you're



18      actually going to sell it, well,  then when you do that



19      that's the end of it, you're out of the system.



20               "In the iron and steel industry mill scale,



21      blast furnace scrubber sludge and iron-bearing wastes



22      are processed in & cinder plant and .used as a raw



23      material in a blast furnace.  Will this cinder plant



24      be considered a treatment facility?"



25               That would be a recycling operation as I would

-------
                                                          218



 1     interpret  it and under 250.10  (b), it would be reused,




 2     and  thus would not be considered  a hazardous waste.




 3              "If Section 1004-24 of the Act addressed con-



 4     verting solid waste to energy, why do the proposed regu-




 5     lations exclude oils burned for recovery of BTU value




      from the less stringent resource  recovery regulations?"—




 7     in other words, the other discarded material definition.




 8              The reason why is because of two reasons, really:




 9     First of all the heavy metals  and other materials which



10     are  in the waste oil, which if widely burned—and they




      are  widely burned—indiscriminately in school boilers



12     and  the like, are admitted directly in the air.  The




13     second reason is because it has been common practice and




14     probably still is at this point to slip other goodies




15     into the waste oil and thus get rid of all kinds of



      stuff with the waste oil, and  we're not saying that you



17     can't do either one of these things; all we're saying is



'8     it's going to have to be in a  controlled manner in con-



      junction with these regulations,  which means you have to




20     get  a permit to do it.




21              MR. LEHMAN:  I'd like to just take a minute and




22     amplify the previous question  about waste exchange.




23              We like waste exchange,  we want to foster waste




24     exchange.  What we don't want  to  foster, as Fred pointed




25     out, is an intent for waste exchange which may or may not

-------
                                                            219
 1      come about.  In other words, when you're storing
 2
       materials the environment doesn't really know whether
 Q
       you're storing them for waste exchange or whether you're


       storing for disposal, or what you're doing.  So,


       what we're saying basically is that if you are in the


 6     act of waste exchange, then you're out of the system.


 7     In other words, you have a contract, the material is


 8     flowing, then you're out of the system.  If you're just


 9     storing the material and hopeful to arrange a waste


 10     exchange, you've got the stuff listed in some waste ex-


 11     change brochure or something, that commendable and we


 12     encourage that, but until you actually have a waste


 13     exchange contract in being, you are still par t of the


 14     system, presuming that material is hazardous waste.


 15              I hope that clarifies that point a little bit.


 16              MR. CORSON:  I have a couple:


 17              "In the EP, no alkaline material is specified


 18     to raise pH to five plus, minus point 2, which is


 19     required test range."


 20              And the answer to that question is again, as


 21     I explained earlier, we developed an area which talked


 22     about improper management, we come up with the approach


 23     we did.  If people feel we should have an alternate test


 24     for some wastes which require the additional of alkaline


25     material, then we'd certainly like to see that data.

-------
                                                           220



 1               "Toxic organics, how can milligrams per kilogram



 2      of body  weight be  compared to milligrams  per liter




 3      in waste water and what  is the basis  for  the ,35 factor?"




 4               This  relates  to the definition that is used,




 5      I believe,  to  get  some materials off  the  list,  as well




 6      as the one  that we are suggesting in  our  ANPR,  and in  that




 7      case we  have a scenario  which again is  described in




 8      the toxfclty background document which relates to the



 9      location of ground water wells to land  disposal sites,




10      the dilutions  of material going from  the  disposal site




11      Co the ground  water well,  the ingestion of two liters




12      of water a  day by  a 70 kilogram person, you multiply




13      all those numbers  out  you get 035, and  that's how we




14      come up  with that  number,



15               A  question in a similar area:  "In the toxic



16      organic,  we use a  calculated human LD-50  based on the




17      footnoted procedure which indicated we  can use rabbit-




18      mouse data  or  LD-50 as listed in the  NIOSH registry.




19      We can use  that without  validation; the other data




20      muse be  supported  by specific and verified laboratory




2^      reports", and  they want  to know why we  chose that ap-




22      proach.



23               As we understand the NIOSH Registry, two sets




24      of data  come  in  through  that Registry to  NIOSK on the




25      same substance,  they use the more stringent data, the  lower

-------
                                                            221



       value.  Therefore, we're suggesting in our validation



       note that your data you are suggesting is that the



 3     substance is not as toxic as NIOSH indicates it to be



 4     and we feel for that deviation we would like the valida-



 5     tion.  If it is for a substance which is not listed in



 6     NIOSH Registry, we suggest you send it in to NIOSH,



 7     have it accepted, which they will do, and then you won't



 8     have to verify it.



 9              "How is waste activated sludge from a food



10     processing plant, for example, a com wet milling plant,



11     viewed if this sludge is typically land applied, con-



12     sidering first of all the restricted definition in 250.14



13     (b) (ill)"— and that's the one that lets out POTW's—



14     "and two, that its heavy metal content is considerably



15     below that for POTW land applied sludges?"



16              Again, this gets back to the same answer which I



17     think we've given befora, but I think it's worth



18     bringing out again with respect to this specific ques-



19     tion.  POTW sludges are going to be managed in accor-



20     dance with regulations and guidelines developed under



21     Setion 405-D of the clean Water Act.  It will be ou*



22     attempt in developing those guidances and regulations—



23     which are incidentally being developed in the Office of



24     Solid Waste—to make them consistent with R.C.R.A.



25     R.C.R.A. does not have the authority—well, let me get

-------
                                                           222


 1 I
   11    back—the Clean Water Act does not have the authority


 2 I
       to regulate non POTW sludges.  So, while there may be
   it


 3 "    a permit required under 405 to land apply those sludges,



 4 "    in the case of coming from an industrial sludge, plants



 5 "    produced by industrial plants, it would be a R.C.R.A.
 6
 8
       permit for that land application.  There is nothing
 7 "    about that sludge which will necessarily deny land
       application,,  It may be that you will require a permit
 9 "    to do it.



 10 "             The last question I have:


 11 "             "If a hazardous material is spilled and a


       hazardous waste generated, is a manifest required from


 13 "    the spill site or does the waste enter the system at  the

   II

 14 "    hazardous waste treatment storage or disposal facility,


       and is the clean up contracted to the generator or  is
   ||

 16 'I    it the spiller?"


 17 "             Well, the general answer to that question  is


 18 "    the spiller is the generator of that waste.  That may


 19 I'    be £ trucking firm, could be a train, but it is the per-


 20 I    son who spills it that is the generator.  If he wants


 21 II    to, and this frequently does occur, that the generator


       calls in clean up specialists, contractors, he can  use


 23 I'    them to provide the technical expertise he needs to


       provide the data.  If there is no emergency to get  that


25 "    spill cleaned up, then a manifest is required and the

-------
                                                           223



 1      spiller being the generator will have to fill out that



 2      manifest.   If it is an emergency, then the spill clean up



 3      and delivery to an adequate facility takes the dominant



 4      control and a manifest is not required.



 5               In any case,  a D.O.T. report would be required



 6      with regard to the spill, EPA will get a copy of that



 7      report,  and you obviously have to clean it up, because



 8      if  you  don't that will probably fit the  definition



 '      we  have  for open dumping, which will be-illegal,



10              MR. LINDSEY:   "What provisions  are being proposed



11      to  assure  that bulk trailers and other reusable con-



12      tainers  are completely emptied and cleaned?"



13              I think this  more appropriately has to do with



14      the Hazardous Material Iransportation Act,  and DOT regu-



15      lations  which have come out under that.



16              I should point out that I believe  Allan Roberts



17      from D.O.T.  is going to be here tomorrow and the person



18      who generated this question might want to generate it



19      again tomorrow for Allan.



20              "If waste is  stored in a storage tank prior



21      to  on-site incineration and the Cank turnover is less



22      than 90  days would this storage tank require permit  even



2S      though  it  is never emptied?"



24              I think the best—as  far as the 90-day exclu-



!5      sion business goes,  the best place to look  at the explana-

-------
                                                            224



       tion there is probably on page 53971, which is part



 2     of the preamble.  Basically, the 90-day exclusion



 3     limit applies to storage prior to shipment off site,



       and not to treatment on site, and thus the answer to



       that would be, yes, it would have to have a permit, but



 6     it would have to have a permit for incineration anyway,



 7     so, it's simply an extension of that.



 8              MR. LEHMAN:  Question:  "Will waste oil haulers



 9     have to get a manifest from every service station,



 10     garage, truck terminalfbr any small generator or crankcase



 11      drainings, or will the hauler have to do this paper-



 12      work.?  Please go into detail on waste oil hauler re-



 13      sponsibility on all pickups."



 14               Well, this whole issue is addressed again in



 15      the preamble to Section 3002 on page 53974, and I think



 16      I'll just read the applicable portions of that, because



 17      it directly answers this question.



 18               "Problems have resulted from the indiscriminate



 19      disposal of waste oil.  In an effort to lessen the re-



 20      gulatory burden on. the large number of generators of



 21      waste oil, as well to promote resource recovery, these



 22      regulations provide for a procedure whereby any trans-



 23      port regulated under Sub-title C or a treater, storer



 24      or disposer regulated under Sub-part 0, may assume a



25      generator's responsibility for all obligations imposed by

-------
                                                            225



 1      this regulation, except the duty to apply for a generator



 2      ID code under Section 220024."



 3               In other words, if a waste oil hauler enters



 4      into a contract with a number of service stations, truck



 5      terminals and so on and so forth, the waste oil hauler



 6      then assumes the generator'3 responsibility, and it is



 7      the hauler who originates the manifest, paperwork, and



 8      so on.



 9               Now, in Section 250.28 of the regulation, again



10      reading from the preamble, outlines the requirements



11      for a contractual agreement which must be formed between



12      the generator and the transporter or treater, storer



13      or disposer, assuming the generator's responsibilities.



14     "Once that contract is in place, a transporter or treater



15      storer or disposer becomes liable to properly perform



16      the applicable duties therein; although the generator



17      cannot completely transfer his own liability under the



18      Act for failure to perform,EPA enforcement actions will



19      focus on the transporter or treater, storer, disposer,



20      rather than on the generator if the proper contractual



21      agreement is in force."



22               So, I think those statements pretty much spell



23      out in detail what the responsibilities of the waste oil



24      hauler are.  If you want to go into that in more depth,



25      we'll be glad to respond.

-------
                                                         226




 1               CHAIRPERSON DARRAK:  Well, we're a whole five




 2      minutes  early ending today»




 3               I want to thank you all for your attention.




 4      We will  reconvene our public hearing tomorrow morning




 5      at 8:30  in the Pavilion Ballroom,




 6               (Whereupon the meeting was adjourned at 5:00




 7      o'clock  p.m., Wednesday, February 14, 1979.)




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
  1

  2                      CERTIFICATE

  3
             This  IB  to certify that the attached proceedings

        before:   Environmental Protection Agency

        In the  Matter  of:
  6

  7                Public Meeting on Improving

  8                  Environmental Regulations

  9      Place:   St.  Louis,  Missouri

 10      Date:    February 14,  1979

 l1      were held as herein appears,  and that this is the

 12      Original Transcript thereof for the files of the

 13      Department.

 14
                                 Bernice M. Jackson Reporting Co.
 15                               1139 Olive Street    Suite 310
                                 St.  Louis, Missouri 63101
 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5


 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                             227
                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In re:

     Public Meeting on Improving

     Environmental Regulations
                              Breckenridge Pavilion Hotel
                              One Broadway
                              St. Louis, Missouri

                              Thursday, February 15, 1979

          The public hearing in the above-entitled matter

was convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 8:30 o'clock a.m.,

Dorothy A. Darrah, presiding.

BEFORE:

          DOROTHY A. DARRAH   Office of General Counsel, EPA,
                              Washington, D.C., Chairperson.
          AMY SCHAFFER


          JOHN P. LEHMAN




          ALFRED LINDSEY




          ALAN CORSON
Office of Enforcement, EPA,
Washington, D.C.

Director, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, Office of
Solid Waste, EPA, Washington,
D.C.

Chief, Implementation Branch,
Hazardous Waste Management
Division, Office of Solid Waste,
EPA, Washington, D.C.

Chief, Section 3001, Guidelines
Branch, Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Branch, Office of Solid
Waste, EPA, Washington, D.C.

-------
1


2

3

4

5


6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 CHET MC LAUGHLIN


 HARRY TRASK
 TIM FIELDS
ALAN ROBERTS
                           228

Solid Waste Branch, EPA, Region
VII, Kansas City, Missouri.

Program Manager,  Sections  3002
and  3003, Guidelines  Branch,
Hazardous Waste Management
Branch, Office  of Solid Waste,
Washington, D.C.

Program Manager Assessment and
Technology Branch of the
Hazardous Waste Management
Division In Washington, D.C.

D.O.T., Washington,  D.C.

-------
                                                             229

 1                       CONTENTS

 2                                                      Page

 3     Opening Statement     John P. Lehman             230

 4     STATEMENTS:

 5     R.  David Plank,  City Utilities,
         Springfield,  Missouri                         237
 6
      Robert S. Foston, Camel Energy                  251
 7
      Merj.ii, Hum,  Solid Waste Activities Group
 8        Wisconsin  Power & Light
         Edison Electric Institute                     266
 9
      Robert M. Robinson, Missouri Department
10         of Natural Resources                         281
11
18
            Freeze,  Mississippi Chemical Corporation   287
._     Kenneth Smelcer,  Industrial Association of
         ftuincy                                        294

13     Russell Smith,  Salsburr ^bopatorlas             307

      Mlrko  Popovlch, Human Rights Survival Group      322

15     Gwen Mollnair,  Human Rights Survival Group       332

16     Father Caslmir  Gierut,  Survival Group of
         Wllsonvile                                    361
Congressman Findley as given by Mr. Don
   Norton                                        383
19    Mildred Hendricks                                400

20    G.  L.  Jessee,  Director,  Environmental Processes,
         Monsanto Company                              442

      Gilbert W,  Fuller,  The Empire District Electric
22       Company,  Joplin, Missouri                     456

23    Betty  Wilson,  League of Women Voters of
          Missouri                                     467
24
      Richard Meunier                                  477
25

-------
                                                              229 A

                             CONTENTS

  2     STATEMENTS:                                     PAGE

  3     Janes P. marker, M.D.                            500

  4

  5     Separate transcript for  question and answer session
        Pages 335 through 360
  6     Pages 401 through 439
        Pages 479 through 499
  7

  8
        Inserts:  PP. 250, 265,  280,  293,  330,  400, 455,  466, 4?4
  9
 10

 n

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25

-------
 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                          230
                    PROCEEDINGS

          MR. LEHMAN:  We would like to begin the hearing.
Take your seats, please.

          Good morning.  My name is John P. Lehman.  I am
Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Division of EPA*s
Office of Solid Waste in Washington, D.C.

          On behalf of EPA, I would like to welcome you to the

public hearing, which is being held to discuss the proposed
regulations for the management of hazardous wastes.

          We appreciate your taking the time to participate
in the development of these regulations, which are being
Issued under the authority of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, better known as RCRA.

          The Environmental Protection Agency on December 18,
1978, issued proposed rules under Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as substantially amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Public Law 94-580.
          These proposals respectively cover, first, criteria
for identifying and listing hazardous waste, identification
methods and a hazardous waste list.

          Second, standards applicable to generators of such

waste for record keeping, labeling, using proper containers

and using a transport manifest.
          Third, performance, design and operating standards

for hazardous waste management facilities.

-------
                                                              231
 1              These proposals,  together with those already pub-
 2    lished,  pursuant to Section 3003,  on April 28, 1978,  Section
 3    3006 on  February 1, 1978, Section  3008 on August 4,  1978 and
 4    Section  3010 on July 11,  1978,  and that of the Department of
 5    Transportation, pursuant  to the Hazardous Materials Transpor-
 6    tation Act on May 25,  1978, along  with Section 3005 regula-
 7    tions for facility permitting,  constitute the Hazardous Haste
 8    Regulatory Program under  Subtitle  C of the Act.
 9              EPA has chosen  to integrate its regulations for
10    facility permits pursuant to Section 3005 and for state haz-
11    ardous waste program authorization, pursuant to Section 3006
12    of the Act, with proposals  under the National Pollutant Dis-
13    charge Elimination System required by Section 402 of  the
14    Clean Water Act, and the  Underground Injection Control Pro-
is    gram of  the Safe Drinking Water Act.
16              This integration  of programs will appear soon as
17    proposed rules under 40-CFR, Parts 122, 123 and 124.
18              This hearing is being held as part of our public
19    participation process in  the development of this regulatory
20    program.
21              The panel members who share the rostrum with me to-
22    day are  Chet Mclaughlin of  the  Hazardous Waste Material—or,
23    excuse me, the Hazardous  Waste  Management Section of  the
24    Hazardous Materials Branch  of Region VII office in Kansas
25    City.

-------
                                                              232
              Any Schaffer of our Office of Enforcement in Wash-
    ington, D.C.; Dorothy Darrah, of the Office of General Coun-
    sel of EPA's headquarters in Washington; Fred Lindsey, Chief
    of the Implementation Branch in the Hazardous Waste Manage-
    ment Division, EPA, in Washington and Harry Trask, Who is
 6   the Program Manager for the Section 3002 and 3003 regulations
 7   in the Guidelines Branch of the Hazardous Waste Management
    Division in Washington.
 9             As noted, in the Federal Register, our planned
10   agenda is to cover Sections 3002 and 3003 today, and 3004
11   tomorrow.
12             Also, we have planned an evening session tonight
13   covering all four sections.
14             This session is planned, primarily, for those who
15   cannot attend during the day.
              The comments received at this hearing and the other
17   hearings, as noted in the Federal Register, together with the
18   comment letters we receive, will be a part of the official
19   docket in this rule-making process.  The comment period
20   closes on March 16 for Sections 3001 through 3004.
2t             This docket may be seen during normal working hours
22   in Room 2111-B, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, Southwest,
23   Washington, D.C.  In addition, we expect to have transcripts
24   of each hearing within about two weeks of the close of the
25   hearing.  These transcripts will be available for reading at

-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                         233
any of the EPA libraries.  A list of these locations is avail-
able at the registration table outside.
          With that as the background, I would like to lay
the groundwork and rules for the conduct of this hearing.
          The focus of a public hearing is on the public's
response to a regulatory proposal of an agency, or in this
case, agencies, since both the EPA and the Department of
Transportation are involved.
          The purpose of this hearing, as announced in the
April 28th, May 25th and December 18, 1978, Federal Registers
is to solicit comments on the proposed regulations, including
any background information used to develop the comment.
          This public hearing is being held not primarily to
inform the public, nor to defend a proposed regulation, but
rather to obtain the public's response to these proposed
regulations and thereafter revise them as may seem appropriate
          All major substantive comments made at the hearing
will be addressed during preparation of the final regulation.
This will not be a formal adjudicatory hearing with the right
to cross-examination.  Members of the public are to present
their views on the proposed regulation to the panel and the
panel may ask questions of the people presenting statements
to clarify any ambiguities in their presentation.
          Some questions by the panel may be forwarded to the
speaker, in writing.  His response, if received within a

-------
                                                             234
 l   week  of  the close of this hearing will be Included  in  the
 2   transcript.  Otherwise, we will  include it in  the docket.
 3             The Chairman reserves  the right to limit  lengthy
 4   questions, discussions or statements.  If you  have  a copy
 5   of your  statement, please submit it to the Court Reporter.
 6             Written statements will be accepted  at the end of
 7   the hearing.  If you wish to submit a written, rather  than
 8   oral  statement, please make sure the Court Reporter has a
 9   copy.    The written statements will also be included,  in their
10   entirety, in the record.
11             Persons wishing to make an oral statement, who have
12   not made an advance request by telephone or in writing,
13   should indicate their interest on the registration  card.  If
14   you have not indicated your intent to give a statement and
is   you decide to do so, please return to the registration table,
16   fill  out another card and give it to one of the staff.
17             As we call upon an individual to make a statement,
18   he or she should come up to the  leeturn after  identifying him-
19   self  or  herself to the Court Reporter and deliver his  or her
20   statement.
21             At the beginning of the statement, the Chairperson
22   will  inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to enter-
23   tain  questions from the panel.   The speaker is under no ob-
24   ligation to do so, although within the spirit  of this  infor-
25   nation sharing hearing, it will  be of great assistance to the

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25
                                                          235
Agencies If questions were permitted.
          Our day's activities, as we currently  see them,
appear like this.  We will break  for lunch at  the end of the
comments on Section 3002 and reconvene at 2 p.m. for comments
on Section 3003.
          Then, depending on our  progress, we will either
conclude the day's session or break for dinner and reconvene
at 7 p.m. for the evening session.
          Phone calls will be posted on the registration
table at the entrance and restrooms are located  outside on
the promenade.
          If you wish to be added to our mailing list for
future regulations, draft regulations or proposed regulations,
please leave your business card or name and address on a
three by five card at the registration desk.
          Section 3002; addresses standards applicable to
generators of hazardous wastes.  A generator is  defined as
any person whose act or process produces a hazardous waste.
          Minimum amounts generated and disposed per month
are established to further define a generator.  These stand-
ards will exclude household hazardous wastes.
          fhe generator standards will establish requirements
for record keeping, labeling and marking of containers used
for storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes, use
of appropriate containers, furnishing information on the

-------
1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                          236



general chemical composition of hazardous waste;*•• of a



manifest system to assure that a hazardous waste is designated



to a permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility and



submitting reports to the Administrator or authorized state



agency, setting out the quantity generated and its disposi-



tion.



          Section 3003 requires the development of standards



applicable to transporters of hazardous waste.  These proposed



standards address identification codes, record keeping, ac-



ceptance and transportation of hazardous waste, compliance



with the manifest system, delivery of hazardous waste, spills



of hazardous waste and placarding and marking of vehicles.



          The Agency has coordinated closely with the proposed



and current U.S. Department of Transportation regulations.



          EPA intends to promulgate final regulations under



all sections of Subtitle C, by December 31, 1979.  However, it



Ls important for the regulative communities to understand that



the regulations under Section 3001, through 3005, do not take



effect until six months after promulgation.  That would be



approximately June of 1980.



          Thus, there will be a time period after final promul-



gation during which time public understanding of the regula-



tions can be increased.



          During this same period, notifications required under



Sections 3010 are to be submitted and facility permit applica-

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                         237
tions required under 3005 will be distributed for completion
by applicants.
          Now, I want to also note that Mr. Alan Roberts of
the Department of Transportation may join our panel here
later in the morning or during the day.  I presume he was on
his way here and was held up, due to fog at the airport.  He
was scheduled to be with us.  He may arrive later on in the
day.
          With that as a summary of Subtitle C of the proposed
regulations to be considered at this hearing, I return this
meeting to the Chairperson, Dorothy Darrah.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Good morning and welcome back.
          We have two people who weren't able to get here
yesterday because of the weather and I am going to ask them
to speak first.  I assume they are primarily going to be ad-
dressing 3001 and then we will go through the list of people
who want to offer comments on Section 3002.
          So, first of all, is Robert Plank here, from City
Utilities of Springfield, Missouri?
          MR. FLANK:  Thank you.  I am R. David Plank.  I am
manager of the Engineering Department of City Utilities of
Springfield, Missouri.  I am speaking as a generator or poten-
tial generator.  I am representing the Board of Public Utili-
ties of Springfield.  We are a p*HAiilr-owned utility.
              STATEMENT OF R. DAVID PLANK

-------
                                                              238
 l              MR.  FLANK:   We have two power generating stations,

 2    Southwest Power Plant and James River Power Plant.  These

 3    stations both generate utility wastes, but according to re-

 4    cent testing,  do not  meet the criteria of the Hazardous Waste

 5    Act.

 6              We do feel  the current state and federal laws now

 7    being enforced are adequate for the  control of the disposal

 8    of these wastes.

 9              There have  been no problems encountered under the

10    present system for disposal of our utility wastes.  However,

11    if our wastes  did meet the criteria  of the Act,  the cost

12    incurred by City Utilities to meet the proposed standards

13    would be cost  prohibitive to our 59,000 customers.

14              We do have  a position I would like to go through,

15    some data.

16              We are a municipally-owned public utility operated

17    as a division of the  City of Springfield, Missouri, under the

18    City Charter.   The electric distribution system of City

19    Utilities presently covers approximately 119 square miles

20    with 1,156 miles of distribution lines serving approximately

21    59,000 customers.

22              Our  revenues for fiscal '79-'80 are estimated at

23    $40,000,000.  Power production facilities include a five-unit

24    coal-fired generating plant located  near the James River on

25    the southeastern edge of the city and a single unit coal-fired

-------
                                                               239
 i   generating plant located on the southwestern edge of the city.
 2             The James River Power Plant has nameplate generating
 3   capacity of 259 megawatts.  The nameplate capacity of the
 4   Southwest Power Station is 194 megawatts.  In addition to
 5   these facilities, there is a 30 megawatt oil-fired peaking
 6   turbine located at the Main Street Station, near the center
 7   of the city.
 8             The James River Power Plant consumes an average of
 9   150,000 tons of coal per year.  The Southwest Power Station
 10   utilizes an average of 434,000 tons of coal per year and 54,
 11   000 tons of limestone, the latter being used in the flue-gas
 12   desulfurization system.
 13             By-products produced in the form of fly ash, bottom
 14   ash and scrubber sludge from the flue-gas desulfurization
 15   total 85,000 tons per year for the two facilities.
 16             Of this total,  9,000 tons of fly ash and bottom ash
 17   are produced at the James River Power Plant and 76,000 tons
 18   of fly ash and bottom ash and scrubber sludge are produced at
 19   the Southwest Power Station.
 20             Present disposal of these wastes at James River
 21    involves the use of an ash sluicing system that discharges
 22   into an ash holding and settling basin.  This ash pond is
 23   operated under the N.P.D.E.S. permit No. MO-1961 and the
 24    effluent is continuously monitored for the parameters out-
25    lined in the permit, according to the Federal Water Pollution

-------
 1
2
 3
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                          240
Control Act and the Missouri Clean Water Law.
          The Southwest Power Station utilizes a two-cell
settling pond for bottom ash.  The cells are periodically
cleaned and the settled ash is removed and deposited in a
landfill along with a fixated mixture of fly ash and scrubber
sludge.
          The ash pond is operated under N.P.D.E.S. Permit No.
MO-899340, as is the settling pond for the coal ash and
scrubber sludge landfill.   Effluents from these facilities
are continuously monitored for the parameters outlined in the
permits.
          The coal ash and scrubber sludge landfill was
built and is operated as a state-approved landfill in accord-
ance with the regulations set forth in the Missouri Solid
Waste Management Law, Permit No. 707701.
          In addition to the monitoring and testing conduc-
ted as prescribed by these permits, City Utilities conducts
regular monitoring schedules with respect to the environment
surrounding these facilities.
          These include twice weekly monitoring of the leach-
ate collection system within the Southwest Power Station Land-
fill, monthly sampling of the landfill settling pond, periodic
testing of the springs in the vicinity of the James River ash
pond and frequent monitoring of the springs around the South-
west Power Station and Wilson Creek above and below the outfal

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                           241
from the permitted Southwest Power Station facility.
          We have a testing program and the results of this
is that we have been engaged in a testing program involving
the discharges of these facilities for the past few years.
          To date, the analyses performed by independent
laboratories and by our own laboratories have shown that none
of these discharges meet the criteria set forth to be desig-
nated hazardous wastes.
          Recent investigations using the Toxicant Extraction
Procedure show that wastes treated according to the protocol
set forth in this test do not come under the criteria for
toxic wastes.  These tests were performed on coal ash and
scrubber sludge.
          We feel that since our own testing does not show
any results of a hazardous nature and since no definitive
environmental risks have been demonstrated to be directly or
indirectly attributable to coal ash and scrubber sludge, that
these wastes should not be included for management under the
Resource Recovery and Conservation Act.
          We also feel that existing statutes under the Feder-
al Water Pollution Act, the Missouri Clean Water Law and the
Missouri Solid Waste Management Law provide sound and adequate
management practices for handling the disposal of these
wastes.
          The fact that we produce over 85,000 tons of this

-------
                                                             242
    waste per year and that over 66,000,000 tons of this waste
    per year is produced throughout the country presents a de-
    finite problem when considering disposal in a hazardous waste
    landfill.
 5             The capacity of acceptable sites in relation to
 6   the quantities involved preclude sufficient management when
 7   compared to the successful way in which these wastes are
 8   presently being handled.
 9             Existing management practices have proved to be
10   satisfactory in preventing pollution problems.  We see no
11   reason to change to an unwieldy, expensive process that will
12   achieve the same end result.
13             The inclusion of utility wastes in the Hazardous
14   Waste Management Act of the Resource Recovery and Conservation
15   Act of 1976 could have a staggering economic impact upon City
16   Utilities and its customers through capital investment, in-
    crease in personnel and operating expenses.
18             Existing landfill operations would cease, due to
19   reasons cited below and we would be forced to either relocate
20   our landfill operations or ship our waste to approved land-
21   fills in other parts of the state, and perhaps even out of
22   state.
23             The geologic conditions at our existing sites are
24   unsuitable for development and operation of hazardous waste
25   landfill.  The Springfield area is underlain by a highly

-------
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                         243
soluble jointed limestone in which karst development has
resulted in an extensive, well-integrated subsurface drainage
system.
          Groundwater migration does not proceed through the
rock mas* but, rather, is confined to joints,  fractures and
solution channels in which movement is rapid and filtration
is minimal.  Utilization of monitoring wells to detect leach-
ate migration would be ineffective.  This area is also sub-
ject to catastropic sinkhole collapse, which would affect the
structuralstability of a landfill liner.
          We do have a detailed geologic description and that
is in the final statement.  The depth to the water table in
that area varies from 100 feet in upland areas to a few feet
in the lowlands.
          The shallow aquifer is separated from a deeper
aquifer by a widespread shale formation.  Most residential
and agricultural wells draw from the shallow aquifer.
          Sites suitable for the development of a hazardous
waste disposal site could be located at a distance of 30 to
40 miles from Springfield.
          Another option is that in lieu of developing our
own site, we could utilize existing sites operated by outside
concerns.
          Modes of transportation to either of these sites
could be by truck or rail.

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8
 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         244
          I do have some cost figures.  I will just summarize
those here.  We think the capital coat of developing our own
landfill for transportation by truck-,- and we have some con-
cerns because of the type of trucks chat may be available
that would actually seal this material and keep it from
spilling on the road.
          Anyway, for an offsite facility, the capital cost
of $9,779,000.  That doesn't include all the bonding costs
we might have to incur.
          That Option, we think, would have about a $1,314,
000 cost to us as an annual operating cost involving 20 em-
ployees and fuel and maintenance on the vehicles.
          If we were not able to use the truck option, the
rail facility would cost $23,156,000 and again, that does not
include all the bonded costs that would be incurred and would
have an annual operating cost of $1,386,500 and would require
24 personnel.
          If we were to use a commercial site and there is one
near St. Louis, I understand, but it is limited in size, land
area, and would not last the entire time of the economic life
of our plants.  Our capital improvement cost would be $3,100,
000 for additional ash handling equipment and rail loading
facilities, with an annual operating cost of $4,280,000.  That
includes the dumping fee.
          Or, if we were able to transport it by truck, our

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9

10

11

12
13

14

15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24

25
                                                          245
capital costs would be $1,204,000, plus an annual operating
and maintenance cost of $4,660,000.
          I think you can see from the figures on the $40,000,
000 revenue, we are talking about incurring increases in cost
to our consumers of, in the range of, eight to twelve per cent
on the base rates.
          In conclusion, we would, therefore, like to go on
record as being opposed to the inclusion of utility wastes
under regulation by the Resource Recovery and Conservation
Act.
          The Environmental Protection Agency has sf      -hat
such wastes are produced in very large volumes, tha
potential hazards posed by the wastes are relative       and
that the waste is generally not amenable to the c<
techniques developed by the Act.
          We believe that we have shown that the wastes have
no potential risk when handled in the proper manner and that
the disposal techniques presently in use provide an adequate
control of the wastes.
          He have also shown that it would be a tremendous
economic burden on the City Utilities and its customers to
attempt to comply with the regulations set forth in the Act.
          He would ask that EPA reconsider its position of
including utility wastes, even as special waste under the Act
and leave the management of these wastes to the State and Fed-

-------
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                          246
eral agencies now engaged In these practices.  Thank you.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.  Would you answer
questions for us?
          MR. PLANK:  I'll attempt to.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.
          MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Plank, did I understand you to say
that you have conducted tests against the extraction procedure
which show that your wastes are not hazardous by our defini-
tion?
          MR. PLANK:  Yes, sir, and those are very recent
tests.
          MR. LEHMAN:  So, none of this would apply to you
under these conditions, is that correct?
          MR. PLANK:  Our concern is that coal, being such a
variable material as it is, could in some way slip over the
boundaries or parameters at some time in the future, if we had
a different coal supply or the coal was extracted from a
different vein.
          MR. LEHMAN:  I think you also made the statement
that you felt utility wastes should not come under the purview
of the Resource and Conservation Recovery Act.  I just wanted
to clarify that.
          Even if the waste is not hazardous, it is still sub-
ject to Subtitle D of the Resource and Conservation Recovery
Act.  In other words, you haven't totally escaped, just be-

-------
6
7
8
9

10

11

12
13
14

IS
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24

25
                                                          247
cause you are not a hazardous waste.  You are also subject  to
Subtitle D.  I just wanted  to make  that point, which is not
a--it's subject  to federal  requirements, but these require-
ments are administered by state agencies, not by the federal
agency.  I presume you understand that point.
          MR. FLANK:  O.K.
          MR. CORSON:  Just one comment, Mr. Flank.
          MR. FLANK:  Yes.
          MR. CORSON:  Again, following up on the
-------
                                                             248
 1             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I have a couple of questions.
 1             When you gave us the dollar figures for the land-
 3    fill, I take it you were giving us  figures  for a landfill
 4    that would meet all of the 3004 requirements, or am 1 wrong?
 5             Were you, for example, giving us  figures for some-
 6    thing that would meet the 250.46-2  special  waste?  That*s
 7    the limited special waste standards for utility waste, which
 8    sounds to me, from your description, as though you are al-
 9    ready meeting, other than perhaps the security or visual
10    inspection.
n             I am Just trying to get clear what those dollar
12    figures were for,
13             MR. FLANK:  They included the testing, monitoring
14    wells, even though we think  they may be ineffective in our

15    area.  1 think meeting all the requirements. We can certainly
16    clarify that for you along with the other information.
17             MR. LEHMAN:  Can I follow up on that?  1 think it's
18    an important point.   Were the cost estimates for the main
19    body of Section 3004 requirements or were they for the special
20    limited standards under the  special waste category?

21             MR. PLANK:  1 believe they were for the limited,
22    yes.  We can clarify that.
23             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K., and I  wondered when you
24    said you are doing—did you  say monthly monitoring?
25             MR. PLANK:  Yes.

-------
                                                             249
 l              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Can you tell us what parameters
 2    you are monitoring forf
 3              MR.  FLANK:   We can send that data along.   I can't
 4    tell you today exactly.  It is as required by the N.P.D.E.S.
 5    permits on the monthlies.
 6              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Thank you very much.
 7              MR.  LEHMAN:  One question, Mr. Plank.   I  believe
 8    you also stated that  your recommendation was that we remove
 9    the utility waste section or provisions of Section  3004 as
10    a special waste category.
11              MR.  PLANK:   Right.
12              MR.  LEHMAN:  We covered this a little bit yesterday,
13    but nowhere is utility waste listed as a hazardous  waste.
u    It is only if  the material does not meet one of our charac-
15    teristics or fails one.
16              MR.  PLANK:   That's true.
17              MR.  LEHMAN:  But the point is that if you remove
is    the utility wastes as a special waste standard,  then the full
19    force of 3004  applies to waste that fail these characteris-
20    tics.
21              The  way it  is now, by listing it as a special waste,
22    there are somewhat limited standards applied.
23              MR.  PLANK:   I think  we  would like to have a total
24    exclusion of utility  wastes and leave it to the state.   Par-
25    ticularly, we  have a  very strong  state program here in Mis-

-------
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         250
souri.

          MR. LEHMAN:  So, what you are really saying is you
don*t--if I nay paraphrase what you are saying.  You are say-
ing you don't necessarily-it's not just that you want us to
remove the provisions for utility wastes from Section 3004,
you want us to make a total exclusion of utility wastes from
the whole program?
          MR. PLAHK:  That's right.
          MR. LEHMAN:  That would have to be done in the
definition section of 3004 if that were to be accomplished.
          MR. PLANK:  Right.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.
          (The document referred to follows:
                       HEARING INSERT

-------
                                        February 13, 1979
Mr. John P. Lehman
Director, Hazardous  Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste  (WH-565)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.   20460

Dear Mr. Lehman:

    This letter is written in reference to the proposed  federal  law per-
taining to the Hazardous  Waste Act and its affect on this  utility.

    City Utilities of  Springfield, Missouri has two power  generating sta-
tions. Southwest Power Plant and James River Power Plant.   These stations
both generate utility  wastes but according to recent testing do  not meet the
criteria of the Hazardous Waste Act.

    We feel that current  state and federal laws now being  enforced  are ade-
quate in the control of the disposal of these wastes.  There have been no
problems encountered under the present system for disposal of our utility
wastes.

    However, if our  wastes did meet the criteria of the  Act the  cost incurred
by City Utilities  to meet the proposed standards would be  cost prohibitive to
our 59,000 customers.

    Enclosed is a  copy of City Utilities' position on this Act.

                                        Since
                                        D.E. Caywooi
                                        Chairman,
                                                 .rd of Public Utilities
Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton
Sen. John C. Danforth
Rep. William L. Clay
Rep. Robert A. Young
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt
Rep. Ike Skelton
Rep. Richard Boiling
Rep. Gene Taylor
Rep. Richard H. Ichord
Rep. Harold L. Volkmer
Rep. Bill D. Burlison
Rep. E. Thomas Coleman
Renelle P. Rae, Regional  Administrator, EPA
                                                 CITY UTILITIES
                                                 SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI
                                                                  301 E. CENTRAL STREET
                                                                    JEWELL P 0  BOX 551
                                                             SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI 65801
                                                                TELEPHONE 417-  831-83-1'

                                                  R,  DAV)D PLANK,  PE
                                              MANAGER-ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
                                                          TELEPHONE!  417-831-8500
                  CITY UTILITIES
            SPRINGFIELD,  MISSOURI
                                                                      JEWEi.1 P 0  BOX 551
                                                                 SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI  6580!
                                                                   TELEPHONE 417- 831-831 I

-------
INTRODUCTION






    City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri,  is  a municipally-owned public




utility operated as a division of the  City  of Springfield/  Missouri under the




City Charter.  The electric distribution  system  of City Utilities presently




covers approximately 119 square miles  with  1,156 miles of distribution lines




serving approximately 59,000 customers.   Revenues for fiscal 1979-80 are




estimated at 40,000,000 dollars.






    Power production facilities include a five unit coal-fired generating




plant located near the James River on  the southeastern edge of the city and a




single unit coal-fired generating plant located  on the southwestern edge of




the city.  The James River Power Plant has  nameplate generating capacity of




259 megawatts.  Nameplate capacity of  the Southwest Power Station is 194




megawatts.  In addition to these facilities,  there is a 30  megawatt oil-fired




peaking turbine located at the Main  Street  Station near the center of the




city.






    The James River Power Plant consumes  an average of 150,000 tons of coal




per year.  The Southwest Power Station utilizes  an average  of 434,000 tons of




coal per year and 54,000 tons of limestone, the  latter being used in the




flue-gas desulfurization system  (POD). By-products produced in the form of




fly ash, bottom ash and scrubber sludge front the FGD total  85,775 tons per




year for the two facilities.  Of this  total,  9,125 tons of  fly ash and bottom




ash are produced at the James River  Power Plant  and 76,650  tons of fly ash,




bottom ash and scrubber sludge are produced at the Southwest Power Station.






    Present disposal of these wastes at James River involves the use of an




ash sluicing system that discharges  into  an ash  holding and settling basin.




This ash pond is operated under N.P.D.E.S.  Permit No. MO-0001961 and the

-------
effluent is continuously monitored  for  the parameters outlined in the permit,




according to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500 and the




Missouri Clean Hater Law.






    The Southwest Power Station  utilizes a two-cell settling pond for bottom



ash.  The cells are periodically cleaned and the settled ash is removed and




deposited in a landfill along with  a fixated mixture of fly ash and scrubber




sludge.  The ash pond  is operated under N.P.D.E.S.  Permit Ho. MO-00899340 as




is the settling pond for the coal ash and scrubber  sludge landfill.




Effluents from these facilities  are continuously monitored for the parameters




outlined in the permits.






    The coal ash and scrubber sludge landfill was built and is operated as a



state-approved landfill in  accordance with the regulations set forth in the




Missouri Solid Haste Management  Law,  Permit Ho. 707701.






    In addition to the monitoring and testing conducted as prescribed by




these permits. City Utilities conducts  regular monitoring schedules with




respect to the environment  surrounding  these facilities.  These include




twice-weekly monitoring of  the leachate collection  system within the




Southwest Power Station Landfill; monthly sampling  of the landfill settling




pond; periodic testing of the springs in the vicinity of the James River ash



pond; and frequent monitoring of the springs around the Southwest Power




Station and Wilson Creek above and  below the outfall from the permitted




Southwest Power Station facility.








TKSTIHG PROGRAM AMP RESULTS






    City Utilities has been engaged in  testing programs involving the



discharges of these facilities for  the  past few years.  To date analyses per-

-------
formed by independent laboratories and  by  our  own laboratories have shown




that none of these discharges meet the  criteria  set forth to be designated




hazardous wastes*  Recent  investigations using the Toxicant Extraction




Procedure show that wastes treated according to  the protocol set forth in




this test do not come under  the criteria for toxic wastes.  These tests were




performed on coal ash and  scrubber sludge.






    We feel that since our own testing  does  not  show any results of a hazar-




dous nature and since no definite environmental  risks have been demonstrated




to be directly or indirectly attributable  to coal ash and scrubber sludge,




that these wastes should not be included for management under the Resource




Recovery and Conservation  Act.  We also feel that existing statutes under the




Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  the Missouri Clean Water Law and the




Missouri Solid Waste Management Law provide  sound and adequate management




practices for handling the disposal of  these wastes.  The fact that we pro-




duce over 83,000 tons of this waste per year and that over 66 million tons of




this waste per year is produced throughout the country presents a definite




problem when considering disposal in  a  hazardous waste landfill.  The capa-




city of acceptable sites in  relation  to the  quantities involved precludes




efficient management when  compared to the  successful way in which these




wastes are presently being handled.   Existing  management practices have




proved to be satisfactory  in preventing pollution problems.  We see no reason




to change to an unwieldy,  expensive process  that will achieve that will




achieve the same end result.









ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE UTILITY AND ITS  CUSTOMERS






    The inclusion of utility wastes in  the Hazardous Waste Management Act of




the Resource Recovery and  Conservation  Act of  1976 would have a staggering

-------
economic Impact on City Utilities  and its  customers through capital invest-




ments, increase in personnel and operating expenses.  Existing landfill




operations would cease due to reasons cited below and we would be forced to




either relocate our  landfill operation or  ship our wastes to approved land-




fills in other parts of the state-perhaps  even out-of-state.






    Geologic conditions at existing  sites  are unsuitable for the development




and operation of a hazardous waste landfill.   The Springfield area is




underlain by a highly soluble,  jointed limestone in which karst development




has resulted in an extensive, well-integrated subsurface drainage system.




Groundwater migration does not  proceed through the rock mass; but rather is




confined to joints,  fractures,  and solution channels in which movement is




rapid and filtration is minimal.   Utilization of monitoring wells to detect




leachate migration would be ineffective.   This area is also subject to




catastropic sinkhole collapse,  which would affect the structural stability of




a landfill liner.






    Available sites over the area  are alluvial deposits confined to the




floodplains and residual soils  weathered from the underlying limestone.  The




residual soils are CH under the Unified Soil  Classification, composed mainly




of halloysites and kaolinites with small quantities of montmorillonite.




Permeability is on the order of 1.0  X 10-5 cm/sec.  Weathering of inter-




bedded chert has resulted in the preservation of relict chert beds in the soil




profile, which increase the permeability.   Soil thickness ranges from 0 to 20




feet due to the formation of cutters and pinnacles at the bedrock surface.




Thickness is highly  variable over  short horizontal distances.






    Depth to the water table varies  from 100  feet in upland areas to a few




feet in the lowlands.  The shallow aquifer is separated from a deeper aquifer

-------
by a widespread shale formation.  Host  residential  and agricultural wells




draw from the shallow aquifer.






    Sites suitable for the development  of  a hazardous  waste disposal site




could be located at a distance of 30-40 miles  from  Springfield.   In lieu of




developing our own site/ City Utilities could  utilize  existing sites operated




by outside concerns.  Modes of transportation  to  either of these sites could




be by truck or rail.  The following  tables show the economic impact of these




various alternatives on City Utilities. In all cases, some capital improve-



ments would be necessary at the power plants.

-------
        COSTS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING AND OPERATING  A CITY UTILITIES'
          OWNED HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL * TRANSPORTATION BY TRUCK
1.  Site Investigation and design development	$  710,0001

2.  Purchase of property	  1,422,0002

3.  Final design and construction	  1,828,0003

4.  Capital improvements at James River Power Plant
         and Southwest Power Station	    878,0004

5.  Landfill equipment	    430,0005

6.  Trucks for hauling wastes	    529,0006

              TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS                               $5,797,000

7.  Escalation	  1,630,000?

8.  Contingency	    713,0006

                                                                $8,140,000

9.  Engineering, legal fees and overhead	  1,019,000?

10. Interest during construction	    620,OOP1"

              TOTAL COST (1982 Completion)                      $9,779,000
1.  Includes initial engineering evaluation, preliminary design and prepara-
    tion of environmental impact statement  as  well  as  state approval proce-
    dures.

2.  Includes fencing 640 acres and possible fees  for condemnation.    Of the
    640 acres, approximately 500 will be used  for the  landfill.

3.  Includes hydrological monitoring system, surface containment structure
    construction, soil liner, leachate collection system,  treatment facility,
    laboratory and office building, maintenance building and testing equip-
    ment.  Fuel storage tank.

4.  Includes improved handling facilities at James  River Power  Plant and new
    storage silo and fuel storage tank at Southwest Power Station.

5.  Includes dozer, scraper, compactor and  watering truck.

6.  Includes 7 tractor-trailer units with special fly  ash resistant trailers.
    Four of these will be on the road with  two working a shuttle system from
    James River and one in reserve.

-------
7.  Figured at 40% for capital costs exluding land.




8.  Figured at 10%.




9.  Figures at 13% of capital, engineering/ legal, overhead  and escalation.




10. Figured for 1 year at 7%.









* Estimated Life of 25 years.

-------
            ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR HAZARDOUS
      WASTE LANDFILL OWNED BY CITY UTILITIES - TRANSPORTATION BY TRUCK
Additional Personnel:

    1 Landfill Superintendent
    2 Lab Technicians
    2 Manifest Clerks
    4 Guards
    1 Sampling Technician
    1 Inspector-Sampler-Full time landfill
    1 Foreman
    3 Heavy Equipment Operators
    1 Truck Driver
    2 Maintenance Men
    2 Processing Clerks

    Total Personnel                                   $  700,000

Transportation Costs
    Fuel and maintenance                                  87,000

Landfill Equipment
    Fuel and maintenance                                 121,000

Landfill Operations
    Yearly construction, etc.                            306,000

Laboratory Testing                                       100,000

         TOTAL Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs $1,314,000

-------
               COSTS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING A CITY UTILITIES
                      OWNED LANDFILL BY RAIL ACCESS *
1.  Site investigation and design development	$  1,000,0001

2.  Purchase of property	   1,800,0002

3.  Final design and construction...	   5,500,0003

4.  Capital improvements at James River Power Plant
         and Southwest Power Station	   1,500, OOO4

5.  Landfill equipment	   2,430,0005

6.  Engine and cars	     720,0006

                   TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS                         $12,950,000

7.  Escalation.	    4,460,0007

8.  Contingency	    1,741,0008

                                                               $19,151,000

9.  Engineering, legal fees and overhead	     2,490,0009

10. Interest during construction	     1,515,00010

                   TOTAL COST  (1982 Completion)                $23,156,000
1.  Includes initial engineering evaluation, preliminary  design  and prepara-
    tion of environmental impact statement as well as  state  approval
    procedures.

2.  Includes 1,000 acres for spur and landfill or which 500  acres  would be
    useable.

3.  Includes hydrological monitoring system, surface containment structure
    construction, soil liner, leachate collection system,  treatment facility,
    laboratory and office building, maintenance  building  and testing equip-
    ment.  Fuel storage tank.

4.  Includes improved handling facilities at James River  Power Plant and new
    storage silo and fuel storage tank at Southwest Power Station.

5.  Includes dozer, scraper, compactor, watering truck and rotary  dump machi-
    nery.

6.  Includes 12 rail cars, and switch engine.

7.  Figured at 40% for capital costs excluding  land.

-------
8.  Figured at 10%.




9.  Figured at 13% of capital, engineering, legal, overhead  and  escalation.




10. Figured for 1 year at 7%.








    *  Estimated Life of 25 years.

-------
            ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR HAZARDOUS
      WASTE LANDFILL OWNED BY CITY UTILITIES - TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL
Personnel:

    1 Landfill Superintendent
    2 Railroad Engineers
    2 Unloaders
    1 Foreman
    2 Lab Technicians
    2 Manifest Clerks
    4 Guards
    1 Sampling Technician
    1 Inspector-Sampler
    1 Foreman
    3 Heavy Equipment Operators
    1 Truck Driver
    2 Maintenance Men
    1 Processing Clerk

    Total Personnel                                   $  630,000

Transportation Costs
    Fuel and Maintenance
    and shipping costs by rail                           229,500

Landfill Equipment
    Fuel and maintenance                                 121,000

Landfill Operations
    Yearly construction, etc.                            306,000

Laboratory Testing                                       100,000

         TOTAL                                        $1,386,500

-------
              CAPITAL OUTLAY TO TRANSPORT HASTES  TO  COMMERCIAL
                             LANDFILL  BY RAIL  *
Ash handling Improvements at JRPP                           $   500,000

Ash handling improvements at SHPP                              100,000

Railroad spur construction                                     300,000

Rotary car dump                                             2,000,000

Switch engine                                                  200,000

         TOTAL Capital Improvements Cost                    $3,100,000


Yearly Operating Costs

Personnel:

    2 Manifest Clerks
    1 Processing Cleric
    1 Lab Technician

    Total Personnel                                         $    60,000

Freight Costs                                                  500,000

Dumping Fees                                                3,720,000

         TOTAL Annual Operating Costs                       $4,280,000


Unknown Contingencies

1.  Maintenance on rotary car dump
2.  Operation on rotary car dump
3.  Maintenance on spur line at landfill
4.  Operation and maintenance on switch engine



* 10 year maximum disposal space, then have to have new  site.

-------
             CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR TRANSPORTING WASTES TO EXISTING
         COMMERCIAL LANDFILL - APPROXIMATELY 220-250 MILES BY TRUCK
Ash handling Improvements at JRPP                           $   500,000

Ash handling improvements and fuel
    storage tank at SWPP                                       175,000

Trucks for transporting                                        529/000

         TOTAL Capitalized Cost*                            $1,204,000


Yearly Operating Costs

Personnel:

    8 Truck Drivers
    2 Manifest Clerks
    1 Processing Clerk
    1 Lab Technician
    1 Maintenance Man

    Total Personnel                                         $   390,000

Truck Maintenance and Fuel                                     550,000

Dumping Fees at Existing Hazardous Haste Landfill           3,720,000

         Annual Maintenance and Operating Costs             $4,660,000

-------
CONCLUSION






    We would, therefore,  like to go on record as being opposed to the inclu-




sion of utility wastes  under  regulation by the Resource Recovery and




Conservation Act.  The  Environmental Protection Agency has stated that such




wastes are produced  in  very large volumes, that the potential hazards posed




by the wastes are  relatively  low and that the waste is generally not amen-




dable to the control techniques  developed by the Act.






    We believe that  we  have shown that the wastes have no potential risk when




handled in the proper manner  and that the disposal techniques presently in




use provide an adequate control  of the wastes.  He have also shown that it




would be a tremendous economic burden on City Utilities and its customers to




attempt to comply  with  the  regulations set forth in the Act.  We would, ask




that EPA reconsider  its position of including utility wastes even as "special




waste" under the Act and  leave the management of these wastes to the State




and Federal agencies now  engaged in these practices.

-------
                                                              251
 i              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   For anyone who wasn't here
 2    yesterday and doesn't recognize Alan Corson,  let me intro-
 3    duce Alan.  He's the Chief of our Guidelines  Branch and works
 4    on Section 3001.  We asked him to come up for the first two
 5    speakers this morning.
 6              I also have what is  marked in red,  "Urgent",  a
 7    message from Mr. H.  Scott Durbin, if he would come pick this
 8    Up.
 9              All right, our second speaker this  morning, also
10    I believe, primarily speaking  on Section 3001, is Dr. Robert
n    Poston from Carmel Energy in Houston,  Texas.
12                     STATEMENT OF  ROBERT S. POSTON
13              DR. POSTON:  Thank you, panel members, for invit-
14    ing me to speak to this  group.  I was commenting at breakfast
15    today, to Paul Herbert,  that I probably wouldn't have asked
16    for an opportunity to come before this group  and speak, had
17    I not been involved, probably  a year ago, in  a uranium  ex-
18    traction process in  south Texas and I got to  see firsthand
19    what the Government  is capable of doing to an industry.
20              In underground solution mining of uranium deposits
21    in south Texas, the  EPA  has required these uranium solution
22    mining people restore completely a material,  water, which
23    contains only 6,000  parts per  million of total dissolved
24    solids.
25              Well, gentlemen, the value,  in my opinion, of this

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                          252
water, after it's restored, is no way equal to the cost.  I
can't see any reason for some type of laws like this to be
put on the books when it costs more to restore than it does
to mine.  I think we really have some soul searching to do
when it comes to control of the environment.
          I am Robert Poston with Carmel Energy.  Our home
office is in Houston.  We have oilfield recovery.  Our pro-
duction operation is in Texas, Kansas and western Missouri.
          I noted there wasn't a hearing to be held in Hous-
ton.  1 am out of Houston, so I took this opportunity, be-
cause of our operations here in Missouri, to come before the
group and speak.
          Carmel is not particularly different than any other
oil producing company.  We drill for, we explore for and drill
and complete and produce oil deposits.
          However, with another arm of the Government, the
Department of Energy, we have been able, over a period of
eight years, to develop some technology which is enabling us
to recover reserves from what is called in the industry, heavy
oil deposits.
          The only thing that makes this different is we
generate on-site super-heated steam, COg and nitrogen, so just
like the gentleman with the power plant, we have to concern
ourselves not only with oil field produced brands, drilling
buds, but also steam drum blowdowns.

-------
 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         253
          In order to keep the steam drum from passing solids

overhead into the vapor state, we have to blow down this

material and it represents about three per cent of our total

water through the unit.  So, we are talking about 15 barrels

a day of fairly high solid concentrated waters.

          Camel, we have succeeded, probably, where other

companies have failed, because of the more favorable relation-

ship now between the price we receive for the oil and the

cotts, because of the basic entrepreneural nature of our com-

pany, and because of two U.S. Department of Energy cost

sharing contracts, one of which we are now involved with in

western Missouri, over in western Burn county, right on the

Kansas-Missouri state line.

          I believe what—and I am going to conclude here and

I asked to speak yesterday and asked the panel to conclude,

is oil field produced brine, drilling buds and this steam

drum or cooling tower blowdown, really shouldn't be defined

as hazardous material.  All it is, in the case of oil field

produced brines, it's concentrated solids in the produced

fluids.

          I will also advise the panel that in every state we

operate, we are regulated from beginning to end.  I noted in

the Federal Register that the real goal here is to regulate

the generators of hazardous wastes from initial generation to

the final disposition.

-------
                                                            254
l              Well,  folks,  Che oil producing industry is already
2    regulated.  We are probably as regulated, if not more so,
3    than even the public utilities.  We have to get a permit to
4    drill a well. We have  to get a permit to either complete
5    that well or to  plug that well.  We've got to give notice  to
6    the various state regulatory agencies and they have an oppor-
7    tunity to send their representative down to actually witness
8    the plugging of  a well.
9              We have to get a permit for salt water disposal
10    well and here again, it's got to meet certain criteria.
11    These wells,the  shallow formations here in Missouri, and
12    JM*UMAl|r, I will elaborate on this a second.  It's a very
13    unique shallow deposit  over in western Missouri, but these
14    wells have got to be cemented from the very bottom of the
15    formation to the top.
'6              There  is virtually no opportunity for any salt
17    water contamination of  fresh water zones.  The requirements,
is    the details on actual materials of construction, materials
19    to be used in a  casing  program, all this stuff is generally
20    spelled out.
21              I read very carefully through the Federal Register
22    and the only way it seems that you people are proposing to
23    include us, is in this  one special category and then you
l*    make the statement that if our solids content, the concen-
25    trations are equal to ten times that for potable water, then

-------
                                                             255
 l   we,  by  definition, have a hazardous waste problem.
 2             Also,  for your understanding, perhaps, not  all
 3   oil  operations use drilling muds.  We drill,  for example,  in
 4   western Missouri with air.  We use air, because we  find it's
 5   a lot faster, it's a lot cheaper.  We don't have the  pits, we
 6   don't have  any disposal problem  there.
 7             We ran a great deal of surface equipment  right be-
 8   side one of these wells and, obviously, if you had  a  pit
 9   there,  you  don't have the bearing stress to stand up  under a
10   storage tank.
1)             So, I  think now I've already pointed out  two sub-
12   jects here, or two points, where all oil producing  companies
13   are  not the same.  One, everybody is not drilling a 10,000
14   foot well.
15             Out in western Missouri, our wells  are only 150
16   foot deep.  They cost us $4 a foot.  They cost us $600 to
17   drill and I know I'm stepping into another area, but  the pre-
18   posal is that we put up a $5,000 per well surety bond, cash
19   up front bond.   Good gosh, the well only costs $600,  so there
20   is a difference. Not all wells  are drilled by Exxon  at 25,
21   000  feet, as we  see sometimes in west Texas and Oklahoma.
22             We use air and we find air works very well  for us,
23   because it  does  give us the opportunity for a very  good geo-
24   logic control.   We can actually  check the formations every
25   few  inches  as we are drilling with air.  It's certainly non-

-------
                                                              256
 l    polluting.   The drilling cuttings  are deposited on the surface
 2    in neat little piles.   We attempt  to do it about every five
 3    feet and the state of  Missouri asked that we send them samp-
 4    les periodically from  the wells we drill„
 5             Now, you all have suggested that we connent, the
 6    industry comment,  on the exemption provision.  We are  asking
 7    you to  exempt the  oil  producing industry from the definition
 8    of hazardous wastes under Section  3001.
 '             I  understand we would still be under this Subtitle
10    D.   We  think that's fine.
11             In reading the Federal Register that you all pointed
12    out there was 5,000,000 metric tons a year of wastes being; •
13    hazardous waste generation by the  oil producing industry.
14             Gentlemen and ladies,  I  would like to take you all
15    out into the field to  show you we  do not»  The oil industry
16    does not pollute.
17             You know,  the days  where you could drill an  oil
IB    well and produce oil filled brine  into an adjoining stream
19    or  lay  it out on the surface,  those days are gone. The states
20    now regulate and they  regulate very tightly.
21             Now in the case of  drilling muds,  a lot of wells,
22    the majority of wells  in the  United States,  are still  drilled
23    with drilling muds.  But one  of the primary reasons why muds
24    are used is  because of fluid  loss  control.
25             By using the drilling muds,  the water is not leached

-------
 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                          257
into the formation as you drill down to depths.  A filter

cake forms on the wall and this holds the water into the well

bore and it's circulated from the surface down through the

drill bit.  It lubricates the bit, it cools the drill string

and the drill bit.

          Therefore, there is going to be very little in the

way of water, salt water and contaminated water, that is

actually even on the surface in a pit, that escapes the pit

into the, you know, ground water.  This was a reason given

for your wanting to include this in hazardous waste, because

it would contaminate, perhaps, surface waters.

          I think, personally, that if you increase the exemp-

tion for special wastes from this 100 kilograms a month to

1,000 kilograms, that would make it a ton, I don't see any way

a ton of contaminat** would escape a drilling mud pit, even

in a conventional drilling mud operation.

          Drilling muds today are very expensive, so typically

when a well is drilled and completed, an operator or drilling

contractor or driller, he moves to another location,  Mr likes

to take his drilling muds with him.  He'll pump it out and

put it in a container and go over to another well, another

location, and use it and cover the pit back up to the original

contour and with the exception that normally it's not compactec

back in, you've restored the surface to its original condition

          I have commented on your proposal of a $5,000 up

-------
 1

 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9

10

11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                           258
front bond  to assure a well  is  going  to be drilled,  so  the
hazardous materials, if you  stick with the definition of
hazardous materials on the drilling muds, don't contaminate
the environmento
          I pointed out to you  that not all wells are $100,
000  apiece and, in fact, in our case in Western Missouri,
we are looking at less than  $1,000.   The state of Missouri,
bcldMkaUjr, requires $1,000  up  front  bond or $10,000 for a
field development bond.
          So, I think it's really, I  guess the word  is  ridi-
culous, to  require a $5,000  per well, up front, bond.
          Now finally, I would  like to comment on your  finan-
cial responsibility requirement.  Most of the wells  drilled
in the United States, oil wells and gas wells, are not
drilled by  the Exxons and the Shells  and the major oil  com-
panies.  They are drilled by small, independent operators  like
Carmel.
          The requirement or the suggestion that a $5,000,000
financial responsibility bond be made available, that would
essentially eliminate small  companies.  I checked with  our
financial advisors, for example, and  we don't think  we  can
get a $5,000,000, 20-year, perpetual  bond.  We just  don't
think we can do it.
          Just like the gentleman spoke a second ago, the
Springfield public utility,  I feel that the EPA, with respect

-------
                                                             259
    to this hazardous waste and definition, ought to concentrate
    on really gross offenders.  I think,  from what I see on
    television and read in the newspaper, that  there are quite  a
    few gross offenders out there.
 5             But, gentlemen, we have been regulated now for, oh,
 6   certainly right after the War and the states do a real top
 7   notch job.  At least Camel, and I think the oil industry as
    a whole, feels that EPA should concentrate  its efforts on
 9   the gross offenders and since we are already regulated, let
10   us stay over there in this Subtitle 0 section, continue to
11   monitor our activities, but at the same time, save us from
12   the—it was a proposal that 300 days be required for us to
13   even get a drilling permit.
14             Spare us from that type of agony.  Spare us from
is   the $5,000 per well cash bond and the $5,000,000 financial
16   responsibility bond.
17             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.   Would you answer
18   questions for us?
19             DR. POSTON:  Yes, I would be happy to.
20             MR. LINDSEY:  Mr. Poston, I've got a series of ques-
21   tions here, but before I do, 1 think  there  may be some mis-
22   understandings somewhere here.
23             First of all, you talked about the $5,000 bond, up
24   front, for drilling.  That's not part of these regulations.
25   is that a set of EPA regulations somewhere  else?

-------
                                                             260
 i              DR.  POSTON:   I  had read that as  part of the oil  and
 2    gas—I  have  to admit I  did not see it in the Federal Register,
 3    but  I was  advised by your people  in Washington that would  be
 4    taken up at  a  later date.
 5              MR.  LINDSEY:  But not under this Act.   It may be
 6    under the  underground injection control program or another
 7    program, which offhand  I  am not aware of.   But,  you may be
 8    right.
 9              The  other thing you mentioned was the  financial
10    responsibility in the requirement for operating hazardous
11    waste disposal sites to maintain  a $5,000,000 insurance
12    premium for  disasters,  if you will.
13              I  just  want to  make it  clear or  make sure there  is
14    an understanding  here that under  the  special waste regula-
15    tions that we  have here,  the type of  waste which we are talk-
16    ing  about, which  is gas and oil drilling muds, and oil pro-
17    duction brines, are not subject to that, at least during this
18    period  that  we are considering them as a special waste.
19              Did  you misunderstand that?
20              DR.  POSTON:   I'm glad to have that clarification.
21              MR.  LINDSEY:  In other  words, the only disposal
22    regulations  that  are in place now for the  special wastes are
23    those limited  set of regulations  which are included here and
24    it does not  includes these insurance  premiums at this point.
25              I  will  have to  study the wastes  some more.  We may

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                          261
generate regulations for these specific wastes, but at the
present, that's not covered.
          Let me get to a couple of additional questions, if
I could.  You mentioned and I think you understood this cor-
rectly, that these kinds of waste are only covered, in any
event, if they fail the characteristics test under Section
3001.  I believe you mentioned that.
          Have you done any testing or do you have any feel
for knowing the characteristics of the waste we are talking
about, the steam drum blowdowns, the brines and the oil muds,,
whether or not they will meet or fail, if you will, these
characteristics T
          DR. POSTON:  The only way I think you would have us
caught is this arbitrary definition, in my view arbitrary,
that if it's ten times your definition of potable water or
drinkable water, then we're in.
          MR. LINDSEY:  You think it's probably going to meet:
thatT
          DR. POSTON:  Oh, yes.
          MR. LINDSEY:  1 see.
          DR. POSTON:  My recollection is that potable water
is around 1,000 parts per million total dissolved solids and
most oil field brines are going to be in excess of 10,000
parts per million of total dissolved solids and cooling tower
blowdown or steam drum blowdown is going to be in excess of

-------
1





2




3




4




5





6




7




8




9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                          262



10,000 parts per million of total dissolved solids.   I think




you have us there.




          MR. LINDSEY:  I don't believe there is a total




dissolved solids requirement here.




          DR. BOSTON:  Well—




          MR, LINDSEY:  I don't believe there is a total




dissolved solids requirement in here.  The requirements are




for specifics from the primary drinking water standards.




          There are primary drinking water standards which




list a series of heavy metals and a few pesticides.  So, it's




only the toxic—




          DR. FOSTON:  I did not have benefit of,-you make



reference to the EPA's drinking water standards in the Federal




Register.  I didn't have that little piece of information in




my hands to know what that was.




          I can tell you that from experience, when you start




talking about 1,000 parts per million of total dissolved solids




if you consistently consume drinking water that exceeds those



qualities, you are going to be in a little trouble.




          MR. LINDSEY:  The pertinent part that you need to



look at, I think, is under 250.13-D, which is where the



specific toxicants are listed.



          DR. POSTON:  Yes, I have looked that list over and




we do not characteristically, typically, have those toxicants




He are out on that basis.

-------
                                                              263
 1             MR. LINDSEY:   If  that's  the  case,  then those  par-
 2    ticular wastes would probably not,  if  you are right, would
 3    probably  not be  considered  hazardous.,
 4             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   I just  want to clarify that
 5    for him.  I'm not sure,  but I think the requirement under
 <5    RCRA may  have been misinterpreted  to you.    We  are using
 7    the number  only  for those 10 substances that are listed in
 8    here.
 9             The fact that  you have 1,000 parts per million
10    solids does not  make you hazardous  waste.  It would only be
11    if you met, you  know, had too much  of  one of these things,
12    these ten substances.
13             I think what you  told us  is, you have to meet any
14    of our requirements.
15             DR. POSTON:  I just need  that little  piece of paper.
\(,             MR. LINDSEY:   You mentioned  that brine muds,  brine.
17    ponds and mud pits are already  regulated, leaching pits.  Who
18    is it that  regulates them,  the  state?
19             DR. POSTON:  The  state in every case*
20             MR. LINDSEY:   Is  this only in Missouri, or are we
2i    talking nationwide?
22             DR. POSTON:  Everywhere we operate.
23             MR. LINDSEY:   The leeching from these mud pits and
24    brine ponds is already covered?
25             DR. POSTON:  Yes, if  all  industry  has moved over a

-------
1





2




3




4




5





6




7




8




9





10




11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                          264



period here of 20 to 25 years to salt water disposal well.   I




guess if you would say, "How much do you typically produce,




low much brine is typically produced with the oil", 1 would




lave to say it's 50-50 or one to one ratio.




          There are exceptions to this.  Sometimes you pro-




duce very little water, but probably on the average for every



Barrel of oil, you produce one barrel of water,




          MRa LINDSEY:  The ponds then are used for what, stor-




age ponds before injection?  Is that what's normally done?




          DR. POSTON:  We don't even use in our operations,  for




example, we don't even use surface storage ponds to produce




urines.  We go to an underground disposal well with a pump.




          The drilling mud pits are right by the individual




wells and they only exist for the period the well is being



drilled.




          MR. LINDSEY;  O.K., thank you.




          MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Poston, it appears from some of




your comments that you are getting a lot of your information



from an article that appeared in the Oil and Gas Journal.




          DR. POSTON:  Yes, that's correct.



          MR. LEHMAN:  I was shown a copy of that yesterday



and haven't had a chance to really study it, but apparently,




there are some incorrect statements there, some misinformation.




          OR, POSTON:  I hope so.




          MR. LEHMAN:  I would recommend highly to you that

-------
 1





 2




 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





IS




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                          265



you take your Information  from  the Federal Register and not




from—




          DR. POSTON:  I did  go to the  effort to get the




Federal Register.  I went  to  the library,  got it out, and I




did read it.




          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Thank you very much.




          (The document referred to  follows:)




                        HEARING INSERT

-------
                      PREPARED STATEMENT
           EPA HEARING ON HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES
                        by Robert S. Poston, Vice President
                           Carmel Energy, Inc.
                           1776 Yorktown, Suite 110
                           Houston, Texas 77056
     Carmel Energy, Inc. is a very small oil producing company,
privately held, that has developed over an eight(8) year period
some technology which is working successfully to recover heavy
oil from oil reservoirs in Eastern Kansas and Western Missouri.
Carmel drilled approximately 50 wells in Calendar 1978 and plans
to drill over 100 wells in Calendar 1979 to recover oil from
heavy oil deposits.
                         TM
     Carmel's Vapor Therm   process consists of surface genera-
tion of superheated steam, carbon dioxide and nitrogen; injection
of these gases into a heavy oil reservoir and then producing oil
from stimulated wells.  Oil production response is a function of
reservoir quality, but in general the Vapor Therm    process is
capable of over 10 to 20 fold increase in oil production rates
compared to production without stimulation.

     Carmel is succeeding where others have failed due to the
more favorable relationship between oil price and costs which now
exists; because of the entrepreneural nature of the company and
because of two U.S. Department of Energy cost sharing contracts to
fund field demonstrations of our technology.

     Carmel, and the oil producing industry as a whole, does not
want to pollute the environment in which we live and operate and
favors laws to protect the environment with stiff penalties for
willful violations.  The industry simply has too good a record
especially in recent years to reach a different conclusion.

-------
Statement                                             Page 2
     However, what Is of particular concern to Carmel is the pro-
posed sweeping definition of "hazardous".  Hazardous by definition
means risky or perilous or severly damaging.  Drilling muds, pro-
duced oil field brines (connate water) and steam drum blow down
are simply not hazardous materials and should not come under your
jurisdiction and control.

     In reading Section 3001 in the December 18, 1978 Federal
Register, the only way the EPA was able to define these materials
as hazardous was by "assuming" that any material with a solids
concentration ten times that recommended for potable water was by
definition hazardous.  By this definition it would be hazardous
for anyone to swim in the oceans of the world or as a matter of
fact the Great Salt Lake; which we all know is foolish.

     The real question of environmental concern and importance is
proper disposal of oil field waters.  Therefore, why not simplify
the regulations and make it easier for oil companies to solve the
energy crises by exempting drilling muds, produced oil field
brine and steam drum blow down as non-hazardous provided these
materials are disposed of properly.  For example, drilling muds
are to be removed from the surface pit and (-he piu covered back
iu its original contour (setting the exemption to 1000 kilogram
per month).  Produced oil field brine and steam drum blow down
once properly reinjected back into the oil formation from which
it was produced or other formation approved by the state geolo-
gist should satisfy all environmental questions.  Disposal well
permits as are now required should be continued.

     We recommend that the EPA adopt rules which specifically
exempt the oil producing industry from the definition of hazardous
waste as proposed in Section 3001 provided the above mentioned
materials are properly disposed.  The materials are in themselves
hon-hazardous and the only possible environmental harm would occir
in the improper disposal of the materials.

     I also wish to bring to your attention the fact that all oil
field operations are not the same.  In Western Missouri we have
oeen drilling and coring with air and this technique is working
well for us.  The wells are very shallow—averaging less than

-------
Statement                                             Page 3
150 feet total depth—and the cost of digging and drilling mud
pit and covering the pit back after drilling the hole becomes
needlessly expensive when we can drill with air.  We ask you to
please recognize this fact and not require a permit or any other
waste disposal requirement for air drilling operations.

     Certainly if after deliberation the EPA finds as I have
suggested that oil field drilling mud, produced brine and steam
drum blow down is not hazardous when properly disposed, then the
oil industry need not concern itself with the most burdensome
provisions of permitting with its suggested 300 day waiting
period, the $5,000 per well up-front cash bond, the $5 million
dollar  financial responsibility requirement for 20 years and the
costly manifest:, record-keeping and reporting system.

     If however, the EPA continues to hold against the oil pro-
ducers it will unquestionably reduce much needed domestic drilling
and exploration because it will eliminate small independent oil
producers like Carmel who year after year drill most of the land
based oil wells in the lower 4tf states.   The $5,000 per well up
front bond seems reasonable relative to the abandonment and plug-
ging cost of "average" oil wells.  I am here to point out that
there are exceptions to the average.  As I stated earlier, our
wells in Western Missouri are only 150 feet deep and contract
drilling cost is $4 per foot or $600 per well.  Each well can be
plugged by cementing through one(l) inch from the bottom of the
hole to the surface for less than $200.  The State of Missouri
requires a $1,000 per well bond or a $10,000 blanket bond.  Either
appear sufficient to plug an abandoned well in Western Missouri.
The states do an excellent job of controlling the oil and gas
producers in the areas in which we operate.

     I have checked with our financial advisors and Carmel has
concluded that it would be impossible for us to obtain an open-
ended $5 million financial responsibility bond for 20 years
duration.  We simply do not have the financial resources to ob-
tain such a bond.   We are convinced that the states requirement of
a perpetual plugging and abandonment bond either on a per well
or field basis sufficies.

-------
Statement                                              Page 4
     Carrael feels that the EPA should take into consideration
the fact that the oil producing industry has a good record of
managing and controlling its waste and that imposing further
regualtions on an already over-regulated industry will do nothing
to stimulate what most feel is in the national interest—increased
domestic oil production.

-------
                                                              266
 1             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  We will move «n to to people
 2   who have asked to comment on Section 3002, and my  first per-
 3   son will be Mr. Merlin Horn of the Utility Solid Waste Acti-
 4   vities Group.
 5                     STATEMENT OF MERLIN HORN
 6             MR. HORN:  Good morning.  My name is Merlin Horn.
 1   I am Director of Environmental Affairs for the Wisconsin
 8   Power and Light Company.  I am appearing today on  behalf of
 9   the Wisconsin Power and Light Company and, also, the Utili-
10   ties Solid Waste Activities Group, and the Edison  Electric
11   Institute, to comment on some aspects of the regulations
12   proposed to implement Section 3002 of RCRA.
13             While some of you are familiar with  USWAG, that is
14   the Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group, let me briefly
15   describe the group for those of you who are not.
16             USWAG is an informal consortium of electric utili-
17   ties and the Edison Electric Institute.  Currently, there are
18   some 45 utility members of USWAG.  Those companies own and
19   operate a substantial percentage of the electric generation
20   capacity in the United States.
21             E.E.I., Edison Electric Institute, is the principal
22   national association of invester owned electric light and
23   power companies.
24             Coal is the principal fuel used for  electric genera-
25   tion in the United States today.  At Wisconsin Power and Light

-------
 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         267
it is the major fuel source for the company's base load
generation and will continue to be so in the future.
          The principal wastes from electric power generation
that would be regulated under RCRA are those that result
from the use of coal as a fuel to produce electricity.  Thu«,
RCRA and the regulations to be promulgated under it. will
have a substantial and direct effect on the operations and
economics of the electric utility industry generally, and
Wisconsin Power and Light particularly.
          We emphatically believe that the great bulk of
utility wastes are not hazardous.  As the members of the panel
are aware, our representative at last week's hearing des-
cribed why we believe that the methodology proposed under
Section 3001, to determine whether wastes are hazardous, is
unsound and unreliable.
          I will not repeat those points today, but It does
seem important to note that if utility wastes are inappro-
priately labeled as hazardous, approximately 400 coal-fired
power plants in this country will be subject to Section 3002.
of RCRA and the regulations thereunder.
          There are two points we with to emphasize today.
First, we believe that the regulation should make clear that
all generators of special utility wastes be regulated in
accordance with the special rules provided in Section 250.46,
rather than under Subpart B.

-------
                                                            268
 i             Second, addressing Subpart B as drafted, we believe
 2   the proposed regulations as applied to generators of utility
 3   wastes appear to create unnecessary and expensive burdens
 4   and to erect barriers against the important objective of
 5   promoting resource recovery.
 6             The fundamental concern we have with regard to the
 7   applicability of EPA's proposed 3002 regulations, the utility
 8   wastes, centers on a relationship between those regulations
 9   and the EPA*s proposed special waste rules under 3004.
10             USWAG wholly endorses the agency's intention to
11   place high-volume utility waste in the special waste category
12   pending completion of a separate rule making.
13             We are somewhat confused, however, by an ambiguity
14   created by Section 250.46.  As now drafted, the regulations
15   appear to suggest that only waste generators who also qualify
16   as owners or operators of special waste treatment and storage
17   and disposal facilities will be regulated under the special
18   rules.
19             If so, generators who do not own or operate T.S.DoF.
20   sites, treatment, storage and disposal facilities, will not
21   be recovered by them.
22             A further question is raised from the draft regard-
23   ing whether even owners or operators of T.S.D.F.sites, in the
24   roles as generators, would be subject to the full range of
25   3002 requirements, even though in their capacities as owners

-------
 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         269
or operators of T.S.D.F. sites, they would be regulated under
the special rules.
          We do not believe that such a result is sensible,
nor do we believe that it was intended.  We thus urge that
the language be clarified to provide that all generators of
special utility wastes be subject to the same regulatory re-
quirements.  That is, those contained in Section 250.46, as
owners and operators of T.S.D.F. sites for special waste.
          Another way of stating this is that the language,
per se, does not afford generators the same exemptions exten-
ded to owners and operators of T.S.D.F.s for special waste.
          EPA's reasons for proposing a special waste cate-
gory ortaicUy apply with equal force to special waste genera-
tors.  I particularly note EPA's acknowledgment in the pre-
amble to the 3004 regulations, "That the potential hazards
posed by these special wastes are relatively low."
          There is also no indication, insofar as management
of utility special wastes is concerned, that the Subpart B
procedures are necessary to protect human health and the en-
vironment .
          Thus, for example, I am not aware of any instances
where shipping of unlabeled utility special wastes has posed,
or will pose, a risk to human health and environment.
          Further, EPA has noted that utility wastes are high
volume and may not pose a substantial threat to health or the
environment.

-------
                                                              270
 i              This is the basis for placing such wastes in a

 2    special handling category for facility operators.  These

 3    utilities are also closely regulated in many states and the

 4    number and locations of the waste disposal facilities are

 5    already a part of the public record.

 6              USWA6 will file detailed written comments address-

 7    ing this matter and other aspects of the proposed Subtitle

 8    C regulatory scheme.  For now,  let me direct the remainder of

 9    my testimony today to three of our concerns.

 10              One, the inapproprlateness, as to utility practices,

 H    of the critical on-site/off-site definition contained in the

 12    proposed regulations.

 13              Two, the need to revise certain of the proposed

 14    DOT packaging requirements as they apply to utility wastes,

 15    and, three,  the need to revise the regulations so they would

 16    not preclude environmentally safe reuses of utility wastes

 17    such as fly  ash.

 is              Proposed Section 250.20 (c) draws a distinction
 19    between generators that send their waste to an off-site

 20    facility,on  the one hand, and those that send them to on-

 2i    site facility, on the other.
 22              These distinctions are of considerable practical

 23    importance,  since so-called off-site handling would be sub-

 24    ject to considerably more extensive regulation.  In our view,

25    the regulatory distinction between on-site and off-site hand-

-------
 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         271
ling is impractical for high-volume, low-risk utility waste.
This distinction should be based upon the degree of risk im-
posed by the handling practice, not upon property boundary
lines.
          EPA*s proposed definition, however, focuses only
on property boundaries.  Thus, on-site is defined as the
"Same or geographically contiguous property", or two or more
pieces of property, geographically contiguous, separated only
by public or private rights of way.
          This definition is wholly inappropriate as applied
to the electric utility industry.  Many utilities dispose of
waste in facilities located as many as several miles from the
power plant.
          If one considers the typical geographical setting
of a power plant, this is hardly surprising.  For example,
many are located on rivers or in heavily industrialized
areas, in which demand for land is great.
          The effect of this, as well as existing land use
restrictions, is to limit the ability of the utilities to
site their disposal facilities at the power plant.  It is
also important to recognize that although these areas may not
be directly adjacent to the power plant sites, they generally
are dedicated solely to utility use and disposal of the utili-
ty wastes.
          Fundamentally, we believe EPA should draw regula-

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                           272
tory distinctions on the basis of risks posed.  Indeed, the
Agency has already recognized the validity of this approach
in the proposed 100 kilogram exemption.  That exemption is
premised on this type of risk perception analysis.
          If the Agency believes itself obligated to retain
some on-site/off-site distinction, the term on-site should
at least be defined to include handling at reasonably proxi-
mate facilities, where the waste transport and disposal prac-
tices utilized pose no substantial risk to--no substantial
risk of adverse environmental effect.
          I would now like to comment briefly upon certain
requirements contained in the proposed packaging rules.  EPA
would require all generators sending hazardous wastes offsite
to ship the wastes in accordance with Department of Transpor-
tation packaging requirements.
          DOT, in a pending rulemaking, has proposed that
shipment of RCRA hazardous wastes in open-top vehicles, such
as dump trucks, be prohibited.  DOT has also requested com-
ments as to whether transport of RCRA hazardous wastes in
tarp-covered, open-top vehicles should be allowed.
          DOT's proposed prohibition does not appear neces-
sary to protect the environment from dispersion of transpor-
ted utility special wastes.  Many utilities use dump trucks
to haul ash and scrubber sludge, particuarly when these
materials are to be reused as fill material.  Ash is wetted

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        273
down and due to its chemical properties, forms a crust.  Thus,
loose ash does not escape.  Scrubber sludge is also fixed in
a solid state to prevent dispersion in transit.
          Clearly, if open hauling is flatly prohibited, over-
all waste management costs will substantially increase.  Reuse
of utility special wastes will be especially hampered, because
many of these reuses are already economically marginal.
          Therefore, we urge that DOT*s present packaging re-
quirements be retained.
          Finally, I would like to speak for the negative im-
pact of the proposed rules, what they will have on resource
recovery and reuse of utility special wastes.
          A number of points are beyond dispute.  First, a
fundamental objective of RCRA is promotion of resource reuse
and recovery.  Second, most present reuse and recovery prac-
tices involving utility wastes, such as use of fly ash as a
road base and concrete additive, are economically marginal
and could be discontinued if an additional layer of regula-
tory cost is imposed.
          I address this matter in further detail in my writ-
ten statement and wish only to make one point clear.  We ask
EPA to reconsider feature of the proposed 3002 rules which
would needlessly impede resource recovery.
          As proposed, every generator must comply with Sub-
parts B through E if its wastes remain on-site for 90 days or

-------
                                                              274
 1   longer.  Utilities, however, must  frequently allow material
 2   to accumulate  for longer than 90 days before sufficient
 3   quantities are collected for reuse, either  for reasons of
 4   economy, weather or availability of transportation.
 5             For  instance, the barging season  in the upper
 6   Mississippi is suspended from November to March.  Under EPA's
 7   approach, the materials accumulated in that period could  fall
 8   into the costly maze of the regulations and reuse would be
 9   severely restricted.
10             EPA, thus, should certainly recast this aspect  of
11   its rules to allow accumulation of the utility wastes for
,2   longer than 90 days without automatically triggering Subtitle
,3   C regulation.
14             In sum, for the reasons  expressed above, my com-
15   pany, U5WAG and EEI, believe that  the regulations proposed to
16   implement Section 3002 would impose needless costs on the
17   utility industry and would eliminate many present and future
18   reuses of utility wastes.
19             There appear to be less  costly and environmentally
20   acceptable alternatives, and we urge EPA to adopt them in its
21   final regulations.  Thank you.
22             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.   Are there ques-
23   tionsf
24             MR. TRASK:  In your mention of the 90-day rule, do
25   you have an alternative suggestion as to how we could have

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         275
some period of accumulation of waste for an economic shipment
by the generator and yet still provide for protection against
an accumulation of waste that is not going to be handled,
merely going to be left there?  That's the comment we have
heard from most other people and that's the reason it's in
there.
          MR. HORN:  I don't have any specific suggestion,
other than the fact that some longer period might be as much
arbitrarily selected as, say, a 90-day period.  For example,
180 days or 12 months or some period such as this.
          MR. TRASK:  Would the 180 days be sufficient for
the concern you have?
          MR. HORN:  In the instance of the one example,
which I cited, which applies to one of our particular power
plants, where we do ship materials by barge, if it were a 120-
day period, then we would be able to get through the period
of time where navigation by barge on the upper Mississippi
is not generally possible.
          MR. TRASK:  Is barge shipment commonly used in dis-
posing of coal ash?  I am not familiar with it.
          MR. HORN:  I can't really answer for the industry
as a whole.  For our case, it happens to be a rather unique
situation, where we do have a power plant located on the
Mississippi River with attendant barge facilities.  It's
certainly one of the cheapest ways of transporting these

-------
                                                              276
 1   materials which favor the economics of the reuse.
 2             MR. TRASK:  I have no further questions.  I suspect
 3   that Mr. Robert may have had some questions for you on the
 4   DOT packaging requirements, but I am not qualified to ask
 5   those.
 6             MR. LINDSEY:  I will follow up, if I may,on a re-
 7   source recovery comment you made.  That is the 90-day exclu-
 8   sion.  1 think you mentioned you felt the 90-day limit on
 9   storage would be an impediment to resource recovery.
10             Is that because--in other words, one can store for
11   more than 90 days.  It's just that they have to get a permit
12   to do so.  You are aware of that, right?
13             MR. HORN:  Yes.
14             MR. LINDSEY:  You feel it's the cost of obtaining
15   the permit that would be the impediment to resource recovery
16   or, rather, is it the fact the material would be called haz-
17   ardous or what have you?
18             What is it specifically about the storage, the 90-
19   day part, that causes the impediment as you see it?
20             MR. HORN:  I guess, basically, it's our concern, our
2i   fear, that we would be subject to the full implications of
22   the 3000 series regulations.
23             MR. LINDSEY:  I think that may be a misinterpreta-
24   tion, because basically if you do submit the material for re-
25   source recovery, even after 90 days, once you have a sale and

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6
 7

 8
 9

10

11

12
13

14

15
16
17
18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25
                                                         277
material is moved, then it is out of the system.  But, if it
is store!for more than 90 days, then a permit would be re-
quired for the storage operation, which, depending on how
it*s stored, might not be very difficult to obtain.
          One other thing you did mention, I think, right at
the outset, you indicated you felt the regulations would have
a substantial impact on the electric utilities industry.
          When you say a substantial impact, are you referring
to the regulations as they are proposed, that is,the special
waste provisions, or are you going further than that, and
saying that if all the regulations under 3004 were to be
imposed that the impact would be substantial?  Or, is it both?
          MR. HORN:  There will be some additional comments
rendered by our USWAG organization on those particular ques-
tions, but I would suggest at this time that even under the
special waste classification, that those sections that do ap-
ply, still create an additional economic burden on our opera-
tions .
          MR. LINDSEY:  Do you have any figures on what that
might be, say, for a typical power plant?
          MR. HORN:  No, I don't have any at hand.  I think,
perhaps, in our written comments that will be submitted prior
to March 16th, we may have such numbers available.
          MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Horn, you made a point in part of
your presentation concerning the distinction between on-site

-------
                                                              278
 1   and off-site  facilities and the impact that might have, on

 2   your industry.  Am I correct in assuming that what you really-

 3   you also said that where you do ship off-site, It's usually

 4   only for a  few miles due to transportation limitations and

 5   it's usually  a site they are totally dedicated to for that

 6   particular  type of waste.

 7             Am  I correct in assuming that what you are driving

 8   at here is  that you feel facilities that are--I mean, the

 9   distinction between on-site and off-site should be made on

10   the basis of, not on distance  •»  contiguous property, but

11   on whether  or not the site is  dedicated solely for the use

12   of a particular waste from a particular source?

13             MR. HORN:  I think certainly that your latter com-

14   ment is appropriate, that if the site is dedicated solely for

15   that use, it  should have some  bearing on the overall considera

16   tion of risk.

17             With respect to transportation, certainly distance

18   becomes an  important factor,in that within relatively short

19   hauls, trucks turn out to be the most economic means of

20   transporting  waste, unless they are so close that, perhaps,

21   pipeline transport could be used.

22             So, there is certainly a relationship between dis-

23   tance and mode of transport with the degree of risk that might

24   be posed in the transport of "off-site" disposal facility.

25             MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you.

-------
                                                              279
 1             MR. TRASK:  One  further point  1  think we  ought  to

 2    clarify.  Perhaps  if  a  generator owns his  own  disposal  site

 3    in the  same  state,  then really  the  only  difference  is that

 4    he needs  a manifest in  order  to get there.  His reporting

 5    requirements are the  same  as  are listed  under  the special

 6    waste sections, reporting  and record keeping requirements.

 7             So, the  only  difference then is  the  manifest  and

 8    being subject to the  DOT requirements.   But even if you go

 9    directly  across a  public highway, you still may besubject

10    to the  DOT requirements.   That  has  nothing to  do with what

11  •  we are  doing.   I  just  wanted to make that clear to you.

12             MR. HORN:   Yes.

13             MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  I would like to ask a few ques-

14    tions.  Previously, we  heard  from the Springfield utility

15    people  that  they were already regulated  by at  least three

16    federal laws on their disposal  sites and disposal practices.

17             Are you,  in Wisconsin, similarly regulated  and

18    by whom?  Do you need a permit?

19             MR. HORN:   Yes,  we  do.  We have  been required to

20    have permits under our  Department of Natural Resources  per-

21    mitting system for quite some time.

22             MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  Do  you  do any  returning to  the

23    mine for  disposalT

24             MR. HORN:   No, most of our coal, of  course, is

25    shipped in from rather  long distances, either  from  southern

-------
                                                              230
 l   Illinois or from Montana and Wyoming.   I'm not familiar with

 2   all the cost data associated with  freight  rates in terms of

 3   hauling residual materials such as ash,  but  it's my under-

 4   standing it would be quite exhorbitant.

 5             MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  Thank  you.

 6             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.

 7             (The document referred to follows:

                             HEARING INSERT

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-------
               Statement of Merlin Horn, Ph.D.
                        on behalf of
               Wisconsin Power & Light Company,
          The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
                            and
                The Edison Electric Institute

           Public Hearing on Proposed Regulations to
            Implement Section 3002 of the Resource
            Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                       February 15, 1979
                           St. Louis
          My name is Merlin Horn.  I am Director of Environ-

mental Affairs for the Wisconsin Power & Light Company.

          I an appearing today on behalf of Wisconsin Power &

Light, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and the Edison

Electric Institute to comment on some aspects of the regulations

proposed to implement Section 3002 of RCRA.  Briefly summarized,

I will address two concerns.  First, we believe that the regula-

tions should make clear that generators of "special" utility

wastes are to be regulated in accordance with the special rules

provided in Section 250.46, rather than under proposed Subpart

B.  Second, addressing Subpart B as drafted, we believe the

proposed regulations as applied to generators of utility "wastes"

appear to create unnecessary and expensive burdens and to erect

barriers against the important objective of promoting resource

recovery.

          Before expanding on these points, I would like to

note that Wisconsin Power & Light provides electric service to

-------
some 281,000 customers in a 35-county area primarily in



southern and central Wisconsin.  Approximately 75 percent of



the company's existing generation now on-line is coal-fired.



Our company, along with four other utilities, form the



Wisconsin-Upper Michigan Systems (WUMS), serving eastern and



southern Wisconsin and a portion of Upper Michigan.  Collec-



tively, this group is planning to bring  2260 megawatts of



coal-fired generation on-line in the period 1980 through



1985.



         While some of you are familiar  with USWAG, let me



briefly describe the group for those of  you who are not.



USWAG is an informal consortium of electric utilities and the



Edison Electric Institute.  Currently, there are some 45



utility members of USWAG.  Those companies own and operate a



substantial percentage of the electric generation capacity in



the United States.  EEI is the principal national association



of investor-owned electric light and power companies.



         As a USWAG representative testified on Section 3001



at the hearing last week in New York, coal is the principal



fuel used for electric generation in the United States today.



At Wisconsin Power & Light, it is the major fuel source for



the company's base load generation and will continue to be so



in the future.  The principal wastes from electric power genera-



tion that would be regulated under RCRA are those that result



from the use of coal as a fuel to produce electricity.  Thus,

-------
RCRA, and the regulations to be promulgated under it,  will

have a substantial and direct effect on the operations and

economics of the electric utility industry generally,  and

of Wisconsin Power & Light particularly.

          We emphatically believe that the great bulk  of

utility wastes are not hazardous.  As the members of the

panel are aware, our representative at last week's hearing

described why we believe that the methodology proposed under

Section 3001 to determine whether wastes  are hazardous is

unsound and unreliable, and I will not repeat those points

today.  But, it does seem important to note that if utility

wastes are inappropriately labeled as "hazardous", approx-

imately 400 coal-fired power plants in this country will  be

subject to Section 3002 of RCRA and the regulations thereunder.

          Let me now turn to the fundamental concern we have

with regard to the applicability of EPA's proposed 3002 regu-

lations to utility wastes.  Specifically, that concern cen-

ters on the relationship between those regulations and EPA's

proposed "special waste" rules under 3004.  USWAG wholly en-

dorses the Agency's intention to place high volume utility

wastes in the "special waste" category pending completion
                         I/
of a separate rulemaking.    We are soraewhat confused, how-

ever, by an ambiguity created by Section 250.46.
I/   See proposed § 250.46-2(a), 43 Fed. Req.  59015 (Dec. 18,
     1978) and preamble thereto, id. at 58991-92.

-------
                           - 4 -


          As now drafted, the regulations appear to suggest

that only waste generators who also qualify as owners or oper-

ators of special waste treatment, storage, and disposal  faci-

lities will be regulated under the separate rules.   If so,

generators who do not own or operate TSDF sites will not be

covered by them.  A further question is raised from the  draft

regarding whether even owners or operators of TSDF  sites in

their roles as "generators" would be subject to the full pan-

oply of 3002 requirements, even though in their capacities

as owners or operators of TSDF sites they would be  regulated

under the special rules.

          We do not believe that such a result is sensible;

nor do we believe that it was intended.  We thus urge that

the language be clarified to provide that all generators of
                        I/
"special" utility wastes   be subject to the same regulatory

requirements (j..£., those contained in Section 250.46) as
                                                      I/
owners and operators of TSDF sites for special wastes.

          EPA's reasons for proposing a special waste category

certainly apply with equal force to special waste generators.

I particularly note EPA's acknowledgment, in the preamble to

the 3004 regulations, "that the potential hazards posed  by  the
2/  i-e., hazardous special waste as described in Section
    250.46.

3/  This same approach should be taken with regard to trans-
    porters of special wastes.

-------
                                       I/
[special waste[sl  are relatively low."     There  is  also no


indication, insofar as management of utility special  wastes


is concerned,  that the Subpart B procedures are  necessary to


protect human  health and the environment.  Thus, for  example,


I am not aware of any instances where shipping of unlabeled


utility special wastes has posed, or will pose,  a risk to


human health and the environment.


          Further, EPA has noted that utility wastes  are high


volume and may not pose a substantial threat to  health or the


environment.  This is the basis for placing such wastes in  a


special handling category for facility operators.  These


utilities are  closely regulated in many states,  and the number


and locations  of the waste disposal facilities  are  already  a


part of the public record.


          USWAG will file detailed written comments address-


ing this matter and other aspects of the proposed Subtitle  C


regulatory scheme.  For now, let me direct the  remainder of my


oral testimony today to three of our concerns:


          (1)   The inappropriateness, as to utility practices,


of the critical "on-site/off-site" definition contained in


the proposed regulations;


          (2)   The need to revise certain of the proposed DOT


packaging requirements as they apply to utility wastes; and





4/  Id. at 58991-92.

-------
                          - 6  -


          (3)   The need to revise the regulations  so  that

they would not preclude environmentally safe reuses of
                                  5/
utility "wastes," such as fly  ash.

          Proposed Section 250.20(c)  draws  a distinction

between generators that send their wastes to an "off-site"

facility on the one hand, and  those that send them to an "on-

site" facility, on the other.   These distinctions  are of con-

siderable practical importance since so-called "off-site"

handling would be subject to considerably more extensive

regulation.

          In our view, the regulatory distinction  between

on-site and off-site handling  is impractical for high-volume,

low-risk utility waste.  This  distinction should be based

upon the degree of risk posed  by the handling practice,  not

upon property boundary lines.   EPA's proposed definition,  how-

ever, focuses only on property boundaries;  thus, "on-site"  is

defined as "the same or geographically contiguous  property,"

or two or more pieces of property, geographically  contiguous,
5/   I would also like to mention in passing the implication
     contained in the 3002 preamble that a generator may be
     held liable in an enforcement action for the improper
     acts of transporters.  In our view, it is unfair and
     inappropriate to impose on generators of large-volume,
     low-risk utility wastes responsibility for the actions
     of independent entities over whom they have no control,
     and EPA should remove any such suggestion from its final
     rules.

-------
                                                    V
separated only by public or private  rinhts  of  way.      This

definition is wholly inappropriate as  applied  to  the electric

utility industry.  Many utilities dispose of wastes in facil-

ities located as many as several miles iron the power  plant.

If one considers the typical geographical setting of a power

plant, this is hardly surprising.  For example, many are lo-

cated on rivers or in heavily  industrialized areas, in which


demand for land is great.   The effect of this, as well an  existing

land  use restrictions, is to limit  the abilit) of the utilities  to site

their disposal facilities at the power plant.

(The economics of transporting  the huge volumes of ash, sludge

and  other byproduct materials  involved requires,  however, that

sites be reasonably close  to the power plant,  usually  within  a

few miles.)

          It is also important  to recognize that  although these

areas may not be directly  adjacent to  power plant sites, they

generally are dedicated solely  to utility use  and disposal of

utility wastes.

          Fundamentally, we believe  EPA should draw regulatory

distinctions on the basis  of risks posed.   Indeed, the Agency

has  already recognized  the validity  of this approach  in the

proposed 100 Kg exemption.  That exemption  is  premised on this
                                 y
type of risk perception analysis.     If the Agency believes
6/   § 250.21(b)(18).


7/   3002 Background  Documents,  BD-8,  at pp.  21,  27.

-------
                          - 8  -






 itself  obligated  to  retain some  "on-site/off-site" distinc-




 tion, the  term  "on-site"  should  at  least be defined to  include




 handling at  reasonably proximate facilities, where the  waste



 transport  and disposal practices utilized pose no substantial




 risk of adverse environmental  effect.



           I  would  now like to  comment briefly upon certain



 requirements contained in the  proposed packaging rules.  EPA




 would require all  generators sending hazardous wastes off-




 site to ship the  wastes  in accordance with Department of




 Transportation  packaging  requirements.  DOT, in a pending




 rulemaking,  has proposed  that  shipment of RCRA hazardous




 wastes  in  open-top vehicles such as dump trucks be prohib-




 ited.   DOT also has  requested  comments as to whether trans-




 port of RCRA hazardous wastes  in tarp-covered, open-top vehi-



 cles should  be  allowed.




           DOT's proposed  prohibition does not appear necessary



 to  protect the  environment from  dispersion of transported util-




 ity special  wastes.  Moreover, its  impact on the electric util-



 ity industry would be significant.   Many utilities use dump



 trucks  to  haul  ash and scrubber  sludge, particularly when these



 materials  are to  be  reused as  fill  material.  Ash is wetted




 down and,  due to  its chemical  properties, forms a crust. Thus,



 loose ash  does  not escape.  Scrubber sludge is also fixed in



 a solid state to  prevent  dispersion in transit.




           Clearly, if open hauling  is flatly prohibited, over-




•all waste  management costs will  substantially increase.  Reuse

-------
                          - 9 -



of utility special wastes will be especially hampered,  because


many of these reuses are already economically marginal.


          As I indicated, less costly alternative measures ex-


ist to prevent uncontrolled dispersion of utility special  wastes


when transported.  We believe, therefore, that EPA should  urge


DOT to retain its present packaging requirement:  namely "that


under conditions normally incident to transportation,  there


will be no significant release of the hazardous materials  to

                 !/
the environment."    USWAG will urge such an approach  in its


comments to DOT'S proposal.


          Finally, I would like to speak to the negative im-


pact the proposed generator rules will have on resource re-


covery and reuse of utility "special wastes".


          A number of points are beyond dispute.   First, a


fundamental objective of RCRA is promotion of resource reuse


and recovery.  Second, most present reuse and recovery prac-


tices involving utility materials — such as use  of fly ash


as a road base and concrete additive — are economically

                               UL
marginal and could be discontined if an additional layer


of regulatory cost is imposed.  EPA's background  document


to the 3002 regulations correctly recognizes that "resource


recovery facilties are often marginally profitable, and too


stringent permitting, recordkeeping, reporting, manifest.
8/   49 C.F.R. 173.24(a)(1).

-------
                          - 10 -


etc. requirements could put a marginally profitable facility

out of business, and would violate Congressional intent
                              V
to promote resource recovery."

          As I stated, we do not believe large volume utility

wastes may properly be classified as hazardous wastes.  We

also do not believe that Congress intended to regulate under

Subtitle C environmentally safe reuses of utility "wastes."

Indeed, we note that several Federal agencies, such as the

Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Bureau of Mines,

have encouraged a number of important uses of utility "wastes"

in construction, and reclamation, and testified to Congress
              f*
about these uses when RCRA was under consideration.

          Nevertheless, EPA's proposed 3002 regulations

well as its other proposed rules) indiscriminantly reg

reuse and resource recovery, without regard for whethe     illa-

tion in fact is needed to protect health and the envir   .ent.

Thus, all "hazardous waste" must be transported to a permitted

facility, and the generator, transporter, and facility owner/

operator must comply with all of the requirements of Sections

3002, 3003, and 3004.  This conceivably could require a con-

struction firm, responding to the Federal Highway Administra-

tion's policy of encouraging use of fly ash, to obtain a RCRA

permit.  Obviously, most reuses cannot continue if this sub-

stantial additional layer of cost and administrative burden

is imposed.
9/   BD-8, p. 17.

-------
                          - 11 -





          EPA addressed these problems far more rationally in



its 3002 background document than in the regulations themselves.



There, EPA concluded that the 3002 regulations should encourage



resource recovery either by avoiding regulation of wastes sent



to resource recovery facilities, or by exempting from most of



the Subtitle C regulations, resource recovery facilities and



generators whose products are reused.   Generally speaking, we



believe these alternatives fit the spirit of RCRA's resource



recovery objectives and urge that EPA reconsider its approach



in this area.



          We also ask EPA to reconsider a specific feature of



the proposed 3002 rules which would needlessly impede resource



recovery,  As proposed, every generator must comply with Sub-



parts B through E if its wastes remain on-site for 90 days or



longer.  Utilities, however, must frequently allow materials



to accumulate for longer than 90 days before sufficient quan-



tities are collected for reuse, either for reasons of econ-



omy, weather or availability of transportation.  For instance,



the barging season in the upper Mississippi is suspended from



November to March.  Under EPA's approach, the materials accumu-



lated in that period could fall into the costly maze of the



regulations, and reuse would be severely restricted.  EPA thus



should ce. Lainly recast this aspect of its rules to allow



accumulation of utility "wastes" for longer than 90 days without



automatically triggering Subtitle C regulation.

-------
                          - 12 -





          In sum, for the reasons expressed above,  my company,



USWAG and EEI believe that the regulations proposed to implement



Section 3002 would impose needless costs on the utility industry



and would eliminate many present and future reuses  of utility



"wastes."  There appear to be less costly and environmentally



acceptable alternatives, and we urge EPA to adopt them in its



final regulations.

-------
                                                             281
 l             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  The next speaker this morning

 2   is Mr. Howard Chin, Environmental Control Division, the

 3   Attorney General's Office.

 4             (No response.)

 5             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Mr. Chin hasn't answered.  Is

 6   Robert Robinson here from the Missouri Solid Waste Management

 7   Program?

 8             MR. ROBINSON:  My name is Robert M. Robinson.  I

 9   am Director of the Solid Waste Management Program for the

10   Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

11                    STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. ROBINSON

12             MR. ROBINSON:  The Department has several comments

13   and will, at a later date, submit more detailed written com-

14   ments.

15             Section 2S0.21-B-4 defines several documents which

16   may be used in lieu of the original manifesto  We recommend

17   the EPA require the original manifest be used except where

18   physically impossible, as is in the case of railroads.

19             We are concerned that allowing the use of other docu

20   ments will be confusing and impair the effectiveness of the

21   cradle to the grave management system.

22             Second comment, the exemptions provided for genera-

23   tors producing less than 100 kilograms per month, and for

24   retailers provided in Section 250.29-A, are, in our opinion,

25   too broad.

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                        282
          These regulations do not consider the degree of
potential hazard and, apparently, provide an unlimited quan-
tity exemption for retailers.
          Under this situation, wholesalers or industry could
maintain a retail outlet and let this branch of the company
dispose of all of their off-spec product, which might be haz-
ardous .
          We recommend that EPA provide both a quantity and
quality exemption for small quantities of hazardous wastes.
Retailers should only be exempted under the 100 kilogram pro-
vision in the regulations.   Thank you.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Are there any questions?
          MR. TRASK:  Mr. Robinson, you mentioned that we
should deal with quality as well as quantity of hazardous
waste and I believe you mentioned degree of hazard as a divid-
ing line.
          Do you have some ideas along that line, what would
we use as a basis for determining degree of hazard?
          MR. ROBINSON:  Certainly, it would only be with the
very toxic, very hazardous material, such as dioxin and some
of your pesticides and things like that.
          It concerns me that we get all this concerned about
containers, pesticide containers for instance, and yet—and
thatrs not a good example, I guess, because pesticides, I sup-
pose, are controlled.  But we get concerned about some things

-------
 9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                        283
like that with a very small amount of hazardous waste and,
yet, we may let 100 pounds of very toxic material be disposed
of.
          So, I think, as I understood it when we started out
developing these regulations some time ago, there was going
to be, hopefully, a small list of very toxic wastes that
would be excluded from that 100 kilogram exemption.
          MR. TRASK:  I am sure you noted in the preamble
that we mentioned we were discussing five other options in
this particular area, one of which would look at the degree
of hazard.
          What we need a great deal of  1» data  to »how which
wastes should be included in that and the backup material as
to why they should be included.
          One of the problems that we hear in the industry
is that we may be looking not at the long term problems of
materials like dioxin, but we may be looking at the short tern
the handling problems.  We are interested to know where do we
draw this line that we deal with in determining whether the
wastes should be in the small category or in the larger cate-
gory.
          Because, as I am sure you are  aware, the less than
100 kilogram quantity cannot be dumped.  It must go to the
so-called 4004-type facility.  So,  it isn't completely out  of
the RCRA system.  It's merely out of the Subtitle C record

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                          284
system.
          MR. ROBINSON:  I understand that, yes.  But, I would
still be concerned about some of those types of wastes and
handling problems and exposure then at the landfill.
          MR. TRASK:  We would like to receive whatever data
you have in this area.
          MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Robinson, getting back to your poini
about retailers exemptions, setting aside for the moment your
point about the possibility of wholesalers setting up some
sham operations to avoid that, do you have any information
that would lead you to believe that wastes from retailers
present a significant environmental or public health problem?
          MR. ROBINSON:  I don't have any specific informa-
tion to that regard, but it concerns me that we've let this
great big loophole which can be used.
          I agree with the 100 kilogram, by and large, except
for the very toxic materials.  But, why don't retailers have
to also comply with that provision?  1 am also in favor of
exempting the farmers and things like that, but I don't see
the retailers who, of course, retail hazardous materials all
the time and for some reason they may have broken quantities
or contaminated quantities of that, that they can't sell and
they are going to have to get rid of.
          I think that ought to come under the system, because
you have no quantity.  They could have 100 tons of it, as I

-------
                                                              285
 l   understand it.

 2             MR. TRASK:  Is your concern then with certain kinds

 3   of retailers—what we had in mind was retailers such as a

 4   hardware store, for example, where it might be very difficult

 5   for them to separate a small quantity of hazardous waste.

 6             MR. ROBINSON:  I think they would, by and large,

 7   fall under kilograms per month, but if they don't, I think

 8   they ought to come under the system.  I think very few of

 9   them would be coining under the system of over 100 kilograms.

10             But, you leave wide open the opportunity for abuse

11   there.

12             MS. SCHAFFER:  Mr. Robinson, I have a point of

13   clarification.  First of all, for the retailer, if they do

14   have more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste, they still

15   have to comply with the D.O.T. transportation requirements

16   and also take that to a 4004 facility.  So, the waste is,

17   again, not outside of a controlled system.

18             So, there is still a degree of control for it.

19   But, secondly, I think one way to get around your problem

20   of the sham operation for retailers, for a retail facility

21   connected to a wholesaler, is the definition that we pro-

22   vided for a retailer, and I quote, means, "A person engaged

23   solely in the business of selling directly to the consumer."

24             I think that, at least from an enforcement point

25   of view, I would not consider a person who has a retail opera-

-------
                                                             286
    tion connected to a wholesale operation solely in the business
    of selling directly to the consumer.
              MR. ROBINSON:  It might cost you $20,000 in investi-
    gating of records to determine whether that would be true or
    not.
 6             The other thing is, you talk about the D.O.T.  When
 7   you are talking about your short hauls to the Subtitle D
    site, you might as well forget about trying to impose D.O.T.
 9   regulations.  There are not enough policemen around to do
10   that.
11             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I understand your concern
12   about retailers, but you don't appear to have the same con-
13   cern about performance.  You don't think this might cause a
14   great resurgence  in farming activity?
15             MR. ROBINSON:  I don't think farmers are going to
16   start taking hazardous waste and disposing of it.  I think
17   primarily there we are dealing with some few pesticide con-
18   tainers and things like that.
19             They have the property and usually dispose of it on
20   their own ground very many times.  If they think it's bad,
21   they are not going to dispose of it there, they are going to
22   take it somewhere where it can be disposed of properly.
23             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.
24             Mr. Terry Freeze from Mississippi Chemical Corpora-
25   tion.

-------
                                                               287



 1             MR. FREEZE:   I am Terry Freeze  from Mississippi




 2   Chemical Corporation  in Yazoo City, Mississippi.




 3                  STATEMENT OF TERRY FREEZE




 4             MR. FREEZE:   Mississippi Chemical Corporation  is a




 5   fertilizer cooperative, composed of more  than 25,000  farmer-




 6   owners  in the southeastern part of the United States.




 7             Mississippi Chemical operates a fertilizer  complex




 8   at Fascagoula, Mississippi and this facility has  a  by-product;




 9   gypsum, as a result of  its phosphoric acid manufacturing




10   plant.  We are also currently in the process of developing a




11   phosphate rock mine in  central Florida.




12             At this  time  we would like to address briefly  por-




13   tions of the proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines  and  Regula-



14   tions.




15             in the time allocated, we cannot fully  address



16   each issue that concerns us.  Detailed comments and objections



17   will be submitted  for inclusion in the official record after



18   our consultants and researchers have completed an in  depth



19   study of all the issues raised, before the March  16th dead-




20   line.




21             Land farming  as defined in the  proposal would  in-




22   elude the use of our  by-product, gypsum,  as a soil  supplement.




23   Gypsum  is widely and  commonly used as a soil supplement, for




24   instance, in the peanut crop production.   It is also  used  on




25   other crop growing soils which need sulphur and calcium  re-

-------
6




7




8




9





10




11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                          288



quirements.  Gypsum Is used on high alkaline soils in some



arid climates.



          To obtain these elemental supplements through other



means would increase the farmers1 cost for crop production



and would ultimately increase the consumers cost for goods



purchased.



          This definition is contrary to the spirit of the



Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.



          Treating agricultural gypsum application as a means



of disposal of a hazardous waste, as required by the proposed



definition of land farming, would hamper, impair and prohibit



the use of gypsum for such soil supplements.



          We object to gypsum and phosphate mining tailing,



overburdens and slimes being subjected to this proposed hazard



ous waste regulation.  These high-volume, low-hazard wastes



should not be regulated in the same manner as highly toxic



low-volume hazardous wastes.



          The broad, all-inclusive grouping of these two types



of waste is not cost effective and is not in keeping with the



goals of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.



          One of these goals is to, "To conserve natural re-



sources directly and through the management, reuse, or re-



covery of solid wastes."  The standards setting forth the



radioactive criteria have not been made final.  We object to



the listing of gypsum and phosphate mining overburden, tail-

-------
 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         289
ings and slimes as radioactive, hazardous waste in the absence
of established criteria.  Tailings and clays from the mining
operation placed back in mined sites are part of reclamation
constituting overburden and should not be regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
          The waste management techniques currently in use
in the phosphate mining and by-product gypsum disposal are
cost effective and are the best management techniques reason-
ably required.  The proposed security requirements are un-
reasonable and unnecessary.
          Daily inspections of all facilities with written
records, fencing, guard service, are unneeded, unreasonable
and not cost effective.  These security requirements listed
above are unrelated to the harm that Congress intended to
cure.
          Site selections and land use are determined through
the necessary environmental impact statements required already
and the state and local regulations and building codes dictate
land use.  Land use should strictly be a local concern.  Addi-
tional Federal regulations in these areas are unneeded, un-
warranted, unreasonable and are counter-productive.
          The proposed requirement that a new gypsum or phos-
phate mining overburden, slimes and tailings storage facility
be prohibited on a 500-year flood plan is an unreasonable
requirement with no well-founded basis and unrelated to the

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                         290



harm Congress intended to cure.  These high-volume, low-haz-




ard processes must be located near the natural resource and/




or near water transportation to be cost effective.  Good engi-




neering practices for containment and flood security are



appropriate requirements for the location of phosphate mining




overburdens, tailings and slimes, and gypsum storage piles.




          It is more appropriate to require that these faci-




lities be engineered to withstand a 100-year flood.  A 100-




year flood is subject to definition from actual records.




          In the groundwater and IMchate monitoring section,




the proposal states that monthly analyses be determined to




develop background data.  We object to the monthly analyses




as being burdensome and unnecessary to develop substantial




background groundwater data.




          The EPA background document concerning special waste:




states that quarterly monitoring is sufficient and that more




frequent monitoring would not be required.  We agree that back-




ground fj?oundwater data can be developed based on quarterly



monitoring as previously recommended by EPA.




          In addition, rather than requiring analyses for mini-



mum and comprehensive analyses, the requirement should include



only those analyses for substances which could reasonably be



found in the waste and only those which would constitute or




help define a hazard.




          We feel that the powers assumed by the Regional Ad-

-------
 3




 4





 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                         291



mlnistrator in this section, to require discontinuation of




operation of a facility until the Regional Administrator




determines what actions are to be taken, in the event of




groundwater contamination or the potential for groundwater




contamination, is unwarranted and is not provided for in the




Act.




          We do not feel it is reasonable to establish regu-




lations for all hazardous wastes in one regulation.  The pro-




posed regulations are far too broad in that they try to cover




high-volume, low-hazard waste and low-volume, high-hazard




waste in one regulation.




          Thank you.




          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.  Would you answer




questions?



          MR. FREEZE:  I would definitely try.



          MR. LINDSEY:  I think you are aware, your last




point was that we are trying to cover both high-volume and



low-hazard and low-volume and high-hazard wastes together in




one set of regulations.




          I guess I should point out the reason why we have




the special waste regulation is because of that point.  Those



special wastes are high-hazard--high-volume and low-hazard,




as far as we know.  But the main reason they are listed here




as special wastes with limited requirements is that we don't




really know much about them at this point.

-------
                                                             292
 1              But our intention was to treat them differently
 2    and not the same.  I think I should point that out.
 3              Secondly, let me ask you a couple of questions, if
 4    I might.   I think you mentioned, you started out by talking
 5    about the use of agricultural gypsum on peanuts and what all.
 6              This agricultural gypsum that's used there, is that
 1    a by-product from the phosphate mining operations?
 8              MR. FREEZE:  In some respects, yes.
 9              MR. LINDSEY:  The same materials, not mined gypsum
10    as a separate entity.  O.K., I didn't know that.
11              I think you indicated also that at least some of
12    the things that are listed in here under 250.463, which is
13    the special waste category, phosphate, rock mining, are not
14    hazardous.  That is they are not radioactive.  Did I under-
15    stand that correctlyT
16              MR. FREEZE:  No, you don't understand that correct-
17    ly.
18              MR. LINDSEY:  Then let me ask you this.  Did you
19    not make some statement with regard to the fact that certain
20    of these wastes that are listed should not be considered in
21    the same category as other wastesT  Maybe  I misunderstood
22    the whole thing.
23              MR. FREEZE:  I think the point we are trying to
24    make is possibly some additionaldegrees of hazard.  Even
25    though we recognize and appreciate the fact for the existence

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6
 7

 8
 9

10

11

12
13
14

15
16
17
18

 19

20

21
22
23

24

25
                                                           293
of the special waste category.
          MR. LINOSEY:  But all these  things  that are listed
are radioactive to some extent, right?
          MR. FREEZE:  Right.
          CHAIRPERSON DAKRAH:  There are no more questions.
Thank you.
          (The document referred  to follows:)
                      HEARING INSERT

-------
         ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMENTS
                    FOR
         PROPOSED RULES 40 CFR 250
HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
     AS PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER
         MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1978
       SUBMITTED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      AT BRECKENRIDGE PAVILION HOTEL
                1 BROADWAY
        ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI  63102
        FEBRUARY 14. 15. 16. 1979
     MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION
               P.  0.  BOX 388
     YAZOO CITY, MISSISSIPPI   39194

-------
       Mississippi Chemical Corporation is a fertilizer cooperative
composed of more than 25,000 farmer/owners in the Southeastern part
of the United States.
       Mississippi Chemical operates a fertilizer complex located at
Pascagoula, Mississippi.  This facility has by-product gypsum as a
result of its phosphoric acid manufacturing plant.  We are currently
in the process of developing a phosphate rock mine in central Florida.
       At this time we would like to address briefly portions of the
proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations,  40 CFR 250, as
published in Part IV, Federal Register, December 18,  1978.  In the
time allocated we cannot fully address each issue that concerns us.
Detailed comments and objections will be submitted for inclusion in
the official record after our consultants and experts have completed
an indepth study of all the issues raised.

EXTENT OF PERMISSIBLE REGULATION UNDER RCRA
       The EPA has misinterpreted the RCRA and has gone further than
the act intends by including phosphate mining wastes and gypsum as
hazardous materials.  Their inclusion is unreasonable and unrelated to
the harm congress intended to cure.  It is not supported by the evidence
therefore it is arbitrary.
DEFINITIONS
       Land farming as defined in Che proposal would include the use
of gypsum as a soil supplement.   Gypsum is widely and commonly used as
a soil supplement for peanut crop production.  It is also used on some
other crop growing soils which need sulfur and calcium supplements.
Gypsum is also widely used on high alkaline soils in arid climates.
To obtain these elemental supplements through other means would increase
the farmers' cost for crop production and would ultimately increase the
consumers' cost for goods purchased.  This definition is contrary to the
spirit of the RCRA, is unreasonable and has no valid basis.  Treating
agricultural gypsum application as a means of disposal of a hazardous
waste as required by the proposed definition of land farming would
hamper, impair, and prohibit the use of gypsum for soil supplements.

-------
Page 2

IDENTIFICATION AND 6 %F GYPSUM AND PHOSPHATE
       We object Co gypsum and phosphate mining tailing, overburden,
and slime being subjected to this proposed hazardous waste regulation.
These high volume, low hazard wastes should not be regulated in the
same manner as highly toxic, low volume hazardous wastes.  The broad
all inclusive grouping of high volume, low hazard waste and low volume,
high hazard waste is unreasonable with no valid basis and is not cost
effective and is not in keeping with the goals of the RCRA.  One pf
these goals is to quote, "to conserve natural resources directly and
through the management, reuse, or recovery of solid wastes.
       The standards setting forth the radioactive criteria have not
been made final.  We object to the listing of gypsum and phosphate
mining overburden, tailings, and slimes as radioactive hazardous
wastes in the absence of established criteria.  Tailings and clays
placed back in mined sites are part of reclamation constituting over-
burden and cannot be regulated under RCRA.  Listing gypsum and phosphate
mining overburden, tailings, and slimes as proposed radioactive haz-
ardous wastes is not based on sufficient and reasonable evidence.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
       The phosphate mining and by-product gypsum from phosphoric acid
production, waste management techniques currently in use are cost
effective and are the best techniques reasonably required.  The proposed
security requirements are unreasonable and unnecessary.  Daily inspec-
tions of all facilities with written records, fencing, and guard service
are unneeded, unreasonable, and not cost effective.  These security
requirements listed above are unrelated to the harm that congress
intended to cure.  These requirements are not supported by the evidence
and, therefore,  are arbitrary.
SITE SELECTION AHD LAND USE
       Site selections and land use are determined through the necessary
environmental impact statements required, and the state and local regu-
lations and building codes dictate land use already.   Land use should
be strictly a local concern.  Additional federal regulations in these
areas are unneeded, unwarranted,  unreasonable, and are counter productive.

-------
       The proposed requirement that a new gypsum or phosphate mining
overburden, slimes and tailings storage facility be prohibited on a
500-year flood plan is an unreasonable requirement with no well-founded
basis and unrelated to the harm congress intended to cure.  These high
volume, low hazard processes must be located near the natural resource
location and/or near water transportation to be cost effective.  Good
engineering practices for containment and flood security are appropriate
requirements for the location of phosphate mining overburdens, tailings,
and slimes, and gypsum storage piles.
       It is more appropriate to require that these facilities be
engineered to withstand a 100-year flood.  A 100-year flood is subject
to definition from actual records.
       In Section 250.43-8(c) Groundwater and Lechate Monitoring, the
proposal states that monthly analyses be determined.  We object to Che
monthly analyses as being burdensome and unnecessary to develop back-
ground groundwater data.   The EPA background document concerning special
wastes states that quarterly monitoring is sufficient and that more
frequent monitoring will not be required.  We agree that background
groundwater data can be developed based on quarterly monitoring as
previously recommended by EPA.
       In addition, rather than requiring analyses for minimum and
comprehensive analyses, the requirement should include only those
analyses for substances which could reasonably be found in the waste
and only those which would constitute or help define a hazard.  We
believe that monitoring for groundwater effects of phosphate rock
mining overburden, slimes and tailings is impractical and unnecessary.
We feel that the powers assumed by the Regional Administrator in this
section to require discontinuation of the operation of a facility
until the Regional Administrator determines what actions are to be
taken in the event of groundwater contamination or the potential for
groundwater contamination is unwarranted and is not provided for in
tha act.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA
       We seriously question the criteria that were selected for listing
a waste as hazardous.   We do not feel that the criteria is supported by
the evidence used for their establishment.  We do not feel that it is
reasonable to establish regulations for all hazardous wastes in one

-------
 regulation.  The proposed regulations are far too broad in that they
 try to cover high volume, low hazard wastes and low volume, high hazard
 wastes in one regulation.
       Respectfully submitted by Terry Freeze, Environmental Consultant,
Mississippi Chemical Corporation, Yazoo City, Mississippi.

-------
                                                              294
 1             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  The next witness this morning
 2   is Kenneth Smelcer of the Industrial Association of Quincy.
 3             MR. SMELCER:  I am Kenneth Smelcer of the Indus-
 4   trial Association of Quincy, Quincy, Illinois.
 5                  STATEMENT OF KENNETH SMELCER
 6             MR, SMELCER:  I have just some short comments,
 7   fairly non-technical, trying to relate to some of the problems
 8   again that we are having with regulations.
 '             To read to you from the statement we gave you yes-
10   terday, the Agency requested comments on the requirements
11   for generators of small amounts of hazardous wastes, parti-
12   cularly on whether the 100-kilogram a Month exemption should be
13   lower or raised.
14             We believe this limit depends on many factors not
15   addressed, such as degree of hazardousness of the waste and
16   the capability of the individual landfills to safely handle
17   the proposed waste, which was a point I made yesterday about
18   the landfill.
19             We believe the supplemental permit system similar
20   to that operated by the state of Illinois could effectively
21   allow disposal of most of the waste that would be classified
22   as hazardous under the proposed guidelines of all operated
23   Subtitle D landfills.
24             Those companies generating relatively small amounts
25   of hazardous waste should not be burdened with unnecessary

-------
                                                             295
 1   paperwork.  The exemption should be raised to about 1,000
 2   kilograms a month or more for the less hazardous waste
 3   delivered to accepted Subtitle D landfills, or more for the
 4   less hazardous,
 5             Again, this is to try to get away from the small
 6   manufacturer, the medium-sized guy, who is going to have con-
    siderable problems relating to these regulations.
 8             For example, we have about 50 members and of those
 9   50 members, I think we have four people who, as a part of
10   their job, it is environmental, and this specific thing.  The
    rest of these companies don't have anyone and someone is going
12   to have to try the best they can, in addition to purchasing
13   and you name it, to try to understand these things and go alon
    with them for actually small amounts of waste that are going
15   to be put to the landfill  or try to find someplace to take
16   them.
              We recognize that you did ask, I guess, for com-
18   ments on your five lists here.  Number three, on the condi-
19   tion exemption of different quantities, depending on the de-
20   gree of hazard, we think this is addressing the problem.
21             Number five, lesser administrative requirements and
22   so forth, where you are not requiring the record keeping and
23   so on, with the manifest, that makes sense to us.
24             Number six, phasing the regulatory coverage of
25   small quantities overtime makes sense to us again, because

-------
                                                             296
 1   one of the things we see as a problem, if we are going to have
 2   exactly six months from the time the final regs come out, we
 3   are going to have problems in many of our cases trying to
 4   make arrangements.
 5             If we are going to have to dispose of these things
 6   and we've got borderline cases right now, we don't have the
 7   faintest idea.  For example, one of the questions somebody
 8   asked me, in the state of Illinois there are 30 or 40 land-
 9   fill sites.  How many of those, when we are through, are
10   still going to be able to take the materials we are talking
11   about?   As of now we know of only one that's still open in
12   Illinois for hazardous.  The others are still there, but I
13   guess they would be the Class C, or the type of landfill we
U   have.  Of course, we are not anxious to have other people
15   from Chicago coming down to ours either.
16             But that is going to be a problem.  Where are we
17   going to take this thing?  Without our experts, we are going
18   to be bringing up the tail on this thing and trying to live
19   by the regulations.
20             So, we are saying that if you could consider a time
21   delay on some of this stuff and not making it effective as
22   quickly; time your implementations whenever the regulations
23   come out, that could be helpful to some of the medium and
24   small companies.  We just aren't going to be able to gear up
25   in time.

-------
                                                             297
              We  are  going to have  a severe  impact with  some of
     the  things, again talking about the  100  kilogram limits  on
     the  medium and  small.
              For example,  even with the things  that are not
     going  to  fall away,  even if you helped us with the reclassi-
 6    fication  of the exemptions, we  are not going to  generate
 1    enough to have  a  hauler who is  going to  be interested  at all
     in hauling this thing  to California  or wherever.  It's going
 9    to be  a problem.
10             The last time we  had  a meeting of  our  people that
11    would  be  affected by this, we were coming up with something
12    like 12 or 15 barrels  between all of them, that  they thought
13    might  fall into a hazardous category, outside of the paint
14    sludges,  this sort of  thing.
IS             That's  not a  lot  and  we are going  to have  difficulty
16    trying to get this thing together, as to where we are  going
17    to put this and how  we  are  going to  get  it there.
18             So, if  these  lower limits  can  be raised somewhat,
19    I think it's  going to help  a lot of  our  people.   And,  as a
20    matter of fact, this is a side  aspect, some  of these things
21    are  scaring our people. We are a municipally owned  and  opera-
il    ted  landfill, so  they have  the  public right  there and  they
23    are  very  concerned with some of these.
24             One of  the other  things I  wanted to mention  was that
25    in my  understanding  from yesterday,  if you have  a company, if

-------
                                                              298
 1    they exceed the  100 kilograms  in all  phases,  under it,  that
 2    it could be one  kind,  five  different  kinds, but  if it all
 3    turns out to be  100 kilograms  together, we  feel  that maybe
 4    that would be helpful  if you did not  do it  that  way.
 5              We are still talking about  a small  amount for that:
 6    company  to dispose of.   We  are saying instead of,  maybe,  mak.-
 7    ing paperwork, the reason for  not covering  it, maybe economics
 8    the reason for not covering it,  it's  just not economical  to
 '    try to handle these small amounts.
10              Again,  1 do  think we would  realize, of course,  that
11    when you get into the  very  toxic types of things,  you are
12    going to have to cut that off.  But some of the  less areas,
13    we are not going to have that  problem.
14              That,  I believe,  would take care  of our  comments.
15    We are worried about the economic impact and  how we are going
16    to handle some of these  things that are going to happen be-
17    cause of regulations,  because  of where we're  at, and the  size
18    of our companies. I don't  like  to see the  guys  sending it
19    home with a guy  in a pickup truck to  dump in  his gully.  I
20    know that's what's happening with some of the small companies
21    all over the country.  They are  not going to  bother'with At.
22    They don't want  it, they will  ignore  it and we shouldn't  be
23    doing that.
24              Storage, of  course,  is going to be  a problem, too,
25    if we have complete regulations  that  are going to  be very

-------
                                                             299
 l   tough to meet.  On the storage, why, that again is going to
 2   be expense.  We're worried of the Catch 22*8.  This is going
 3   to cost you $20,000, this one will cost you $30,000 and there
 4   is no in between when they don't have either one.
 5             MR. TRASK:  As we indicated in the preamble to 3002,
 6   we do not have a great deal of data in this area of the so-
 7   called small generators.
 8             You indicated you had talked with your generators
 9   in your city and had gotten from them some indication of
10   quantities that they generate?
11             MR. SMELCER:  Yes, when we got away from the paint
12   sludge thing that we talked about yesterday, which is a volume
13   problem, then we got into the other things that they are pret-
14   ty sure fall into that, such as pre-treatment sludge.  That's
15   another box we got into.  We built the treatment plant.  The
16   people built a new plant and they pre-treated their stuff.
17             Now they've got the sludge to worry about and we
18   are pretty sure this is not going to fall out.  These things,
19   these barrels of stuff, they are not a lot, but they are about
20   12 or 15 a month, between all of them.
21             MR. TRASK:  Is it possible to relate these quanti-
22   ties of waste to the approximate size of the business, in
23   terms of sales or number of employees or something on that
24   order?  Would you say the quality of the data you have would
25   be that good?
              MR, SMELCER:  I would think of the range, because

-------
                                                              300
    the one I'm talking about with the—whose real problem is
    the pre-treatment sludge that's left, nickel and so on, they
 3   could dump it down the sewer.  They would have to pay for it,
 4   but they could dump it down the sewer, which is one of the
    options we are really going to be left with and we really
 6   don't think that's where it should go.
 7             That's a fairly large company and that's really
    their only problem, this pre-treatment sludge.  They really
    don't even have the painting problem.
l°             But, yet, we've got another small guy, just as an
11   example, who has galvanized chicken feeder type equipment
12   and he isn't generating that much, but I could see some of
13   our companies where they might have some pretty toxic stuff
'4   that we wouldn't want in our landfill, to put it bluntly,
15   from the public side.
16             So, I don't think we could relate it to that very
17   successfully.
18             MR, TRASK:  I think we might want to contact you
19   later and see what sort of data you do have, because we are
20   desperately in need of data which describes this whole area
21   of so-called small generators.
22             Another indication, you said the small quantities
23   you had would not present any kind of a problem.  Do you have
24   any information on what kind of co-disposal ratio, that is
25   the amount of waste, who has this waste, would present a prob-

-------
                                                            301
 1    lemf
 2             MR. SMELCER:  No,  I  don't know what we  are  talking
 3    about  in  that area.  Again,  we've been  fighting with  the
 4    state  of  Illinois  to get  into  the landfill  right  now  with
 5    some of our things that have been backlogged, but we  had
 6    three  different methods of handling it,  putting it  all  into
 7    one trench,  or scattering it.
 8             We finally ended up,  they take so many  barrels a
 9    day and they put one here and  they put  one  there  and  they are
10    away from each other and  they  are buried.   It's not that
11    amount that they can't successfully just handle it  011 a daily
12    basis  by  separating it away.
13             But the  figures you  are asking for, no, I really
14    don't. I forget,  we did  have  a comment here on how much
15    solid  waste we do  have going in and we  did  have an  error.
'6    We've  got—let's see.  I'm looking for  my comment here  on it,
17    the numbers of how much we generate.
18             We've got 200,000  gallons per year of industrial
19    sludges.  That's wrong.   My  secretary put the wrong number
20    down.  It's closer to 150,000  or 100,000.   But the  other,
21    200,000 cubic yards, is from our landfill people.
22             MR. TRASK:  So  you have about 150,000 gallons of
23    industrial--
24             MR. SMELCER:  That's  our paint sludges, the whole
25    works, anything that's not solid like a rock, I guess you

-------
                                                              302
 1   might say.

 2             MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Smelcer, in your remarks you men-
 3
    tioned that you liked or you suggested Option No. 3, where
    you would take into account the degree of hazard, in effect,

    in the exemption.  You are saying we should raise the exem--

 6  ption level to 1,000 kilograms or more, to paraphrase your

 7  remarks, for less hazardous waste.

 8            Would you care to comment, knowing the kinds of

 9  waste that are generated in your Association, as to what

10  types of waste would be less hazardous and which types of

11  waste would be more hazardous?  You mentioned there were some

12  you felt might not be appropriate for a municipal landfill,

13            MR. SMELCER:  We were basically talking again of

14  our paint sludges for a lot of our smaller companies and they

15  are stuck with this right now.  It's a big problem for us,

16  because, like I say, the backs of every plant are filled with

17  barrels,because they can't get it out,,

18            Aftr a year, it starts to get to be a problem.  That

19  is basically what we are talking about.   It's some of these

20  things.

21            We do realize the color has got something to do with

22  it and some people might to have to make some changes if they

23  are going to avoid that problem.  I don't know the color dif-

24  ferences, but I know some of them cause a lot more problems

25  than others.  But, that's basically what we're talking about.

-------
                                                              303
 l              Some  of the  other wastes are—most  of  the  other
 2   wastes we  have  are not going  to be that hazardous  and  if  they
 3   are,  they  will  be taken care  of.
 4              For example,  when we first  started  our discussions,
 5   cutting  oils and  solvents and so on used  in the  machine in-
 6   dustry,  we've got a problem.  Well, when  we got  to talking
 7   about it,  we don't have a problem.  It's  just a  matter of
 8   them  wanting to send it down  here to  St.  Louis and getting
 9   it recycled or  not.  We don't think that's an excuse,  as
10   long  as  there is  a place to go with it.   That's  a  different
11   story.
12              We still have some  things like, and I  don't  under-
13   stand what their  problem is,  but they claim it's still there,
14   metal shavings  and oil  type of things.  They  say they  can't
15   separate it out enough  that we could  get  it into the landfill.
16   We've got  some  problems that  way0
17              We're really  after, in our  case, our economic hard-
18   ships are  going to come from  those marginal areas  that you've
19   been  hearing about the  last two days.  There  is  where  the real
20   cost  factor is  going to come  in.
21              We know because of  where we're  at,  we  are  going to
22   have  trouble with the very hazardous  type things that  will
23   get generated from some plants, but a lot of  these are going
24   to come  from labs.  It's just not going to be that amount
25   and a lot  of these people already have made arrangements  or

-------
                                                             304
 1   are  sending  it away now, because  they don't want  to put  it  in
 2   our  landfill, even if  they could.  They never  did before and
 3   they-aren't  going to now.
 4             But we see a lot of  this coming  from the various
 5   labs,  from feed companies and  this sort of thing, where  we
 6   would have some mining or milling operations you  might call
 7   it,  minerals, that sort.
 8"            MR. TRASK:   You mentioned about  phasing of  the
 9   regulations.,  I think  in the options we listed, we are con-
10   sidering, our thoughts on phasing were that we would  start
11   with the largest generators and take those.
12             I  think the  example  we  used was  something like 10,
13   000  tons a month that would come  into the  system  first and
'4   then over a period of  a few years, we would gradually work
15   down to some level if, indeed, that's what we  end up  with,
16   where everyone would be in after  a few years.
17             I  sense, though, that you have a different  thought
18   in mind about phasing.  I would wonder if  you  could expand  on
19   that a little bit?
20             MR. SMBLCER:  I guess just a plain initial  kickin.
21   I like what you are saying to  a certain extent.   Yes, you
22   want to control the bigger ones before you do  the smaller
23   ones, but again, with  our landfill problem, it doesn't make
24   any  difference.  The landfill  won't take it.
25             YOU are affected from January 1  next year,  if  that's

-------
                                                             305
 1   when it's going to be, or June or whatever,,  In our case,

 2   Illinois has given us permits to January 1 of next year and

 3   that's it.  We don't know what's going to happen beyond that.
 4             We think it is going to take time  to put this in
 5   place.  It's not going to be something you can just rush out
 6   and do.  We are going to, obviously, make plans ahead of time,
 7   but for example, in trying to talk someone into hauling, most
 8   of the haulers that are doing our work right now, we do have
 9   some bulk disposal of things that are, again, very marginal.
10             We understand this guy doesn't know whether he's

11   going to put up with this or not.  He may decide he doesn't
12   want that branch of hauling and go out of that business, be-
13   cause of the paperwork and everything involved in it»  In
14   fact, we just got our regulations from Illinois and it's
15   about that thick, three inches, in the mail.  So, when he
16   sees that, he probably will go out of business.
17             So, we don't know.  We can see some real expensive
18   things here where companies are going to have to make their
19   arrangements themselves for very small amounts, for once very
20   89 days, making a trip someplace.
21             Maybe we can do something through  the Association
22   or something.  That's going to be the only out we can see in
23   these kinds of arrangements.  But we're afraid some of these
24   companies are going to have to spend a lot of money in spec-

25   ialized things that have nothing to do with  generator product.

-------
 I

 2

 3
 4

 5

 6
 7

 8
 9

10

n

12
13
14

15
16
17
18

19

20
21

22
23

24

25
                                                         306
          As one said when we had this problem with this sewer
thing, "We are in the business of making machinery, we are not
in the business of setting up our own treatment plant.  We
can't make any money off of that."  It's only when you are
producing a product that you can make any money.  We are con-
cerned that we get so many of these other side things involved
especially the mediums and the small, there is nothing left.
          MR. TRASK:  Do you have some specific thoughts on
the timing of the phasing?  Should we be looking at months,
years?  Did you have any figures in that area?
          MR. SMELCER:  No, you understand I am a mouthpiece
for our engineers in the companies.  No specific time period
was mentioned, but this was one of the things that they did
talk about.
          Frankly, because of these hearings, we are going
to go back and write another statement to submit to you,
based on what we've heard here and I think probably a lot of
people will do thate where we will, maybe, make some sugges-
tions on implementation.
          But I think the crash type of, "It's now in effect",
number one, hurts and number two, it means you are not going
to get compliance, because most people are going to say, "I
can"t,  so sue me."  They are not going to do it.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you, Mr. Smelcer.
          We will recess for about 15 minutes and reconvene

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                         307
about 10:55.
           (At this time a short recess was  taken.)
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  On the record.
          I've been asked to point out that smoking is over
here on your right and the left is a non-smoking section, so
if anybody is in the wrong place, you might want to move.
          The next person who has asked to speak this morning
is Russell Smith from Salsbury Laboratories, Charles City,
Iowa.
          MR. SMITH:  Thank you.  My name is Russell Smith
and I am representing Salsbury Laboratories of Charles City,
Iowa.
                 STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SMITH
          MR. SMITH:  Salsbury is a manufacturer of animal
health products.  The production includes facilities for
biologies, pharmaceutics and organic chemical synthesis.
          I have a few comments on what might appear as minor
areas in the Act, but I think will come out to be problem
areas if they are not changed.
          Section 3002, 250.20 states that every generator
must comply with Subparts D and E of the regulations if the
waste remains on site for 90 days or longer.
          I object to the 90-day limit.  For over one year
now, our company has been disposing of all of its industrial
solid waste at an off-site hazardous waste disposal facility.

-------
5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12
13

14

15

16
17
18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25
                                                        308
This is being done under contract with the waste acceptance
firm.  A manifest system is being used and the following
steps that we have found to be necessary to carry out before
shipment of this waste to the disposal site.
          All of our wastes are segregated at the source,
so we have many different solid wastes we are now disposing
of at off-site facilities.  The first step is to sample and
characterize each solid wastestream.
          This is necessary to provide the proper information
to the waste acceptance firm, which has responsibility of
proper disposal and, also, to determine the proper D.O.T.
shipping classifications.
          The second step is then filling out a contact form,
supplying all the above information, plus any necessary hand-
ling precautions, auxiliary information, to the waste accept-
ance firm.
          The waste acceptance firm then evaluates this re-
quest for disposalo  This, sometimes, necessitates sending
them a sample so they can carry out some of their own testing
and analyses to proper evaluate if they can safely dispose
of this material.
          They then have to advise their capability  for safe
disposal, including disposal site selection, and contract
terms.
          We have found this procedure, many times,  to  take

-------
                                                             309
 1   more than 90 days and  this will be especially  true  if one
 2   samples and tries to test his waste  to  show  it is not hazard-
 3   ous.
 4             The point I'm making is not necessarily applied  to
 •>   waste where this is already being done  or to repeat waste
 6   shipments, but more to the new waste one encounters when he
 7   enteres into the system and changes production, et  cetera.
 8             One of the reasons I think EPA chose the  90-day
 9   limit is to help insure the integrity of the container that
10   the waste is put in, during shipment.   I feel  that  judgment
11   can be left to the generator and I'm sure the  generator  would
12   use ti* proper storage techniques and precautions..
13             I would like to close my comments this morning by
14   recommending that 180 days be considered as the time limit
15   instead of 90.  I feel the 90 days will place  many  generators
16   into the classification of treatment storage and disposal
17   facilities and require them to carry out the burdensome  re-
18   quirements of Subparts D and E.
19             My next comment relates to Section 3002,  250.29,
20   which pertains to the less than 100 kilo exemption  and it
21   also pertains to Section 3004, 250.44, which pertains to the
22   disposal of empty containers which previously  contained  a
23   hazardous waste.
24             In the discussion of the exemptions  for waste  of
25   quantities less than 100 kilos, the regulations point out~that

-------
3

4

5

6
7
8
9

10
11

12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24

25
                                                            310
1   and this is read primarily from the regulations; "The prin-
   cipal element of this issue is how to balance the need to
   protect human health and environment from the adverse impact
   of potential mismanagement of small quantities of hazardous
   waste with the need to hold down the administrative burden
   of management of these wastes, under RCRA, within reasonable
   and practical limits."
             It also says although there is wide agreement that
   the regulatory burdens are appropriate and necessary for
   the management of large quantities of hazardous waste, there
   is considerable debate whether they are necessary for the
   management of small quantities, particular if other means can
   be used to assure these small quantities are adequately
   treated,disposed and otherwise handled.
             I agree with EPA's concept that small quantities of
   hazardous waste can be disposed of in sanitary landfills that
   meet the 4004 requirements and that they will not pose any
   long term environmental hazards or problems.
             However, I feel that this concept should not be
   impartially applied to just generators of less than 100 kilos
   a month, but that it should also be applied to generators of
   larger quantities.
             Now, I am not arguing with the 100 kilos versus the
   1,000 or whatever it should be.  1 would like to clarify this
   point.  I am not recommending that generators of greater than

-------
                                                               311
 1    100 kilos be  allowed  to  dispose  of 100 kilos  per month in
 2    any sanitary  landfill.   In our case,  we  generate several tons
 3    per day.  I'm not  saying that  of that several tons we  should
 4    save  costs by disposing  of 100 kilos  in  a  sanitary landfill.
 5             An  example  I would like to  use and  this applies
 6    particularly  to  our operation  and I'm sure to many others,
 7    is that we receive many  raw materials in sealed drums,  paper
 3    bags  and fibre drums.  These are large fibre  drums,  38 to 40
 9    gallon drums.
10             After  we empty these containers, we especially re-
11    use the fibre drums to store,  handle  and process materials
12    that  we are manufacturing.
13             The waste now,  or the  proposed waste, the  regula-
14    tions, will require that all of  these containers be  incinera-
'5    ted or disposed  of in a  landfill which meeets the requirement
'6    250.45, which is a hazardous landfill.
17             The approach we are  now using  for our fibre  drums
18    and paper bags is  that they are  thoroughly emptied and rinsed
19    before disposal  in a  sanitary  landfill.  The  amount  of con-
20    taraitiant* left in  these  fibre  drums and  paper bags would
21    amount to ounces per  day.
22             In  other words, over a month's time, this  would be
23    considerably  less  than the 100 kilo exemption allowed  to
24    others.
25             However, if we have  to haul these drums to a hazard-

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
 17
 18
 19
20
21
22
23
 24
25
                                                         312
ous landfill, and at this time that would have to be, perhaps,
700 or 800 miles away, this would mean that on a daily basis
we would have to take 30 or 40 large, bulky fibre drums and
ship them halfway across the country to hazardous landfills.
          We don't feel this is creating any hazardous con-
dition and we feel there is some flexibility for evaluating
the disposal of empty containers should be allowed.  This
certainly could be controlled at the state level on a case
by case basis, through an enforceable agreement or contract
with the authority having jurisdiction over the sanitary land-
fill.
          So I don't think that concept of a small quantity
of hazardous waste not being harmful in a sanitary landfill
should only apply to small generators.
          The point I demonstrate here, if it was considered,
I think it could adequately be determined that what we are
doing is not a hazard.  But, once the regs are out,we are
going to spend, perhaps, $200 a day disposing of these fibre
drums at a hazardous landfill.
          I don't like the concept of shipping empty contain-
ers halfway across the country.  It's not energy efficient
or necessary.
          So, I think--! realize a small limit has to be set
and I don't sympathize with EPA in determining whether that is
100 kilos or 1,000.  I think it's pointed dut by the speakers

-------
 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





IS




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                         313



that it would be better if it could be evaluated on a case




by case basis, but I also understand that's difficult for




EPA to carry through on.




          But, allow some flexibility, especially on empty




containers for all generators.




          I don't have a copy or my comments, but I will pro-




vide them shortly after the hearing.




          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.  Would you answer




questions from the panel?




          MR. SMITH:  Yes.




          MR. LINDSEY:  You objected to the 90-day limit for




storage before sending off-site.  You suggested you think it




should be something like 180 days.



          I guess I should point out first that there is no




reason why you can't store it for more than 90 days.  It's




just you would need a permit and apparently it's that, that




is your objection, the fact you would need a permit?




          MR. SMITH:  Right, and I think you alluded earlier



that would not be that much of a problem, but as I read all




the requirements under Subparts D and E, all the emergency



precautions,the dike containment capabilities, I don't think




it's just a simple matter of saying, "I'm going to store this



material.  Give me a permit."




          MR. LINDSEY:  No, it's not that easy, that's for




sure.

-------
                                                            314
 1             MR. SMITH:  I think EPA's position has  tried to

 2   lower the burdensome paperwork, et cetera, and this is just

 3   an add to.

 4             MR. LINDSEY:  It's partially  the paperwork  thing.

 5   The other reason is because of our belief that the storage

 6   of drums and other containers for 90 days, even in an un-

 7   controlled manner, that is without all  the RCRA controls and

 8   paperwork, does not create a problem.

 9             But beyond that point in time, or some  point in

10   time similar to that, it could be arguable what that  could be.

11   We get or may get deterioration of drums and so forth if it's

12   not controlled.

13             I should also point out that  the regulation still

14   applies as far as the technical regulations, they still apply

15   even for less than 90 days.  Standards  must be met in any

16   event.  It's just the control factors,  the oversight, if you

17   will, by EPA.

18             Let me follow through with that a little more if I

19   can.  You thought this was going to be  very stringent, these

20   storage--as I say, we developed them because we felt  they

21   were necessary.

22             Do you disagree or do you feel the storage  standards

23   which we have are too stringent?  I'm not talking about your

24   operation in general, but for storage of hazardous wastes

25   overall?

-------
                                                              315
 1             MR. SMITH:  I question them.  I think most manufac-
 2   turing people have experience with handling hazardous mater-
 3   ials or what have you.  They store them and contain them in a
 4   proper manner.
 5             We receive many different kinds of acids, solvents.
 6   We store these things for months adequately.  But once it
 7   becomes a spent solvent or spent acid, I am required to fol-
 8   low all the RCRA requirements.
 9             I think you've gone a little bit too far there.  I
10   realize one should not be able to store the wastes on this
ll   property indefinitely, because then you have a waste disposal
12   site.
13             MR. LINDSEY:  That's one problem, yes.
14             MR. SMITH:  But I don't think going from 90 days
15   to 180 is really going to change your control that much.  The
16   way you send the sample out to have it tested for whether it's
17   got priority pollutants in it, all testing required, it can
18   take two months to get this information back.
19             MR. LINDSEY:  Another question, you also suggested
20   we incorporate more flexibility for the disposal of hazardous
21   containers which contain--which now become a waste to be dis-
22   posed of and contained the hazardous material.
23             I guess—what specifically would you have us do in
24   that area?  Would you have us exempt these containers or what?
25             MR. SMITH:  Some way I feel If a container contains

-------
 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         316
a hazardous liquid that can be simply rinsed out with water,
I see no need for this container to be shipped to a hazardous
waste disposal site.   A fibre drum that may have a little
bit of chemical dust, in our case, on it—
          MR. LINDSEY:  We do have this provision in here that
it may be tripled rinsed in accordance with these regulations,
it could be disposed of in a Subtitle B facility.  That would
also apply, I think, to fibre containers.
          I don't know, but I think many of the fibre con-
tainers are asbestos lined, for example, and could be triple
rinsed.
          MR. SMITH:  I'm concerned, of course, in our case,
more with the fibre drums.  I know you have that in the regu-
lations for the steel drums,
          MR. LINDSEY:  Drums, a lot of them are plastic
lined and could, presumably, be rinsed out without totally
dissolving,,
          MR. SMITH:  That's true.  Is that allowable under
the regulations?
          MR. LINDSEY:  Yes, it talks about drums.  It does
not say whether they are metal, plastic or fibre or what,
providing you can triple rinse them without causing them to
dissolve away into nothing, you know, a pulp.
          MR. TRASK:  To continue on with that, there's noth-
ing wrong with rinsing a bag if you can do it.

-------
1





2





3




4




5





6




7




8




9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                             317
          MR. SMITH:  That might be difficult.
          MR. TRASK:  No, there are some plastic-lined bags




that are—




          MR. SMITH:  Let me ask you about paper bags.  We




do receive material in 50 and 100-pound paper bags.  We




shake them out and they contain chemicals, some of them, which




could be interpreted as being hazardous.  If we dispose of




50 bags a day, there may be a couple of ounces of material




in there.




          Is it necessary to send this to a hazardous land-




fill?




          MR. TRASK:  One of the things we are considering




is how to change that definition of triple rinsing, so it



would apply to the paper bag.  We would be interested in your




suggestions as to what methods could be used to be sure they




were non-hazardous when the bags, when they were finished?




          MR. SMITH:  I think to some extent you have to rely




on the local authority to have an agreement with the generator



whereby he will receive such and such discarded materials,




including paper bags or fibre drums and that they shall be



rinsed and cleaned out.  That's practical and let him have




spot checks.  He has the authority to enter on a contract like




that.




          MR. TRASK:  You would suggest we use, if the local




municipal waste landfill would accept it, then it would not be

-------
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                          318
hazardous ?
          MR. SMITH:  To some degree, yes.
          MR. TRASK:  It might put us in a Catch 22 position.
          MR. SMITH:  Very true, right.
          MR. TRASK:  One question, following up a little on
this co-disposal thing that you mentioned in your statement
that you thought it would be alright to use, to put larger
quantities than 100 kilos in a municipal waste landfill.
          MR. SMITH:  I did not say that.
          MR. TRASK:  Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you.
Could you clarify what you meant then by—
          MR. SMITH:  I think I was pointing out at this
time generators that generate less than 100 kilos can dispose
of up to that amount in a sanitary landfill and as I think
the speaker from Missouri pointed out earlier, some of these
can be pretty hazardous materials.
          I was asking for some relief to large generators
for disposal of paper bags, that type of material, that may
contain very small amounts of material and by the time it's
mixed with the large bulk of waste in a sanitary landfill,
would not pose a hazard.
          I think you pointed out that concept in the regula-
tions.
          MR. TRASK:  Do you have any thoughts under what
sort of ratios that we could tolerate in landfills of these--

-------
                                                             319
    of what degree of hazard, perhaps, related to the quantity

    that could go into a municipal waste landfill?

              MR. SMITH:  I don't.  I think you mentioned 40 to

    1 in the regulations.  I would be happy with that.

              MR. TRASK:  We are concerned about what the impact

    of what that ratio would do to a landfill.  In other words,

    it's still going to be a proper containment facility.  That's

    where we are seeking data in that area.  So, if you have any,

 9   we would be interested in receiving it.

10             MR. SMITH:  I'm sorry, I do not.

11             MR. TRASK:  One further question on containers.

12   You mentioned in your statement that you felt the containers

13   questions could be left up to the generator, the manufacturer,

14   because they had experience in that area.

15             Do you have some data on how long certain kinds of

16   wastes can be stored in containers without danger of deterio-

17   ration of the container?

18             MR. SMITH:  We have some from experience.

19             MR. TRASK:  Do you?

20             MR. SMITH:  What I am saying is that we have stored

21   waste in metal drums that have failed.  These are not liquid

22   wastes, they are sludges.  But this does not create any en-

23   vironmental catastrophe or hazard, which you normally see as

24   a leakage of some sort in the drum.  You redrum it in a sal-

25   vage drum or completely remove it and drum it in a different

-------
                                                               320
 1   one.  So, there are times when you are going to get fooled,
 2   but these are wastes that have been around six months to a
 3   year or so.

 4             I think there are ways for the generator to properly
 5   package his materials and, of course, D.O.T. provides some
 6   regulations on that.

 7             MR. TRASK:  Any of those data you have that you

 8   could share with us, we would appreciate it if you would put
 9   it in your statement, in your comment later.
10             MR. SMITH:  Fine.  It would be very hard to relate

11   it to other people's waste, but I will consider it and see
12   what I can do.
13             MR. LINDSEY:  Mr. Smith, you mentioned that you
14   have done a lot of testing on your wastes and that's interest-
15   ing.  The interesting thing I would like to know is, do you—
16   have you tried using the procedures we recommended in here
17   or that we talk about in here with regard to identifying what
18   is hazardous and so forth?
19             Have you used those procedures and any comments
20  I you might have on that would be useful to us.
21             MR. SMITH:  As you can appreciate, we are probably

22   a little gunshy by now.  Therefore, we have not done a lot of
23   testing then to show that a waste is not hazardous.  Most of

24   our testing has been done to provide the waste acceptance
25   firm the proper information he needs to properly dispose of

-------
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5

  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                         321
the waste, heavy metal content, ammonia, nitrogen, B.O. D,
whatever variables are conditions he might want to look at.
          MR. LINDSEY:  Do you have any idea what your costs
run for testing for that purpose, on a per ton basis or,
additionally and the second part, do you expect the testing
requirements that are in these set of regulations now would
increase that cost?
          MR. SMITH:  I don't think I can answer that ques-
tion, because for our situation the testing requirements have
not been that large a portion of the cost.
          However, I am sure it would be significant if one
was to try to determine if his waste was not hazardous.  The
approach we've used is to play it safe and say it is hazard-
ous and, therefore, it must go to a hazardous landfill.
          I'm not saying that now that we have a concrete
set of conditions to test by that we will probably go back
and evaluate some of the wastes, which I am sure are probably
not hazardous.
          MR. LINDSEY:  I was going to say, the only time in
which one would be, would want a test to prove that it's not
would be if they were on the list, on the list of wastes.
          In the other case, I guess you would have to test
it to determine whether it was, also, if you didn't know or
didn't have good information.
          If you have any thoughts on that before the comment

-------
                                                              322
 1   closes, we received comments in the New York areas that the
 2   testing imposed by these regulations is quite high and we
 3   are  seeking  information on that.
 4             If you have any thoughts on that or estimates on
 5   that, we would appreciate having them.
 6             MR. SMITH:  My concern is not so much, I think, that
 7   the  first four set of requirements call for that type of test-
 8   ing, but the last two, I am sure will be expensive.
 9             MR. LINDSEY:  By the last two, you mean tests that
10   would be required to delist?
11             MR. SMITH:  Right, if you wanted to test whether a
'2   waste was toxiogenic or not, I think the costs of that will
13   run  you roughly $1,000 per sample.  In some cases you may
14   have to sample several times to really prove that waste is
15   not  hazardous.
16             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you, Mr. Smith.
17             The next person listed is Mirko Popovich from the
18   Human Rights Survival group.
19             MR. POPOVICH:  Thank you.  I am Mirko Popovich from
20   the  nearby Benld, Illinois and participate in the activities
21   of the Human Rights Survival Group.
22                     STATEMENT OF MIRKO POPOVICH
23             MR. POPOVICH:  This is addressed to the Public
24   Participation Officer, WH-562 and concerns proposed hazardous
25   waste regulations, Sections 3001, 3002, 3004 and also 3003.

-------
                                                            323
 1             An Illinois Pollution Control Board release, R76-
 2   10, states on Page 13 as  follows.  Where spills require
 3   immediate removal, the U.S. E.P.A. has proposed regulations
 4   pursuant to Section 3003  of RCRA that the requirements for
 5   generators transportation and disposal, treatment or storage
 6   be suspended for more flexible standards which focus parti-
 7   cularly on neutralizing and removing the waste generated by
 8   the spill with a minimum  amount of delay.  That is  taken from
 9   EXH No. 26 and that's the end of the quote.
10             Waivers, promulgations and reference to some inter-
11   agency communication is mentioned in the continuing descrip-
12   tion to add to the generalities, "That will be suspended for
13   more flexible standards."
14             The D.O.T. and  E^P.A. could not resolve the spill-
15   age problem in Wilsonville and apparently ambiguity is still
16   in fashion.  The language of effective results is not pre-
17   ced «d by the specifics with clarity concerning immediate
18   responsibility and capability by those enjoined in  the parti-
19   cular operational stage of handling.
20             A whole array of imponderables mentioned  by parti-
21   cipants in a Waste Management, U.S.E.P.A. Conference in 1977
22   in Washington, has not been dispersed.
23             A perusal of the proposed rules and regulations in-
24   dicates an intermeshing of old pretenseful procedures pre-
25   viously asserted in many  instances, but not followed, as

-------
                                                             324
 1   Wilsonville and area citizens  found to their chagrin.
 2             Responsibility for street spillage by waste haulers
 3   was indeterminate.  It is indeterminate still.  The recently
 4   proposed rules continue in the previously legalistic folderal
    manner which permitted the arbitrary dispensation  found in
 6   bad judgment in Wilsonville's court proceedings.
 7             Persistence in avoiding pertinent stipulations for
    dealing with particular and immediate problems, together
    with an avoidance of major critical issues, such as site
    unsuitability, EPA Waste Management collaboration  shown by
11   undue arbitrary permit dispensation, a proliferation of
12   questionable products sustained by pre-emptive marketing
'3   techniques, bypass of individual and community sovereignty,
14   and trade secret protection for products discovered in dele-
15   terious operations such as Wilsonville dumping, give a
16   clarifying focus to bureaucratic demagoguery.
17             EPA regulations and procedures indicate  an aloof-
    ness to constitutional cognizance of individual and community
19   sovereignty.
20             Responsibility for industrial waste disposal is
21   lifted from the producers, implying an advantageous societal
22   value for their existence over other productive units of
23   society, including taxpaying citizens.
24             The deaths and health debilitations in the P.A.B.
25   experience are not conciliated by generator's claims to sur-

-------
                                                            325
 1   veillance capability.  Priceless human life cannot be equated
 2   or balanced with marketplace demagoguery.  Advertising has
 3   grown on like a cancer.
 4             Rawls, R-a-w-1-s, states, "Each person possesses
 5   an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare
 6   of society as a whole cannot override.  For this reason,
 1   justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made
 8   right by a greater good shared by others.  It does not allow
 9   that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the
10   larger sums of advantages enjoyed by many."
11             Our corrective efforts are directed to prevention.
12   Thank you.
13             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.  Would you be will-
14   ing to answer questions from the panel?
15             MR. POPOVICH:  I would try, yes.
16             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.
17             MR. LINDSEY:  Mr. Popovich, I gather from the in-
'8   itial part of your comments that you are unhappy with some
19   of the spillage requirements.
20             I would like to point out that the variances which
21   are allowed in the spill requirements are due primarily to
22   a percfeived need on our part that with certain circumstances
23   we will have emergency situations and that it may be necessary
24   to dispense with, on a temporary basis anyway,the paperwork
25   requirements in order to allow us to deal with a real or at

-------
                                                             326
 '   least a perceived emergency in the case of a truck spill or

 2   it may be emissions that create problems.

 3             That, really, is the thrust of those variances, if

 4   you want to call them that.  In that regard, if you feel we

 5   have gone overboard in that area, do you have any suggestions

 6   on how we could handle legitimate emergencies without creat-
 7   ing, without having to hold things up for paperwork and so
 8   forth and yet—

 9             MR. POPOVICH:  I don't feel based on the experiences
10   particularly from our standpoint, which are a little closer
11   and harder felt in the Wilsonville situation, but also from

12   other related incidents, as we come to read about them in the
13   newspaper, that there has been established a real system or

14   way of dealing with a particular problem or problems in the

15   specific stage of handling with the clarification concerning

16   the people's capability who handles it and who** particular
17   responsibility it is in the particular incident.
18             We have made repeated phone calls to the D.O.T. and
19   I think you are familiar and it's no secret that the D.O.T.

20   and the EPA have not, at least previously up to several

21   months ago, come to an understanding about whose responsibilit

22   it is.
23             Wilsonville was left with the necessity of simply

24   cleaning up the mess that someone else left.

25             MR. TRASK:  In this area of responsibility of

-------
3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                        327
transporters, I think that's what you mentioned earlier, we

thought we had covered the bases pretty well there, that the

transporter can accept only properly manifested waste that he

has a responsibility to deliver all of that waste to the

designated, permitted facility.

          If he stores that waste somewhere en route, he can

do that only at a permitted facility.  We don't know what we

left out.
          I guess if you have some ideas, we might look at
them.
          MR. POPOV1CH:  I feel these points you are pointing

to are aberrations and in the transport of materials there

are occurrences which vary from the ordinary routine, but we

found the surveillance that was pretended to by responsible

authority simply was not there.

          As I indicated, we called various offices, includ-

ing Washington, I'm sure, and we found a general tendency on

their part to feel it wasn't their problem, but there was no

indication on their part about whose particular problem it

was.

          The recent incident here in St. Louis and I don't

know whether it was mentioned in previous hearings or meet-

ings, but this person who kicked this drum off the highway,

according to the newspaper account, tried eventually to get

in touch with some people, including Washington, and they

-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                          328
seemed to slough it off in one manner or another, comments
varied.  Finally, the only thing he could do was to get in
touch with some local area and it might have been other than
St. Louis, but in Missouri, concerning civil preparedness.
          We find there is such a gap between the language
that you sort of play with concerning how to deal with these
problems and the—and between actually what has transpired.
          This, we feel, encourages us to look in the direc-
tion of prevention and this is our role, concerning any acti-
vity on the part of public committed officials, to try to
rectify this tremendous problem that has been developing.
          I think you are aware, even as we are, from people
who deal directly with these problems.  For instance, gas
leakage and so forth, that even with that surveillance, it
cannot prevent some very serious happenings.
          The problem arises in many instances from the fact
they are dealing with material for which they cannot say,
"We can adequately provide a comfortable surveillance."
          We feel there has to be a re-look, a very serious
re-look and a readjustment in our priorities and a general
tendency of what you are dealing with here, in detail as you
have gone into, as it seems you have, that we feel there are
priorities that should be placed on some of the other areas
that I mentioned.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I think if I could characterize

-------
                                                               329
 l    your  statement,  essentially  you are  saying the  regulations
 2    might be  all  right,  but  the  enforcement  of the  regulations
 3    is  the  big problem from  your point of view.
 4              MR.  POPOVICH:   I think if  my statement I  tried  to
 5    point out, hopefully,  that a perusal of  the  proposed  rules
 6    and regulations  indicates an intermeshing  of old pretenseful
 1    procedures, previously asserted in many  instances,  but not
 8    followed  as Wilsonville  and  area citizens  found to  their
 9    chagrin.
10              I rather enjoy, and I don't know whether  enjoy  is
11    a proper  word, but I've  heard over and over  and I'm sure  you
12    people  have,  this  problem of defining hazardous. I think
13    that's  part of the problem,  that you are continually  playing
'4    with  words and of  course words are what  we have to  deal with,
15    but you are continually  playing with words that different
16    people  have a  different  attitude toward, a different  under-
17    standing  of and, therefore,  we really, through  the  system and
18    procedure which  you have outlined, cannot  come  through with a
19    proper  regulation  and  proper communication in which everybody
20    understands what everybody else is doing or  are supposed  to
21    do.
22              CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:   I have one  more  question.   I
23    think I understood you to say that we were,  that the  respon-
24    sibility  for disposal  is being lifted from the  producers.  I
25    think that was part  of your  statement.

-------
                                                            330
 1             MR. POPOVICH:  Yes, it is.
 2             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  If it was, would you  try to
    clarify what you meant by that?
              MR. POPOVICH:  We feel the EPA has, amongst others,
    has mentioned some guidelines for producers to follow concern-|
 6   ing how to minimize the waste problem.
 7             There are, I think you probably know it better
    than I, alternatives, there are reprocessing.  Monsanto
 9   should have been burning their P.C.B.s.  We feel many of
10   these products have been substituted by pre-empted marking
11   techniques for other ways and means, for products that were
12   probably just as good, except theydidn't have the kind of
13   marketing expertise that some of the conglomerates have been
14   able to put together.
15             We feel that certainly some focus and a little more
16   than a little bit, should be placed on this area.
17             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.
18             (The document referred to follows:)
19                            HEARING INSERT

20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                         February  15,  1979
Public Participation Officer WH-562       Ooncerning  Proposed  Hazardous
Office of Solid Waste                        Waste Regulations
ff.S.E.P.A.                                   Section  3001
Washington, D. 0. 20460                      Section  3002
                                             Section  3004
                                              Also 3003
     An Illinois Pollution Control Board release, R76-10,  qtates  on
page 13 as follows:  where spills require immediate removal, the  U.S.
E.P.A. has proposed regulations pursuant to Section 3003 of ROKA  that
the requirements for generators, transportation and disposal,  treatment
or storage oe suspended for more flexible sti.idaras which  focus
particularly on neutralizing -ind removing the waste generated  by  the
spill'with a minimum amount of delay(taken from EXH  # 26).  (End of
Quote)  Waivers, promulgations and reference to some  iuteragenoy
communication is mentioned in the continuing description to add to
•the generalities "that will be suspended for more flexible standards,"
The DOT and S.P.A. could not resolve  the spillage problem  in Vfilsonvllle
and apparently ambiguity is still in  fashion.  The language of
effective results is not preceded by  the specifics with clarity
oonoerning immediate responsibility and  capability by those enjoined
in the particular operational stage of handling.  A whole  array of
imponderables mentioned by  artici ants  in a Waste Mgt.-U.S.E.P.a.
Conference in 1977 in Washington has  not been dispersed.
     A perusal of the proposed rules  and regulations  indicates an
intermeshing of old pretenseful procedures, -reviously asserted iu
many instances, but not followed, as  .vilsonvllle and  area  citizens
found to their chagrin.  Responsibilit,,  for street sol lage by waste
haulers was indeterminate.  It is indetarmins-te still.  The recently
proposed rules continue in the oreviously legalistic  folderal  manner
which permitted the arbitrary dispensation found in bad Judgment  in
Vllsonvllle's court proceedings.
     Persistence in nvoiding pertinent stipule tions for dealing with
particular and immediate problems together with an avoidance of maj.gr

-------
critical issues such as site unsultabllity, E.P.A.-Waste Management
collaboration shown by undue arbitrary permit iisp'ensation, a prolifer-
ation of questionable products sustained by pre-emptive marketing
techniques, by-pass iof Individual and community sovereignty, and trade
secret protection for products discovered in deleterious operations
such as the Wilsonvllle dumping give a clarifying focus to bureaucratic
demagoguery.
     EPA regulations and procedures indicate an aloofness to constitution-
al 'cognizance of individual and community sovereignty.   Responsibility
for industrial waste disposal is lifted from the prouucers implying an
advantageous societal value for their existence o"Ver other productive
units of society including taxpaylng citizens.
     The deaths and health debilitations in the PAB experience are not
conciliated by generator's claims to surveillance capability.  Priceless
human life cannot be equated or balanced with marketplace demagoguery.
Advertising has grown like a cancer.
     Rawls states "each person possesses an inviolability founded on
Justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.
For this reason Justice denies th-=t the loss of freedom for some is
made right by a greater good shared by others.  It does not allow that
the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of
advantages enjoyed by many."
     Our corrective efforts are directed to prevention.
                                     Mirko Popovlch
                                     Benld, Illinois 62009

-------
                                                               331
1             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   I have  one  more person who has
2   asked to speak this morning.  I'll call her  and if there is
    anyone else who wants to  speak  on Section  3002, if they would
    get in touch with the registration desk and  have their names
    brought up to me, I will  call you later this morning.
              The next person is Gwen Mollenar,  also from the
    Human Rights Survival Group.
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

-------
                                                             332


                   STATEMENT OF GWEN MOLINAIR



 2               MS. MOLINAIR:  My name is Gwen Molinair and I am



 3     representing the village of Wilsonville through an organi-



 4     zation that was formed which is namely the Human Rights



 5     Survival Group and I would like to say first that I don't



 6     represent anyone but people and to us people come first.



 7     This should be on the top of the list in promulgating rules



      and regulations for dealing with hazardous waste.  What has



 9     happened to the environment resulting from chemical waste,



]0     whether they were disposed of properly or improperly is un-



      excusable.



]2               Our experiences over the past two years has



13     opened the eyes of many, opened the doors to many unan-



]4     swered questions, and separated the smokescreen that has



]5     covered the dangers behind chemical waste dumps.



16               Towns like Wilsonville and Sheffield, Illinois,,



      should not be forced by the Federal and State Environmental
18
      Protection Agencies to do the job for which they were in-
      tended, to prevent another Love Canal, New York to come



2Q     into being.



                Informational meetings should rank high as the



      first priority.  The siting of waste dumps in a residential



      area should be restricted, regardless of how small the



      population.  People in a town of seven hundred are just as
24


      human as those in a city of seven or seventy thousand.

-------
                                                               333
  1               We  suggest that land disposal should be the last
  2     recourse in dealing with hazardous waste.   It definitely is
  3     the  cheapest  method, and unless forced by strict regulations
  4     this will remain the popular method.
  5               After many incidents of load spillage and leakage
  6     onto the streets of Wilsonville,  which, incidentally, was
  7     from defective drums, and reported to the proper agency, no
  8     one  ever knew where the responsibility lay.   The director
  9     of the  agency, the Illinois State Environmental Protection
 ]0     Agency,  thought it might be the Department of Transporta-
 n     tion but wasn't sure.
 12               Is  the twenty-year maintaining and monitoring of
 13     a closed site enough?  What is time?   Time to giant corpora-
 14     tions is money; time to us is life.  No one  knows how long
 15     hazardous waste placed into the ground will  stay immobile.
 16     If industries can pass their potential time  bombs out to
 17     society, and  the responsibility stops there, will the tech-
 ]8     nology  for disposing of harmful chemicals change?
 19               It  is unfair for a small community like Wilson-
 2Q     ville to have to absorb the expense of a year and a half
       lawsuit to bring to the surface the growing  concern for the
       protection of our land, air and water that is being poi-
       soned by the  dumping of deadly chemicals.
                 Thank you.
25               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank  you.  Would you answer

-------
                                                            33^


 1     questions  if  there  are  any?



 2               MS.  MOLINAIR:  If I can.



 3               MR.  LEHMAN:   Ms.  Molinair,  one of your comments



 4     deals  with the twenty-year maintenance and monitoring re-



 5     quirement  of  the current proposed regulations and you are



 6     asking,  rhetorically,  is that long enough?  One thing I



 7     think, that% not, perhaps,  clear enough in those regula-



 8     tions  is that if a  problem is detected within that twenty-



 9     year period by monitoring,  well, then, that twenty-year



IQ     period can certainly be extended so it is not a fixed thing



lt     where  the  monitoring would end at that time.



                Nonetheless,  that aside,  you essentially, I be-



13     lieve, feel that twenty years is not long enough.



14               MS.  MOLINAIR:  I certainly don't.



                MR.  LEHMAN:   Do you have  a suggestion as to what



      might  be an appropriate time period?



                MS.  MOLINAIR:  I think as long as those chemicals;



.g     stay in the ground, that is how long the generator should



      stay responsible.  Just because at the end of twenty years



      there  is no problem, twenty years passed in Love Canal, New



      York,  and  there was no problem and as long as there are



      records that say, I am not going to use any name, but any



      company that disposed of chemical waste in a landfill, that:



      those  records are kept just exactly like your birth certift-
24


      cate and mine, that if it takes fifty years and they have t:o

-------
                                                            335


 l     go back  and  get  them,  go  get  them.


 2                MR.  LEHMAN:  Well,  I think it is fair to state


 3     that  there were  no  monitoring requirements placed on Love


 4     Canal.   Had  there been monitoring requirements  perhaps  we


 5     could have picked up that movement  before  it reached the


 6     homes that were  affected.


 7                MS.  MOLINAIR:   I am sure  it is a matter of record


 g     to know  that the monitoring of Wilsonville's site isn't


 9     monitoring either and  no  one  knows  that or wanted to accept


 10     that  until after a  lengthy trial.


 n                CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:  No more questions.  Thank


 ]2     you very much.


 13                Is there  anyone else who  would like to speak  this


 14     morning  on Section  3002 Regulations?  Did  Mr. Howard Chinn


 15     get here from  the Illinois Attorney General's office?


 )6                (No  response.)


 17                CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:  We will close the record


 ,.     right now  of the public hearing and if we  have  some cards
 lo


      our staff  people will  pass out cards.  If  you do have ques-


      tions on Section 3002  we  will try and answer them.


               (See separate transcript for question and answer


       bession.)
 22


 23


 24


25

-------
SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT FOR QUESTION AND
ANSWER SESSION
     St. Louis, Missouri
    February 15, 1979

-------
                                                         336



l               MR. TRASK:  Most of these seem to apply to the



2     90-day limit on storage.  It says, "Regarding the 96-day



3     cutoff are the requirements for how waste are stored any



4     different before and after the 90-day date expires.  After



5     the ninety days expires, if the waste is still there in



6     storage you need a permit."  That's the difference.  At



7     that time you become subject to all of the 3004 standards



8     for storage site and you need a permit.



9               You are responsible for the 3004 standard during



10     the 90-day period but you do not require a permit.



n               Next question,"Xn setting the 90-day limit on



12     storage by generators, why is not some consideration given



13     to the method of storage, i.e., an OSHA approved metal



14     containers, et cetera?" The 90-day storage can be under-



]5     taken by the generator only when he uses either a DOT con-



16     tainer or if he goes to a permanent storage tank, then he



17     must meet the storage tank requirements in 250.44.  I be-



]g     lieve that those do reference those requirements in that



19     section, so, it is covered.



2Q               Another one, 'boes on-site storage have to be in



21     DOT containers?" Yes. 'Please explain what DOT containers



22     includes." It can be either in DOT containers or in perma-



23     nent storage tanks which meet the requirements of 250.44.



24              'Please explain what DOT containers includes,"  in




25     the 49 CFR there is a long list of compounds, each one of

-------
                                                           337
 i     which is related to a particular container specification
 2     and that is what we are referencing.
 3               The question goes on, "Does it include, for exam-
 4     pie, a 55,000 barrel immovable storage tank?"  An immovable
 5     storage tank would be a permanent storage tank and would be
 6     subject to the 250.44 regulations.  It says, "A properly
 7     lined lagoon."  I don't know if the question is is that a
 3     DOT container.  I don't think a properly lined lagoon would
 9     be a DOT container.  That really is a facility type ques-
10     tion.  Maybe you want to deal with that one.
11               Bulk rail car shipping, "Our plant receives empty
12     rail cars for shipment of our product from one plant, from
13     our plant.  Frequently these empty cars contain up to sev-
14     eral hundred pounds of previously shipped unknown materials,
15     Since rail cars are frequently in short supply, we must
)6     empty the cars or use them with the unknown materials still
17     in them, which is obviously unacceptable.  We are, there-
18     fore, frequently put in a position of accumulating other
19     companies products for our disposal.  Does EPA or DOT have
20     any recommendations on what we can do to resolve this
21     problem?  Note, the railroad isn't interested in keeping
22     the material.  Significant costs will be involved in deter-
23     mining what this material is in order to adequately comply
24     with regulations for disposal."
25               This problem has been brought to our attention

-------
                                                             338



 1     and it isn't only railroads.  Tank car carriers have  the



 2     same concern.  We have heard that after the  tank  truck has



 3     been emptied that sometimes while the drivers have a  cup  of



 4     coffee, the crew at the plant hooks the hose up to another



 5     tank and he ends up with a few hundred gallons of waste.



 6     It is not uncommon for him to come back to the truck  termi-



 7     nal with something entirely different than what he set out



 8     to do.



 9               I would point out to you that under the DOT rules



]0     that when a tank truck is carrying a hazardous material,



n     the driver must be with Chat vehicle at all  times.  I don't



12     know how that applies to rail cars but under tank truck



13     rules, so 1 have been told by DOT, the driver is  always



]4     responsible for being with that vehicle.  He may  not  leave



15     it to have a cup of coffee.  So, if that happens  it really



16     is due to his fault.  If something strange gets put into



17     that tank it is his fault.



]8               However, in a larger sense a transportation compa-



19     ny does become a generator in this instance  because now they



2Q     do have ways to get rid of it.  As far as having  suggestions



2]     as to how you prevent it, at the moment, I don't  think we do



22     We are studying in this area regularly and we may have some-



23     thing in the future but at the moment I don't know, if you



24     are dealing with customers how you control what they  are  go*



_      ing to do when you deliver a tank car of material.  That's

-------
                                                            339
 l     a question that Alan Roberts  would like  to have a shot at.
 2               MR.  LINDSEY:   In regards to containers,"Would the
 3     total weight of a container be used in applying 100 kilogram
 4     limitation if  the container is considered a hazardous waste?
 5               Yes, it is the total weight of the waste, not the
 6     concentration  or the quantity of any one constituent that
 7     determines the one hundred kilograms.
 g               "Please elaborate on six-month grace period fol-
 9     lowing promulgation of  rules  and regulations.   Some people
]0     might get the  impression they do not have any responsibility
n     during this time.  Do generators have to file and disposers
,2     file for permits?"
13               What the person is  getting to  is that by and
14     large, the regulations  do not go into effect until six
15     months after promulgation. However, there are some require-
)6     merits during that period of time for anyone who generates,
17     transports, treats, stores or disposes of hazardous waste
18     within ninety  days of the promulgation of regulations under
      Section 3001,  which are now scheduled via court order for
      December 31.  Within ninety days of that point, everyone
      who generates, treats,  stores, disposes  or transports a
      hazardous waste must notify the agency under Section 3010
23     of the Act.
2               We have previously  proposed regulations for doing-
      to the system  doing that and  those have  been issued.  They

-------
 l     haven't been promulgated yet.  We expect they will be pro-



 2     mulgated later in the summer.  In any event, what we will



 3     be doing, to summarize it a little bit, is to all of those



 4     facilities who we think, to all those people, generators,



 5     transporters, whoever we think may be generating or handling



 6     hazardous waste, we will be sending them forms, relatively



 7     simple forms we expect it to be, to facilitate their noti-



 8     fication.  That does not relieve anyone who does not get



 9     this mailing from the requirement to do it because the re-



10     quirement to notify is statutory and the responsibility lies



11     on the generator, transporter, treater, storer, disposer



12     but we are going to try to assist this operation by letting



13     those that we think may be in this ball game know they have



14     to do it.



15               In addition to that, most of the regulations be-



16     come effective 180 days after we promulgate.  Also at the



17     180-day point in time, it is necessary for anyone who treats



18     stores and disposes but not people who generate or transport



19     those who treat, store and dispose, however, must submit



20     Part A of the application for a permit and the regulations



2i     covering that have not yet been proposed.  Those are current-



22     ly being integrated.  They are procedural in nature.  They



23     have to do with how to get a permit and all the hearing pro-



24     visions and so on in getting a permit and those have not



25     been proposed yet.  They are currently being integrated with

-------
  1     similar regulations,  procedural regulations, under the NPES



  2     program and under the underground injections control program



  3     and we expect those will be proposed in about four to six



  4     weeks.



  5               So, there are two requirements.  One is that they



  6     notify within ninety  days and second that you submit Part A



  7     of the application within 180 days.



  g               Harry passed me this second part of this question



  9     involving 55,000 barrel removable storage tanks and properly



 10     lined  lagoons and are they covered by regulations, I guess



 11     is the question, if they are on site.  The answer is yes,



 12     they are subject to the 3004 Standards for containers in



 13     storage.



 14               In the case of a spill there are two phases, the



 15     emergency phase and the recovery phase.  The regulations



 16     clarify this issue as to when manifesting is required.  Let



 17     me see if I can take  a crack at that.  That is not my area



 18     and if I go wrong, Harry, would you jump in?



 ]9               If my memory serves me correctly, during an emer-



 20     gency phase in which  the emergency coordinator is on the



 21     scene, that would be  either, I suppose, EPA or coordinator



 22     or something like that and the availability of paper work



 23     that is, the procedures which would require the manifest



 24     are not readily there and yet there is need to move the



2j     material quickly because it poses some imminent hazard, for

-------
                                                            342




  i     example,  that during that emergency that perceived a real



  1     or declared emergency that the paper work requirements can



  3     be waived.   Do you want to add something to that or is that



  4     about right?



  5               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Let me just make a comment.



  6               Again, this brings up the issue we ran into yes-



  7     terday.   If, in reading the regulations, even if you think



  8     you have--let's call it a minor comment  like this, please



  9     write it  down, sign it and submit it for the record.  You



 10     can just  say, "I don't believe that these requirements are



 11     specific  enough in differentiating between emergency re-



 12     sponse and recovery for a spill", and we certainly would be



 13     happy to  consider that.  If it is a question, fine, ask a



 14     question  but if it is definitely a comment, please go ahead



 15     either now or before March 16th to submit it to us for the



 16     record,



 17               MR. LEHMAN:  I have  some questions here.  "The



 18     reporting requirements of Section 250.23 provides for annual



 19     and quarterly reporting to the Regional Administrator.  When



 20     a state is  operating a hazardous waste program approved



 21     under Section 3006 of the Act, will reports still be re-



 22     quired to be sent to the Administrator?  If no,  can the



 23     regulations be written to reflect this?"



 24               The point here is that what you see before you in



25     the Federal Register and what  we are discussing here are the

-------
                                                            343
 1    regulations for the federal program wherever that program is
 2    implemented in a state which for one reason or another does
 3    not have authorized hazardous waste programs.  The require-
 4    ments for state programs are spelled out in Section 3006
 5    Regulations or, as I mentioned this morning, these particular
 6    regulations are being incorporated into combined with NPES
 7    underground injection control under Section 40 CFR 122, 123
 8    and 124.
 9              So, the basic answer to the question, though, is
10    that where a state is running an approved program, these
11    annual and quarterly reports would go to the state, not to
12    the EPA and the reason that we don't spell that out in our
13    regulations is that these regulations apply only in the case
14    where the federal program is operating in that state.
,5              Question: "Did EPA intend to apply the special
](,    waste rules now contained in Section 250.46 to generators
17    and transporters of special wastes? '  If the answer is no,
18    please explain EPA's reasons for not doing so."
19              I believe we have stated in our preambles and so on
20    our assumptions or rationale, one of the rationales for set-
21    ting up the special waste categories in the first place was
22    that these are very high volume wastes and our assumption was
23    that these wastes, being of high volume, would be managed on
24    the site of generation, namely, they would be of such high
2s    volume it would be impractical or uneconomical to ship them

-------
                                                             344
 1   offsite,  therefore,  frankly, we just  didn't  consider  it  a
 2   possibility  that  these high volume wastes would  be  shipped
 3   somewhere else.   That's why it is not covered  there.
 4             Now, I  believe  it was Mr. Horn of  the  Utility  Solid
 5   Waste Activities  group this morning that brought up this
 6   point,  that  this  is  not always the case, that  some  of these
 7   high volume  wastes are, din  fact, transported to  an  offsite
 8   facility  and, in  effect,  made that comment that  we  should re-
 9   consider  whether  or  not we  apply these  regulations  to genera-
10   tors and  transporters of  these special  wastes, so,  we will
n   take that under advisement.
12             Couple  of  waste oil related questions. For those
]3   of you  who were here yesterday, you can appreciate  the few
14   chuckles  here in  the audience because we spent a lot  of  time
15   on this yesterday but, nonetheless, the question:   "Please
]6   explain the  contractual agreement for generators of waste,
17   oil and transfer  of  liability."
lg             The basic  requirements for  this contractual agree-
19   ment are  covered  in  Section 250.28 and, basically,  it says on
_0   Page 58979,  4s to the contractual agreement  itself, it says,
2]   "Each generator entering  into such a  contract must  keep  a
22   signed  copy  of it as a permanent record during the  time  the
23   contract  is  in effect and for a period  of one year  following
..   elimination.*  Then  the pncriK£*n goes on to  say, "The assump-
25   tion of duties contract must state in writing  that  in exchange

-------
 1    for valuable consideration, the transporter or treater or



 2    storer or disposer group, may also enter into these contracts



 3    will perform all or part of the duties contained in the sub-



 4    part.  If less than all of the duties are assumed the contract



 5    must specify which duties are not assumed and lastly, the



 6    contract must be signed by authorized representatives of the



 7    parties.



 8              So, these are the explicit requirements for this



 9    contractual agreement.  1 might also point out that this



10    whole issue is discussed in the preamble on Page 58974 to



],    some more depth and anyone who wishes to pursue that could



,2    read about it in the preamble.



13              Next question:  "Please define waste oil."



]4              Now, waste oil, as we point out in Section 3001



15    Regulations, was singled out *or some special treatment under



16    our regulations.  It gets tied into the definition of other



17    discarded material which is found in Section 250.10 on Page



18    58954 of the proposed regulations and in particular, for the



19    purposes of defining other discarded material, we state that:



20    used lubricating hydraulic transformer, transmission or



21    cutting oil, which is incinerated or burned as a fuel, is a



22    discarded material and, therefore, they waste oil.



23              This is also followed up with a specific listing



24    under Section 250.14-A in which waste lubricating oil, waste



25    hydraulic oil or waste cutting oil are specifically listed

-------
                                                           346



l    as hazardous waste.  This gets to another question.



2              "What problems have resulted from indiscriminate



3    disposal of waste oil?  Why is waste oil not placed on the



4    3001 list if it is truly hazardous or is the EPA just trying



5    to indirectly force recycling?"



6              Well, as you just saw, part of that is incorrect,



7    part of the statement is incorrect because waste lube oil,



8    waste hydraulic oil and waste cutting oil are placed on the



9    3001 list as I just noted.



10              As to what problems resulted from indiscriminate



n    disposal of waste oil, we have a number of cases concerning



12    that.  Probably the one that is closest to home here occurrec



13    in Verona, Missouri, where there was indiscriminate disposal



14    of waste oil which was mixed with other chemical wastes and



15    sprayed on a horse arena for dust suppression purposes and



15    also along roads in the area, which resulted in very severe



,7    health problems and a number of individuals became quite ill.



ig    A number of animals were killed and it was a very distinctive



19    case.



20              There are a number of other problems like that that



2I    we have.  I won't go into all in depth but it is questions



22    like that that leave us with the impression that waste oil



23    disposal must be controlled.



24              As to the last part on this, "Is EPA just trying



25    to indirectly force recyling?"  I guess we have to plead guil

-------
                                                             34?
 l    to thato   Yes,  we are,  quite frankly,  not only trying to
 2    eliminate the public health and environmental problems in
 3    indiscriminate  waste disposal but we are indeed trying to
 4    foster the recyling of  oil because we  have a number of stud-
 5    ies which show that the highest use of waste oil is re-
 6    refined back into lube  oil.  If this oil is merely burned
 7    for its fuel value, that is not the highest use of that waste
 g    oil and there are substantial savings  in energy usage and
 9    also reductions in overall pollution loading by using re-
10    refining  for waste oil.
!]              So, while we  are not demanding that waste oil be
]2    recycled, we are certainly anxious to foster that practice.
13              MS. SCHAFFER:  I have a number of questions that
]4    are enforcement related.  The first one says:  "According
15    to Part 250.20C, any person who generates waste must evaluate
16    that waste to determine if it meets the hazardous waste cri-
17    teria. Please state what mechanism would be used to require
18    this evaluation.  Note, I am referring only to nonlisted
19    waste."
20              As Fred said  before, the notification requirement
21    of Section 3010 requires that anyone who handles hazardous
22    waste be  generator, transporter or owner/operator or sewage
23    treatment or disposal facility, must notify EPA within ninety
24    days after promulgation of the Section 3001 Regulations,
25    which spell out the criteria for hazardous wastes.

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        348
          Kind of as a background, I think states and EPA
have somewhat of a handle on who is involved in the hazardous
waste system and who isn't and we have a contractor put to-
gether a list of possible players in the game, as I like to
call it, and as Fred said also before, we are going to be
sending out notification forms to people who are on that list
so we kind of have an idea who will be in it.  The mechanism
for insuring that people do the evaluations is the idea that
you will be violating the Act and the regulations they are
under and can have enforcement action brought against you if
you don't evaluate and properly notify according to 3010<>
          Two other points, one is that EPA is probably going
to do--the regions are planning on doing some kind of a
quality assurance program, testing some of the generators
whether they have notified or not just to make sure that their
tests have gone along with their results, that our results
and their results are the same.
          Secondly, I think it's EPA's goal, at least for the
first couple of years on the implementation of the Act, to
get as many people who should be in the system into the system,
So, a significant amount of compliance monitoring will go to
generators to make sure that they have included their waste
in the system.
          The second question is; "Under the proposed regula-
tions, if a permanent disposal facility has its permit re- -

-------
 l    voked,  what will be the mechanism to notify his customers



 2    so other disposal means can be exercised?  If by federal



 3    announcement,  what will be the expected time lapse from per-



 4    manent  revocation to public announcement?"



 5              This is something that really has not been ad-



 6    dressed in the Regulations.  However, it seems reasonable thai



 7    we could require an enclosure activity as part of the order



 8    for closure, that they notify all the customers who have



 9    been sending waste to the facility.  Timewise I really can't



10    answer  because we have not, as I said, really addressed it



n    but I think it could be a possibility*



12              N«xt question:  "When a vessel that carries chem-



13    icals as cargo has its tank cleaned by a tank cleaning fa-



]4    cility, who is the hazardous waste generator, the vessel



15    owner or the cleaning facility?"



16              The cleaning facility is the generator.



17              Next question:  "Under the cradle-to-grave concept,



18    if the  generator of hazardous waste properly reports and



19    gives its waste to a properly permanent transporter using



20    proper  manifest procedures, does the generator cease to be



21    liable  for those wastes?"



..              One correction, and that is that under the federal



23    system transporters are not permanent.  They have requested



24    an gotten an identification number from Federal EPA but are



25    not permanent per se.  However, on the Agency right now, it

-------
                                                            350
 l    believes that the generator never completely loses liability
 2    for the waste that he produces.  He is responsible for making
 3    sure that his wastes that he has sent off site gets to that
 4    facility and he retains that liability until the waste is
 5    properly disposed of.  However, if it is not the generator
 5    who violates the Act by doing something improper with the
 7    manifest or improperly disposing of it, the enforcement ac-
 8    tion won't come against the generator, it will go against
 9    the transporter or the disposal facility that has handled
 10    the waste.  So, it is kind of a yes and no question.
 n              MR. LEHMAN:  1 just want to amplify on the ques-
 ]2    tion that Ms. Schaffer answered just a minute ago because--
 ]3    it concerned the cleaning facility for a vessel, because
 ]4    this question came up at an earlier meeting we had, a similar
 15    question and I want to make a distinction here.
 16              The answer that Amy Schaffer gave was correct in
 17    that particular case.  Let me read it again:   "When a vessel
 18    that carries or carried chemicals as cargo has the tank
 ]9    cleaned by a tank cleaning facility, who is the hazardous
 20    waste generator, the vessel owner or the cleaning facility?"
 21              The answer in that case is the cleaning facility
 22    as Amy said.  In this case, basically, you are taking the
 23    vessel to the cleaning facility.  However, the normal case
 24    is where you have storage tanks on a generating or manufac-
25    turing facility and in many cases, a service type of industry

-------
                                                           351
 !    is  called in to clean those  tanks.   Now,  in that case,  it is
 2    the manufacturing facility who is  the  generator and not the
 3    contractor who is being brought in  to  clean the tank.   I
 4    Just wanted  to make  that distinction.
 5              MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  1 have  a couple of questions here
 6    dealing with containers and  some others:   "If a state  does
 7    not have an  approved state plan under  Subtitle D, will all
 8    hazardous waste from retailers and  those  who generate  less
 9    than a hundred kilograms per month have to be disposed of at
10    an  approved  EPA Subtitle C site within the state or be trans-
f]    ferred to another state's landfill  where  this state has an
12    approved plan?"
13              As the guidelines  for the development and implemen-
]4    tation of state solid waste  management plans are currently
„    structured,  the answer to that would be yes.  However,  in
16    those  cases  where states do  not opt to participate in  the Sub-
17    title  D program, I can't really answer where that case will

18    «°«
]9              A  second part of this question  is;  "At what point:
     does a state plan under Subtitle D become approved and how
     long does this approval process take?"
               The schedule calls for the state plan guidelines
     to  be  promulgated approximately in July.    The states, then,
24    have eighteen months to develop and approve their state plans.
     They have been working on it since   KCKA    was passed, so,

-------
                                                          352



    this is a liveable schedule.  I would estimate that  it would



    take them approximately six months to get through the approval



    procedures which include both their administrative,  state



    administrative procedures act requirements and EFA's public



    participation requirements.  So, if the state plan guidelines



 $   are promulgated as scheduled in July, a state probably could



 7   not have an approved state plan before January and some states



    may take until January of the following year to complete



 9   their plan and get it approved.



10             MR. TRASK:  A question on containers:   "How is a



11   storage tank which has frequent or continuous input  and



12   withdrawal but which is never empty considered in relation



13   to the 90-day storage?"



14             If the withdrawal equals the input, I think it



15   would be considered to be within a 90-day privy, if  you will.



16   In other words, it would not be subject to the permit require-



17   ments because it is continuously being changed.  In  other



18   words, it is not being used as a permanent storage facility.



19   It is being used as a cummulative facility.



20             "I am not familiar with DOT regulations pertaining



21   to containers for hazardous materials.



22             If you are in the hazardous waste business I sug-



23   gest you start reading because you are going to be needing it.



24             The question is:  "Would steel barrels or  drums be



25   required for containerizing hazardous waste?  Could  'good con-

-------
                                                            353
    dition*  containers be  acceptable?"
               The  DOT container regulations contained  in  49 CFR
    Part 173  are very  voluminous and much more  than we  would be
    able to  go into here today.   The  specific  part on  reuse of
    containers, however, is  spelled out in the DOT proposal to
    amend regulations in Part  173.28, and  there it says that  in
    some cases,  "Certain containers which  would not  otherwise
    be  reusable can be reused  for single trip  for disposal of
    hazardous  waste." In  other words, a single trip container
10   or  nonreusable container could be filled with hazardous waste
11   and taken  to a disposal  site  for  that  one  trip that would be
12   permissible.
13              It would have  to pass a so-called 24-hour test,
14   that is, twenty-four hours after  the material has  been put
15   in  the drum, it would  have to be  inspected for leakage and
16   it  could not be transported if it leaked because of the inter-
17   locking  set of regulations we have now between EPA and DOT.
18   All of this is put together so that a  leaking drum with waste
19   would be illegal  to be transported.
20              I would suggest, though, whoever sent  this  question
21   in  to look at  Subpart  173  because that's where it  is  at.
22              The  other questions here deal with transportation;,
23   Do  we want to  take those now  or later?  I'm sorry. One of
24   them deals with manifest.  Perhaps we  better discuss  that.
25              "Will the EPA  propose manifest be the  only  format

-------
                                                             354
 1   for the manifest document that will be permitted or will
 2   flexibility for the use of a readable computer format be

 3   allowed?"  And then a statement, I guess, "I would hope a
 4   document with only equivalent information would be required."
 5             We are not allowed the luxury of doing that.  DOT
 5   rules require that a format be used.  In other words, it sets
 7   up the kind of information and the order in which that infor-
 g   mation must be supplied.  So, if we are to combine our mani-
 9   fest with the DOT shipping paper format, then we are locked
 10   into a format and we have elected to do that.  I don't see
 n   that that is going to be any big burden.  What it really says

 12   is here is the information you need.  You are going to have
 13   to do it for DOT anyhow.  You do just these extra things for
 ]4   the manifest for EPA.
 15             MR. LEHMAN:  Question:  "Under the proposed regs,
 16   a generator may declare his waste to be hazardous without
 17   testing.  What is the effect, if any, of Company A declaring
 ]8   their waste hazardous while Company B declares the same
 )9   waste nonhazardous?  What if Companies A and B were not
 2Q   separate companies but different operating divisions of the
 21   same company?"
 22             Well, I think the general answer to that is some-
 23   body is going to get a phone call from EPA.  In other words,
 24   we would follow up on anything like that.  This is similar,
25    I might add, to the experience that I am aware of in Cali-

-------
                                                            355
 1    fornia which has  been operating a hazardous  waste  program
 2    and manifest program for several years  and their experience
 3    was that they didn't have this  happen.   In other words,  they
 4    knew there were ten petroleum refining  operations  in the
 5    state and nine of them were  reporting in accordance with the
 6    manifest and the  other one wasn't.   They would use management:
 7    by tSception type of basis and  pay a call on the tenth one
     and want to  discuss why  the  waste,  why  they  didn't have
 9    hazardous waste when everyone else did.
10             Back to waste  oil  again:   "What about oil cans
     generated at a service station?  Will the cans require mani-
12    festing?"
13             No, not really. What we are  really concerned  about
     here, I think, it should be  clear after this discussion, our
ls    waste oils  that are contaminated in some way with, in the
16    case of crankcase oils contaminated with lead, cutting oils
17    and hydraulic oils that  are  somehow contaminated and not
18    automotive  oils that are delivered in cans.
19             Another one:  "Will waste oils which proceed to a
20    rerefiner require a manifest?"
21             The answer there is no.  Here again, the point
22    being  if you thread your way through the definitions of
     other discarded materials you will see  that  waste  oil which
     is destined  for a rerefiner  is  basically considered not  to
     be a discarded material, therefore, not a solid waste, there-

-------
                                                             356
 1    fore, not a hazardous waste, therefore, no manifest required.
 2              It goes on to say, "My concern is that the price
 3    for waste oil may be higher if delivered to a road oiler than
 4    that received from a rerefiner.  This could be an enforcement
 5    loophole."
               Well, a couple of comments here.  First of all, undejr
     our proposed regulations, road oiling would be reuse which
     constitutes disposal, land disposal of waste oil.  Therefore,
 9    it would come under our definition of discarded material
 10    assuming that this waste oil is a hazardous waste, road oiling
     of that waste requires disposal, consequently, we would expect
     that the economics of that situation would change as a re-
 13    suit of that and, therefore, what is true today may not be
 I4    the case in the future, with respect to relative prices
 15    available for the various uses.
 16              Mow, here again, this last statement is,in effect,
 17    a comment on the regulations, the proposed regulations.  I
 18    would again, as Chairperson Darrah indicated, ask you if you
 19    have this type of direct comment on the regulations, concerns
 20    about regulations, please write it down and submit it for the
 21    record.
 22              MR. LINDSEY:  "The state has been granted interim
 23    or final authority to run the program in their state.  A gen-
     erator or disposer is governed by the state rules and regula-
25    tions0  What is the generator's or disposer's responsibility

-------
                                                            357



 1    with regard Co RCRA?"



 2              This is true what the person says.  Once a state



 3    has been authorized under the authority of RCRA to run its



 4    own program, then generators, treaters and so on in that



 5    state are subject to the state program.  I would point out,



 5    however, that the authorization procedures for authorizing



 7    a state program under Section 3006 of the Act we must con-



 8    elude that the stat's program is equivalent to the federal



 9    program, that is  their rules and regulations and degree of



10    control, degree of protection of public health in the en-



11    vironment is equivalent to the federal program.



12              There are also certain requirements within all of



13    that including manifest system which must be adopted.  I



14    would recommend that those people who are interested in state



15    program authorization pay special attention to the regula-



16    tions which will be reproposed on that section in several



]7    weeks.  I remember I indicated earlier Section 3005 and 3006



18    regulations will be proposed in concert with similar regu-



19    lations under ingrade regulations under NFS program and un-



20    derground injection control program.



2i              "Has any consideration given to municipalities in



22    other not-for-profit institutions to be given a special ex-



23    emption or allowance above the one hundred kilograms per



24    month?  For example, city owned garage and painting crews



25    may normally generate only fifty to hundred pounds a month

-------
                                                           358
 1   but  on  a  special occasion,  one  month per year perhaps, go
 2   over the  hundred kilogram limit."
 3              First question  first,  did we  give any special  con-
 4   sideration and the  answer to that  is no.  Large quantities
 5   of hazardous waste  can  cause problems if improperly managed,
 6   irregardless of who it  is that  generates them and so there
 7   is no epecial  deal  for  municipalities or others like that.
 9   As far  as this particular example  goes  you have a situation
 9   here, for example,  which  is really borderline and I believe
]0   that in a case like that  you go over a  little over one hun-
n   dred kilogram  limit once  per month.  I  don't like to tell
12   people  how to  get around  regulations but maybe you dispose
13   of one  hundred each month and get  below that one hundred
14   kilogram  limit that way.
15             "Since empty containers of hazardous materials  repre-
]6   sent very small quantities  of hazardous waste, why is more
17   control than just going to  the  nearest  approved sanitary
]8   landfill  justified?"
19              I think we talked about  earlier if the material—
    if the  containers are triple rinsed, they can go to a sani-
    tary landfill  but the problem is this,  they tend to be trans-
    ported  and disposed in  large lots  and they are frequently not
 3   empty as  you and I  would  term empty. Frequently, they con-
    tain an inch to three inches of material in the bottom,  some
    of which  would be highly  toxic  and highly hazardous.  So,

-------
                                                          359
     when you collectively get large quantities of these drums
     shipped on flatbeds, the controls are needed to, for one
     thing, assure it gets from A to B and is not dumped in a
     ditch or a farmer's back forty some place or in the woods.
     Secondly, if disposed of in quantities each drum contains
 6   two or three inches of material in the bottom, you can have
 7   a concentration of materials in the sanitary landfill which
     could present a very real hazard.
 9             This is a two-part question.  I can only answer one
 10   part of it and I will pass it down the row.  I don't know if
     they are going to answer the rest of it now or maybe think
 ]2   about it.  The part I can answer, "Why does EPA feel there
 13   is a need to notify a foreign country of a hazardous waste
 14   shipment?  Isn't EPA's job to protect the US environment?"
 ,5             Well, that's true.  Our job is to protect the US
     environment.  We, however, feel it is good international re-
 17   lations to at least have the foreign government know what it
 13   is that we know that is coming from here to there.  We also
 19   have been asked, that's another reason.
 20             The second question, and I will read it off and if
 2]    somebody on my right can think of the answer, will either
 22   handle it now or maybe later:  "Why does the statement, 'To
 23    the best of my knowledge' be excluded from the certification
 24    statements?"
25              Does anybody know that?

-------
                                                             360



  l             MS. SHAFFER:   I am pretty sure  that the reason




  2   that statement,  the wording  was  put in there, is that it is




  3   approved wording by the  Department of Justice and the office




  4   of water enforcement, which  is a separate office from what




  5   I am in, and because we  are  combining a lot of the activities




  6   that go along in NPEDS activities and RCRA, that we were go-




  7   ing to use  the same kind of  information—I mean the certifi-




  8   cation, hence, we use the wording from the NPEDS certifica-




  9   tion.




 10             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  We will break for lunch now.




 11   If there is time after this  3003bearing this afternoon,  and




 12   perhaps questions on that section, we will answer any other




 13   questions on 3002.  We will  reconvene the hearing on 3003




 14   at 2 p.m.




 15             (Whereupon a recess was taken until 2:00 o'clock P.O.)




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25

-------
                                                           361



 l                        AFTERNOON SESSION               2:00 p.m.



 2              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  On the record.



 3              The subject this afternoon is Section 3003 Regula-



 4    tions proposed under Resource Conservation Recovery Act.



 5              The first speaker is Father  Casimir Gierut.



 6                    STATEMENT OF FATHER CASIMIR GIERUT



 7              FATHER GIERUT:  My name is Father Casimir F. Gierut,



 8    pastor of Holy Cross Church, Wilsonville, Illinois.  My mail-



 9    ing  address is always Bunker Hill but for those who pay my



10    salary it is Wilsonville.  I am one of the members of the



11    Survival Group of Wilsonville which is composed of citizens



12    seeking to protect the health of the people and seeking to



13    protect the safety and clean air environment in the comnrun-



14    ity of Wilsonville.



15              I would like to call your attention as members of



16    the Federal Environmental Protection Agency that transporters



17    of hazardous and toxic waste are polluting the environment



18    and are endangering the health and safety of the people.



19              The following three examples clearly indicate that



20    the Environmental Protection Agency does not have control



21    over those who are in the business of transporting hazardous



22    wastes:



23              First example.  A transporter of hazardous wastes



24    dumped Polychlorinated Biphenyls into an open ditch in Ditt-



25    mer, Missouri.  Later it was found that the adjoining creek

-------
                                                             362


 !   was  contaminated and livestock were affected with PCB.   The



 2   source  of contamination was  traced to the  open ditch saturated



 3   with PCBo  While the original PCB was contained in 100  drums,



 4   the  removal of the ground saturated with PCB filled over



 5   5,000 drums of steel, 55  gallons  each capacity which was



 .   transferred to the landfill  in Wilsonville,  Illinois.  This
 6


    removal was at a cost to  the taxpayers of  over $500,000.  The



    taxpayers had to pay for  the mistake because the EPA could



 9   neither trace the transporter of  the waste nor could the EPA



    identify  the originator on the PCB waste who had hired  the



    transporter to move it to a  certain safe place for treatment



    or burial.



               Second example. A transporter had illegally  dumped



    PCB  into  the sewer in Louisville,  Kentucky.   The PCB dumping



    had  hightened the danger  to  the health of  the people to the



    already contaminated sewage  sludge.   The entire sewage  sludge



    with PCB  was being transported from Louisville, Kentucky,



    to the  landfill in Wilsonville, Illinois.  Upon its arrival
18


    in Wilsonville,  the citizens had  notifed the Illinois EPA



    that on the streets of Wilsonville was leakage from that car-
20


    go.   That means  the leakage  was continuous from the moment the



    cargo left Louisville, Kentucky,  to its arrival in Wilson-



    ville,  Illinois.  Imagine the number of automobile drivers



    who  were  following that cargo not aware that the leakage was
24


    flying  through the air and possibly making its way into the

-------
                                                           363
  1   automobile.  This fact that the EPA could not trace the  trans-
  2   portation company responsible for dumping the FOB into the
  3   sewerage„ cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars.
  4             The third example is Ottawa, Illinois.   The land-
  5   fill was closed, for only a week.  The owner was on vacation
  6   and the transporter decided to get rid of the hazardous  waste
  7   by dumping the waste into the nearby Fox River.  The  Illinois
  8   EPA had no knowledge of who the transporter was, nor was it
  9   possible to trace the originator of that hazardous waste.
 10             The transportation of hazardous waste involves the
 ]]   following areas of responsibility, (1) the originator of the
 12   hazardous waste, (2) the transportation company, (3) a re-
 13   sponsible driver hired by the transporter, (4) the destina-
 14   tion of the waste, (5) billing receipts and bookkeeping  of
 IS   the originator, transporter and the recipient at the point
 16   of destination in cooperation with the EPA record of  informa-
 ]7   tion.
 18             The responsibility of the originator of the hazard-
 19   ous waste does not terminate with the fact that the waste
 20   has been removed from the originator's place of business.
 2i   Nor does the responsibility terminate with the fact that the
 22   originator of the waste has evidence of payment to the
 23   transporter for the removal of the wastes to be transported
 24   to a certain destination.
25             The originator is responsible to see to it  that the

-------
                                                           364



 1   contract with the  transporter is  fulfilled in reaching the




 2   point of destination,,   If the waste has not been delivered to




 3   the  point of destination the EPA  should be informed.   The EPA




 4   will now have sufficient information to check on the  trans-



 5   porter.   If there  is  any evidence of illegal dumping, the




 6   transporter should be made financially responsible to correct




 7   the  situation and  the transporter's license could be  revoked




 8   by the EPA.



 9              The transporter hauling hazardous waste cannot use




 10   that truck to haul anything else  other than hazardous waste.



 11   It is unthinkable  for a transporter to use the same truck to




 12   haul hazardous waste  to go to the freight warehouse and trans-




 13   port canned goods  from Libby's or Campbell food products.



 14              The vehicle should have a large sign painted with



 15   the  words, "Hazardous Wastes" on  it so that it is visible to




 16   everyone.   In case of an accident, that sign would be a warn-



 17   ing  to all concerned,  especially, those who normally  come to




 18   help in  the situation, namely, the State Police, the  two-



 19   truck, ambulance,  doctor and the  clean-up crew.




 20              The driver  should have  complete knowledge of what




 21   his  cargo contains as in the case of hazardous waste.  He



 22   should be well instructed as to who to notify in case of an




 23   accident, and above all, to have  the telephone number handy




 24   to immediately notify the EPA to  prevent contamination of




25   the  environment or to prevent the endangering of health and

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                        365
safety of the people in the community.
          For example, in St. Louis, about three weeks  ago,
on the most busiest highway and at a time with the greatest
amount of traffic, because people were on the way home  from
work, a truck loaded with  radioactive material was  in  troub-
le.  The bottom of the truck fell apart.  Drums containing
the radioactive rolled onto the highway.  A man driving a
taxicab decided to stop and help.  He pushed the drums  off
the highway.  Another person stopped his car and also helped
push a couple of drums off the highway.  When the EPA was
informed of the situation, instruments were brought  to  the
scene to find out if there were any contamination of the en-
vironment.  The EPA also made effort to immediately  contact
the taxi driver.  He was located and an analysis was made  to
insure any type of contamination.  An all-out alert  was an-
nounced on television and radio seeking the other person who
helped remove the drums.  His whereabouts are still  unknown.
But if the drivers were fully instructed as to what to do in
case of an accident, he would, in this case, alert the  taxi-
cab driver and others not to touch the drums for fear of con-
tamination and endangerment to their health, as well as their
safety.
          As for landfills, God gave us the good earth  to
produce food.  Here in Southern Illinois farmers last year
produced 45 million bushels of corn, 35 million bushels of

-------
  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25
                                                          366
wheat, 10 million bushels of soybeans, not only for our
country but for the needy throughout the whole word.  For

Earthline, with the approval of the EPA, to contaminate this

good earth is a serious cflme against nature and a social  in-
justice to the hundreds of farmers whose livelihood is agri-

culture.
          In view of the fact that there are many tons of
hazardous, toxic waste produced each year, we will soon run
out of landfills.  Therefore, the responsibility rests with
the EPA to notify, for example, Monsanto and Dow Chemical
Companies and all other chemical industries that their Chem-

ists are fully responsible to find a way to neutralize and
to detoxify the harmful wastes from their products produced,
otherwise, the government will prohibit the company to manu-
facture such harmful chemicl compounds.  To neutralize and to
detoxify these substances is the only answer to end the
threat of hazardous waste buried as a detriment to society's
and world future health and well-being.
          For example, the chemists of. Monsanto Company were
aware that it is common knowledge among chemists, that Poly-
chlorinated Biphenls (PCB) can be destroyed within two seconds
that's shorter than I can say the word "Amen", by burning  the
waste in an incinerator at 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.  If the
chemists know this, then why do they allow the carcinogens to
be buried in landfills.

-------
                                                            367



 l              The  failure  of the chemical industries to destroy




 2   what  is  detrimental  to the  health and well-being of society




 3   is  irresponsibility  in the  highest degree,  an injustice to




 4   society  and  above  all, an immoral act.  Immorality is not




 5   limited  to illicit sex,  X-rated movies or pornographic maga-




 6   zines but also extends to illicit activities in business




 7   transactions which prove to be detrimental to the health of




 8   people.




 9              To bury  hazardous waste in landfills is not the



10   solution. They will not decompose and disappear in the




]j   ground.   On  the contrary, they will react as was shown and




12   experienced  in the recent incident in Love, New York, where




13   homes, schools, were built  on this landfill.  The seepage




]4   from  the landfill  caused children to be born with defects,




)5   there was much sickness, nausea and finally, the families of



]6   the entire community of Love, New York, were ordered by the



17   government to  abandon  their homes.  The vacant homes, now a



18   ghost town,  are the  result  of a landfill of only twenty years



19   ago where hazardous  waste was buried,




20              Now, the best part of all, it is  good to know that




2]   after saying what  I  did say, no collection has been taken up,




22              CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:  Would you answer questions




23   for us?



24              FATHER GIERUT: Yes.
25
               MR.  LINDSEY:   I think your comments and your exam-

-------
                                                          368




l    pies were  right to the  point,   I just might say I think that




2    many of  your thoughts  seem to  parallel those of Congress and




3    when they  passed this Act and  I think those of our own as we



4    developed  these regulations.



5              Let me get to some specifics,  on your comments




6    relative to transportation control or lack thereof.  In the




7    Act and  then in our regulations there is a provision for the




8    manifest control systems we set up.   In  your opinion,  will




 9    that go  far enough toward the  control of the transportation




10    or is  something more needed there?




^              FATHER GIERUT:  No.   I will tell you, you can put




12    all the  regulations you want on the  books but from our ex-




13    perience,  it doesn't work. The citizens of Wilsonville had




14    called time in and time over to the  Illinois EPA saying that



]5    another  truck came into Wilsonville  and  we have more spillage.



16    Another  truck came in where the cover of the steel drum was




17    missing, in one truck there were three covers missing.   Now,



]8    you can  imagine as it  is on the highway  the wind is blowing



]9    the material out and never has the EFA made pressure on Earth-




     line to  say, "Now, look, these people are trying to protect



     the environment."  The  complaint is  for  the good of the com-



     munity and to a certain extent, it is good in regard to the




     transporters of the cargo because it is  a valid complaint.



               Now,  the newspaper,  the Alton  Telegraph,  had, on




 ,    several  occasions, stated that the Illinois EPA has notified

-------
                                                            369
 1   Earthline on a number of minor violations and major viola-
 2   tions and it made no difference because Earthline would al-
 3   ways, in a beautiful way, say, "Well, we are going to correct
 4   this and we are going to do something" and nothing happens.
 5   They never make the corrections.  Now, when the fifth and
 6   sixth and seventh and tenth time the citizens of Wilsonville
 7   call upon the EPA and again say, "Look, there is another in-
 8   fraction in regard to transportation."  I think that the EPA
 9   should either be serious in its business or get out.  If you
 10   have the regulations and you don't follow it, then there is
 ll    no use spending all the taxpayers money printing that paper.
 12             The regulations are printed to defend you in re-
 13    gard to your business and, therefore, the Illinois EPA, after
 14    they have given three successive warnings to Earthline, 1
 15   think the fourth one they should have said, "Now, either you
 16    get serious or we are not going to give any more permits to
 17   bring any more material to your landfill."
 ig             MR. LINDSEY:  Your problem is with the enforcement
 ]9   as opposed to the regulations that are in affect?
 20              FAUTHER GIERUT:  Right.
 21              MR. LEHMAN:  Father, some of your comments seem to
 22    touch on some areas where I don't believe the regulations, as
 23    currently imposed, cover and if I might get you to comment on
 24    this point we might be able to translate these into some sug-
25    gestions.  You say in one part of your statement that if there

-------
 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        370




is any evidence of illegal dumping the transporter will be




made financially responsible to correct the situation and




the transporter's license could be revoked by the EPA,




          Now, in the federal EPA proposal, there is no re-




quirement for the transporter to have a license.  Certain



states may require licenses but federal proposals does not.




Am 1 to assume from your comment that you believe that the




federal proposal should include a requirement that transporter!




have liability?




          FATHER GIERUT:  Yes, there should be a separate




license in that regard.



          MR. LEHMAN:  You also point out that in your view




it is unthinkable for a transporter to use the same truck  to




haul hazardous waste and at the same time haul consumer goods




and, again, that is an area which we have not covered in our




regulations and I assume you would say that is a recommenda-




tion that it should cover?



          FATHER GIERUT:  Yes, because no matter if they made



an attempt to clean the truck, there is always some type of




contamination and, then, say you put cases of canned goods or




cases of lettuce, why, you know it may go into the cardboard



and then deliver that to the grocery man, the grocery man  pick




it up and you are transporting a lot of disease unnecessarily.




          MR. LEHMAN:  Right, so, it's fair to say that you




would recommend that this be added to our regulations?

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         371
          Father Gierut:  Right.  I would say  that certain
trucks should be used only for hazardous material.   It cannot
be used for any other purpose.
          MR. LEHMAN:  Then, your last point along these same
lines, you indicated an incident in St. Louis where  radioactive]
waste was dropping out of the bottom of the truck and the
point you were making, I believe, was that the driver of the
truck lacked adequate training and here again, this  is an
area, correct me if I am wrong, I believe that we do not re-
quire training for transporters under these proposed regula-
tions.  Could I then construe this to mean you are recommend-
ing a training program be implemented?
          FATHER GIERUT:  Really, it should be a simple  train-
ing program.  For example, in case of an accident, please tell
people not to move any of the articles around  the trailer, no
matter if it blocks the highway because this is contaminated
stuff.
          Secondly, he should have the telephone number  imme-
diately of the EFA because we had drivers of trucks  that came
to Wilsonville and all he knew was, I am only  a truck driver.
I don't know what is on there and 1 don't care and that's
about the extent of it and that's not the point.  The point
is, when an accident does happen, like it happened in St.
Louis hardly three weeks ago, an appeal has been made over
television, "Will the man who helped move the  drums  kindly

-------
 2

 3

 4

 5

 6
 7

 8
 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15
 16

 17
 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25
                                                         372
report to the EPA to check you out."  That might be a man from
Indiana that would never hear that, so, it is a serious  busi-
ness and in case of accident, this  is what the average truck
driver should know what to do.
          MR. LEHMAN:  That's a good point.  One other one
along this line is that you recommend that vehicles transport-
ing hazardous waste should have the words "hazardous waste" on
the truck so that it is visible to  everyone.   Therefore, in
case of an accident, the sign would be warning to all con-
cerned.  Our regulations on transportation are being very
carefully coordinated with the existing regulations by the
Department of Transportation.  DOT  already requires placarding
of certain types of trucks like "flammable"  "corrosive",
things of that type.
          In other words, those particular words have a  par-
ticular meaning in the trucking industry.  The proposed  regu-
lations under RCRA, basically, use  the DOT placarding system
and does not have the additional requirement that the words
"hazardous waste" be on there.  In  other words, the fact that
it is flammable or corrosive would be there but not hazardous
was te.
          Are you basically recommending that in addition to
the DOT placard you would have hazardous waste?
          FATHER FIERUT:  Right.  The word hazardous waste
should not be put on the door with all the other tonnage and

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                          373
weight and all that because that is distracting.  It should be
on the real big part of the van.  Any man with common sense
will stop right there, "I'm not going to help because there is
something bad about that carriage."
          MR. LEHMAN:  Well, I guess the point of my question,
do you feel it necessary to have that additional placarding
in addition to the existing DOT placard which already gives
some degree of warning.
          FATHER GIERUT:  I think it should be separate.  Nor-
mally, on the trucks that have flammable material it has
written, "Please do not stop" or "This truck stops at every
crossing.  Flammable material", and you, as a driver following
know you better stay away.
          In regard to hazardous material, it should be some-
where very visible but I think the average person would not
help out.  Hazardous material, that is enough for me.  I can't
help you.
          MR. TRASK:  Father, you indicated that some instruc-
tions for the driver of the truck out to be carried with the
truck.  We have made a provision that on the manifest some
instructions as to what immediate action should be taken would
be put on the manifest for the specific waste that is being
hauled and also that the number of the Coast Guard National
Response Center which is really under a number in Washington,
would also be put on there where further information could be

-------
                                                             374
 1   obtained.  Do  you think that  is  enough or  should we be  doing
 2   something more than  that?
 3             FATHER GIERIJT:   I think the  closest one  is really
 4   the  state EPA  wherever a person  is.   If this  is  a  truck with-
 5   in  the  state,  all he needs is one telephone number, say, the
 ,   Illinois EPA office  but if it is a truck that is interstate
 0
 1   commerce, well,  then,  he should  have  the telephone numbers to
 8   the  EPA because I think EPA is more important in case of
 9   hazard  than  the National Guard.   The National Guard is  some-
10   thing to come  out and clean up the place but  the EPA will
    come with instruments to find out whether  there  has been con-
    tamination.  In Arizona the EPA  had ordered almost a block
13   and  a half of  the highway  to  be  torn because  contamination
]4   had  gone into  the cement itself.  So,  I think the  EPA should
    be  the  No. 1 over the Coast Guard.
)6             MR.  TRASK:  If I might follow up on this question
17   of  license as  well for transportation  for  transporters.  You
1g   have some ideas on what should be licensed?  Are you talking
    about the condition  of the vehicle or  are  you talking about
    driver  training?  What should we be doing?
              FATHER GIERUT:   No. I suppose that anyone that
    the  company  hires already  knows  everything about regulations
    of driving and knows how to drive but  we are  talking about
    this driver  be instructed  and be licensed, so to speak, to
    drive this particular truck because you have  some  truck dri-

-------
                                                              375



 1   vers who are only anxious  to  deliver  the  cargo of  the desti-




 2   nation because  they make their  dollar for it.   Whereas a




 3   licensed driver is not concerned  how  many hours he puts in.




 4   His salary  is guaranteed.   He needs to only get to the desti-




 5   nation, so, it  is not beating the speed limit  or causing any



 6   type of hazard. We are talking about a licensed driver so




 7   in the driver's mind is, "I don't have to break the speed




 8   limit to make a dollar,  I am guaranteed  it,"




 9             Secondly, he is  well  informed,  the very  fact that




)0   he is responsible for the  cargo,  he is going to take excep-




^   tional time.  Now, let me  give  you one example, A man drives




12   a truck, a  fair-sized truck,  and  the  man  from  Fathaldo took




]3   over just temporarily because the regular driver was ill and




14   this is what you call those really long trucks. Now, when




„   he came to  Wilsonville, where there are just narrow streets,



.,   he didn't know  how to handle  that big van and  he knocked a
lo


17   couple of things down and  there was almost a question where



lg   the entire  cargo of hazardous material would spill out in




]9   Wilsonville,




 .             The policeman gave  him  a ticket for  destroying the




    culvert and not knowing how to  operate the vehicle correctly




    and this is a question of  operating a vehicle  correctly.  So,
23
     I  say  again,  the  idea of  a  license  in regard to a driver work-
     ing with hazardous  material,  in his mind is,  "l don't have to



     work  fast.   I don't have  to beat the limit.   I don't have to

-------
                                                           376
 1   worry how long it  is  going to take me to get around that
 2   curb,   I  am going  to  be  paid."  You have greater security in
 3   the  delivery of that  hazardous material,,  What I am saying,
 4   is to avoid catastrophe.
 5              Now, we  had a  catastrophe in Bedford park just a
 6   few  days  ago where the entire town, my sister lives in Bedford
 7   Park, the entire town of about 450 had to leave because of
 g   a minor accident and  yet it contained hazardous material and
 9   the  police called  everyone to leave their home immediately,
10   So,  it  is a question  of  the driver.  1 am putting emphasis
^   on licensing the driver  because they have to come to know
]2   that their bread and  butter is to deliver the hazardous mater-
13   ial  safely, not get there so he can come back and pick up
14   another load.  That's what is on my mind.
ls              MR. TRASK:   My staff just handed me a note that
16   when DOT  picks up  hazardous waste as a hazardous material,
17   then, hazardous waste will be subject to all of the existing
lg   regulations regarding hazardous materials.  One of those is
..   for  driver training,  a certain amount of driver training must
20   be given, otherwise the  transporter has violated not only the
..   EPA  law because we are picking up the DOT regulations, but
22   also DOT  laws because they are picking up our regulations.
2,   So,  it  could be a  different ball game in the future when
24   these regulations  go  into effect.
               MR. LINDSEY:  One more point, relative to your com-

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                        377
merit on land disposal.  I think your suggestion was that we
cause a phase out on land filling or land disposal over some
period of time.  This leads to a dilemma, I think.  As a poli-
cy matter and a goal that makes a lot of sense, obviously if
the waste is destroyed in some fashion, detoxified, then it
is not around to worry about but the dilemma we have is we
have heard from a number of other speakers that even these
regulations which do put, we think, rather substantial con-
trols on disposal, that they will, in fact, reduce the availa-
bility of capacity and raise the cost to such an extent that
what we will end up doing in fact may be counterproductive
in the sense that it may act as an incentive because of the
costs and much, much greater difficulty, may act as incen-
tive for certain people to disregard the regulations and
simply to Illicitly destroy the material in ditches along the
road and in the woods.
          FATHER GIERUT:  I wouldnit agree with that incentive
because we are coming to an age that we have to know that we
have to put a price on tie product to see to it that there is
safety involved and we have to pay for that additional guar-
antee.  If you go on the other scale of not spending the money
then you are putting emphasis more on money than on the
health of the people and the environment.  So, if  it costs
more money and this is what one of the, I believe, chemists of
Monsanto brought to me when we had a discussion, he said,

-------
                                                           378



     "Father,  it's  a question in regard to the  incincerator."  I



     said,  "If you  want  to buy FOB which Monsanto is  responsible



     mostly for originating,  why don't you build an incinerator



     at Wilsonville to destroy PCB when you know about it."  You



     know what his  answer was, "Father, it costs money."  So,



 6    Monsanto  who makes  billions of  dollars in  profit is more in-



 7    terested  in how much profit the stockholders get than the



     safety of the  people when you know that an incinerator does



 9    the  truck.



10              Like I say, two seconds time, PCB can  be destroyed.



..    The  second part about the Polychlorinated  Biphenyls is when



     you  destroy the cancer causing  factor, you have  a by-product



13    which  can be again  sold  and what remains is a safe product



     you  can put right next to your  vegetable garden  and the



     chemists  know  it at Monsanto and they agreed with me on that




16    polnt'


               MR.  LINDSEY:   I think maybe our  concern would be,



,„    I think it was Mr.  Smeltzer this morning,  made the comment
19
     that if it gets  too difficult,  there may not be enough police-
     man.   1 think he  is  talking policeman in generics  to keep



     tabs  on everybody.   At  least it is  a concern that  we have.



               FATHER  G1ERUT:   The police situation in  my paper,



     what  I am trying  to  bring out is this,  Monsanto Company cannot



     have  only responsibility  to call, say,  Corodura Company, "You
24


     pick  up the  PCB and  that's it.   I will  pay you."  Monsanto

-------
                                                               379
 1    should wait.   He should not pay the Cordura Company until af-
 2    ter they have reached the destination.  In my simple way, if
 3    I order a television set from Sears, Roebuck and Sears, Roe-
 4    buck pays Cordura Company to deliver the TV to me, if the
 5    destination does not come to me I am going to seek another
 6    TV.  I don't pay for the price of the TV.  In the meantime,
 7    Sears, Roebuck is not going to pay the transporter.  You have
 8    not delivered the TV.  Where is that TV set and this is where
 9    the EPA comes in.  Say, we have proof Monsanto gave you the
I0    material and it is supposed to go to Sheffield, Illinois.
]l    It hasn't reached Sheffield.  Or let's say, four hundred
]2    drums are on that van and only two hundred and eighty are
]3    delivered,  EPA wants to know what happened to the one hun-
]4    dred and twenty.
15              So, it is protecting, really, Monsanto and it is
16    also saying that the EPA now means business, we have regula-
17    tions and we want it to be followed by everyone and you will
18    just have to put it down.  As I say again, if the EPA will
19    not follow its own regulations,,forget it.  Why don't you
2Q    just drop the business and be done with it.  Either you are
2]    serious in your business or you are not and the average bust-
22    ness man has this point.  In Illinois EPA and Earthline, they
23    know the Illinois EPA was never too serious because week af-
24    ter week we called,another truck came with spillage.  What
     about it?   You mean to tell me that EPA could not say,  "Look,

-------
                                                             380



 l    Earthline, we are going to give you one more chance and when



 2    we hear that the citizens of Wilsonville complain that



 3    another truck has come with leakage or spillage, it will be



 4    the end of all permits.  You are out of business."  You will



 5    find out how fast that will work,  "if you don't put the brake's



 6    on you are out of business."



 7              MR. LEHMAN:  Father, I would just like to comment.



 8    I think the general thrust of your last series of remarks



 9    about responsibility of the generator in assuring that the



10    material actually gets to its destination and so on, is, in



n    fact, incorporated in our proposed regulations and when these



12    regulations, assuming they are promulgated as proposed, and



13    go into effect, then, in fact, you will have this track of—



14              FATHER GIERUT (interrupting):   Does the billing



15    have,in my estimation, the billing should have four sheets,



16    one by Monsanto Company, the second billing to the transporter



17    third to the recipient, the landfill and fourth, to EPA.



18    Now, the reason I put EPA is because EPA automatically knows



19    who is the originator of the waste and who is the transporter,



20    so, when you have somebody in Louisville, Kentucky, dumping



21    PCB in the sewerage and getting a way with it, you and the



22    EPA will pick it up and say, "We know from our four-fold



23    billing that Monsanto of St. Louis was the center of the PCB



24    and the transporter, by example, is Cordura."  But if you



25    don't have that fourth sheet that goes to you, the name of

-------
                                                                38l|
 l    the originator, Monsanto, the transporter and the place of
 2    destination and your fourth copy, then you are just not op-
 3    erating correctly.  It is a question of efficiency and the
 4    only way to have efficiency when you have it all now right
 5    here, not guesswork and calling Monsanto, "Who was the trans-
 6    porter?"  You have got it.  You wouldn't even have to call
 7    Monsanto.  You call the trucker, "Did you deliver this?  Why
 8    was it not delivered in Sheffield, Illinois, only ended up
 9    in the sewerage?"
10              MR. LEHMAN:  Of your four-part example there, the
11    current regulations do require the first three and in the
12    fourth case, instead of sending the fourth copy directly to
13    EPA, we have required instead that a summary of all of the
14    manifests be sent in its place.  Now, in your opinion, is
15    that adequate?
16              FATHER GIERUT:  I think it is because it is not
17    actual paper work when you write out the card.  I goes to
18    three duplicates anyway.  Without you having the knowledge
]9    of who sent the material, where it was sent and by whom,
2Q    then you are doing what the Illinois EPA has done for the
21    people here in Denver, Missouri.
22              MR. LEHMAN:  The point I was trying to drive at,
23    Father, was that we get that information but only according
24    to our proposed regulations, we get that information but we
25    get it in a summary fashion.  In other words, we don't get

-------
                                                              382
     each individual piece of paper.  We get a combination of all
     of them at periodic intervals.
 3             Now, in your opinion, is that adequate?
 4             FATHER GIERUT:  Absolutely not because all we need
     is one example, one particular load.  This gentleman decided,
     like this man, the driver who took the hazardous waste to
     Ottawa, Illinois, and dumping, the ground was frozen for a
     week or so.  He took it upon himself to get rid of it by
     dumping it in the Fox River.  Now, that is maybe once out of
     forty trips but you and the EPA have no record of who sent
 , 1   that or who the trucker was.  All we know now is the Illinois
 12   EPA men said, 'Veil, it was a small delivery, about forty
 13   drums, therefore, let's call it meaningless as far as mffect
 14   is concerned on the Fox River."  My point is, the EPA and you
 15   don't know who put that there.
 16             You are talking only of a general summary which
 17   means nothing.  We are talking about the fourth one here and
 18   now.  Every delivery you know where it is at.  When you get
 19   a summary, that's only statistics, it means nothing.  I would
     like to see, because it costs nothing more and there is no
 21   extra work in office work, when Monsanto makes out its re-
     port, Corodura Company is going to transport it to Sheffield
 ..   and you immediately receive the EPA summary.  I am recommend-
     ing that strongly, otherwise, we are going to come back.  You
25    see, you don't care.  When this happened, only one truck dri-

-------
                                                             383


 l    ver dumped the PCB in Dittmer, Missouri, it costs us tax-


 2    payers $500,000 because you failed to know who dumped it in


 3    Dittmer, Missouri.  Do you see the point?


               MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  Father, I have some good news.


     We not only know who dumped it in Dittmer, they have been
 5
     sent a bill for the entire cost of the bill about two weeks ag|o.

 6
               FATHER GIERUT:  That's the way it should be.  As

 7
     long as the taxpayers don't pay for it, I am happy about it.

 8
               MR. LEHMAN:  Father, I also would like to point out

 9
     one aspect of our tracking system that we have been discus-

10
     sing here and that is the generator, or in the case you have

11
     been using as an example, would be the Monsanto Corporation,


     must inform EPA if they do not get a confirmation of delivery


     within thirty days.  In other words, there is a feedback sys--

14
     tern built into this so that it is not only EFA that is keeping


     track of what is being sent but the originating company is

16
     also responsible for keeping track.


               FATHER GIERUT:  The responsibility is fulfilled by

18
     all persons, Monsanto, the transporter, the place that re-

19
     ceived it and the EPA, all are in good shape now.

20
               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.

21
               The next speaker this afternoon is Don Norton from

22
     Congressman Findley's office.


23                    STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FINDLEY


24                   AS GIVEN BY MR. DON NORTON

25
               MR. NORTON:  My name is Don Norton.  I am administr*

-------
 l    tive assistant to U. S. Representative Paul Findley of the




 2    20th Congressional District of Illinois, which encompasses




 3    the area from Alton to Springfield to Quincy and down the




 4    Mississippi River and includes the community of Wilsonville,




 5    Illinois.




 6              I am speaking on behalf of the Congressman today




 7    because he is in session in Washington and I noticed, to my




 g    chagrin, after I got here, after you had noticed also the




 9    nature of our remarks, they really pertain to Section 3004,




10    which is tomorrow on your agenda.  If you will indulge my




n    presence today, I will go ahead and read the statement and




]2    also, I apologize for the designation of Mr. Chairman on that.



13    I am afraid one of our staffers got carried away perhaps with




14    the ritual of capital health.




15              Before I get into this, we were delighted to learn




16    of the revelation two weeks ago the offending party had been




17    located as to the Dittmer dump, so to speak, and I hope that



]8    the collection efforts will be pressed vigorously on that.




)9              MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  The U. S. Coast Guard actually



     paid for clean up and they are the ones responsible for




21    attempting to collect the money to pay the U. S. Government.



22    They have assured us they will keep us informed as to their




23    progress.




24              MR. NORTON:  Congressman Findley asked for this




25    time today so he could indicate in the strongest possible way

-------
                                                               385
 l    his great distress over the direction or lack of direction
 2    in the way the Environmental Protection Agency has imple-
 3    merited certain sections of the Research Conservation and
 4    Recovery Act of 1976.
 5              He recognizes that few will argue with the need
 6    for action.  The Love Canal in New York, the Valley of the
 7    Drums outside Louisville, the PCB episode in Michigan and
 8    countless other cases, all provide grim testimony to the po-
 9    tential for disaster.  That is why we are here today.  These
]0    tragedies show up in the most explicit way, the immense
n    economic and physical hardship imposed on victims of hazard-
I2    ous waste pollution.
13              In our particular case, you need not go as far as
14    New York or Michigan to see the potential or new environmen-
15    tal disaster in human suffering being stored in the ground.
]6    Just across the river in Macoupin County, Illinois, less
17    than an hour»i drive from here, lies the community of Wilson-
]8    ville served by Father Gierut.  And located within the city
19    limits, believe it or not, is the hazardous waste dump op-
20    erated by a corporation which euphemistically calls itself
2|    Earthline.  A quiet rural community, Wilsonville has every
22    desire to stay off the front page of the New York Times.  The
23    people do not want to end up in a story about the grizzly
24    consequences of finding a hazardous waste treatment facility
25    within the community.  But in recent months, words like

-------
                                                            386




 i   "leachate," factivated sludge," and  "PCB's",  terms, which un-



 2   til recently, mean little to the average American, raise  the



 3   spectre of debilitating disease, economic disaster, and an



 4   uncertain future for those who live  in Wilsonville.



 5             This afternoon 1 would like to direct my remarks



 6   to those areas of the proposed regulations which need drastic



 7   attention if we are to avoid the creation of  a series of  Wil-



 8   sonvilles across the country.  To begin with, the proposed regj-



 9   ulations do not begin to deal adequately with the problem of



10   site selection for hazardous waste dumps.  To be sure, no



11   city, no township, no individual wants to be  on the receiving



12   end for hazardous wastes.  Yet, EFA's approach has been to



13   ignore the most basic and perhaps the single  most important



14   problem in the regulation of hazardous waste.



15             In fact, it is the very absence of  tough regulations



16   on site selection that caused the problem in  Wilsonville.



17   Back in 1976, when construction permits were  granted to Earth-



18   line, no mention was made as to what the operator of the  fa-



19   cility planned to treat and buy there.  It was only after the



20   dump began filling up that residents learned  of the dangerous



2i   chemicals being buried within their  community.  Immediately,



22   they filed suit in court to close down the site.  The Illinois



23   Attorney General Joined them in their suit, but ironically,



24   the Environmental Protection Agency  took the  side of Earth-



25   line Corporation.

-------
                                                            38'r
 1              In August of 1978, Judge John Russell  ordered the
 2   site closed and the dismantling  of the facility.   But whether
 3   and when that may occur  is very  speculative.  A  higher  court
 4   could overturn Judge Russell's decision on appeal  and the
 5   town of Wilsonville could still  have a hazardous waste  dump
 6   within the city limits.  My reason for reviewing this very
 7   personal and local experience is to show you how difficult it:
 g   is to remove a hazardous waste dump once it has  actually be-
 9   gun operation.  We suggest that  what this means  is that the
10   first thing you should concentrate upon is the criteria to
n   be used to determine where these hazardous waste dumps  should
I2   be located.  Once they have been established in  a  heavily
]3   populated  area, even your strictest regulations  governing
14   their operation are likely to be inadequate.  The  mere
15   existence  of a hazardous waste dump in a population center
16   should never be permitted.  I urge you to change your regula-
]7   tions, Congressman Findley urges, to eliminate once and for
18   all the possibility of this occurring again.
]9              The approach of EPA's  proposed regulations to this
2Q   problem is simply to create a buffer zone of some  200 feet
21   between the active portion of the facility and its property
22   boundary to reduce the risk to public and environmental
23   health.  This two hundred foot requirement is wholly inade-
24   quate.  Chemical landfills never lie dormant.  When water  pen-
25   etrates buried wastes, it removes soluble components, pro.-

-------
                                                                388



 1    duciog a grossly polluted liquid leachate that travels away



 2    from the dump.  EPA recognizes that the technology of lea-



 3    chate monitoring is still being refined, and there is no



 4    reason to believe the leachate will not travel a two hundred



 5    foot distance, especially when the surrounding soil is por-



 6    ous.  EPA's own Office of Solid Waste has guessed that the



 7    average landfill site, about 17 acres in size, produces 4.6



 8    million gallons of leachate a year if there are- 10 inches of



 9    rain.  It is unrealistic to think that all 4.6 million gallons



10    remain within the hazardous dump.



11              Compounding this, there is always the problem of



12    ground water contamination when leaching occurs.  More than



13    100 million Americans depend upon ground water as their



14    source of nature's most vital fluid.  In Wilsonville, for ex-



15    ample, if the ground water becomes so contaminated as to be



16    unfit to drink, the town would be without a major source of



17    water.



18              The two hundred foot requirement is also inadequate



!9    when you consider the potential for explosions or contamina-



2Q    tion of the atmosphere which could expose hundreds if not



2i    thousands of people to the deadly contents of such substances



22    as cyanides, sulfides and dioxin.



23              We repeat, it is absolutely vital for EPA to write



24    regulations which will make it impossible to construct a haz-



25    ardous waste dump in or near a population center.  In the last

-------
                                                             38 9




1    session of Congress,  Congressman Findley introduced a bill



2    that would have solved this problem by requiring that public



3    lands be used for the location of hazardous waste facilities.



     Due to the sluggishness of EPA in formulating an agency opirt-



     ion, hearings were not held on that bill.



6              Another area of the proposed regulations which we



7    feel is inadequate is EPA18 proposal that persons who produce



     and dispose of 100 kilograms (about 220 pounds) of hazardous



9    waste in any one month be exmpted from EFA's regulations.



10    Although we can sympathize with your desire not to regulate



     "the little guy", we  still find this requirement extremely



12    troublesome.  All hazardous wastes have different levels of



13    toxicity.  The residue C-56, created through the manufactur-



14    ing of the pesticide  Kepone and Mirex, has a relatively low



     level of toxicity even in sizeable amounts.  At the other end



16    of the spectrum, however, chemists point out that as little



17    as three ounces of dioxin are enough to kill more than a



13    million people.  Clearly, EPA should devise a system which



19    takes into consideration the relative toxicity levels of



20    various hazardous wastes instead of Issuing a blanket exemp-



     tion.



               Finally, we believe EPA has made a major mistake



23    by focusing all of its attention on the treatment and burial



24    of waste only at locations away from where they are generated



25    The General Accounting Office estimates that in 1976, only

-------
                                                              390



 1    17 per cent of the approximately 46 million tons of poten-



 2    tially hazardous waste produced would be buried off-site.



 3    The remaining 83 per cent are buried by the company which



 4    produces them on the site where they are produced.  These



 5    hazardous wastes which are buried on the site they are pro-



 6    duced, are just as dangerous as those which are carried to



 7    another site for burial.   In one sense, they may be even more



 8    dangerous because little  is known about them.  It is our



 9    understanding that the Environmental Protection Agency does



 10    not currently have an accurate record of where all hazardous



 n    wastes are buried in this country.  It is reasonable to as-



 ]2    sume that the most difficult sites to identify will be those



 13    that are located right where the hazardous chemicals were



 14    produced.  Until these sites are identified and licensed,



 15    it will not be possible to have any real concept of the ex-



 16    tent of the danger to our society from the hazardous waste



 17    dumps peppered across the nation.



 IB              When RCRA was passed by the Congress in 1976, it



 19    was never intended that EPA would only attack part of the



 20    problem.  It would be our hope that the promulgation of



 2]    these regulations would apply to the extent possible, equally



 22    not only to off-site facilities such as the one at Wilson-



 23    ville, but also to all on-site dumps.



 24              To EPA1s credit, the Agency has tackled an enormous



25    job with tremendous vigor and thought in trying to implement

-------
                                                             391
 l   RCRA.  But  the need  for  action  is  clear.   EPA has  already
 2   missed its  deadline  set  by  Congress  by some  ten months in
 3   issuing  regulations.  We cannot afford to wait much longer.
 4   The  situation is critical.   If  EPA fails  to  respond soon or
 5   in a way not compatible  with the concerns of the public, it
 6   may  be left up to  Congress  to make those  hard decisions to
 7   insure the  health  of the public and  the environment.
 8             In closing, we would  like  to leave you with one
 9   last thought.  Less  than 7  per  cent  of the 92 billion pounds
10   of chemical waste  generated each year receives proper dispo-
11   sal. If we are to prevent  future  disasters  from occurring
12   such as  the one at Love  Canal,  the Valley of the Drums or
]3   Wilsonville, we need to  act now.
14             Thank you.
15             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you, Mr. Norton.  Would
16   you  answer  any questions we may have?
17             MR. NORTON:   I will try.
18             MR. LINDSEY:   I think there has been a misinterpre-
,9   tation somewhere,  maybe  because we didn't write these things
20   as clearly  as we  thought we had but  I would  just like to point
21   out  that on-site  disposal facilities are  regulated, essen-
22   tially,  to  the same  extent  as off-site.  How the misinterpre-
23   tation could have  been made I don't  know  but the intent of
24   the  regulations as far as we are concerned in writing, that
25   is the case.  So,  I  think that  will  alleviate some of your

-------
                                                              392
 l    problems, hopefully.

 2              MR. NORTON:  I thought that might come up.  On

 3    Page 58947 of the proposed rules, 58947, middle column to-

 4    wards the bottom, "The Agency has developed implementation

 5    plans which would give first priority for permitting to off-

 6    site disposal facilities and new facilities".  It is from

 7    that, plus other comments we have obtained that led us to

 8    that conclusion.

 9              MR. LINDSEY:  Let me address that just a minute,

 10    if I could.  What you are looking at there is a strategy,

 ,,    essentially, we are implementing.  Given we have limited

 ]2    resources and the states will assume responsibility for this

 13    where we don't, we will also have some limited resources but

 14    it is going to take us some time to get around to permitting

 15    all the facilities.

 16              It's our conclusion, at least thus far, that by

 17    and large, a disportionate amount of the damages have

 18    occurred from what we will call fly-by-night on-site opera-

 19    tions and our intent there is to try and get to those first.

 2Q    That doesn't mean to say we are going to ignore everybody

 2]    else but by and large, we are going to try and implement in

 22    those areas first.  There is also some other implementation

 23    scheduling arrangements which we are considering and that is

 24    we are going to attempt to release or relieve the burden

25    somewhat by trying to implement on-site permits at the same

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         393
 time  that NPDS  permits  are  reissued so we can do them to-
 gether,  things  like  that, but that doesn't mean to say where
 we  know  or expect to be a problem, have  reason to believe
 from  a third party operation that we won't proceed to act on
 those permits immediately and the-regulations themselves ap-
 ply in either case.
           What  you saw  there is  a policy of implementing them
 and when we will get to whom first and that sort of thing.
           MR. NORTON:  It's a matter of  concern, obviously,
 and I will convey this  position  back to  the Congressman be-
 cause that will relate  to further steps  that we will be taking
           MR. LEHMAN:  Mr.  Norton, to  follow up on that a
 little bit, I should also point  out, I think, that even
 setting  aside the priority  for permitting, there is still a
 requirement in the regulations as proposed that all generators
 and all  people  who operate  treatment storages or disposal fa-
 cilities on site as  well as off-site,  must notify EPA within
 ninety days after these regulations are  promulgated and fur-
thermore, within 180  days they must apply for a permit.  I
 think this will go a long way to answering your concern about,
 first of all that we are somehow treating differently on-site
 than  off-site.   In fact, we are  really not, but also that we
 will  have a much better idea, as you point out, as to where
 all of these treatment, storage, disposal locations are once
 this  notification process  takes  force  but at the moment, I

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        394




must admit that your Congressman is correct.  We do not have



as much information along those lines as we would like to



have.



          MR. NORTON:  We were worried about the emphasis



here.  I read the regulations.  We have that knowledge con-



cerning the proposed timetable for getting in touch with and



licensing the on-site generators.  We just wanted to make



sure that that is a equal matter of priority where it is pur-



sued with vigor.



          MR. LEHMAN:  As far as the notification goes and



as far as the current application goes, there is equal priori-



ty for on-site, off-site there.  Another point I would like



to clarify, it's part of your statement getting back to the



situation of the Earthline facility in Wilsonville.  You



make the statement that when construction permits were granted



to Earthline no mention was made as to what the operator, facll
                * treat and bury there.  Here, again, we



recognize the need for public access to information concerning



hazardous waste facilities, not in these proposed regulations



but in the permitting regulations which naturally say what has



to be part of the permanent applicant and administrative rules



of practice as to how those permit applications are handled.



          There is, of course, a much greater degree of infor-



mation that is required to be submitted in the permit appli-



cation.  There is an opportunity for public hearing concerning
Ity

-------
                                                          395
 l   the permit before it  is  issued and  so on.   I  think when  these
 2   regulations do become finalized  that these  types  of  problems
 3   that you have pointed out will no longer be a problem.
 4             MR. TRASK:  Mr. Norton, as you know from reading
 5   our Preamble 3002, we are wrestling with this 100 kilogram
 6   issue and that is a suggestion and  there were five others  men-
 7   tioned in the Preamble,  one of which dealt  with the  degree of
 g   hazard which you suggested we ought to  look at.
 9             We do solicit  the input into  this.   If  you have  some
10   thoughts on where we  would begin, what  would  be the  dividing
tl   line and as to what would be in, what would be out,  bearing
12   in mind that a material  that would  not  be subject to all ad-
13   ministrative requirements, still would  be subject to 4004  type
]4   facility requirements.
15             In other words, it would  not  be let lose in the  at-
16   mosphere, per se.  If you have some thoughts  on that we  would
17   like to have them.
lg             MR. NORTON: We do and we will be communicating
19   those in writing.
20             MR. 1EHMAN: Mr. Norton,  I have another question
2]   I would like to pursue with you, one of the remarks  you  were
22   making concerning the setback requirement with respect to  lo-
23   cation site selection, indicating that  we are aware  of the
24   fact the Congressman  did introduce  a bill concerning the use
25   of a public land for  location of hazardous  waste  facilities

-------
                                                              396
   1  [| and I am wondering, first of all, I guess the question is, is

      that still in the Congressman's plan?  Are you intending to

   3   have a civil bill introduced in this Congress?

   4             MR. NORTON:  Yes.

   5             MR. LEHMAN:  So, it is still the Congressman's

   6   opinion that that is the appropriate policy for location of

   7   hazardous waste facilities?

   8             MR. NORTON:  It is.

   9             MR. LEHMAN:  Given the fact that some federal land

  10   are located in somewhat heavily populated areas, you are

  11   really talking about a distinction here of a certain type of

  12   federal land?

  13             MR. NORTON:  We would distinguish land as to their

  14   proximity to population centers, of course, not just being

  15   public land automatically qualifies, for a site.

  16             MR. LEHMAN:  Do you have some feeling or would you

  17   like to comment on just what is an appropriate setback dis-
 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25
tance than we are talking about here?

          MR. NORTON:  I personally speaking, from my own

knowledge and conversations that our office has had with

your Agency, I think that that would be subject to quite a

few variables in nature, the ground itself and location in

relation to water supplies and so forth. I am not prepared

to state any magical distance at this time, 500 feet or a

thousand feet or what have you.  I do know that the existing

-------
                                                          397
 l   or the proposed setback requirement, you apply it in very
 2   graphic cases, the Village of Wilsonville where the Earthline
 3   facility is right across the street from the last house and
 4   the facility at the end of Main Street^ that that demonstrates
 5   it must certainly be farther than 200 feet and actually, the
 6   active part of that site is probably more than 200 feet away
 7   from the last house along that street.
 g             I will be happy to take this subject up with the
 9   Congressman and ask him, perhaps, to elaborate on that.
10             MR. LEHMAN:  Another follow-up question along those
n   lines, your statement indicated that the location of all
12   hazardous waste facilities should be on federal land.  Do you
13   feel that there is a distinction that should be made here
]4   between different types of hazardous waste facilities, like
15   incinerators, treatment facilities, et cetera, versus land-
16   fills?  In other words, do you think the same type of isola-
17   tion is required for all types of facilities or just for cer-
18   tain types like a landfill.
19             MR. NORTON:  At this time we are not making any dis-
20   tinction.  I might elaborate on that.  Siting is a most diffi-
21   cult problem.  You folks are having to contend with it and
22   you have for several years and to look at the examples of
23   Wilsonville, which is closest to our heart because it is in
24   our district, perhaps with the Minnesota demonstration Grant
25   situation or the Oregon problem orwhat have you, referring to

-------
                                                            398



 l    the GAO report  of  late December  or  early January,  this  is  an



 2    awfully tough nut  to crack and the  Agency has  opted  for and



 3    RCRA  is based upon the regulatory approach as  contrasted to



 4    an earlier emphasis about ten years ago.



 5             I  think  it is our  feeling that we  don't  want  to  be



 6    prophets of  doom here but we think  we will find  there will



 7    be little practical solution in  the existing approach and  we



 3    are going to have  to go to the public land approach  to  get



 9    the sites situated and operated.



10             MR. LINDSEY:  If we go to public land  approach



,,    when we would go as far as to say the old national disposal



]2    sites concept that somebody  asked a question about the  other



13    day.  In other words, would  we set  up a system where Uncle



14    Sam would be running the facility or would we  simply allow



I5    and assist the  siting of facilities where maybe  we would own



16    the land, the federal government would own the land  and pri-



17    vate contractors would build facilities?  You  haven't thought



18    that  through?



19             MR. NORTON:  There would  be several  possibilities



20    under the general  umbrella,  that could be set  up,  I  think,



21    in our estimation.  The worst case  situation perhaps might be



22    with  the federal government  providing a site.  I believe from



23    information  that I have that the Oregon approach was to



24    assist a private operator with proviso that  the  land become



25    public property  when the site was closed.  That's  another  pur-

-------
                                                           399




 1    pose.  All of these could be rolled  in.   They deviate, in




 2    our minds, drastically from the existing rules.   We think




 3    it is going to have to go in that direction.




 4              CHAIRPERSON DARKAH:  Thank you very much.




 5              He will take a five-minute break.




 6              (A short recess was  taken.)




 7
 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20





21




22




23





24




25

-------
                                                        400





               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  The next speaker this after-




     noon will be Mildred Hendricks from Gillespie,




 3             MS, HENDRICKS:  Is someone calling me?




 4             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Yes, are you Mildred Hen-




     dricks?




 6             MS, HENDRICKS:  I most certainly am0




 7             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  You had indicated you wanted




     to speak this afternoon?




               MS. HENDRICKS:  Well, I'll tell you what I did,




10   I was getting ready to go home and I had handed in my tes-




11   timony to these people here.  So it will be in the testi-




12   mony,




13             CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  00K<,  We have a written




14   statement for the record rather than oral testimony.




15             (Whereupon statement above referred to was




16        made part of the official record.)




17                       HEARING INSERT




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




26

-------
                   C
                   *•
           -»

         VI I I  I ^^» 0 \
         ^—l i *»~ *-t S ]
                     _
<\>  WK- F      V tV
^ \  \ r> \^ *-     x      !

      /,  fs.       f\ t p
      U\~      Uf
         f _
         "1^ •& /k : si^y VS
          [N\? CW\<- *-^—
  Following  are excerpts  from
 testimony by Mrs  Frederick Hen-
dncks,  Gillespie,  Illinois,  (LRA
member) before  the T|j  legislators
  We, the citizens of our Sovereign
 State of Illinois, have  great hope
 that you will enforce your oath
 of office and  stop the destruc-
 tion of that balance of power that
 once existed between  the  Sover-
 eign States  and their  Agent, the
 Federal Government
  The  State  Constitution  states,
 "The public policy of the state
 and the  duty  of each  person
 is  to   provide  and  maintain  a
 healthful  environment  for  the
 benefit  of this and future genera-
 tions The General Assembly shall
 provide by  law for implements
 t1on  and  enforcement  Of  this
Public  Policy "  In my  humble
opinion, the Environmental Pro-
tection  Agency  is not doing this
 and is  breaking  the law  due to
it being unconstitutional
  I  do   not recall  our  elected
representatives   in  Washington
giving  this  power  to  these un-
elected   bureaucrats? fef -«SHAr
EPA and others However,  I have
hopes  that  our Congressmen in
Washington   will  be  successful
     get  back this power  which
rightfully  belongs  to  our elected
legislators
  Illinois   is  a  Sovereign  State
today  and  must  remain  one
tomorrow  and  not  become  a
Branch  Office  of  a  Regional
Bureaucracy for Federal Dictator-
ship that  might attempt to  rule
over all  of us from_Wash  DC
  We the citizens of the Sovereign
State  of  Illinois  created  the
Federal Government granting very
specific  and  limited powers, and
the Regional  Planners admit ttiey
have no Constitutional authority
for  their  regulatory  agencies  I
sincerely  hope that  the  concept
of  "HUMAN  RIGHTS"  will  not
replace  our  U S  Constitutional
"BILL OF  RIGHTS "  Then  al-
most anything  can   be  called
 'CONSTITUTIONAL" including
Regional Governance
  In  my opinion  the  present silli-
ness of the EPA and some other
U S  agencies is  due m  major
part to a violation  of some  of the
basic concepts of our U.S Consti-
tution particularly  Art I, II, and
HI,  which  define  the  separation
of   Legislative,  Executive   and
Judicial   functions   Although
sanctioned  to  some  degree  by
law, these Regulatory  Agencies
have more  and more assumed all
three  they  set up regulations,
enforce  them  and judge  their
validity  Such  a concentration of
power is certainly contrary  to our
American tradition and is at odds
with the Constitution  of the U S

-------
                                                             401
                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Is there anyone  who  would like
  2    to speak on Section 3003 Regulations?
  3              (No response.)
  4              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  All right, we will close
  5    the record of the hearing on Section 3003.
                (See separate transcript for question and answer
      session.)
  8

  9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25

-------
ROOM 2133, RArwim BwiDina                   PAUL F1NDLEY                      COMMITTEE*,

 WMHINOTON. D C. 20315                    20TH DISTRICT. ILJ.IMOH                 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
                                                                AGR1CULTUR..:




                     Congress of t!jc ®ntteb States



                                  ; 3Reprej(tntat.tiej(     fp1"""       "~




                                                           MAR T, 0 1979




                                                      llJLbL£*LaJ U




             Please include  this statement  in  the official



       record along with  the statement presented by my  Springfield



       administrative assistant at the St.  Louis hearings



       February 15, 1979.



             Thanks very much
                                       Paul  Findley

                                       Representative in  Congress

-------
     I am pleased to submit for the record these additional substantive



comments concerning the final promulgation of rules for section 3001,



3002 and 3004 of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  These



regulations were to be promulgated, as directed by law, no later than



April of 1978.  unfortunately U.S. EPA's lack of diligence in formulating



and adopting rules has now delayed by one year establishment of an active,



effective and comprehensive regulatory program.  Yet, in proposing these



rules EPA signals its first real attempt to deal with the problem of



hazardous waste management.



     Although a step forward, these regulations do not, even in the



smallest way, tackle the problem of where to locate hazardous waste



facilities.  The Love Canal in New York, the Valley of the Drums in



Kentucky, the PCB episode in Michigan and countless other cases provide



grim testimony to the potential for disaster.  For example, within the



Congressional district I represent lies the small, quiet community of



Wilsonville, Illinois.  Yet Wilsonville has been in the national news



recently.  Located in Wilsonville, a hazardous waste dump which euphemisti-



cally calls itself Earthline has created a public outcry of unequalled



proportions.  Filing suit, the citizens of Wilsonville, joined by the



Illinois Attorney General, have sought injunctive relief against further



dumping and operation of the Earthline site.  Ironically, the Environmental



Protection Agency took the side of Earthline.  Squaring off against each



other, the residents won a victory in August of 1978 when Judge John Russell



ordered the site closed and the dismantling of the facility because of the



danger the site posed to the town.  Yet Judge Russell's order may never



be implemented if his decision is overturned and the town could still have



an active hazardous waste dump within the city limits.

-------
                 STATEMENT OF



           CONGRESSMAN PAUL FINDLEY



                  before the



U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S HEARINGS



                   ON RCRA



               FEBRUARY 15, 1979

-------
Page Two








     I strongly urge EPA to do two things: First, EPA should withdraw



its opposition to Judge Russell's order and accept the court's verdict



closing the Earthline hazardous waste disposal site in the town of



Wilsonville.  EPA should recognize that the people living within a



community have a right not to have a hazardous waste treatment plant



placed within the borders of their town.  Second, EPA should formulate



national regulations prohibiting the establishment of any hazardous



waste treatment plant within a community or other population center,  the



lesson of Wilsonville is that such hazardous waste disposal sites are



unnecessary, unwanted, undesirable, and unhealthy.  EPA can and should



make them unlawful.  Site location is the crux of the hazardous waste



issue.  With these comments as a preface let me discuss briefly section



3001, identification and listing of hazardous wastes, and point to some



of the strengths and weaknesses I see in these proposed rules.



     First, under the scope of the definition of hazardous waste in



paragraph 250.10(d) certain materials are excluded from the definition



because they are not regarded as discarded materials.  In my judgment



the definition should not turn on this indistinct definition.  For



example, some operators claiming to be solvent reclaimers have in fact



been hazardous waste disposal operations.  Usually such an operation



solicits waste materials containing potentially recoverable solvents in



the hope that significant revenue can be obtained by recovering the



materials.  However when it is discovered that solvents cannot be



economically recovered, the operator may be left with a large inventory



of waste materials for which he has insufficient funds for disposal.



     It is my judgment  that EPA has erred in choosing not to prepare

-------
Page Three








regulations recognizing the degree of hazard.  A single hazard classifi-



cation system for all hazardous wastes, as EPA has proposed, will require



all hazardous wastes to be handled in the same manner and to be treated



at facilities conforming to the regulations stated in section 3004.



     Wastes are usually disposed of in either the acidic environment



of an open dump containing decaying organic matter or managed in the



hazardous waste system prescribed in sections 3002, 3003 and 3004.



These two disposal methods represent extremes in cost and complexity.



Many wastes can be disposed of in facilities far less costly than those



conforming with the section 3004 regulations provided they are kept



from an acidic environment.



     A waste classfication system such as those in effect in Illinois,



California and Texas, could be designed recognizing the degree of



hazard.  Utilizing this kind of system would enable more reasonable,



defensible and less inflationary regulations to be devised.  Classification



would also, I believe, make public acceptance of hazardous waste sites



more likely if people knew what kinds of wastes were to be handled at



the facility.  For example, fly ash is considered hazardous but has a



low level of toxicity.  Given a low toxic rating, people would be more



willing to have fly ash stored near them than say a waste, such as



dioxin, having a much higher toxic rating.



     Additionally, I disagree with EPA's proposal for a blanket exclusion



from the hazardous waste regulatory program for generators of less than



100 kilograms per month.  While such an exclusion might be justified for



some small waste generators, substances such as dioxin or hexachloro-



cyclopentadience are lethal in quantities of much less than 100 kilograms.

-------
Page Four

I would suggest that a new hazard classification system which takes
into account volume and toxicity be used to determine the need for
taking part in the regulatory program.
     I also found in the preamble of the regulatory proposals a state-
ment that greatly distresses me.  On page 58947 of the Federal Register,
the preamble said in part, "The agency has developed implementation
plans which would give first priority for permitting    off-site
disposal facilities and new facilities,. ..."  The General Accounting
Office has estimated that of the 46 million tons of potentially hazardous
waste produced in 1976, 83 percent was buried by the company which pro-
duced the wastes on the site where it was produced.  Yet these on-site
wastes are just as dangerous as those which are carried to another site
for burial.  When RCRA was enacted into law in 1976, Congress never
thought that EPA would direct its efforts primarily to the problem of
off-site disposal.  It is my hope that EPA will seek to balance its
future efforts between on and off-site disposal of hazardous waste.
     Section 3002 of RCRA sets forth the requirements governing the
generator's manifest, reporting and recordkeeping system.  If one reads
the proposed rules carefully concerning this system an obvious defect
appears: A generator who sends his wastes to an off-site, in-state,
captive facility is exempt from all reporting requirements.  Operators
of captive waste management facilities should, at a minimum, file the
same reports as on-site disposers.
     Turning to section 3004, I would disagree with the specific
requirements concerning the 200 foot buffer zone to be placed between
the active portions of the facility and the property line.  I believe

-------
Page Five









that the danger of explosion or contamination may in certain cases be



so great that a 200 foot buffer zone would be inadequate if the facility



is located in a populated area.



     I would also object to EPA's requirement that a facility not be



located in a 500 year floodplain.  This is a rather stiff requirement



that I consider unnecessary.  I would suggest that a 100 year floodplain



or even the greatest flood of record, whichever is greater, be used



to determine the propriety of locating a facility on a floodplain.



     Finally, I want to express my concern over EPA's proposed standards



governing special wastes.  The thrust of the Resource Conservation and



Recovery Act is to encourage the recycling of wastes when possible.



My fear, however, is that certain combustion by-products such as fly



ash, bottom ash, slag, and sulfur will not be recycled to the degree



possible due to the hazardous waste classfication given these by-products



under section 3001.



     For example, the special waste classification proposed by EPA



classifies fly ash as hazardous.  Yet the level of toxicity for fly ash



is so low that it is silly to classify the ash with such toxic wastes



as dioxin.



     I know for a fact that certain townships within my district have



been blessed with have quantities of fly ash available to use with slag



and sulfur to build the sub-surface for roads.



     Fly ash also has other uses.  It can be used in making cement



and concrete blocks and fertilizer.  If fly ash is classified as a



hazardous waste, however, few farmers may want to apply to EPA for a



permit to use this by-product.

-------
Page Six







     I would urge EPA to reconsider its strategy for special wastes.



Recycling should be encouraged, not stymied.  The hazardous waste



labeling given these by-products may preclude their use, their



recycling and their contribution in reducing the amount of accumula-



ted waste.



     EPA has tackled an enormously important job.  Love Canal, the



Valley of the Drums in Kentucky, Wilsonville, Illinois, demonstrate



the need for action.  EPA should complete its regulatory program as



mandated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976



as soon as possible and not let another year slip by during which



the seeds of other tragedies may be planted.

-------
SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT FOR QUESTION AND
ANSWER SESSION
     St. Louis, Missouri
     February 15, 1979

-------
                                                         402





 1              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  We will go ahead and answer




 2    questions that we had left from this morning  on 3002 and




 3    we'll also be handing out more cards if you have anymore




 4    written questions on Section 3003.




 5              MRo LEHMAN:  This relates back to the answer to




 6    a previous question this morning,,  The question: "Are you




 7    saying that using hazardous waste oil for purposes of dust




 8    fetippression can be a permanent disposal method?"




 9              The answer is yes, according to our regulations,




10    it's not banned outright^  What we are saying rather is




11    that it must be controlled.  Namely, it needs to be, if




12    it is permitted,  it has to be done with a permit so the




13    answer to the question is yes, it is possible that dust




14    suppression using waste oil can so be done but it would




15    require permit.




16              Another question: "If a state does not have an




17    approved Subtitle D program," '— this is for nonhazardous




18    waste under RCRA.  "If a state does not have an approved




19    nonhazardous Subtitle D program, where will the disposal




20    of nonhazardous waste be allowed within that state?"




21              Well, the answer is that under Subtitle D, the




22    Federal Government really has no direct authority.  The




23    landfilling of nonhazardous waste or disposal of is subject




24    to state control,,  The fact, however, that a state does




25    not have an approved Subtitle D program then you have to

-------
                                                            403





     read  the  4000  series  of  RCRA to understand their interrela-




 2   tionships there  between  EPA as  a criteria for land disposal




 3   and the approval of state  nonhazardous waste program,,




               If a state  does  not have an approved Subtitle D




 ?   program,  this  opens up the direct possibility of foreclosure




 6   of certain landfill sites.  In  other words, it is only if




 7   a state has an approved  Subtitle D program that they can




 "   put certain landfills that are  classified as open dumps




 9   in accordance  with the Federal  criteria on some sort of




10   a compliance schedule.  Otherwise such facility would be




11    subject to direct citizen  suits for immediate closure.




12             Also,  I might  point out as we've discussed earlier




13   today, in the  100 kilogram per  month proposal of conditional




14   exemption of 100 kilograms per  month under Section 3002




15   for hazardous  waste,  it  is conditional in the sense that




16   you are out of the regulatory system provided that you




17   take  the  less  than, 100 kilograms to a landfill which is —




18   see if I  can get — I'm  going to have to look at the regu-




19   lations for the  exact wording but to paraphrase, the Sub-




20   title D landfill would have to  be approved pursuant to an




21    approved  Subtitle D program,




22              In other words,  if you have —- if you happen to




23    live  in a state  which does not  have an approved Subtitle




24   D' program, then  the state  permits for those nonhazardous




2g    waste facilities do not  satisfy the requirements of these

-------
                                                          404





 1    conditional exemptions and therefore the 100 kilogram ex-




 2    emption would not apply either,




 3              So there are a number  of ramifications associated




 4    with a state that does not have  an approved Subtitle D




 5    program,




 6              Question: "Spent solvent going to a solvent re-




 7    claimant,  does the generator of  the spent solvent need to




 8    fill out a manifest?"




 9              Well,  the answer is no under our 'proposed regula-




10    tions,  However,  I think I should point out that previous




11    commentors, both here  yesterday  and in New York last week,




12    have questioned this practice or this situation as a possible




13    loophole and consequently the Agency will reexamine that.




14    But as of  December 18  when we proposed our regulations, the




15    answer to  that question would be no.




I6              MR.  LINDSEY:  A couple of questions about the




17    siting, really.   They  are rather broad.




ig              "Have  you given any consideration as to how or




19    where a landfill would be located?  Is Federally-owned




20    land a consideration?"




21              There  is nothing in our regulations that preclude




22    the use of Federally-owned lands but Federally-owned lands




23    are not under EPA jurisdiction.   They are largely under




24    a variety  of other Federal agencies, including the Forest




„    Service and Bureau of  Land Management and military and so

-------
10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23
                                                        405





forth.  There was — I should point it out if it might be




of interest, a relatively recent action in which the state




of Washington obtained a piece of Federal land in the mid-




dle of a reservation which is Atomic Energy plant for in-




dustrial waste disposal site and that is being developed




at the present time.  And there was quite a bit of public




interest in that at the time,  As a matter of fact they




have relocated several times in response to that public




interest.




          0»K., it says, "This might be a more appropriate




3004 question but what effects on the site selection process




for hazardous wa^ste disposal sites does the EPA foresee




resulting from the soon-to-be-finalized public participa-




tion regulations?  Several comments over the past few days




reflect a general public emotionalism attached to the is-




sue of siting facilities and I'd like your opinion about




site availability and so forth,,"




          Well, the first question is what about the effects




of the public participation regulations.  Those are being




incorporated more specifically in regulations under our




Section 3005 regulations which are being integrated.  They




are procedual in nature.  They have due process requirements




which includes hearings and so forth and which correspond
24   to  the  requirements  of  the  public participation.   And




     those will be  proposed  in an integrated fashion with similar

-------
                                                            406





 1    regulations under JJPDS and UIC in a control program in about



 2    four to six weekso



 3              But there will be an opportunity for public input



 4    in several phases, including a hearing,  with regard to



 5    that.



 6              Now the problem which the person here addresses



 7    is the fact that the public, by and large, is not interested



 8    in having these facilities being located near them.  We've



 9    heard a number of comments to that effect in these hearings



10    and it's been a known problem for awhile that this is a



^    difficult problem.  And that's understandable, given the



12    love canals and other problems which have come down the



13    pike.



14              The question is what is all this going to mean



15    and the bottom line, with regard to siting facilities?



16    Well,  it's certainly going to make siting facilities more



17    difficult*  Hopefully the regulatory program which we have



18    here will be perceived by the public as  providing control



19    and if we implement it correctly and enforce it correctly,



_    hopefully the public will gain some faith in our ability,



21    collective ability of the disposal industry, plus as regu-



     lators of that industry,  to protect their health and best



     interests.



               You heard Mr.  Norton's comments just recently



     on his concerns in this  area, his and Congressman Findley's
25

-------
                                                         407





     and he mentioned the  potential  for some  Federal intervention,



     perhaps,  in  the  siting situation,  perhaps use of Federal



     lands or  perceive them even  going  so far as  setting up




     Federal disposal facilities,  perhaps.




               So all these options  are in the wings.  As to




     where this will  all come  out, I'm  really not sure.  We




     certainly hope that private  enterprise,  with the regulations




     which we're  putting together, will be successful in con-




     vincing the  public that this  thing can be done right and,




10    in  fact,  must be done right,  if we're to avoid more danger-




11    ous problems of  having these  materials simply dumped in



12    pits and  alongside the roads  and woods and people*§ back-



13    yards because there isn't any alternative.



14              In fact that's  about  all we can say about it



15    for the moment.



16              MRo TRASK:   A couple  of  questions  that were



17    turned in this morning.  They seemed to  fit  more properly




18    under 3003 so we held them for  this session.



19              The first one is,  "How will the transportation of



2Q    hazardous materials by barge  be handled?"




21              I  don*t know if we're in a semantics problem here,



22    or  not, but  I suspect we  may  be.  But for the record, we




23    are not dealing  with  hazardous  materials in  these regula-



24  |  tions.  We are dealing with  hazardous waste  because hazar-




25  ||  dous waste is a  DOT term.

-------
                                                           408





 1              But let's assume the person meant a waste.  There




 2    is no special requirement for barges,  They are treated the




 3    same as any other vehicle.  It's important to note here



 4    that the Coast Guard has informed us recently that they are




 5    considering proposing some amendments to 46CFR, which would




 6    pick up the hazardous waste regulations and incorporate




 7    them into their regulations dealing with hazardous materials,



 8              in other words, they would do much the same as



 9    the DOT's Office of Hazardous Materials regulations that —



10    so all regulations dealing with barges would be in one




11    place, the same as regulations dealing with railroads and



12    highways are in one place.




13              The other question says, "In the event of a spill,



14    who is the generator?  Is it the spiller or the cleanup



15    contractor?"



16              Legally, as I understand it, the generator would



17    be the spiller and not the cleanup contractor because the



18    definition says that it's the person whose act or process



19    produced the waste.  And if hazardous material is spilled




20    and that part which was not recovered as product then would



21    become hazardous waste and therefore the person whose act



22    or process caused that to happen.,




23              The question goes on,  "In the case of the notifi-



24    cation,  will all persons who could have a hazardous material



25    spill be required to notify it?"

-------
                                                              409






              The answer  is no,  they  are not  required  to  notify




     it unless they  are  in the business  of  handling  hazardous




     waste in one form or  another.




              The notification in  this  particular instance, I




     believe, is going to  be satisfied by the  requirement  that




     a copy of the EPA —  EPA will  receive  a copy of the spill




     report which is sent  into the  EPA,  And that would suffice




 8    as a notification.




 9             Question  dealing with containers  says,  "Does




10    triple rinse apply  to best side containers  only or to




11    any container previously containing hazardous waste?  For




12    example, empty  paint  cans?   If not  to  paint cans,  how are




13    paint cans and  other  such containers disposed of?"




14             In the 3001 Standards in  250014A  on Page 58958




15    that deals with —  what it says specifically is that  contai-




16    ners are a hazardous  waste unless they are  triple  rinsed.




17    In other words, any triple rinse  container  would be a non-




18    hazardous waste and therefore  a candidate for disposal




19    under 4004-type facility.




20             I have some more if  you want them,,




21             MR, LINDSEY:  According to 250.20C, "Any person




22    who generates a waste must be  determined  pursuant to  Subpart




23    A if the waste  is hazardous0"




24            "You had stated earlier  that  you did not know




25    who is generating hazardous  waste and  they  will be notified,,

-------
                                                           410'





    Are  those  not notified by  you in violation of the regula-




    tions  if they do  not  evaluate their waste?  Also how can




    we find out who it is that will be  notified?"




               I think maybe I  ought to  address this whole noti-




    fication business a little bit and  hopefully clear it up.




               The notification provision is  in there, in the




    Act  by Congress,  in order  for EPA to be  told by those who




    have the wate whether or'not they hava hazardous waste.   In




    other  words,  the  onus,  if  you will, is on  the generator,




10   treater, disposer,  and transporter  to tell EPA so that




    EPA  knows  who the regulated community is.   That's the rea-




12   son  for that<,




13              On the  other hand,  there  are some provisions in




14   there, for example, in order to have interim status if you




15   are  a  treater,  storer or disposer,  in order to have interim




16   status for an ongoing facility during a  period when EPA




17   is reviewing permit applications, which  might take some




18   time,  one  must have notified EPA.   And what we're trying




]g   to do  here is to  say, "O.K.,  this is a requirement.  Every-




    one  must notify us."   And  by and large,  we don't really




    have to do anything except sit back and  receive these



    things.




23              But we  said,  "That doesn't make  sense because  a




24   lot  of people may not realize what  their requirements are




    under  this Acto   So what we'll try  to do is anticipate who

-------
 1    may  be  involved and let them know what their requirements




 2    are."    So we've planned to send a mailing,   And what we




 3    did, frankly,  was sit down and go through SIC codes and




 4    try  to  pick  out of those SIC codes, in these three sections




 5    and  subsegments and subsegments, which may or may not have




 6    hazardous waste.  So we're trying to be overly inclusive




 7    here and we're going to generate a mailing which will come




 8    out  to  those people whom we feel may be in this system




 9    and  say, "Look, here's the requirements•>   if you are, in




10    fact, in this  system, you must let us know.; That is -requiire-




11    ments of the Law,"




12             Therefore, since we have tried to be overly in-




13    elusive, I expect that Many of the people who receive the




14    mailing will,  in fact, not be handling hazardous wastes.




15    And  if  they  are not, then they have no requirements,




16             On the other hand, there may be some people we




17    miss, that we  didn't know or didn't think had hazardous




18    waste,  or what-have-you.  In those cases, those people




19    still have requirement under the Act as still to notify




20    EPA.




2i             The  final part of this says, "Are those not




22    notified by  you'-in violation of the regulations if they




23    do not  evaluate their waste?"




24             They are in violation of the regulations if they




25    handle  hazardous waste and don't notify us.   They are not

-------
                                                             412
 1    in violation of the regulations.   They are in violation of
 2    the Act,   And the question,  of course, goes a little bit
 3    further than that.  I think  that  it said suppose we didn't
 4    know and legitimately didn't know and we didn't notify
 5    them, what happens when we get caught.  I guess that's
 6    going down on this particular question.
 7              Well, they are in  violation and there are in the
 8    Act the provisions here for  enforcement actions to be
 9    brought.   And there's a lot  of discretion on the part of
10    the Agency with regard to what we would do with enforcement
11    actions and 1 can't prejudge those.  But people would be
12    in violation and they would  be subject, at least, to some
13    sort of enforcement action.
14              Amy, do you want to say anything more about that?
15              MS. SCHAFFER:  I think  that kind of the philoso-
16    phy of my office, the Agency, is  that we're more interested
17    in getting people into the system than bringing enforcement
18    action.  And if you honest-to-goodness really didn't know
19    that you  were supposed to be in the system and you find out
20    a year later, we're not going to  slap you with a $25,000
21    fine.  However, it is still  up to the discretion of the
22    Agency and it's going to have to  be a case-by-case basis.
23              But as Fred said,  I want to reiterate that we
24    have some idea who is going  to be involved in the system
25    but we don't know everybody.  And the burden of reporting is

-------
                                                           413

     on the public,   That is the industry who uses the hazardous

     waste community.  And it*s not our responsibility to tell
 2
     you if you have to notify.  It's your responsibility to tell

     us if you have  hazardous waste,

               I have a question here concerning the transporter

     reg.  In 250,35, there is a requirement that the transpor-

 7   ter must obtain certification on the manifester, deliver
 Q
     the document by the authorized agent to the permitted faci-

 9   lity.  The question is, "What is the transporter to do if
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
he cannot acquire certification of manifester after five
days?"
          This is another instance where we really haven't
sat down and said, "We know exactly what is going to happen."

          If I were the transporter, I would immediately

hotify the generator that, to protect myself as a trans-
porter, I would also notify EPA and/or the state involved,
the state agency involved, to tell them that I could not
get the certification and I had delivered it and I have
my portion of the manifest assigned.  And then the state

or EPA will take appropriate actiort.
          The second part of this question is, "Where and

when does the delivery document enter the tracking system?"
          I think the delivery document is a piece of

paper that is used in transportation and it has the same
information on the manifest but it is carried by the trans-

-------
                                                            414






     porter while the waste is in transportation.   It is a cur-




     rent practice of the transporters to use the  delivery




     document.   Hence, and it is some generators like to keep




     the  original manifest at the site of generation and use




     the  delivery document while the waste is in transit.




               The reason why we have included delivery docu-




     ment is because of the current practice.  The tracking




     document would be delivery document but the actual piece




     of paper that is needed to be kept as reference and used




10    as the reporting information is the manifest,




11              So basically the delivery document  coming into




12    the  tracking system as soon as the waste leaves the place




13    of generation,




14              MR.  LEHMAN:   A question: "If diesel fuel oil that




15    has  a flash point of 125 degrees Fahrenheit or above and




     has  been recovered from oil/water separators  and locomotive




17    fueling stations"— I'm sorry.  "Is diesel fuel oil that




18    has  a flash point of 125 degrees or above and has been




19    recovered  from oil/water separators and locomotive fuel-




20    ing  stations,  is that considered a hazardous  waste?'  it is




21    collected  and used as  steam generator fuel.'




22              Well,  here is another case,   I assume that this




23    is basically collecting what is noncontaminated virgin




24    diesel oil off of oil/water separator at a fueling station




25    and  reusing it as basically noncontaminated virgin oil.

-------
                                                         to*





    Therefore I don't believe in this case it would be con-



2   sidered a hazardous waste,




              "Who will set the standards for the quality of




    oil for road oil and quality of oil for incineration?  If



    this has been determined, what are the applicable standards?"



              Well, for example, it has been determined and




    the standards are the applicable parts of Section 3004.



    Namely, if you're going to incinerate oil in an incinerator,




    it's got to meet the incinerator's standards.  And if




    you're going to road oil, it's got to meet the applicable




    part of the land disposal regulation in 3004.




              Also, I might point out, that where there is
10





11




12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
    some doubt, the Human Health and Environmental Standards




    override all of the other standards.




              Special waste, Section 3004, "How were the speci-




    fic wastes listed in the special waste section designated




    for this category?"  And, "Were the large quantities of




    slag by the steel industry considered for this special




    for this special waste designation?"




              0,K,f when I answered the first one, I think I




    also basically answered the second one,  And I call your




    attention to the preamble of Section 3004 on Page 58991




    where the whole special waste standard was discussed.




              Let me just paraphrase what it says in the preamble




    which is the answer to this question.  And that is that the

-------
                                                            416





 1    Agency realized that there were some portions of certain




 2    very large volume wastes that probably will be hazardous




 3    under Subpart A or 3001 standards.  And thus will come




 4    with the purview of the hazardous regulatory scheme.  Also




 5    that for some of these very large volume wastes there was —




 6    there did not seem to be a very direct corollary between




 7    the regulatory program structure that was set up there in




 8    our proposed regulation towards those special wastes,,




 9              As I mentioned earlier, the assumption was that




10    these were in such high volumes that they would be handled




11    primarily, at least, on site.




12              So these were some of the reasons why some of




13    these wastes were designated for special treatment under




14    Section 3004.  I think we've gone into the distinction




15    early on about whether, on other words, not all of these




16    wastes are necessarily hazardous unless they are listed




17    in Section 3001 or meet some of the criteria in 3001 for




18    hazardous wastes.




19              As to whether or not the slag for the steel in-




20    dustry was considered for this designation, the answer there




21    is that the information we have from our studies of the




22    iron and steel industry indicates that most steel slag is




23    nonhazardous.  Therefore we did not see the need for any




24    special waste category for the steel slag.  And this is




25    similar to a question that was asked, I believe, yesterday

-------
                                                         417





     or  perhaps  it was  New York^   I'm getting fuzzy about some




     of  these  things,  concerning  foundry sand.  The same basic




     question  was  asked0   Like  why was foundry sand considered




 4   to  be  a special waste category.   And the answer is the




     same there.   Our  information has it that most, if not all,




 6   foundry sand  is probably nonhazardous and therefore we




 7   didn't see  any need  to set a special waste category for




 8   that.




 9            ME. TRASK:   I have a few questions here dealing




10   with triple rinsing.   Let  me take them together because




11   the answer  is the  same, I  think.




12            it  says, "Triple rinsing is not comprehensive




13   enough.   For  example, if you triple rinse an oil drum




14   or  an  oil paint drum with  water fulfills the letter of




15   your reg, but will do little to remove the hazardous




16   waste," I guess it's a question, "Should you say triple




17   rinse  with  a  solution which  will remove the hazardous sub-




18   stance?"




19            And the  second one is, "Triple rinse paint cans




20   with water  or thinner?"




21            The definition of  triple rinse as stated in




22   Section 3001  says, "It shall be rinsed with a volume of




23   diluent,"  The intent here is that diluent means the normal




24   diluent for that  material.  If it's an oil base paint then




25   it  would  be a thinner.  If it's water base paint, it would

-------
                                                         418





 1    be  water.   In other words,  whatever the normal diluting




 2    material is is the material that should be used for triple




 3    rinsing that drum.




 4              I think the bottom line of all that is is that




 5    a triple-rinsed drum which  still has a residue in it could




 6    be  said to be not triple rinsed.  Our experience with triple




 7    rinsing and now we're getting into the area of pesticide




 8    drums,  but we found that it was feasible easily to get




 9    at  least 90 per cent removal of the residue in the drum by




10    triple  rinsing.  In fact, in some cases, triple rinsing when




11    it  was  carried out to the full extent was the drum was




12    thoroughly turned over and  over, we could get about 96 to 97




13    removal.  And this was some of the work done by the Air




14    Force with some of their pesticide containers,




15              In everyday practice, even using water in those




16    emulsifiable concentrates of pesticides where water is




17    the normal diluent, we found it common to get in the area




18    of  88 to 93-94 per cent removal of residuals,,




19              So triple rinsing does work and we do have some




20    basis to compare the efficiency of removal.  So 1 think




21    it  would be wrong to assume that the way the regulation




22    is  written it would mean water,  I think that there could




23    be  some bad fallout from all that.




24              The question here, and I really think it's a com-




25    ment, not a question but let me read that.  "in connection

-------
                                                            419




     with an NRC phone call" — I assume that means the National




     Response Center of the U, S, Coast Guard, it says, "why




     couldn't this be consolidated into an existing call, for




     example CHEMTRAK, so that an officer on the scene of an




     incident doesn't spend all of his time on the telephone?"




     This seems to indicate that this person has had a hard time




     getting through to the National Response Center of the U0 S0




 8   Coast Guard.




 9             We have been informed within the last two weeks




 10   that the Coast Guard is doubling the size of the staff at




 11   the National Response Center so that much better service




 12   will be available from them,,  I don't know what it was like




 13   before.  We're assured that now it will be adequate,




 14             A question on the manifest says, "In addition to




 15   the manifest requirements is it possible to identify each




 16   drum with a unique number that would precisely identify the




 17   material within, i.e. a serial number on something or




 18   a can?  The reason for the additional information would




 19   be immediate idea of contents in times of emergency."




 20             I point out that the regulation in 250.26B




 21    through reference requires that the name and common code




     of the waste be in the marking on the container,,  And also




23    that the words "Controlled Waste.  Federal Law Prohibits




24    Improper Disposal" followed by the generator's ID code and




25    the — the other part of that escapes me for the moment but

-------
                                                          420
    anyhow there is a marking there by which you can precisely




2   identify what is in that container both in terms of the




3   name of the waste and, the common code number which is a




    CAS number.  Also the hazard involved because the label —




    there must be a label on the container which indicates the




    DOT hazard that we're dealing with here0




              Question about transporter, "If a transporter




    has a spill of hazardous materials and thereby becomes




    a hazardous waste generator, then will the transporter need




    to notify and apply for an ID code as a generator?"




              I think we spoke to that before, that when this




    happens DOT requires that a report be sent to it,  DOT is




    going to send out a copy of that report to us.  We can then




    use that as a notification and, in turn, send an ID code




    to that person,,  So that he has properly notified us.




              This is, however, an implementation question and




    that's our first approach to this.  But experience may dic-




    tate we want to do something else.  But for the moment,




    that's what we intend.




              Alan Roberts, where are you?  Anyway, I'll try




    this one.  It says, "Do the DOT regulations apply to a




    transporter if he is hauling a hazardous waste that is not




    a hazardous material under DOT and he does not cross a state




    line and he is a private carrier, that is not for hire?  If




    the answer is no, what EPA is required to comply with?"
10





11




12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                            421



 1              The answer is yes so the second part doesn't mean




 2    anything.   I call your attention here to the proposals from




 3    DOT,  in Part 171.3,  where 171,3A says, ''No person may offer




 4    for transport or transport in interstate or intrastate cora-




 5    roerce any  quantity of a hazardous waste except in accordance




 6    with the requirements of this subchapter."




 7              What that  means is that hazardous waste becomes




 8    a full-fledged hazardous material.  It also asserts DOT's




 9    intention  to regulate intrastate as well as interstate




10    transportation of hazardous materials.  So whether it crosses




11    the state  line, it doesn't matter.  And whether or not




12    it's  a private carrier doesn't matter.  The fact is that




13    hazardous  waste now  becomes a hazardous material and these




14    regulations apply to everyone„




15              MR0 LINDSEY:  Would an on-site facility, a dump




16    or incinerator on-site, that was permitted be required to




17    manifest every batch or shipment?"




18              The answer is no, there's no required manifesting




19    on site.   The manifestment is a mechanism to insure that




20    waste gets from wherever they are generated to wherever




21    they  are disposed.   But if all that's done on-site, then




22    there is no manifest involved,




23              "Are all regulations for on-site facilities equal




24    to off-site facilities?"




25              Yeah, there's no — there's nothing different about

-------
                                                          422



      -- in other words,  there's no break given to on-site faci-


 2    lities or off-site facilities.  They are treated the same0

 2
               "What about bonding for on-site facilities?"  And,


     "For public sector generators and operators such as the


     state university?"


 6              O.K.,  that's really several parts.   There's no


 7    real difference in the financial responsibility regulations,


 8    financial regulations, with regard to on-site or off-site


 9    facilities.   There just isn't a difference there„


10              The question then goes on to talk about public


11    sector generators  and operators.  There is no financial


12    responsibility requirements for generators at all.  That's


13    for treatment,  storage and disposal facilities which have


14    a permit.  That's  where the financial responsibility regu-


15    lations occur.


16              To take  it one step further and see if I can explair


17    some of this.   The financial responsibility regulations are


18    under 250,43-9,  and  there are really three parts to those.


19    One is the closure bond,  if you will,  which is an upfront


20    deposit.   It's  a trust fund is basically what it is.  And


21    that's required  for  everyone.   That doesn't matter whether


22    they are  a state university or a city or what it is.  We


23    find that city  and public institutions are not always in


24    any better shape to  pay for problems and closeout than pri-


25    vate institutions  in a lot of cases.  And thus no distinc-

-------
                                                          423


    tion has been made for public facilities with regard to in-

2
    suring that the money is going to be there to properly close

3
    the facility when it's done.

4
              The second part of that has to do -- the second


    part of these requirements, financial requirements, has to


    do with the building of the fund for post-closure monitoring,


    maintenance which is built up over the length of the site


    and that is also incumbent on the public sector facilities


    as well as those in the private sector.  That fund would


    have to be built up and trust fund mechanism to be sure
10


11



12


13


14



15


16


17


18


19



20


21


22


23


24


25
    that money is there to pay the post-closure monitoring


    and maintenance at a later time.


              The third area has to do with the site-life


    liability requirements.  That is what most people talk of


    as the insurance requirement.   Now in that there is a little1


    bit of a variation that can be allowed in that there is


    three ways in which one can establish that financial re-


    sponsibility.  One is evidence of liability insurance.


    Another is self-insurance, which is pegged to 10 per cent


    of equity„  And the third is evidence, other evidence, of


    financial responsibility„  The ability, in this particular


    area, the ability or jurisdiction to tax, for example, to


    discharge this responsibility in the case, in the event


    that it's sued0  It probably would be something that we


    would look upon as acceptable.

-------
               Now the Regional Administrator is the one who




     will make those decisions as to what other evidence is




     allowable.  But I would think that would be something which




     a public sector facility would be able to use.




               "Is it intended to dispose of hazardous wastes




     according to their chemical nature —" reactivity and so




     forth,   "or all in one trench?"




               I would refer the question to 250045-2-B-4.  That's




     on Page 59009 and it says, "Waste containerized or noncon-




 10   tainerized that is incompatible," and there's a list in




 11   an appendix, "shall be disposed of in separate landfill




 12   cell."   And so the answer is that it's not allowed to dis-




 13   pose of materials together that interreact.




 14             I should also point out that No, 3 right above




 15   that requires that permanent record be kept of what is




 16   placed  where within the facility so that if the need is




 17   ever there to go back and retrieve any of this material




 18   because of problems or because maybe we want to obtain it




 19   for resource purposes at a later time, then that record




2Q   will be there.




21             And,  "If solid waste going to a recycling company




22   is not  regulated,  why would this be considered a loophole




23   when the recycling company is regulated as a generator of




24   the waste?"




„             If somebody thinks we said that was a loophole
ZD

-------
                                                              425





     then I  think they are misinterpreting us.   It's our thinking




 2    that solvents and other things that are going to recycle




     its  products has  a value and they are not  likely — not




     as  likely to get  lost in the transporting  phase as are




     other things.  It's been said to us by several people — I




 6    don't think  today but at other times, that without a mani-




 7    fest, unless these wastes are manifested,  they sure will




 8    be  lost,  be  going to the recycler.  And all I can say to




 9    that is,  you know, that if people want to  violate the Law




10    in  dumping that waste on the way to the recycler is viola-




11    ting the  Law, then there's nothing to prevent them from




12    violating the Law even with a nonrecycle waste simply by




13    not  starting a manifest and hauling it down the road and




14    dumping^ito   And  if we catch them, then there will be an en-




15    forcement suit and so forth.  And as a matter of fact,




16    that might even qualify, depending on intent, that might




17    even qualify for  criminal sanction under this particular




18    Act,




19              "Will states have the option of  requiring a




20    stricter  manifest system than that proposed in the regula-




21    tions?   In other  words, requiring a manifest for hazardous




22    wastes  whether it is recycled or disposed  of on land or




23    incinerated.  If  so, how will this impact  interstate trans-




24    portation of hazardous wastes?"




25              That's  a very good question.  By and large — well,

-------
                                                          426




 1    the manifest format which we are requiring here will be la-




 2    tnrtM^ IB everyone in the country.   States will have the




 3    option to add to that manifest, ask different questions,



 4    perhaps,  and that sort of thing.  However, the format



 5    which ±s  in our regulations which is not only questions




 6    that will be asked but the form, the place on the form



 7    where they ask is nationally mandate.  So they must use —




 8    everyone  must use our format,,  They can add to it.  They




 9    can also, presumably, as far as we're concerned anyway,



10    they can  make this manifest incumbent on other wastes as




11    far as we*re concerned.  Things that are not covered under




12    the Federal system.  For example, recycled materials which




13    is  a person's question, whether or not we're going to re-



14    quire a manifest.  If states want to do that, presumably



15    they could.  The problem would be they won't be able to



13    enforce it outside their jurisdiction,




17              Outside of their jurisdiction they would have no




18    way of enforcing the disposer in another state, for example,



19    to  send them a copy, perhaps.




2,,              There is something else here and maybe, Harry,



21    you want  to listen to this.  Since  we're — just to make



22    sure I'm  not making a mistake.  Since we're integrating




23    our manifest system with the DOT shipping papers, I would



24    think in  such a case there might be a chance that the




25    Department of Transportation might  preempt such a more in-

-------
                                                        427



    elusive manifest system, particularly if it involves or

o
    impedes in some fashion the movement of waste or messes


    around with their forms.


              Question,' Harry, let me just reiterate it because


5   I'm not sure you were listening.  In other words, could


    a state ca.use — could a state, lot of difficulty here.


    "Could a state require manifest on additional wastes?"


    In other words, take a manifest system and acquire for


    additional waste or for additional facilities and things


    like that.  Would that not — I think my point is I
10


11


12


13


14


is


16


17


18


19



20


21


22


23


24


25
    think it might run afowl of the DOT shipping requirements.
    wastes?
              MR, TRASK:  You mean for more than just hazardous
              MR. LINDSEY:  Well, what we would consider
    hazardous wastes.  Would states have the option of requiring


    stricter manifest system — in other words, requiring  a


    manifest for hazardous wastes whether it is recycled or


    disposed of on land, incinerated or what-have-you?  In


    other words, extending its use of the manifest system


    beyond what we would do?


              MR, TRASK:  O.K., we have tried to work out  very


    carefully with DOT what leeway we have here, where we  can


    go and where we can't go in this area of the manifest  versus


    the shipping papers.  And I think we have come to the  joint


    conclusion that as long as the requirements are not incon-

-------
                                                        428

    sistent with what DOT is  doing.   In other words,  does not
2
    interfere with transportation, per se.   Then DOT is not
Q
    likely to preempt that particular program or that element

    of  the program.  In general,  a state apparently does have

    the authority to require  separate manifest form.

              Note that neither EPA  nor DOT requires a specific

    form.   In both cases we're dealing with format.  So if '

    the state comes up with a form and if the information on

    that form is essentially  the  same as what EPA and DOT re-

    quire, at least if the minimum Information is on that form

    and in essentially the same order, DOT has indicated that
 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

20

21

22

23

24

25
    they are not likely to preempt that sort of a situation.
              The situation seenjs more likely that they would
    preempt, and here you almost get into prejudging as to
    what; they would do and what they wouldn't,  I don't
    think they have preempted anything yet.   But that would be
    a case where a state erected some barrier to transporta-
    tion within the state from outside of the state.  That might
    be a proper subject for their preemption.
              This Is discussed some in the  DOT proposal and
    whoever has raised this question might want to study that
    to some extent,  I'm sorry that Alan Roberts is not here
    tp discuss this at greater length because he has some
    very definite ideas on it.  But I'm essentially paraphras-
    ing things that he has said at other meetings and hearings.

-------
 9




10





11




12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                     429




          I haye a couple of questions here,  I might as




well carry on.




          It says, "Will all aerosol cans of insecticides




have to be collected and disposed of as a hazardous waste




because they cannot be triple rinsed?"




          Most aerosol cans of insecticides are designed




for household use and household wastes are of course ex-




cluded.  That was a very clear intent of Congress that house-




hold waste not be included in hazardous waste and we have




said — the Agency has said elsewhere in 40CFR, Part 165,




that pesticide products and their containers that are in-




tended for domestic use will not be included as a special




waste but instead should be wrapped in paper and put in




with the regular municipal waste stream.




          The second part of this says, "Also, will all




small paint cans that are not triple rinsed have to be




disposed of as hazardous waste?"




          I think the same situation applies„  What we




do have, however, is some local municipal waste authorities




prohibiting the pickup of hazardous wastes.  And some of




these do extend to paint cans,  I think one of the local




jurisdictions in the Washington, D.C. area, Montgomery




Cpunty, Maryland, for example, does prohibit the pickup of




any of the hazardous materials and they are particularly after




flammables and some paints are flammables, as you probably

-------
                                                         430




    knew,



              A question on the  100 kilos  item,  "Can  a generator




    produce  two or more entirely separate,  not combined,  hazar-




    dous waste materials and  be  allowed  to dispose  of them in



    Subtitle D landfills without being included in  the Subtitle




    0 system because each  separate waste is less than 100 kilo-




    grams per month?  Or is the  hazardous  waste total from



    one manufacturing location,  the waste  which qualifies for




 9   Subtitle C reporting permitting system?"




10             Two things here: the total of the waste stream



11   is what  counts in this particular instance, whether it's




12   two or three or a dozen waste streams.   If the  total  comes



    to more  than 100 kilograms a month,  then that generator is



    in the system and needs to report,



15             The last part of this question talks  about  per-




16   raits.  There are no permits  for generators„   I  want to




17   make that perfectly clear.   Congress clearly said that we



18   should not interfere with the productive process  in making



19   these regulations.  And therefore we do not, cannot require



20   any permits for generators,



21             MR, LEHMAN:  Question:  ?'How  will future use of



22   closed hazardous waste landfill areas  return to the public




23   for use  be controlled  to  preclude disruption of the cells?"



24             Well, first  of  all, it's not clear that closed



25   hazardous waste landfill  areas would be returned  to the

-------
                                                           431



 1     public for use.  It might be returned for private use as




 2     well.  All that aside,  either way the answer to the ques-




 3     tion is that under 250.43-7 of the Section 3004 regula-




 4     tions, these regulations stipulate or require a stipula-




 5     tion in the deed of property that future use shall not




      violate the integrity of the cover of the landfill, its




 7     liners or the monitoring systems.  That's written right




 8     into the property deed,




 9               Section 3004  question:  "Could you address the




10     topic of existing pits^ ponds and  lagoons relative to




      Section 3004 regulations and the  requirement directed




12     at these for leach aid  detection  systems?  And secondly,




13     how will this affect pits ponds and lagoons associated




14     with JlPDS activities, for example, holding and treatment




15     ponds or ponds containing contaminated water or waste




      treatment or discharge?"




                O.K., I'll answer the second question first,,




      The issue here is that  ItPDS activities are regulated to




      the extent that the Clean Water Act deals with discharge




20     in navigable waters»  It does not address, MPDS permits,




      do not address air emissions or ground water emissions,




„     at least ground water emissions that do not impact surface




23     water.




                Consequently  the Agency has determined that




      RCRA does apply to these types of pits,ponds and lagoons

-------
                                                              432




 1     to the extent that MPDS does not, namely with respect to




 2     air emissions and ground water leaching or leaching into




 3     ground water.




 4               Now what we're driving at here and which has, I




 5     think, been misinterpreted by some is that for existing




 6     pits, ponds and lagoons, we want to be satisfied that they




 7     meet the basic intent of the Section 3004 regulations.




 8     Now that means that they have an equivalent degree of




 9     containment.




10               Now as to what the standards are, for example,




11     let's take a hypothetical case.  Say, our regulations re-




12     quire, say, five feet of clay as a liner and an existing




13     pit^ pond or lagoon only has one foot.  Does that mean




14     you've got to dig up your old either pit, pond or lagoon




15     and replace the one foot of clay with five feet of clay?




16               The answer is no, not necessarily.  What we're




17     saying is that if you can show that the one foot of clay




18     for that particular lagoon doesn't leach„  In other words,




19     it doesn't, in fact, contain the waste so that you don't




2o     have leaching into ground water, that's O.K.  You can keep




21     your one foot of clay.  That's an equivalent degree of con-




22     tainment for that particular system.




23               As to leach aid detection systems, one of the




24     posers that has been brought up in these discussions is




25     what if you have a 500-acre lagoon?  How are you going to

-------
                                                              433




      get the leach aid detection system underneath a 500-acre




 2    lagoon?'




 3              First of all, I think that's possible to do in




 4    an engineering sense but nonetheless there are notes asso-




 5    ciated with these leach aid detection requirements which




 6    do allow alternatives for leach aid detection systems other




 7    than one which is specified in the regulations.  Here again




 8    this would be a, question of interpretation of the regula-




 9    tions at the terminating stage.  That's the whole purpose




10    of these notes is to deal with the whole question of flexi-




11    bility of the regulations to address the site specific




12    and waste specific situations.  And we've elected to do




13    that by the note process, by the permit writing process




14    rather than in the reg writing process.




15              I hope that addresses that whole area.  I might




16    point out, though, that this whole area has been subject




17    to a lot of interpretation.  Some people have assumed




18    that they are going to have to replace all their old pits^




19    ponds and lagoons and that's not necessarily so.




20              Question: "Under the criteria you use to classify




2i    slag and foundry sand as basically nonhazardous, why




22    didn't fly ash fall under the same classification rather




23    than as a special waste?"




24              Well, the answer to that is while we were draft-




25    ing these regulations, early data indicated that a substan--

-------
                                                             434




 1     tial percentage of fly ash was going to be a hazardous




 2     xaste and therefore we included it in our special waste.




 3     We did not list it as a hazardous waste, as I pointed out



 4     before, but we did provide for the fact that it is hazardous



 5     and falls in the special waste category.




 6               And I think I said yesterday more recent data




 7     indicates a lower percentage of fly ash, probably less



 8     than 10 per cent or, perhaps, less than that may be found*".




 9     to be hazardous in accordance with our characteristics. Con-




10     sequently, in this particular case, its a question of our



11     data base at the time the regulations were drafted.




12               As the waste oil expert, you have addressed the




13     use of the waste oil as a dust suppressant on roads as



14     acceptable if done as a permitted land farming operation.



15     Isn't there a requirement in the proposed reg that such




16     oil must be refined?



17               Well, first of all, the answer to the basic




18     question is no, there is no such requirement that waste



19     oil must be refined.  But I'd also like to comment on the




20     way this question is worded.  We do not say that the land



2i     farmincj cagulations are the applicable regulation for dust




22     suppression on roads,  I believe we will use the landfill



23     regulations as applicable, interpreting those landfill



24     regulations that do apply and df parts of those regula-




25     tions do not apply, as I indicated earlier, we would go back

-------
                                                           435


      to the Human Health, and Environmental Standards when is-

 2
      suing permits in that area.


                Now this is a question but it's really a comment


      on our regulations.  And here, a,gain, I would hope that


 5     people who are writing questions like this, I say it once


 6     again, the purpose of this whole business is to get com-


 7     roents on the regulations on the record,  And whoever wrote


 "     this question, I would urge them to write it down as a com-


 9     ment and give it to our court reporter as a comment on the


10     regulations,


11               But anyway, here goes: "Why regulate waste


12     crude oil, et cetera, and not waste solvenfc when both


13     may contain toxic metals and both may be blended into


14     a low grade fuel indiscriminantly?"


15               Now Fred Lindsey addressed that a little big


16     in the sense of sa,ylng, I believe, that waste solvents


17     generally have a high value and generally are recycled


18     rather than burned as a fuel, although we realize that


19     some may be burned as a fuel.


20               Also r go back to a previous remark that some


21     previous commentors haven't questioned this basic approach


22     about having" spent solvents outside of our regulatory pro-


23     cess and that we are, in fact, probably going to reexa-


24     mine that whole situation in light of these comments.


25               The other side of this, I think it's fair to

-------
                                                         436




      point out is that the purpose of hearings  of  this nature




      is to hear comments about what people like as well as




      what they don't like and if somebody likes the  idea of




      having spent solvents outside the system,  they  should say




      that for the record as well as for people who don't




      like it and are suggesting that we make changes to the




 7    regulations.




 8              That's all I have.




 '              MR, TRASK:  I have a couple more here.  One is




      a clarification, apparently, to my previous answer on




      household waste was not sufficient.  It saysj "Small paint




      cans and aerosol insecticide cans from an  industry who




      is registered as a generator, those that are heavily




14    used in industry, do they have to be disposed of as hazar-




15    dous waste?"




16              in this instance the answer to the question




17    would be yes if, in fact, they are hazardous waste.  I




18    would point out that not all insecticides are hazardous




19    waste, particularly many of those that are used in aerosol




20    cans.  Many of them are not listed in the hazardous waste




21    lists or are in the drinking water standards, which forms




22    the basis for toxic waste.




23              So it may well be that most of these that are used




24    in industry in aerosol cans are not, in fact, hazardous,




25    Pa,in,t cans, 1 don't know.  I suspect tha.t some of them may

-------
                                                                43?
 '     not be hazardous but by and large they would be.  What
 2     industry has small paint cans, I don't know, either.  But
 3     they may have,
 4               I have here what is really a comment and not a
 5     question.  And if whoever turned this in and would reclaim
 6     it and use it as a basis for a comment, the commentary is
 7     open until the 16th of March and this really should come
 8     in as a comment,,  It would become part of the official
 9     record.  As it is now, it's merely a question and is not
10     part of th.e official record,
11               MR, LINDSEY:  Let's get back to my previous
12     question which had to do with the question of mixing
13     incompatible waste and says, "As alkaline and acid hazar-
14     dous waste can't be mixed, per Appendix 1, is not the
15     Agency outlawing any valid treatment method?  In other
16     words, neutralization of hazardous wastes?"
17               And answer to that is no, the requirements for
18     not mixing have to do with landfiliing, o.K.,'»f  incom-
19     patible wastes, not of treating process as disposal.
2Q               The second part of that is tha,t maybe the ques-
2i     tioner is planning to codispose in the ground alkaline and
22     acid waste.  And there is a note associated with all this
23     w,hich. is under 250.45C, which is referenced back there to
24     25Q,45C,  I don't know what it says, I can't find it off-
25     hand.  Basically which says that you can demonstrate that

-------
                                                          438



 1     cpdisposal of incompatible waste is a satisfactory opera-




 2     tion or maybe even beneficial operation as could be the




 3     case in a situation like this.  And then all you have to




 4     demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the permit officer



 5     and that note, then, would allow, in essence, a variation




 4     from this particular standard.  So that could be permitted,




 1     Even codisposal could be permitted,




 8               So normally neutralization is carried out in




 9     treatment process and not underground,



10               "Would not hazardous waste exempted, such as




11     solvent for recovery, have to be manifested under the




12     hazardous materials category?"



13               No, the mani—  Our manifest would not be re-




14     quired, however, DOT shipping papers might be required




15     under the hazardous materials transportation,




16               And this person writes on both sides, "Is" the




17     va,lue of waste a consideration for determining if that




18     given waste is in the system?" And the answer is no, not



19     directly,  An4 we have been relating to the fact that re-




20     cycled wastes normally have a value, that was a considera-r.



2i     tion in our allowing recycled waste out of the manifesting



22     system because of our thinking that they are less likely



23     to get lost because of the value.  But it's not that a




24     value, any given value, of it is not associated with that



25     point,

-------
                                                             439


 1               That's it,


 2               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K., we will end this


      -•**-	session,  We will reconvene  for  the hearing


      tonight on Sections 3001, 2, 3 and  4,


                That session is designed  primarily for people


 6     who haven't been able to come to  the daytime sessions.


                I thank everyone who has  offered comments and


      I commend you all on your endurance.

 g
                (Whereupon, at 4:45 o'clock  p.m.,  the hearing


           was recessed, to reconvene at  7 o'clock p4m» the


"          sarne day,)


12


13


14


IS


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25

-------
                                                          440





1                         EVENING SESSION             7:00 p,m,




2               MR.  LEHMAN;   Good evening,




                My name ±s John Lehman.   I'm Director of the




      Hazardous  Waste Management Division,  EPA*s Office of Solid




5     Waste in Washington,




6               On behalf of EPA, I'd like  to welcome you to




^     the public hearing which is being  held to discuss the




"     proposed regulations for the management of hazardous




9     waste.




10               We appreciate your taking the time to parti-




11     cipate in  the  development of these regulations which are




12     being issued under the authority of the Resource Conserva-




13     tion and Recovery Act,




14               The  EPA on December 18,  1978, issued proposed




15     rules under Sections 3001, 3002 aOd 3004 of the Solid




16     waste Disposal Set as substantially amended by the Resource




17     Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Public Law 94-580.




18               These proposals respectively cover, first, the




19     criteria for identifying and listing hazardous waste,




20     identification of it and a hazardous  waste list.




21               Second, the standards applicable to generating




22     such waste for record keeping labeling, using proper con-




23     tainers and using a transport manifest,




24               And, third,  performance, design and operating




25     standards  for  hazardous waste'management facilities.

-------
                                                          441





                The proposals,  together with those already pub-




      lished pursuant to Section 3003 on April 28, 1978, Sec-




 3     tion 3006 on February 1,  1978, Section 3008 on August 4,




 4     1978, and Section 3010 on July 11, 1978,  »nd that of the




      Department of Transportation pursuant to the Hazardous




 6     Materials Transportation  Act of May 25, 1978,  Along with




 7     3005 regulations yet to be promulgated ~ or yet to be




 8     proposed, excuse me, constitute the hazardous waste regu-




 9     latory program under Subtitle C of the Act.




10               This hearing is being held as part of our public




11     participation process in  the development of this regulatory




12     program,




13               The panel members who share the roster with me




14     are Tim Fields, Program Manager in the assessment and tech-




15     nology branch of the Hazardous Waste Management Division




16     i-n Washington,  And Tim is primarily responsible for Sec-




17     tion 3004 regulations.




18               Amy Schaffer of the Office of Enforcement, head-




19     quarters  in Washington, EPA; Dorothy Darrah from our




20     General Counselrs office, headquarters EPA in Washington;




2i     Fred Lindsey, Chief of the Implementation Branch of the




22     Hazardous Waste Management Division, EPA, Washington;  Harry




23     Tra,sk, Program Manager in our Guidelines Branch of Hazar~




24     dous Waste Management Division in Washington, EPA? and




25     Alan Roberts who is — I'm.not sure of your exact title,

-------
                                                            442




 '     Alan, you keep changing it.  Anyway, Alan is responsible




 2     for the administration of the Hazardous Materials Transpor-




 3     tation Act, among other things, in the Department of Trans-




 4     portation, DOT in Washington, D.C.  And just joining the




 5     panel is Alan Corson, Chief of our Guidelines Branch, Hazar-




 6     dous Waste Management Division, EPA, Washington,,




 7               With that brief introduction let me turn over




 8     the hearing to our chairman, Dorothy Darrah.




 9               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.




10               We have five people who have signed up to give




11     us comments.  If there are any other people who want to




12     comment can either come forward at the end of the other




13     testimony or you can check our registration desk and they




14     will bring up your name to me and I will call you in




15     order.




16               I'm not going to limit comments or questions




17     unless they tend to get very lengthy or repetitious be-




18     cause we don't have too many people.  So I don't think




19     that should be a problem.




20               I'm not sure all these people are here but I




21     will call them.  I*m not sure, is Mr» Jessee from Monsanto




22     here?




23                         STATEMENT OF GENE L. JESSEE




24               MR. JESSEE;  My name is Gene Jessee.  I'm




25     Director, Environmental Processes, Monsanto Company,

-------
                                                             443





                I'm pleased to appear here today on behalf of



 2     Monsanto Company to comment on proposed RCRA Section 30Q1




 3     and 3004 regulations, which appeared in the December 18,



 4     1978 Federal Register, beginning on Page 58946.




 5               Monsanto is a broad-based chemical manufacturing



 6     company with manufacturing plants located in 28 states and



 7     will be significantly impacted by these regulations.




 8               In accordance with the procedure contained in




 9     the Federal Register, we will submit the detailed written




10     comments on the proposed regulations prior to March 16.




11               Today I would like to focus upon certain aspects




12     of the proposed regulations which are of particular con-



13     cern to Monsanto.




14               First, I would like to bring to your attention



15     a problem which is pervasive throughout the proposed regu-



      lations.  This concerns the failure to treat waste differerit-



      ly based upon the type of hazard and the level of the par-




]8     ticular hazard.



                For example, consider a highly toxic waste




„     material like cyanide waste and, on the other hand, an




      industrial flammable material like methanol.  Cyanide




„     wa,ste presents a constant haza-rd to health and to the en-




      yironment in and of itself,



                It; does therefore clearly require special care,




      stprage, handling and aipposal.


-------
                                                              444




                Methancjl/ on the other hand, presents a hazard




 2     to health and the environment only when exposed to an




 3     ignition source in an uncontrollable manner.  Itcoan: be




 4     disposed of quite easily and safely in a normal utility




 5     boiler.



 6               Yet both the highly toxic cyanide waste and




 7     the flammable methanol waste are designated as hazardous




 8     under the proposed regulations requiring special generator,




 '     transporter and disposer care,,



10               This blanket treatment of waste will significantly




11     increase the quantity of hazardous waste and, we believe,




12     create a severe shortage in sites for disposal of very




13     hazardous wastes,



14               It is recommended that wastes be grouped in a




15     manner which recognizes differences, nature and severity




16     of the hazard a waste presents and the persistence of the




17     waste.



18               The proposed exemption of 100 kilograms per



19     month should be increased for less hazardous waste.  This




20     would allow a tight control on very hazardous wastes which



2i     present a constant hazard in and of themselves and, at the



22     same time, reduce the number of insignificant generators



23     by raising the exclusion quantity for less hazardous wastes




24     which may pose a substantial hazard only when improperly




25     treatedf stored or disposed.

-------
                                                            445





                This  will  help minimize  the  quantity of hazar-




      dous  waste and  avoid a  future  shortage of  sites for dis-




3     posal of  very hazardous waste.




4               Another concern with the proposed regulations  is




      Section 250.10B,  which  requires verification that material




6     is  burned primarily  for heat recovery  are  not considered




7     other discarded material.




8               Regulating these  valuable commercial materials




9     would impose the  stringent  incinerator standards proposed




10     in  Section 250.41 on the boiler which  utilizes them.




11               There are  numerous situations when residues  from




12     a process are burned in heat recovery  facilities to supply




13     energy needs of a process or other parts of the plant.




14               The incinerator standards, as presently worded,




      will  reduce the use  of  such materials  and  deprive the  plant




      of  a  valuable energy source.




                Along the  same lines,  we recommend that proposed




      Section 250,10  (b) 2 (ii),  which improperly includes spe-




19     cified oils which are burned as fuel be deleted from the




20     definition of "other discarded material".    This inclusion




21     seems without statutory basis  and  is contrary to the plain




22     meaning of the  term  "discarded",




23               The proposed  hazardous waste characteristics set




      forth in  Section  250.13 are defined too broadly and should




„.     be  restricted to  only those definitions accepted by the

-------
                                                              446





      scientific community which are based upon or substantiated




      by standard testing protocols which are validated by vol-




      untary concensus standard setting groups, exclusive of EPA.




                If the proposed characteristics are retained,




      many common materials will be classified as hazardous.




 '    For example, some carbonated beverages such as colas, which




 7    have pH's between 2 and 3, would be considered corrosive




 "    and thus hazardous.




 9              The characteristics of hazardous wastes should




 10    be revised to include only waste which is significantly




 11    more hazardous than municipal refuse,,




 12              Proposed Section 250.14 is a helpful approach




 13    in listing hazardous wastes to the extent it lists truly




 14    hazardous wastes and waste-producing processes.  However,




 15    waste should be included in or deleted from the list set




 16    forth in this section exclusively on the basis of validated




 17    characteristics set forth in Section 250.13.




 18              At the outset of the preamble to the proposed




 19    Section 3004 regulations, EPA states its intent to pro-




 20    mulgate such performance standards for owners and operators




 21    of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facili-




 22    ties as may be necessary to protect human health and the




 23    environment.  Nevertheless the proposed regulations rely




 24    on design and operating standards which provide little




25    flexibility for innovative or equivalent designs.

-------
 1              This is critically important to existing facili-


 2    ties attempting to meet interim status requirements.  Se-

 o
      veral of the interim status requirements include notes


 4    providing alternative relief from atsfedndeird.  As practical


      relief the notes fall short since they are supplied in


 6    limited number of sections.


 7              As a consequence, the inflexibleeuse of speci-


      fication standards will cause many existing well-designed


      and environmentally sound facilities to be not in compli


 1°    ance.  The regulations should allow for greater flexibility


      by providing that a facility will not be required to meet


 12    the design and operating standards if it can show either


 13    (3) that it meets the health and environmental standards


 14    in Proposed Section 250„42, or  (b) tnat it will achieve


 15    performance substantially equivalent to that achieved by


 16    prescribed design and operating standards.


 17              To achieve this end it is recommended that


 18    proposed Section 250.40 (d) 2  (ii) (A) be deleted.


 19              Thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to


 20    make these comments.


 21               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.


 22              Will you be willing to answer questions from


 23    the panel?


 24               MR. JESSEE:  1*11 certainly try.


25               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you,

-------
                                                           448
 1               MR, ROBERTS;  I just have one yery brief ques-
 2     tion or comment about your testimony on carbonated beverages
 3     a,nd under 49CFR 173.307, carbonated beverages are not sub-
 4     ject to regulations of the Hazardous Materials Transporta-
 5     tion Act.
 6               MR. JESSEE:  Thank you.
 7               MR. LEHMAN:  Also I'd join in there and say
 8     that carbonated beverages are a commodity and not a waste
 9     and therefore not subject to control under Subtitle C
10     of RCRA but that may be not what your point was.
11               If 1 may ask you a question, Mr. Jessee, to
12     elaborate on your comment regarding the exemption level
13     of 100 kilograms per month.  You said, first of all, that
14     the degree of hazard should be addressed in that area.
IS               MR,, JEBSEE:  Yes, sir,
16               MR. LEHMAN:  And then secondly, that the level
17     should be increased for less hazardous waste.
18               MR, JESSEE:  Yes.
19               MR. LEHMAN:  Could you comment on those two as-
20     pects a little more?  In other words, on what basis would
2i     the degree of hazard be made and what level should tbe le-
22     vel be increased to for the less hazardous wastes?
23               MR, JESSEE:  Over the last couple of days I know
24     this has come up several times and I know that the Agency
25     is wrestling with this and all I could say at this point is

-------
                                                            449



      we are, too, and if we come up with something prior to




      March 16 that makes sense and we think you would be wanting




      to see, we will certainly submit it,




                MR, FIELDS:   Couple questions.




                You mentioned that the design and operating




 6     standards provide little flexibility for alternative stan-



 7     dards,  One of the problems you had was with incineration.




 8               Can YOU specifically indicate which standards



 9     specifically you're having problems in that area?  Could




10     you be more specific?   You made a statement "alternatives




11     don't provide enough flexibility".  Do you have any




12     specific standards in  mind?




13               MR. JESSEE:   I can cite maybe a couple of exam-




14     pies and? then, one general comment along that line.




15               The subject  of flexibility or inflexibility comes



16     up in that — if you would look at financial requirements,



17     the regulations presume there's only one way to handle it.



18     M you will look, at certain portions of the one dealing



19     with incinerators, the efficiency or the burn-efficiency




2Q     in i~tf •-.' decomposition levels required in the incinerators




      are pretty well fixed  and we are wrestling with the practi-



22     cal availability of something that will perform that well,




23     dealing with certain materials that we would want to in-




      cinerat;e.




25               As to the burn-efficiency, as to the total decom-




      position achieved and  as a general comment, the section

-------
                                                               450



      that deals with the fact that only in the place where there


 2    is a note can the administrator deal with anything else

 •5
      will lead to what I think we all experience in regulations,


      that there's something that you haven't thought about, we


      haven't thought about, the permit writer hasn't thought


 '    about, and the plant or the industry or the facility that's


 7    being considered is going to discover it, that in the ab-


 "    sence of a note, it's cast in stone.  And that's our —


 9    would be a general overall concern.


 10              MR. FIELDS:  Are you saying that the combustion


 11    efficiency and construction efficiency numbers, you should


 12    be specifying those or you don't agree with the numbers?


 13              MR. JESSEE:  We have a concern that, as a prac-


 14    tical matter, the large scale industrial equipment may


 15    not exist, might not exist today in combination with some


 16    scrubbing requirement that would accomplish that.


 17              MR. FIELDS:  So your question is to practicality?


 18              MR, JESSEE:  Yes, sir,


 19              MR, FIELDS:  We'd like to have any data you can


 20    send us in th^t area with your written comments.  We


 21    would appreciate it regarding what you think realistic


 22    numbers should be,


 23              1 didn't get the last one you sa4d'.  Would you


 24    repeat tha.t;?


25               MR, i3ESSEE:  The coverall, as I see it, under

-------
      the note system is — I relate it to Section 250.40  (d) 2

 2
      (li) (A), and it says that if there's no note, it's  inflexi-

 3
      ble.  We're concerned overall, again, that there's some-

 4
      tiling that you haven't thought of, we haven't thought of,


      the permit writer hasn't thought of and when it comes down


      to the wire, we'll discover some .things that there should


      be some — just room to move, if you will, and that  Section


 8    250.40 (d) 2 (ii) (A) doesn't give any.  There's no

 Q
      note, then it's cast in stone.  And that effects financial


      handling, that affects certain things I mentioned about the


11    incinerator, and I'm sure we're going to discover some-


12    thing out there that in your wisdom you haven't been able


13    to think of that's going to be an exception that there's


14    no way to handle it,


15              MR. CORSON:  Just following up, Mr. Jessee, with


16    the question Mr. Lehman asked earlier and, again, it's


17    the same question we've been asking all the time when


18    people have suggested as you have, some thought to the


19    concept of degree of hazard and so on,  I'd appreciate


20    if you could, with your written testimony, submit what


21    you could.  We*re also concerned with any thoughts with


22    the degree of hazard.? Also should we work to include some-


23    thing like that in 3001 and would have to be then carried


24    forward in a specific fashion in 3004,  Because 3004, even


25    as you have noted, with its note approach, does allow for

-------
                                                            452




 1     some flexibilityf as it appeared to me that we might  end




 2     up in a different kind of a problem tha,n if we make the




 3     concession at 3001, we might have to remove some  flexibility



 4     at 3004,




 5               MH, JESSEE;  I can only comment in this manner,




 6     that consistency is the thing you desire and the  thing




 7     that those of us who are regulated desire,  We begin  to



 8     get into an area of the fact that a number of these things




 9     are site-specific.  And we have to believe that someplace




10     in our relationships that has to be resolved.  I  don't




11     know; how to do it,




12               MR, FJJE^DS:  O.K,



13               MR. LXNDSEY:  In your response to Mr, Fields'



14     question earlier on, you mentioned that you had some  pro-




15     blems with the financial requirements.  Could you elaborate



16     a little more on, you know, what your problems are t?ere?




17               MR. JESSEE:  Oh, just the fact that as  presently



18     stated, the regulations say "that's the only way".  I



19     would think there might be other ways that would  be per-




20     fectly acceptable to all parties concerned,



2i               MR, LINDSEY:  O.K., I guess our intention here,



22     our concern here, is that we provide sufficient funds or



23     to assure that sufficient funds are available for closure




24     and for post-^closure monitoring and maintenance.  There




25     are a number of different ways that are allowed for the  -

-------
                                                           453




 1     site-life  liability requirements but  for  closure  and post-




 2     closure monitoring and maintenance, I guess  we  were  unable




 3     to  come up with  alternatives  that we  thought would be suf-




 4     ficient or would do the  job for us.   Z think if there were




 5     some that  we  thought would be equivalent  or  provide  an equi-




 6     valent degree of protection or assurance, we would be wil-




 7     ling to consider those.   So if you can think of any, let




 8     us  know,




 9               MR.  JESSEE:  All right.




10               MR,  CORSONs  Just one more  question.




11               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Yes,




12               MR,  CORSON:  Just one more  question,  Mr. Jessee,




13     or  one more comment, perhaps,  with regard to something




14     you had said  and r don't recall the exact words but  it had




15     to  do with your  reference to  our use  of standards by volun-




16     ta^y consensus groups, if I recall the words, and I  guess




17     we  have — I  personally  have  a couple of  small  problems.




18               One is that we — it's very difficult for  us to




19     get a voluntary  consensus group to respond in the time




2o     and the fashion  that we  must  with regards to the  charge




2i     we  get from Congress in  regard to the regulations.




22               MR,  JESSEE:  I appreciate that.




23               MR.  CORSON:  Plus the fact  that only  we were




24     charged with  producing regulations, not a consensus  group.




25     So  that we have  a particular  premise  -- whll? thfcfr Tnayonot

-------
                                                               454






 1     set the purposes for the group, we just can't provide that




 2     direction,  X*m wondering what you think we should do if




 3     there are no such standards, whether your preference is




 4     we would postpone regulations until such things are develop-




 5     ed and how we would then meet.  Our time requirements




 6     would be'-certainly beyond our control.




 7               MR. JESSEE:  The only thing I could offer, Mr.




 8     Corson, is the —- something along what might be the possi-




 9     bllity of some corroborative round-robin-type tests.  And




10     whether that's feasible at this date under the pressures




11     I understand and we appreciate you're under, I don't know




12     whether that's possible or not.




13               MR. LEHMAN:  Mr. Jessee, I'm trying to paraphrase




14     what one of your remarks was and I hope I paraphrase it




15     correctly.  I don't know, but this leads to a question,




16     if I understood your remarks, you were saying basically




17     that the design and operating standard approach was too




19     restrictive and inflexible and that you suggested that the




19     Agency go to a performance standard-type of approach for




2Q     regulations under the facility standards.  Arid so I would




2]     ask you what explicitly did you have in mind in terms




22     of performance standards?  I mean we talked for awhile here




23     just now about destruction efficiencies with respect to




24     incinerators and in a way that is a performance statute.




25               MR, JESSEE:  You misunderstood what I said.

-------
                                                                455



 1               MR,  LEHMAN:   Oh,  O.K.

 2
                "-.  JESSEE:   I didn't say what you interpreted


 3     I said.


                MR.  LEHMAN:   Well, O.K.  We'll let it drop then.


                CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:  Thank you, Mr. Jessee.


                By the way,  would you give a copy of your state-


      ment to the court reporter?


                MR.  JESSEE:   Yes.


 9               CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:  O.K., thank you.


                Let me just  make  that an insert, which I don't


'      think I mentioned.  If you  do have an extra copy, if you


      could give a copy to the court reporter before you speak,


13     it would help us.  If  you have any extra copies for the


      panel, that would also be great.


'5               (Whereupon,  the aforementioned statement was


16          made part of the  official record.)


17                         HEARING INSERT


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25

-------
          STATEMENT OF GENE L. JESSEE,
      DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES,
    ON BEHALF OF MONSANTO COMPANY REGARDING
 THE PROPOSED EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
      UNDER SECTIONS 3001 AND 3004 OF THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976.
              ST.  Louis, MISSOURI
               FEBRUARY 15, 1979

-------
     I AM PLEASED TO APPEAR HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF MONSANTO
COMPANY TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RCRA, SECTION 3001 AND
3004 REGULATIONS WHICH APPEARED IN THE DECEMBER 18, 1978
FEDERAL REGISTER BEGINNING ON PAGE 58946.

     MONSANTO is A BROAD BASED CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY
WITH MANUFACTURING PLANTS LOCATED IN 28 STATES AND WILL BE
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BY THESE REGULATIONS,

     IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE CONTAINED IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER. WE WILL SUBMIT DETAILED WRITTEN COMMENTS
ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS.  TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS
UPON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS WHICH ARE
OF PARTICULAR CONCERN TO MONSANTO.

-------
                                -2-
     FlRST, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION A PROBLEM
WHICH IS PERVASIVE THROUGHOUT THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS,
THIS CONCERNS THE FAILURE TO TREAT WASTE DIFFERENTLY BASED
UPON THE TYPE OF HAZARD AND THE LEVEL OF THE PARTICULAR
HAZARD.   FOR EXAMPLE, CONSIDER A HIGHLY TOXIC WASTE MATERIAL
LIKE CYANIDE WASTE AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, AN INDUSTRIAL
FLAMMABLE WASTE MATERIAL LIKE METHANOL.  CYANIDE WASTE
PRESENTS A CONSTANT HAZARD TO HEALTH AND TO THE ENVIRONMENT
IN AND OF ITSELF.  IT DOES, THEREFORE, CLEARLY REQUIRE
SPECIAL CARE, STORAGE, HANDLING AND DISPOSAL,  F.ETHANOL, ON
THE OTHER HAND, PRESENTS A HAZARD TO HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT
ONLY WHEN EXPOSED TO AN IGNITION SOURCE IN AN UNCONTROLLABLE
MANNER.   IT CAN BE DISPOSED OF QUITE SAFELY IN NORMAL UTILITY
BOILERS.  YET, BOTH THE HIGHLY TOXIC CYANIDE WASTE AND THE
FLAMMABLE METHANOL WASTE ARE DESIGNATED AS "HAZARDOUS" UNDER

-------
                                -3-
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS REQUIRING SPECIAL GENERATOR, TRANS-
PORTER AND DISPOSER CARE.

     THIS BLANKET TREATMENT OF WASTE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASE THE QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND, WE BELIEVE,
CREATE A SEVERE SHORTAGE IN SITES FOR DISPOSAL OF VERY
HAZARDOUS WASTE.

     IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT WASTE BE GROUPED IN A MANNER
WHICH RECOGNIZES DIFFERENCES IN THE NATURE AND SEVERITY OF
THE HAZARD A WASTE PRESENTS, AND THE PERSISTENCE OF THE
WASTE,  THE PROPOSED EXEMPTION OF 100 KILOGRAMS PER MONTH
SHOULD BE INCREASED FOR LESS HAZARDOUS WASTE.  THIS WOULD
ALLOW A TIGHT CONTROL ON VERY HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH PRESENT
A CONSTANT HAZARD IN AND OF THEMSELVES AND AT THE SAME TIME,

-------
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF INSIGNIFICANT GENERATORS BY RAISING THE
EXCLUSION QUANTITY FOR LESS HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH MAY POSE A
SUBSTANTIAL HAZARD ONLY WHEN IMPROPERLY TREATED, STORED, OR
DISPOSED.  THIS WILL HELP MINIMIZE THE QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE AND AVOID A FUTURE SHORTAGE OF SITES FOR DISPOSAL OF
VERY HAZARDOUS WASTE,

     ANOTHER CONCERN WITH THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS is SECTION 250.10(b)
WHICH REQUIRES CLARIFICATION THAT MATERIALS BURNED PRIMARILY
FOR HEAT RECOVERY ARE NOT CONSIDERED "OTHER DISCARDED MATERIAL."
REGULATING THESE VALUABLE COMMERCIAL MATERIALS WOULD IMPOSE
THE STRINGENT INCINERATOR STANDARD (PROPOSED SECTION 250.41)
ON THE BOILER WHICH UTILIZES THEM.  THERE ARE NUMEROUS
SITUATIONS WHEN RESIDUES FROM A PROCESS ARE BURNED IN HEAT
RECOVERY FACILITIES TO SUPPLY ENERGY NEEDS OF A PROCESS OR

-------
                                -5-
OTHER PARTS OF THE PLANT.  THE INCINERATOR STANDARDS, AS
PRESENTLY WORDED, WILL REDUCE THE USE OF SUCH MATERIALS AND
DEPRIVE THE PLANT OF A VALUABLE ENERGY SOURCE.

     ALONG THE SAME LINES, WE RECOMMEND THAT PROPOSED SECTION
250.1CKb)(2)(ii), WHICH IMPROPERLY INCLUDES SPECIFIED OILS
WHICH ARE "BURNED AS A FUEL/' BE DELETED FROM THE DEFINITION
OF "OTHER DISCARDED MATERIAL."  THIS INCLUSION SEEMS WITHOUT
STATUTORY BASIS AND IS CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE
TERM "DISCARDED."

     THE pR9?osED HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTICS SET FORTH
IN SECTION 250.13 ARE DEFINED TOO BROADLY AND SHOULD BE

-------
                                -6-
RESTRICTED TO ONLY THOSE DEFINITIONS ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WHICH ARE BASED UPON, OR SUBSTANTIATED BY, STANDARD
TESTING PROTOCOLS WHICH ARE VALIDATED BY VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS
STANDARD SETTING GROUPS EXCLUSIVE OF EPA.  IF THE PROPOSED
CHARACTERISTICS ARE RETAINED, MANY COMMON MATERIALS WILL BE
CLASSIFIED AS HAZARDOUS.  FOR EXAMPLE, SOME CARBONATED
BEVERAGES, SUCH AS COLAS, WHICH HAVE pHs BETWEEN 2 AND 3
WOULD BE CONSIDERED CORROSIVE AND THUS "HAZARDOUS."  THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SHOULD BE REVISED TO
INCLUDE ONLY WASTE WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE HAZARDOUS
THAN MUNICIPAL REFUSE.

     PROPOSED SECTION 250.14 is A HELPFUL APPROACH IN LISTING
HAZARDOUS WASTE TO THE EXTENT IT LISTS TRULY HAZARDOUS WASTE
AND WASTE PRODUCING PROCESSES.   HOWEVER, WASTE SHOULD BE

-------
                                -7-
INCLUDED IN OR DELETED FROM THE LIST SET FORTH IN THIS
SECTION EXCLUSIVELY ON THE BASIS OF VALIDATED CHARACTERISTICS
SET FORTH IN SECTION 250,13,

     AT THE OUTSET OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE PROPOSED SECTION 3004
REGULATIONS, EPA STATES ITS INTENT "TO PROMULGATE SUCH
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES,.,. AS MAY
BE NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT,"
NEVERTHELESS, THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS RELY HEAVILY ON
DESIGN AND OPERATING STANDARDS WHICH PROVIDE LITTLE FLEXIBILITY
FOR INNOVATIVE OR EQUIVALENT DESIGNS.  THIS IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT TO EXISTING FACILITIES ATTEMPTING TO MEET INTERIM
STATUS REQUIREMENTS.  SEVERAL OF THE INTERIM STATUS REQUIRE-
MENTS INCLUDE "NOTES" PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE RELIEF FROM A

-------
STANDARD.  As PRACTICAL RELIEF THE "NOTES" FALL SHORT SINCE
THEY ARE SUPPLIED IN A LIMITED NUMBER OF SECTIONS,  As A
CONSEQUENCE, THE INFLEXIBLE USE OF SPECIFICATION STANDARDS
WILL CAUSE MANY EXISTING, WELL DESIGNED AND ENVIRONMENTALLY
SOUND FACILITIES TO BE NOT IN COMPLIANCE,  THE REGULATIONS
SHOULD ALLOW FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY BY PROVIDING THAT A
FACILITY WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE DESIGN AND OPERATING
STANDARDS IF IT CAN SHOW EITHER (A) THAT IT MEETS THE HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS IN PROPOSED SECTION 250.42, OR
(B) THAT IT WILL ACHIEVE PERFORMANCE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT
TO THAT ACHIEVED BY PRESCRIBED DESIGN AND OPERATING STANDARDS.

     TO ACHIEVE THIS END, IT IS RECOMMENDED PROPOSED SECTION
250,10(d)(2)(il)(A) BE DELETED,

-------
                                                           456





 1               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  The next speaker will be




 2     Gilbert; W, Fuller,  The Empire District Electric Company.




 3                         STATEMENT OF GILBERT W, FULLER




 4               MR,  FULLER:  Madam Chairperson, the Hearing




 5     Committee, my name  is Gilbert W, Fuller.  I'm appearing




 6     here in behalf of The Empire District Electric Company,




 1     Joplin, Missouri, with the responsibility of Superintendent.




 8     of Environmental Engineering and Liajffra for the company.




 '               The Empire District Electric Company is an in-




10     vestor-owned electric utility company with corporate head-




11     quarters in Joplin, Missouri,




12               The company service area is approximately 10,000




13     square miles in the four-state area, Missouri, Kansas,




14     Oklahoma, Arkansas.  The company is small, capacity-wise,




15     compared to its pool connected neighbors with 64 per cent




16     of its present generating capacity producing approximately




17     70 per cent of the  on-system energy requirements, utilizing




18     coal as the fuel,




19               In 1980 the picture changes slightly with 69




20     per cent of the generating — or the generation producing




21     approximately 75 per cent of the requirements by using




22     coal fuel.




23               Presently the company manages coal fuel ash dis-




24     posal in clay bottom ash ponds at two different generating




25     sites, approximately 30 miles apart.  One in southeast

-------
                                                           457





 1     Kansas and the other in southwest Missouri,




                The Missouri plant generation site burns area




      coal, predominantly Missouri coal, with a mine-mouth opera-




      tion adjacent to the plant.



                The Kansas plant burns Oklahoma coal.



 6               This year the Missouri plant, Asbury plant by




 7     name, will produce in excess of 100,000 tons of bottom




 8     and flyash, which go to ponds on the property.



 '               Also this year,  the Kansas plant, Riverton plant,




1°     will produce approximately 18,000 tons of ash which will




11     be sluiced to one of the two ash ponds on this property.




12               In 1980, the company will be involved in the




13     operation of the first new unit of the latan Plant jointly




14     owned by several companies and located in northwest Mis-




15     souri.



16               Our company will assume its portion of the joint



17     responsibility of ash disposal on this property.  This



18     unit will be burning coal  from the Colorado-Wyoming area.



19     Our company's 12 per cent  responsibility of the coal fuel



20     ash will mean another 22,000 tons annually.



21               It is not the intent of the company that this



22     statement be detailed in nature insofar as constructive




23     criticism of the guidelines and the regulations proposed,




24     But rather to share concerns of a general nature and scope,




25               Insofar as our industry is concerned, there have

-------
                                                             458




      been and are and will be numerous organized efforts to



      address the guidelines and regulations in considerable de-




      tail.  For instance,  EEI, EPItt, USWAG and others.



                Our company has a one-person environmental de-




 5     partment and that person has to function as the general



 6     practitioner.  The ash produced by the operation of the



 7     company's coal-burning plants is believed to be very low-




 8     risk material and does not endanger the health and welfare




 9     of employees, neighbors and the environment,




10               The company has been discouraged to date to uti-




11     lize the ash from the Kansas plant because to do so would




12     require a permit and the implementation of an ash manage-




13     ment program.



14               Years past the ash was utilized in the rebuilding




15     of numerous cinder tracks and through the efforts of private



16     research groups found to possess desirable qualities that



17     could promote and enhance commercial ventures.



18               Utilization was discouraged and of late not



19     fostered because of the state permit liability.



20               The company has been able to utilize a portion




21     of the a,sh from the Missouri plant.  In fact, ash from




22     thig plant is going across the state line into Kansas and




23     being utilized in roadway constructions,




                The ash characteristics make it possible to con-




      serve considerable oil that would normally be used in con-

-------
                                                            459

  ,   ventlon asphaltic concrete.

  2             The company to  date,  in Missouri, has not been

     burdened with a detailed  ash management program.

               It appears that the RCRA amended Solid Waste

     Disposal Act severely threatens the prospective utilization

     and interim on-site storage of a coal fuel ash.  The
  6
     wording in the subject EPA document serves to place and

     apply its statement on this material that will discourage
  8
     commercial utilization of coal fuel ash.
  9

               That document states that flay ash, bottom ash,
 10
     and scrubber sludge are special wastes and implies that

     they are a hazardous waste by stating that the Agency is

     calling such high volume  hazardous waste, special waste

     and is professing to regulate it witn special standards.

               Further, on Page 58993 this statement appears:
 15
     "A proposed ruling will be published at a later date
 '6
     regarding treatment, storage aid disposal of special wastes."
 17
               Are we,  as producers of coal fuel ash, to
 18
     anticipate being prospective permittees and storage facility
 19
     operators?  Are we to proceed to(rove that ash we
 20
     produce is nonhazardous and does not threaten human health
 21
     and the environment, when the material has already been
 22
     declared hazardous?
 23
               The company believes Subpart F, the statement,
 24

25

-------
                                                            460




 1     "Program requirements w±H be extremely important,  Deci-




 2    sions by the states on a case~by-caae vill ultimately for-




 3    mulate a workable program,  Allowing states to utilize




 4    suitable alternate testing methods is recommended."




 5              The company concurs that utility coal fuel ash




 6    should receive separate treatment, with the present em-



 7    phasis on coal as a primary fuel and the fact there is




 8    no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health




 9    and/or the environment with the disposal of the ash from



 10    these properties,




 11               With an ever increasing need for adequate cooling




 12     water, for condensers, steam electric generated plants,



 13     many future facilities will need to be sited in the 100-




 14     year-flood-plain,  On-site storage and disposal of both




 15     the bottom and fly ash especially should be allowed, from



 16     a reasonable engineering standpoint when, of course,: pro-



 17    vided with adequate diking and control.



 13               Historically both bottom ash and fly ash have



 19     been disposed of on-site and on the immediate property




 20     owned by the utility with no problem of consequence or




 2,     import,



 22               Projection of the problems facing the electric




 23     utilities in the area of disposing of coal ash material




 24     is unknown and fraught with liabilities.  It has become




25     obvious to the company that from the standpoint of the

-------
                                                             461



      current national energy policy that continued utilization


      of coal as a primary fuel for both existing and projected


      plants must be encouraged.  History substantiates that


      utilities have adequately handled its waste problem and


      should have separate consideration to avoid unnecessary


      expense to the rate payers.


                Thank you,


 8              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.

 9
                Would you be willing to respond to questions


      from the panel?


11              MR. FULLER!;  Sure.


12              MR. LINDSEY:  Mr. Fuller, I guess there seems


      to be some — I think there may be some confusion.


                We do not list — I guess I got a couple of things


15    I want to point out and then I do have one questiona  We


      do not ~ and one of the observations I make is that we


17    do not list fly ash as a hazardous waste in here.  But in-


18    formation which we have, some preliminary information that


"    we have, indicates,that occasionally fly ash does fail, if


20    yOU will, the characteristics testsswe have under Section


21    250,13, specifically with the leaching of heavy metals,


22    I guess.  Not always but sometimes, apparently.


23              In recognition of that, the fact that it some-


24    times does but not usually, and the hazard level, when it


25    does exceed those limits it's relatively low.  Plus the

-------
                                                         462




      fact the high volumes of this particular waste plus the




 2     fa.ct that the standards which we have under 3004 for other




      hazardous wastes don't seem amenable to this kind of mater-



      ial.  He have listed them as a special waste and said that




      we need to do some more studying to determine whether and




      how to fully regulate these things.




                Now I guess the problem I have is that what you




 8     seem to be suggesting is that we delete this particular




 9     waste stream from a special waste category and if we were



10     to do that, then any time that the fly ash were to fail




11     the criteria or the characteristics under Section 3001,




12     they would be subject to the full set of requirements.  And




13     I don't think that's what you're getting at.



14               MR. F0LLER:  No, Mr. Lindsey, I respectfully say




15     that — 1 mean I've heard you, I've been here at the



16     meeting, and I heard you make the statement several times



17     in clarification, and it still is a problem with me be-



18     cause the words,cieiieitedc" right from the paper, and it



19     says that is a hazardous waste and, you know, those words




20     are right there just as I read them.




2i               MR. LINDSEY:  0,K., it says, "Which is determined




22     to be—



23               MR. JESSEE (interrupting):  "that they are a




24     hazardous waste", yes.



25               MR. LINDSEY (continuing):  -—which is determined tc

-------
                                                            463






      be  a hazardous waste under 250,13,  Subpart A," meaning




      if  they fail the criteria.  If they don't fail the criteria,




      they are not a hazardous waste.   Maybe that's not clear.



                MR.  FULLER:   The words say that they are high




 '     volume  hazardous waste,  special waste.




                MR.  LINDSEY:   You must be in the preamble.  O.K.,




      well, maybe we need to  clarify that,




                MR,  FULLER:   It's there and I can point it out



 9     to  you,  I mean, I didn't bring it up here with me.  I've




10     been waiting for you to say you don't really mean that




11     and I hayen't heard you say that so I want to point it to




12     you right now.




13               MR.  LINDSEY:   Unless it fails the criter— char-




14     acteristics under 250.13, it is not a hazardous waste in-



15     so  far  as the regulations are concerned.  And the implica-




16     tion through the wording somewhere tends to give that




17     impression, that it's always a hazardous waste—



18               MR,  FULLER (interrupting):  Now, what I'm really



19     asking  for is that you  understand it, we understand it.



20               MR.  LINDSEY:   O.K.



21               MR,  FULLER:   I want to be sure that, you know,



22     that they get cleaned up and at this point the general




23     public, you know, because it is there,




24               MR,  LINDSEY:   O.K., we'll take another look at



25     the wording and try to  clarify that if we can. S6 ~~v 'bat the

-------
                                                            464





      intent is that if it only fails the characteristics of




      the hazardous waste under Subpart A,




                MR. CORSON:  I just wanted to follow up on that




      and again I wish you would and certainly may follow up




      later, indicate to us because as we read it, the preamble,




 6     we say "some portion of certain high volume wastes might




 7     be hazardous" because the regulation is clear.




 8               But the other thing you did indicate in your




 9     comments, Mr, Fuller, that you feel your wastes are a low




10     risk,  I'm wondering whether you might have some data




11     which tells us the characteristics of your ash, both




12     the fly a,sh and bottom ash, as well as the sludge.  And




13     particularly- if you have any tests you may have run on




14     the wastes that we might, you know, if you'd share that




15     with us so that we can look at it,  It would help us build




16     our data, base to possibly further identify those wastes




17     which are of concern.  So I'd certainly appreciate it if




18     you'd do that.




19               Also I have a problem — you indicated, I be-




20     lieve, and 3D forget, which one of the two states it was




21     but in one of the states, apparently, you require a per-




22     mit?




23               MR. FUIAER:  Kansas,




24               MR, CORSON;  What is the purpose of that permit?




25     Could you tell me why or what it is that the permit is for?

-------
 1               MR. FULLER:  Just their interpretation.  I kept




 2     asking,  I said, "What does it take to be in compliance




 3     with their solid waste management program?"




 4               MR, CORSON;  Somewhere in their solid waste




 5     regulation they feel that ash requires some special control?




 6               MR, FULLER:  Well, they say that if I don't re-




 7     move any over the sides of the ponds, I'll never need




 8     a permit.  But as long as I leave it in storage on-site.




 9     it's when I lift that first bucketful across the dike is




10     when I change status and require a permit.  That's why




11     I*ve discouraged usage of that particular ash,




12               MR, FIELDS:  One question.




13               MR, FULLER:  O.K,




14               MR, FIELDS:  I think you alluded to this in




15     your presentation, it wasn't clear, following up on Fred




16     Lindsey, if certain fly ash or bottom ash is hazardous




17     waste, do you have any particular problem with the special




18     waste standards for utility wastes in the current regs?




19               MB,, FULLER:  You mean the running—




20               MR, FIELDS (interrupting):  The standards, them-




2i     selves.  The standards on reporting, do you have any




22     problems with the standards that would be applicable to




23     those portions of the fly ash that were hazardous?  Do




24     you have any problem with those standards?




25               MR. FULLER:  Not in particular no,




                MS, DftRRAH:  Thank you very much.

-------
                                                                466





 1                (Whereupon the  statement of, the




 2          speajtser wa,a made part of the formal  record,!




 3                          HEADING INSERT




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
     Statement Made Regarding EPA Proposed Hazardous
     Waste Regulations at Public Hearing, February 14-16,
     1979, St. Louis, Missouri
     by The Empire District Electric Company	

     The Empire District Electric Company is an investor-
owned electric utility company with Corporate Headquarters
in Joplin, Missouri.  The Company's service area is
approximately 10,000 square miles  in the four-state
area of Missouri - Kansas - Oklahoma - Arkansas.  The
Company is small, capacity-wise, compared to its pool
connected neighbors with 64% of its present generating
capacity producing approximately 70% of the on-system
energy requirements utilizing coal as the fuel.  In
1980, the picture changes slightly with 69% of the
generation producing approximately 75% of the require-
ments by using coal fuel.

     Presently the Company manages coal fuel ash dis-
posal in clay bottom ash ponds at two different genera-
tion sites approximately 30 miles apart, one in S.E.
Kansas and the other in S.W. Missouri.  The Missouri
plant, generation site, burns area coal, predominately
Missouri coal from a mine-mouth operation adjacent to
the plant.  The Kansas plant burns Oklahoma coal.
This year the Missouri plant, Asbury Plant by name,

-------
                     - 2 -

will produce in excess of 100,000 tons of bottom and
flyash which will go to ponds on the property.  Also,
this year, the Kansas Plant, Riverton Plant, will
produce approximately 18,000 tons of ash which will
be sluiced to one of the two ash ponds on this property.

     In 1980, the Company will be involved in the
operation of the first new unit of the latan Plant
jointly owned by several companies and located in
N.W. Missouri.  Our Company will assume its portion
of the joint responsibility of ash disposal on the
property.  This unit will be burning coal from the
Colorado-Wyoming area.  Our Company's 12% responsibility
for the coal fuel ash will mean another 22,000 tons
annually.

     It is not the intent of the Company that this
statement be detailed in nature insofar as constructive
criticism of the guidelines and regulations proposed, but
rather to share concerns of a general nature and scope.
Insofar as our industry is concerned there have been,
are, and will be numerous organized efforts to address
the guidelines and regulations in considerable detail,
i.e., EEI, EPRI, USWAG, and others.  Our Company has a
one person environmental department and that person

-------
                      - 3 -

has to function as a general practioner.

     The ash produced by the operation of the Company's
coal burning plants is believed to be very low risk
material and does not endanger the health and welfare
of employees, neighbors, and the environment.  The
Company has been discouraged to date to utilize the
ash from the Kansas plant because to do so would require
a permit and the implementation of an ash management
program.  Years past the ash was utilized in the re-
building of numerous "cinder tracks" and through the
efforts of private research groups found to possess
desirable qualities that could promote and enhance
commercial ventures.  Utilization was discouraged and
of late not fostered because of the State permit liability.

     The Company has been able to utilize a portion of
the ash from the Missouri plant, in fact ash from this
plant is going across the State line into Kansas and
being utilized in roadway construction.  The ash charac-
teristics make it possible to conserve considerable oil
that would normally be used in conventional asphaltic
concrete.  The Company, to date in Missouri, has not
been burdened with a detailed ash management program.

-------
                      -  4  -

      It appears  that the  RCRA amended Solid Waste
 Disposal Act severely threatens  the  prospective
 utilization and  interum on-site  storage of coal fuel
 ash.   The wording in the  subject EPA document serves
 to place an applied stigma  on this material that will
 discourage commercial utilization of coal  fuel ash.
 The document states that  fly  ash, bottom ash,  and
 scrubber sludge  are Special Wastes and implies that
 they  are a hazardous waste  by stating that the Agency
 is calling such  high volume hazardous waste "Special
 Waste" and is progressing to  regulate it with special
 standards.
      Further, on page 58993,  this statement appears,
 "A proposed rulemaking  will be published at a later
 date  regarding the treatment, storage, and disposal  of
 special waste."

     Are we, as producers of coal fuel ash to anticipate
being prospective permittees and  storage facility
operators?  Are we to proceed to prove that ash we
produce is non-hazardous and does not  threaten human
health and the environment when the material has already
been declared hazardous?
     The Company believes the Sub part F, the State
Program Requirements, will be extremely important.

-------
                     - 5 -

Decisions by the States on a case-by-case basis will
ultimately formulate a workable program.  Allowing
States to utilize suitable alternate testing methods
is recommended.

     The Company concurs that utility coal fuel ash
should receive separate treatment with the present
emphasis on coal as a primary fuel and the fact there
is no reasonable probability of adverse effects on
health and/or the environment with the disposal of
the ash from these properties.  With an ever-increasing
need for adequate cooling water for condensers of steam
electric generating plants, many future facilities will
need to be sited in the 100 year flood plain.  On-site
storage and disposal of both the bottom and fly ash
especially should be allowed from a reasonable engineering
standpoint when, of course, provided with adequate diking
and control.  Historically, both bottom ash and fly ash
have been disposed of on-site and on the immediate property
owned by the utilities with no problem of consequence or
importance.

     Projection of the problems facing the electric
utilities in the area of disposing of coal ash material

-------
                     - 6 -

is unknown and fraught with liabilities.  It has become
obvious to the Company that from the standpoint of
the current national energy policy that continued
utilization of coal as a primary fuel for both existing
and projected plants must be encouraged.  History
substantiates that utilities have adequately handled
its waste problem and should have separate consideration
to avoid unnecessary expense to the rate payers.

                              Yours truly,
                              Gilbert W. Fuller
                              Superintendent of
                               Environmental Engineering
                                & Liaison

-------
                                                            467





 1               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   The next speaker tonight




      will be Betty Wilson from The  League of Women Voters of




 3     Missouri,




 4               MS. WILSON:  I've got three copies that are




 5     somewhat briefer than my final version if they will help.




 6                    STATEMENT OF BETTY WILSON




 7               MS, WILSON:  Members of the Panel, I am Betty




 8     Wilson of St. Louis County, speaking on behalf of the




 9     Lea,gue of Women Voters of Missouri.




10               The League is vitally concerned about the conse-




11     quences of improper management of hazardous materials.




12     The League in Missouri worked  for adequate legislation in




13     1977 to establish a state program.  We do not want unneces-




14     sary delay but there are some  changes that we see as nec-




15     essary to achieve the intent of the Missouri and Federal




16     Laws,




17               Our primary objection to the proposed regulations




18     is the exemption of generators, 250,40, by the volume of




19     waste produced.  We do not have the technical background




20     to offer the solution but we recommend that the classifica-




2i     tion of waste be further divided so that total tracking of




22     the most hazardous materials is required except for the




23     Congressional exclusions.




24               Recognizing limits to program startup, we would




25     prefer a year or two delay before bringing less hazardous

-------
                                                             468



      wastes into the system.  We are a,ware of g program in Ma.ry~

 2
      land which classifies waste both by degree of hazard and


      the concentration of hazardous substance in the waste.

 4
      We concur with this type of classification system.


                After refining the classification system, re-


      porting time should be shortened for substances with the


      greatest potential for health and environmental damage and


      left a,t the proposed one year for the less harmful waste,


 9    250.23.


'0              For the waste that would not be reported under


11    the ha.za,rdous waste program and therefore required to be


12    sent to an approved disposal facility, we would suggest


13    there be a requirement for informal reporting to  the state


'4    agency responsible for the solid waste disposal,


15              in this transition time from open burning and


!6    inadequate waste disposal to developing adequate  facilities,


17    it is imperative that a well-designed and well-operated


18    site be selected and that the number of small generators


19    using a given site is within the tolerance of that


20    facility.


21              In regard to Section 3004, disposal facilities,


22    much of the specificity and therefore security for the


23    citizens of the siting regulations has been removed from


24    drafts to the proposed regulations.


25              We believe the- exemption provisions in  siting

-------
                                                              469





      a facility are too loose and should be rewritten.




 2               We do not believe it should be necessary to lo-




 3     cate hazardous waste facilities in the flood plain, wet-




 4     lands, critical habitats, on sole source aquifers or




 5     within 200 feet of the property line.




 6               Landfarming of hazardous waste is a complicated




 7     problem.  In the proposed regulations, toxic wastes are




 8     not included in the excluded categories,




 9               The guidelines are still to be written for




10     the wastes with genetic impairment or bioaccumulative




11     properties.  And therefore they are not included.




12               The statement in the discussion that "EPA does




13     not have the data needed to make a definition of persis-




14     tent organics at this time" would justify omitting this




15     option or, at a minimum, placing the responsibility and




16     liability on anyone seeking a permit to landfarm hazardous




17     waste,




18               If there are to be permits for landfarming, the




19     burden of proof that there will be no health or environmen-




20     tal damage should be on the operator and at the experimen-




21     tal level for the first few years,




22               Many organic wastes do not contain appreciable




23     levels of heavy metals, could be landfarmed as the best




24     method of management, certain sludges, for example.




25               On the other hand, highly toxic nonbiodegradable

-------
                                                             470




      wastes should not be landfarmed because of the potential to



      enter the environment,




 3               We hope that in these comments we have been able




 4     to point up our feeling that there is a need for a hazar-




      dous waste classification system,




 6               Thank you very much,




 7               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I realize you weren't try-




      ing to give us really technical comments but would you




 9     try and answer questions for us?



10               MS, WILSON:  I'll try but my technical informa-




11     tion is lacking,




12               MR, FIELDS:   Ms. Wilson, you had one comment



13     regarding your site selection comment in general.  We



14     have a problem, the most we have with everybody on stan-



15     dards in there is site selection criteria, but one of



16     the reasons is that, in the case of existing facility, now



17     some facilities are already handling hazardous wastes




18     and they would be handling it in an environmentally ac-



19     ceptable manner.




20               What would you do in the instance if, for ex-




      ample, we didn't have a note and a facility was adequately




22     handling hazardous waste, there were no problems, he




23     had a track record of good environmental management and



24     the facility, for some reason, violated the 200-foot bump-




25     er zone, what would you propose that EPA do in the case of

-------
                                                              471






 '     existing facilities that would be in violation of one or




 2     more of these standards if there was no note-'maximum?




 3               MS, WILSON:  Well, I'm not sure.  What would you




 4     do?




 5               MR. FIELDS:  I would do what I have here.  That's




 6     why we have these notes.  That's one of the reasons.  Be-




 1     cause we want to allow some flexibility in those kinds of




 8     circumstances.  But you indicate that you would not want




 '     to have those notes.  I was wondering how you handle —




'"     you see the problem that we have.




11               MS. WILSON:  I see the problem that you have and




12     I think we're probably not able to answer our own questions




13     in some of these cases.




14               MR. LEHMAN:  Can I get a little clarification




15     from you, Ms. Wilson, about the last part of your statement?




16     I'm just not clear what your main point was in your dis-




17     cussion of landfarming.  I think that maybe part of the




18     confusion is that there is a typo in the text here,




19               It says, "In the proposed regulation!*  and then




20     you have a specific citation there but it doesn't track




21     with anything we have in our regulations.  It must be a




22     typographical error.




23               MS, WILSON:  You mean in the second sentence?




24               MR. LEHMAN:  Yes.




25               MS. WILSON:  I had trouble with that,  too.  I

-------
                                                           472




 1     didn't do all of this by myself.   This is sojne of it.  I




 2     never could find it so I crossed  it out in my own copy.




      But unfortunately I had not considered the fact that we




      were going to give them to you, so I didn't cross them out




 ^     in all of them.   So that's it. That citing was a typo,




 6               MR, LEHMAN:  Aside from that, though, the ma,in




 7     thrust of your remarks, as I understand it, is that you be-




 8     lieve that organic wastes with genetic impairment potential




 '     or accumulative  properties should not be landfarmed, isn't




1°     that the general gist of your remarks, or at least it ought




11     to be under some sort of a special—




12               MS. WILSON (interrupting):  Should be very care-




13     fully and very specially investigated before landfarming.




14     In fact, we thought that only a very few of the organic




IS     wastes, and especially those that contain no metal at all,




16     should be landfarmed at all.




17               I think in terms of certain sewage sludges and




18     certain pesticides and so forth,  it's probably acceptable.




19     But l^ndfarming seems to us, at least, something that we




20     have to treat with great care,




21               MRo TRASK:  Ms, Wilson, you testified that you




22     thought that we ought to change our regulations to have




23     the effect of shortening the reporting period for certain




24     wastes which may have high degrees of hazard.




25               MS, WILSON:  Yes0

-------
                                                             473





 1               MR, TRASK:   I wonder if you could share with TJS




      some of your thoughts on what the characteristics of those




      wastes might be or otherwise the names of some of the wastes.




      What exactly do you have in mind here?




 5               MS. WILSON:  I was thinking of some very hazar-




 6     dous wastes  such as PCB's.




 7               MR» TRASK:   When  you say like PCB's, you mean




 8     wastes that  have characteristics similar to PCB's?  And




 9     the  PCB'g, themselves?




10               MS, WILSON;  Yes, and wastes that are considered




11     to be extremely hazardous.




12               MR. TRASK:   Well, as you know, we haven't done




13     that sort of a breakdown, a split between the different




14     kinds of wastes so the different hazards that we're dealing




15     with, we're  searching for some split.




16               MS, WILSON:  I think that we're recommending,




17     trying to reccomend,  that there be different classifications




18     and  therefore that certain  more hazardous wastes be treated




19     in a different manner from  the less hazardous wastes.  And




20     I  smroply give PCB's as an example because it's one that we




21     have dealt with in Missouri,




22               MR, TRASK:   Are you going to send — are you




23     sending your comments later in writing or is this your




24     statement here?




25               MSo WILSON:  This is my statement.

-------
                                                             474


               MR.  TRASK:   All right,  thank you.


 2              MS*  WILSON:   Thank you,

 3
               MR.  CORSON:   One comment,  if I  may,  Ms.  Wilson,


      because  your answer to Harry kind of treated one of the


      problems that we've been wrestling with.   Because you


 6     looked for  the bad actor, bad waste, and  then earlier on


      in your  comments to Mr. Lehman,  you  indicated or you indi-

 ft
      cated in your statement that you were concerned about


      some  possible carcinogens when you do landfarming.


               By — we seem to be trying to read into it that


1'     it would be very hazardous wastes when landfarmed, maybe


'2     not very hazardous wastes when incinerated.   So—


13              MS.  WILSON (interrupting):  Well,  that must be


14     confusion in the way we've stated it because we felt that


15     certain  wastes lent themselves to landfarming and the sun


'6     and air  and so forth might help take care of it.  And the


17     danger to the surrounding environment would  not be as


18     giEeat, that there should be such criteria as that for


19     landfarming.


20              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you  very much.


21               (Whereupon, the aforementioned  statement was


22          made part of the formal record.)


23                         HEARING INSERT


24


25

-------
League of Women Voters of Missouri
2138 Woodson Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63114
                          Statement at the Public Hearing on
                         PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
                                   February 15, 1979

             I am Betty Wilson of St. Louis County speaking on behalf of the League
        of Women Voters of Missouri.
             The League is vitally concerned about the consequences of improper manage-
        ment of hazardous materials.  The League in Missouri worked for adequate
        legislation in 1977 to establish a state program.  We do not want unnecessary
        delay, but there are some changes that we see as necessary to achieve the
        intent of the Missouri and Federal laws.
             Our primary objection to the proposed regulations is the exemption of
        generators (250.40) by the volume of waste produced.  We do not have the
        technical background to offer the solution, but we recommend that the classifi-
        cation of waste be further divided so that total tracking of the most hazardous
        materials is required, except for the Congressional exclusions.  Recognizing
        limits to program start up, we would prefer a year or two delay before bringing
        the less hazardous wastes into the system.  We are aware of the program in
        Maryland which classifies waste both by degree of hazard and theconcentration
        of hazardous substances in the waste.
             After refiniog the classification system, reporting time could be shortened
        for substances with the greatest potential for health and environmental damage
        and left at the proposed one year for less harmful waste. (250.23)
             For the waste that would not be reported under the hazardous waste program
        and therefore required to be sent to an approved disposal facility (discussion
        on page 58,970), we would suggest that there be a requirement for informal
        reporting to the state agency responsible for solid waste disposal.  In this transition
        time from open burning and inadequate waste disposal to developing adequate
        facilities, it is imperative that a well designed and well operated site be
        selected and that the number of small generators using a given site is within
        the tolerance of the facility.
             Re: Section 3004 - Disposal facilities.  Much of the specificity, and
        therefore security for the citizen, of the siting regulations has been removed
        from drafts to the proposed regulations.  We believe the exemption provisions

-------
(250.43-1) in siting  a facility are much too loose and should be rewritten.
We do not believe it should be necessary to site hazardous waste facilities
in the floodplain, wetlands, critical  habitats,  on sole source aquifers or
within 200 feet of the property line.
     Landfarming of hazardous waste is a terrifying thought.   In the proposed
regulations (250145.5), toxic wastes are not included in the  excluded categories.
The guidelines are still to be written for the wastes with genetic impairment
or bioaccumulative properties, and therefore, they are not included.  The
statement in the discussion (p.58,990) that "EPA does not have the data needed
to make a definition of persistant organics at this time" would justify
omitting this option or at a minimum placing the responsibility and liability
on anyone seeking a permit to landfarm hazardous waste.  If there are to be
permits for landfarming, the burden of proof that there will  be no health or
environmental damage should be on the operator and at the experimental  level
for the first few years.
     Thank you.

-------
                                                           475





 1              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Is Marie Roberts here?




 2               Wo response,}




 3              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH;  Is David Wilson here?



 4               CNo response,}




 5              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Is Richard Meunier from



 6    The Farm Nuclear Study here?




 7              MR. MEUNIER;  Yes.



 8              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH;  I hope I didn't mispronounce




 9    your name,




 1°              MR, MEUNIER:  That's all right,




 11              First I'd like to ask the panel, it is my under-




 12    standing that transportation of nuclear or radioactive




 13    waste was to be included in this as a specialty, is that?




 14              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Only to a very very limited



 15    extent,




 16              Alan, if you want to explain under RCRA how it




 17    fits in?



 18              MR. ROBERTS:  We have two outstanding rule-making



 19    actions regarding the transportation of nuclear materials.




 20              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  This is the Department of




 21    Transportation speaking here,



 22              MR. ROBERTS:  One is a complete restatement of




 23    the Department of Regulations from A to Zit on radioactive



 24    materials transportation system in the proposed new Part




25     127 entitled 49CFR.  Possibly you're addressing our Docket

-------
      HN 164 which deals with the routing of radioactive materials.




 2               MR, MEUNIER:  Right,




 3               MR. ROBERTS:  This is not the subject of this




 4     hearing,




 5               MR. MEUNIER;  Not the subject?




 6               MR. ROBERTS:  No, sir,




 7               MR, MEUNIER:  Did that happen yesterday?




 8               MR, ROBERTS:  We have an open docket on it and




 9     you're welcome to submit comments to the same address on




1°     our ruling docket at the back of the room for transporta-




11     tion.




12               MR. MEUNIER:  O.K.




13               MRo ROBERTS:  I forget the closing date of the




14     comment period.  If you submit them within the next few




15     weeks, I'll cover you for sure,




16               MR. MEUNIER:  00K.




17               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Let me just explain, the




18     RCRA regulations cover hazardous waste but most nuclear




19     wastes is not included under RCRA.  That is within the




20     purview of another agency, so we do deal with some low




21     level nuclear wastes, some hospital wastes or some of




22     the other phosphate mining,




23               MR, ROBERTS:  Are you talking about nuclear fuel?




24               MR, MEUNIER:  About nuclear fuel in particular




25     or nuclear fuel just in general or any kind of low-level

-------
                                                                 47"





 1     radioactivity, transporting that,




 2               MR, ROBERTS:  You're making a very broad com-




 3     ment there.  Then possibly there may be something here,




 4     But if you're talking about uranium ore such as yellow




 5     cake, then it's not the subject of this hearing.




 6               MR, MEUINIER:  I was under misunderstanding.  I




 7     thought—




 8               MR. ROBERTS  (interrupting):  This hearing will




 9     deal mainly with radium, material of that type, and not




10     get into enriched uranium, spent nuclear tools, or anything




11     of that type.




12               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  If you have some comments




13     on -- that seem to be applicable to low-level, transpor-




14     tation of low-level radioactive wastes, we'd be happy




15     to hear them.




16                    STATEMENT OF RICHARD MEUNIER




17               MR. MEUNIER:  Well, just that we've had several




18     hazardous waste spills in Missouri fairly recently.  One




19     wasn't radioactive,'wastes.  It was a train spill in Stur-




20     geon.  And we had a, truck accident out here on 1-70 with




2i     low-level.  Now that was yellow cake and you say that's




22     not the subject here.




23               MR, ROBERTS:  That was a load of specific radio-




24     active material.  That is not the subject of this hearing.




25     That was virgin material and it was not lethal.

-------
                                                           478



                MR, MEUN.IER:  Yes, I guess my question to the


      panel here ±s you have no control of this.  Is this totally

 2
      NRC or does the EPA have any kind of a, say in what—


 4               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  If you want to ask us those


      kinds of questions, we'd be happy to talk to you after


 6     the close of the hearing.


 7               MR. MEUNIER:  O.K., I*m sorry,  I was understand-


 8     ing that this was part of this hearing and that's what

 Q
      my statements were going to pertain to,


10               MR, ROBERTS:  Well, I do strongly suggest that if


11     you have something to say about the transportation of radio-


12     active materials, if it's the routing of radioactive ma-


'3     terials -- in other words, the route followed by the ve-


14     hicles transporting those materials™


'5               MS. MEUNIER (interrupting):  Right.


16               MR. ROBERTS (continuing):  —if you'd make a note,


17     jot down Docket 164.  In the back of the room on the table


18     there is a document with my name and dddress on it, and


19     you may write to us and discuss, under Docket 164, the


20     routing of radioactive material.


21               If you want to talk on the other rulemaking


22     docket which is, like I said, A to Zit, the whole business


23     other than routing, you better give me your name and


24     address and I'll mail you the rulemaking.  And it will


25     probably take you about a month to review it.  0! dpn't mean

-------
                                                              479
 1     that facetiously.  I mean that seriously,
 2               MR, MEUNIER:  Right.
 3               MR. ROBERTS:  If you started at  the  time  it  came
 4     back, it would probably take you at  least  a month,
 S               MR, MEUNIER:  All right, thank you.
 6               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you for coming.
 7               Is there anybody else that would like  to  speak
 8     or has comments on 3001, 2 or 4 of the RCRA regulations?
 9                CNo response.}
 10               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Is anybody  for  the Coalition
      for the Environment here?
 12               MR; MEUNIER:  I think their interest is the
 13     same is mine.  Maybe they found out  before I did and
 14     that's why they didn't show up.
 ,5               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K., thank you.
                O.K., we will close the official record of this
 17     hearing and we'll pass out three by  five cards if somebody
      has — now for people who have not been here during the
      daytime hearings, anybody here tonight who has questions
 2Q     on how the regulations are meant to  apply, if  they  are
 21     not clear, if you need some help from us,  write  down your
 22     questions and we'll have people bring them to  us and try
 23     to ar^swer them,
                (Sk*r*ep»KathctD*titcti9tre
-------
SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT FOR QUESTION AND
ANSWER SESSION
          St. Louie, Missouri
        February 15, 1979

-------
                                                      480   ^




 1               MR, ROBERTS;  I have one.  The handwriting looks




 2     familiar,  ''Would you explain the requirements of proposed




 3     Regulation 171.3 Ce), especially 171.3  Ce) 3.  We're



      almost as bad as EPA, I think, on that.




 "               And by the way, put on the table back here are




 6     copies of our notice of proposed rulemaking and also there




 1     are more than 100 of them down at the registration desk.



 "     And I apologize but I was not here this afternoon.  I




 '     was having a lovely time touring the airport of Kansas




10     City and I finally came over from Kansas City by Greyhound




11     Bus.  So I just couldn't make it this afternoon.



12               Proposed 171.3 deals with the preempted aspects




13     of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1964.




14     And I guess in the simplest way to say it is that in terms




15     of the transportation of materials, we are saying that




16     any state or local requirement that's inconsistent with



17     the Federal requirement for the transportation of hazardous



18     wastes is — I better read it because if I start to inter-



19     pret it before I read it, we might run into trouble.




20               What it says is, "With regard to a hazardous



21     waste subject to this subchapter, any requirement of a



22     state or its political subdivision is inconsistent with



23     this subchapter if it applies because that material is




24     a waste material and applies differently from or in addi-




25     tion to the requirements of this subchapter concerning




      packaging, marking, labeling and placarding, or the format

-------
                                                           481




     or content of discharge reports except  immediate  reports



2    for emergency response *—'- thatls excluded  from the  pre-




3    emption, obviously.. ,"or the  format or  contents of shipping




4    papers, except any  additional requirements  of  the state




     or locality of consignment, which is part of an authorized



6    state hazardous waste management program under 42USC6926."




7              The simplest way to explain this  is  that we are




8    dealing with thousands of  jurisdictions in  the United



9    States.  In order to have  an  orderly system for the  move-




10    ment of hazardous waste to their authorized or permitted




11    disposal locations, chaos  would prevail if  every  jurisdic-




12    tion within the United States would decide  to  write  its



13    own rules.




14              Visualize the packaging of a  given material and




15    it comes into some  local jurisdiction and they decide .they



16    want it in a concrete vault and then the next  jurisdiction



17    says it has to be in a steel  tank.  And in  many cases we



18    would have wastes in the transportation cycle  for months



19    while we were just  trying  to  move it through these juris-




20    dictions if everybody wrote their own rules.



21              One of the reasons  why we've  been very  desirous




22    of actively participating  in  all these  hearings with the



23    EPA, is to receive  comments on our proposed rulemaking  and




24    also consideration  of our  proposed rulemaking  in  regard



25    to the 800 pages of Federal regulations presently set forth

-------
                                                             482




      fQr shippers and carriers of hazardous materials.  We have




 2    one of the fattest CFR's in the U. S. Government system,




      including 400 pages of packaging specifications.  Now that




 4    doesn't mean that a state or local jurisdiction may not




 5    be able to do a better job of specifying packaging but




 6    we must have a consistent and harmonious system or chaos




 7    would prevail.  And I hope you will all understand that.



 "              What we have done, though, we've recognized that




 9    in the proposal, and it's already been objected to by




 10    a number of commentors, we have recognized that destination




 11    state may require certain additional information to be



 12    set forth on the document relative to its fletBriaitiataon of




 13    the appropriateness of the disposal of the material.



 14              in other words, we've said, in terms of the




 15    destination state, we are not requiring a preempted situa-




 16    tion to exist if it's done under a state-authorized, auth-



 17    orized state hazardous waste management program.  And



 18    I think someone from the EPA can explain that better than I,



 19              What this means is that when a man prepares




 20    a document, say, in New Jersey and for some reason the



 21     material is going to Ohio, the document prepared consis-



 22    tent with the EPA and the DOT regulations for that material




 23     would be acceptable in the state of Pennsylvania, an inter-



 24     ception of tha,t shipment within the state of Pennsylvania?'.-




25     when it is only transiting that state, would be considered

-------
                                                             483


      having the potential for being declared inconsistent under


      the provisions of the Hazardous Materials Transportation

 3
      Act,  However, the state of Ohio may have some require-


      ments  concerning the preparation of documents under its


      state-approved plat; and I would again suggest that some-


 6     body from the EPA could explain some of the situations


 7     that would illustrate the desirability of permitting that

 p
      type of requirement to exist.

 o
                And I must again emphasize at previous hearings


      and some of the commentary, this has been strongly ob-


11     jected to from the standpoint  of the railroad industry,


12     for example,  I can understand some of the distress with


13     this proposal,


14               I believe that's just about as well as I'm able


15     to explain where we are on this particular part of  the


16     scope  and application of the standard and I would be


17     delighted to answer further if I have not explained it


18     well enough.


19               On an earlier question that was raised deals


20     with tankcars.  The commentor  says, "Our plant receives


21     ewpty  railcars for the shipment of our products from our


22     plant.  Frequently these empty cars contain up to several


23     hundred pounds of previously shipped unknown materials.


24     Since  railcars are frequently  in short supply, we must


25     e^pty  the cars- or use them with the unknown material still

-------
                                                                48 J4


      in them, which is obviously unacceptable,"  I agree.
 o
                'lWe are therefore, frequently put in the position

 o
      of accumulation of other company's"—"' then the word "waste"


      is stricken,.-"products for our disposal.'Does EPA or DOT


      have any recommendations on what we can do to resolve


 6     this problem.  Note:  The railroad isn't interested in


      keeping the material. Significant costs would be involved


      in determining what this material is in order to adequately


      comply with the RCRA regulations for disposal,"


                I think the only way I can answer that is that


11     if the inbound car contained a hazardous material subject


'2     to DOT regulations and the car is not empty.  Meaning in


13     our case, cleaned and purged, the car — if the car moves


      out on the rails again, under Section 173,28, Paragraph


IS     F, of our regulations, that car is subject to our regula-


      tions in the same manner as when the car came in with a


17     full load, with one exception.  At a certain level, a cer-


18     tain quantity of the material, and we are working on the


19     rulemaking to specify that, of the residue of the car,


20     they may turn the car and show the empty side of the


21     placard.  Meaning when the empty placard in the railroad


22     industry means the car is not full and is virtually empty


23     of its contents.  That's just about what it means.  It


24     doesn't mean it's entirely empty or cleaned and purged.  Or


25     otherwise the placard must be removed.

-------
                                                            485




  1              As to how that material is dealt with, if they




  2    clean the product from the car within the plant facility




  3    and store it or do something with it ~ I again must  re-




  4    fer to my good neighbors here from the EPA as to what de-




  5    termination would be done with that material.




  6              I only deal with the transportation aspect  of




  7    these cars.  And if they are on the plant facility and




  8    the material is removed from the car, as to what happens




  '    to it is not within my purview,




 10              "DO you see any way that DOT and EPA could  de-




 ll    velop one regulation to cover transportation of hazardous




 12    wastes rather than two regulations as proposed?  What is




 13    a way for a person who has not used DOT regs before to




 14    develop a meaningful understanding of DOT regulations?  Is




 15    there a good summary document?"




 16              First of all, if I'm not mistaken and, Mr.  Trask,




 17    I'm sure you'll correct me, there is an indication in the




 18    EPA transporter document that there may he significant




 19    modifications of that document if DOT proceeds to adopt




 20    the regulations that it proposed last May 25.  I believe




 2i    I'm correct on that.




 22              MR, TRASK:  That wording is in the proposal,




 23    right.




 24              MR. ROBERTS:  Maybe we ought to have a talk be-




25    fore we proceed.

-------
                                                             436


 1


      part of DOT'S involvement, there's been a change in the
 3
      Act by the quad conutiunities amendments, as I call them, of

 4
      a few months ago.  And where previously it talked about


      regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation under


      the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, relative to


      adoption of EPA rules, it used to say "Subtitle" meaning


      Subtitle C and now it only refers to Section 3003,

 o
                And of course most of our rulemaking deals with


10    matters that are covered by 3002 in terms of what the


      shipper must do in giving the materials to the carrier.


12    Packaging, shipping documents, labeling, marking, things


13    of that type, EPA is no longer, as I see it, obligated


'4    to promulgate regulations for generators that are consis-


15    tent with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.


16              And before somebody writes me a card and asks the


17    question about the origin of that modification, a few


18    months ago under the revision of this Act, I have no know-


19    ledge of how it was revised.  As a matter of fact, I was


20    not even, aware of it until last week.


21              But I think if you look at the DOT and EPA pro-


22    posals, by and large, they are consistent, one with the


23    other.  Obviously, in our case, we wrote them to fit within


24    the existing DOT regulations.  So there are differences


25    in the language.  But by and large, I think you will find

-------
                                                            487



      that they are very compatible.  If someone disagrees with


      that, I think they should bring it to our attention.


                As far as becoming aware of DOT regulations,


      DOT holds seminars around the United States.  We do make


      some slots available at the Transportation Safety Insti-


 6    tute in Oklahoma City to industry people who have a de-


      sire to receive intensive training in this area.  We have

 o
      regional and field offices around the United States,

 9
      hazardous material specialists.  There is one in Kansas


10    City, Mr, Crowder from the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety,


11    who is a hazardous material specialist,


12              The first thing you must do if you're not fa-


13    miliar with this, though, is I would strongly recommend


14    get a copy of the regulations.  And they are available


15    from the Superintendent of Documents and whoever asked


'6    the question, later on I'll be delighted to tell you how


17    to get it.


18              MR, CORSON:  I have a three-part question.


19              "One of the main points of the past two days


20    of discussion has been a desire to classify wastes by


21    degree of hazard.  The League of Women Voters mentioned


22    that Maryland is currently in the process of doing this.


23    why aren't you following the example, if this is true,


24    since you keep asking for ways to do this?"


25              That does remind me, I should have thanked Ms.

-------
                                                           488



      Wilson for reminding me about the Maryland work.




                But we did, in part of our investigation leading




      to the regulation as we have proposed it, looked at several




      state regulations which looked at degree of hazard and




      many of them were quite cumbersome and we felt required




      quite a large amount of testing on each and every waste




      to determine degree of hazard.  We felt the approach which




 8    we included in our December 18 proposal, which was to use




 '    3001 as a yes-no gate and then allow for the flexibility




 10    of 3004 to accommodate to the waste-specific problems




 11    with a site-specific solution to be an adequate answer to




 12    the degree of hazard.




 13              Now we did raise in the preamble the fact that




 14    we will be looking, and we are, at relating degree of




 15    hazard to the small quantity generation problem because




 16    it does appear that, at least it certainly has been shown




 17    in the last two days here and I think in New York, that




 18    there is a fair amount of interest that relates to the




 19    problem relating to small quantity at least, or the quan-




 20    tity exclusion to various degrees of hazard we'll be




 21    looking at,




 22              And we will certainly, at least now that we have




 23    it on the record, it will be a visual reminder to review




 24    the Maryland work and we will do so,




25              Second question: "Also isn't this a state which

-------
                                                          489


      classifies fly ash a natural resource, not a hazardous

 o
      waste?"  And I cannot answer that question because  I  don't


      know,

 4
                ''Where may we view your data on fly  ash leaching


      studies.?"   We have, between the work we have  done  in-house,


      that's with a contractor, what we've done jointly and done


 7    separately by the American Society for' testing "Materials

 n
      has'probably had some results on, perhaps, eight to ten

 g
      fly ash samples.  My recollection of the data  is we have


 '"    yet to come across a fly ash which, when exposed to the


 11    extraction procedure, failed the analysis for  the contami-


 12    nents of concern and our toxicity test.  I believe  there


 !3    was just one sample that was borderline with cadmium


 '"*    but they are — you can contact us at our office in Washing-


 15    ton.  The problem is the next time we will be  there is


 16    the beginning of the week .starting February 2.6.


 17              MR. LEHMAN:  There's a question here which  has


 18    come up time and again and indicates the difficulty I


 19    think the general public has in understanding  our intent


 20    with respect to the definition of discarded materials.  And


 21     also to some extent it illustrates the difficulty we  had


 22    in writing that definition and making it clear.  But  let's


 23    try it once again.


 24               Question: "Would incinerators be used to  concert


25     by-products streams which frequently are disposed of  as

-------
                                                            490


i
      waste to usable products and/or usable energy?  And would


      such incinerators be covered in any manner by RCRA?  If


      such devices are covered by RCRA in any manner, are there

4
      criteria that will determine coverage versus noncoverage?"


                O.K., now to answer the first part, no.   In


      other words, what you're really referring to here,  I be-


      lieve, are what we would call boilers rather than  incinera-

n
      tors.  Boilers using by-products streams to generate ener-

9
      gy or to use as fuel to generate steam for future  process


      use, whatever, as opposed to an incinerator which,  in our


      term, is used for the one and only purpose, being  to de-


      stroy the waste.


                So if I can interpolate this question a  little


      bit, what I think is being asked here is if you have a by-


 '     product of a manufacturing process and you feed that back


16     into an in-plant boiler, use it as fuel or use it  to gene-


17     rate steam and so on, that is not covered under our defi-


'"     nition of discarded materials under RCRA.  Is not  solid


19     waste and therefore is not an hazardous waste.


20               So our intent here is to encourage, where you


21     feel it is sa,fe to do so, the reuse of these types  of


22     materials for fuel or for other purposes.


23               if we find abuses to the intent behind all of


24     this, EPA ca.n an4 will bring into regulatory control these


25     other types of uses, and we make that point in Section

-------
                                                          491

      250.10, in a note where we have a statement that, "A
 2
      reserved section where we say that other materials and
 3
      their uses will be included by an amendment to this list

      of controlled substances upon a finding by the EPA that

      it is necessary to control such uses,"

 6               So we feel that we should go with, the proposal

 7     as we*ve indicated, encouraging people to do this.  But

 8     if we find that there are environmental and public health
 Q
      problems associated with it, then we will go back and

10     restructure that.

11               MR, TRASK:  I have a question here that deals

12     with the 90-day storage period,

'3               it says, "How does one handle, within the frame-

'4     work of hazardous wastes regulations, secondary process

15     material which is destined for recycle but is held longer

16     than 90 days before sale or treatment?"  And there's a

17     note; "The material fails the ET test,"

18               If it*s held longer than 90 days then a permit

19     is required.  During the 90-day period, it must meet the

20     storage requirements of the 3004 regulations and of course

21     when it's under the permit it must meet all of those.  But

22     it also must have the permit for more than 90 days.

23               MR, ROBERTS:  I have a question here,

24               It says, "It was stated this afternoon that the

25     DOT regulations may be amended to control hazardous wastes

-------
                                                             492




 1     transported only intrastate,"  I think the question is



 2     will it be amended to include intrastate as well as inter-




 3     state,  if I may interpret the question,




 4               We regulate interstate transportation and have




 5     and our predecessor agencies since 1908,




 6               The question goes on, "Does DOT have this authori-




 7     ty?  Is DOT attempting to obtain intrastate regulatory




 8     authority?"



 9               Now the answer is as follows; first of all, this




10     particular rulemaking, Docket 18145A, published last May




11     25f is,  from the standpoint of highway carriage.  And




12     the highway carriage alone, this comment, is the first



13     time, there has been a proposal to extend the DOT regula-




14     tions to coyer intrastate transportation.



15               Now as to whether we have the authority, the ans-




16     wer is  yes, and I can only, without a long explanation,



17     cite 49. United States Code 1801,  And the person who asked



18     the question should look that section up and find how we



19     obtained that authority in 1974,



20               And to the latter part, yes, DOT is proposing



2i     to apply the hazardous waste transportation standards to



22     intrastate commerce as well as interstate commerce,




23               There are two other rulemakings in the mill, both




24     of which will be. in the Federal Register within the next



      two weeks that also deal with intrastate commerce.  The other

-------
                                                           493




 '     one  tha,t would have some relationship to this hearing is




 2     the  transportation of hazardous substances under Section




 3     311  of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the




 4     other deals with the transportation of flammable cryogenic




 5     liquids.




 6               So DOT is going into' the intrastate regulatory




 7     area on a selective case-by-case basis and not in the




 8     broad sense of applying its standards for all materials




 9     that are classed as hazardous materials jurisdictionally



10     to intrastate commercer




11               MB. LEHMAN:  I have a question here.




12               First of all, it says, "Comments are due March



13     12,  '79."  Weil, first of all, it's March 16, '79 on



14     these proposed rules.  "However, the issue of the degree




15     of hazard, need for classification systems, et cetera,



16     is clear."  It's a statement by the writer.  It's not neces-



17     sarily EPA's conclusion.  "Upon submission of preliminary



18     or outlined alternative proposals of this nature by March



19     16,  is there a mechanism to follow this with details, sup-




20     porting information at a later date?  If so, how much time



2i     would be available?"




22               The answer to that is no, the comment period,



23     when it closes on March 16, is the last date upon which




24     we are going to receive information concerning these pro-



25     posals.  There is no mechanism to receive comment on these

-------
                                                          494





1     proposals after March 16,




2               MR,  MNDSEY:   If a company had a contract for




3     sale  of hazardous wastes and must store it for more than




4     90  days before removal,  would this storage require permit?




5               The  answer is  yes, it would.




6               MR.  ROBERTS:   Questioner says, "I am not familiar




7     with  the DOT regulations pertaining to  containers for




8     hazardous materials.  Would new stee] barrels or drums




9     be  required for containerizing hazardous wastes?"




10               This is depending on what the material is.  Again




11     it  would be too lengthy  of an answer.   Everybody would




12     fall  asleep, I'm afraid, if I tried to  explain it all.  It




13     depends on the classification of the hazardous material




14     or, in certain cases, if it is a specifically named material




15     in  our regulations as to what the packaging is called for.




16               For  example, certain materials are incompatible




17     with  steel and therefore we do not authorize them in steel




18     drums.  Some material are allowed in fibre drums.  Obviously




19     nitric acid is not authorized in fibre  drums.




20               So the hazardous wastes regulations we are pro-




21     posing are a simple extension of the existing hazardous




22     materials regulation to  the extent that we presently regu-




23     late  the materials.




24               That comment enables me to answer another question




25     raised and I'll do them  both together.   The person is alleg-

-------
                                                           495



      ing that we would — what happens if he is hauling a hazar-

 o
      dous waste that is not a hazardous material?


 3               I would suggest that that person read again care-


      fully our notice of proposed rulemaking.  Because if it's


 5     a hazardous waste subject to 40CFR250, it is a hazardous


 6     material under the DOT proposal.  And if you read our no-


 7     tice, we have one category at the very tail end of our


 "     entire list of two thousand and some entries which covers


 9     this situation.  The legal description, legal shipping


10     description, hazardous waste, and a list.  After you go


11     through and track through and find out it's not an explo-


12     sive, it's not a corrosive material, it's not a compressed


13     gas, et cetera, radioactive material, ediologic agent,


14     all the things we presently regulate, it points out at


15     the bottom of the pecking order, it's a hazardous waste


16     and unless, and it would shipped accordingly under that'


17     designation.


18               And the paper, the shipping document, would iden-


19     tify the EPA required description in parentheses following


20     that designation.  So I think that answers both these ques-


21     tions as best as I'm able to in a few minutes,


22               MR. CORSON:  I have a short one«


23               "In 250,13," and I believe it's referring to


24     Paragraph D, "does it make any difference if the elements


25     listed may be in oxide form?  In does make a difference

-------
      insofar as the leaching characteristics of certain elements',1




                The answer, ±f you're referring just to the




      question where is it, in fact, referring to the list of




      substances we've extracted from the drinking water stan-




      dards.  The topic is whether it be oxide form or not




      and we are concerned only with the solubilization.  So to




      the extent that other forms may make them less soluble,




      they would not be released and therefore they may not be




 9     in the system.




10               MR. LINDSEY:  "Do you have any credible evidence




11     that earthen built containment ponds for toxic and hazar-




12     dous material will, in fact, contain these materials?  If




13     so, please explain how the containment works, liners work,




14     containment liners, I suppose that is.




                By earthen built, our regulation require more




16     than what I would call earthen liners.  There are twc




17     techniques in the regulations for constructing landfills




      that are put forward.  Where we are using natural materials




19     we are talking about clays and roll clay liners.  Let me —




20     I think maybe it would be useful to talk about the overall




21     intent here of the way in which we've put together this




22     landfill criteria under Section 3004,




23               i think what the person is getting at here is




24     that there is no absolutely zero — notabsolihte way to




25     insure absolute zero discharge.

-------
                When we first started into these

 ry
      we thought what we would try to do would be determine and


      try to model the movement of waste from a land disposal


      site into the ground water in such a way that we could


      predict,  given the chronocologic requirements and so


 6     forth, the movement of wastes in the ground water in such


 7     a way we  could predict the maximum concentrations thereof.


 "               We found, after a lot of work, that we really


 '     couldn't  do that.  So we went to a maximum containment


10     approach.  In so doing we mandated the use of liners and


I'     the main  concept of the liners is that during site life


12     we will prevent the escape of materials from the landfill


13     site and  then post-closure, and what we would be depending


14     on is the reduction of the elimination of movements of


15     liquids from the surface, namely rainfall, from the surface


16     into the  contained site through capping techniques so that


17     you build up no driving head, that is no leaching which


18     can then  leach out of the site.  That is the concept.


19               With regard to credible evidence that earthen


20     built containment ponds — I'm talking about ponds, not


21     landfills, work.  There are ;/ great many of them around


22     and they  are not doing any harm.  If someone would like


23     to share  with us this kind of information — it gets kind


24     of involved.  I would suggest that maybe if you look at


25     the background documents that we have for this work and, as

-------
                                                             498
 1     an alternative to that, they can talk with our people,  And




 ^     whoever wanted to do this, I can give the names of people




 3     who would get right along with it, I think, here.




 4               MR, LEHMAN:  Question: "Can the Agency request




 •"     information or support data on the proposed regulations




 6     from selected associations or individuals after March 16,




 7     1979?"




 8               The answer to that is yes, the Agency can and




 '     does ask, for example, for clarification for comments re-




10     ceived.  The Agency can and does gather supporting informa-




11     tion on particular issqes that are raised during        i-




12     ment period.  So, yes, the answer is yes, the Age      in




13     request information after closing the comment pe




14               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Do you have a qu<     a




15     you were going to answer?




16               MR, ROBERTS:  No, I just wanted to be sure to




17     insert in the record and for the purpose of the meeting




18     that the Federal Register of February 8, 1979, Page 7988,




19     states the closing date of the DOT rulemaking to be June




20     1, 1979, as far as the receipt of public comment.




21               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K., we are going to re-




22     open the official record.  We have one person who wants




23     to offer us conpnents who was delayed getting here,




24               Court reporter, do you need a short break be-




25     fore we go?

-------
                                                              499
1               COURT REPORTER:  Yes,




2               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  If you won't mind, we'll




      take  about a five-minute break.




4               (Whereupon, the question and  answer period was




5          temporarily closed.)




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                          500





 1               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K,, would you identify




 2     yourself for the record, please?




 3               DR. PARKER:  I'm Dr, James Parker, La Marque,




 4     Texas.  LaMarque is situated between Houston and Galveston,




 $     It is sonje nine miles from the Galveston causeway in




 6     the vicinity of Texas City and is a part of Texas City.




 7                    STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES P. PARKER




 8               DR. PARKER:  The two documents that I am going




 '     to leave on file with the panelists is for their informa-




'0     tion.  One is to show today how many waste classification




11     systems that is currently in use by the Texas Department




12     of Water Resources which is a branch of the Texas Water




13     Commission.




14               This is a waste classification code in which




IS     there's 53 pages.  I think there's 25 to the page.  The




16     idea that I would leave with the panelists is that the




17     classification, and this is out of a computer and I think




18     this will be evident when they see it, is a, highly inade-




19     quate classification in that is very general.  And if




20     any of you care to look at this later, I would be happy




21     tp go over it with you.




22               I think that we will be, in Texas, breaking down




23     doch tbing* *»  coMingled wastes and tank bottoms, et




24     cetera.




25               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  We'll submit it to the

-------
                                                              501

      court reporter and they  will make  it as  part of the record.

 2              DR.  PARKER:  All  right,
 3
                The  next exhibit  that I  will present is  some
 4
      Xerox pages  from a book  by  Dr.  Harry Cedergren, John

      Wiley &  Sons,   I might,  for the record,  state that John

      Wiley &  Sons have given  open permission  to utilize this

      material by  my letter  to them and  their  letter to  me.
 g
                Now  this,  by no means, encompasses the work of
 g
      Harry Cedergren or Dr.  CasaGrande or Dr.  Kerzage, but it

      would give you men at  least my view, from  an engineering

'      point of view, of up-to-date work  that is  quite relevant

12    here to  the  question that I submitted on earthen built

'3    levies for containment ponds.

14              The  actual book I'm going to retain but  I would

15    advise any of  you to buy this book here,  Harry Cedergren

16    is a consulting engineer in soil mechanics.  He's  currently

17    in Sacramento  and I have his address, if any of you care

18    to consult with Dr.  Cedergren.   He is by no means  the only

19    expert that  I  have utilized but I  think  that his book — it

20    is widely used in universities and engineering schools.

21              Now  the slides that I have proposed to show to-

22    night are all  from a rather small  area.  The Gulf  Coast

23    of Texas, Primarily these  are from the  Galveston  Bay.

24    Well, I  would  say they are  all from Galveston in the

25    West Bay, the  Houston  Channel and  an area  designated as

-------
                                                          502




 1     Bayport, which is eastward ext;ensi,on of the Houston Channel.




 2               The slides, most will be in a color reversal,,  For




      those of you that are unfamiliar, I might just very briefly




 4     explain the process of looking at an infrared film. Infra-




 ^     red is the film that was developed by Eastman in World War




 6     IT for air reconnaissance.  In utilizing its emulsion you




 7     use a minus blue filter which will cut out the ultraviolet,




 8     the violets and the blues.  And depending upon the filter




 9     that is used, you may edge into cutting some green,




10               NOW the advantage of using this emulsion in




11     pollution detection work is several.  One is that you have




12     eliminated the troublesome shorter wave length of light.




13     And the usual fuzziness, particularly in aerial work that




14     would come from reflected light off of moisture.




15               The other great advantage is that you do go into




16     the invisible spectrum,  into about 900 dedometers.  Now




17     I have utilized film that went much further but I'm not




18     exhibiting that here tonight.  I speaking of rays that




19     almost go to the radio wave length.  That type of emulsion




20     has tp be used with liquid nitrogen.




21               This emulsion is common.  I have used it in




22     medicine and I have used it in forestry work,,  The basic




23     principle that you need to bear in mind is the reversal




24     of color.  Anything that is blue will appear black because




25     we have filtered out blue.  Now anything that is blue —

-------
                                                          503


      well, we're getting into chemicals here.  Let's say that


      anything that is red will appear green.  And anything that

 3
      is green will appear blue with all the gradations.


                The one thing that you might most bear in mind


      is that polluted water, either by dissolved or suspended


 6    material or simply by a lack of oxygen, will appear milky.


      Now you will see vegetation here but it's quite red.  That


 "    is healthy vegetation will be the color of this rug.  We


 9    call it magenta.  That is the chlorophyi.   Now the damaged


 10    or stressed plants will appear in various shades of yellow


 11     and brown and this is important from the point of view of


 '2     tracking pollution,


 13               Now I'll be glad to explain as we go along.  We


 14     will be looking at things that don't make any sense here


 15     in a few minutes,  because of exotic chemicals.  For


 16     example now, a spigot of water out of a treatment plant,


 17     ±f it's working right, should be black.  Healthy water


 '8     will be black.  Polluted water will be white,  I may be


 19     telling you something you already know here,


 20               L,et's go on to some of the slides now and we'll


 21     have the rest of the lights out now, if you will.


 22               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  We have allowed Dr. Parker


 23     to show these slides.  He has promised us they are exhi-


 24     bits.  He will supply us a copy within the time the record


25     remains open.

-------
                                                          504




 1               DR.  PARKER:   I will give them to you tonight,




 2               The  kodachrome slide,  this &s not color reversal.




 3     This is  a picture of the Houston Channel,



 4               This first slide is presented merely to give you




 5     a comparison between kodachrome  and the infrared which




 6     will follow,  I would uall to your attention in the Houston




 7     Channel, the containment pond that I'm concerned with.




 8               You  will note there immediately  adjacent, direct-



 9     ly adjacent to the Marine Waters of the United States.




10     In the channel alone there are well over 100 of these.




11     And as we go on down the coastline of Texas to the south,




12     we find  even more.



13               This is simply another one showing that even



      without  the use of infrared, you will note the wastebed




15     here creating  a line.   You may argue that  that's something




      else but I will show you very clearly that that is, in




17     fact,  sewage from an earthen land.



                This is again just another visual spectral film



19     showing  the multiplicity of waste containment ponds on




20     the Houston Channel,



                Now  we go into the main usage that I have made



22     in many  aerial reconnaissance missions in  flying a plane



      in the channel of the  entire Gulf Coas-t of Texas,




24               That is a spill — not a spill.   That is an



25     illegal  discharge,  I  think it was visible to the unaided"

-------
                                                        505




      eye.   This  black would,  as  I have told you,  be blue if the



 2    eye  could see it.  This  water here is channelled, part of




 •*    the  Houston Channel or some add mixture with whatever is




 4    being  done.  And there is a pond source here and I observed




      it over two hours in circling over.




 6             Now the water  in  the channel, and I call your



 7    attention,  has a murkiness, milkiness.  If it was a




 8    healthy water it would be black,




 9             This is just another shot showing the proximity.



10    There  is the channel.  Here is your containment pond,




11    another pond there.  These  dikes are levies between them,




12    may  not be  more than 10  feet.




13             You can see  Houston in the background.  This is




14    the  battlefield monument, a portion of channel back here




15    and  within  a few yards of the monument we have waste con-



16    tained in the ponds.  This  is the reflection pond there.



17    These  are ones that have been built in the surrounding



18    area.   And  now for the first time I'd like to show you what



19    a, stress plant looks like in infrared,




20             Those have more of random color and that's because




21    of the season of the year.   In the springtime this would




22    have been more of a yellow,



23             Out here on the freeboard or levee, you will see




24    the  chlorophyll response, which is a magenta and those




25    plants are  healthier.

-------
                                                            506





 '               Now in here you must bear in mind as winter comes



 2     on some trees shed and you will have that picture from




 3     the wintertime on many of the trees.



 4               The value of aerial reconnaissance I think is



 5     well defended here.  This is a little channel that goes




 6     into the Houston Channel,  That's called VinaeiBaJcu.i'hWiat




 7     particular channel runs out to the international airport.



 8     Where it divides in two.



 '               You will note here someone is letting a stream



10     go,  NOW that is very characteristic, whether it is




11     municipal or whether it's industrial, it will have that



12-     look.  If that were treated water it would be black.




13               Now we're getting into the question, you might



14     say, is this a healthy body of water? Well, that Vince



15     Bayou is polluted at that point.  And you might see here



16     the little containment pond.  You can see three in this



17     picture.  They are only separated by inches.  The water



18     moves freely in and out and I would be happy to go over



19     with any of the panelists the engineering data, they will




20     not work, they have never worked, they'veo totally polluted



2i     the Gulf Coast of Texas and that's why I'm here tonight.




22               This object here is the wing of the plane.  I




23     was using a wide angle lens  so discount that object.



24     This is another illustration along the Houston Channel



25     waste pits and over there to that »}&& you can see where

-------
                                                         507



      it is  seeping in at the edge of the channel and if you

 2
      can, perhaps, see from where you're seated, the vegeta-

 3
      tion along that ledge has the characteristics of dying


      vegetation.   Now this will not be visible to the unaided


      eye.   Infrared is the only way you're going to detect this.


 °               In background, I might say this, that infrared


      does penetrate water about one foot.  And that will vary


 8     a little bit depending upon the time of the year and infra-


      rays of the sun.  And for the first time, the temperature


10     may have a, little bit to do with it,


11               For those of you who are totally unfamiliar with


12     this,  this is not photography.  It has nothing to do with


13     any emission of infearad.  It is primarily all reflectants


14     of infrared.


'5               There is the same spill that I showed you earlier,,


16     NOW one of the ways of testing levies that should be done,


'7     bore holes in the levee and bore hole inside the proposed


18     pond and one outside.  Throughout this whole vast area


19     of Texas I have, perhaps, five hundred slides showing what


20     you can see very clearly, whatever this black material is


21     on the infrared is coming out in a stream.  This is called


22     piking.  And when you build a levee, as you must, from


23     available materials, you build dissimilar styles and


24     that is a very important consideration,


25               The paairBiwrtllal'iltjfy of the pike clay versus the

-------

                      of a sand or a calciferous material will

2
                                                          508


 1



     vary  into  the billions.  Now  I want you  to bear  that in

 3
     mind.  And when you  saturate  a levee,  and it's going to


     be  saturated, either from  tide rising  — and  in  that part


     of  Texas we have some  1,300 tidal rises  a year,  you're


     going  to saturate  and  every time it's  saturated, you're


     going  to have the  more permeable material in  essence

 o
     melting,"   And your ball  of clay will act like oricle,

 o
     And this is the one  thought I must leave,


                This is  just another example,  I couldn't tell


     you what's in there  but  from  my experience I  think it's


     BSyrene,   Probably vinyl chloride in styrene,  I haven't
     matched  a great deal of  these  chemicals but  it's  a  very
14    risky thing to do.


15              All right, here  is  the bayou  I  showed  you with


     the illegal discharge.  This  is Vince Bayou  or Little


17    Vince,  one.  Now  a very good  illustration here of  polluted


18    water coming down in the little bayou.  There are  some


19    50 plants upstream and I don't know how I could  show


20    you better the characteristics of highly  polluted  water.


21              The remainder of this channel is not healthy.


22    You can tell by this color there is chemicals.   Now here


23    again you can see seepage  out of the whole saturated


24    earth along the side.


25              I just  guess this is just another  illustration  of

-------
                                                           509




      I  guess we're advertising we have industries down there,




2     Wherever -you look you find these,



3               To this side is a portion of the channel and




*     this  is made with a telephoto lens.  Incidentally I used




$     in this work largely wide angle lenses and primarily




6     light cameras and Nikons,  The Nikon ±s excellent for




7     this,



8               This material here reaches the water.  It has




9     some  pollution and changes color somewhat,




10               On a flight, this is a flight in January.  All




11     of these were made in January, incidentally.  I had ob-




12     served —• I don't know whether you can see it or not,



13     the barges are tied up there and we observed a barge




14     spraying down.  In water like this, it's not subject to




15     much  tidal action up here.  Not as much as you get in



16     the bay.  The stream from a. washed down vessel will be




17     visible for some two hours.



18               That's just another exposure of the same thing.



19               I don't think that this adds a great deal except




20     for the continued multiplicity of these earth containment




21     ponds.  You can see them back in here and you can see



22     the dead construction of the plants which is indicative




23     of their seepage.  And of course you always find the




24     material going in,



25               To the left you can see the ponds that are right

-------
                                                           510





 1     at the water.  They are all leaking,




 2               Now I don't recall the precise distance from




 3     the water that your guidelines proposal stated.  I think




 4     it was 15 feet.  It might have been more.




 5               But my point, gentlemen, is that wherever you




 6     put them you are going to have them seep into the under-




 7     ground water and you're going to have them seep into any




 8     adjacent~*ater because the first thing you have, wherever




 9     on the Gulf Coast, you have stratification.  You have




10     the first two or three feet of muck and then you have




11     a sandy, a calciferous and down to clay.




12               Now these materials, like water, will travel




13     along these interfacings between varying types of soil.




14     Incidentally, in this area, which is near^Bayport, the




15     entire shallow underground water, the entire bay is pol-




16     luted.  We had the same thing in Galveston.  The water




17     at 26 to 32 or 3? *-«+•. wherever you have a waste pit, is




18     all polluted.




19               Now the great question that conoerns us in




20     that area of the country, we're trying to go to over-




2i     ground water supplies,,  We're still in many places de-




22     pendent upon well water and the prospect that we




23     look at today is that this pollution of the shallow layers




24     will go down to the Algoa Sands or the Evangeline Cistern




25     which is some 600-700 feet down.  There is no reason why

-------
                                                           511




1     it will not reach  there  and  then  the  entire  underground



2     water  supply  of  the  largest  industrial  area  of the United




3     States will be gone.  And  I  don*t know  how far away we




4     are but we're down to 32 feet  deep now,




5              The primary evil is  the erroneous  concept that



6     someone might have that  you  can contain anything in an



7     earthen pond.




8              That is  more pollution  out  of another bayou



9     and I  didn't  identify it.  These  are  all in  the Houston




10     channel.  If  you look with care you can see  the skyline




11     of Houston in the  background,




12              I said there were  100 of these things.   There



13     must be 300.  This is a  vast area.  Here is  one over here.




14     You see the stress.  There isn't  any  vegetation all around



15     it.  This is  the simplest  way  in  the  world to  detect



16     pollution,



17              I don't  think  that shows anything  essentially



18     that we had not  seen before.   Just another shot.   You



19     can go upstream  here, a  whole  complex of these things,



20     and see where they were  going.  And I might  add that this



2i     is a major dogfight in the state  of Texas in which I have




22     been involved for  now some 30-odd weeks and  we're re-



23     suming the fight on Tuesday.   And I'd like some of you  to




24     join me in Austin.




25              I would  tell you quite  frankly it  is very unlikely

-------
                                                         512





 1     tlxe  state  of  Texas will  ever  allow  this, whatever  the



 2     guidelines are  here.   Because we've had Court  rulings  re-




 3     cently  and this past year  from  our  own Court that  in re-




 4     gard to pumping underground water,  that the people, and




 5     we're now  talking largely  about these industries that




 6     you've  been looking at,  must  be responsible for their




 7     damage. And  that's where  it  toeftt pn.toTceerte just what




 8     we've seen in the Love Canal  area,  industry.   We're




 9     talking about chemical.  Industry is responsible for its



10     spill waters.  And one of  my  great  concerns in these




11     guidelines is that there should be  some effort on  the




12     part of the Federal Government  to shield industry.




13               And I will tell  you that  Texas will  not  apply



14     because we've already  had  a ruling  to the  effect and the




15     people  who are  pumping underground  water and further




16     siting, and this whole area has undergone  perhaps  three




17     to five feet  of subsidence.   Those  industries  that continue




18     that are now  paying.   And  industries that  will pollute



19     with these earthen built things are going  to pay.




20               This  is more of  a panorama shou. Here is an



2i     open pollutant.  This  is again  near the monument.  And



22     wherever you  look you  can  see it streaming into the water.



23     This isn't a  waste containment  pond but it's seepage from




24     somewhere  back  of the  plane.  It will all  seek its own



25     level Just like water.

-------
                                                            513


                This is at; Bayportf a Gulf Coast waste disposal

 2
      authority they have in Texa,s — a facility in, Texas also,


      I think if you had to pick the one major polluter in

 4
      that part of the state of Texas, they have polluted, I


      suppose, more of the bay than any other single entity.


 6              Well, this is a good picture here of a totally


      polluted — this is a -little basin fpr boats to put in

 o
      being polluted.  Several of these containment ponds have

 o
      concrete around the outer portions.  Incidentally, I


      don't think concrete will work either,  You can move


      gasses through concrete, you can move water through
12
      just about as readily.
                Now we come back again to the kodachrome as


      the eye would see it.  This is again, in my opinion, a


15    number one polluter.  This is a treatment facility.  One


16    of the things he has done in our area is bubble air


17    through waste materials and these are solid wastes,


18    Class I toxic hazardous materials, on the idea that he may


19    have either aerobic or a fibel type of degradation.  Some


20    of it may exist but in this particular facility, they


21    are taking in, perhaps, 4,000,000 gallons and they have


22    discharge point there back of that barge,  And I made


23'    three flights.  There are two barges there.  The baiges


24    are being fake loaded.  The material is being pumped out


25    the back end.  Those barges have a designated  destination

-------
                                                          514




 i     of  X,OOQ,OQQ  gallons  a, day down in the, mine area,,




 2               We're still on kodachrorae.   Even on kodachrome




 3     you can see — and this is Vince Bayou again.  You can see



 4     the contents  of this  Gulf Coast waste pouring right on




 5     out into the  Bayou.  That's unusual to see it that clearly.



 6               I would again call your attention to the barge,




 7     and that's the subject of the current hearings in  Austin.




 8     Illegally, totally illegally discharging.  There are two




 9     of  them.   As  you will see in a moment.



10               That's just another view.  I don't think that




11     adds anything new.




12               Now you can see the two barges and on another




13     film at the other end, you will notice another one dis-




14     charging,



15               Now in three successive missions covering 32-



U     days period,  this situation was constant.  That Agency,




17     under the  present state law, has a political immunity.  And



18     I know a lot  of people don't like to listen to political



19     things but it was created by an Act of Legislature.  The




20     executive  director, former campaign manager of United



2]     States Senator Tower, the President's campaign manager



22     and fund raiser for Senator Schwartz,  The assistant man,




23     Joe Teller, appointed by a former Governor of Texas and




24     so  they have  license  to do anything.   And this is  what we




      are looking at.  And  this is the name of the game  in Texas.

-------
                                                            515




                Now in this particular one you can see the blue,



 2     I couldn't tell you the outfit,   I have no idea, but those




 3     barges are permitted on the destination site.  They were




 4     headed for 1,000,000 gallons a day.  Or about -"Orather




 5     480,000 each.




 6               We're still on regular color, put on a telephoto




 7     lens.   They are a little Mt better in finding them.  This



 8     is an  unusual circumstance.  This is the current rule




 9     in Texas.   Now I have called the attention of the Coast




10     Guard  and Dallas EPA.  Of course the Texas Water Commission




11     would  have nothing to do with it.  There isn't a Federal



12     Agency nor a state agency that will make one move against




13     this type of thing.  And this might be very discouraging




14     to some of the young people in this game.  It doesn't




15     bother me that much.r Here is their IfePDS discharge.



16               I'm not going to bore you with what the bottom




17     seven  samples revealed, but I will tell you that they run'



18     the whole gamut of chemistry.



19               Now we're into the infrared.  Actually infrared




20     didn't help us a lot here but it will get better — little



21     bit better delineates the discharge, illegal discharge



22     of the barges.  Now a good contrast.  This water here




23     is discolored by the various chemicals that went into



24     it. The other water is just a good example of pollution.




25               On the second flight, which was in January, they

-------
                                                          516



      were putting out for their normal permitted area,  an ac-

 2
      celerated amount,   I don't know whether that's permissible

 3
      or not.   But with this going on in Galveston Bay,  the


      Governor, ex-Governor, recently declared it a disaster.


      It is the largest  bay on the whole coastal United  States,


      The largest in our state.   It's the second bay to  be so


      declared a disaster and not usable for many purposes,

 Q
      including dragging.  The oysters I have examined here

 9
      are highly contaminated with chromium, cadmium, lead, to


      name just a few of them.  And the contaminents in  the
11
      crabs  and oysters  parallels pretty well what the stream
12     analysis from the various industries will show,


13               Well,  that's  just another one with the infrared.


'4     I  don't, know that you need all of it but you're  welcome


15     to it.


                This is coming on down toward Galveston.   If


I7     you've  ever been in that area, it's dividing line between


I8     Harris  County to my right and Galveston County to the left,


1'     I  present this slide really to show what an incoming tide


20     looks like and the contrast as it moves the accumulated


21     polluted water out of the way,


22               NOW on this particular day, we had a bad winter


23     there.   The chill factor in that area that day was  11,


24     The highly polluted little bayou coming back in  there, I


25     think you can see.  The municipal discharge outfit is here.


      The homes down in there, most of them do not have a tie-in

-------
                                                               517
 1    and you can see the pollutants moving into the water.  Now
 2    as the tide goes in you can see it pushing it all up into
 3    the clear lake.  On up into Clear Lake, well, you're only
 4    a mile from NASA at this point.  Some of you might have
 5    been there.  Portions of this volume of water is going
 6    into the NASA area.

 7              This is simply another shot showing what the
 8    tide does.  That's a great dream of most polluters, that
 9    the tide will exchange it.  Now I think I have one as the
 10    tide moved out on a successive shot there.

 11               Yeah, this is one as the tide was beginning to
 12     leave,
 13               You will note that in these areas you have had
 14     exchange fresh water and you can still see the fresh water
 15    moving out in a clearly dilineated line there.

 16               That's just another shot made of the same area.
 17     I might point out that infrared and you buy a carton of 20.
 18    And the batch is, one or the other will vary, although
 19    bhe relationships colors remain the same.  This film has
 20    to be kept in the deepfreeze and you really cannot load
 2i     or unload it in light.  You either need a darkroom or

 22     use a changing bag,
 23               We still have a lot of green trees in the winter-
 24     time in Texas, as you can see.  Up in those areas they

25     are quite healthy.

-------
                                                              518


 i


      a little more.
               That's just another showing the tide coining in

2
 3
                Some of you might wonder is this is shallow


      water.  I'll tell you, I fished in this area a lot.


      Water out there is eight or nine feet deep.


 6               Now you might see NASA,  This little bayou here


 ^     went on out to the space center.


 8               This one came back to my old friends, the Gulf


 '     Coast Waste Disposal people.  We're now down on into


10     Galveston's West Bay, swinging around to the south,


11     Texas City is another highly industrialized spoC and this


'2     pond here is Union Carbide, the Texas Division.  I thought


13     it was interesting in that whatever that material is,


14     you can match it coming out into the water.


15               But we had an incoming tide and I want to show


16     you a little bit what happens.  This is a lake known as


17     Swan Lake.  Now the water moves in and it will follow the


18     path of least resistance.  You'll see the clear water fol-


19     lowing the perimeter of that little lake and the polluted


20     water remaining in the center.


21               In this channel here is a small manmade channel


22     going up to Highway 146.  The tide is beginning to move


23     in.  It is tracking material from here and here.  And I


24     think I have some showing you what happens on an outgoing


25     tide.

-------
                                                           519




 i




      thing.  The tide is now moving out.  And you can see the
      polluted pattern.  Incidentally, for stress on plants,




      you see that all through this area and over the other side



      as well.




 6              This stress on plants is one of the most valuable




 7    things that you can do, I guess.  One of the many ways



 °    indirect.  We use it in Texas analyzing cotton fields and




 '    fruit orchards,



10              That's another one of the same thing.  The dis-




11    charge point of that facility is there.  And you can —



12    at the end of this channel and you can note the highly




13    polluted water,  In that area, I found levels of chromium,




I4    cadmium and lead.  Some 15 to 20 times above the allowable




15    in shellfish.  And of course the bay has been closed to



16    shellfish.  By now since the crabe'iin that area, it's even



17    worse.



18              The big question that's in Texas now is, "When



19    can you reopen the Galveston Bay complex?"  And this is



20    the subject of many controversies.  Great many people are




21    out of work, the commercial men, the sportsmen and the




22    monkey is now on the back of the Legislature.  And some




23    of us may hang it around our new Republican Governor if




24    he doesn't wish to act.



25              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Can you tell us how many more



     slides  you have?

-------
                                                          520



1



                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   Let me just make one com-
3
      ment.   We have asked people in general to limit themselves

4
      to about 10 minutes.  A lot of people have been pretty


      good about that and I take it that you do want some time


      to discuss.


7               DR.  PARKER:  Well, I will hurry through the

Q
      remainder,  I  think it was about 15.


9               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  00K., if you would parti-


10     cularly contain yourself to what you think is going to


''     be relevant to your comment on a regulation.


12               DR0  PARKER:  All right.  Well, this is all rele-


13     vant to the earthen ponds.  Everything you've seen here,


I4     these  containment ponds have been built of earthen materi-


15     als.  And that is the subject.  All right, let's move on.


16               Here is the Gulf Coast Waste facility at Texas


17     City,  aereated, here is the polluted water outside.  Highly


18     polluted.  You can see the stress on the plants here.


19     This is the way it is in the summertime,


20               This is the same site on a different day.  Eothing


21     to the east.  Galveston Island is in the background.  That


22     long thing right there is the dike.  I call your attention


23     again  to the highly polluted water here and here.


24               Well, I don't think that adds a great deal except


25     there  is a tide moving out.  But here you spot it and of

-------
                                                             521


      course you see the aftermath of polluted water in the  stresss

 2
      to damaged plants.


                This is the Gulf Coast Waste facility  looking

 4
      at 146.  I might point out the plants will pick  up the


      materials just like an oyster or crab and then you've


      a different problem because, in fact, these are  the  chemi-


      cals that were in the water.  Some of that vegetation


      is still alive, like this, more durable plants even

 g
      though those out there, they are highly stressed.


 10              I don't think that shows anything that you


 11    haven't seen before.  You know that polluted water is


 12    the center of that little thing and dying vegetation where-


 13    ver you look.


 14              This is another waste facility built on the  edge,


 15    the direct edge or our west plain.  Anri these are the  ponds


 16    without any levee.  These are just dug.  And there are four


 "    of them there and I don't think I need to tell you what's


 18    happening right here.  There is an incoming tide there


 19    and you can see the stressed and damaged material.


 20              Now similar to this part of Texas — this  authori-


 21     ty in Texas, and this one in particular did not  have a sol-


 22    i
-------
                                                           522
 1     tation in an area and you can see the normal response,
 2               That tells — that is still another.  The tele-
 3     photo tells the story.  The tide was moving into the
 4     channel here.  You can see,
 5               Still another.  I don't think we'll pause on
 6     that.  Well, that looks like one we've seen.  Move on
 7     that, if you would.
 8               Those are the same site0  I held that in there
 9     because this thing is under heavy controversy in Galves-
10     ton County.  All right, move on.
11               That's the same thing with a different exposure
12     and the tide beginning to move out at the time.
13               This is another light in our area, the water
14     communities.  They are built on marshes and trapped.  These
15     waters in here, while they are dark, the darkness is not
16     from •— it is not a sign of health.  That is trapped water
17     and in most instances it is dead water.
18               That's another shot of the same thing except
19     that we go into a municipal thing.  They have a municipal
20     treatment plant.  I think that is called KeKe Island
2]     and here is a discharge point and here you go with the
22     stream.  Now this was an incoming tide.  It doesn't track
23     too well,
24               You can better see here the treatment facility
25     and the channel over here is just white.  And that was only

-------
                                                            523




 1    about 15 per cent filled up at this time with houses.  That



 2    i§ nejft to Galyeston Causeway,  You approach the Causeway




 3    from the mainland,




 4              This is a regular color film of where I live,




 5    about two miles from there,  I'll show you one in koda-



 6    chrome.  These are containment facilities for oil and




 7    one way or the other the Texas coast will either have big




 8    deep ports or off-shore facilities and all ready.  They




 9    were building literally hundreds and hundreds of storage




 10    tanks and the cur-- the storage tanks all have earthen




 11     levee around them and that's why I'm showing you this.




 12               Now that's a backup view of the site that we



 13     just looked at which would be in here and that is a




 14     bayou.  This is the Gulf Freeway running between Galveston




 15     and Houston,  Now I think I have a telephoto lens for



 16     the next shot.



 17               Get another one.  Well, keep on.



 18               All right, that's the one I was thinking of.



 19     This was made with a 135 milimeter lens at about 1,500




 20     feet.  But I want you to look at it carefully because I



 2i     think it well illustrates for the hundredth time my view




 22     here,



 23               This is where the oil that you saw in the tele-




 24     photo was being trapped.  It was strained into all of




23     these.  This is 3 railroad coming from Hitchcock over into

-------
                                                              524



      the industrial part of Texas City.  The material has

 2
      seeped right on through and right on out into the bayou.

 3
                Well, now you say you see some good vegetation.

 4
      That's on the freeboard and it doesn't reflect here from


      the aerial shot but those things that are healthy are


      probably four feet above the level of the marsh.


                Here is another water community, thanks to the

 p
      Corps of Engineers.  These are highly polluting with miles

 9
      and miles of just water that cannot circulate.  And for many


      years many of those spots there had septic tanks„  The ele-


      vation there today was subsided.  This is a minus.  It


      is below sea level actually, as you can see in here.


13    This whole area has undergone, at this point, about three


      feet subsidence.  And even if you stopped all ground


^    water, it just means it would retain it for over a decade.


      And I would say that it would be that you would look at


17    five or six more feet .of subsidence in all of this area.


      That is the mainland Galveston area and Harris, County.  Not


"    so much on the Island.


20              Now to illustrate that community you just


21    looked at as over 1,200 residences and some of them are


22    up and down.  There's probably 1,500-1,600 families with


23    one small facility and you see what the output is.  You


2^    can trace it on into the water.  As a matter of fact I


2$    traced that last summer by air into the Gulf of Mexico and

-------
                                                            525



      it run, I  think,  for over  20 miles  to  get  out  beyond  the

2
      lighthouse.   It is  always  a billowy streak in  the water.

3
      It's  a lot more visible  in the  summertime  than it is


      in the winter.


                This is another  shot  of it and it doesn't add


      anything essentially to  the last one,


7               Well, this is  a  little big lighter exposure of

p
      the same thing and  of  course it penetrates the water  bet-


      ter.  That water  is — I wouldn't want to  guess what
10
      the DOT would be, but  I will  tell you  that  there  are  no
11     fish  in  it.   Some might wander  in  there  by  mistake.   All


      right, move on.


               Now this  is  the  subject  of  some recent articles


      in national magazines  and  some  of  our state magazines.


15     This  is  my town, LaMarque.   This is,  you might say,  the


      Love  Canal.   This is the island.   This was  built back


17     some  twelve years ago  without any  permit.   The water is


'8     only  a few hundred  feet from here. This is a confluence


19     of roads going to Galveston and back  to  Houston.  It


20     contains styrene, chloride, kepon  and I  don't know what


21     else.


22              That's how it will look, same  scene, in infrared.


23     This  w s made in September. This  ^vegetation.- — very


24     beautifully illustrates the stress along the  shoulder of


25     the highway,  you have  a healthy good  response.


               This is simply another one  of  the same thing.

-------
                                                             526


 i


      plants.
               Well, let's move on.  That's just more stress

2
 3
                These are ground  level shots and you  can't  follow


      pollution at ground level as satisfactorily as  you  can


 5    in the air.


 6              This is part of the Bay right here  now.


                Now these are some aerials and here the material


 8    goes to Texas and goes on up to LaMarque and  my plane is


      over the Gulf Freeway going from Houston to Galveston.


 10    Here we can find the telltale stress -vegetation and X want


 1'    you to follow it.  This was done also in September, that


 '2    shot wa.s.  All right, let's move on,


 13              NOW a little further away, looking  back toward


 14    Texas City and LaMarque, which is this view to  the  west,


 15    the material is from here seeping right -on down following


 16    the power line and here you can trace it very well, the


 17    dying vegetation, and into  Galveston's West Bay and with


 18    every moving tide you suck  it in and out.


 19              Now the Texas Department of Water Resources


 20    tried to get a bid to remove this and they advertised


 21    it for $5,000,000 and they  have yet to have a taker.  And


 22    I can understand why.  And  it's only 11 acres.


 23              This is another shot made in the same direction


 24    showing the track of it, coming on down into  the Bay.  It


25     has spread into the other outlying areas there. You  have,

-------
                                                           527





 1     in these things, they totally saturate the mass of earth




 2     and the. disaster of Galveston Bay will last for a long




 3     time eyen if you remove these sites.




 *               This is simply another one.  Showing more of




 5     Galveston Bay,  The Causeway to Galveston is seen to




 6     my left.  Straight ahead for 40 miles would be the city




 7     of Houston.  You can see the reflectants values in




 8     this the same as you say, probably styrene and vinyl




 9     chloride, the same as you saw back in the pits,




'0               These slides, here again now, is the subject




11     o£ controversy that I have engaged in with the Texas




12     pepartment of Water Resources since October.  And this




13     is a 1,400-acre site built south of Hitchcock, seven miles




14     to the Causeway to the west and toward Freeport0




15               Now this is a dragline, red dragline.  The




16     barge canal, highly polluted.  Here's Rockaway Lake.




17     You can see the murky water.  And I want to particularly




18     call the panel's attention to this.  I observed the




19     building — this is the last containment probably built.




20     As it was built it filled with water.  Here you have the




21     marsh, itself.  As they made it, the water comes up.  Now




22     they were borrowing dirt along the way.  They had borrowed




23     some there and it had not filled up yet.  Possibly that




24     had not filled up.




25               Now with stereoscopic negatives and I have some

-------
                                                            528






 1     those.   I  don't have  them here.   YOU can identify the height




 2     of  that ledge  inside  that,  I  didn't calculate the ledge




 3     at  Rockaway Lake,




 4               This is  a shot of the  entire  site — no, that's




 5     back to Gulf Coast Waste.




 6               This is  a color, kodachrome,  and not too much,




 "I     You get a  suspicion in  that inside  pond.   This is an




 8     abandoned  portion. It  was abandoned as a result of




 9     some rather bitter fighting in 1975. But really without




10     infrared you can see  very little0




]]               This is  a better view*of  the  Guineas site, an




12     arm of  Rockaway, another arm of  Rockaway, an intercoastal




13     canal that runs on down to Freeport and back to Galveston.




14     I call  your attention,  this is shallow,  about three feet




15     deep.  You can see the  streets and  polluted water, this




16     bay not quite  as polluted as that.   Now also you will note




17     where the  barge canal enters the intercoastal there is




18     a very  sharp line  of  demarcation.




19               This is  a close up showing varying degrees of




20     stress,  this canal being a hazardous yellow color under




21     stress,  some kind  of  water plant.   You  see water one color




22     here, another  color there.  The  entire  mass is leaking




23     just like  a sponge.




24               Now  we use  the term  infrared,  exotics.  These




25     are some type  of chemical matching  closely to this.  I

-------
                                                         529




 1     couldn't tell  you what it is  but these were simply
 2     exotics  in the marine  environment,




 3               There  is  another shot and I  want you to look




 4     very  carefully.   This  is  probably styrene  an<3 we will match




 5     it  up with styrene  inside as  a  color inMicator,




 6               CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH;   Doctor, We'll  asK you to




 7     end your slide show now.   If  you'd  like to offer us some




 8     comments.   You've been going  for 45 minutes or longer,




 9     longer than anybody in here,




10               DR.  PARKER:   We only  have two more  I think,




11               CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:   All  right.




12               DR,  PARKER:   This would be sufficient to match




13     the styrene, if  you can see it  inside  now  with what we




14     were  observing outside,   And  yoy can see in the background.




15               I appreciate the time you've given.  It is a




16     big subject and  I would be happy to answer any questions




17     here  or  possibly there's  some of you that  may be interested




18     to  provide you with slides.   I  have some 400  of these




19     and we have only tonight  here touched  very lightly upon




20     it.  Sort of a handle  preview.




21               CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:   Can  the slides be numbered




22     for us in the  order in which  they were shown  here tonight




23     before you submit it,  please?




24               DR.  PARKER:   All right, I will do that.




25               I would be happy to go over  any  of  this at length

-------
                                                            530






      while I'nv up here in St. Louis or if any of you people




      are in the Houston area.  I would particularly like for




      some of the panelists to visit in Austin where we are —




      we are in no great hurry there.  Hastiness might have




      been the sin in the past and I think at this point I have




 '     some 60 hours of recorded testimony that is going on yet




 7     and will be starting again for eight hours on Tuesday.




 8               And we're going to fight this out in Texas.  I




 '     don't Know whether the problem is this bad anywhere else




'°     or not,




11               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Do you have any comments




12     specifically on our proposed standards under Section




13     30Q4 or one of the other sections?




14               DR. PARKER:  Well, I must apologize in that I




15     read the sections hurriedly.  What I gathered from reading




16     it is there was a regulation on how far back from a




17     water's edge impoundment would be located,




18               Now I did not gather that there would be any




19     requirements for specific testing, which should be done




20     as you build an earthen bank, whether it's a dam or any-




21     thing else or all levies,




22               Now I may be mistaken because it is a big




23     volumea  They call it the Bible in Texas,  I could easily




24     have overlooked the requirements that I would have put:




25     in, standard engineering requirements as you build it and

-------
                                                             531



      the testing of it that must go along and the borings and

 2
      the soil prior to building, this book by Dr, Cedergren


      and Dr, CasaGrande and Kerzage.  They clearly point this

 4
      out.  They point it out at every conceivable way and I'd


      be happy for anyone that's interested technically to go


      over the engineering of these men,


                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K., I have one other ques-

 Q
      tion or comment for you.  You have referred to this book.

 9
      If you write down for the court reporter the title and


      the spelling of the author's name, that would help them


      out.  Not right this minute but before you leave.


 12              DR. PARKER:  All right, it is on that document

 13
      I submitted.  I submitted the front sheet and the acknow-


      lodgements.  This is a part of the copyright agreement.


 15              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K., thank you.


                I will ask the panel members if they have any


      questions.


 18              MR,. LINDSEY:  I would just like to ask Dr.


 19    Parker, if he would, to take a look at the proposed regu-


 2"    lations >wbiehrwe have for surface impoundments and so


 21     forth, and tell us, you know, if he has any problem with


 22    those relative to his experience with the construction


 2^     of some of the lagoons that you have indicated have been


 24     problems through your work.


25               In other words, if some of those lagoons which

-------
                                                            532





 1    have caused problems would meet our  standards  then  I




 2    guess we woyld like to know that.  Frankly we  think these




 3    standards will do the job.  That's why we've got  them




 4    in there that way.  But if you would take  a look  at




 5    them—




 6              DR, PARKER  (interrupting):  I will,  I will  read




 7    them in detail and I will write and  submit to  you —  I




 8    hope we're not on the deadline that  I heard awhile  ago.




 9    I'm preparing a critique of the entire proposals„




 10              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  OoK., the commentary closes




 11     March 15,




 12              DR. PARKER:  March 16, I can get it  done  by then.




 13              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  All right,  thank you.




 14               MR. ROBERTS:  Dr. Parker,  you introduced  as




 15    an exhibit a list from the Texas Water Quality Board,




 16    Solid Waste System.




 17              DR. PARKER:  Well, that's  a misnomer today.  They




 18    abandoned that agency.  The umbrella agency is the  Texas




 19    Water Commission and specifically under that is Texas




 2o    Department of Water Resources which would  have conct-.cn




 2i     with the solid waste, toxic and hazardous  materials.




 22               MR, ROBERTS:  Wellf my question  is why  did  you




 23     introduce the list?




 24               DR. PARKER:  The list was  introduced because of




25     the ill-defined content of the material.   Chemically, for

-------
                                                           533



     many of those designations, you  could not  determine  in  any


     manner what you — you have determined  the source  of the

 3
     material but not  the  identity.

 4
               MR. ROBERTS:  Well, I  just took  one  at random,


     sir, because I assume that some  of  this material will end


     up in my public docket, also, and I may be asked some ques-


     tions about it.   One  of the entries on  here is corn.


 8              DR. PARKER:  Corn?

 g
               MR. ROBERTS:  Are you  alleging that  this is


     a hazardous waste?


11              DR. PARKER:  Anything  that would demand  oxygen


^    from water, and we're talking about a marine biological


'•*    point of view, it is  a marine hazard so far as marine


14    environment goes. Now of course that's unusual to find


15    corn in there but it  would, just like barnyard manure in


'*    large quantities  can  deplete the oxygen supply of  a  shal-


17    low base,


18              MR, ROBERTS:  Well, I  just picked that one at


19    randome,  There's many more like that,  I  just want  to


20    get clear what the purpose ±s you're introducing this,


21    sir, are you going to let us figure out what's wrong with


22    this list?


23              DR, PARKER: Well, it  does not define„   For


24    example, you will come across tank  bottoms, designation


25    of material, tank bottoms.  And  I have  another list  out of-

-------
                                                              534



      a, computer froiq that department that many, many  gallons


      Designated as comingled wastes,  Well, this  really  doesn't


      tell me anything,


  4              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Dr. Parker, how do you


      find tha,t relevant to our proposed regulations?  I  think


  6    that's what Mr, Roberts is getting at,


  7              DR. PARKER:  I say the relevance that  I- see

  rt
      is this, and we're beginning in Texas, the industries  are


      being required to define their waste streams.  There is a


      problem witn infringing upon secrets and  so  on,  however,


 11    in view of the legal problems involved, and  they are now


 12    beginning to computerize the waste streams as they  leave


 '3    the plant.  And I think this is an essential thing.  If


 14    you're going to poison someone, for example, in  our area,


 '5    the Bay area, we have a higher leukemia rate among  children


 16    than anywhere else in the United States.  We have the


 W    highest cancer incidence overall in Harris and Galveston


 18    Counties,  And in tfee last year we've had the highest


 "    incidence of abortions, spontaneous abortions, in women.


 20    And there's a lot of tie-in with such things as  chromium,


 21    cadmium and lead.  And we're not even mentioning the thou-


 22    sands of organics.


 23              And I would certainly want to see  in these guide-


 24    lines the requirement by industry to define  — and  I didn't


25    sayf "Jump in and tell us how we're going to get rid of it."

-------
                                                           535



               MR.  ROBERTS:   Doctor,  I  still  don't  think you're

2
      getting my  point.   What do  you want  us to do with this


3     list?  Look at it?


4              DR,  PARKER:   I just  submitted  it for inspection


      to  show you what one  state  is  doing, merely what one state—


6     some of that's good and some of  that's bad.  It's not


      meant  as  a  model and  it's not  meant  to be destroyed, either.


°     And I  think we've come  a long  way  in doing what we have


      done.


10              CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K., if  you would, in


1'     your comments  characterize  it.  If you've used it as


'2     an  exhibit, characterize what  you  think  is good and what


13     you think is bad and  what would  you  have us use?  That's


14     the type  of information.


^              DR.  PARKER:   All  right,  I  certainly  will.


16              MR,,  FIELDS:   Two  questions.  One was we've had


17     in  our regulations  — you might  not  have seen  it yet,


18     a natural design option, natural for surface impoundments.


19     You specify ten feet, seven, so  did  I understand your


20     statement to say that you are  against natural  surface


21     impoundments?   Or just  certain types of  natural design


22     impoundments?   We allow a design of  10 feet of a natural,


23     permanentability and  so on  as  one  of the design alterna-


24     tives  or  surface impoundments.  And  you  didn't indicate


25     anything  about the  designs  of  the  various impoundments.

-------
                                                            536




 '               DR. PARKER:  Specifically the last slide that

 2
      you looked at, that were built to a 10 to the minus 3 or


      10 to the minus 4.  Now the tests were performed upon


      all the clays from 25 feet down.  Southwest Lab took some


      clay and issued a permanentability on it and said, "If


 6     the building is out of this, you will have such and such


 7     seepage,"  And of course they didn't say anything about


 8     putting an old muck on top of the muck.  And when you build


      anything of dissimilar materials, you are going to have


1(^     100 per cent failures.  And these impoundments that you've


11     been looking at for an hour are built out of whatever was


12     available on-site and they all have failed.


'3               And I believe myself, and this is the debate


14     of Texas, whether or not these can ever be allowed.  Be-


'5     cause we're looking at a serious economic loss.


16               MR, FIELDS:  Were any of those impoundments of


17     something similar to ] 0 feet or 10 minus 7 penBeablllfcy


18     n
-------
                                                       5379538




      the Gulf Coast of Texas to build a levee that would con-



      tain anything.  Now on top of that, you don't have a key




      in down to solid clay.  And when you did down as far as



      these ledges were built, you have another problem.  You're




      in the first ground mark.  I don't think that they should




 6     ever be permitted one and I'd be happy to spend a lot of




 7     time and go over this to any extent.  They should not




 8     ever be permitted.  We have ruined millions and millions



 9     of dollars for the Bay and destroyed the ground water




10     in that area just by this type failure,  I'm a physician




      but t do understand this much of the engineering.  I




12     hate to be dogmatic but I would say they were all failures;.




13               MR. FIELDS:  You mean all the ones in Texas?



14               DR. PARKER:  I think if you could go to someplace




15     where you do have a continuous run of a type of clay, I



16     wouldn't say that that hasn't existed in the country and




17     in Texas but not on the Gulf Coast.



18               MR, FIELDS:  Second question: What do you mean



19     by polluted water?




20               DR. PARKER:  I didn't hear your question.



21               MR. FIELDS:  How do you define polluted water?




22               DR. PARKER:  Well, let — you mean as far as




23     infrared goes?




24               MR. FIELDS:  Yes,



25               DR. PARKTER.  it will have a characteristic light

-------
                                                            539




 1     color in contrast to a nearly black, a healthy water  and




 2     it can be due to suspended, dissolved, or just from plain




 3     They test water containing essentially no oxygen and  it




 4     will give the same appearance as if you had some sus-




 5     pended material.  And of course the extent of these




 6     things will give you a degree of color there.




 7               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.




 8               Is there anybody else who wants to speak on




 9     the Section — any of the Subtitle C regulations?




10               (No response.j




11               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  O.K., we will close this




12     evening's hearing.  We will reconvene tomorrow morning




13     at 8:30 to receive comments on Section JU04.




14               Thank you very much.




15               (Whereupon, at 10:00 o'clock p.m., Thursday,




16          February 15, 1979, the public hearing in the above---




17          entitled matter was adjourned until 8:30 o'clock




78          a.m., Friday, February 16, 1979.)




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
 i                         CERTIFICATE:

 2
          This is to certify that the attached proceedings
 3
     before:   Environmental Protection Agency
 4
     In the Matter of:
 5
                   Public Meeting on Improving
 6
                     Environmental Regulations
 7
     Place:   St. Louis, Missouri
 8
     Date:    February 15, 1979
 9
     were held as herein appears, and that this is the
10
     Original transcript thereof for the files of the
11
     Department.
12

13

14

15                              fiernice M. Jackson Reporting Co.
                               1139 Olive Street   Suite 310
16                              St. Louis, Missouri  63101

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-------
                                                            5*0

 1                       UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA

 2                    ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY

 3    ..-.-...-..-...---.

 4          In the Matter of:

 5      Public Meeting on Improving

 6       Environmental Regulations

 7    __._._......._.-...

 8                                   Main Ballroom,
                                     Breckenridge  Pavilion Hotel,
 9                                   One Broadway,
                                     St. Louis, Missouri,
 10
                                     Friday, February  16, 1979.
 11
                The public hearing in  the above-entitled matter
 12
      was convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 8:30  o'clock a.m.,
 13
      Dorothy A. Darrah, presiding.
 14
      BEFORE:
 15
                           PANEL
 16
                DOROTHY A. DARRAH, Office of General  Counsel, EPA,
 17                                 Washington, D. C., Chairperson.

 18              AMY SCHAFFER,      Office  of  Enforcement, EPA,
                                   Washington, D.C.
 19
                JOHN P. LEHAMN,    Director,   Hazardous Waste
 20                                  Management  Division, Office of
                                   Solid Waste, EPA,  Washington,
 21                                  D.C.

 22               ALFRED LINDSEY,    Chief, Implementation Branch,
                                   Hazardous Waste Management
 23                                  Division, Office of Solid
                                   Waste, EPA, Washington, D. C.
 24

25

-------
                                                       541
i

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
TIMOTHY FIELDS,




CHET MC LAUGHLIN,


ROB DEXTER,
Program Manager, Hazardous
Waste Management Division,
Office of Solid Waste, EPA,
Washington, D. C.

Solid Waste Branch, EPA,
Kansas City, Missouri.

Desk Office for Financial
Department, EPA, Washington,
D. C.

-------
                                                            542


 ,                        CONTENTS


 2    STAIEMEHTS 09:                                   Page


 3    W. A. Schimmlng, CF Industries                    549


 4    Hark Cochran, Illinois Public Serviee Co.         558


 5    Robert N. Robinson, Missouri Department
        of Natural Resources                           568


     Arpad L. Lengyel, Havering, Ltd.                  568


     Leo Donzalski, Chicago, Illinois                  588

 8
     George £. Brown, Nalinckrodt                      597

 9
     Joe Petrilli, Illinois Environmental

10       Protection Agency                              619


     John JUlnger, Quiney, Illinois                    642


     Charles Robertson, Energy Systems Company         651



13
14
     Separate Transcript for Question and Answer Session
     Pages 663 thru 705


15




16    Hearing Inserts:      PP. 557


17



18



19



20



21



22



23



24



25

-------
 1                          PROCEEDING^



 2                MR. LEHMAN:  Good morning.



 3                I would like to begin the hearing today, please.



 4                My name is John Lehman.  I'm director of the Baz-



 5      ardous Waste Management Division of the EPA, Office of



 6      Solid Waste, Washington, D. C.



 7                On behalf of EPA, I would like to welcome you to



 8      the public hearing which is being held to discuss the pro-



 '      posed regulations for the management of hazardous wastes.



10      We appreciate your taking the time to participate in the



11      development of these regulations which are being issued



12      under the authority of Resource Conservation and Recovery



13      Act, better known as RCRA.



14                The EPA, on December 18, 1978, issued proposed



15      rules under Section 3001, 3002, and 3003—excuse me--3004



16      of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as substantially amended



17      by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Public



18      Law 94-$&.  These proposals also respectively cover, first:,



19      criteria for listing hazardous waste and identification



20      methods and hazardous waste  llcens  e,   second, stan-



21      dards applicable to generators of such waste for record-



22      keeping, labeling, using proper containers and using trans-



23      port manifests, and, third, performance, design, and oper-



24      ating standards for hazardous waste management facilities.



25      These proposals, together with those already published pur-

-------
                                                              544




      suant to Section 3003 on April 8, 1978, Section 3006 on



2     February 1, 1978, Section 3008 on August 4, 1978, Section



3     3010 on July 11, 1978, and that of the Department of Trans-



4     portation pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transporta-



5     tion Act on May 25, 1978, along with Section 3005 regula-



6     tions pertaining to facility permits which have yet to be



7     issued, yet to be proposed, constitute the regulatory pro-



8     gram under Subtitle C of the Act.



9               This hearing is being held as part of our public



10     participation process in the development of this regulatory



n     program.



12               The panel members who share the rostrum with me



]3     are, from your left, Chet Me Laugh1in, of the Hazardous Waste



14     Management Section, Hazardous Materials Branch, Region VII,



15     Kansas City; Amy Schaffer of our Office of Enforcement, EPA



16     headquarters in Washington; Dorothy Darrah, Office of



17     General Counsel, EPA headquarters in Washington; Fred Lind-



18     sey. Chief of our Implementation Branch in the Hazardous



 19     Waste Management Division, EPA headquarters in Washington;



20     and Timothy Fields, program manager in the Assessment and



21     Technology Branch, the Hazardous Waste Management Division,



22    EPA headquarters in Washington.



23              As noted in the Federal Register, our plan again



 24    is to cover Section 3004 today.  Tuc comments received at



25  I  this hearing and the other hearings, as noted in the Federal

-------
                                                             545
  l     Register, together with the comment letters we have re-

  2     ceived, will be a part of the official docket in this rule-


  3     making process.

  4               The comment period closes on March 16 for Sec-


  5     tions 3001 through 3004.


  6               This docket may be seen during normal working


  7     hours in Room 2111D, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, S. W.,


  8     Washington, D. C.

  9               In addition, we expect to have transcripts of


 10     each hearing within about two weeks of the close of the


 n     hearing,  these transcripts will be available for reading


 12     at any of the EPA libraries.  A list of these locations is


 13     available at the registration table downstairs.


 14               With that as background, I would like to lay the


 15     groundwork and rules for the conduct of this hearing.


 16               The focus of the public hearing is on the public's

 17     response to a regulatory proposal of an agency or, in this


 18     case, agencies since both EPA and the Department of Trans-

 19     portation are involved.


 20               The purpose of this hearing, as announced in the


 2]     April 28, May 25, and December 18, 1978, Federal Registers,


 22     i* to solicit comments on the proposed regulations, in-


 23     eluding any background information used to develop the com-
24      ments.
25
                 This public hearing is being held not primarily

-------
                                                             546
 1     to inform the public, nor to defend a proposed regulation,
 2     but rather to obtain the public's response to these pro-
 3     posed regulations and thereafter revise them as may seem
 4     appropriate.
 5               All major substantive comments made at the hear-
 6     ing will be addressed during preparation of the final regu-
 7     lation.  This will not be a formal adjudicatory hearing
 8     with the right to cross-examination,  the members of the
 9     public are to present their views on the proposed regula-
 10     tion to the panel, and the panel may ask questions of the
 11     people presenting statements to clarify any ambiguities in
 12     their presentations.  Some questions by the panel may'be
 13     forwarded in writing to the speaker.  His or her response,
 14     if received within a week of the close of this hearing,
 15     will be included in the transcript.  Otherwise we will in-
 16     elude it in the docket.
 17               The Chairman reserves the right to limit lengthy
 18     questions, discussions, or statements.  If you have a copy
 19     of your statement, please submit it to the court reporter.
 20               Written statements will be accepted at the end of
 21      the hearing.   If you wish to submit a written rather than
 22     an oral statement, please make sure that the court reporter
 23     has a copy.   The  written statements will also be included
 24      in their entirety in the record.
25                Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have

-------
                                                               547
  1     not made an advance request by telephone or in writing shoul
  2     indicate their interest on the registration card.  If you
  3     have not indicated your intent to give a statement and you
  4     decide to do so, please return to the registration table,
  5     fill out another card,  and give it to one of our staff.
  6               As we call upon an individual to make a statement,
  7     he or she should come up to the lecturn, identify himself  or
  8     herself for the court reporter, and deliver his or her
  9     statement.  At the beginning of the statement, the Chair-
 10     person will inquire as to whether the speaker is willing to
 11     entertain questions from the panel.  The speaker is under  nc
 12     obligation to do so, although within the spirit of th.
 13     information-sharing hearing, it would be of great assistance
 14     to the Agency if questions were permitted.
 '5               Our day's activities, as we currently see them,
 16     appear like this:  We will break for lunch at about 12
 17     o'clock and reconvene at approximately 1:30. Depending on
 18     our progress, we will either conclude the day's session in
 19     the afternoon or continue on through dinner if there is
 20     need to do so.
 21               Phone calls will be posted on the registration
 22     table at the entrance,  and restrooms are located outside
 23     this room directly ahead.
 24               if you wish to be added to our mailing list for
25     future regulations, draft regulations, or proposed regula-

-------
                                                             548




 1      tions,  please leave your business card or name and address



 2      on a three-by-five card at the  registration desk.



 3                Section 3004  addresses standards affecting owners



 4      and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage,  and



 5      disposal facilities.  These standards define the levels  of



 6      human health and environmental  protection to be achieved by



 7      these facilities and provide the criteria against which  EPA



 8      or state officials will measure applications for permits.



 '      Facilities on a generator's property, as well as off-site



10      facilities, are covered by these regulations and do require



11      permits.  Transporters and generators do not otherwise need



12      a permit.



13                EPA intends to promulgate final regulations under



14      all sections of Subtitle C by December 31, 1979.  However,



15      it is important for the regulated communities to understand



16      that the regulations under Section 3001 through 3005   do not



17      take effect until six months after promulgation.  That



18      would be approximately June of  1980.  Thus, there will be a



19      time period after final promulgation, during which time



20      public  understanding of the regulations can be increased;



21      and during this same period, notifications required under



22      Section 3010 are to be submitted, and facility permit appli-



23      cations required under Section  3005 will be distributed  for



24      completion by applicants.



25                With that as a general summary of Subtitle  C and

-------
                                                            549



 l      the  proposed  regulations  to be considered at  this hearing,




 2      I return  the  meeting  to the Chairperson, Dorothy Oarrah.



 3                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank  you.



 4                I hope  that my  beginning  this morning is  not an



 S      indication of how this day is going to go.  My 6 o'clock



 6      call had  not  come by  7:30, and I went to get  some coffee,



 7      and  this  person was sitting there telling his friend  that



 8      this was  going to be  four inches with no accumulation.  So



 9      that was  slightly distressing to hear.  But I'm sure  you



10      all  have  very interesting things to tell us about our 3004



H      regulation, so why don't  we start on  that.



12                Mr. W.  A. Schimming of CF Industries.



13                   STATEMENT OF W. A. SCHIMMING



14                MR. SCHIMMING:  Good morning.



15                I am William A. Schimming,  director of environ-



16      mental affairs for CF Industries' Florida Region.   CF In-



17      dustries,  Inc., is organized an an  interregional coopera-



18      tive and  is owned by  19 regional farm supply cooperatives



19      in the United States  and  Canada.  These 19 regional co-ops



20      serve a market area including 1.5 million fanners.



2i                CF  Industries is a major  fertilizer producer in



22      the  United States  and during 1977 distributed 7.2 million



23      tons of fertilizer directly to member companies.  The pro-



24      posed hazardous waste  management guidelines and regulations,



25      if promulgated as  final rules, would  impact CF's phosphate

-------
                                                              550
 l     fertilizer production facilities in Central Florida.
 2               Ever Since October 1977, CF, with the assistance
 3     of The Fertilizer Institute, has attempted to provide mean-
 4     ingful input to EPA in its development of solide waste man-
 5     agement regulations.  For example, in February 1978, Messrs.
 6     Alan Corson and Harry Trask visited CF's Bartow Phosphate
 7     Complex.  We have appreciate! these opportunities to relate
 8     our current phosphate fertilizer waste disposal practices.
 9               The phosphate industry wastes--overburn, clays,
 10     tailings,  and gypsum--are not hazardous in the ordinary
 11     sense of hazardous waste characterization.  Apparently EPA
 12     has recognized this to some extent in that the Agency has
 13     not listed radiation as one of its Section 250.13 criteria.
 u     As noted by the Agency in the  preamble to Subpart D, Page
 15     58991, and I quote:
 16               "The limited infovation the Agency does have in-
 17     dicates that such waste occurs in very large volumes, that
 18     the potential hazard* posed by the waste are relatively low,
 19     and that the waste generally is not amenable to the control
 20     techniques developed in Subpart D.V
 21               CF agrees that any potential hazards posed by
 22     phosphate  mining and processing wastes are indeed relative-
 23     ly low.  In fact, it is quite  possible that after a thorough
 24     analysis is conducted by the Agency pursuant to its Advance
25      Notice of  Proposed Kulemaking  on the identification and

-------
                                                              551
 1     listing of hazardous waste, it will be concluded that such

 2     wastes are not hazardous.  Should this be the conclusion,

 3     we believe EPA should delete such wastes from coverage

 4     under Subpart D.

 s               As far as the present proposals are concerned,

 6     however, we believe that our industry would be over-

 7     regulated by the rules proposed in Section 250.46-3 in at

 8     least two significant ways; past operating experience in-

 9 I    dicates tha t both the security requirements and the ground-

 TO     water monitoring provisions should be modified.

 11               The security requirements of Section 250.43-2

 12     have been proposed as applicable to phosphate industry

 13     wastes; in particular, the use of a six-foot fencing and

 14     ingress control have been proposed.  With regard to gypsum,

 15     this waste has been successfully managed and secured at our

 16     Bartow Phosphate Complex for 25 years and at our Plant City

 17     Phosphate Complex, for 14 years without the six-foot fencinf

 18     as required by Section 250.43-2(a).  These plants are lo-

 19     cated in rural areas with sizeable company-owned buffer

 20     areas between public access and waste locations.  It would

 21     be useless to require the same level of security for ad-

 22     mittedly low-risk wastes and highly hazardous wastes.

 23               It is stated in the preamble to these regulations

 24     that the Agency intends some flexibility in situations such

25      as ours through its recognition as an alternative to fencinj

-------
                                                                55



       and  ingress control  the  use  of a  natural  or artificial bar-



       rier capable  of preventing the unknowing  and/or unauthori-



       zed  entry of  persons and domestic livestock.  We urge  that



       the  Agency also recognize the  Suitability of  buffer zones i



  5     rural areas.



  6                The phosphate  industry's  years  of successful



  7     management of these  wastes,  along with  the special  waste



  8     categorization suggested by  EPA,  would  appear to justify



  9     deletion  of fencing  and  ingress control for phosphate  in-



 10     dustry wastes.   To the best  of our  knowledge, none  of  those



       within the Agency responsible  for drafting the  special wast



 12     standards (Section 3004) for the  phosphate industry wastes



 13     has  ever  visited a phosphate fertilizer complex or  phos-



       phate mine.   We  suggest  that if they had,  the security re-



 15     quirements would have been waived for the  phosphate Indus-



       try.  We,  therefore,  invite  the Agency  to  visit our facili-



 17     ties in central  Florida  to see firsthand that Sections



 18     250.43-2(a) and (b)  are  not  necessary for  phosphate Indus-



 19     try wastes.



 20                Our interest in this  matter is not academic.  The



 21     costs of  fencing and ingress control are significant.   The



 22     following  cost estimates  in  1978  dollars have been  deve-



 23     loped for  fencing and ingress  control at CF's Florida  Re-



 24     gion facilities:



25               At  the Bartow Complex,  the cost  of fencing and

-------
                                                             553
 l     ingress control would be $140,000 to fence approximately
 2     670 acres.   At our Plant City complex,  the cost would be
 3     $105,000 to fence 650 acres.   At our Hardee Phosphate Mine,
 4     the cost would be $1,200,000  to fence 18,000 acres.
 5               These cost data clearly demonstrate that fencing
       and ingress control would require an excessive expenditure
 7     while providing no apparent benefits.
 s               Our final point of  concern with the proposed rtgu-
 9     lations is  in the appropriateness of the  groundwater moni-
 1Q     toring, sampling, and analysis list.  The minimum analysis
       list, as found in Section 250.43-8(c)(5), contains several
       parameters, the analysis of which would be meaningless for
 13     tracing groundwater contamination relative to phosphate
 14     waste disposal sites.  A suggested minimum analysis  list of
       nonhazardous tracers would consist of the following para-
 ,.     meters:  pH, phosphorus, fluoride, sulfate, and nitrogen.
 17               The analysis of these parameters would be  suf-
 1g     ficient to  detect groundwater contamination consistent with
       the goals of that section.
                 Likewise, the comprehensive analysist list, as
       found in Section 250.43-8(c)(6),contains  several parameters,
 _      the analysis of which would be unnecessary.  The suggested
 ,.     comprehensive list  for phosphate industry groundwate"
 ..      monitoring would be th>se characteristics included in the
..      minimum analysis, as I previously mentioned, and radium  226.

-------
                                                               554



 1               The establishment of the groundwater monitoring,



 2     Section 250.43-8(c), should take into account existing



 3     monitoring data.  The monthly analysis for a period of a



 4     year seems excessive.  Even where no previous groundwater



 5     monitoring history exists, quarterly analysis would seem to



 6     provide sufficient background information during the first



 7     year of monitoring for the phosphate industry.



 8               To summarize our concerns on groundwater monitor-



 s'     ing, the minimum and comprehensive analysis lists should be



10     formulated to be specific for potential contaminants in the



11     phosphate mining and processing industries.  Also, there



12     should be a certain latitude allowed in the rules such that



13     the frequency of analysis is a meaningful schedule specific



14     to each case in question.



15               We have limited our comments to two major points



16     today—security and groundwater monitoring.  We will submit



17     a more extensive comment for the written record which will



18     include other Section 3004 comments as well as Section 3001



19     comments.  We would be pleased to discuss in greater detail



20     our recommendations for groundwater monitoring and to demon?



21     strate that present security provisions appear adequate for



22     phosphate industry wastes.



23               We appreciate the opportunity to provide oral com-



24     ment and stand ready to assist the Agency in developing



25     workable waste management regulations for the phosphate in-

-------
                                                                 55



 l     dustry.



 2                Thank you, and  I would  like  to answer questions



 3     if you have any.



 4                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.



 5                We would appreciate such specific suggestions  for



 6     change.



 7                MR. LINDSEY:  1 would like to address the securi-



 8     ty issue a little bit further if we could.  In guess in  iiu-



 9     eluding the security aspect in the special waste category



10     here, our  concern was with basically with unknowing, as  you



11     pointed out, access to these piles, which I believe we all



12     agree are  to some degree radioactive.  The question is



13     whether that radioactivity poses a hazard or not, and that



u     is basically why this particular material is, one of the



15     reasons why this particular material is a special waste,



16     because it is low level, and the question is what real haz-



17     ard does that pose.  1 guess our  thinking was that we wanted



18     to prevent, given that there is somet-at least in our minds



19     we're not  certain of that situation--that we wanted to pre-



20     vent the access of children and others from blundering onto



21     these areas, and 1 think you recommended that perhaps a  buf-



22     fer zone was sufficient for that, or that we should allow



23     other things, natural barriers or something like this.



24     Could you  expand on that, in other words, how much of a



25     buffer zone is necessary to prevent children from wandering

-------
                                                          556
 1      around and climbing around on these piles and so forth,
 2      and what other kinds of things would we allow?
 3                MR. SCHIMMING:  Well, to set the risk in per-
 4      spective, I think the Agency has made some statistical ex-
 5      trapolations, and they conclude that if somebody lived in
 6      a worst case situation for 70 years, their chance of  lung
 7      cancer may double.   So that kind of puts the risk into per-
 8      spective.  If I trap somebody on my pile for 70 years, I,
 9      statistically, may have that event.  So that puts the risk
 10      in perspective.
 11                Mow, walking across overburden, really, I don't
 12      think you are going to know the difference between that  and
 13      natural ground.  You have to get to Florida to see.  Being
 14      from the North, 1 don't go through those wild areas in
 15      Florida—everything just grows up; and if you leave some-
 16      thing unmanaged for a couple of years, you get these  scrub
 17      brushes and all kinds of things, and, believe me, between
 18      that and the rattle snakes and the wild pigs and everything,
 19      it just keeps me away from, you know, keep me in my neighbor
 20      hood,  so to speak.   So you've got to get down there to see
 21      it,  and then I think you can appreciate what we're saying,
 22      and  I  don't think you'll require us to fence all of that.
 23                MR.  LINDSEY:   Following .up on that, Mr. Schimming,
 24      the  security requirements do have a note associated with
25      them which says basically that natural or artificial  bar-

-------
                                                              557
 l      riers  capable  of preventing the  unknowing or unauthorized
 2      entry  of persons or domestic livestock is a permissible
 3      activity.   So  from what your answer implied, or,  in other
 4      words, the way I understood your answer is that the flexi-
 5      bxlity provided in the  note would account for this type of
 6      solution that  you had in mind, and that would not necessar-
 7      ily require changing the regulations.
 8                MR.  SCHIMMING:  If the Agency recognizes that a«
 9      being  a natural barrier, we would recognize that the river
10      on one side of our property would constitute a barrier.
H      Whether just the grown-up weeds  on the other three sides of
12      it are acceptable to you, I don't know, and that's why I'm
13      raising the point.
14                MR.  FIELDS:  My question was what constituted the
15      barrier around your facility, and I guess I understand whtit
15      it is  now.
17                MR.  SCHIMMING:  It's just wild.
18                MR.  FIELDS:  O.K.
19                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I guess that's all.  Thank
20      you very much.
21                MR.  SCHIMMING:  Thank  you.
22                (The document referred to follows:
23                          (HEARING INSERT)
24
25

-------
                 Section 3004 Comments



                  CF Industries, Inc.



                   February 16, 1979








          I am William A. Schimming, Director Environmental



Affairs for CF Industries' Florida Region.  GF Industries,



Inc. is organized as an inter-regional cooperative and is



owned by 19 regional farm supply cooperatives in the United



States and Canada.  These 19 regional co-ops serve a market



area including 1.5 million farmers.   CF Industries is a major



fertilizer producer in the United States, and during 1977



distributed 7.2 million tons of fertilizer directly to



member companies.  The proposed hazardous waste management



guidelines and regulations, if promulgated as final rules,



would impact CF's phosphate fertilizer production facilities



in central Florida.



          Ever since October, 1977, CF, with the assistance



of The Fertilizer Institute, has attempted to provide meaning-



ful input to EPA in its development of solid waste management



regulations.  For example, in February, 1978, Messrs. Alan



Corson  and Harry Trask visited CF's Bartow Phosphate Complex.



We have appreciated these opportunities to relate our current



phosphate fertilizer waste disposal practices.



          The phosphate industry wastes - overburden, clays,



tailings, and gypsum are not hazardous in the ordinary sense



of hazardous waste characterization.  Apparently, EPA has



recognized this to some extent in that the Agency has _not listed

-------
Section 3004 Comments            -2-           February 16,  979








radiation as one of its Section 250.13 criteria.  As noted




by the Agency in the preamble to Subpart D, page 58991, "The




limited information the Agency does have indicates that such




waste occurs in very large volumes, that the potential hazards




posed by the waste are relatively low, and that the waste




generally is not amenable to the control techniques developed




in Subpart D."  CF agrees that any potential hazards posed by




phosphate mining and processing wastes are indeed relatively




low.  In fact, it is quite possible that after a thorough




analysis is conducted by the Agency pursuant to it's Advance




Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the identification and listing




of hazardous waste, 43 FR 59022, December 18, 1978, it will be




concluded that such wastes are not hazardous.  Should this be



the conclusion, we believe EPA should delete such wastes from




coverage under Subpart D.




          As far as the present proposals are concerned, how-




ever, we believe that our industry would be over-regulated by



the rules proposed in Section 250.46-3 in at least two sig-



nificant waysJ past operating experience indicates that both



the security requirements and the groundwater monitoring



provisions should be modified.




          The security requirements of Section 250.43-2 have




been proposed as applicable to phosphate industry wastes; in




particular, the use of a six (6) foot fencing and ingress




control have been proposed.  With regard to gypsum this wast«




has been successfully managed and secured at our Bartow Phosphate

-------
Section 3004 Comments         -3-               February 16, 1979








Complex for 25 years and at our Plant City Phosphate Complex



for 14 years without the six (6) foot fencing as required by



Section 250.43-2 (a).  These plants are located in rural areas



with sizeable company owned buffer areas between public access



and waste locations.  It would be useless to require the same



level of security for admittedly low risk wastes (page 58948)



and highly hazardous wastes.



          It is stated in the preamble to these regulations



that the Agency intends some flexibility in situations such as



ours through its recognition as an alternative to fencing and



ingress control the use of a natural or artificial barrier capable



of preventing the unknowing and/or unauthorized entry of persons



and domestic livestock.  We urge that the Agency also recognize



the suitability of buffer zones in rural areas.  The phosphate



industry's years of successful management of these wastes, along



with the special waste categorization suggested by EPA would



appear to justify deletion of fencing and ingress control for



phosphate industry wastes.  To the best of our knowledge, none



of those within the agency responsible for drafting the special



waste standards (section 3004) for the phosphate industry wastes



has ever visited a phosphate fertilizer complex or phosphate mine.



We suggest that if they had the security requirements would have



been waived for the phosphate industry.  We, therefore, invite



the agency to visit our facilities in central Florida to see



firsthand that Sections 250.43-2 (a) and (b) are not necessary



for phosphate industry wastes.

-------
Section 3004 Comments          -4-             February 16, 1979



          Our interest in the matter is not academic, the costs

of fencing and ingress control are significant.  The following

cost estimates in 1978 dollars have been developed for fencing

and ingress control at CF's Florida Region Facilities.

                         Cost of Fencing      Approximate
     Facility            And Ingress Control  Area Fenced

     Bartow                $  ltd,000            670 acres

     Plant City            $  105,000            650 acres

     Hardee                $1,200,000         18,000 acres

          The alcove cost data clearly demonstrate that fencing

and ingress control would require an excessive expenditure while

providing no apparent benefits.

          Our final point of concern with the proposed regulations

is in the appropriateness of the groundwater monitoring, sampling

and analysis list.  The minimum analysis list as found in Section

250.43-8 (c) (5)  contains several parameters, the analysis of

which would be meaningless  for tracing groundwater contamination

relative to phosphate waste disposal sites.  A suggested minimum

analysis list of non-hazardous tracers would consist of the

following parameters:

                          1.  pH
                          2.  phosphorus
                          3.  fluoride
                          4.  sulfate
                          5.  nitrogen

The analysis of these parameters would be sufficient to detect

groundwater contamination consistent with the goals of that section.

          Likewise, the comprehensive analysis list as found in

Section 250.43-8  (c)  (6) contains several parameters, the analysis

of which would be unnecessary.  The suggested comprehensive list

-------
Section 3004 Comments         -5-           February 16, 1979



list for phosphate industry groundwater monitoring would be

those characteristics included in the minimum analysis, as

previously mentioned, and radium 226.

          The establishment of the groundwater monitoring (Section

250.43 - 8 (c) ) should take into account existing monitoring data.

The monthly analysis for a period of a year seems excessive.  Even

where no previous groundwater monitoring history exists, quarterly

analysis would seem to provide sufficient background information

during the first year of monitoring for the phosphate industry.

          To summarize our concerns on groundwater monitoring,

the minimum and comprehensive analysis lists should be f       ~ed

to be specific for potential contaminants in the phosphe      ling

and processing industries.  Also, there should be a cei       jtitude

allowed in the rules such that the frequency of analys-     a

meaningful schedule specific to each case in question.

          We have limited our comments to two major points today —

security and groundwater monitoring.  We will submit a more

extensive comment for the written record which will include other

Section 3004 comments as well as Section 3001 comments.  We would

be pleased to discuss in greater detail our recommendations for

groundwater monitoring and to demonstrate that present security

provisions appear adequate for phosphate industry wastes.

          We appreciate the opportunity to provide oral comments

and stand ready to assist the Agency in developing workable waste

management regulations for the phosphate industry.


                              William A. Schimming
                              Director Environmental Affairs
                              CF Industries, Inc.
                              Post Office Box 1480
                              Bartow, Florida  33830
                              Phone:  813/533-3181

-------
                                                            558



 1                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Mr. Howard Chinn from the



 2      Environmental Control Division, Illinois's AG's office, is



 3      he here?



 4                (No response.)



 5                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Mr. Mark Cochran from Cen-



 6      tral Illinois Public Service Company.



 7                      STATEMENT OF MARK COCHRAN



 8                MR. COCHRAN:  My name is Made Cochran.  I am em-



 9      ployed as a water quality engineer in the Environmental



10      Affairs Section of Central Illinois Public Service Company.



11                Central Illinois Public Service Company is an



12      investor-owned electric utility system that generates and



13      distributes electricity to approximately 296,000 residenti-



14      al, commercial, and industrial customers in the central and



is      southern areas of Illinois.  Our current total generating



16      capacity is approximately 2,400 megawatts and is supplied



17      through the operation of five power stations.



18                I would like to make a few comments on behalf of



19      Central Illinois Public Service Company concerning the En-



20      vironmental Protection Agency's proposed hazardous waste



21      regulations which appeared in the December 18, 1978,



22      Federal Register.



23                Central Illinois Public Service Company is an



24      active member of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group,



25      USWAG, and fully endorses all comments that have and will

-------
                                                              559



 1     be made by this group on the proposed regulations.  Rather



 2     than reiterating the majority of the USWAG comments, we



 3     have elected to limit our comments to one specific area of



 4     concern; namely, the possible impacts of the proposed  regu-



 5     lations on the disposal of stabilized flue gas desulfuriza-



 6     tion wastes.



 7               Central Illinois Public Service Company's total



 8     generating capacity of 2,400 megawatts includes a new  coal-



 9     fired generating unit, Newton Unit Mo. 1,located in Jasper



 10     County, with a rated capacity of 590 megawatts.  Construe-



 11      tion of this unit was completed in September 1977, and com-



 12     mercial operation was commenced on November 18, 1977.  In



 13      order to control sulfur dioxide emissions from this unit,



 14      a Double Alkali Flue Gas Desulfurization System is being



 15     constructed.  Although this system is expected to be very



 16      effective in removing sulfur dioxide emissions from the



 17     flue gas, it will also produce tremendous quantities of



 18     unstable scrubber wastes.



 19               To provide the most environmentally acceptable



 20      means for disposing of this sludge, Central Illinois Public



 21      Service Company elected to install a newly-developed sludge



 22      stabilization system.  The stabilization system involves



 23      blending dry fly ash, dcwatered scrubber wastes, and lime



24      additive to produce a product which is environmentally



25      suitable for landfill disposal.  The stabilization system

-------
                                                               5t>0




 l      will cost in excess  of $13,000,000 and will have annual



 2      operating and maintenance expenses of over $500,000, ex-



 3      elusive of the labor and equipment required for placing and



 4      compacting the fill  material in the landfill.



 5                To date, we have applied to the Illinois Environ-



 6      mental Protection Agency for a permit to develop and operate



 7      an on-site landfill  for receiving the stabilized waste.



 8      After a thorough review of our application, the Illinois



 9      Environmental Protection Agency granted us a permit to



10      develop the site. Development of the site will soon be coni-



11      pleted, at which time if deemed acceptable, an operating



12      permit will be issued, which will include specific condi-



13      tions designed to insure groundwater and surface water pro-



14      tection.



15                Central Illinois Public  Service Company is great-



16      ly concerned that the implementation of the Resource Con-



17      servation and Recovery Act hazardous waste management regu-



18      lations will nullify our efforts to develop a satisfactory



19      disposal scheme for  flue gas desulfurization wastes and will



20      result in burdensome and unnecessary regulation of stabili-



21      zed scrubber wastes  disposal.



22                We are somewhat encouraged by the Environmental



23      Protection Agency's  recognition that the proposed regula-



24      tions should not be  applied across the board to all wastes



25      which may be characterized as hazardous.  In the proposed

-------
 i      regulations, certain wastes are designated as "special"



 2      based on a lack of technical information on their charac-



 3      teristici and hazardous potential, their very large pro-



 4      duction volumes, the estimated low risks associated with



 5      them, and the unsuitability of applying the Subpart 0 con-



 6      trol techniques to their disposal.  Within these "Special



 7      Waste" categories, only limited sections of the proposed



 8      regulations would apply.



 9                Although flue gas desulfurization wastes are in-



10      eluded as a "special waste" under the "Utility Wastes"



11      category, this does little to insure that stabilized scrub-



12      ber wastes will be appropriately regulated.  In the first



13      place, even the limited requirements which would apply to



14      "Utility Wastes" under the proposed regulations will impose



IS      additional burdens beyond those generally applicable to non-



16      hazardous wastes.  Secondly, all the "Special Waste" cate-



17      gories, including "Utility Wastes", will be the subject of



18      further rule-making, at which time more pervasive and oner-



19      ous requirements may be established.



20                When the factors which gave rise to the "Special



21      Waste" provisions are applied to stabilized scrubber wastes,



22      there clearly seems to be a justification for providing a



23      more complete exemption from the hazardous waste regula-



24      tions with respect to such wastes.  Stabilized scrubber



25      waste/fly ash/lime mixtures will attain very low permeabil-

-------
                                                              5t>2



 l      ities and,  as a result,  will provide excellent protection



 2      against the leaching of  deleterious materials through the



 3      landfill..   Where sound engineering practices are followed,



 4      runoff into and on the landfill area will be quickly dis-



 5      sipated in  order to minimize any surface leaching.  There-



 6      fore, due  to the very nature of stabilized scrubber wastes



 7      and accompanying landfill practices which have been deve-



 g      loped for  its ultimate disposal, there is very little risk



 9      of environmental contamination resulting from the disposal



10      of such wastes.



11                In conclusion, 1 would like to state that Central



12      Illinois Public Service  Company strongly feels that the



13      regulation  of stabilized flue gas desulfurization wastes as



14      hazardous wastes, special or otherwise, is unjustified and



1S      unnecessary and that existing state solid waste require-



16      ments adequately insure  the environmentally acceptable dis-



17      posal of such wastes.



18                I would like to thank the Environmental Protec-



19      tion Agency on behalf of Central Illinois Public Service



20      Company for the opportunity to participate in the develop-



2i      merit of these regulations.



22               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  lhak you very much.



23               Would you answer questions?



24               MR. COCHRAN:  Yes.



25               MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Cochran, I am sure you have read

-------
                                                                56?


      Section 250.46-2 very carefully with respect to utility


      wastes--and that's the special waste section—and the first



      or sencd sentence in there says that these special waste



      requirements apply only if the waste in question meets the



      characteristics for hazardous wastes under Section 250.13.



      Now, to the extent that the flue gas desulfurization sludges
6

      are stabilized, do you have any information as to whether



      OB not the stabilized sludges do or do not meet that char-
8


      acteristic, and, of course, if they do not meet the charac-


      teristic, then they are not a hazardous waste and none of


      these requirements apply and, therefore, whatever the state



      is doing would continue to apply.



                MR. COCHRAN: Well, our scrubber is not operation-


      al yet, and it could be another six months before we're
14


      actually producing the stabilized material.  So we haven't


      had an opportunity to test it under the E.P. to determine
16

      whether it will be characterized as hazardous.


                MR. FIELDS:  We have not made a decision yet re-
18


      garding disposal procedures for scrubber sludge.  We have



      done some studies and, as we have indicated, we will be pro-


      posing rules at a later date for this waste, and the study


      that we are going to be doing would review practices such as



      what you are applying to scrubber elude now; and if we. feel


      that those practices are environmentally acceptable, those



      would be incorporated into the standards we finally do

-------
                                                             5b4
 i     write.
 2               MR. COCHRAN:  Yes, I am aware of the study that
 3     the EPA Is undertaking, and the Utility Solid Waste Acti-
 4     vities Group is also undertaking extensive studies, and I
 5     guess our recommendation would be that, rattier than includ-
 6     ing any provisions relative to utility wastes now, would be
 7     to grant them an exclusion until this data is developed and
 8     hold off development of any regulations until that-time.
 9               MR. FIELDS:  For that portion of the utility
 10     waste which are scrubber sludge which might be hazardous,
 u     you indicated you have had problems with the standards in
 12     250.46.  You felt that even these limited requirements were
 13     onerous, I guess.  What specific problems do you have with
 14     the standards in 250.46 that we would be applying to haz-
 15     ardous utility wastes?
 16               MR. COCHRAN:  I think the previous speaker brought
 17     them out.  In particular, the security requirements would be
 18     quite burdensome, some of the groundwater monitoring re-
 19     quirements, enclosure requirements which would be incon-
 20     sistent with what would be required by the State of
 21     Illinois.
 22               MR. FIELDS:  Do you currently haw groundwater
 23     monitoring requirements imposed by the State of Illinois?
 24               MR. COCHRAN:  The landfill the t we are develop-
25      ing for the stabilized material, we have installed a sys-

-------
 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 78

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25
                                                                 565
  1     tern of  groundwater monitoring, but we are not certain that
  2     this would be  compatible with what the U. S. EPA would re-
  3     quire.
  4                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.
  5                (The document referred to follows:
                            HEARING INSERT

-------
              United States Environmental Protection Agency



                  Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations



                            Public Hearing



                           St. Louis, Missouri



                            February 16, 1979
     My name is Mark Cochran.  I am employed as a Water Quality Engineer in the



Environmental Affairs Section of Central Illinois Public Service Company.  I



have a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Engineering and a Doctor



of Jurisprudence.



     Central Illinois Public Service Company is an investor-owned electric



utility system that generates and distributes electricity to approximately



296,000 residential, cormercial, and industrial customers in the central and



southern areas of Illinois.  Our current total generating capacity is approxi-



mately 2,400 megawatts and is supplied through the operation of five power



stations.



     I would like to make a few comments,  on behalf of Central Illinois Public



Service Company, concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed



hazardous waste regulations which appeared in the December 18, 1978, Federal



Register.



     Central Illinois Public Service Company is an active member of the Utility



Solid Waste Act Group (USWAG) and fully endorses all comments that have and



will be made by this group on the proposed regulations.  Rather than reiterating



the majority of the USWAG comments, we have elected to limit our comments to



one specific area of concern; namely, the possible impacts of the proposed



regulations on the disposal of stabilized flue gas desulfurization wastes.

-------
                                   -2-
     Central Illinois Public Service Company's total generating capacity of
2,400 megawatts includes a new coal-fired generating unit, Newton Unit No. 1,
located in Jasper County, with a rated capacity of 590 megawatts.  Construction
of this unit was completed in September, 1977, and conrrercial operation was
conmenced on November 18, 1977.  In order to control sulfur dioxide emissions
from this unit, a Double Alkali Flue Gas Desulfurization System is being constructed.
Although this system is expected to be very effective in removing sulfur dioxide
from the flue gas, it will also produce tremendous quantities of unstable
scrubber wastes.
     To provide the most environmentally acceptable means for disposing of this
sludge. Central Illinois Public Service Company elected to install a newly
developed sludge stabilization system.  The stabilization system involved
blending dry fly ash, dewatered scrubber wastes and lime additive to produce a
product which is environmentally suitable for landfill disposal.  5te stabili-
zation system will cost in excess of $13,000,000 and will have annual operating
and maintenance expenses of over $500,000, exclusive of the labor and equip-
ment required for placing and compacting the fill material in the landfill.
     To date, we have applied to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
for a permit to develop and operate an on-site landfill for receiving the
stabilized waste.  After a thorough review of our application, the Illinois
Bivironmsntal Protection Agency granted us a permit to develop the site.  Develop-
ment of the site will soon be completed, at which time if deemed acceptable,
an operating permit will be issued, which will include specific conditions
designed to insure groundwater and surface water protection.
     Central Illinois Public Service Company is greatly concerned that the
implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste
management regulations will nullify our efforts to develop a satisfactory

-------
                                   -3-
disposal scheme for flue gas desulfurization wastes and will result in burdensome
and unnecessary regulation of stabilized scrubber wastes disposal.  We are
somewhat encouraged by the Environmental Protection agency's recognition that
the proposed regulations should not be applied across the board to all wastes
which may be characterized as hazardous.  In the proposed reguulations, certain
wastes are designated as "special" based on a lack of technical information on
their characteristics and hazardous potential, their very large production
volumes, the estimated low risks associated with them, and the unsuitability
of applying the Subpart D control techniques to their disposal,  Within these
"Special Waste" categories only limited sections of the proposed regulations
would apply.
     Although flue gas desulfurization wastes are included as a "special waste"
under the "Utility Wastes" category, this does little to insure that stabilized
scrubber wastes will be appropriately regulated.  In the first place, even the
limited requirements •which would apply to "Utility Wastes" under the proposed
regulations will impose additional burdens beyond those generally applicable to
non-hazardous wastes.  Secondly, all of the "Special Waste" categories, including
"Utility Wastes", will be the subject of further rule-making, at which time,
more pervasive and onerous requirements may be established.
     When the factors which gave rise to the "Special Waste" provisions are
applied to stabilized scrubber wastes, there clearly seems to be a justification
for providing a wore conplete exemption from the hazardous waste regulations with
respect to such wastes.  Stabilized scrubber waste/fly ash/liroe mixtures will
attain very low permeabilities and as a result, will provide excellent protection
against the leaching of deleterious materials through the landfill.  Where sound
engineering practices are followed, runoff into and on the landfill area will
be quickly dissipated in order to minimize any surface leaching.  Therefore,
do to the very nature of stabilized scrubber wastes and accompanying landfill

-------
                                   -4-
practices which have been developed for its ultimate disposal, there is very



little risk of environmental contamination resulting from the disposal of such



material.



     In conclusion, I would like to state that Central Illinois Public Service



Company strongly feels that the regulation of stabilized flue gas desulfurization



wastes as hazardous wastes, special or otherwise, is unjustified and unnecessary



and that existing state solid waste requirements adequately insure the environ-



irentally acceptable disposal of such wastes.



     I would like to thank the Environmental Protection Agency, on behalf of



Central Illinois Public Service Company, for the opportunity to participate in



the development of these regulations.
MSC/srl



2-13-79

-------
                                                             566





 l                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Robert M. Robinson, Missouri



 2      Department Solid Waste Management Program.



 3                   STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. ROBINSON



 4                MR. ROBINSON:  I'm Robert M. Robinson, director



 5      of the Solid Waste Management Program for the Missouri De-



 6      partment of Natural Resources.



 7                We wish to make a few comments today, and we will



 8      submit detailed written comments in the future, sometime



 9      before March 16.



10                We want to commend EPA for the great progress we



n      think that they have made in developing what we think arc



12      approaching very reasonable and a good set of regulation!*



13      dealing with hazardous waste facilities.  Particularly, we



14      think the approach of establishing these special waste



15      standards for high-volume, low-level hazardous wastes is a



16      very good approach, and we think that there should be that



17      tyep of approach to these wastes.  We don't have any data



18      as to whether utility wastes are going to fall out or into



19      the criteria, however, but if they do fall into the criteria



20      we think they ought to be regulated under this mechanism,



21      and, frankly, we don't think that the requirements placed



22      under the special waste standards are really that terribly



23      strict.  In fact, we in the State of Missouri would, by and



24      large, be controlling them to almost that standard under our



25      regular solid waste regulations.

-------
                                                           56Y





1                We would make one comment, and that is going back



2     to the general site selection criteria, and with regards



3     to the flood plain, we're wondering if an approach possi-



4     bly--first off, we are very much in favor of protecting



5     flood plains and to protect them to the 500-year flood level



5     with regards to certain types of hazardous waste facilities



7     such as a secured landfill we think is of great importance,



8     and possibly there shouldn't even be the possibility for



9     you even to locate it in a 500-year flood plain if you dike



10     it, for instance, and which would be possible under these



11     regulations, so 1 think we would suggest that maybe that



12     the provision with regards to the flood plain should be



13     spelled out under each individual type of facility rather



14     than being put in the general section because I think it



15     could be approached differently in each section.  For in-



16     stance, should utility wastes be considered to fall into the



17     hazardous wastes?  I don't know that we need to be quite



18     that concerned with that particular waste as to whe ther it



19     is out or protected by the 500-year flood, possibly a lesser



20     criteria would be possible. In the State of Missouri, of



2i     course,we would use the 100-year flood protection for that



22     type of a waste, and, also, as I understand it, the 500-



23     year flood provision would apply to incinerators.  Well, we



24     would visualize, and in many cases industries might have on-



25     site incinerator facilities,  and we really can't see hardly

-------
                                                             5bb
  l     protecting  that incinerator, which would be a hazardous
  2     waste facility, to really any greater protection  than the
  3     industry already has at  the site, because  I'm sure  they
  4     have hazardous waste products probably stored on  site; and
  5     if they flood, it's going to be just as much of a hazard
  6     there as if the incinerator itself floods.  So I  think
  7     this is another reason for considering that provision being
  8     applied to  each individual type facility.
  9               that concludes my remarks.
 10               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Anybody have any questions
 n     for Mr. Robinson?
 12               (Mo response.)
 13               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  If not, thank you  very much.
 14               Mr. John O'Clair from Quincy Adams County Land-
 15     fill Commission.
 16               (No response.)
 17               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Arpad L. Lengyel from
 lg     Havering, Ltd.
 19                   STATEMENT OF ARPAD L. LENGYEL
 20               MR. LENGYEL:  Thank you, Ms. Chairlady.
 21               The comments which go to Section 3004 which I
 22     expect to submit will also be submitted in writing  prior to
 23     die March 16 deadline.
 24               I would like to address these remarks to  several
2s     primarily technical aspects of 3004.

-------
 l                Hie  first one  is  sice  selection.   I'm sure  that



 2     most  people  are  in complete agreement with  the Agency's  de-



 3    s ire  to see  waste  disposal  sites located in areas where



 4     they  are unlikely  to affect the  environment or, conversely,



 S     be  affected  adversely by them.   However, as much as I may



 6     search my memory,  I can't think  of  any  place in the United



 7     States where I could find a landfill that would be suitable



 8     in  all respects, and I would like to cite a few examples.



 9               About  two years ago, I was on a trip south,  and



 10     we  encountered a dust storm at the  altitude of about  5,000



 11      feet.   The dust, according  to the Weather Service, came



 12      from  Kansas, and we were over eastern Georgia.   About five



 13      or  six years ago,  in Sweden there was a red snowfall;  that



 14      is, the snow was tinted  a reddish color, the reason--sand



 15     from  the Sahara Desert 2,000 miles  away and on the other



 16     side  of the  Alps,  this would somehow speak  much against



 17     land  forming,  say,  if it was done in Kansas.



 18                Granted,  that  these are  some of  the extreme cases



 19     but I  am citing extreme  possibilities.



 20                If a disposal  facility is either  located improper-



 21      ly  or  if it  is operated  improperly, or  if it is not equipped



 22     with  prior safeguards against the escape of hazardous



 23     materials, then the 200-foot boundary is going to be  of  very



 24      little  help, and I  could  easily  make the same  arguments  for



25     groundwater  contamination in migration  of wastes through the

-------
                                                      570



 1      groundwater table.



 2                The  answer perhaps  is  not the  establishment  of an



 3      arbitrary buffer zone but  the construction  and the  opera-



 4      tion  of  the disposal site  in  such a fashion that  it will



 5      prevent  migration in all three dimensions.   If the  rules



 6      are followed properly and  the monitoring equipment  is  in-



 7      stalled  in the proper location,  the buffer  zone could  be



 8      reduced  substantially,  perhaps to 20 feet or less.  Or if



 9      a buffer zone  is still  desirable, in spite  of all pre-



10      cautions,  then its  dimensions should be  the same  as the



11      distance from  the top of the  landfill to its bottom seal.



12      This  is  from consideration of construction  purposes.



13                Your other mention  of  need for a  buffer zone is



14      possibly to explosion and  fire.   The hazards from explo-



15      sions and fires are mostly a  question of quantity and  quali-



16      ty, or what is burning  or  exploding and  how much  of it.  A



17      200-foot boundary is scant protection against an  explosion



18      of any significance, and I am saying something like 3  PSI



19      of air compressive  strength.



20                About six months ago,  there was a disastrous ex-



2i      plosion  in Chicago, in  Cook County rather.   One of  our em-



22      ployees  escaped by  a hair's breath from  dying. He  happened



23      to be driving  right by  the plant.  He was about 200 feet



24      away  from the  plant. This  explosion tore apart a  concrete



25      building,  took a telephone pole  and demolished his  car.

-------
                                                         571




 1     Slightly in a different direction, there was an earthen



 2     dike, about 20 feet high or ao.  This dike was stripped of



 3     vegetation, but everything beyond it was protected.  Had



 4     the employee been, say, a second or so later, he would have



 5     also been protected.  He would have been just outside the



 6     line of explosion.



 7               So apparently the answer is not so much a buffer



 8     zone but the installation of protective structures and bar-



 s'     riers.  Therefore, it is recommended that the Agency op-



10     tionally consider that possibility.



11               The second comment is addressed to the question of



12     site surveillance and monitoring after closure and  post-



13      closure.  To be more specific, the recommended twenty-year



14     span should be amended and some way related to the contents



15     of the site.  Let me see if I can address this question



16     from the point: of different types of waste that might go in-



17     to a disposal area.



18               The first is radioactive wastes.  I don't know if



19     anybody is here from Sheffield, Illinois, but I am sure that



20     they could bear along with me on this one.  Let me consider



21     the 20-year time span in terms of radioactive halflives.



22     Radioactive halflives range anywhere from a few micro-



23     seconds to thousands of years.  To cite specific examples,



24     the half life of iodine (31) is eight days.  So if wastes



25     bearing iodine (31) went to radioactive landfill or hazard-

-------
                                                          572
  '     ous waste  landfill, eight days  later half of it has de-
  2     graded to  a stable substance, therefore, it poses no haz-
  3     ard.  If Caesar's legions, the Roman legions, had been
  4     equipped with luminous dial watches, those watches right
  5     about now  would be turning to lead, during the Carter ad-
  6     ministration; but I can stretch this even further.  Let's
  7     take plutonium, extremely toxic, very hazardous, its half
  8     life is 24,000 years.  Mankind  started using fire 24,000
  9     years ago.
 10                I am asking the question if we are prepared to
 11     make the commitment now to monitor some of these landsites
 12     for 24,000 years; and in 24,000 years, only half of the
 13     hazardous  substance has gone to a stable one.  the rest of
 14     it is still there.
 15                According to a press  release, there is some
 16     plutonium  buried at Sheffield,  Illinois, and according to
 17     the NRG, there is some at Morehead, Kentucky.  Having said
 18     that the half life is 24,000 years, if there was 20 pounds
 19     of plutonium buried in Sheffield, Illinois, four half lives
 20     or about 100,000 years from now, there would still be a
 21     little bit more than a pound of it left.  Now, a pound
 22     doesn't sound like much, but it would kill just about
 23     everybody  in this hotel plus a  few more; that is, distri-
 24     buted properly.
25                This may not mean much to somebody who lives on

-------
                                                            573
  l     the other end of the United States, but it certainly may  ,
  2     bother people in Sheffield, Illinois.
  3               Before I would answer my own question about the
  4     suitability of a timespan for exposure period, let me go to
  5     a different example.  Let's say something that we are more
  6     familiar with, organic wastes, and more specifically the
  7     publicized class of compounds called PCB's, but 1 could
  8     with equal ease substitute dizenes and trizenes, substitute
  9     phenol compounds, to almost every class of halogenated or-
 10     ganics.
 n               These compounds do not lend themselves to the same
 12     kind of mathematical equation as radioactive materials do.
 13     Their degradation follows a much more complex but predicta-
 14     ble pattern.  If they are kept under isolated conditions,
 15     they would remain stable for decades.  If they are exposed
 16     to other compounds, or in some instances even sunlight or
 17     air, they would begin to decompose, and this decomposition,
 18     because of the unpredictable mixture of other materials
 19     present, is equally unpredictable.  What is perhaps more
 20     dangerous is that the decomposition products are quite
 21     often far more toxic—and I am saying several orders of
 22     magnitude more toxic--than their parent compound was.
 23               Now, let's just say that a very well designed and
 24     very carefully.operated landfill is closed down due to ex-
25     haustion.  Let's further assume that a 20-year span has

-------
                                                             574
  1     passed and there is no evidence of any off-site pollution,
  2     and now the site is considered secure inasmuch as a develop-
  3     er might come along and build a house on it.  This altered
  4     land use, introducing now new chemicals, more water, sewage
  5     perhaps, different foliage, may just be the trigger that
  6     will start the decomposition process, and that could be
  7     quite a disaster.  Therefore, instead of committing ourselve
  8     to a definite time, let us accept the fact that certain
  9     types of hazardous wastes simply cannot be disposed of in
 10     landfills.  These must be disposed of by some other method,
 11     let's say incineration, or, alternatively, they must be
 12     rendered safe or nonpolluting prior to burial, and there
 13     are some excellent methods available for that.  Or if you
 14     must insist on burial, then there is no alternative to the
 is     monitoring of the site for the lifetime of the longest
 16     lasting or the most toxic component that has gone into it.
 17               Since the Act requires fairly stringent record-
 18     keeping, an evaluation of the monitoring period perhaps
 19     should be made at the time of closing, or, alternately, if
 20     the 20-year period is upheld as a law, then any hazardous
 21     waste whose life span would exceed that period of time
 22     should not be buried.
 23               The Agency has addressed the landfill disposabili-
 24     ty question in 250.45, but I don't think it has gone far
25     enough to simply rule out certain hazardous wastes from

-------
                                                           575
 1      land disposal.  The installation of synthetic liners is not
 2      a solution since many of the components will simply dis-
 3      solve it.
 4                Chemical filtration, being primarily an inorganic
 5      process, does not apply to organic compounds as a rule.
 6                Furthermore, I cannot think of any filtration
 7      process that would survive the Agency's extraction proce-
 8      dure.  An exception being perhaps the potassium glass  fu-
 9      sion method which is horrendously expensive and very,  very
10      slow.
11                At least in the question of organic wastes,  in-
12      cineration appears to be a practical answer, but I question
13      the necessity for 1 ,000 degrees Centigrade for two seconds
14      as the established standard.  The laboratory procedures
15      that—I believe  a laboratory in Cincinnati--yes, a labora-
16      tory in Cincinnati performed, they achieved proper destruc-
17      tion after one second at 860 degrees Centigrade.  The  dif-
18      ferenee of a second doesn't sound significant,  but it  just
19      about triples the cost of an incinerator.
20                It is,  therefore, strongly urged, in light of the
21      regulations requiring certain stack monitoring equipment
22      and knowledge of  the feedstack, that the Agency establish
23      99.99 per cent efficiency as the definitive criteria for
24      operation.   Having this required instrumentation allows
25      this efficiency  to be continuously and adequately monitored;

-------
                                                         576




  '     and by utilization of readily available hardware, the  per-



  2     foraance of adjustments necessary to maintain  proper opera-



  3     tion is possible.



  4               Lest I be accused of being an unappreciative



  $     audience, may I compliment the Agency on  the thoroughness



  6     and the care that has gone into the preparation of  the



  7     regulations, and may I thank you for your kind indulgence.



  8               CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you, and  would you



  '     answer questions from the panel?



 10               MR. LENGYEL:  Certainly.



 11               MR. LINDSEY:  I would like to talk a little  bit



 12     about the 20-year post-closure requirements, and, first of



 13     all, I think it would be useful to state  where we're coming



 14     from on this whole business and maybe ask you  how we can



 15     get around some problems if you would want  to  agree with



 16     US.



 17               Our intent in designing these landfill criteria



 18     and so forth was to prevent or greatly reduce  the release



 19     of contaminants from land disposal to nonmeasurable rates—



 20     that's what we're really trying to do here--using basically



 21     the liners to retard movement and also by preventing in-



 22     filtration after closure with the use of  cast.  So  that



 23     was the idea.  Now, the reason for the 20 years, our think-



 24     ing along those lines is that within 20 years  of post-



25     closure monitoring, we should be able to  detect the move-

-------
                                                           577



 1     ment if we have been unsuccessful in designing through  the



 2     capping mechanism.  We should be able to detect any move-



 3     ment, and then we can proceed to require additional moni-



 4     toring and/or remedial action as necessary.  I gather you



 5     don't believe that that will work, right?



 6               MR. LENGYEL:  In most instances it would work,



 7     but I need to point out Love Canal happened 25 years ago.



 8               MR. LINDSEY:  But we weren't monitoring that.



 9               MR. LENGYEL:  That's right, but it's coining to



10     the surface now, not 20 years but 25 years later.



11               MR. LINDSEY:  You're right, I mean I agree that



12     movement from a facility into the groundwater to damage



13     can frequently take decades—there's no question about  that,



n     but I would like to point out two things.  In the Love



15     Canal case, it was not designed at all like what we are



16     talking about here, and there wasn't any monitoring at  the



17     time of disposal or post-closure like what we have, and I



18     don't think that—I mean our thinking is that this would not



19     have happened had we had our standards and design standards



20     and monitoring standards in place.



21               But let me follow on, assume that we say 20 years



22     is not sufficient protection and we need to go further than



23     that, then the problem which we ran into is this, that how,



24     in effect, can we insure that that monitoring will occur?



25     Frequently what happens is that over decades, companies come

-------
                                                            578
  l      and go,  and what we are trying to do with these regulations
  2      the financial part of these regulations,  is to insure  that:
  3      there is enough money built up during the site life of the:
  4      operation to carry out that monitoring for 20 years post-
  5      closure; and we feel that the 20-year rate, we can build up
  6      enough money in a practical manner;  but beyond that, if you
  7      go, for  example, to requiring post-closure monitoring  ad
  8      infinitum,  for example, the cost of  doing that, the cost of
  9      building up the fund during the life of the site,  assuming
 10      a 20-year site life, becomes phenomenal,  and we are afraid
 11      what would happen is that the charges which would  be neceu-
 12      sary to  insure the buildup of that fund would be so great
 13      that what we would end up doing, in  fact, would be just the
 14      opposite of what we would like, which would be discouraging
 15      the use  of good facilities and illicit dumping, if you
 16      will, down into the streams and the  ditches and so forth,
 17      and that's  part of our dilemma.  If  we go beyond the 20
 18      years, then we have trouble insuring that the funds and
 19      money and so forth to carry this out would be there and
 20      that there  will be some responsible  entity to carry that
 21      out.  Do you have any comments you would  like to make  on
 22      that, because that's part of the problem?
 23               MR. LENGYEL:  Let me try to take this from your
 24      own comment about discouraging the use of good facilities.
25      My initial  statement that I don't think there's such a

-------
                                                                57<

  1     thing as an absolute facility, what would be a facility that
  2     would forever be secure and nothing would ever leach out of
  3     it, this good facility that you are referring to, definitely
  4     some material should be discouraged from going there.  In
  5     fact, some of it should never be permitted in there; whereas
  6     looking at Section 3004, the Agency takes a rather lenient
  1     position on that, saying that, essentially saying that if
  8     the landfill is designed properly,  sited in the right loca-
  9     tion, and operated properly, it will be able to accept any
 10     form of wastes any time, and I take exception to that.  I
 H     think there are certain wastes that should never go into
 12     a landfill.
 13               MR. LINDSEY:  I think I would disagree, particu-
 14     lady with regard to chemical groups, with certain classes
 15     of material, for example, the volatile materials, we have
 16     very definite limitations on what can be put in there.  May-
 17     be we haven't gone far enough, in your opinion; and if
 18     that's the case and you think we should expand this list,
 19     your suggestions would be well received.
 20               MR. LENGYEL:  I think 1 could perhaps name at
 2]     least half a dozen or more classes  of material s which I
 22     would, from my experience, I would  say they should never
 23     appear in a landfill.  There are acceptable routes, not very
 24     much more costly, but would be, in  fact, much more suitable.
25               MR. LINDSEY:  We would like to receive your sug-

-------
                                                                   i8o
 1     gestions  and  the  rationale  for  that  in each case,  if we
 2     could.  That  would  be very  helpful to us.
 3              MR. LENGYEL:  Certainly.
 4              MR. LEHMAN:  Mr.  Lengyel,  I wanted  to  amplify  some
 5     of  your comments  about site selection and buffer zone con-
 6     cept.  As I understood your remarks, you were basically  say-
 7     ing that  a 200-foot buffer  zone  requirement is somewhat
 8     arbitrary and really ought  to be more, I guess the word
 9     'would be  tailored,  if I could paraphrase your remark, to
10     the type  of facility or type of  waste that's  involved and
11     BO  on, and then you also  pointed out that you can  build  pro-
12     tective barriers  to allow,  basically allow a  smaller buffer
13     zone than 200 feet.  That may be true for--in your case, you
14     cited a blast or  some sort  of an explosion--a protective
15     "buffer would  certainly be a help there for noise and other
16     reasons;  but  a third reason we wanted a setback  was to allow
17     Eor, particularly in the  case of landfilling  operations, a
18     zone, if  you  will,  where  one could place groundwater moni-
19     toring equipment  such that  if a  problem were  detected, it
20     would be  detected before  it left the boundaries  of the
2)     facility  itself,  and some sort of counter-pumping  or some
22     other type of remedial action might  be initiated there.
23     Now, if we were to  allow  a  smaller buffer zone,  as you are
74     indicating, how would you get at that aspect  of  it, in other
25      words, the ability  to place monitoring equipment down to

-------
                                                            58i
 i      provide some  sort  of  early warning,  if you will,  before  the
 2      material  actually  leaves  the  site  boundaries?
 3                MR. LEHGYEL:  My feeling about  it was that buffer
 4      zones  should  be  no greater, no  less,  than the  distance to
 5      the bottom seal  of the  landfill.   Say, the blue clay, for
 5      example,  is 200  feet  down, then, indeed,  a 200-foot  buffer
 7      zone would apply,  because you can  put your monitoring wells
 8      out there anywhere in that buffer  zone., and you can  build a
 9     protective dike  of clay in case seepage is detected.  If
10      the bottom seal  is only five  feet  down or ten  feet down,
11      then ten  foot of a buffer zone  would be quite  sufficient,
12      because within that distance  of land, you could get  down to
13      the bottom seal  of the  landfill.
14                MR. LEHMAN:   Is this  sort  of a  geometrical analogy
15      here or you're assuming—
16                MR. LENGYEL (interrupting): Oh, yes, it is,
17      quite.
18                MR. LEHMAN  (continuing):   —diagonal drilling  or
19      something?
20                MR. LENGYEL:  Well, it would be trenching.  To get
2i      200 feet  down, you need off a 45-degree angle, so consequent'
22      ly I'm talkingabout a 200 by 200 area.
23                MR. LEHMAN:   O.K.,  I  can understand  that line  of
24      thinking,  but that still  doesn't give you very much  leeway,
25      does it,  in terms  of remedial action  in case you  find a

-------
                                                          582




  1     problem?



  2               MR. LENGYEL:  Well, it wouldn't give you any less



  3     leeway than the 200-foot arbitrary boundary would.



  4               MR. LEHMAN:  I guess I don't understand that re-



  5     sponse.  Let's just use a hypothetical example.  Let's just



  6     say that the bottom of a landfill was at five feet, and you



  7     allowed—the buffer zone here is 200 feet.  According to



  8     your geometrical analogy, you could put monitoring equip-



  9     ment around it at a five-foot distance, but that allows



 10     you 195 feet of safety zone, if you will, to do something



 li     about it if you find some problem.



 12               MR. LENGYEL:  O.K., let's look at something dif-



 13     ferent, then.  Recently I saw a landfill in Illinois that



 14     has some pretty dense clay underneath it, something like:



 '5     120 feet, of nine or ten minus clay, pretty good clay.  If



 I6     the downward migration is stopped by 180 feet of blue clay,



 l7     wouldn't you say 180 feet of equally dense clay to the Hides



 18     would also stop the migration?  If that landfill is ap-



 19     proved for disposal under such circumstances, say, if it:



 20     was only 60 feet of blue clay layer underneath this land-



 21     fill, O.K., and that was deemed adequate, then he would not



 22     need 200 feet along the sides either.  Sixty feet to the



 23     sides would be adequate for him also.



 24               MR. FIELDS:  If the only consideration was—you



25     know, what you are talking about, you are only talking

-------
                                                            583
 l      one aspect, which is buffer for groundwater contamination,
       but there are other things, too, which are indicated in
 3      our regulations that we're concerned about in terms of ex-
 4      plosions, fire, and other things, so, for example, ten feet
 .      would probably not be adequate enough for.  I think you
       will be willing to admit that?
 6
                 MR. LENGYEL:  Sir, if you drive along the Inter-
       state 55, you will see Joliet Arsenal, which contains a
 o
       fair amount of explosives, and you can see it from the high-
10      way about 500 feet away; and if that went off 500 feet away,
       I think it would cook the neighborhood.  It's not really
       what is exploding but just under what conditions.
                 Let me give you a little example from my back-
14
       ground.  We were running an experiment with about a pint
       of chemicals in a proof-tested vessel, 1,800 PSI, and some-
       body misheard the directions and measured in slightly more
17     than what should have been in there—we're only talking a
1g     few teaspoonfuls—when that thing, exploded, it lifted out a
       steel door that I couldn't have picked up, it tore out 20
       feet of fencing, and one of the steel plugs traveled about

       cinderblocks.  So where do you draw the line?  So far there
23      is no protection better than earthen dikes.  That's why
24      they put soldiers in foxholes.  So the 200-foot buffer zone,
25      if some people discard a case of ammunition into a landfill,

-------
                                                          584




       or into incinerators,  commercial incinerators,  when those



 2     go off, they'll  go,  and they'll  go more  than 200 feet,  and



 3     the only thing that  will stop  them is  something in the  way.



                 MR.  FIELDS:   To follow up on that point, are  you



 5     saying that the  structures or  protective barriers that  you



 6     are advocating instead of the  200-feet buffer zone ought to



 7     be waste specific?  For example, you're handling highly



 8     explosive wastes,  you  would require the designing of a  bu£-



 9     fer or structure that  would contain any explosion that  would



10     result from that waste, is that  it?



                 MR.  LENGYEL:  I think  it would be more site speci-



12     fie than waste specific.   It would depend on the size of



13     the structure  that contained explosive materials behind it.



'4     Obviously, if  something is in  a  60-or  70-foot tall tower,



15     a ten-foot dike  is not going to  do you much good.  And



       also the quantity, if  you have tons of material behind  it,



       the dike has to be several feet  thick  to be able to with-



'8     stand that and redirect the force.  We're trying to prevent



       the force from spreading laterally. It can go upwards  quite



20     a distance before  it does any  harm.



21               MR.  FIELDS:   I take  it also, then, you're againut



22     synthetic liners?



23               MR.  LENGYEL:  Yes, sir.



24               MR.  FIELDS:   You're  recommending that we should



25     not be using them at all in our  regs?   You made a general

-------
                                                            585



 1     statement regarding that, synthetic liners,  they would de-




 2     grade--I think you mentioned  they would degrade and we




 3     should not be specifying  them?




 4               MR. LENGYEL:  I don't  think  that there is any




 5     liner that could be a storer at feasible cost that would




 6     stop all organic materials or even a majority of organic




 7     materials from not eating through it.  Right now 1 am in




 8     the process of specifying certain valves, and I had a lot




 9     of trouble finding valves that could handle  solvents.




10     Usually their seals go, and they are usually flexible




11     materials, just like liners would be.  PVC,  polyethylene,




12     polyvinyl, polyvinylchloride—I  said that before—but poly-



13     propylene, just about any one of these, one  solvent or




14     another will attack it; and some of these solvents like




IS     Xylene and the various forms  of  these  various solvents are




16     present in a great quantity in landfills or  could be  present




17     and every one of them would eat  away the liner, in effect,



18     pure toluene, a solvent that  is  used to glue the liner to-



19     gether, because it dissolves  it.  So sooner  or later, any of




20     these compounds, if it came to the liner would eat a  hole



21     in it; and once degradation begins, it continues.



22               MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  You  mentioned that you didn't




23     think that 1,000 degrees Centigrade with two-second re-




24     tention time for an incinerator  was an appropriate standard,




25     and you alluded to several chemicals which can be easily de-

-------
                                                            586


       graded at less temperature than that.  Do you have a sug-

 2
       gestion on what should be a minimum temperature or standard


 3     for incinerators?
 4
 6
                 MR. LENGYEL:  No, I don't think I--it would be
       preferable, in view of an incincerator, in terms of its
       residence time and temperature, that new regulations re-
 7     quire the installation of fairly complex instrumentation to


       monitor the stack conditions, and I think I would rather take


 9     that as the indication that the incinerator is working well.


 10     If we are introducing, let's take a difficult  to combust


 11     compound, say, decachlorobiphenyl, which is probably the


 12     least combustible of all the chlorobiphenyl compounds, the


 13     presence of any carbon / carbon bond,  or carbon/carbon double


 14     bond, in that stack gas would indicate that combustion is


 15     not working well, and that could be fairly simply monitored


 16     with an infrared instrument.  So I think that, rather than


 17     setting an arbitrary standard saying that the incinerator


 18     has to be so many feet by so many feet and has to work at


 19     a certain temperature, let's look at the actual performance


 20     of it, what does the stack say.  If the stack gases say


 21      that the material has been destroyed, it was effected in


 22     half a second at 800 degrees, fine.  If the efficiency is


 23      not there, all the operator has to do is juggle his condi-


 24      tions a little bit, cut back on his fuel feed, increase his


25      air or increase his temperature.  He has the options now to

-------
                                                               587



  1     change his  parameters.   He  is  not  locked into a 2,000-



  2     degree,  two-second time.



  3               MR.  MC LAUGHLIN:  What is  released while he  is



  4     playing  with  these temperatures?



  5               MR.  LENGYEL:   Probably bio  carbons   are




  6     released.



  7               MR.  MC LAUGHLIN:  And  you  said that the  200-foot



  8     barrier  was not  really  necessary as  protection to  keep



  9     people off  the site.  Yet don't  you  think that if  the  in-



 10     cinerator was  within, say,  20  foot of  the properly line,



 11     while you were playing  with the  temperatures to get  every-



 12     thing mixed right, you  might be  releasing some fumes?



 13               MR.  LENGYEL:  Well,  let's  approach it slightly



 14     differently,  then.  If  I'm  running two seconds,  1,000 de-



 15     grees F., I can  be belching out  all  the fumes I want all



 16     the day  long because I'm within  the  Agency's criteria.  I



 17     can be polluting-happy  all  day long  regardless of  what  my



 18     stack instrumentation says, I  am maintaining my 1,000 de-



 19     grees, two  seconds.



 20               MR.  MC LAUGHLIN:  You  won't  break  the  double



 21     bonds?



 22               MR.  LENGYEL:   I don't  know.   It's  possible



 23               MR.  LEHMAN:   I would like  to follow up on  another



 24     point you made,  I  believe early  in your remarks, about  al-



25     luding to the  mobility  of surface soils in terms of  red

-------
                                                            589





 1      snow in Sweden and so on, and am I correct in assuming that




 2      the gist of your remark was that you believed that land




 3      fanning is an inappropriate methodology for waste disposal




 4      because of the potential mobility of the surface soil?




 5                MR. LENGYEL:  It really is a question of what was




 6      disposed.  I am sure that some materials could be land




 1      farmed and where there is high degree of mobility, and I




 8      was citing extreme examples where this high degree of




 9      mobility still would not create an imminent hazard to any-



10      one, but let's say--and I've seen this one—crankcase oil,




11      automotive crankcase oil, being soil farmed, that contains




12      a fair amount of lead, nickel, some chromium, in some cases




13      some of the alloys like tantalum, that could become an air-




14      borne hazard.  What is more, in extreme cases like this, it




15      would be rather difficult to trace where it came from also,



16      so there's no way of fixing liabilities.



17                MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you.



18                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you very much.




19                The next person this morning is Leo Domzalski



20      from Chicago.




21                   STATEMENT OF LEO DOMZALSKI




22                MR. DOMZALSKI:  I have only this one copy of my




23      comments.  I didn't really expect to comment today, so I




24      didn't come prepared, but I do have this.  It's legible and



25      I would leave it with the court reporter after I am finish-

-------
                                                              589



       ed, if  that's  O.K.?



 2                CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:   That will  be  fine.



 3                MR.  DOMZALSKI:  My name  is Leo  Domzalski.   1



 4     would like to  offer  some comments  as a  private  citizen



                  I have  listened to most  of the  comments  made at



       these RCRA hearings  in the  past three days and  feel  com-



       pelled  to  speak my piece.



 8                By now  it  is clear to everyone  that we have a



 9     problem, and EPA  is  appropriately  addressing this  problem



 10     pretty  thoroughly.   However, there is obviously a  lot of



 11     emotion, as might be expected,  when it  comes to hazardous



 12     waste.  Too many  people think that industry  is  bad—all bad



 13     I don't think  so.



 14                It's  unfortunate  that we, as  a  people, sometimes



 15     allow problems  to develop rather than take steps to  prevent



 16     them, but  that's  the way we are.   People  don't  usually re-



 17     pair the roof  until  it leaks.   They don't go on a  diet un-



 18     til they are overweight—and they  don't set  up  sold waste



       regulations, which are costly,  until they see there  is a



 20     problem.



 21                 Industry is  faulted for  not preventing the  prob-



 22     lem, and to some  extent this is justified.   But how  many



 23     environmentally concerned people are there who  will  pay one



 24      company 10 per  cent  more or 5 per  cent  more  for their prod-



25      uct because that company does all  the things right to pro-

-------
                                                          590
 1      tect  the  air, water,  land, while other companies  don't?
 2      There wouldn't be  enough  environmentally concerned cus-
 3      tomers  to keep that company  in  business.
                  I believe that  industry will cooperate  and comply
        with  any  workable  regulatory program.  It would be better
        if  that program makes  economic  sense, but at  least it hag
        got to be workable, possible.
 8                From all that I have  heard and  from my  own study
 9      of  the regulations as  proposed  December  18, 1978,  the EPA
 10      criteria  for designating  a waste as "hazardous" are too
 I'       broad.  These criteria will  result in so  much waste falling
        into  the  hazardous category  that there is no  way  it can
 13       ever  go to the waste disposal facilities  that  comply with
        these regulations.  We have  heard again and again of the
 15      people's  concern and alarm over hazardous waste and how
 16       they  don't want disposal facilities anywhere  near them.
 '7       Well, waste has to go  some   place.  Even  if you incinerate,
 18       there is  ash that  must go some  place—and I happen to think
        that  incineration  is often not  the best solution  environ-
 20       mentally
                  I think  that part  of  the answer, granted, maybe
 22       only  a part, lies  in recognizing that not all wastes are
 23       equally hazardous  before we  even brand them with  the haz-
 24       ardous designation.  I think EPA should seriously consider
25       reserving the designation "hazardous" for those wastes th«

-------
                                                           591



  1      are truly hazardous in the usual use of the word, maybe




  2      more  in line  with DOT criteria for hazardous materials.



  3      Other waste that needs to be controlled and disposed of



  4      properly might simply be called regulated waste or con-



  5      trolled waste.  Actually, your name "special waste" may be



  6      even better,  but I share the concern that the gentleman hac



  7      earlier that  once a waste has been branded as hazardous or



  8      even is on the same page with hazardous wastes, it's going



  9      to be much tougher to find a place to dispose of it, whet-



 10      her it's justified or not.



 11                1 have a number of detailed comments pertaining



 12      to the specifics of the proposed regulations but will sub-



 13      rait them in writing separately in order to avoid diluting



 14      these general comments.



 15                One other comment, though, if EPA recognizes and



 16      agrees that there is going to be a serious problem estab-



 17      lishing enough acceptable disposal sites, it ought to be



 18      trying harder to do something about it, at least speak up



 19      loud and clear that these, or any, regulations it proposes



 20      cannot work unless government and the public cooperate in



 21      making sites  available.



 22                Thank you.



 23                While these comments are general,  I would be



 24      happy to go into some specifics if you'd like or answer



25      questions.

-------
                                                            592
 1                CHAIRPERSON QARRAH:   If you have  sort of a general
 2      outline  of your specific  comments,  it might help the panel
 3      members  in their asking you questions and seeing exactly
 4      how you  intend for  us to  change the regulations.  That  is
 5      the purpose of this hearing.
 6                MR.  DOMZALSKI:   I think for one thing one of  the
 7      things that could be  done to perhaps decrease the number of
 8      wastes that would fall under the hazardous  category and be
 9      labeled  or designated as  hazardous  is the pH limitation,
10      either les en  this  pH restriction or maybe  eliminate it for
11      those wastes to be  called hazardous.  That  doesn't mean
]2      they shouldn't be regulated,  controlled,  manifest and every-
13      thing else under Subtitle C,  but don't put  them in the  same
]4      category,  same designation, with PCB's and  a lot of other
15      things that people  are so concerned about.   If you took a
16      load of  vinegar some  place to dispose of  it, it's going to
17      be hazardous waste, right?
18                MR.  LINOSEY: I gather you would  like us to take
19      the hazardous  waste category and divide it  into, say,two
2Q      classes» the hazardous class and a regulated class.  Pre-
21      sumably, if we were to do that, the reason  we would do  that
22      would be because we are going to apply some lesser con-
23      trols either over the movement, the administrative controls,
24      and/or perhaps the  technical controls for disposal.  Do you
25      have any suggestions, assuming we were to do that, to try

-------
                                                            593




1      to draw  a  line to separate hazardous  waste  or wastes to be



2      regulated into two categories,  one  which we  could  call haz-



3      ardous  and  other to be  called special  or some  other  cate-



4      gory?   What kinds of things would we cut out for that



5      lesser  hazardous, set of  hazardous  materials than  for the



6      more hazardous ones, would we cut out  the manifest or what



7      other kind  of changes would we  make?



8               MR. DOMZALSKI:   Actually, I  think  the firet thing



9      just don't  put the label  "hazardous" on  it.  That's  one of



10      my major points.  Secondly, how would  you treat it differ-



11      ently,  I think it would depend  on the  waste  itself.   It



12      would have  to depend on the waste itself. If  it's not toxic



13      and is  not  really hazardous, for  example, take vinegar or



14      take lube oil,  if it's  not hazardous,  why call it  hazard-



15      ous and just raise a lot  of red flags, as was  referred to



16      yesterday,  and get people so worried about it  they didn't



17      want to touch the drums.   It's  just, I think,  raising un-



18      necessary barriers,  raising unnecessary  problems.  pH,  as



19      I  say,  is possibly one  thing that could  enter  into this



20      thing.   I certainly don't profess to have the  answer.   I'm



21      just raising this as a  comment.



22               MR.  FIELDS:   I  think  your major concern  in that



23      regard  was  the  fact that  you didn't think there would be



24      enough  facilities to handle all the hazardous  waste  unless



25      we  had  these two categories, truly  hazardous versus  regu-

-------
                                                         594


        lated materials.   I was wondering, are you  aware  of  the


 2      interim status  provisions  in  the  Section  3005  of  the Act?


 3               MR. OOMZALSKI:   Yes.


 4               MR. FIELDS:  That would have some effect in  terms


        of  assure that  there will  be  some capacity  to  handle those
 6
 9
13
       wastes  in  these  regulations when  they do  take effect.
 7               MR.  OOMZALSKI:   I guess what  I am saying is,  in

 o
        all honesty,  I think  that  interim status could  go on  for-
        ever and  you're not  going  to get  there.
10               MR. LINDSEY:  One more  thing  I would  like  to  fol-


11      low up  on.   You made  the  statement that you felt  that often


        times,  anyway, incineration was not  the good or best en-
       vironmental  solution.  Can you amplify  that, why  did  you
14      feel  that  that would be  the case?


15                MR. DOMZALSKI:  Well, I guess not really, but


16      certainly  wastes  that are mostly water are not a very sen-


17      sible  thing  to incinerate.  You can do it.  All you do is


18      evaporate  the water, and you've still got mostly--


19                MR. LINDSEY (interrupting):  O.K.,  it is not be--


20      cause  of environmental impact but because certain things


21      just  don't lend themselves to incineration?


22                MR. DOMZALSKI:  Yes, I think even environmental


23      impact for that matter.  If it's going to take a lot of


24      fuel  to incinerate the waste, you might be better off to


25      letit  biodegrade  in the  ground than burn it.  It would just

-------
                                                               595



  1      both use up the energy and put out more C02 into the atmos-



  2      phere.



  3                If you would like another comment, I'll give you



  4      another one.



  5                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Sure.



  6                MR. DOMZALSKI:  I think, for example, there's a



  7      requirement in the regulations that stipulates the use of



  8      tanks designed to meet OSHA flammable storage require-



  9      ments.   I see little justification for that kind of re-



 10      quirement for a tank to store a noncombustible sludge.



 11      Maybe I misinterpret the regulations, but that seems to me



 12      what they're saying.



 13                MR. FIELDS:  Those specifications when we apply



 14      them to flammable, combustible materials stored at facili-



 15      ties, and we require some additional things over and above



 16      OSHA.



 17                MR. DOMZALSKI:  If that's the way it will be



 18      interpreted, fine, but I don't think that's the way it



 19      reads.



 20                MR. FIELDS:  We'11 .clarify that in the final



 21      rulemaking process.



 22                MR. DOMZALSKI:  One other category, if I may,



 23      I would  get into.  I think that the extent of monitoring



 24      and recording and reporting for incinerator operations,



25      both test burns and  so-called operational burns, is ex-

-------
                                                             596



        cessive, particularly for small process incinerators.   It



        would be perfectly in order for a large waste incinerator;



  3     but if you are talking about a small incinerator, I think
  4
        it's excessive; but, say, somebody that is operating an in-
  5     cinerator to handle the off gas from a drying oven or a



  6     paint oven or something, 1 have nothing to do with paint



        ovens, but I can see it would be ridiculous to have all of



        these controls and reporting on hundreds of those inciner-



  9     ators.



 10               MR. FIELDS:  Could you give us some specific



 11      examples of things you would delete for test burn, for a



 12      small generator, for example?



 13                MR. DOMZALSK1:  Well, again I do intend to put



 14      this into writing, but, for example, 1 think that 1 would



 15      contend that if the incinerator has been designed and



 16      tested and shown to be effective in handling a certain



 17      class of materials, and it has been tested to cover the



 18      range, let's say from 1 per cent to 20 per cent chlorinatec



 19      hydrocarbons, and today your incinerating company gets 5per



 20      cent, and tomorrow your incinerating company gets 10 per



 21      cent, maybe you could call those two different wastes.  1



 22      would say there is no point to testing every time.  If it'i



 23      been tested and approved over the range, that's it.



 24                MR. FIELDS  We're trying to get at that in our



25      regulations by saying that test burns would not be re-

-------
                                                        597




  1      quired for wastes which are not significantly different in




  2      characteristics, O.K., from a waste that has previously




  3      been tested, but I guess you are pointing to the fact that




  4      we have not quantified what we mean by significantly dif-




  5      ferent.




  6                MR. DOMZALSKI:  I think one way to quantify it




  7      would be to say that they have been tested over the range.




  8      Who cares if it's 1 per cent or 90 per cent if it's been




  9      tested over the whole range?  I mean you can come along anc




 10      say it's significantly different, but so what?




 11                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  1 guess we have no more




 12      questions.  Thank you very much.




 13                We'll take a 15-minute break and reconvene at




 14      10:20.




 15                Off the record.




 16                (A short recess was taken.)




 17                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  On the record.




 18                The next speaker this morning is George E. Brown



 19      from Mallinckrodt.



 20                   STATEMENT OF GOERGE E. BROWN




 21                MR. BROWN:  Thank you.  I would like to just



 22      give some oral testimony at the moment, and then I'll fol-



 23      low up by giving written comments on all aspects of the




 24      regulations.




25                My name is George Brown, and I am employed by

-------
                                                             598





 1      Mallinckrodt.  The head office for the corporate head-



 2      quarters are here in St. Louis as wall as our main manu-



 3      facturing facility located in St. Louis.   However, I



 4      would like to direct my particular remarks this morning to



 5      land farming.  I have not heard anyone discuss land far-



 6      ming.



 7                We do operate & sizeable land farm facility in



 8      North Carolina for a disposal of an organic residue.  We



 9      have been in this field for some four years, and we have



10      found that it is an exceedingly difficult technical area to



11      operate in.  For instance, I am totally amazed every time



12      we analyze the system in depth at the ability of soil



13      bacteria to degrade organic materials.  It's truly diffi-



14      cult to overestimate the ability of soil bacteria to de-



15      grade organic materials.  It is very easy to write over-



16      restrictive regulations based upon some potential or some



17      person's idea of a potential problem with soil.  There are



18      certainly notable cases where soils have literally been



19      ruined for extended periods of time because of a mis-



20      application of material to the soils.  However, it is a



21      very technical field, and it can be analyzed in a technical



22      manner.  In fact, we like to look at it as an extension of



23      a chemical process just like making any other product.



24                If you understand the mechanism of how the land-



25      fill or land application system operates and how the soil

-------
                                                            599




  1      bacteria operate, one can design a system which is very



  2      adequate, offers all the protection for the environment



  3      that should be offered, and certainly protection to the



  4      public, and performs the job as originally intended.



  5                I am quite surprised—well, I am really very



  6      gratified to see the difference between the regulations as



  7      they came out on land farming as opposed to the draft docu-



  8      ments that 1 have read from late last summer.  These are



  9      much more flexible.



 10                However, I do have one specific comment.  In the



 11      listing of requirements for land farming, there are several



 12      in here which may be appropriate under some conditions and



 13      might be most inappropriate under other conditions, de-



 14      pending upon the kind of material that is being disposed



 15      of.




 16                For instance, in maintaining an aerobic situ-



 17      ation, in other words, there's a  statement in here you



 18      shall not have it anaerobic.   I would like to call your



 19      attention to a very common kind of operation, A chemical



 20      operation.that takes place in the soil is a conversion of



 21      organic nitrogen or ammonium nitrogen first to nitrate and



 22      then eventually de-nitrifying the nitrate to nitrogen, and



 23      this is a technique that is used to dispose of very high



 24      nitrogenous waste materials.  It is necessary, absolutely



25      necessary,  to have an anaerobic situation in order to de-

-------
                                                          600




 1      nitrify.  If there are wastes, for instance, that have a



 2      high nitrate content, then you would want an anaerobic



 3      situation.  In order to denitrify, it is absolutely neces-



 4      sary.



 5                I grant that there are notes following almost



 6      every one of these standards, operational standards; but



 7      I am concerned and I would like to see added to this the



 8      criteria by which the Administrator will be able to offer



 9      flexibility.  If the flexibility, which I am really con-



10      cerned about, is that the standard will be followed unless



11      it can be proven almost without exception that superior



12      protection of the environment will be offered or the Stan-



13      dard as written would not function.  If it is that re-



14      strictive, then I have a feeling we may very rapidly get



15      into a situation where we are trying to fit a square peg



16      into a round hole, because there is a lot of technology



17      being developed in this area, and there's a lot of technolc



18      gy yet to be developed; and to prevent the application of



19      this technology or even the application of research and



20      development in this area, so that technology can be im-



21      proved, I think may be missing the point.



22                My main emphasis here is that this is a rew field



23      and the design concepts are not really well understood and



24      there's still a lot to be done in this area, and I would



25      really prefer to see this thing implemented in the direc-

-------
                                                             601




  l      tion of a performance objective,instead of operational



  2      standards which may or may not be adequate, and allowing



  3      a lot of flexibility for the specific system that is being



  4      employed.



  5                I would think that in this area, even in more



  6      than landfill, this would be very waste specific as far as



  7      standards are concerned as opposed to a rather uniform



  8      standard for all hazardous wastes.



  9                1 do have some other comments.  It's in the other



 10      area—it's in the criteria, if I may jump to that, and then



 11      I will be willing to discuss land farming in more detail.



 12                In the criteria, with the listing of materials



 13      that are to be classified as hazardous, there's two parts



 14      of this thing which give  a concern to me.



 15                No. 1, there is no discrimination, particularly



 16      between a degree of hazard—this has been alluded to be-



 17      forp--but some materials are extremely hazardous and re-



 18      quire extreme care in their management.  Other materials



 19      which have been in such common usage, like ordinary road



 20      salt, that the general public and everyone else knows how



 21      to generally manage those kinds of things, so that there



 22      is no hazard to themselves or to the public, or it is ac-



 23      ceptable to degrade the environment to the point necessary



 24      to use that material.  Again I will turn to road salt.



25      Road salt is a very common material that is put on the

-------
                                                           602
  1      roads in order to control ice, but the sodium chloride
  2      would be classed as a hazardous material, and it is cer-
  3      tainly an act of disposal if it's put on a road because it
  4      can get into surface waters.  There are a number of other
  5      materials--! just draw that as an example, because there's
  6      whole gradations of materials, of which some are extremely
  1      hazardous and others are certainly less hazardous and do
  8      not require the management controls that would be necessarj
  9      for the more dangerous materials.
 ]0                The landfill requirements, the standards for
 n      landfill, allow very little flexibility in this area.  The
 ]2      standard for the landfill is so constructed that it can
 ]3      eocept almost any of these waste materials outside of may-
 14      be some very special ones, and I have a feeling this will
 15      lead to a real problem of finding adequate sites or num-
 16      her8 of sites to dispose of these hazardous materials.
 17      Rather than selecting a site for this kind of material or
 1g      this site for this kind of a material, we are going to
 lg      have to design all of our sites for handling most any of
 20      these kind of materials, and we are going to have diffi-
 2]      culty in finding siting places.
 22                A good classic example, I'm sure you are well
 23      aware, is what's going on in New Jersey where literally
 24      you call up the administrator and ask him--you have a
25      waste--"Where can I put it?" and he tells you which land-

-------
                                                             603
  l      fill to go to.   I think this will probably be the rule
  2      rather than the exception.
  3                The other aspect of the criteria which concerns
  4      me is that there is no minimum limitation, in other words,
  5      a minimum quantity which is not considered to be hazardous
  6      any more.  Unless you kind of read between the lines—and
  7      it's not clear at all, and maybe this ought to be clari-
  8      fled--there is a list of materials that DOT calls hazard-
  9      ous, and they're listed here in your document; but if you
 10      read the DOT regulations, there are certain minimum quan-
 11      tities that do not require the labeling and the packaging
 12      as pointed out in the DOT regulations.
 13                Now, presumably, but I'm not sure whether this
 14      is true or not, if you had such a minimum quantity that
 15     daes not require the labeling nor the packaging that nor-
 16      mally would be required for larger materials, then it is
 17      not hazardous and does not fall into your criteria.  I
 18      don't think that's the case, but it appears that it might
 19      be that that minimum quantity not  requiring   that speci-
 20     alized labeling and packaging would not be considered to
 2i      be hazardous.
 22                The other approach that might be used to this
 23      area is one that the water quality program used in deter-
 24      mination of hazardous quantities.  Remember the spill con-
25      trol regulation which was remanded to EPA because it was

-------
                                                              604
  1      not very  site specific, but, at any rate, a  tremendous
  2      amount of work was done at  that tine  to determine hazard-
  3      ous quantities of these toxic mated, ale.  It would  seem to
  4      me that that is a realistic approach  to determining some
  5      minimum quantity that would be called hazardous.
  6                As an example, as 1 remember, acetic acid,  it
  7      was 100 pounds of acetic acid that would be  considered  to
  8      be a hazardous quantity, and this was  based upon what  dam-
  9      age it might do to the environment if it was spilled, and
 10      that kind of requirement would seem to me would be  very
 11      justified here, because under this situation where  you  have
 12      a managed waste program, whether it's hazardous or  non-
 13      hazardous, certainly you are talking  about controlling
 14      that material from its origin point to its final destina-
 15      tion, so  that it isn't going to be spilled into a river
 16      or into a lake, it's going  to be placed in the ground un-
 17      doubtedly, or raost of it will be, in  a nice, controlled,
 18      and well-designed facility; and it would seem to me that
 19      the hazardous quantities that were developed under  that
 20      spill control program would be most applicable to deter-
 21      mination  of whether a material is hazardous  and had to  fol
 22      low all of the detailed requirements  that are spelled out
 23      for the hazardous materials.
 24                This is going to bear directly on  the economics.
25      I seriously question, and many of my  cohorts seriously

-------
                                                           605





 1      question,  this thing of 10 to 15 per cent of industrial




 2      wastes  as  being hazardous, because every time we make a




 3      survey,  it looks like it is 75 per cent that's hazardous



 4      and 25  per cent nonhazardous instead of the other way




 5      around,  because of the lack of defining minimum quantities




 6      or  defining minimum concentrations, and I think we've got




 7      a much  larger problem than what we are  indicating here; and




 8      this all leads to the point of finding  adequate sites for




 9      disposal of these materials.




10                As I said,  I will write up my comments in more  de-




11      tail and submit them.




12                MR. LINDSEY:  Mr. Brown, to start off here,  a




13      couple  questions.  You have hit on some of the problems




14      which we have faced in trying to develop what we hope are




15      reasonable regulations.   You mentioned, for example,  the




16      developmental category that land farming falls in in the




17      sense that the technology is rapidly developing.  We  recog-



18      nize that.  You said that the way in which you would rather




19      see us handle that,  rather than design  standards with notes




20      to  provide flexibility,  you would rather see us go to some




21      sort of  a  performance objective.   We have considered that



22      sort of  an approach,  not only for land  farming but for




23      others,  and the problem is that with performance objectives,




24      it  is rather tough to develop enforceable and measureable




25      controls.   In other words, we can develop an objective

-------
                                                           606


 1      which says  thou  shalt  not  pollute  the  groundvater beyond
 2
        some  level  or  there won't be  any emissions  from,  say,  a
        land  fanning  above  some  level.   The  problem is  when you


        get a specific  design, how  does  one  then  develop  limits


        around the  operation of  that  specific  facility  that can be


 6      enforced and  measured and overseen and things like  that,


 7       and that's  the  reason why we  do  have basically  these per-


 8       formance objectives which are basically the human health

 n
        and environmental standards that you see  at the front


10       which, really,  in effect, override the other standards;


11       but we felt that in order to  be  able to administer  a regu-


12       latory program  the  design and operating standards were


13       necessary to  be able to  get a handle on it, although we do


14       recognize the flexibility problem.  Could you talk  to that


15       a  little bit  more?


16                MR. BROWN:  Yes.


17                MR. FIELDS:   If we  were to go to performance  ob-


        jectives, how would we develop and write  control  proce-


19       dures, I guess  is the problem?


20                MR. BROWN:  Yes,  I  would like to address  that


21       particularly.  I think  it ought  to be  handled something


22       like  the NBDS program is.   In other words, there  are cer-


23       tain  limits of  discharge.   Now,  granted,  it's a non-point


24       discharge in  almost every case.   Very  seldom is anything


25       ever  collected  from land farming so  that  there  would be a

-------
                                                           607



 1      point discharge; but  through ground monitoring, which  is



 2      spelled out  in  there, which I agree with, incidentally,



 3      100 per cent--it's something we do regularly—incidentally,



 4      we soil monitor up near the surface,  three  inches below



 5      the surface,  twelve inches below  the  surface, and three



 6      feet below the  surface, because we do find  variations here



 7      as to what is going on within the soil profiles; and if



 8      this is managed like  a NPDS program to where the permit--



 9      and a permit would have to be granted--is written around



10      certain maximum concentrations of the key materials that



ll      are to be applied to  that land, like, for instance, I'll



12      draw upon nitrate again--there is no  place  in here, for



13      instance, that  spells out the allowable nitrate that can be



14      leached into an aquifer.  You really  don't  do that.  All



15      you have is a drinking water quality  standard of ten mili-



16      gram per liter; but I think it is very possible, you see,



17      to grant a permit or write a pe rmit around  certain maximum



18      nitrate levels  that would be attenuated down to an aquifer



19      that would be for drinking water supply.



20                Also, I think you could address to any other



21      materials that  are applied to the land.  If there are heavy



22      metals, they would go, you could apply the  heavy metals up



23      to the capacity of the soil or until  they migrate.



24                MR. LINDSEY:  The problem with that is, though,



25      when somebody is designing a land farm and  wants a permit

-------
                                                          608




 1      and comes In and says, "Here, I want to build this thing,"



 2      how do we know ahead of time what the capacity of the soil



 3      under that is to attenuate, treat, reduce, et cetera?  We



 4      originally set out with the idea for landfills that we



 5      were going to try to model the release of materials out



 6      the bottom of a landfill and then predict the maximum con-



 1      centration of pollutants in the groundwater, and we spent



 8      a lot of money looking at different kinds of modeling ap-



 9      preaches that would be used.  As a matter of fact, we and



 10      our consultants, together and separately, traveled all ovei



 11       the world basically trying to investigate that, and we



 12       finally came to the conclusion that we just didn't know



 13       how to do it, the world just didn't know how to do it; anel



 14       that's the problem.  Ahead of time, the prediction techni-



 15      ques that we would use are not precise enough to know.  So



 16       what we have done basically is  to go the other route and



 17      say, well, we'll use design standards which have been



 18      shown or which we believe, to the best of anyone's reason-



 19      able expectation, and using safety factors to account



 20       where we have a relative lack of knowledge to provide that



 21       protection.



 22                 MR. BROWN:  You see, it is the performance ob-



 23       jective specifically, though, that—I grant you, and this



 24       I'm alluding to all the time--the design of these facili-



25       ties is so complicated and the technology is so profuse at

-------
                                                            609



 1       the  moment that it is really difficult to predict how long



 2       a landfill site or a land farming site can operate before



 3       it starts to fail.  It's extremely difficult, and I think



 4       the  only way you are going to determine this is through



 5       adequate monitoring, and there should be monitoring re-



 6       quirements along with the permit, so that as soon as it



 7       shows evidence of failure, then some modification is going



 8       to have to be made to it, either the situation corrected or



 9       the  site abandoned, one of the two.



10                 But, you see, I am concerned, and I'll reiterate



n       the  concern, is if you have too many standards and they



12       are  a little too inflexible, you may be trying to put a



13       square peg into a round hole and  really lose the true ob-



14       jective that you are looking for, and that is the safe dis-



15       posal of this waste material.  It is very easy to do this



16       by restricting the freedom of the technology.



17                 MR. FIELDS:  Two questions  first and then two



18       comments.



19                 You mentioned that soil organisms degrade more



20       organics than people would normally think?



21                 MR. BROWN:  Right.



22                 MR. FIELDS:  I interpret that to mean that you



23       feel that we are being too restrictive regarding the type



24       of things that could be degraded in the land farming en-



25       vironment?

-------
                                                          610


 ,                 MR.  BROWN:   Right.



 2                 MR.  FIELDS:   Do you have any data regarding some



 3       of these other additional wastes that you could send to us



 4       that might be  degraded in a land farm environment that we



 5       might not be aware of?



                  MR.  BROWN:   Yes, the volatiles, for instance.
 6


 7       Now, you have  excluded volatiles in here, and I presume



        the reason for excluding volatiles is a potential air pol-



        lution problem.  In other words, they escape from the soil



        and get out into the air rather than stay in the soil and



        degrade, and I think even you will grant that if you can



.        put a volatile in the  ground  and make sure it stays  there:



]3       until it is degraded,  that this would satisfy the require-
14
        merit.   That is not really in your  regulations, this allow-
        ance other than except by your note.



                  MR. FIELDS:   Yes, that's the purpose of the note.



17                MR. BROWN:   Notes don't apply to the volatile



]g      materials, I don't think, do they?  I thought that was an



        excluded material.



                  MR. FIELDS:   No, the standard says a volatile



        material, and we refer to the note in 250.45(c) which is



        the note which talks  about it not exceeding the maximum



        permissible air contaminant levels, O.K.?



24                MR. BROWN:   Well, I'm looking at (a), which is
25
        rather positive,  that says:

-------
                                                           611



 1                 "Hazardous wastes  not  amenable  to  land  farming,



 2       ignitable  wastes,  reactive wastes,  volatile  wastes, waste



 3       which  is incompatible when mixed."



 4                 MR.  FIELDS:   That  note says  see  the  note--



 5                 MR.  BROWN  (interrupting):  Associated with



 6       250.45?



 7                 MR.  FIELDS:   Right,  (c),  and that  note  says  that



 8       you can land farm  these materials if you  do  certain things,



 9       O.K.,  so the note  allows  you to  land farm volatile wastes.



10                 MR.  BROWN:  All right, there is  some flexibility.



11                 MR.  FIELDS:   Second  question, but  again we would



12       like some  data you might  have  regarding the  things that



13       could  be land  farmed that we might  not be  accounting for



14                 MR. BROWN:  Certainly.



15                 MR.  FIELDS:   We would  also like  any data you can



16       send us regarding  those waste  which should be managed  in



17       an anaerobic condition.   You indicated one example, but any



18       data you can send  us regarding additional  wastes  that  might



19       be land fanned,  given anaerobic  conditions,  would be ap-



20       preciated.



21                 The  other thing, too,  you made a comment that



22       landfill—I think  you made a comment that  landfill stan-



23       dards  currently  allow the acceptance of almost any type of



24       waste.  Was that your comment, that our standards would



25       allow  the  acceptance of almost any  type of waste  in a  land-

-------
                                                       612


 1      fill?

 2                MR. BROWN:  No, I would say you have excepted

 3      ignitable, reactive, and volatile wastes, as you pointed

 4      out, though, that there is some flexibility here if the

 5      system is designed for it.  No, I wouldn't say you unduly

 6      restricted the kinds of material that can be land farmed.

 7                MR. FIELDS:  I'm talking about landfilling now.

 8                MR. BROWN:  Oh, land-filling?

 9                MR. FIELDS:  Land-filling.

10                MR. BROWN:  Oh, yes.

11                MR. FIELDS:  I thought you made a statement  that
            •
12      we allow the acceptance of almost any type of a waste  in

13      a landfill?

'4                MR. BROWN:  No, no,  that isn't my point.  My

15      point is that the design and standards for a hazardous

'6      landfill site are quite restrictive and overly restrictive

I?      for many wastes  of which may,  in your criteria, be classi-

18      fied as hazardous; and this is going to lead to a diffi-

19      culty of finding adequate sites for all of these waste

20      materials, not reserving your  best facilities for the  most

21      hazardous materials.

22                MR. FIELDS:  My last question, what types of

23      wastes do you land farm at your facility?

24                MR. BROWN:  Ihis is  an organic waste.   It's  ring

25      compounds, aromatic hydrocarbon, difficult to degrade, in-

-------
                                                           613
 1       cieentally in a  typical  activated  sludge waste water
 2
        treatment  plant  where  you get  about  a,  oh,  70 per cent re-
 3       duction in COlD,  in  seven days a variation, which is  real-
        ly quite a system—that's seven days  of activated sludge,
        but they degrade very  well in  soils.
 6                 MR.  FIELDS:  It must be  a  different kind of
        bacteria,  then,  in what  we have in the  soils  than what you
        can culture in the activated sluge system?
 9                 MR.  BROWN:   I  think  what goes on, and we really
10
15
        don't  know, what we  think happens  is  the organic material
        gets  on the  soil  particles  and  is  stable,  stays  there,
12       while the bacteria  can  just,  so to speak,  chop away at  it
13       for & long period of  time.
14                MR.  LEHMAN:   Mr.  Brown,  you mentioned  that you
        and your colleagues have estimated  that 75  per cent of
        your wastes  or  thereabouts,  or up  to 75  per cent of  the
        wastes, might be hazardous as opposed to EPA'a estimates
18
        of  10  to  15  per cent.  Now,  two points,  one, could you
        share  with us your  infoimation and your  data concerning
        your testing on this because that  would  be of great  inter-
        est to us to know what wastes you  believe are hazardous
22       and what you don't?
23                MR. BROWN:  I'll tell you where the argument or
24       difference might be is in quantity.  Now, if you talk
        about  the quantity of waste, it's  not 75 per cent, but

-------
                                                            614




 1      it's probably the numbers of wastes that might be like the




 2      75 per cent rather than the 10 to 15 per cent.  Do you see




 3      what I mean?




 4                MR. LEHMAN:  Well, yes, but that's a big differ-




 5      ence, and our 10 to 15 per cent is based on a quantity.




 6      In other words, the 10 to 15 per cent is, in EFA's esti-




 7      mates, is not on the number of wastes but is on the abso-




 8      lute amount of wastes generated all across American in-




 9      dustry.



 10                MR. BROWN:  Our feeling is it's still much




 11       greater than 10 to 15 per cent.  I'll back off my 75, but




 12       I would be glad, yes, to show you some survey data.




 13                 MR. LEHMAN:  O.K.




 14                 MR. BROWN:  I have some survey data of our own




 15      plant that runs about, the total quantity is more like 50



 16       per cent would meet this criteria as you have drawn, un-




 17       less you are willing to add some minimum quantity, some-



 18       thing other than the 100 kilograms per month of all wastes




 19       I presume that applies to all wastes, not just one waste.




 20                 MR. LEHMAN:  That's correct, but moving on to




 2i       address that other point—well, there was a second ques-




 22       tion with respect to the 10 to 15 per cent, and that was




 23       you have to recognize that that estimate which we have




 24       made and which we have checked against our characteristics




25       and listings as recently as six months ago, we still come

-------
                                                             615



  1      up with about 10 to 15 per cent of all Industrial wastes



  2      being characterized as hazardous.  Now, you have to recog-



  3      nize that this cuts across all the industries that we are



  4      dealing with.  It may be that in the chemical industry that



  5      it will be higher than 10 or 15 per cent.  In other words,



  6      your estimate may be correct, but, in other words, our data



  7      does not necessarily, is not necessarily in conflict with



  8      your findings.  That's what I'm trying to say.



  9                MR. BROWN:  That could be because we do not have



 10      data on other industries.  It's the chemical industry, our



 11      primary data.



 12                MR. LEHMAN:  The second aspect I would like to



 13      explore with you, if I may, is this area of minimum quan-



 14      tity, or at least tying a quantity into some sort of haz-



 15      ardous quantity, and you suggest that we follow the lead



 16      of the 311 spill regulations as to hazardous quantities.



 17      Now, I'm not an expert on the 311 regulations, but my



 18      understanding is that the hazardous quantity concept ap-



 19      plies still in the navigable waters, and, consequently, is



 20      heavily dependent upon aquatic toxicity in establishing



 21      these hazardous quantities.  Could you explain or comment



 22      on that, in other words, how would one—I'm not sure what



 23      you meant by follow the lead of the regs, the 311 regs, do



 24      you mean adopt them directly or just the general concept



25      should be?

-------
                                                              616




 1                 MR.  BROWN:   No,  I was alluding to the general




 2       concept.   I don't think it could be adopted directly,  be-




 3       cause,  first of all,  it only dealt with nonremovable




 4       materials.  They did  not address the removable materials,,




 5       like  oils  and things  of that type, so it can't be adopted




 6       directly;  but the concept that they used in determining



 7       the toxic  quantity I  think is a very good one.  Now, it'll




 8       true  it is for aquatic environments.  It's the primary




 9       thrust  of  this thing.   I think you could add to that pro-



10       tection of groundwater for other uses like drinking water




11       standards, in other words, set some minimum quantity that:




12       would really give a potential harm to an aqua--that's  used




13       for drinking water.




14                 MR.  LEHMAN:   I would like to follow up just  in




 15       the same general area here about quantities.  I believe on<



 16       of the  comments you made was the DOT allows different




 17       placarding, packaging, and labeling requirements for small



 18       quantities of certain things that are listed within their



 19       regulations, and it's  unfortunate that Allen Roberts from




 20       the DOT is not with us today but he was here last evening—




 21      he's much more familiar with that than we are, but I think




 22       the point  I would like to discuss with you is that this, as




 23       I understand—I can't comment whether they do, I assume




 24       you are correct--but  assuming they do, my understanding




 25       from previous discussions with Mr. Roberts is that they do

-------
                                                             617




 1       not have any minimum quantity which is completelyexempted




 2      from all requirements under DOT regulations.  In other




 3      words, once a substance appears on the DOT's hazardous




 4      materials transportation list, it is regulated, it is




 5      within the system to some extent.  Now, is that what you




 6       had in mind here?




 7                 MR. BROWN:  Right.




 8                 MR. LEHMAN:  That we make a distinction as to




 9       the technical requirements on the basis of quantity or




 10       that we have an outright exemption for small quantities?




 11                 MR. BROWN:  No, I say that technical require-




 12       ments for the disposal and the management of that small




 13       quantity.  No, it ought to be in the system.  Either it's




 14       hazardous or it isn't hazardous material.  However,  I have




 15       always felt that the word "hazardous" is not a good word.




 16       I like the word "toxic" much better, because hazard, reall>




 17       in my mind, at least the way I have always defined it, is




 18       its potential to do harm.  A material can be toxic,  but



 19       you could have such small quantities that it would never




 20       be hazardous, because it has no potential of doing any




 21       harm, you see, but, now, in the DOT requirements, as I



 22       said.there--what is exempted, though, is the very rigid




 23       packaging and labeling requirements when you have small




 24       quantities of materials, and they drew this line generally




25       because there is no real danger or the IB is a minimal dangei

-------
                                                            618




 l       to the life and limb of the people that have to handle the




 2       material during shipment.




 3                 MR. LEHMAN:  O.K., that was the reason I was ex-




 4       loring this because, as I  understood your earlier remarks,




 5       you were saying that we should,  in essence,  establish a




 6       minimum quantity which is  not considered to  be hazardous,




 7       but you are not really, as I understand your--




 8                 MR. BROWN (interrupting):  Well, it could be




 9       toxic, it could be toxic but maybe not hazardous.




10                 MR. LEHMAN:  Let me address that,  if I may, for




11       a moment.  As you well know, the hazardous waste program




12       addresses not only toxic materials but also  hazardous




13       materials in the sense of  flammability, explosivity, re-




14       activity, and so on, so we cover a broader net than just




15       toxic.  I don't really understand your point of liking



16       toxic better than hazardous, but, anyway I just wanted to




17       get back to this other point that you weren't suggesting



18       an outright exemption, you were  really looking at a dif-



19       ferent set of requirements based on quantity?




20                 MR. BROWN:  That's right.




21                 MR. LINDSEY:  I  would  just like to pursue that




22       a little more because I think you said that  that should be




23       done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the potential




24       of any given waste to cause a problem.  You  would think a




25       case-by-case basis would—

-------
                                                             619
  1                MR. BROWN  (Interrupting):  Well, it's  impracti-
  2      cal to do it case by case.
  3                MR. LINDSEY:  That was my point.
  4                MR. BROWN:  However, I think it is very  practical
  5      to draw different classes of hazardous wastes— I  think
  6      that can be done, so that the requirements for  their dis-
  7      posal is also variable, in other words, will vary  by the
  8      class of waste.
  9                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  I guess we have  no  other
 10      questions.  Thank you very much.
 11                MR. BROWN:  Thank you.
 12                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  The next speaker  this morn-
 13      ing will be Joe Petrilli from Illinois EPA.
 U                   STATEMENT OF JOE PETRILLI
 15                MR. PETRILLI:  My name is Joe Petrilli,  and I'm
 16      with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.  I work
 17      in the division of land pollution control which  is respons-
 18      ible for implementing the Resource Conservation  and Re-
 19      covery Act.
 20                I will first comment on the portions of  the
 21      criteria which deserve specific attention and then offer
 22      more general comments about the overall Subtitle C ap-
 23      proach.
 24                The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
25      will submit additional detailed comments prior to  the

-------
                                                          620



 l      March  16  deadline.



 2                 Although  I will  primarily comment on the 3004



 3      proposal,  3001  and  3002  are also touched upon in this



 4      statement.



 5                 In regard to specific  comments, first we feel



 6      the  100 kilogram per month exception is  erroneous.  For



 7      example,  one drum per month of highly toxic pesticide



 8      waste  is  a lot  more different than waste, for instance,



 9      such as paint waste, and  should be handled differently.



10      Special waste exemptions,  based  upon volumes alone,  in our



11      opinion,  are wrong.  Other bw hazard materials but smaller



12      in volume  are not exempt,  assuming they  are over 100 kilo-



13      grams  per month in  generation.



14                 Secondly, regarding the 500-year flood plain, it



15      is our feelings that the 100-year flood  plain and/or the



16      flood  of  record,  whichever is greater, is sufficient.  The



17      500-year  flood  is not a  recognized design tool and should



18      be eliminated as  a  design  standard.



19                 Third,  it is our belief that liners and hazard-



20      °us  waste  facilities are unacceptable; and if they are al-



21      lowed--and we realize that certain areas of the country



22      are  not as fortunate as  Illinois in that they do not have



23      the  clay  deposits that we  do have—so in this regard, if



24      they are  allowed, terms  such as  being compatible with the



25      waste  to  be landfilled as  delineated in  the criteria should

-------
                                                              621



  1      be strictly defined.



  2                Fourth, exemptions for waste streams going to re-



  3      claimers./ recyclers is a huge loophole.  Without a mani-



  4      fest to prove delivery, for instance, we will be essential-



  5      ly in the same dilemma we are now.



  6                Fifth, publicly-owned treatment work sludges in



  7      many cases are hazardous wastes.  The NPDS requirements



  8      do not guarantee equivalency with Subtitle C requirements



  9      even with the advent of the super or the one-stop permit.



 10                We recognize in submitting these comments that



 11      the U.S. EPA may be virtually locked into the approach of



 '2      the December 18 document.



 13                Furthermore, we realize that the following pro-



 14      posed changes probably cannot be implemented now.  How-



 '5      ever, we believe these changes must be made eventually to



 16      provide an effective, yet rational, control, and may be



 17      considered during the two-year review period of Subtitle C



 18      regulations.



 19                In view of the previous proposals, Section 3004



 20      has become a more flexible document because of the addi-



 21      tion of notes after certain design and operating stan-



 22      dards.  It is certain that Illinois would have no hazard-



 23      ous waste disposal facilities except for the flexibility



 24      afforded by the design notes.  This does not mean, horever,



25      that Illinois is out of the woods yet.

-------
                                                              622



 1                In Illinois there are approximately 50 sites that



 2      have supplemental permits to accept special waste materials



 3      of some kind.



 4                Special waste is an Illinois designation which



 5      includes basically all liquids, sludges, and hazardous



 6      wastes.  Basically special waste is anything except gar-



 7      bage, general refuse, and demolition materials.



 8                Being optimistic for a moment, let's assume that



 9      25 of these sites which possess the necessary geologic



 10      conditions would want to hassle with the increasing ad-



 11       ministrative problems, such as training reports, insurance



 12       money, and also would develop the site according to the



 13       new modifications required, such as construction of berms



 14       to prevent inundation by the 500-year flood, more leach



 15      collection systems, et cetera, assuming these sites wanted



 16       to go through this hassle, 25 hazardous waste facilities



 17       would then be located in Illinois.



 18                 Of these 25, only one would be strictly a hazard-



 19       ous waste facility.  The others would be either co-disposal



 20       facilities, mixing the special wastes and fill face of the



 21       daily operations, or facilities which accept municipal



 22       refuse and then segregate their wastes into separate areas



 23       of the site in particular trenches.  So this is our site



 24       scenario so far.



25                 At the same time that 3004 is reducing the num-

-------
                                                          623





 1      ber  of available  sites,  then,  3001  is  expanding what  it's




 1      classifying as hazardous wastes  and creating  an illusion




 3      of more hazardous wastes being out  there.




 4                 In our  opinion,  the  scenario described  in 3001,




 5      which basically relates  to the disposing of wastes  direct-




 6      ly upon the water table, will, indeed, make most  wastes




 7      hazardous.   This  we  agree  with,  noting here that  we are




 8      also disputing the federal statement that  20  per  cent of




 9      the  waste  stream  will  be hazardous.




10                 It is our  opinion that closer to 75 or  80 per




11      cent of the stream will  be hazardous according to this




12      criteria.




13                 It is estimated  by the Illinois  EPA, through our




14      supplemental permit  system, that we have a handle on  about




15      30 per cent of the industrial  waste stream—not a very




16      bright figure.




17                 Let's assume RCRA closes  the loop and we  have  85



18      per  cent of the hazardous  wastes generated within our sys-




19      tern.   Therefore,  Illinois  is in  the position  of managing




20      three times the amount of  waste  currently  permitted,  add-




21      ing  to the  hazardous waste figures  an  estimate 3.5  million



22      tons  of fly ash material which will be designated special




23      wastes but  still  require special handling.  Twenty-five




24      sites,  three times the hazardous waste that we have today,




25      3.5  million tons  of  fly  ash, and 11 million tons  of general

-------
                                                         624



 1       refuse—to me, those figures add up to a problem.




 2                 To compound  the  problem, even if the sites can




 3       take the hazardous waste, the site may elect not to just




 4       to avoid the hassle from the public which can be associ-




 5       ated with a hazardous waste facility.  Rather than risk




 6       court battles and closure, the facilities will continue to




 7       accept general refuse and refuse any hazardous waste of




 8       any kind, and this is their right.




 9                 Because of this, Illinois will probably have to




10       prioritize waste streams, disposing of the most hazardous




11       wastes first, and face certain pressure of taking care of




12       Illinois-generated waste first.  We feel that many of




13       these problems could have been eased and may still be able




14       to be addressed if the U.S. EPA would have taken the ap-




15       proach we have attempted to implement in Illinois since




16       the middle of 1975.  This program takes into account level:



17       of hazard based upon concentrations within the wastes and




18       aIso classifies disposal sites according.




19                 As an example, using conservative figures, in




20       our opinion, a waste containing 100 times the drinking




21       standards of, say, cadmium, or one part per million of




22       cadmium, may be allowed to be disposed of in a low-hazard




23       disposal site where it can be mixed with the general ref-




24       use.




25                 Concentrations between 100 or 1,000 times the

-------
                                                            625
 1       drinking standard in this case, or one to ten parts per
 2      million, of cadmium would go to a moderate hazardous waste
 3      disposal site where below grade disposal would be required,
 4      but this could also be mixed in with the refuse.
 5                If the concentrations are greater than 100 parts
 6      per million, the material would then go to a high level
 7      hazardous waste site where special treatment of the waste
 g      may be required prior to disposal.
 9                Your exemptions, for instance, could then be
 10      broken down into degree of hazard.  Let me clarify here
 11       that Illinois has no exemptions whatsoever, but assuming
 12      that you wanted to have an exemption, for instance, ten
 13       kilograms per month for high-level waste, 100 kilograms
 14       per month for medium-level,  and 1,000 kilograms per month
 15      for low-level waste.  Essentially you have broken down your
 15      waste stream into low-level, medium-level, and high-level
 17      hazards and have matched the waste with the appropriate
 18      site and treatment procedure.
 19                It seems to us that designating a waste as a
 20       hazard or as hazardous without such distinction will cause
 2i       a burden on the limited number of facilities which will ac-
 22       cept low-level wastes which  could have gone to a low-level
 23       hazardous waste site.
 24                 Ihis system is perhaps more complex and does re-
25       quire arbitrary figures, but this is a problem all regu-

-------
                                                            626



  1      lators, state and federal, face.




  2                Illinois has been working on this type of sys-




  3      tern since 1975 with the hazardous waste staff ranging from




  4      one to three people.  The U. S. EPA, with all its resources




  5      could have developed such a system, in our belief.




  6                With the current regulations, it seems a step




  7      was taken in the right direction with the "special waste"




  8      designation.  However, degree of hazard, classes of sites,




  9      and not only volume, must be considered and the disposal




 10      criteria balanced.




 11                RCRA currently is bound to create more problems,




 12      and we accept this, recognizing this type of legislation




 13      is long, long overdue; but the fact remains, however, that




 14      the law provides too few solutions, and hazardous wastes




 15      will continue to end up in the courts which also do not



 16      provide disposal alternatives.




 17                Thank you.



 18                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  Thank you.



 19                Will you answer questions for us?




 20                MR. PETRILLI:  Surely.




 21                MR. FIELDS:  Mr. Petrilli, thank you for your




 22      comments.




 23                You made the comment originally that in the




 24      site selection area we should be basing our requirements




25      on the 100-year flood or the flood of historical record,

-------
                                                             627




  1      and that  the 500-year was  not  a well-defined  flood.  As  a




  2      point  of  information, we have  been working with  the  Water




  3      Resources  Council who have been involved  in implementing



  4      that flood plain executive order, and  the Federal  Insuranc




  5      Administration has been designating  araas all over the




  6      country through its  ten regional offices  as 500-year flood



  7      plain  areas, and those  around  the country which  have not




  8      been designated as 500-year  flood plains, the regional of-




  9      fices  would assist people  in calculating  whether their




 10      particular site would fall into a 500-year flood plain




 11      area.




 12                 In addition,  the Flood Plain Executive Order




 13      guidance  document which implements that executive  order




 14      specifically singles out a hazardous waste facility  as




 15      something that should be protected against a  500-year




 16      flood  plain.




 17                 MR. PETRILLI: If  I  could comment on that, if




 18      we have a  500-year flood,  the  hazardous waste facilities



 19      is the last thing I am  going to worry  about.   You're going




 20      to have industries which produce these  raw materials



 21      which  are  probably going to  be inundated. I  think the



 22      500-year  flood plain--and  this is my opinion--and, excuse




 23      me, I  didn't know that  it  is being developed—I'm  sure




 24      it is  only a model, and I  don't think  our country—




25                 MR. FIELDS (interrupting):    There  are specific

-------
                                                             628
 1       areas which have been designated.  They are not just
 2       models.
 3                 MR. PETRILLI:  O.K.  We haven't seen it.  I know
 4       that, for instance, HUD puts out a map for Illinois about:
 5       the size of a quarter, and you've got to pick out the 500-
 6       year flood plain off of that.  In all design procedures
 7       that we have been involved in, and I think the Corps of
 8       Engineers right here along the Mississippi River accepts
 9       the 100-year flood for building dikes, et cetera.  In our
10       way of thinking, that is sufficient design criteria.  In
n       fact, we tried to get the 100-year flood regulated in
]2       Illinois for just general refuse problems and had problems
13       in that regard.  That's our problem--the point being I
14       think we're running scared on this issue.  The 500-year
I5       flood to the public sounds great, you know, the country
]6       was founded, North America was founded in 1492.  Maybe in
17       1992 we will have the exact date on just what the 500-
18       year flood is.  In my way of thinking, the 100-year flood
19       is more than adequate and should be regulated, and I guess
20       that's my opinion versus your opinion versus the President
2]       of the United States, so I know who is going to win out on
22       that one.
23                 MR. FIELDS:  The second question was regarding
24       some of our, I guess what we call in our regulations,
25       general facility standards.  Based on damage cases, aban-

-------
                                                           629
  1      doned site  problems  to be identified, we  feel there is a
  2      need for  training requirements,  financial requirements, et
  3      cetera.   Further, Congress specially  says in 3004  of the
  4      Act that  we should write some standards,  but you charac-
  5      terize  those  in your statement as administrative hassles.
  6      Is it your  feeling that these types of standards are un-
  7      necessary?
  8                MR. PETRILLI:  I think there are certain stan-
  9      dards that  you have  written here that are required, in my
 10      opinion,  and  that we try to implement in  Illinois; but
 11      hitting some  of these sites with all  things in one big
 12      shot I  think  is a little premature.   Developing training
 13      procedures, for instance, maybe  at a high-level hazardous
 14      waste facility, assuming there was such designation, where
 15      danger  probably would exist in dealing with these  chemical:
 16      on a day-to-day basis, granted,  I think that's required;
 17      but if you  look at OSHA, I think workers  at general refuse
 18      sites, you know, nix the hazardous business, their injury
 19      ratio is  six  times the normal person.  It's a dangerous
 20      job just  by the mere fact that you are working around
 2i      heavy equipment, you are working around garbage that peopl
 22      throw any number of  things in and don't tell anybody.
 23      It's a dangerous job, granted, and I  think the guys that
 24      are out in  the trenches, the people that  have been doing
25      this for  years prior to you or I even getting involved,

-------
                                                              630
 1       know what the  dangers  are  and have  been training their per-
 2       sonnel  accordingly;  but  I  think by  adding training reports,
 3       I just  think it's  a  little bit  too  much too soon.   There
 4       are  other areas  that can be dwelled upon a bit more and
 5       would give us  a  few  more benefits than  a training program,
 6       and  I hate to  dwell  on that—that's not one of my big
 7       points,  train  them or  not—I think  the  insurance require-
 8       ment, the bonding  requirement,  whatever you want to call .
 9       it,  it's going to  force  the small guy out of the business,
10       and, granted,  if the small guy  can't do it right,  he
11       shouldn't be in  there  doing it  at all.   However, that may
,2       cause  a lot of  your co-disposal sites  that could  accept
13       some low-level hazardous waste, water-based waste, some-
14       thing like that, they're not going  to be able to handle it,
15       and  I think this waste designation  is the whole key to the
16       issue.
,7                 MR.  LEHMAN:  I have a question I wanted to ex-
18       plore or expand  with you on your remark, and I think it was
19       a brief  remark,  about  the  exemptions for wastes going to
20       recyclers.  You  implied  that that was a big loophole in
2i       the  regulations.   Could  you expand  on that a little, why
22       you  think it is  and  what should be  done about it to close
23       that loophole?
24                 MR.  PETRILLI:  No. 1, Mr.  Lehman,  in Illinois we
25       have a manifest  system that will be implemented in this

-------
                                                           631
 1       summer,  July.   We will not have that exemption.   The  mani-
 2       fest will require any hauler hauling any type of wastes,
 3       special  and/or hazardous--and we'll key it into  the RCRA
 4       definition when it does come out--that he must have the
 5       manifest form.  To me, if I'm driving a truck loaded with
 6       waste, and for some unknown reason I get stopped, and 1
 7       don't foresee  that happening very often, to be honest, I'm
 8       either going to say one of two things to you, one, "I'm
 9       going to the recycler with my waste," or, two, "I'm going
 10       to Indiana".  Either one of those, I'm off the hook,  and
 11       you're not going to stop that many.  In our opinion,  we're
 12       going to be more concerned about the sites that  we do know
 13       about, the haulers that we do know that are going to  these
 14       sites and the  generators than to have time to go around on
 15       a  witch  hunt looking for haulers that are illegal haulers,
 16       and why  open that hole when I don't think the reporting re-
 17       quirements are that difficult.
 18                 I agree, let's recycle more.  I'm all  for it, but
 19       to give  the recyclers a benefit just to open the door for
 20       an illegal hauler, to me, is wrong.
 21                 MR.  LEHAMN:  Can I follow up on that?   Your sug-
 22       gestion,  then, would be to include wastes going  to recycler^
 23       in the manifest system?
 24                 MR.  FETRILLI:  At least that much,  and here's my
25       reason for that—

-------
                                                            632
                 MR. LEHMAN (Interrupting):  Would you go further
       than that, though, would you require permits for recycl-
3
4                MR. PETRILLI:  Yes, because here's what I want
5      to know.  People ask how much waste is generated in Illi-
       nois.  You know, I can give you a figure, and you can give
       me a figure and not know anything about Illinois and maybe
       be closer.  The point is I want to know the waste going out
       the backdoor of that plant, be it going to a recycler—
       and when that recycler recycles these things, I believe
       the conservational mass exists.  You're not going to re-
       cycle 100 per cent of that waste.  That recycler is also
...      going to be generating probably a more hazardous residue
]4      than is going into that site, and he's going to be under
       the generator requirements, in our opinion, and this mani-
16      fest thing may go on and on and on and will, obviously,
]7     teve to be worked out after you get into the program; but I
18      want to know the waste generated in this state and I want
19      to know where it is going,  and whether it is going to re-
 Q      cycle or not makes no difference to me.  If it's going to
       recycler fine, but I want to know what he is taking in and
 .      what's happening to that waste when it goes through his
23      black box.
24                MR. LEHMAN:  Let me just pursue it one step furt-
25      her.  If we have it in the manifest system, it almost fol-

-------
                                                             633
  1      fows from the way the definition of manifest is described

        in our legislation that you have to have a permit in order
  o
        to know that a manifest is used to take a waste to a per-

  4      mitted facility, so that one goes with the other; and just

  5      on the side here, we recognize, of course, that a waste
  6
 15
        produced by a recycler or a re-refiner, whatever, may be
  7      hazardous, and, of course, he would be a generator under
  p
        our system and would require a manifest to ship that waste
  o
        somewhere else.  That is a given, but let me just say that

        one concept we considered early on was some sort of a

 11      special permit for recyclers, to give them a break, if

 12      you will, as opposed to other types of facilities, to en-

        courage recycling as opposed to other types of waste man-

        agement.  Do you have any feelings about that, as to
        whether the full force of all these regulations should be
        on recycling facilities or whether they should be given—

 17                MR. PETRILLI (interrupting):  You have hit a
 18
        nerve on this whole thing, and I think the regulations

 19      should have been developed to protect the environment.

 20      That should be the one thing.  Whether it promotes re-

 21      cycling or promotes proper disposal, to me, is not the

        question.  If you can dispose of it properly, more power
 23
        to you.  If you can recycle it and have a recycling jaystern

 24      that doesn't cost an arm or a leg—it isn't a white ele-
25
        plant--more power to you.  I just want to know the waste

-------
                                                           634




 1      coming  from  out  of  state  and going  to  your  plant,  the waste




 2      generated  in Illinois and going to  your plant,  and the




 3      waste generated  in  Illinois  and going  out of  state; and




 4      this is what the manifest is all about.  Obviously, I




 5      think most solid waste agencies statewide do  not have the




 6      expertise  in resource recovery  to be able to  permit a




 7      particular site.




 8                 In our discussions, if we permit  recycling, for




 9      instance,  we won't  be permitting the hardware,  we'll be




10      more into, as you would say, safety of the  site, handling




11      and reporting, that type  of  thing.  Whether the thing




12      creates a  viable product,  I'd like  to  see it  work.  We're




13      not—Illinois for years is saying you're pro-disposal,




14      you're  pro-disposal.  No, we are pro-environment;  and if




15      the recycling can work, more power  to  it.   So far  we are




16      not convinced that  recycling is viable;  and to  say in 1980,




17      when RCRA  comes  down the  pike,  that you are going  to have




18      all of  this  technology waiting  for  you,  that  you're going




19      to have all  these disposal sites waiting for  you is a pipe-




20      dream.  It's not going to be there. It will  take  time;




21      and if  there is  money some place, you  better  believe some-




22      body will  pick up on it;  and I  mentioned the  75 per cent,




23      and I know you questioned the earlier  speaker about that.




24      In Illinois—and you will be supplied  with  the  data--we




25      are going  through our supplemental  permits  which,  in es-

-------
                                                               635
 1      sence, take individual waste streams from individual gen-
 2      erators, and you have a chemical analysis submitted along
 3      with that particular waste, and we will be in the process
 4      of classifying those wastes as hazardous under the cri-
 5      teria as they now exist; and from just fingering through
 6      the files, I think the 75 to 80 per cent of the permits
 7      issued--and there were about 3,000 issued last year—will
 8      definitely be hazardous.  Of course, if you throw the  fly
 9      ash in there as a special waste and include that, that
 10      will, of course, lower that percentage, but again we do
 n       not consider fly ash a hazardous waste, or a special waste
 )2       for that matter.
 13                 MR. LINDSEY:  I don't want to beat this subject
 14       to death, but I think there are a couple questions here
 15      relative to the recycling aspect that should be asked.
 16      One of the problems that we ran into was the problem—
 17       and since you are planning to do this, you probably have
 18       the answer—how do you separate those things which are
 I9       wastes that are going to a recycler from those things
 20       which are legitimate byproducts?  In other words, there's
 21       hundreds of millions of tons of legitimate byproducts, and
 22       where do you draw the line with regard to control?  That's
 23       the first question, and the second question is if you do,
 24       say,manifest the waste to a recycling facility and then
25       the recycling facilitybas a permit, then do the products

-------
                                                               636
   1 I!    from  that  recycling  facility, do  they  require  a  permit and
   2      do  they require manifesting  and control?
   3                MR. PETRILLI:  Mr. Lindsey,  I think, No.  1,  I
         want  to know what  is coming  out the backdoor of  that  indus-
   5      try.  That, to me, is  the key to  this  whole program.   The
   6      notification under 3010 will really help  us get  a handle
   7      on  this.   When it  goes to that site, I want to know that
   8      that  site  has, indeedd, signed a  manifest form sqing  yes,
   9      we  received 1,000  gallons of Waste A.  I  will  assume  Waste
 10      A is  not going into  the plant down the sewer.  We will have
 ll      checked the facility out to  see just what type of product
 12      is  created.  We  do not intend on  carrying the  manifest past
 13      a product  stage    However, the wage generated  by that
 14      facility,  as you mentioned,  would be again under the  mani-
 15      fest  as a  generator, and a whole  new permit would ensue.
 16      Once  it goes into  the hoppers and mixes up, obviously
 17      your  system is breaking down in that regard, tut I  think
 18      a report on products generated and waste  generated  is  not
 19       that  big of a burden.  For instance, in Illinois, I think
 20       we  counted--there  aren't that many liquid reclaimers,  for
 21       instance,  that it  would be that great  of  a burden.
 22                 CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:  I  have  a couple of ques-
 23       tions.
 24                 The first  thing, you gave us a  sort  of post-
25        RCRA  scenario of 25  possible sites in  Illinois.  Was  this

-------
                                                              637
  1      an optimistic estimate,  or  I'm not quite  sure what  that
  2      numberwas  to start with?
  3                 MR. PETRILLI:   In Illinois, currently we  have  50
  4      sites  throughout  the  state  that have  these  supplemental
  5      permits  that take special wastes.  Mow, granted,  I  will
  6      say 25 to  30 of those  sites take very limited amounts  of
  7      waste.   Some may  take  the sludge from the town,  for in-
  8      stance,  that they are  in and so on.   I would be  surprised
  9      if 25  sites would gp through the requirements to become  a
 10      hazardous  waste facility; and for one reason alone,  there
 11      is just  too much hassle  involved; and when  you  tie  Sub-
 12      title  C  up in a great  big red ribbon  and  give it to the
 13      public and give it to  the regulators, the one variable of
 14      public input can change  the whole thing,  to me,  we  have
 15      probably in Illinois  50  sites that geologically could  be
 16      converted  into hazardous waste facilities.   For one reason
 17      or another, and it was mentioned earlier  in the  week by
 18      the fellow from Quincy,  why would the city  of Quincy or
 19      Adams  County want to  even get involved in a hazardous
 20      waste  facility or being  designated as such.  I  think the
 21      political  pressure is  just  too great.  The  risks  are too
 22      great  to even become involved in such an  endeavor.
 23                 CHAIRPERSON  DARRAH:  Do you have  some  sugges-
 24      tions—you have told us  a couple of things  which  seem
25      like they  are slightly contradictory, first  of  all,  that

-------
                                                         638




1        Illinois  is overall--its highest  priority  is  for  the en-



2        vironment, and,  obviously, we are trying to regulate for



3        the  environment, and you are telling  us that  as we  promul-



4        gate  these regulations, we're somehow doing too much or



5       there's going  to be too much hassle.  Is there something



6       we can do to make  this disposal safe  and somehow  accept-



7       able  to the public?



8                MR.  PETRILLI:  I think  the  first thing  you can



9       do is, obviously,  break down into degree of hazard,  and



10       you've heard that  and you've heard that, and  you  are prob-



11       ably sick of hearing it.



12                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  As long as  we're talking



13       about that, can  you tell me, you  said also when you break



14       down by hazard,  you have to class the landfill.   Can you



15       suggest to us, I hope at least in your written comments,



16       what requirements  that we're presently imposing that you



17       think could be lowered for certain lower hazard wastes?



18                MR.  PETRILLI:  Oh, for  sure.  I  think,  for in-



19       stance, let's  just take the 500-year  flood plain, if you



20       are  taking water-based paint sludges  for some reason—and



21       you  have  found this out in writing the regulation—when



22       you  start listing  things is when  you  get in trouble, be-



23       cause there are  chemical plants out there  that are  probably



24      creating  thousands of compounds every day  that you  have no



25       idea even exist.   I think you can come up  with a  standard

-------
                                                     639




 1    baaed upon concentrations that would be reasonable, and I




 2    think It is funny that we mention semantics all the time,




 3    but as soon as you hang that label of "hazardous waste"




 4    on anything, believe me, if you change your mind two years




 5    down the road and say it's not hazardous, that's not going




 6    to wash.  That waste is hazardous forever and the sane,




 7    a hazardous waste facility, some states have classifications,




 8    Class One Facility, if you will, is indeed a high priority




 9    item and should be engineered, designed strictly and should




10    have reporting requirements, and everything in this document.




11    No argument from us.  The   problem  is  there   are




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25

-------
                                                          640


     J.ow level wastes that do not need the strict monitoring that


     you have here.



                CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  At ttis time I would reiterate


     «ny specific suggestion you have to meke in your written


     comments would certainly be welcome in that regard. Thank you.


                MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  I*m kind of puzzled by your


     cixample of cadmium concentration to define hazard versus the


     amount generated.  I don't understand how you use cadmium


     concentration as a determinant.


                MR. PBTRILLI:  Ch«t, I could use cadmium I could


     vise iron, it was Just a matter for example.


12              MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  I realize that if I was in indiwt


13   l*m trying to paint a scenario, if I was in industry or


14   anyone else and I was producing a cadmium waste, I think


15   that I would look at my costs for going to a high,  moderate


)6   and low level site and I would look at ay concentrations  and


17   I  would compare, if I could dilute, and go to a l«w hazard


18   site and save money or I could concentrate it and go to a- -


19              MR. PETRILLI:  I get your drift on this  thing.


20   Number one, we have thought of that.  Number one, your cost


21   for  disposal  diluting   that  thing  instead


     of a  thousand  gallon*  you  went  to  ten thousand gallon*


     would probably not override it.  However, that comes into our


     office and we see the permit and It's got, let*s say, ten part
24

     per million,  ten thousand gallons of this waste, we*re going



     to request that waste be reduced through one method and the

-------
                                                            641



    same with the very high concentration of waste, now oftentimes


 2   we'll say send their summary cycle potential for this some


 3   place.  I think you have to allow for that flexibility.


 4   Obviously there isn't that much space that we can afford the


    luxury to allow something that dillute to go into a landfill


 6   and take up space that can be taken up by probably more con-


 7   centrated waste stream.  That's a good point.  We've realized


    that.


 9             MR. MC lAOGHLINi  You brought out what I wanted you


10   to.
   H

n             CHAIRPERSON DRRRAHJ  Thank you very much.


12             Before going on, Mr. Lenggel, would you mind coming


13   up and just identifying yourself for the people at the hearing


14   and for the record.  I think I called your name but when you


15   started'off, you didn't introduce yourself.


16             MR. LENGGEL:  My  name is  Alfred Leslie Lenggel.


17   I'm a consulting engineer for Abram Limited, Chicago.


18             CHAIRPERSON CARRAH:  Thank you.


19             I'm going to call again the people who are on my


20   list who did not respond earlier.


21             Mr. Chin front the Illinois Attorney General's Office


22   did you get here?


23             (No response.)


24             CHAIRPERSON DftRRAH:  Mr. Klinger from Quinch-Adams


25   County Landfill Commission.

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 S

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                      642
                    STATEMENT OF JOHN KLINGER

          MR. KLINGER:  My name is John Klinger.  I'm here to-

Jay representing the city of Quincy, Illinois, the community

of 50,000 located in west central Illinois on the Mississippi

)Uver 100 miles north of here.

          I*m chairman of the city of Quincy-A dama County Land-

fill Commission and, as such, help direct the activities of a

uolid waste landfill disposal sit* that serves our indus-

trialized community.  He are the landfill Mr. Patelli just re-

ferred to.  Besides handling the municipal refuse of the city

cind the county, we currently operate under the state of Illi-

nois EPA special waste permit system and handle special waste

i:or ten to twelve Quincy industries.  We appreciate the oppor-

tunity to comment on the proposed regulations for hazardous

tiaste management and the effect of these regulations upon our
oomnunity and local industries.

          We are submitting, in addition to this presentation,

vritten comments that will address specific sections of the

regulations and the agency comments and the preamble.  But I

would like to stress today in my testimony one or two facets

of the proposed regulations that are of critical importance to

IJie city of Quincy, its industries and what we feel would be

similar problems in other municipalities in the Midwest.

          From an engineering standpoint, the proposed regu-

lations under Section 3001, 3002 and 3004 are not overly

-------
1





2




3




4




5





6




7




8




9





10




11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        643



stringent and will do the necessary job of protecting the en-



vironment.  From an economic standpoint, the proposed regula-



tions, as they are now written, will probably prove unworkable



at least for our area.



          More specifically, the rules under  Section 3004 on



20 year site monitoring, insurance, financial responsibility.



closing costs, daily inspection, manifest record keeping,  re-



quired reports and site examining requirements for either land-



fills, incinerators, basins or surface impoundments can be doni



but will be costly.  For ana Her sites like ourselves or for



numerous others to establish a hazardous waste disposal site



for the smaller amounts of waste that we now might be handling



and allocate these costs over the few years as we have would



be prohibitive.  Only large disposal sites operating on a big



volume basis could hope to keep the unit cost of disposal low



enough for the user industries to continue a competitive



stance.  Smaller sites are just not feasible, especially when



the recycling efforts, the Act is encouraging, are slowly



accomplished and the hazardous site costs must be picked up by



the remaining users of any landfill.



          This is one area where the real economic impact of



the regulations will be felt.  We feel it's wishful thinking



to expect most current landfills will upgrade themselves to



hazardous waste disposal sites, thus the net effect of the



new rules will be to force all hazardous waste into a few true

-------
  1





  2




  3




  4





  5





  6




  7




  8




  9





 10




 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19





 20




. 21




 22




 23





 24




 25
                                                      644



sites currently in operation.  I an sure that many other




speakers today have and will address themselves to this idea




and the difficulties in trying to locate sites in the face of




severe local opposition.  I don't want to belabor the point.




          What I would like to stress is the idea not covered




in the regulations but one that is of paramount importance to




us.  Federal and state participation in locating hazardous




waste disposal sites.  We are not requesting that the two




level governments assume the complete task.  The primary  re-




sponsibility should be with those who are generating the  waste,




local communities and industries and other agencies.  But for




either the federal or state agencies to say that it is our



problem, that we can solve it, is ignoring what we feel is the




actual case.



          Hot many cities are directly involved in disposal



of either special or general solid wastes as Quincy is.  I can




assure you that most communities will be vitally interested



once the regulations do go into effect since all will be  di-




rectly influenced by the plant closings, layoffs, et cetera.




Cities with one or two industries that generate hazardous waste




could suffer severely if these plants relocate  to areas  where




disposal sites are available.  We feel federal and state help




in establishing disposal sites, constructing incinerators and




recycling centers, developing treatment processes and funding




research of improved technologies for hazardous waste manage-

-------
 I
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                         645
ment is essential to heavily populated Midwest and northeast.
Here land is at a premium in both price and availability.
The disposal sites would be especially hard to locate given
the heavierpopulation concentration.  To not help us means
giving industry one more reason to locate to the south and
southwest where sites might be more readily available.
          I feel it's important to say that not many plant
closings would occur but many might relocate, not affecting
national statistics but definitely harming the individual
local communities.  Any future economic growth in the Midwest
where there is a lack of a suitable disposal site could be
stopped for many years aggraving already distressing problems.
          In closing, I would hope that the government would
use these proposed regulations with an eye towards what we hav<
stated.  We now express a willingness to work with the regula-
tions and not against them.  However, we will need additional
help for the first few years.  For you to expect private
corporations alone to help us solve the problem is wrong as
their main priority is returning a profit and not municipal
economics,  interrelation of a strong economy and a clean en-
vironment can be successful if common sense in enforcement of
future regulations are exercised now.
          I thank you for the opportunity.
          CHAIRPERSON DARRAHS  Thank you.
          Will you answer questions for us,?

-------
1





2




3




4




5





6




7




8




9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20





21




22




23




24




25
                                                        646




          MR. KLIBGERt  Yes.




          MR. FIELDS:  One of your initial comment* was that




cofttwise the 3004 standards would be prohibitive.  I guess,  in




1:erms of record keeping, et cetera.  I was wondering whether




you have any cost estimates of what it would cost  your facilit




to comply with those requirements and if you did,  weld




appreciate any estimates you can send us.




          MR. KLINGER:  We do not have any included in our




written comments.  He have been attempting to evaluate them




since we've seen the proposed regulations.  In effect, I speak




for all of the Commission members in that the regulation




scared us to death and in looking at it, and our attitude has




been given the cost of developing our new site, which we have




just opened, the engineering cost was approximately $55,000




just for the review.  Considering what was required then and



what would be required under the other Act, the Commission's



opinion was there was no way that we should even entertain



serious thoughts of trying to become a hazardous waste site.



So we've not really done a lot.  We've kind of thought around




and asked for a little bit of advice, but our consensus feelin




oE the Commission was we simply couldn't afford to  get into




tiat cost in view of what our cost was to open a new site this




past year.




          MR. LINtiSEY:  You did mention that you felt that  with




r
-------
 1





 2




 3




 4





 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





 10




 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19





 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                           647




go into this and you did rattle off a few things there that you




thought we could do.  I remember you talked about research




and doing design studies on recycling facilities, things like




that.



          In a more activist role at the federal level, would




it be useful, let's put it that  way, for the federal govern-




ment to get involved in a more activist role in trying to




locate the support areas, regions of the country or sub-




regions in states, cities and counties that might be adequate




for hazardous waste management and help back that up in some




way?



          MR. KLINGER:  I think it would be necessary, con-




sidering the problems we, and I think all communities have




had in locating suitable sites for moving operations to and




further the problem that some of the industries and users we




have are simply they are not  large enough to support any, the; •




come to the landfill and say, what can we do with our waste?



Can we treat them some way or can we neutralize them?  They're



simply not big enough, don't have the resources to know how to




handle their wastes and neither do we.  I think most wastes




would just, the state of the art is not high enough to know



whether some of these things can be recycled.  But certainly




the small industries are not wealthy enough to solve their own




problems.



          MR. V-LBHM&Ui  Mr. Klinger, have you considered

-------
 1





 2




 3




 4





 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10




11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        648



another alternative here, I'd like your comments, of region-




alizing these types of facilities?  In other words, let's ay,




for the sake of argument, that your particular locality, given




this industrial base and municipal budget and aa on, could not




upgrade or would choose not to upgrade the standards but is




there, in your opinion, a possibility that a more regional type



of approach could be taken here  where not only your Commission




but other commissions in adjoining areas get together and com-




bine together to build such a facility that would service all



Local industries?




          MR. KLINGER:  I would think that that is what must




of necessity evolve  from this.  The question is how regional




is regional?  Quincy is the largest community within a hundred-




mile radius of its own territories.  We must go to Springfield,




Illinois, or St. Louis or noth into Iowa before we have a




Larger population base.  We might be a logical regional base



ior, say, a 50-mile radius, but we are working in the three-




titate area with differ ant state laws, different current regu-



lations.  I serve as a volunteer on the landfill.  My profession




:Ls a consulting engineer and the difficulty of getting varying




:Eorms of government to cooperate, particularly local government




with strong rivalries between them, I think that the problem ia




iierious enough that it can't wait for some of those rivalries




•chat exist.  I don't see a potential for cooperation amongst




numerous ara 11 governments.  I*ve worked too long trying to

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                         649
foster that and it literally takes years to get two or three to
agree to a joint effort.  So I think that I would not see that
happening voluntarily.  It might happen through state or  area
wide establishment of landfill sites.
          MR. LEHMANs  I would like to point out that—
          MR. KLINGER (interrupting):  Our neighboring counties
are not going to join with us, I guess is what 1% saying.
          MR. LEHMAN:  I would like to point out that under
Subtitle 0, the state solid waste plan section of RCRA,  it is a
requirement for states to develop regional solid waste planning
activities and that these plans address not only municipal
waste but also industrial hazardous waste in terns of how
they're going to be dealt with within the state.  So I don't
know whether you have been participating in that activity.
          MR. KLINGER:  Again, we might be unique in our  loca-
tion but, for example, a state plan from Illinois,  we are the
western most point in the state of Illinois, and we are,  in
effect, an area of Missouri, Illinois and Iowa would be a more
reasonable drawing base.
          I feel like Mr. Patelli, there are a number of  people
here I think from the state of Illinois who probably are
better qualified to speak to it than Ian.  But I feel like our
economic base is not just from the state of Illinois.  It's
from the total area.  The industry is from the total area and
if there is to be regionalization, and I think the effect of

-------
 1





 2




 3




 4





 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                         650




the regulations will be, has to be some but ours should be on




a multi-state basis.  1% speaking for myself and not the




Commission.




          MR. LEHMAN:  Thank you.




          CHAIRPERSON DftRRAH:  Thank you very much.




          Is Charles Robertson from XNSGS here?




          (No response.)




          CHAIRPERSON D&RRAH:  We are going to recess for lunch




          For your information, Mr. Robertson is the only other




speaker I have listed for this afternoon.  If there is anyone




else who wants to speak, if they would check in with the




registration desk and indicate that to us,  that would be help-




ful.  If there is time this afternoon, we'll probably have




another brief question and answer session.




          We'll reconvene  at 1:30 p.m.




          (Whereupon, the hearing recessed at 12 o'clock noon,




to reconvene at 1:30 o'clock p.m.)

-------
 1





 2





 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





IS




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                       651




                    AFTERNOON SESSION              Is 30 p.m.




          CHAIRPERSON D&RRAH:  This is our afternoon session




of our public hearing on Section 3004 of the Resource Con-




servation Recovery Act Regulations.




          If there is anyone who wasn't here earlier who does




want to speak, please sign up at the registration desk and




they will send your name up to me.




          The only person I have on the list who wants to




comment this afternoon is Mr. Charles Robertson from EN3GQ in




Eldorado, Arkansas.





          MR. ROBERTSON;  Thank you very much.




                   STATEMENT OF CHARLES ROBERTSON




          MR. ROBERTSON:  Being from Arkansas, we do things




somewhat differently, that state we do and some other states,




even though everyone else says Eldorado, we say Eldorado.




In my first appearance before the  City Council in Eldorado,




I made the mistake of saying Eldorado and I think I'm still




being punished for it.




          My name is Charles Robertson.  My company is Energy




Systems Company and we go by ENSCO in Eldorado, Arkansas.  We




operate a high temperature incineration system for treatment




and destruction of hazardous waste.




          I will be submitting written comments concerning the




proposed regulations.  I would like to commend the various




members of the panel here and their staffs on the job that

-------
 1

 2
 3

 4

 5

 6
 7

 8
 9

10

11

12
13
14

15
16
17
18

19

20

21
22
23

24

25
                                                        652
they've done in putting together these regulations under what
I consider to be very adverse circumstances and under a very
restrictive time frame.
          I think when all of us learned about the Resource
Conservation Recovery Act in late 1976, we felt like the time
tables were very ambitious and a lot of words were said that
they won't be made and some people were very comfident that
they would be made.  And in the light of the criticism that
has come before, come to the EPA on their delay or their
tardiness in promulgating the regulations, I would like to
give my thanks to them because I think they could have gone
in a quick and dirty fashion and we would have had a more
difficult situation to live with than we're going to have
under the regulations as they're now proposed.
          I would like to hold my comments this afternoon to
the financial responsibility requirements for storage treat-
ment and disposal sites.  I am not concerned with post-
closure but primarily the continuity of operations.  The in-
surance industry, as it operates' in this country today,
basically is an industry that, if you don't need coverage,
they are happy to do business with you and if you need
coverage, they would just as soon you talk with someone else.
Similar to the fellow who's got a great idea of no money and
goes to the bank and no collateral, the banker has no use
for him.  But if he can take that same idea to the bank with

-------
 1





 2





 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10




11





12




13




14





IS




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                         653



two to one collateral, I'm sure he can get his loan.




          We have been working for the last four years to ob-




tain insurance coverage in an amount that we feel would be




adequate to protect our operations and to protect our customers




The biggest hurdle that we had to overcome was to first buy a




coverage that would cover sudden and accidental discharge.  Up




until approximately 20 months ago, it was excluded from all




policies that we had been able to purchase.  I had talked with




various people who said they had sudden and accidental cover-




age only to find out, upon investigation of their policies,




that there were endorsements, perhaps, on the back that they




had signed without knowing what they were and they were exclu-




sions of sudden and accidental coverage.




          Sudden and accidental coverage can now be obtained.




It's a very narrow market.  You can't go out necessarily and




shop for the insurance coverage that you need to cover the



sudden and accidental coverage.  Premiums are rather expensive,



probably running somewhere in the range of from one half of



1 per cent to as much as 5 per cent of gross sales.



          The term comprehensive general liability is used by



many people in talking about insurance coverages.  However,




in chemical operations, and particularly in our industry, com-




prehensive general liability is almost impossible to obtain.



General liability you can'obtain and there's a tremendous




difference between comprehensive general liability and general

-------
 6


 7


 8


 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                      654


liability.  Contractual liability is impossible to obtain.


The basic reason for this, so I have been told by the members


of the insurance industry that I have talked with, is the


fact that the chemical waste disposal industry as a whole,


while it's made up of three very large corporations,which are


basically solid waste people or municipal waste as opposed to


chemical waste, and a number of small organizations,  if you


lump them altogether, they still are a small industry as


compared to the chemical industry, the automotive industry,


the general classification of retaining industries and this


type of thing, the premium dollars that are necessary to


cover the risks involved are just not there.


          The - part  that concerns me most under the proposed


financial requirements is the non-sudden, non-accidental re-


quirements.  I've talked with members of ttie EPA who have


worked on this, and I'm informed that there are two sources


that will provide this coverage.  As of now, I've only been


able to find one of those sources.  I'm concerned that the
                                            \

contractor who provided information to the EPA under the


financial responsibility portion may have provided information


that is either not entirely correct or needs to be expanded


upon.  That particular contractor is involved in the non-


iiudden and non-accidental insurance coverage in a condition


<;o make an application for insurance for non-sudden and non-


ciccidental discharge, an inspection is required and it so

-------
                                                           655



 1   happens that this inspector, the only inspector that's




 2   approved, is the same contractor who wrote the financial




 3   responsibility report for you people.




 4             in the insurance industry it's not unusual to have




 5   an inspection.  It is unusual, however, to pay a fee for




 6   that inspection.




 7             The other thing that discourages roe, I'm not




 8   totally adverse  to paying a fee for inspection, but the dis-




 9   claimer in their contract is extremely distressing.  The dis-




10   claimer, and I will provide a copy of this with you in my




11   written report, the disclaimer disclaims anything that they




12   prepare in their report having to do with a lack of diligence,




13   a lack of accuracy and a failure to provide service of a




14   professional quality.  I have asked the question on several




15   occasions of the EPA if that same disclaimer was in the con-




16   tract that RAT had with the agency.  If so, I question the




17   validity of the information you may have received from the



18   contractor.  Disclaimers are not unusual but that is a very



19   unusual disclaimer.




20             I have worked with three of the largest insurance




21   firms in the country, national insurance firms, brokers,



22   whatever you want to call them, they represent most of the




23   major underwriters, and, to our knowledge, there is only one




24   insurance agency in the United States that will provide non-




25   sudden and non-accidental coverage.  I am submitting in my

-------
                                                             656



 1    written remarks  a  copy of  their proposed policy and one of




 2    the questions  I  will ask is will  the wording of the proposed




 3    policy meet the  financial  responsibility requirements as pro-




 4   posed by the regulations?   I don't know.  I read both of them,




 5    I  can't tell you whether they do  or not.




 6              To sum that up,  Z question the statement in the




 7    regulations that non-sudden, non-accidental coverage during




 8    the life of the  site is generally available.




 9              I thank  you.




10              CHAIRPERSON EftRRAH:  Thank you.




11              Hill you answer  questions?




12              MR.  ROBERTSON:   Only on the financial responsibility




13              MR.  LIBDSEY:  Mr. Robertson, we did have a person




14    in New York at the New York hearing from the Halden Swan




15    group.   I don't  know if that's the one you've talked to or




16    not.



17              MR.  ROBERTSON:   That's  correct.




18              MR.  LINDSEY:  Who testified as to the availability



19    of the kind of insurance we're talking about and mentioned




20    some figures and so forth, and they had no limits.  They also




21    mentioned the  fact that they had  great expectations that they




22    were imminently  going to get a great deal of competition in




23    this area.  Maybe  reference to that testimony might be a help




24    to you.



25              Giving that you're questioning the availability of

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 S
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        657
this kind of insurance and. as I say, our contacts, both with
that organization and with both the stock companies and the
mutual companies, the associations that represent them, indi-
cate that there should be no problem providing this kind of
insurance once the regulations 90 into effect.  In other words
they like the regulatory approach because it gives them, then,
a bench mark from which they can proceed.  And I think, hope-
fully, that will help as well.
          Let's take another approach.  Assuming insurance is
not the way to go,and maybe you're saying that,  I don't know,
you haven't said that exactly, but let's assume for a moment
that we do that, is there another approach that we can use, do
you think, to provide protection to the public from, let's
say, fly by night operations that kind of shut down and pack
it in, provide protection for problems along these lines,
liability problems, for example?
          MR. ROBERTSOMs  I believe you've got two separate
situations in what you're talking about.  Let me try to cover
first, you're saying am I in favor or not in favor of in-
surance coverage.  I am definitely in favor of insurance
coverage.  All the point I want to make is that the insurance
coverage is not generally available.  For instance, if I want
to buy a pair of shoes and there's only two places in the
United States that make shoes, I don't see that those shoes
are generally available.  But if there are shopping centers in

-------
                                                             658
 1    all the major cities where I can buy a  pair of shoes,  then
 2    I think it's generally available.
 3              The fly-by-night operator  that  you have mentioned,
 4    I think that the other portions  of the  regulations,  the
 5    standards  applied to generators  and  transporters,  and  then
 6    in the permitting of the facility itself, will cover those
 7    requirements.
 8              The problem has to do  with what is sudden  and
 9    accidental and what is non sudden and non accidental.   And ii:
10    you look at the  situations that  have occurred at disposal
11    sites,  active disposal sites,  those  have  been sudden and
12    accidental situations.  And I  don't  think that we have had,
13    at least to the  best of my knowledge, damage to the  environ-
14    ;nent nor to human health andwelfare  from  sudden and  accidental
15    coverage or occurrences.
16              The famous Lo»f Canal,  this has happened over a
17    Long period of years from a non-active  site.  The indiscriminate
18    .lumping of drums,  as people talked,  off the back of  trucks
19    and the recent programs this week on the  Today Show  showing
20    some of our situations,  those  are not going to be covered
21    by a non-sudden  and non-accidental policy anyway.  So  if the
22    insurance  is available,  I don *t  think any of us have an ob-
23    -jection to buying it.   If it costs ten  cents on the  dollar,
24    vie'11 simply pass it along to  the generator.  Particularly fro^n
25    the fact that the generator is going to have to have the same

-------
 1


 2


 3


 4


 S


 6


 7


 8


 9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                      659

 coverage that we do,  either  that  or he's going  to be  self-

 insured.


           Another thing  that you  haven *t covered in that is

 what types of deductibles  might apply.  We were looking at

 a $50,000 deductible  on  $4 million worth of  coverage  at a

premium of $57,000 a year.

           MR. LINDSEY;   There may be  some  misinterpretation


 here.  Maybe I'll point  that out. The  deductible which would

 apply or the maximum  deductible which we would  accept here

 under this particular regulation  is the degree  of self-

 insurance which is allowed which  is based  on 10 per cent of

 the equity.  So whatever your equity  is, 10  per cent  of that
                                              *
 would be the amount of,  maximum amount  of  self-insurance

 that we would allow,  according  to these standards, the way


 they are now.

           Let me follow  upon that just  a little bit,  then.

 If it's not—you're claiming that if  this  kind  of insurance is

 not readily available, what  other alternative would we have?

 You said that you felt that  the design  standards may  be

 enough to provide the  degree  of  protection.   But as in

 chemical plants,  for  example, or  other  kinds of industrial

 operations, there are accidents,  and  I  guess our position here

 is that the public needs to  be  protected,  that  is to  be -


 assured that if there is such an  accident  and they-are in

 someway damaged during the short  haul, that there is a

-------
10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25
                                                      660


fund of money which can be attached if the company is not


substantial enough to handle it.  I think that's where we're


coming from.


          If you've got any further thoughts on that and you


viant to make them either in writing or today,  that would be


helpful, if there is another alternative, I guess that's the


approach.


          MR. ROBERTSON:  Mr. Lindsey, I think your key word


there is "accident".  An accident in the interpretation I re-


ceived from our carriers, an accident would be under sudden


and accidental coverage.  I am not quarreling with the


sudden and accidental coverage requirement.  That's there.
            *
It's generally available.  By that I mean there's at least


tiree companies in the United States that you can talk to and


they all want to be reinsured by Lloyd's of London.

          My concern is the non sudden, non accidental, and

there you're talking about environmental damage as well as


endangering human health and welfare.  The underwriting re-

quirements for non sudden, non accidental are of great concern


to the insurance industry because there you're actually even


covering pre-existing conditions unless you go in, and the


insurance company would require you to do a tremendous amount


of perhaps test borings as to what had been on the site be-


fore to find out what risks they are exposing themselves to.


          MR. LINDSEY:  As a point of clarification, I think

-------
 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                      661




 the requirements were non sudden and accidental not non




 sudden,  non accidental,  is that right,  Ron?  Yeah,  that's




 right.   I'm not sure that makes any difference in your  re-




 marks .



           MR.  ROBERTSON:  I think from  the standpoint of tiie




 underwriters,  sudden and accidental is  very clear.   Those




two things have to happen.  It has to be sudden and  it has




 to be accidental.



           MR.  LINDSEY:   It's the non-sudden part.




           MR.  ROBERTSON:  It's the non-sudden part  that gives




 the problem.




           MR.  LEHMAN: Mr. Robertson, you made a reference  a




 moment  ago to  a particular,  the word escaped me. deductible




 for a particular case, I believe you said $50,000 deductible.




           MR.  ROBERTSON:  $50,000 deductible on a $5 million




 policy,  right.



           MR.  LEHMAN: $5 million policy.




           And  the premium you said was  something like—



           MR.  ROBERTSON  (interrupting):   It was either




 fifty-one or fifty-seven thousand dollars  a year.



           MR.  LEHMAN: Per year.




           Was  that a quote for a non sudden or was  that a



true or  current premium you pay for sudden  and accidental?




           MR.  ROBERTSON:  That was what they called a pre-




 liminary quote subject to inspection and underwriting.

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




II




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                       662





          MR. LEHMAN:  For non sudden?




          MR. ROBERTSON:  For non sudden.




          MR. LEHMAN:  I wanted to just clarify that.




          MR. ROBERTSON:  Right.




          MR. FIELDS:  Mr. Robertson,  one  comment we did get




in the New York hearing was that, I know you dispute the EPA'3




statement that this insurance is generally available,  but he




did indicate that he felt that because of  the fact that EPA  was



coming out with these 3004 regulations and because of  the




fact that these would require the waste be managed safely,




that it would encourage additional insurance companies to write




the type of insurance that you're talking  about now.  Do you




agree with that assessment?



          MR. ROBERTSON: I think that  the  assessment is true



over a period of time.  The real facts are going to have to  be




assembled.  The concern that I have, if -I  have interpreted the



permitting process correctly, is that  after the notification




and in the issuance of whether it's permits or interim permits




or however long it takes to get around it, but, as I understand




it, somewhere in 1980,in order to have an  operating permit,  we




have got to have both sudden and accidental and non-sudden




coverage to the tune of $5 million an  aggregate ten on one arid




J5 million on an aggregate of ten plus legal cost in the




second case.



          I question anyone in the insurance industry who would

-------
 1





 2




 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        663





say that if the regulations are published on schedule that on




January 1, 1980, that we're going to have a large number of




insurance agents or companies aggressively seeking to write




insurance for twelve or fifteen companies that own disposal



sites.




          CHAIRPERSON EftRRAH:  Thank you very much for your




comments.



          Is there anyone else who would like to offer us




comments on the regulations this afternoon?




          (No response.)




          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  We'll close the official record




of this public hearing and we'll, for at least a short time,




take your written questions on Section 3004.




          (See separate transcript for question and answer




session.)

-------
SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT TOR QUESTION AND
ANSWER SESSION
       St. Louis, Missouri
      February 16, 1979

-------
 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                       664




          MR. LINDSEY:  HOW do you intend to issue permits



for large complex manufacturing facilities that consist of



several independent operations which produce one or more raw



materials for an end product, and there's a list of assumption;



          Each of the raw material production facilities



could, under proposed regs, be a generator of hazardous waste.



The end product  in the finishing stages could also generate



a hazardous waste requiring disposal.  Some of the processes



could require settling basins resulting in storage of hazard-



ous waste sedimentation for periods of greater than 90 days



before disposal.  In that case, that particular waste, if it's



hazardous, would need a permit.



          The next question.  Will each separate independent



facility require a permit as a generator?



          Mo, there would be one permit for each site, that



is each contiguous property or facility, manufacturing opera-



tion and all the associated hazardous waste disposal or treat-



ment operations or storage operations would be incorporated in



one basic piece of paper.



          Will a separate permit be required for storage?



          If by separate you mean a different piece of paper,



no, it would be part of the overall permit, although there



would be conditions on the permit related to the storage
facility.
          If some of the above waste is treated in a surface

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4





 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23





24




25
                                                         66f,



impoundment before discharge, is a permit required for treat-




ment?




          If it's a leaching lagoon or a leaching surface im-




poundment and if the material in there is hazardous,  then the




answer is that would be incorporated as well.




          Then there is a question about enforcement.  I think




what I'll do is, since I've answered the permit part of this,




I will turn this over to our enforcement people and you can




think about it for a few minutes.




          MR. FIELDS:  The first question, why are security




requirements necessary for other mining wastes?  Has  EPA




considered writing less strenuous security requirements for




special wastes?




          The first question, first of all, to clarify,the




security requirements will only apply in the  case of  other



mining wastes which were deemed to be hazardous, that is they



fail one or more of the hazardous characteristics under 3001.



So we're not applying it to all mining wastes but just those



that are hazardous.  And we believe that certain security re-




quirements are necessary for mining wastes so as to protect




the public from hazardous waste that might be at a particular




site.  As indicated this morning, we do have  a note which




allows deviation from the six feet fence and the ingress,




egress requirements so there is some flexibility built into




these requirements.  But in the case of special waste, some of

-------
 1





 2




 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        666




the commenters have indicated that there might be some




alternative requirement specified.




          The EPA has considered writing lesser or more



stringent security requirements and the position we took is the



one represented in the proposed rules and we welcome any




comment on the security requirements on special waste that we




have specified thus far.




          Next question is, if a facility has extremely low




permeability, can marginal liquid and plastic limits be




accepted?  What is the reasoning behind establishing a particu-




lar liquid and plastic limit for soils?




          First of all, the first question is if you have  a




soil that has a low permeability, can marginal plastic and




liquid limits be accepted?  The answer to that is,yes, as  long




as you can demonstrate or satisfy the note requirements.  As




indicated in the surface impoundment and other sections, we




have a note.  Although we specify ten mile seven permeability



for soil at a particular site, natural design or alternative



synthetic membrane, we do allow, in the case of the note




associated with the plasticity index,  a note which says that




as long as an equivalent or greater degree of structural



stability can be achieved, waste containment is achieved,  we




would allow alternative soil characteristics at a particular




site than those specified in our regulations.




          The reasoning for adopting these soil characteristics

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                     667




is that, like I said earlier, our regulations are designed to




provide the  containment necessary so as to protect the soil,




I mean the ground water beneath that site from being con-




taminated.  And one way to assure that is to have tight soils



and make sure that soil meets certain characteristics.




          The next question is, why does the note on Page 5900(




middle top, dealing with sampling of incoming truck loads of




waste apply only to on-site facilities?  Why was off-site




generator owned facilities not afforded the allowance of lesa




frequent sampling?




          Well, we welcome your comments on this,  but the




reason as to why we only excluded or allowed an exemption in




the note for on-site generators was because we felt that most




on-site, a lot of on-site generators would be handling,  for




example, one type of hazardous waste at that facility,  they



would not be accepting a myriad of waste from off site,  there-



fore, we thought it would  not be appropriate in certain




cases.  Again the note is a variance which would have to be




granted by the Regional Administrator in that particular



region,  in certain instances, we believe that a generator




of hazardous waste might have sufficient information about




that one waste he might be handling so as not to  require every




time, he takes the waste down to his landfill located on his




own property that he do an analysis of the waste.




          On the other hand, a lot of off-site facilities, in

-------
 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





IS




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        668




 that case, we're talking about people who handle waste from




 a variety of sources, and these sources, it could be ten




 ways, it could be hundreds of ways, we believe there should




 be a requirement that there be some sampling of that waste




 received from off sites to verify that the contents tof that




 waste on what the permit or manifest says should be is-being.




 received.




          The next question is, what is the rationale for



 excluding anaerobic    conditions in the land-farm regula-




 tions?




          The rationale was that, the people who were involved




 in writing the land-farm regulations felt that aerobic




 conditions were needed for effective waste degredation at




 land farms.  However, based on the comments we've gotten this



 morning,-an example was cited where an  anaerobic   condition




would effectively degrade some wastes.  We will be receptive




 to receiving data and comment from the public on how  we might



 incorporate   anaerobic     conditions into a landfill regu-




 lations in the final rule making.




          MS. SHAFFER:  I'm going to answer the rest  of the



question that Fred had concerning multi-faceted permits.




          The question,  to continue was, if the answer is




 that there would be only one permit, if only one permit is




issued for the generator for all of his various processes,




how will he be affected with regard to non-compliance problem

-------
                                                           669

 1   developing: in one area?  In other words, could his whole

 2   operation be stopped because of non compliance?

 3             First, I want to say that the generator per se

 4   doesn't get a permit, unless he handles his waste on site

 5   and I assume that's what Fred assumed was the way the question
          «
 6   was answered.

 7             Secondly, if you have a multi-faceted permit and

 8   you are in non compliance with a certain portion of it, your

 9   whole operation will not necessarily be revoked or stopped.

10   if there are a number of processes which are drastically out

11   of compliance and you need to stop your operation in order to

12   correct them, then, yes, we have the authority to suspend or

13   revoke your permit.  But hopefully that won't happen.

14             MR. LEHMAN:  1 have a question here which says,

15   when can we expect a grid of i>out fifteen to twenty miles

16   for waste disposal even of regular trash?  And we have a

17   slarification on this point.  I believe the question deals

18   '*ith, it's in the analog, to a Clean Air Act requirement

19   'tfhere there would be some sort of a restriction on location of

20   lew facilities, that they would have to be located within ten

21   3r fifteen to twenty miles from a waste disposal site.

22             The point here is that RCRA does not empower EPA

23   bo make any type of regulatory action concerning the product!oh

24   process, that is the generation of hazardous waste per se is not

25   airectly controlled under the provisions of RCRA.  Conse-

-------
6




7




8




9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                         670




quently, I believe this type of a concept would just be




beyond the statutory limits of, for our particular law.




          Mow here's another question,  it's actually about



three questions.  Let me read them.  I'll read it all the way




through.  Based on what happened at Wilsonville,  Illinois,  it




is a realistic possibility that hazardous disposal sites will




be in short supply.  How is EPA prepared to d4al  with this




situation and what alternatives will generators have if dis-




posal sites are not available?  How fast could EPA react and




furnish sites?




          There are several points in here that deserve comment




First of all, the assumption is made in the first statement,




I believe, that hazardous waste disposal sites will be in




short supply.  As we have indicated earlier on, perhaps the




gentleman or lady who wrote this question wasn't  in the




earlier parts of our hearing, we believe the Congress antici-




pated this kind of problem and dealt with it via  Section 3005



(e) of the statute which calls for interim status of facili-




ties that are currently in operation that, subject to certain




minimum requirements, mainly that they  have notified EPA as



required within 90 days after promulgation of the Section



3001 regulations, and that they have applied for  a permit,




they automatically, according to the statute, have interim




status and can continue to operate pending a permit,  pending




the issuance of a permit.

-------
 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        671




          Furthermore, the permitting rates,  which are not



being discussed here today, provide, as all the other programs



do, air, water, for compliance schedules to be proposed on



facilities as permanent conditions.  And these can extend,



according to our current drafts anyway, up to a maximum of



three years.



          So* what you're talking about here,  then, is a



transition period between the way things are now and the way



things will be in several years where we hope that all facili-



ties will, in fact, meet all these regulations and standards.



But in that transition period, there will be  this interim



status which will be allowed by the statute.   Consequently, it



is not given in our mind that there will necessarily be a



shortage of hazardous waste disposal sites.



          Now, assuming that that were the case, let's go on



and address the other parts of the question.   How is EPA



prepared to deal with this situation and what alternatives wil



generators have if disposal sites are not available?



          Well, generators have a number of alternatives.



J'irst of all, if there is no facility available in the



immediate area, there is always the possibility of transporta-



tion to a facility further away.  It is not at all uncommon,



oven today without a regulatory program, for waste to be



transported up to a thousand miles.  I know of one instance



where waste was transported from California to New York.  It's

-------
                                                            672




 1   about twenty-five hundred miles.  So that is one option.




 2             Another option is, of course, to build your own




 3   facility.  There are a number of industries that are taking




 4   that option.  If that is impractical, because of the size of




 5   the operation, there is another alternative of grouping to-




 6   gether either similar industries or industries in a similar




 7   area, regional area, grouping together and building a




 8   centralized facility to deal with it.  This is also being




 9   done in several areas around the country.




10             And a further option is storage.




11             Now, the last part of the question says, how fast




12   could EPA react and furnish sites?




13             That presupposes that EPA can furnish sites.  I




14   would like to point out that under the statute, EPA has no




15   authority to build or operate hazardous waste disposal sites.




16   In other words, EPA, in accordance with our statute, is not




17   going to rush in and furnish sites.  We do not have the



18   legislative authority to do so.  RCRA is not an analog to the



19   water law.  There is no construction grant type of authority.




20   under RCRA as there is under the Water Act.




21             I hope that answers that question.



22             MR. LINDSEY:  Before I start, I would like to




23   introduce Ron Dexter who is row to my left or your right all




24   the way over on the end.  We've got a question here on




25   interpreting the financial responsibility requirements and

-------
3




4





5





6




7




8




9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                        673




Hon is the desk officer in that area, he's in charge of



•rhem, so I'd like to have Ron handle that one.




          MR. DEXTER:  The question is, could you explain




financial responsibility?  If a corporation owns five dis-




posal sites, is his to"tal responsibility ten million for non-



sudden plus twenty-five million for sudden occurrences?




          The sudden coverage is usually written like this.




If there is a policy for $5 million, no matter how many sites




a company owns, they would be covered for as many occurrences




that happen, for example, in a year, if a policy is for a




year, they would be covered for any occurrences that happened




no matter how many of them there were up to $5,million per




occurrence.  So as far as the sudden goes, essentially a




corporation that owns more than one facility would be covered




for as many occurrences that happen in the life of the policy.



Normally that is one year.



          Now, non sudden, the only difference between the




non sudden is we require $5 million per occurrence with the



$10 million annual aggregate.  The reason for this is this




is the way non-sudden policies are usually written.  An in-




surance company will pay up to $5 million against claims and




damages for any one occurrence but no more than $10 million




worth of claims again usually in a year.  That's usually the




length of a policy.  So the difference is that the sudden has




no annual aggregate and it will pay for any amount of claims

-------
                                                             674




 1    up to $5 million  for any amount of occurrences where the non




 2    sudden only covers a maximum of $10 million.




 3             When vie first wrote the regulations, we had in




 4    there per site, per occurrence.  But now a facility that has




 5    more than one site only needs one policy, which   the in-




 6    surance industry  refers to this as corporate policy, one




 7    policy for $5 million for sudden, five and ten for non




 8    sudden, no matter how many facilities they have.  And you can




 9    see like when I was explaining sudden, it doesn't matter be-




10    cause every occurrence that happens is covered up to $5 millioji




11    for sudden and then there is an annual aggregate limit of




12    $10 million for non sudden.




13             MR. LINDSEY:  Thanks, Ron.




14             I have  a couple up here.  I have one which is




15    really a statement about the,long thing here, about the in-




16    applicability, at least in the mind of this person, of our



17    incineration regulations relative to explosive waste and so




18    forth.  We'll take this with us.  However, I would urge that



19    the person who wrote this to send us some comment on that




20    and maybe expand  upon it because it's not real clear.  But



21    we will take it with us.




22             Several speakers have suggested indirectly that




23    a  disposal philosophy be established.  A disposal philosophy




24    is implied in 250.45(a) and (c).  Is it EPA's intent to allow




25    the states to establish their own disposal philosophy and, if

-------
 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24





25
                                                        675



so, how will EPA handle the approval of a state program under



3006 which has a disposal philosophy which is more stringent




':han that implied in 250.45 (a) and (c) and which may affect




•the import of hazardous wastes from out of state?




          I don't know exactly what they mean by, the person




means by the disposal philosophy here.  I will assume that




it means what is our philosophy with regard to putting




things into the ground.  Our philosophy is that it should be




the recourse of last resort, I guess, and that recycling




is preferable and failing recycling that detoxification is




the next preferable approach to handling waste whether that




be through incineration or some other type of detoxification




and that land disposal should be a last resort.




          On the other hand, relative to RCRA and defined in




tie development of RCRA, it's our opinion that our authority



extends only to disallowing landfill only if we can show that




11: cannot be appropriately done, that is that it cannot be



done in the manner which protects public health and the




environment.  This is different from philosophy.  Our reason-




ing here has to do with the way in which the legislation is




written and in the definition of disposal.




          But the question goes on beyond what our philosophy




is to say suppose the state has a different philosophy which




then results in a different set of regulations which may be




more stringent?

-------
 9





10




11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                      676



          Well, by and large, as RCRA points out,  more strin-




gent regulations are allowed under RCRA.   A  state can have




more stringent regulations than we do. However,  under Section




3006, there is a provision in the draft of 3006,  or rather




the proposed version, which was last February,  I  believe,  I




can't remember the date exactly, February 1  if  I'm not mis-



taken, there was a provision in there which  said  that if a




state had standards which were very, very much  more stringent




than EPA so that they were impedingpremovement  of waste into




the state or worse yet causing all the waste generated in the




state to exit the state, then EPA could discretionarily decide




whether or not that particular set of standards was necessary




or could be defended on the basis of protecting public health




and environment.




          If the answer to that was no and we could make that



sort of a finding, then we could choose not  to  authorize such




a statement.  That same general kind of thinking  is still




there.  I think realistically it would be a  difficult thing  for



EPA to ever use.  It would have to be such an arbitrary set




of standards, that it would have to be obvious  what the intent




of the state was and that their intent was simply to cause all



the waste to exit the state.   If that were  that  definitive




and that arbitrary, I suspect we might be able  to make such




a finding but, otherwise, it would be very difficult.




          This one has two questions.  Number one, where can

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




IS




16




 17




 18




 19




20




21




22




23




 24




25
                                                        677



I get a copy of the flood insurance rate map in 250.43-1(c)7



          We'll have to think about that and I'll see if we




can give you an answer to that after a minute or two.




          To go on to your other question, 250.41(b)(83) gives




an exception for a less than 90 day storage and subsequent




transport off site.  Why hasn't the agency allowed for ex-




empting less than 90 day storage for subsequent treatment or




disposal on site?




          Well, the only reason for the exception at all is




that when you're going to ship stuff off site, usually you hav<




to accumulate a volume to make a truck load in order to make




the whole thing economic.  Normally this is less than 90 days,




although people have indicated to us that sometimes it's




greater than 90 days, and the reason why we don't want to




get into the permitting game for all those storage facilities



is because they tend to be low rish if it *s a short-term



operationg, meaning that while those facilities will have to



meet the standards under 3004, if it's a short-term storage



operation, we don't normally have deterioration of drums and




so forth to the degree that creates a hazard in 90 days or




less.  And so, therefore, we feel that it's acceptable not




to create all the paper work and the thousands and thousands




.additional permits which would be necessary to cover those




3hort-term facilities, short-term storage facilities and that




•there is no environmental hazard there.

-------
1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                       6?8




          The question goes on to say/ why not do the same




thing for on-site disposal?




          The reason is because there's no need to.  If




you've got an on-site facility that needs a treatment or a




disposal permit, then the storage facility is just part of




that whole parcel.  And the granting of a permit is no




additional burden in that regard.  The standards have to be




met in either case.  So that's the reasoning.




          If a person owns an incinerator with a heat recovery




boiler and burns primarily plant wood and paper trash, would




any permit be required if some oily rags got burned on occa-



sion?




          The answer is probably not because of the hundred




kilogram exclusion.  Unless you're throwing a lot of rags in




there, I suspect that the answer would be probably not.




          MR. LEHMAN:  Question, will sites which were con-




structed after October 21, 1976, that is the date of enact-




ment, but before Section 3004 promulgation and have a state



permit be granted interim status?




          This points out a real problem with the way the



statute is constructed.  What we have done here is that,



according to the statute, the way the statute reads, it says




those facilities that were in existence on October 21, 1976,




have this interim status possibility.  And what we,  EPA




recognizing that there may be this inter - r sgular,  if you

-------
                                                            679




 1   will, between the time of enactment and the time of promul-




 2   gation, we have covered this in the draft permit regs under




 3   Section 3005, which are not being discussed here today, but




 4   I '11 go on and address them.  We have defined in existence




 5   in those draft regulations to mean any facility which was




 6   under plan, design, construction or in operation as of




 7   October 21, 1976.  In other words, if you could show that the




 8   facility was being planned, designed or constructed as well




 9   as being in operation, then the interim status would apply.




10             Now, this is a fix that we have tried to make via




11   the regulatory process.  We also feel that this should be




12   addressed legislatively and so the Office of Solid Waste




13   within EPA has recommended that the legislation be changed




14   to change the date of where you start to count interim




15   status from the date of enactment to the date of promulgation




16   of the regulation.  But it's not clear as to whether that



17   recommendation will be followed.



18             Another question, again this deserves some dis-




19   cussion, assuming a local site is not available upon




20   promulgation of the regulations but that one will be avail-




21   able in, say, two years, are there any provisions for




22   variances based on economic hardship, severe or otherwise?




23             Well, first of all, the assumption is made here




24   bhat a local site is not available upon promulgation.  I




25   should point out, first of all, that the regulations do not

-------
 9





10





11





12




13




14





IS




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                   630



become effective until six months after promulgation, not on




the date of promulgation.




          Nonetheless, the. basic point here is that the




statute is silent on economic aspects of the regulations.  It




is not like the Water Act or the Air Act, at least the Water




Act, I'm not sure about the Air Act, where Congress specifi-




cally mandated certain economic tests to be made.  There are




no such tests in RCRA.  Therefore, there is no provision for




this type of variance in our regulations as proposed.




          If, on the other hand, whoever wrote this question




or others, feel that there should be, I would urge you to make




such comments to us, either for the record at the hearing here




or in writing, bearing in mind that the basic thrust, however,




of the statute, as indicated by Congressional intent, is the




protection of public health and environment.




          Now, an additional point can be made here and that




is, I just discussed the interim status provision a little



while ago, and the basic point there is that whatever waste




is going to whatever site it is going to and provided this




site notifies and makes a permit application and provided that




site lives up to the interim status standard, then that site




can continue to operate while a permit is issued.  So there




will not necessarily be a drastic curtailment of the availability




of sites that are currently taking waste.  And, as I mentioned




earlier,  there is also a transportation option available for.

-------
1





2




3




4





5





6




7





8




9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                      681



in this case, shipping the waste to a facility further away




while this other facility, which would be available in,  say,




two years, is being constructed.




          MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  My question, in, where are  at




least six landfills with permits that allow disposal of non-




hazardous waste within a 50-mile radius of St. Louis?




          I would like to, first of all,  comment that Illinois




EPA and Missouri Department of Natural Resources,  who




permit these facilities, both have regional offices here in,



I think the Illinois EPA one is in Collinsvilie and the




Missouri Department of Natural Resources  office is right here




in St. Louis.  And they are in charge of  inspecting these




facilities and they can give you exact information on each




one of them and what they can handle.  In addition, Mr.




Robertson and several of his staff are here at the meeting,



if you want to discuss any of the landfills.  There's about



a dozen in this area that I can name right off the top of my




head.



          Starting in the east, there's Bob's Home Service;




down south in Jefferson County there's at least two of them,




one down near Festus, Crystal City; another one in northern




Jefferson County; there's south St. Louis County site; there's




three quarries in St. Louis County that are operating, they're




permitted sanitary landfills; across the river there is the




city of Alton landfill;  Milan; Chouteau Island.  There is an

-------
  1





  2




  3




  4




  5





  6




  7




  8




  9





 10





 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                     682



abundance of  landfills in this area.  For anyone desiring in-




formation, please contact your state department.




          MS. SHAFFER:  I have a question that I had answered




on Wednesday, but I will answer it again.




          Under Section 3001, what is the rationale for




annual testing of listed waste if shown to be non hazardous?




And it refers to Section 250.lO(d)(1)(4).  It goes on to say




Part 3 seems  to be adequate protection.  What they're talking




about is that we require annual testing generators who have




tested off the list.




          Our rationale is to, for the annual testing is to




ensure that that waste remains non hazardous and it's the




assurance of testing results that the annual testing is re-




quired.



          There is a second part of the question and I'11 give




this to Jack to answer.



          MR. MC LAUGHLIN:  I would like to also, on the




question about the flood insurance maps, the people that you



need to contact are the Department of Housing and Urban




Development.  They have a regional office here in St. Louis.




If you live outside of this area or outside of a major



metropolitan area, just look up in your phone book the




Federal Information Assistance Center that's closest to you




and call them and ask them where the nearest HUD regional




office is and then talk to them and get maps that you desire.

-------
 1





 2




 3




 4





 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19





20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                     683




          MR. FIELDS:  One question here regarding  Section



250.43-2, security.  It says, I'd like to know your interpre-




tation of the phrase "in operation".  Does it mean 24 hours




per day,365 days per year, any time from the first day of




operation until closure?  Does it mean any time the facility




is open and waste is being accepted for disposal?  The comment




says the cost implications are significantly different.




          I guess the commenter is referring to a statement in




(b) which says, "Each gate or other access shall be secured




to prevent ingress whenever the facility is not in operation,,"




He're talking about the second part there, your question that




is, we're talking about that period of time.  In operation




means when the facility, when the gate is open and the guy




is actually receiving waste for disposal.  When you close up




or go home for the night, that's what we mean by not in opera-



tion.



          The next comment says, how does 250.40(c)(2), which



are the interim status standards for facilities which have




Interim status, interface with the special waste standards in




250.46?




          There is no real interface there because the interim




13 tat us standards in 250.40 only apply to those facilities that




are non special waste  handling, that are these people who are





-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                       684




submit Part A of their permit application.




          In the case of special waste facilities,  we will be




granting those persons who, a permit by rule as long as we




believe they are complying with Section 3004, special waste




standards, they'll automatically be given a permit  by rule and




they won't have to send in a permit application and, there-




fore, get interim status.  So the interim status does not come




into play in the case of special waste facilities.




          Regarding the 500-year flood, number one, it says,




we understand that the use of 500-year flood levels relates ba




to Executive Order 11988 and yet we find no reference to




500-year flood in this order.  Is there a supplemental




reference?



          Yes, there is.  We have copies back in Washington,




if the questioner wants to call me, I'll be happy to send him




one.  But there is a guidance document or a supplement to the




Executive Order which interprets that Executive Order. In



that interpretation of the Executive Order it talks about




500-year flood plans, the 500-year flood plan applicability




to hazardous waste facilities, et cetera, and how to apply it.




It has maps, it tells you where you can get copies  of maps



that Chet indicated earlier and so forth.  So we will be  hippy




to send you a copy of the supplemental reference.




          The second part of the comment says, we have had




no opportunity to read the background document relating to

-------
                                                          685



 1   500-year flood plan.  Can you please explain  how  it is  de-



 2   fined,  where it is defined and why it is better than a  100-




 3   year flood level?




 4             In terms of how it is defined and where it is de-




 5   fined,  like I said earlier,  there are maps.   The  guidance to




 6   this Executive Order  provides some detail  on  how  you arrive




 7   at a 500-year flood plan.  Basically the difference between




 8   a 500-year flood plan and a  100-year flood plan is that the




 9   500-year flood plan covers a larger area and  thus provides




 1°   greater protection.  This guidance document,  which I men-




 11   tioned that goes along with the Executive  Order,  specifically




 12   says that hazardous waste facilities are to be protected




 13   against the 500-year  flood plan.  That's the  reasoning  behind




 14   us and 3004 adopting  a  500-year flood plan requirement  as




 15   opposed to a 100-year flood plan requirement.



 16             We've had meetings with people who  wrote this



 17   document from the Water Resources Council  and that's how




 18   they indicated we should  interpret it.



 19             Is the EPA  aware of the difficulty  of measuring




 20   with certainty the permeability of clay soils when permeabili-




 21    ty is as low as  ten  •  i nu»  • • v e n  centimeters per




 22   second?




 23             Yes, we are.  We are aware of the problem of




 24    measuring permeabilities  of ten into minus seven, ten into




25    minus eight.  We have a facility operating a  design manual

-------
1





2




3




4




5





6




7




8




9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                      686



contractor who is going to be developing a landfill manual.




In that manual will be specified procedures for measuring




permeability of soil and various procedures that are available




and how we recommend it should be done.  That manual should be



available around the time these regulations are promulgated.




So it will be available in sufficient time before these




regulations take affect and provide some additional guidance




in the area of permeability measurement.




          The second part of this question says if you had




one site with a natural in place clay liner of sufficient




thickness soil permeability tests are greater than ten minus




seven centimeters per second but the average for all per-




meability tests at the facility is less than ten minus seven




centimeters per second, would this be considered not in com-




pliance with the regulations?




          Again you're getting into the permitting area now.




The Regional Administrator and his staff are going to have to



make that decision as to whether your site meets the 3004  re-




quirement of having a permeability of at least, of no less thar



ten minus seven.   The data would be reviewed by the permitting




official and he would make a determination as to whether your




site qualified.  So I really wouldn't want to make a judgment




in this case as to whether that data that you specify here




would satisfy the Regional Administrator in that case.



          Section 250.44-2(h) says all containers received at

-------
1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                     687




hazardousvaste facilities shall be in compliance with




Section 250.25, that is containers of Sub part B. DOT




specification containers.  Is this necessary for on-site




facilities and why?




          No, that requirement, in our regulations, may be is




not clear.  I guess we need to indicate that we're talking




about containers received from off site.   Those requirements




do not apply, that standard does not apply to on-site facili-




ties.  We're talking about the case of off-site facilities




which receive hazardous waste from generators.  Those con-




tainers should be DOT specification containers.  So the




standard only applies to a disposal facility which is receiv-




ing waste from off site.




          I guess the question here is regarding landfill




standards.  It says why must containerized liquid waste be



surrounded by solvent inert material while both liquid sludges



can be mixed with municipal refuse?  Is municipal refuse




inert?



          I guess we might have been using bad terminology her




in terms of using the word inert.  We think that the two




standards are consistent.  When you put a liquid in a containei




into a landfill, we want to make sure that it's surrounded




with solvent material that will adequately contain that waste




if the drum does break open for some reason.  We basically




want a material that will not adversely react with the waste.

-------
                                                          688




 1   Maybe using the term inert is a bad one.  The same case with




 2   municipal refuse.  You'd only want to mix it with a solvent




 3   material for bulk liquid hazardous waste in the case where it




 4   was not going to have any adverse reaction on that waste.  But




 5   we want something that's going to be a good solvent material.




 6             The next question says please give your impression




 7   and comment on the following.  What if you build a facility




 8   using only the notes?  These are quite subjective.  Who de-




 9   cides what criteria?  Would a person using notes be at a dis-




10   advantage as opposed to a person using the rules to design a




11   facility?  Since the notes are notes, are the rules more




12   legally binding in court?  P.S.  I think that the regulations




13   would be better if you use only the notes and left out the




14   regulations.




15             Well, regarding your statement, we would encourage




16   the questioner or commenter here to please submit your comment




17   on the regulations and the notes as a comment to the record



18   if that's your feeling.




19             Regarding your question, of course, it would be more




20   difficult to design a facility based on the notes as opposed



21   to designing that facility based on the standards themselves



22   We agree that there are some subjectivity in the notes and




23   that's the reason the notes are there.  Our feeling is that




24   most facilities that are there now are not going to be built




25   exactly as specified in our regulations, that is in Section

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                   689





250.5 or the 3004 regulations.  Most facilities are not going




to be designed exactly like our regulations.  Therefore, some




flexibility is provided in the notes and most facilities will




probably be coining in with permit applications where the notes




will have to be utilized.




          As to whether the notes are legally binding in




court. I talked to our general counsel here and Dot has indi-




cated to me that the notes have all the legal status of the




standards.  The notes will become part of the permit condi-




tions when a permit is written under Section 3005,  which I




know hasn't been proposed yet, but it should be proposed fairly



shortly.  Those regulations will specify these notes when



incorporated into a permit condition have all the legal




status of standards.  They're legally enforceable and so they




have all the legal status of standards in court.



          Can you comment on the reasoning behind selecting



the 20 inches:for differentiating between landfills which re-



quire leachy collection systems and liners.and those which




require clay only?  I'm referring to the statement on Page




58989, which states that where the evaporation rate exceeds




precipitation by at least 20 inches per year.  In other words,




how was the figure 20 inches arrived at?




          Well, I would refer you for details to the landfill




background document.  However, we believe that we have to have




some evaporation rate that would exceed the rainfall level in

-------
 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





 10




 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19





 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                      690





that area in addition to the natural containment site.  We




don't believe the natural design alone is adequate enough.




We believe that there is a need for some level of  evaporation




in excess of precipitation to be in a particular area in




addition to the natural design requirement for the use of the




first design, that is what we call the natural design, in our




landfill regulations.  Our landfill expert, I wish he were here




he's not, could tell you basically how we picked 20 as opposed




to any other number.  But the landfill background document




does address the rationale for 20 and I would refer you to




that for more detail about 20, how 20 was chosen.  Basically




we feel both factors are important.  That is natural conditions




at a site, hydrogeologic conditions and the climatic conditions




that might exist in that area, in choosing between a natural




site and a site that requires leachy collection.




          Does sampling of waste received at an off-site




facility, disposal facility mean that a truck load of SO




drums will require an operator to sample all 80 drums?




          That is not our intent.  It would depend on what's




in the drums received at that site.  If the wastes are




homogeneous and the material in all 80 drums is the same, of




course, only one sampling would, only one spot sampling would




be required when a waste is received from a facility off site.




However, if there were maybe two categories of waste in those




drums, we would probably require sampling of one waste type




from maybe two different drums.

-------
                                                            691




 1             The nextcpeation says why are no specific test




 2   methods such as standard methods or EPA test methods for in-




 3   dustrial waste water analysis required in 3004 to ensure



 4   accuracy and uniformity of test results?  Section 3001




 5   specifically sets forth test standards for identification and




 6   classification of waste.




 7             You're right, there are none currently available in




 8   3004.  We've gotten comment internally in EPA regarding the




 9   same thing.  We are working with the Office of Research and




10   Development within EPA to try to determine test protocols




11   andnethods  for analyses of ground water, surface water, air




12   and other things in this area.  However, I would like to




13   indicate that we are preparing a ground water and leachy




14   monitoring manual.  We're also going to be preparing an air




15   monitoring manual which will specify some procedures that we



16   think are good and will allow compliance with our regulations




17   for analyses of ground water, surface water and air around



18   hazardous waste facilities.  So I think that will provide some



19   guidance in this area for which I agree that none right now




20   exists in our regulations.




21             MR. LINDSEY:  The last time I answered questions, I




22   gave a bad answer and I'll rectify that so there is no mis-




23   understanding.




24             The question was if a person owns an incinerator




25   with a heat recovery boiler and burns primarily plant wood and

-------
 1





 2





 3




 4




 S





 6




 7




 8




 9





10




11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                      692



paper  trash, would a permit be required if some oily rags got




burned occasionally?




          I think the answer I gave was that I didn't expect




that would be a problem since they would probably be under




the 100 kilogram exclusion.  The point is that the 100




kilogram exclusion only applies if the waste is sent to a




Subtitle D landfill, that is to a sanitary landfill that has



a state permit.  So I guess, in retrospect, the answer would




be, after more thinking, that was a wrong answer.  The answer




would  be, yes, such a facility would have to have a permit,



at least as they're written now.




          In the case where a company wants to build a new




grass  roots plant in an NPDS permitted state at this time,




how would you advise them to proceed in getting a permit for




waste  water effluent possible treatment facilities as will be




required by the Clean Water Act or RCRA?




          Well, at the moment, the RCRA regulations are only




proposed.  They are not promulgated so one would use the same



procedures for getting NPDS permit as are in place within the




state  that's been authorized here.  As far as the design goes




in such a case, when new regulations are coming down the



pike,  people who want to build new facilities before they're



promulgated always have these kinds of problems,  you know,




what will the final RCRA regulation look like and if I want




to build it ahead of time and I go ahead and do that, am I in

-------
                                                          693
 1   jeopardy of ending up with a facility that won't meet the
 2   standards.  I sympathize.  That's a problem and the only way
 3   that could be gotten around, I suppose, would be for Congress
 4   to put together all the regulations when they put out an act
 5   and then it would be available immediately.  Unfortunately,
 6   that's not the way it works.
 7             I guess just as a suggestion, I think I would pro-
 8   ceed to design, now we're talking about effluent treatment
 9   train facilities, apparently, I would tend to design any
10   earthen lagoons or leaching ponds in accordance with the
11   guidelines or in accordance with these proposed regulations
12   so that, in all probably, you wouldn't be caught short later.
13   Of course as far as that's concerned, we're only talking about
14   RCRfi being involved.  If the effluent treatment ponds or
15   lagoons, earthen lagoons, leach, or have the potential to
16   leach, and if they contain hazardous waste.
17             Why have you placed so much more emphasis on the
18   base of landfills and liners, leachy collection systems and  ao
19   on, than on closure?
20             I guess the answer to that is we weren 't aware that
2i   we had, but I think what's happened here is probably the
22   questioner has gotten confused because there is a section,
23   or has not seen all the regulations here, there is a section
24   in here which is called closure and post closure requirements,
25   that's under 250.43.  But those are largely non-technical

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
25
                                                         694
regulations, O.K.  And they refer to all facilities, not only
landfills.  However, if you take a look at the landfill
section under 250.45-2(c), you'll see the technical regulation
for closure which we think are sufficient to do the job.
          As an alternative to insurance by insurance com-
panies, has EPA considered forming a national insurance pro-
gram with premiums paid by disposal companies to EPA, sort of
a pool effect, and perhaps a pool effort and perhaps under-
written by the federal government?  After all, EPA established
the design criteria, why should they not stand behind their
decisions?
          Well, the answer to that is we don't have any
authority and the answer to that is, well, it's additional
answers.  Philosophically, we don't really want to get the
government into doing things which private industry can do  in
the particular case of the site life insurance, that is during
the operation of the site.  We feel that private industry can
and is ready to  provide the coverage for this particular
situation.  We've heard some comments today that some people
feel that's not so.
          Further, we feel that if the private companies are
in this business providing this insurance, their inspectors
will be assistance to us in maintaining control over those
facilities.  AS you know, boiler inspectors from insurance
companies are the ones who seem to provide much of the in-

-------
 1




 2




 3




 4




 5




 6




 7




 8




 9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25
                                                       695



spection that goes on in that industry and in the case of




private insurance companies are tied up in insuring hazardous




waste facilities, their inspectors will also be making in-




spections to protect their company's best interest and also,




of course, at the same time helping to make sure the companies




do what we think is right or what the regulations require.




          I should point out that on Page 59007 under 250.43-




B(2), there's a reserve section and that reserve section re-




fers to a problem which we had, that is really an inability




which we came across.  There are really four parts to financial




responsibility.  One is ensuring that there is money available




for closure.  Another is ensuring that there's enough money




avilable to conduct the monitoring and maintenance operations




for after the site closes down.  A third has to do with pro-




viding site life liability insurance.  And those three




are all addressed.  But then there's this reserve section and



that refers to providing funds for post closure liability




and remedial action, namely if there is a problem later on, we




feel that Congress was interested in us"- providing a mechanism




where monies could be available for satisfying liability




claims or for cleaning up a problem which might occur if




things go wrong.  Unfortunately, we haven't been able to




identify mechanism for doing that and that's why that reserve




section is there.  In fact, if you'll look on Page 58987, you




will see a discussion of that whole problem area there.  As

-------
 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                       696
 a matter of fact,  the suggestion which this particular person
 had is, in effect, what we will probably be doing.   We are
 at the present time considering a legislative initiative to go
 back to Congress to modify RCRA to an extent which  would
 allow a pool setup or something similar to that to  address
 post-closure liability.
           MR. LEHMAN:  I have several questions here on
 financial responsibility.
           If you store hazardous waste in excess of 90 days,
 are you subject to the financial responsibility requirements?
           The answer in general is yes.  But financial re-
 sponsibility requirements generally apply to,  if you'll  read
 the language, owners and operators of hazardous waste facili-
 ties.  If you read the definition of facility,  you'll see that
it includes treatment, storage and disposal.  However, post
 closure, monitoring and maintenance requirements do not  apply
 to storage nor do  they apply to treatment facility.  They only
 apply to disposal  facilities.  This is building up  this  fund
 for 20 year monitoring and maintenance after the closure.
 That does not apply to storage.
           Please give an example of how the Regional Ad-
 ministrator would  write a written agreement with an owner-
 operator under Section 250.40(8)(d) on Page 58995,  if the
 financial requirements would render the owner-operator insolvent.
           These are the standards that apply during the  period

-------
                                                         697




 1   of interim status.  And we have made provisions for the RA




 2   to consider the financial status of a facility to be an




 3   indicating factor only during that period, during this transi-



 4   tion period.




 5           .  Now, I would anticipate that if the owner-operator




 6   is able to show that meeting the closure and/or post-closure




 7   requirement would render that facility owner or operator in-




 8   solvent, that's the first stage, that the type of written




 9   agreement that might be entered in to would limit those re-




10   quirements to less than what would normally be required on a




11   temporary basis but would include a plan of how that facility



12   owner is going to meet those requirements at.some future




13   date.  In other words, if it appears that the owner-operator




14   is never going to be able to meet these  requirements, I doubt




15   that such a written agreement would be entered into.



16             Another one on financial responsibility.  EPA's



17   regulations seem to be written to accommodate all types of



18   hazardous waste at a permitted site.  I think it's more likely



19   that many disposal sites will be designed and operated on a




20   specific waste basis.  The notes related to the standards make




21   some provisions for varying standards to meet these conditions




22   My question, was similar consideration given to allowing




23   variances on financial responsibility?




24             Hell, yes and no.  The way the financial require-




25   ments are written, it basically automatically takes into

-------
 1





 2




 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





 10





 11





 12




 13




 14





 15




 16




 17




 18




 19




 20




 21




 22




 23




 24




25
                                                     698




account the same types of specific waste, waste specific and




site specific situation.  Let me explain that a little bit.




Both the closure and post-closure funds, for example, are part




of, that is the amounts that are set aside for closure and




post closure are determined at the time the.permit is issued




and are based upon this particular waste that's going to be




handled at that facility, the type of facility it is and so on




All of these factors get into these financial requirements.




The same thing goes for the insurance premiums.  The insurance



coverage remains the same but the premium, of course, will




vary depending on the amount of waste,  the type of waste, the




type of facility and so on.  So these variances, in effect,




are built right into the whole situation.




          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:  No more questions, please.




We'll try and answer the ones we have up here.



          MR. LEHMAN:  Well, I was going to get the one




question here that says, please discuss the rationale for



continuing these questions and answers beyond 3 p.m.  We'll




answer the ones we have here.




          This one is a recommendation.  Please svfcmit to the




Oil and Gas Journal a rebuttal to the faulty article written



by Mr. Stilwell, I think it is,  I'm concerned that the mis-




information in that article will mislead many people who-will




not have the benefit of clarification discussed in these



hearings.

-------
 3




 4




 5





 6




 7




 8




 9





10




11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20





21




22




23




24




25
                                                   699




          Well, let me just say that that is our intention to



do that.  We will submit a letter to the editor and try  and




correct some of those little misinformations.




          Another question says, please detail the processing




of your comments presented at this  meeting.  Does the Chief




of Section receive those questions and comments concerning




his area?  What weight, if any, is given to comments?




          I don't know if that is a cynical question  or




whether that's a—first of all, let's make it clear.   The




comments that were presented before the public hearing are




part of the public record and we certainly seriously  consider




those comments, and we give them the same weight as are  given




to written submissions.  So you can be assured that we will,




in fact, take those comments very seriously.  I make  a dis-




tinction about the questions.  I just remind you that the



questions we've all been answering here are off the record.



These were for the purpose of clarifying the regulations for




this audience and they are not necessarily part of the




record.  They're really for the benefit here,of you folks




here so that you can better comment on the regulations in




writing at a later time or during hearings.




          As to the mechanism of how the comments are actually




given to the people involved in actually writing the  regula-




tions, we do have a mechanism set up where all of the comments




either oral or in writing, will be logged into our docket

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                           700
and appropriately sorted out and each will go to the proper
person within our office.  So you can be assured that these
comments will, in fact, get to the people who need to use
til em*
          MR. LINDSEY:  How does one get his hazardous waste
considered for treatment as special waste?
          Well, if one wants to argue that point, they can do
that in comment.  They would have to make a case,for example,
that the waste is very large in volume, that it's very low in
hazard, if it's hazardous at all.   There is essentialVno
data available that 3004 standards are not amenable to
handling that waste in any sense.  And simply make a case that,
for one reason or another, the 3004 standards cannot be
applied.  If one wants to try that, we will consider it.
          The second part of the question, if a waste is
added to a special waste list, when would industry find out
that the waste is going to be considered a special waste?  If
we had to wait until promulgation of 3001, we would have to
start moving toward compliance with 3001 now which would in-
volve large amounts of dollars when such efforts may not be
required if consideration is given as a special waste.
          I sympathize with your problem here.  Unfortunately,
when the comment period closes, we will not be discussing from
that point on until promulgation, because of the rules, any
changes in things which we may or may not make.  I don't have

-------
 6
 7
 8
 9

10
11

12
13
14

15
16
17
18

19

20

21
22

23

24
25
                                                        701
 an answer  to  that.
           Regarding  250.43-5(a)(4) which requires determining
 the quantity  of hazardous waste received at a disposal site,
 does  this  mean each  disposal site needs a truck weight station'
 Does  this  apply to off-site generator owned facilities?
           No, it  depends on the way in which the waste is
 manifested and is optional.  You don't have to produce it  in
 tons  or pounds or something like that.  You can use gallons
 or other ways of  determining measurement.  So a weighing
 station is not absolutely essential.
           Given the  hazardous waste designation of the listed
 wastes, given that hazardous waste designation of the listed
 wastes is  detrimental, no, is determined to a particular
 disposal method, how does one remove such a waste from the
 listing prior to publication if, in fact, the waste can be
 demonstrated  to be non hazardous?
           I would not discourage anyone from going ahead and
 testing their waste  at the present time to determine whether
 or not it  can be either delisted or whether or not it
 doesn't fail  the  250.13 requirements.  But 1 don't think we're
cping  to be in the determination phase of who's in and who's
 out of the system for a while.  At any rate, if anyone wants
 to do that testing,  we would love to have the results as soon
 as we can  because we're trying to build up additional informa-
 tion  on what  passes  and fails.

-------
                                                             702




 1             Concerning daily inspections, does this mean during




 2   working hours or each day of the week during working hours?




 3             MR. FIELDS:  Please explain the need for requiring




 4   routine minimum analyses in 250.43-8(c)(5).  Explain why each




 5   analyses is needed specifically specific conductivity.




 6             He believe once the background level for various




 7   parameters in the ground water has been established that there




 8   should be some requirement for routine marking of that water




 9   to make sure the quality is maintained.  That's why we have




10   the minimum analysis requirement specified.  Some of these




11   requirements like, for example, specific conductivity is a




12   quick indicator of contamination or water quality as is other




13   items we have listed there.  These are items which are typi-




14   cally required in existing CETA regulations and we feel these




15   parameters should be routinely examined to see whether their




16   ground water or leachy is being contaminated.




17             The next question says, where do we get copies of



18   your air monitoring and measurement procedures and your




19   leachy measurement manuals when they become available?




20             First of all, those manuals will be for the benefit




21   of both the permitting official, that is the Regional Ad-



22   ministrators and state agencies and facility owner and




23   operators.  We haven't really decided yet the mechanism for




24   distributing these manuals but most likely they will probably




25   be available in each of the EPA regional office libraries.

-------
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                      703
Right now we aren't able to work that out, but I know each
regional office would have some supply of these manuals which
could be supplied to people who could be affected by these
regulations.
          MR. DEXTER:  Can you comment, please, on the
rationale for Section 250.43-9(a)(2)?  This section appears to
give an excessive degree of power to the Regional Administrate):
to designate or approve a trust banker.
          This is the section that requires a permit applica-
tion to establish a trust fund for closure.  But the answer
to this question is, no, it really doesn't give the Regional
Administrator a lot of power because most trust fund arrange-
ments are very similar and most banks, especially large ones,
do offer a trust fund service.  However, I would say that in
the future we will be developing guidance for the EPA to
evaluate trust agreements.  But generally they're all pretty
much the same.
          CHAIRPERSON QftRRAH:  I want to make one brief
comment on Jack's answer to the question of how we handle
our comments, and that is these hearings for the information
received during the hearings become part of the rule-making
record.  What's also in that record are the data we have
collected to support the regulations already.  And we base
our final regulations on the rule-making record.
          That leads me to one other thing I think Jack men-

-------
1





2





3




4





5





6




7




8




9





10





11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23





24




25
                                                       704



tioned yesterday which all of you stalwart folks here ought




to know is that if you like anything we've done, you should




also tell us that because we need that for the rule-making




record just as well.  If we have a provision in the regs that




we receive 200 negative comments on it and there may be




2,000 people out there who think it's a great idea, the




world isn't going to know that.  Those 2,000 people haven't




spoken.  So we need both positive and negative comments with




as much supporting data as you can provide to us.




          (End of separate transcript.)

-------
3




4




5





6




7




8




9





10




11





12




13




14





15




16




17




18




19




20





21




22




23





24




25
                                                           705




          CHAIRPERSON DARRAH:   I want to thank you again for



coming and taking the time  to work on the regulations and off«



us all of your comments.



          (Whereupon, at 3:10 the  hearing was closed.)

-------
  1
                       CERTIFICATE
  2

  3
            This Is to certify that the attached proceedings
  4
       before:  Environmental Protection Agency
  5
       In the Matter of:
  6

  7               Public Meeting on Improving

  8                Environmental Regulations

  9     Place:  St. Louis, Missouri

 10     Date:   February 16, 1979

 11     were held as herein appears, and that this is the

 12     Original Transcript thereof for the files of the

 13     Department.

 14

 15
                                  Bernice M. Jackson Reporting Co.
 16                                1139 Olive Street   Suite 310
                                  St. Louis, Missouri 63101
 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

25

-------
            Xy
            ?
•J
                                                               i)?Uu[tsj#>
                                                                    ^  0,
                                                                        if)
*>
                 ,

                                   yy     ,^'S?'i
                                                             tpjt,   /vutj
                                    '


-------
                                                        Q/ £boa> Jf
                                                          5          5



                    OjO®
/»,_,    /^   a7.Jjp/>.
                                                 W    "///A,


Zb
                             to
                                                    — OfL-

-------
~-     14

(f


                                                                        '  «
                                                                    =£y
                                                                    e
                                                                            \
                                                                        +L.


-------
          %V
10

                                                 /UtfJ
                                                     /'

-------
 b>rj''
 '  ' C
                                                              ,
\1    V                 )    t/          (i            0       Ij


                      'jr>    o-t   -^jif^jfx^jr
        M'J)/»sJLs
                                         _

          7


-------
          iL
            S)fJ fs
               snj<   _jj/.'jj




                                      'to
                                                    '



                                                    y&£j*f





                             f-iOi'i





J2s>**£t£oif&(_,     &u    Oij&eZtj&t*





                              "

-------

                    0

         fyl


lo    too
jt^rl,  ojCfj^
  Off
                              J&jJ
                                  5

                                      0
»j

-------
0J.—~l&**t>

 y
-tyi  ""^"^••?'c,~——    -^l7d    /xt^ -  ^^
             ;    '                    ^
           -^-
        y



•ggn/byf.is
                      -!u~'~ %>'•>-
-------
        tu
/LI

-s)




        W<
              .
               o
                               <*-,]'-&-£
                                  'r
                            t
                                                              m,
                                                       6
                                                       i/

-------

n-tU
            VV
                       -''.e L>   ,'TsfJ,
                lo
                    U>
                           /
                             /XN**?_
                                                  '   Lo

                                                          .
                                                               (




                                              fffo   /HO?,    foss
                sj


            V
                                    %'L

-------

7




      I


                          PVAufoo


-------
                             /o
               v     '1

                                        snow
                                U



         Y    OVJ        ^    -f>?>f5pJ>A7si
         b                                 {

-~4&/.j}


                                      ~                           ssjp


-------
To
                                             -/

-------

                          .
             .


                   Jfr>
                    ff
,    -Ols


                    MI


                                                                 (L

                                   O>*0-//x,;

-------
                                                         00
OjQ

                         to
s

-------

 _y   .
\Jr   (

      JJ


                                             0

                                                   Ho '»/>-,£
                                                            £

-------
we
                                -
                                 J



-------
 Help Stop Stream and Air Pollution
i«e RE-REFINED LIFE MOTOR OIL
                             MIDWEST OIL REFINING CO.
       re. Cod* 314                      1900 WALTON ROAD
         ^27.2662                        $t. Letiii, Missouri 63114




         Statement for the record on proposed guidelines/regulations pursuant
          to Subtitle C - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 -
          Public Law (94-580)

                                        WASTE OIL

              Oil today is one of our most vital resources and should be conserved
         in every way possible.  The recycling of oil in the U.S.  for over fifty
         years has proved the practicality and potentiality of this used product.
         Through the recycling and reuse of oil, several benefits are achieved:


                   1.   Conserving a vital resource.
                   2.   Protecting the environment from pollution.
                   3.   Lessening our dependency on foreign oil.
                   4.   Providing a substantial savings to the consumer.
         met:
              If you wish to recycle any used product, several objectives must be
                   1.   Education of the public to the fact that the
                        product is recycleable.
                   2.   Sociological encouragement of its reuse.
                   3.   Economic incentive to the generator of the used
                        product to save it for storage collection.     ^^
                   4.   Profit for the collector and recycler ^provifig return
                        on investment and capital for growth.
                   5.   Savings to the consumer to encourage its reuse.
                   6.   Protection of the environment by reuse instead of
                        dumping and discarding, which will be substantially
                        reduced, if not eliminated.  This may possibly have
                        to be the lessor of two evils) extensive pollution by no
                        reuse versus reduced pollution by reuse.
                   7.   Market potential for the recovered product.


              It is my opinion that most of these objectives and all incentives
         will be removed if used oil is classified a Hazardous Waste because the
         word "hazardous" creates a negative attitude toward storage, transportation,
         processing and resale.  I recommend that used oil and other recycleable used
         products that could present a health or environmental hazard, if not
         handled properly, be classified as a Special Waste or better yet, called
         a Reeycleable Product.  These used products could then be regulated by a
         modified set of guidelines and regulations to insure a positive attitude
         toward reuse.  If oil is classified a Hazardous Waste, many problems
         will have to be solved, some of which are listed on the following page.

-------
                                   -2-


      1.   Due  to the added cost of complying with the regulations, the
generator will not be paid for the used oil but rather charged for hauling
it which will encourage dumping waste oiLrather than recycling it .
                                         r          '            >
      2.   There will be added  cost  to  the collectors and  transporters  to
upgrading all  tank  truck equipment  to  comply with Department of. Transportation
regulations governing Hazardous Waste.  Insurance for spill^ana transportation
of Hazardous Waste  is next  to  impossible to get, and the  cost is out of^
reach for small businesses.                               • -  —         —

      3.   Finding a site for a new  oil recycling plant could be as difficult
as finding one for  a Hazardous Waste dump.  The public will not want it in
their area.  Cost of construction will increase, making it difficult to
attract new investors or working capital.

      4.   Today in  the U.S. there is approximately 1 billion gallons of used
oil  collected  each  year for reuse.  It is used for road oil, re-refined into
lube and burned as  industrial  fuel.  Road oiling and jre-ref ining into  lube
use  less than^ two hundred million gallons, leaving approximately eight hundred
jjllioTL gallojis to  be used  as  industrial fuej.^  If the re-refining industry started
expanding today, it would take ten  years or more to reach the 1 billion gallon
per  year level.  When you produce lube from used oil, approximately 15  to 20%
is lost as a by-product.  This by-product consists of still bottoms or pre-treat
sludges which  should be dumped into Hazardous /Dumps because of extremely high
concentrations of toxic heavy  metals,  etc.  The cost today to dump this type
of hazardous material in the St. Louis area will be 50
-------
                                   -3-
     6.   What if 800 million gallons of re-refined lube oil hit the
lube oil market?  It could cause in one year a big impact.  However, if the
same thing happened to the industrial fuel market, 1 billion gallons would
only be a drop in the bucket, causing very little impact*

     7.   If all the contaminants were removed from 800 million gallons per
year of used oil, we would not have enough Class I dumps to put it in, so I
recommend leaving it to be burned with oil as a means of disposal.  It
is the lessor of the two evils.  By burning at a 10% or less ratio, the       .  "oEL.
harmful effects in any one area will be held to a minimum.         ^ (fJiTH tft-w  i-u


     I feel that the proposed Hazardous Waste Management Guidelines and
Regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C, will drastically hamper the used oil,
re-refining and recycling industry and thus defeat the purpose of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-580).
                                             Glen Gettinger
                                             Midwest Oil Refining
                                             St. Louis, Missouri

-------
     My name is John Klingner, and I am here today representing the
City of Quincy, Illinois, a community of 50,000 population located in
nest central Illinois on the Mississippi River about 100 miles north of
St. Louis.  I am Chairman of the City of Quincy - Adams County Landfill
Commission and as such help direct the activities of a solid waste
landfill disposal site that serves our heavily industrialized community.
Besides handling all municipal refuse, we currently operate under the
State of Illinoisr Environmental Protection Agency special waste permit
system and handle these wastes for ten to twelve Quincy industries.  We
appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations for
hazardous waste management and the affect of these regulations upon our
community and local industries.
     We are submitting, in addition to this oral presentation, written
comments that will address specific sections of the regulations and the
agency comments  in the preamble.  But I would like to stress today in
my testimony one or two facets of the proposed regulations that are of
critical importance to the City of Quincy, its industries, and to other
municipal ities in the Midwest,
     From an engineering viewpoint the proposed regulations under
Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 are not overly stringent and will do the
necessary and desirable job of protecting the environment.  But from an
economic standpoint the proposed regulations as they are now written
will probably prove unworkable for years.  More specifically, the rules
under Section 3004 on twenty year site monitoring, insurance, financial
responsibility, closing costs, daily inspections, manifests, record-
keeping, required reports, and site design requirements for either
landfills, incinerators, basins, or surface impoundments can be done
but will be costly.   For a smaller disposal site like ourselves, or
numerous others, to establish a hazardous waste disposal site for the
smaller amounts of hazardous waste we might now be handling and allocate
these high costs over these few users would be prohibitive.  Only large
disposal sites operating on a big volume basis could hope to keep the unit
cost of disposal low enough for its user industries to continue competing
with foreign business.   Smaller sites are just not feasihie, especially
when the recycling efforts the act is cncouraging are slowly accomplished
and the hazardous site costs must bo picked up by the remaining users.
This is one area where the real economic impact of the regulations will

-------
be felt.  It is wishfull thinking to expect most current landfills
to upgrade themselves to hazardous waste disposal sites.  Thus, the net
effect  of the rules will be to try and force all hazardous waste into
the few true sites currently in operation.
     I  am sure that many other spealers today will address themselves to
this idea of lack of suitable sites and the difficulty of trying to
locate  others in the face of severe local opposition, and I don't want to
belabor this point.  What I would like to stress is the idea not covered
at all  in the regulations, but one I feel is of paramount importance:
Federal and State participation in locating hazardous waste disposal
sites.  We are not requesting that these two levels of government assume
the complete task; the primary responsibility is and should remain with
the local industries, disposal company, municipality, or other agency.
But for either the Federal or State agencies to say that it is our
problem is just ignoring what we feel is an obligation to help.
     Not many cities are as directly involved in the disposal of either
special or general solid waste as Quincy is, yet I can assure you that
all will be vitally interested once the regulations do go into effect since
we will be directly influenced by plant closings, layoffs, etc..  Cities
with one or two industries that generate hazardous waste could suffer
severely if these plants relocate to areas where disposal sites are
available.
     We feel that Federal and State help in establishing disposal sites,
constructing incinerators and recycling centers, developing treatment
processes, and funding research in impioved technologies for hazardous
waste management is essential to the heavily populated midwest and
northwest.  Here land is at a premium in both price and availability, and
the disposal sites will be especially hard to locate given the heavier
population concentration.  To not help us means giving industry  one
more reason to relocate west and south where sites might be more readily
available.  I feel it is important to say that not many plant closings
could occur but  that many might relocate, not affecting the national
statistics but definitely harming local comnuin j t ies .   Any future
economic growth  in the Midwest where there is a lack of suitable
disposal sites could be stopped for many ycJrs,  aggravating an already
distressing problem.
     In closing,  I would hope that the Federal  government reviews these

-------
regulations with an eye towards what I have stated.  We now express
a willingness to work with these regulations, not against them.  However,

we will need all the help we can get during these first few years.  For

you to expect private corporations alone to help us solve this problem is
wrong, as their main priority is and must be profit and not municipal

economics.  The interrelation of a strong economy and a clean environment

can be a successful one if common sense in enforcement and future regulation;
are exercised now.

      Thank you for the opportunity to express my communities concerns

on these matters.   I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
                           Sincerely,
                           John Klingner, P,E.
                           Registered  Professional Engineer
                           State of Illinois and Chairman of
                            the Quincy-Adams County Landfill Commission

-------
 CITY  OF   QUINCY
  ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT                         CITY HALL • 507 VERMONT STREET
     CHARLES A JONES                                QUINCY. ILLINOIS 623O1
       CITY ENGINEER           February 13, 1979
     Written comments on Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 proposed re-
gulations for the USEPA Hearing in St. Louis, Missouri, in February,
1979, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Subtitle C.

                         TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

     The City of Quincy - Adams County Landfill Commission of Quincy,
Illinois, appreciates the chance to make written comments on the pro-
posed Subtitle C regulations on hazardous waste management.   I am a
registered Professional Engineer of Illinois employed by the City of
Quincy in its Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works.
One of my duties is to provide the Quincy Landfill with engineering
management, advice and to supervise the disposal at this Landfill of
solid and special waste generated within Adams County.  Quincy Is a
community of 50,000 population located in West Central Illinois, on
the Mississippi River about 100 miles North of St. Louis, Missouri.
The City of Quincy Landfill currently handles all municipal  refuse gen-
erated within the area,  as well as operating under the State of Illinois'
Environmental Protection Agency special waste permit system  that covers
liquid and other "hazardous" waste now generated by ten (10) to twelve
(12) area industries.   The comments given below expresses my concerns
and questions about the  regulations as well as those expressed by  repre-
sentatives of the industries that will be affected.   We hope that  our
requests for clarifications, deletions,  additions, and suggestions will
be considered by your  agency when the final regulations are  drafted.

-------
The page numbers and sections I will be referring to will be those in
the December 18, 1979, copy of the Federal Register, including the
preambles.  I will divide my letter into three C3) Sections and separ-
ate comments by the Section that is indicated.

     SECTION 3001
     A number of local industries have raised questions in regards to
the criteria listed under the toxicity characteristics of hazardous
waste; more specifically the decision of using ten CIO) times drinking
water standards as the limit of extract level for determining whether
a waste is hazardous.  We understand the concept of the EXTRACTION
PROCEDURE in trying to "model improper management by stimulating the
leaching action of rain and groundwater in the acidic environment
present in landfills or open dumps."  CPage 58952).  We support this
idea of using a leach test to determine toxicity but feel the "10-fold
dilution factor" is not reasonable.  To draw a single line to define
whether a substance is hazardous or" not just doesn't allow the degree
of hazardousness to 'be taken into account.  To do so seems to state
that a stable paint sludge or oil is to receive the same consideration
as highly concentrated mecuric compounds, pesticides, etc.
     We agree that you should seriously consider incorporating the
Water Quality Criteria under the Clean Water Act to set extract levels
as suggested on page 58956 of the regulations.  Then, a variable
dilution factor should be chosen for each specific site, determined
and approved by the USEPA when either design is proceeding or when
landfills are evaluated under Subtitle D - Section 4004, and this
factor could be multiplied times these clean water standards to get
the definition of hazardous waste for that specific site.  All waste
under this system classified as hazardous would then be required to
follow all the regulations as proposed.  Anything containing amounts
of certain key elements or compounds the agency feels should be very
strictly controlled can also be determined.  Thus, any waste that
exhibits an extract level exceeding a second higher set of limits
would then be considered extremely hazardous, with special handling
and disposal procedures at the hazardous waste site.
                                (2)

-------
To accomplish this all at once might not be possible, but as additional
contaminant levels are set, others made more stringent, and as informa-
tion is gathered and better measurement techniques developed, the
system would gradually fall into place.
     To adopt this method would allow a waste to be declared hazardous
based upon its ultimate disposal site.  This method would allow the
disposal industry "a great deal of built in flexibility to allow varia-
tions from the standards, so long as equivalent control can be demon-
strated, for specific waste in specific management situations"  (Page
58953).  This way the amount, type, and quality of groundwaters, its
proximity to the disposal area, and the amounts and location of public
users of that aquifer can all be determined and the effect of each
specific waste evaluated.  A site located over an aquifer used by many
people close to the site boundary might have a dilution factor less
than ten (10) for any waste it proposes to accept.  And other sites
with highly impervious clay with a very large distance to groundwater
could safely accept wastes much higher than the straight "10-fold"
factor without being declared a hazardous waste disposal site.  And
as hazardous waste disposal sites do become available in an area, rules
for the landfills in the vicinity could be significantly tightened.
     On page 58952, the agency states that "only waste designated as
hazardous is subject to transport controls as well as disposal controls.
While non-hazardous waste may be managed properly at facilities
subject to Subtitle D controls, there is no guarantee that such waste
will, in fact, be delivered to such facilities."  If this statement
was true, the regulations as proposed are correct and need no changing,
and the ideas we have proposed would not work.  But the State of
Illinois currently has a proposed program to monitor by manifest all
"special wastes11 that does insure that any "semi-hazardous" waste
would go where intended.  Thus, any state seeking authority from your
agency can adopt a manifest system for these wastes to insure transport
controls, and the RCRA act need not be amended.  Without this flexi-
bility, the lack of disposal sites will insure one thing:  that illegal
dumping becomes much more common.
                                (3)

-------
These wastes being disposed of in a landfill is a much better alterna-
tive than a roadside ditch.  Ditches yes, but the assumption of a
ten fold dilution factor for properly run landfill disposal sites is
just too conservative.  And Page 58948 states "EPA must take into
account the need for more_ hazardous waste management capacity as it
develops this regulatory program because public health and the environ-
mental will not be well protected if one of the results of the program
is to shut down most of the facilities currently available."  Unless
we choose to upgrade ourselves at considerable expense for the small
amounts of "hazardous" waste we are now handling, then this quote is
a prime example of how to write an understatement.
     Another point of clarification I think needed is the method of
adding additional Hazardous Waste, Sources and Processes in the future.
The proposed regulations will have been before the public for comment s
and suggestions for at least a year, and this time allows industry to
plan recycling or treatment processes.  Once the regulations are in
affect, any additions to them should give a compliance period, as well
as a chance to comment.  This should also apply if the extract levels
under Extraction Procedure are added or changed.
     On Page 58951 in the discussion of the upper limit flash point
140°F was chosen.  I agree that the 100°F Department of Transportation
"flammable liquid" limit is too low, but feel that a flash point of
around 130°F should be chosen.  The State of Illinois has a general
rule of 110 F in its current special waste permit system that I feel
is reasonable, with the Quincy Landfill experiencing no problems on
liquids having flash points higher than this 110°F figure.
     SECTION 3002
     I have only one or two comments to make on this Section since the
regulations as proposed are not overly stringent and will not cause
that much of an economic impact on industries involved in the disposal
of hazardous waste.
     On pages 58969 and 58970 the agency is soliciting comments on
whether the 100 kg/month exemption should be lowered or raised for

-------
small amounts of hazardous waste.  Without taking the degree of toxi-
city, corrositivity, or reactivity into account in some way, this ruling
seems meaningless.  A 100-kg load of waste oil is certainly easily
handled at an approved Subtitle D Landfill site.   But it would be very
questionable in my opinion to dispose of, in any amount, less than 100-
kg of a concentrated mercuric precipitate from a nitrogen analysis
test other than in a hazardous waste disposal site.  But as  stated in
the preamble, I agree that the agency would have a difficult time in
"distinguishing among the degrees of hazard or various waste on the
basis of its potential to cause health or environmental harm."  Thus,
alternate #3 on Page 58970 would probably prove unworkable.
     The City of Quincy supports a combination of alternates //2 and #4.
For those states that are willing to undertake the regulation of less
than 1000 kg/per month of hazardous wastes as part of their program
authority under either Subtitle C or D, then the agency should agree.
For those states not willing to do so, the limit should be  left at 100
kg/per month, with your agency having the right to list specific wastes
or extract levels that must strictly be controlled no matter what amount
is being disposed.  This would help eliminate a problem the Quincy Land-
fill feels will occur: instead of recycling or neutralizing wastes, a
generator will concentrate them just to meet the 100 or 1000 kg limit
cutoff limit.  This would have the exact opposite affect on the environ-
ment that the regulations on trying to accomplish, and the  Quincy Landfill
is definitely opposed to handling these concentrated wastes.
     Some clarification should be given to the storage of waste that
a generator falsely claims he is storing for recycling and  thus is not
subject to controls.
     Again, I think that the manifest system will not be too costly, but
only if one manifest is agreed to by all the state and federal agencies
that are becoming involved in hazardous waste and hazardous materials
management.  This also applies to all labeling requirements and container
specifications.  I feel that this multi-agency agreement is going to be
harder to accomplish than tfce USEPA realizes.

                               (5)

-------
     SECTION 3004

     The regulations for hazardous waste disposal as now proposed are
again not overly stringent from an engineering viewpoint.  If disposal
sites are truly available the regulations will definitely correct an
environmental hazard now present.  However, these are some finer points
that should be clarified by your agency in order to give local Quincy
industry a better idea of compliance requirements,
     On page 59015, the agency has set-up a "special waste" category
for utility "flue-gas desulfurization waste, bottom ash waste, and fly
ash waste which is generated soley from the use of fossil fuels".  But
since utility has not been defined, it is unclear if this section refers
only to public or private power plants engaged in the commercial sale
of electricity.  More specifically, do these regulations also apply to
private industries with coal fired boilers used to generate steam for
on-site use?  And does the use of bottom ash waste by many municipalities
in salting and cindering streets during winter months constitute an
illegal disposal method?  There should also be some limit  set exempting
the limited numbers of smaller generators of this material; and the recent
use of this material in road construction activities should also be ad-
dressed by the proposed regulations.
     I would also like to question the specified 5 million dollar amount
of non-sudden occurance insurance required by the regulations for each
disposal site.  I believe this factor alone will tend to eliminate smaller
disposal sites since costs must be spread among as many users as possible
when economics are considered.  There should'be some thought to a sliding
scale amount of insurance needed based upon the volume and degree of hazard*-
ousness of  wastes entering a specific site.  Recent lawsuits against sites
with "highly toxic waste" problems make the five million dollar figure
seem minute.

                                 16}

-------
     Referring again to recent lawsuits, serious consideration should
be given to limiting the liability of each site permitted under this
program.  Ridiculous lawsuits similar to the 2,5 billion dollar plus
class action suit filed in Memphis, Tennessee,  against one site will
do nothing but drive up legal costs and jeopardize the siting and
operation of any hazardous waste disposal site.
     I would definitely support the creation of a perpetual care fund
as discussed in the preamble.  There should be strict rules on the
application of these funds, with publicity and political influence
not the governing criteria when using them.
     In closing, I would like to say that the enforcement of these
regulations under all three (3) sections, as well as the willingness
of the agency to advise and help when  possible, will be the key to
a successful program.  The City of Quincy is willing to observe these
rules but only if all others must do so.  Otherwise, we have no choice
but to oppose them as much as we legally can, no matter what the worth-
while goals might be.  Thank you for the opportunity to present these
viewpoints.
                                     Very truly yours,
                                     Donald J. Kfclek, P.E.
                                     Assistant City Engineer, Quincy, 111.
                                     Registered Professional Engineer
                                     State of Illinois
                                (7)

-------
               RESIDUALS  MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC.
              PRESENTATION oN  TITLE 40, CFR, PART 250
            HAZARDOUS WASTE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS

                  St. Louis, MO,  February 14, 1979
     My name is brooks  Backer,   I am President of Residuals Management
TBchno.logy, lie  • T.W  I  hrld  3 Ph.D.  in Chemistry-  Residuals Management
TerhiK^ogy :  an  ." £in?t cln-j consulting firm specializing  in industrial
              */'.:•: :e mai tu'etienc.   We  work with industry to  help  them
                     ' w:  :  ?"ice and federal regulations svch as  these
                roday.   v»  >iave  experience with many types of wastes
                     i i't ; p-.oblems associated with them.   In fact,
                ?•""' Tore C'.IT),;  the other two Principals of the  firm.
and >:aarioi
u«:'er land ei ~ r-"
being discues:a
dric jrs famij.lar
Join '
are prL-
              ast year.     would like to share some of our experiences
wjth you.

     I will focus on only two points.  First, EPA should seriously
consider an Alternate  approach to their single acid leach test for
defining toxicity and  thus hazard.  We believe an alternate approach
is needed, nor. just a  different test.

     Second,  the definition of "waste str.eam" needs considerably more
thought in oc ler to avoid much expensive but useless testing  by  affected
industries.
     We beli£Te EPA  should  corsider an alternate leach testing  protocol
wit i i?'jre st?')s which  begins vhj.cn a neutral leach test.  There are
 isvery' rease-'S.   Clearly,  - single acid leach test as proposed Wj1'
or-- -'pe many  . w risk waet es -if- hazardous primarily because  .->f hea1-;,
 :s,.--I  .or en     "-.ese  j.c,,r r.. '  wastes do not justify  Lhe  atrp.-_t c;.-i.-
t.. ':'a  rllee  o-   -der ?• -     - C.
      '.•v  r   al-  .ntrod  :t
are m«jchi''i£ •   fc.  -2tti'g
wastes, uncle- Subt  tie C  --
of the^
in "hec"
 haz
y th
               d v.
               is
                   .lid
                   .ht
in prai -:J.ce
        haza
 ;iscussion EPA points out that these
-.' -il for disposal of these low risk
":.;..   The only new requirement because
i  .sportation manifest system.  While
.  -"Jgh the mechanism is cumbersom,
   submit that once a waste has bee^
   iTther assurances kill change  that

-------
In the public's mind.  Thus, the public will demand at  least  full
Subtitle C disposal if ^hey will even allow disposal at all,  regardless of
the degree of hazard.  Remember, we are talking about low risk wastes
here.  One c-"?e that we had in Wisconsin a few years ago  illustrates
the point.  "> landfill site near a state border began taking  low level
concrete radJ oactive waste from the outside building walls of an old
experimental power reactor.  The radioactivity was barely above back-
ground and not dangerous in any technical reuse.  But, because it had
been labeled radioactive, the local people reacted violently  and the
waste had tc be moved to an AEC site for high level radioactive material,
simply because of the emotional stigma attached to the  label.  Our
experience f >ows over and over again that exactly the same will happen
when a waste is labeled hazardous.  Many of the people here know that
from their cvn experience and I am sure most of the people in EPA do
too.  Remember Wilsonville?

As a result cf defining almost everything hazardous through a primary
acid leach test^, the central purpose of controlling disposal of the
major hazardous wastes which create environmental or health problems
will be lost.  Instead, much effort and money will be dissipated by
both industry and government in trying to solve a problem we have
created, but which has nothing to do with protecting environment
or health - The problem of how to dispose of low risk,  often high
volume waste....defined as PAZARDOUS.

     Fortunately, a different protocol may solve the problem.  If
one begins with a neutral leach test, some waste will still be clas-
sified as hazardous and it will still come under Subtitle C control.
Those wastes producing no hazardous leachate from the neutral test
would then V. addressed by the disposal techniques to be used.  If
the waste were destined for a municipal site, then an acid leach
test would be applied.  If the waste passed the test, disposal in
the municipal site would be okay.  If not, a Subtitle C controlled
site would '-eve to be used.  On the other hand, if the waste were
destined fo" a segregated site  for that waste only, approval would
proceed as "'..quired und;r Subtitle D and the waste would not be
designated . .= hazardous-  This approach solves the problem of dis-
posal of hi£.  volume, low risk wastes in an environmentally safe
manor while avoiding most of the problems cited earlier.  We  think
;,->is is a pr ctical alte--native based on our experience.  It appears
co be the n
-------
does one sample each collection system, the hopper, or the mixed load
as it goes to disposal?  In most industries, small amounts of many wastes
are pu,. into containers of one sort or another.  By the time they get
out of the p'.mt, the mixture is heterogeneous.  What is the waste stream
hare and how Is it to be sampled?

     Is the waste stream defined within a plant or is it what comes out
of it?  These questions and more need to be answered.  Practical experience
dictates tha- the place to start sampling is where the waste leaves
the*property or enters the on-site disposal area.

     Thank yru for the jpporfunity to comment.  We will be submitting
more complete and detailed comments in writing later.

-------
   T A Q  -f   THE INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION OF QUINCY, INC.
\,V      ^^ .//          weu WILOHM - r. o. BOX «7 • QUINCV. ILLINOIS ezsoi - PHONE jir-fltr
yT>w^     ~ftVV                  «NNtTH H IMlCffl - ttKUTIVl VKC PMHIDCNT

   *      *                         February 14,  1979
 This is to register with you the concern of the Quincy Industrial  Associa-
 tion regarding the problem of disposal of industrial wastes in Illinois.
 It is also to impress upon you the importance of this matter to the
 Quincy, and Illinois, business climate.

 We have reviewed  the proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines that were pub-
 lished in the Monday, December 18,  1978 Federal Register.  The Industrial
 Association of Quincy, like the E.P.A.,  recognizes its responsibility
 to ensure a clean and safe environment while providing for the economic
 security of the local community.  The basic concept of handling hazardous
 wastes properly is GOOD!   However,  most facilities do not have the
 expertise available to make the determination of whether or not their
 waste is hazardous under the definition of the proposal.

 The guidelines, if promulgated as published, will label an extremely
 large amount of material as hazardous, while dramatically reducing the
 number of permitted disposal sites  available.   The net result of this
 action will not be to close the circle of environmental control but to
 cause chaos with  all those involved in land-filling what Section 3001
 defines as hazardous waste.   If these guidelines are to work, the  Indus-
 trial Association feels that the Agency must ensure that there are ade-
 quate sites available for all waste disposal.   It is felt that this can
 only become possible if the Agency  modifies Section 3001 so that it
 recognizes the differences between  the various wastes it categorizes as
 hazardous.

 The Federal Guidelines makes no distinction between mildly hazardous
 and extremely hazardous waste.  The guideline proposes both be disposed
 of in Subtitle C  landfills.   A distinction of degree should be made, so
 that mildly hazardous waste can be  disposed of in suitable Subtitle D
 landfills.  The mildly hazardous waste should bear a'more descriptive
 name,  such as:  industrial sludge,  special waste, or other wording  indica-
 tive of the lesser degree of hazardness.

 The State of Illinois uses a supplemental permit system to ascertain
 that the proposed landfill site is  suitable for the waste being handled.

 Most of the landfills that now safely handle small volumes of mildly
 hazardous waste with large volumes  of municipal waste will not attempt
 to meet the requirements of the Subtitle C programs.  This will eliminate
 many convenient sites that are now  safely handling mildly hazardous
 industrial sludges.

 Quincy industries generate 200,000  gallons per year of industrial  sludges
 (classified as hazardous under the  proposed guidelines) which are disposed
 of with 200,000 cubic yards  per year of  municipal and/or domestic  solid
 waste.   This is only one  gallon of  industrial sludge per cubic yard of
 fill.   The proposed guidelines, if  adopted, will leave the Quincy  industry
 with no place to  go with these industrial sludges.

-------
                                  - 2 -


The Industrial Association of Quincy would like to suggest that as a
possible solution, the Agency model Section 3001 off of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board Rules & Regulations, Capter 7: Solid Waste
Management.  This chapter concerns itself with three categories of special
waste:  Industrial Process Waste, Pollution Control Residual and Hazar-
dous Waste.  The Hazardous Waste category would be reserved for those
"most dangerous" materials that the Federal E.P.A. refers to when it
discussed phasing in the regulations or exempting small quantitites of
waste.

This action would allow the Agency to maintain strict control over the
disposal of the Hazardous Waste while allowing other less dangerous
waste to be disposed of with less restrictions and without the use of the
fear-inducing term "harardous".  This Assocation believes that only a
program where dangerous waste is differentiated from problem waste, will
ensure that adequate safe waste disposal facilities will be available.

Allowing the generator the option to declare his waste hazardous without
evaluation might result in undue and unnecessary costs because the
waste may, in fact, not be hazardous.  This is perhaps the choice most
will make because they will not have the facilities available for testing
themselves, and the lab services will be expensive.

The landfill personnel will not be adequately trained to recognize or
evaluate the waste they receive.  Therefore, some companies may choose
to ignore the proposal's requirements when enacted.

The toxic waste classification at ten times the drinking water standards
is too stringent.  Many wastes not considered hazardous and therefore,
not checked for chemical analysis, would exceed that level of toxicity.
Simply evaporating 90% of a sample of drinking water could result in a
residue classified as hazardous, yet adding ten volumes of distilled
water would return it to drinking water standards.  The blowdown water
from boilers ia commonly ten to twenty concentrations of drinking water.
Surely, this would not be considered a hazardous waste, requiring dis-
posal in a Class C landfill.

The Agency did recognize differences in other aspects of the guidelines.
The E.P.A. noted these differences when it addressed itself to the
possible phasing in of the regulations.  On page 58949 of the Federal
Register, it was stated that the Agency might implement the guidelines
by first issuing regulations for only the most dangerous hazardous waste.
The Agency again recognizes the differences in what Section 3001 des-
cribes as hazardous waste when it discusses exempting small quantities
of hazardous waste.  On page 58970, the Federal Register states that
different quantities of hazardous waste might be exempted.  This
quantity would depend on the degree of hazard the waste presents.  For
this Act to work, the Industrial Association feels that the Agency will
have to review and rewrite Section 3001 so that it also recognizes the
differences in what is presently considered hazardous waste.  It is un-
fortunate that as Section 3001 is currently written, a spoiled batch of
orange juice (pH less than 3) must receive the same degree of attention
accorded to DDT or Kepone.

-------
                                  - 3 -


The agency requested comments on the requirements for generators of small
amounts of hazardous waste and in particular, on whehter the  100 Kg/month
exemption should be lowered or raised.  We believe this limit depends on
many factors not addressed, such as, the degree of hazardness of the
waste, and the capability of the individual landfills to safely handle
the proposed waste.  We believe a supplemental permit system, similar to
that operated by the State of Illinois could effectively allow the dis-
posal of most of the waste that would be classified as hazardous under
the proposed guideline in well-operated Subtitle D landfills.  Those
companies generating relatively small amounts of hazardous wastes should
not be burdened with unnecessary paper work.  The exemption should be
raised to 1000 Kg/month, or more for the less hazardous waste delivered
to accepted Subtitle D landfills.

One of the most important questions is will adequate landfill facilities
be available so generators can move their waste before 90 days?  If not,
they are subject to the storage facility requirements.  Also, will an
adequate number of haulers be available to fill the needs of all genera-
tors of waste?

In the middle of page 58948 in the Introduction to the Guidelines, it
is correctly stated that, "public health and the environment will not
be well protected if one of the results of the programs is to shut down
most of the facilities currently available."  It appears that the
proposed guidelines,if adopted, will do just that.   The public reaction
to hazardous waste landfills will make sites very difficult, and in
most localities, impossible to find.

Through conversations with landfill authorities, the Industrial Associa-
tion believes that many landfills capable of handling hazardous waste
will not seek a hazardous landfill classification.  Landfill authorities
are not willing to assume this responsibility for two reasons.  First,
the enormous financial obligations placed on these sites make this option
extremely unattractive.  These sites are not willing to assume the respon-
sibility of 20 years of leachate monitoring, high insurance premiums,
and the possibility of large lawsuits which are not covered by insurance.
The second and more important reason is that THE PUBLIC WILL NOT ALLOW
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL LANDFILLS.  A case in point
would be the closing of the wilsonville facility in the State of Illinois.
Even though E.P.A.  experts declared this site to be a secure landfill,
public pressure prompted the Attorney General, with the Governor's
blessing,  to initiate legal proceedings to close this landfill.  It is
our understanding that this has not only happened in Wilsonville, but
that it has happened in six of the only fifteen hazardous material land-
fills in the United States.  A public attitude such as this underscores
the need for a special waste classification in which only the most dangerous
materials would be declared hazardous, and problem waste can be disposed
of without the term "hazardous".

In conclusion, it must be said that the problem facing the industries
of Quincy, along with every other industrial community in the United
States, would either be eliminated or greatly reduced if the Agency
would modify Section 3001 so that it would define hazardous waste as one

-------
                                  - 4 -


of only three special waste categories.  This action would mandate that
hazardous materials be disposed of in only sites that are approved for
this type of  waste.  At the same time, it would enable many landfills
to accept the minor industrial waste that they were designed for.  The
net result would be that the E.P.A. could assure that adequate waste dis-
posal facilities would be available while ensuring the safe landfilling
of special waste.

Following are some comments made to the Quincy Industrial Association
by our member companies regarding the hazardous waste guidelines.

    Our Company feels that the following events will happen to the
    Company if the proposed regulations are promulgated as published.
    Currently, a large quantity of paint sludge is being legally
    landfilled in a local facility.  If the guidelines are promul-
    gated as published, this waste will be considered hazardous.
    Our local landfill which the IEPA, using EPA guidelines, has
    listed as secure for our waste and leachate, will not seek a
    hazardous material classification.  The landfill management has
    indicated that even though it is capable of becoming a hazardous
    material landfill, it is unwilling to assume the financial obli-
    gation the EPA must place on these sites.  Even if this landfill
    would seek the necessary classification, there is serious doubts
    that the public would allow it.  Therefore, if the proposed
    regulations are promulgated unchanged, our Company will not be
    able to use this we11-designed, secure, local landfill.  This
    will necessitate that the company ship its waste to one of the
    only two hazardous material landfills in the State of Illinois.
    This would result in disposal costs increasing by as much as
    500%, and this 500% does not include the increase in transporta-
    tion cost.  The company, if required to do so, will also incur
    this cost, if we can find a suitable landfill.  The two Illinois
    hazardous material landfills mentioned are Wilsonville and
    Sheffield.  Wilsonville, because of public outcry, is presently
    closed and it is expected that the people of Sheffield will soon
    initiate a suit that will at least temporarily close this site.
    Thus leaving the Company no site in the State of Illinois to
    dispose of its waste.
    Based on the December 18, 1978, Environmental Protection Agency
    proposed guidelines and regulations for hazardous waste, our
    company will be unable to continue to dispose certain industrial
    wastes at the Adams County Landfill after January, 1980.  Also,
    no known approved alternatives for disposing these wastes exist
    at this time.

    The industrial wastes of our company that will become classified
    hazardous consist primarily of flammable liquid wastes and waste-
    water treatment sludge containing metallic hydroxides.  The
    monthly volume of this waste is approximately ten to twelve
    fifty-five gallon drums of liquid waste and twenty cubic yards

-------
                              - 5 -


of wastewater treatment sludge.  These wastes are generated in
the metal cleaning, painting, and printed circuit board processes.
These processes are crucial to our overall manufacturing opera-
tion, and it is not feasible to eliminate these wastes.

These wastes are presently being disposed at the Adams County
Landfill in a manner approved by the E.P.A., and we do not
feel the nature of these wastes warrant the additional procedures
required by the proposed regulations.  We have installed extensive
wastewater treatment equipment to meet current E.P.A. pretreat-
ment standards, but in another year will be unable ti dispose of
this waste.
If the current proposed guidelines and regulations are adopted
by the Federal EPA, it will cost our company a small fortune to
convert our paint to acceptable levels and disposal.  The first
thing is we must have our vendors supply us with a non-lead
chromate paint which will cost approximately 40% more (or $4.00
per gallon) which we would pass on to our customers.

Since we use 80-100 gallons per day, the dollar figure is sub-
stantial.  If we must transport our sludge to Sheffield, it will
amount to $450.00 per truck load, and if we must transport to
Alabama, the figure would be $850.00 to $900.00.

Our major problem in our sludge is the chromium; we have 120 mg/L
and the EPA proposed guidelines call for a maximum of 5.0 mg/L,
which calls for a totally different formulation.
Briefly our problem is that we have been trying to dispose of our
paint sludge since November, 1977, and have accumulated 50 barrels
of it, and we cannot get a permit to dump them.  We believe that
the proposed regulations will compound this problem.

-------
Saint Louis Regional Commerce & Growth Association
Ten Broadway/Saint Louis, Missouri 63102/314 231-5555
                     Statement of the

      ST.  LOUIS REGIONAL COMMERCE & GROWTH ASSOCIATION

                         before the

            U. 5.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    PUBLIC  HEARING ON PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS

             December 18, 1978 Federal Register
                                           Breckenridge Pavilion Hotel
                                           St. Louis ,  Mo.
                                           February 14, 1979

-------
          I am Roland C. Marquart, Manager of Transportation Services
and Secretary of the Environmental Committee of the St. Louis Regional
Commerce & Growth Association.
          The St. Louis Regional Commerce & Growth Association is an
organization of over 3,000 members, representing business and labor,
in an area having a population over "i-\ million on both sides of the
Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.  Our organization, also known as
RCGA, has its focus on the bi-state, metropolitan St. Louis region.
Our primary emphasis is the economic development of that entire area.
          Ever since F. Wohler discovered in the year 1828 that the
organic compound urea could be synthesized from inorganic material,
man has been artificially creating chemical molecules of every con-
ceivable shape and size.  It is because of this chemistry, that we
have the many products and services enjoyed in our modern daily life
and also the reason we are here today evaluating regulations proposed
to control  the disposition of hazardous waste resulting from the
synthesis and use of chemical compounds.
          The many tragic incidences associated with the improper
handling and disposal  of hazardous wastes have emphasized the need
to develop control  measures.   Hopefully, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, Hazardous Waste Regulations coupled with the Toxic
Substances  Control  Act and the Clean Water Act Pretreatment Regula-
tions will  enable our  society to preserve human health and the environ-
ment for ourselves  and our descendants.
          The St.  Louis Regional  Commerce & Growth Association does
not take issue with the intent of the proposed Hazardous Waste Regu-
lations.  We do,  however,  wish to emphasize the need for moderation

                               -1-

-------
during development of such regulations to Insure against over-
regulation.  So often we are witness to growth stagnation from
policies that jeopardize the very existence of businesses which
have been the building blocks of our great nation, providing our
people with the products and services we demand, and are the life-
blood of our free enterprise system.  We are particularly concerned
with the impact of hazardous waste and other sister regulations on
small and medium sized businesses.  Large corporations have been
forced to develop staffs specifically assigned to handle increased
administrative burdens, but the smaller company has been pushed to
the limit of motivation and Tacks the resources necessary to handle
the numerous and voluminous Federal Regulations promulgated within
the past ten years.
          We are concerned also that portions of the proposed hazardous
waste regulations relating to Intrastate controls on transportation,
handling, and storing may be unconstitutionally intruding on State
sovereign functions.  We trust that adequate importance will be given
to this possibility and that the implication of such deviation from
the basic .rights of local and state governments will be thoroughly
evaluated.
          As time allows, we wish to address specific provisions and
requirements presented in the proposed hazardous waste regulations
as follows:
          1.  Section 250.13 (d):  We consider the definition of a
              toxic waste as related to the Extraction Procedure to
              be arbitrary and a fantastic notion.  The EPA has taken
              an extremely ultraconservative position in considering

                               -2-

-------
    a waste hazardous if its EP extract shows more than
    ten times the levels of contaminants allowed by the
    National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards.
    Using such criteria, everything but drinking water
    will be considered hazardous.  The main purpose of
    hazardous waste regulations is to control the entry
    of truly hazardous substances into the environment
    and thereby protect the public health.  The leaching
    of hazardous wastes into ground water should be pre-
    vented.  The assumption therefore that hazardous
    wastes will enter the ground water and receive a ten-
    fold dilution does not appear valid and certainly
    should not be used as the basis for establishing the
    toxicity of all  hazardous waste components.
2.  Section 250.14 (b) (iii):  We do not understand the
    reasoning underlying the separation of publicly-owned
    and privately-owned treatment works which would, if
    treating domestic sewage, produce essentially identical
    sludges.  If the purpose of such a provision is to
    control industrial treatment plant sludges, the intent
    could be better  stated so as not to place an undue
    burden upon those private companies producing and
    treating municipal sludge under contract as a business
    venture.  The intent and expanse of this provision is
    unclear.
3.  Section 250.15 (f):   Authority is given to the Adminis-
    trator to approve or disapprove a demonstration, and
    also the power to grant or not grant a public hearing
                     -3-

-------
if he solely considers there are or are not genuine
and relevant factual issues to be resolved by such
a hearing.  We consider a provision such as this gives
too much power and authority to one individual who
may or may not be qualified to make such decisions
and rulings.
Section 250.22:  We agree wholeheartedly with the con-
cept of the manifest system as long as sufficient care
is taken in defining hazardous waste and the administra-
tive burden is minimized.  The manifest system if ad-
hered to will enable tracking of hazardous waste from
its conception to disposal and insure adequate protec-
tion for the public and the environment.  We recommend,
however, that each load of hazardous waste, meaning
each economically transportable quantity, have a sepa-
rate manifest accompanying it on its journey.  If
several separate shipments are covered under one manifest,
the potential for the probability of error exists, and
keeping track of each shipment becomes more difficult.
Section 250.29 (a):  We do not consider a waste, if truly
hazardous and the degree of hazard being adequately
defined, should be allowed to be discharged into a
facility not specifically designed and operated to
handle and contain hazardous waste no matter what the
weight or volume.  Numerous generators of small quanti-
ties of hazardous wastes using the same facility for
disposal, can, by their aggregate contributions, create
                 -4-

-------
the potential for a public health or environmental
hazard.  More emphasis should be placed on defining
what is actually hazardous rather than arbitrarily
selecting a  100-kilogram-per-month or even a 1000-
kilogram-per-month exemption.  The degree of toxicity
is the most  important consideration and should be
specified.
Section 250.43-9:  We are cognizant of the financial
problems associated with assuring proper closure and
post-closure of hazardous waste facilities and ascribe
to the need  for such procedures.  Monies earmarked for
closure and  post-closure operations deposited initially
in a trust fund is one way of providing future funds
for proper closure and post-closure of existing hazard-
ous facilities.  Such a requirement may, however, place
a burden on  the smal.ler operator who wishes to comply
with hazardous waste facility regulations but does not
have adequate capital.  We are encouraged to see a
provision included in the regulations which would allow
the Regional Administrator to consider the financial
status of the facility and provide for partial  compliance
and relief for the financial  responsibility associated
with closure and post-closure.  For new facilities placed
in operation after the effective date of the hazardous
waste regulations, a schedule of charges, based on hazard
category and weight or volume, could be developed which
would enable the operator of  a hazardous disposal facility
                 -5-

-------
              to allot a certain percentage of his disposal fee
              for closure and post-closure costs.  The portion of
              the disposal  fee allotted for such closure operations
              could be placed in a controlled interest-bearing fund.
              The administration of the fund could be similar to
              sales tax collections with any leftover portion after
              satisfactory closure assigned to the State Government
              for use in other environmental protection activities
              associated with the control  and disposal of hazardous
              wastes or to establish a disaster fund.  We are con-
              cerned that only the large companies with extensive
              capital reserves will be able to construct and operate
              hazardous waste disposal facilities if initial deposits
              for closure and post-closure operations are required.
              The potential  for price fixing becomes apparent.  What-
              ever system is ultimately chosen to insure proper closure.
              we trust that  some means will be employed to prevent
              exorbitant disposal charges  being assessed on those
              companies who  must comply with hazardous waste regula-
              tions and dispose of their wastes at such facilities.
          We have selected  for comment today, those concepts and
requirements which we consider have the greatest impact on the various
commercial  and industrial establishments we represent.  A more detailed
evaluation  of the various technical aspects of the regulations by
qualified individuals within our organization will be prepared and
submitted at a later date.
                               -6-

-------
          We thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns

and comments and trust that great care will be exercised in preparing

the final  hazardous waste regulations which we deem to have greater

impact on  our nation's business community than the Clean Water Act.

                               Respectfully submitted by:
                               Roland C. Marquart
                               Manager, Transportation Services
                                 & Environmental  Committee Secretary
                               St. Louis Regional Commerce &
                                 Growth Association
                               10 Broadway
                               St. Louis, MO  63102
                               February 14, 1979
                               -7-

-------
         -r\\e.       .         .
                       ft-r  STI  c-euis
                   IS      £C  JCWi/ftS/C.         w«t'C-O  MKg   TT>
           Sc
             ST. i-o^s   /< a/^/4  ^^/i^cfs   /A/  "7-/ȣ-
      6V
                                                               THIS
                                           iT  cOAlti


'Tie   M(4*'l'  P6GPI-X-  Ttf//J<  THAT  /CJi>v2r>8.y  IS


                   SO.


              IS
                          i$
                                                            -rn-cy   see.
            IS

-------
'TO    li_t^'  TtftfT   ^Or^lfftrJt   lui
IP-
                                           .   .
            0*1  T>V£-





           6-f A
                         IS  £HUL-T(,$>   fef.  ivo T






                                                            
-------
                                         i rl f. i
                                -rv   -ruiiJ^. THAT   i tJf./tJ£m^-ritfJ  is
               -THAT  rAt-T cf- -rue. />fjy*i£.ie. —
                            i-TH-
                             A-





            IT   li   ^c/lJif  T»  6«:




                sf.  of-  n --
                   op.
               t>e^|C,fJ/TTio/>/^    tT  fHi/v'lt.   £Pfl





                    THt  06f|o;KAT/<>^  'Vft'aft-^C'D





                                                     osc/vt-  v/se
                                                                 1-u  fit





-re cui,£J>   /f/jo  •}> is f (,&«).•>  tf ^  CfLwff&i.-i   'viicjH'T   s/A-ir^v  ee.

-------
                                                                   ec
                                                              -rt>




           /^dvJ-7  IT, —    ^p<£-r>l<-   op  L-oop   ^ »>> t>




                                           IT-
T
                            /\j?.'G   /W~fT*i'
                            / U
                                       -S.

-------
ATTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEARING FEB. 14/16, 1979

                Saint Louis Ma.
Richard A. Ahlbeck, Ph.D.
Vice President/ Science and Technology
N-viro Energy Systems Inc.
2201 Albion Street
Toleda, Ohio, 43606

Jerry W. Anderson
1804 Vandiver Drive
P. 0. Box 1091
Colttifoia, Missouri, 65205

J. W. Bankert, President
Northside  Landfill Inc.
Rt. 1 Box 197
Ziorisville, Indiana, 46077

Wm. E. Barker
Mgr. Environmsntal Control
Abott Laboratories
1400 N. Sheridan Road
North Chicago, Illinois, 60064

Robert B. Bayr
Velsiool Chemical Corporation
341 East Ohio Street
Chicago, Illinois, 60611

John Beale
Dow Chemical U. S. A.
Environmental Quality
2030 Dow Center
Midland, Michigan 48640
Brooks Becker, Ph.D.
Residuals Management Technology,
Suite 122, Washington Square
1406 E. Washington Ave.
Madison, Wisconsin, 53703

Shaaban Ben-Poorat
Laclede G?s Company
4118 Shrewsbury Ave.
St. Louis, Missouri, 63119
Inc.
Charles Bent
Reynolds Mstals Cortpany
6601 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia, 23261

Charles E. Beresford
Oxirane Corporation
4550 Post Oak Place Drive
Houston, Texas 77027

Steven I. Berg
Adair County Courthouse
P. 0. Box 965
Kirksville, Ma., 63501

Alison Herman
Washington University Law School

Jerry E. Bindel
Union Electric Company
1901 Gratiot Street
P. 0. Box 149
St. Louis, Mo., 63166

Suzanne V. Bird
Western Electric
Planning Engineer
P. 0. Box 14000
Omaha, Neb.

Walter Bishop
Envirodyne Engineers
12161 Lackland Road
St. Louis, Mo., 63141

Linda L. Black
ACF Industries, Inc.
620 North 2nd St.
St. Charles, M3., 63301

John M. Blankenbom
St. Joe Mivirde
Env. Control Specialist
7733 Ebrsyth Blvd. R m 500
Clayton, tto., 63105

-------
ATIENEEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEARING FEB. 14/16, 1979

                Saint Louis Mo.
Greg Bobrowski
American Admixtures Corp.
Technical Director
5909 N. Rogers Ave.
Chicago, 111., 60646

Randy J. Boeding
Environmental Chemist
FirstMiss Inc.
P. O. Box 328
Fort Madison, Iowa, 52627

Frank R. Boehm
Petrolite Corportation
100 N. Broadway
Saint Louis, tto., 63102

Bruce Boggs
AMAX Resource Recovery
5020 S. Atlanta Rd.
Smyrna, Ga., 30080

Bob BoHanan
State of 111. EPA
2200 Churchill Rd.
Springfield, 111., 62706

Werner C. Born
Hermann Oak Leather Co.
St. Louis, Mo., 63147

R. C. Bourke
Detroit Diesel Allison
P. O. Box 894 S-20
Indianapolis, Indiana, 46206

Glenn W. Bowen
Santa Fe
Chemist
1001 N. E. Atchison
Topeka, Kansas, 66616
Fred H. Bransfeetter, P.E.
The Brenco Corporation
704 Nbrth First Street
St. Louis, Mo., 63102

Fred L. Braun
ACF Inc.
Director-Car Maintenance
620 N. 2nd St.
St. Charles, Wo., 63301

George E. Brown
Mallinckrodt
675 Brown Rd.
P. 0. Box 5840
St. Louis, Mo., 63134

Michael E. Brum
Electric Wheel Co.
Environmental Eng.
1120 North 28th
Quincy, 111., 62301

Steve Buerk
7417 Lynn Grove St.
Hazelwood, Mo., 63042

Gall F. Burke
Cownonwealth Edison
72 West Adams Street
P. 0. Box 767
Chicago, 111., 60690

J. T. Callaham
ACF Industries, Inc.
Clark and Main Streets
St. Charles, Mo., 63301

G. Edward Callis
D-A Lubricant Company, Inc.
1340 W. 29th St.
Indianapolis, Indiana, 46208

-------
ATTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEARING FEB. 14/16,  1979

                Saint Louis MD.
Henry W. Caughman
Hq. Military Airlift Command
General Engineer
Hq. Mac/Dees
Soott AFB, ni., 62225

H. A. Caves
N. E. 10th St. & Stcnewall
P. 0. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, Okla, 73152

Richard A. Cedmer
American Admixtures Corp.
Lab Tech.
5909 Rodgers
Chicago, 111.,

J. D. Christena
P. O. Box 68007 , Bock Island Refining
Indianapolis, Ind, 46268

Charles CLark
Washington Univ, THA Dept
Graduate Student
St. Louis Ms. , 63130

Howard M. Clary
Delaware County Health Dept.
Health Inspector
100 W. Main Street Bm. 207 County Bldg,
Munrie, Ind., 47303

Charlotte H. Cbates
Haz. Matl. Dept of Natl Resources
Data Processing Mgr.
Pinehill Plaza
Frankfort, Ky., 40601

Mark Cochran
Water Quality Engineer
Central 111. Public Service Co.
607 East Adams St.
Springfield, 111., 62701
Henry M. Cole
City of Springfield Mo.
Sanitary Engineer
830 Booneville
Springfield, Mo., 65738

John F. Cole
Shell Oil Conpany
P. 0. Box 262
Woodriver, 111., 62095

Steven W. Cooper
Helena Chemical Company
P. 0. Box 2338
West Helena, Ar., 72390

Ann K. Covington
Assistant Attorney General
Supreme Court Building
Jefferson City, MD., 65101

James B. Coyne, P.E.
Peabody Coal Company
301 N. Manorial Drive
St. Louis, MD, 63102

C. Todd Crawford
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson City Regional Office

Ronald L. Cross
Peabody Coal Company
301 N. Material Drive
St. Louis, MD., 63102

Christine Curiel
Environmental Analyst
Arkansas Power & Light
P. 0. Box 551
Little Rock, Ark.,  72203

Kenneth Joe Davis
Missouri Department of  Natural Resources
P. O. Box 1368
2010 Missouri Blvd.
Jefferson City, Mo., 65102

-------
ATTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEAPING IEB. 14/16, 1979

                Saint Louis Mo.
M. David Dealy
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
1701 MD. Pac. Bldg.
St. Louis, Mo., 63103

David M. Dennis, Chief
Michigan Department of Natural Resoouroes
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Michigan, 48926

E. E. Dickson
Director of Envir..Protection
Kijiberly-Clark Corporation
Neenah, Wisconsin, 54956

L. J. Domzalski
Tech Mgr.
Malco Chemical Co.
2901 Butterfield Rd.               	
Oak Brook, 111.,

Leo Donealski
Private Citizen
8337 S. Karlov
Chicago, 111, 60652

Guinn P. Doyle
Ind. State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan St.
Indianapolis, Ind, 46206

Dr. Stacy L. Daniels
Environmental Sciences Research
1702 Building
Midland, Michigan, 48640

Denise Deschenes
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp
Jr,. Engineer
P. 0. Box 2521
Houston, Texas, 77001

Kay Drey
515 West Point Ave
St. Louis, Mo., 63130
Dale S. Duffala
Black & \featch Consulting Engineers
1500 Meadow Lake Parkway
Kansas, MD., 64114

Harold R. Dugan
Browning-Ferris Industries
5400 Cogswell Rd.
Lemont 111.

H. S. Durbin
IBM
Office Products Div.
740 New Circle Rd.
Lexington, Kentucky, 40511

Robert H. Dyer
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
910 Bay Area Blvd.
Houston, fexas, 77058

Robert S. P. Eck
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Highway 63 North
P. 0. Box 489
Macon, Ms., 63552

George Edema
Browning-Ierris Industries
1N282 Park Boulevard
Glen Ellyn, 111, 60137

J. Marvin Eggleston
Ind. State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan St.
Indianapolis, Ind., 46206

Joseph Eigner, Ph.D.
Bi-State Development Agency
818 Olive Street
St. Louis, Mo., 63101

Dale L. Eisenreich
Laclede Steel Company
P. 0., Box 576
Alton, 111., 62002

-------
ATTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEARING FEB. 14/16, 1979

                Saint Louis Mo.
Wally K. El-Beck
Chemist
Illinois EPA

Charles Epstein
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
3001 Dickey Road
East Chicago, Indiana, 46312

Alex Evins
Diamond Shamrock
Env. Engineer
1149 Ellsworth
Pasadena, Texas, 77501

Fred M. Fehsenfeld, President
ILWD  Inc.
7901 W. Harris St.
Indianapolis, Ind, 46231

G. M. Fell
Havering, Ltd
President
P. O. Box 88
Chicago Heights, 111., 60411

Ronald M. Ferris
Env. Analysis, Inc.
President
3363 Parker Spur.
Florissant, MD., 63033

Ens. Martin Finkel
U. S. Coast Guard
Port Safety Officer
210 N 12th Rm 1128
St. Louis, Mo.

Victor L. Flack
Carboline
350 Janley Industrial Ct.
St. Louis, MD., 63144

Daniel V. Flynn
Illinois EPA
Michael R. Foresman
Mansanto Co.
Project Manager
Sauget, 111., 62201

William J. Foristal
Raltech Scientific Services, Inc.
P. 0. Box 7545
Madison, Wisconsin, 53707

Rose M. Freeman
111. EPA
Resource Planner

S. W. Fretwell, P.E., Manager
Oxirane Corporation
4550 Post Oak Place Dr.
Houston, Texas,.77027

Terry Freeze
Environmental Consultant
Mississippi Chemical Corp.
Box 388
Yazoo City, Ms, 39194

G. W. Fuller, P.E.
The Empire District Electric Co.
602 Joplin St.
Joplin, Mo., 64801

Erwin P. Gadd
Director
Missouri Division of Health
P. O. Box 570
Jefferson City, Mo., 65101

Kathleen Gallagher
Wald, Harkrader & Ross
Paralegal
1320 19th St.
Washington, D, C.

David L. Garin, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Chemistry
332 Benton Hall
8001 Natural Bridge Rd.
St. Louis, Mo., 63121

-------
ATTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEARING FEB. 14/16, 1979

                Saint Louis Mo.
John c. Gavan
Macco, Inc.
Chemist
St. Louis, Mo.

Allan Gebhard
Vice President
Barr Enginerring Co
6800 France Ave.  South
Minneapolis, Minn., 55435

Glen A. Gettinger
Midwest Oil Refining s Recucling Co.
1900 Walton Rd.
St. Louis, Mo. 63114

G. E. Garth
Mallinckrodt Nuclear
2703 Wagner Place
Maryland Heights, Mo., 63043

Ann Gessley
Mo. Dapt of Natural Resources
P. O. Box 1368
2010 Missouri Blvd.
Jefferson City, Mo., 65102

Father Casimir Gierut
Survival Group of Wilsonville, 111.
Holy Cross Church
Wilsonville, 111., 62093

Warren J. Gladders
G. W. Gladders Towing Company, Inc.
11 South Meramec
St. Louis, Mo., 63105

T. L. Gloried
St. Louis County Water
Manager-Engr.
8390 Dslnar Blvd.
St. Louis, Mo., 63124

Deborrah K. Gold
Student at Florissant Vally
2115 McKelvey Hill
St. Louis, Mo., 63043

John N, Goulias
Goulias Associates
1925 North Circle Dr.
Jefferson City, Mo., 65101
Dominic J. Grana, P.E.
GM Assembly Division, Gen. Motors
St. Louis Plant
3809 Union Blvd.
St., Louis, Mo., 63115

Arthur W. Griffith
Ozark Lead Co.
Rural Branch
Sweetwater, Mo., 63680

Thomas J. Hanchar, President
Hanchar Industrial Waste
2601 Connett Ave.
Fort Wayne, Ind., 46804

John C. Hancock
Mississippi Chemical Corp,
P. 0. Box 848
Pascaguola, Miss., 39587

B. R. Hanley
Claytcsi Chemical Co.
10 S. Brentwood Blvd.
Clayton, Mo., 63105

Russell D. Hart
ACF Industries Corp.
Clark & Main Streets
St. Charles, Mo., 63301

Scott Haskenhoff
3033 Barrett St.

Jamss S. Hatakeyama
Mallinckrodt Nuclear
Box 10172 Lambert Field
St, Louis, Mo., 63145

Clayton Hathaway
Monsanto Co.
800 Nilindbergh
St. Louis., Mo., 63166

M. J. Hauser
AMAX Copper Division
400 Middlesex Ave
Carteret, New Jersey, 07008

Michael D. Hawksley
SCA Services
1838 No. Broadway, St. Louis, Mo.

-------
ATTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEARING FEE 14/16, 1979

                Saint Louis Mo.
 Duane C. Helnterger
 USAF
 1200 Main  St.
 Dallas Texas,  75202

 Thomas M.  Helsher
 Monsanto
 800  N. Lijidbergh Blvd.
 St.  Louis, Mo.  63166

 Mildred Hendricks
 Gillespie, 111.

 Donald A.  Hensch, P.E.
 Oklahona State Department of Health
 N. E. 10th Street & Stonewall
 P. 0. Box  53551
 Oklahona City,  Okla.  73152

 Paul D. Herbert
 Modine
 1500 Dekoven Ave.
 Racine, Wis. 53401

 Dan  Hezndon
 Pine Hill  Plaza
 Frankfort, Ky.  40601

 Louis V. Holroyd
 Univ. Of Mo.
 Prof.
 304  Jesse  Hall
 Univ. of Mo.,  Oolunbia,  65201

 D. J. Howell ,  Attorney
 Borg-Wamer  Corp.
 200  South  Michigan  Ave
 Chicago, 111.,  60604

 Lonnie R.  Jacobs
 The  Barge  and  Towing  Industry  Assoc.
 Midwestern Regional Rep.
 11 S. Msramec  Ave.  Suite 1312
 Clayton, Mo. 63105
Roberta L. Jennings, Geologist
Andrews Engineering, Inc.
1320 S. 5th Street
Springfield, 111., 62703

Howard Jerome
1601 No. Broadway
Saint Louis, Mo. 63102

Gene L.Jessee
Director, Invironmsntal Processes
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis  Mo. 63166

Eldon E. Johnson
Safety Rep.
University of Missouri-tolla
G-l Parker Hall
Rolla, Mo. 65401

Nicholas K. Johnson
Controller
Nucor Steel
P. 0. Box 309
Norfolk, Nebraska, 68701

Phillip M. Johnson
Delaware County Health Dept.
Cheif Envir. Div.
Room 207, Del. County Bldg.
Muncie, Ind., 47305

Mary L. Jones
Human Rights Survial Group
Box 327
Wilsonville, 111., 62093

Robert E. Jones
The Quaker Oats Co.
P. 0. BOX 3514
Merchandise Mart Plaza
Chicago, 111., 60654

-------
ATTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEARING FEB. 14/16, 1979

                Saint Louis MD.
C. J. Jost, Jr.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
721 Pestalozzi, Street
St. Louis, MD., 63118

William A, Justin
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
151 N. Delaware St.
Suite 1510
Indianapolis, Ind., 46204

Thomas A. Kawalski
UC Ind.
Cheif Chemist
400 Paul Ave.
Fergesion, MD., 63736

David C. Kennedy Ph.D.
Envirodyne Engineers
12161 Lackland Road
St. Louis, Ms., 63141

Peter Keppler
AMAX Enviromrental Services, Inc.
V. P. & Gen. Council
4704 Harlan
Denver, Colo., 80212

James E. Kerrigan
AMAX Environmental Services, Inc
4704 Harlan St.
Denver, Colorado, 80212

Alva H. King
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
1200 Firestone Parkway
Akron, Ohio, 44317

James A. Kinsey
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota, 55113

Floyd G. Kitchen , Seigel-Robert Inc.
8645 South Broadway
St. Louis, MD., 63111

Ken Klauser
Quincy Soybean Co.
Supr. Of Environmental Systems
1900 So. Front
Quincy, 111., 62301                 8
Charles E. Knippling
Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Technical Advisor
P. 0. Box 7
Hartford, 111., 62048

Wra. H. Klingner & Associates
John W. Klinger
617 Broadway
Quincy/ HI./ 62301

Allen M. Koleff
Stone Container Corp.
Sixth and Anderson Streets
Franklin, Ohio, 45005

Daniel Kraybill
U. S. Army Cerl
Environmental Engineer
P. 0. Box 4005
Champaign, 111., 61820

Dolald J. Kulek
Department of Public Works
City Hall, Quincy, 111.

F. J. Kusiak
Monsanto
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MD. , 63166

J. M. Kuszaj
The Dow Chemical Co.
Attorney
2030 Bldg.
Midland, Mich., 48640

John M. Laferby
AMAX
5950 Mclntyre St.
Golden, Colorado, 80401

Bemie Laverentz
KIES-Kansas industrial Envr. Services
8808 North 127th Street East
Wichita, Kansas, 67201

David J. Leeke
Nooter Corp.
1400 So, Third St.
St. Louis, MD., 63166

-------
 ATTENDEE IJST:   PUBLIC HEARING FEB.  14/16,  1979

                 Saint Louis Mo.
William E. Laque
Pock Island Refining
5000 W. 86th St.
Indianapolis, Ind., 46268

Lewis L. Legg
Illinois State University
Environmental Health & Safety
Normal, Illinois, 61761

A. L. Lengilel
Havering Ltd.
Cheif Tech. Dir.
P. 0. Box 888
Chicago, Heights, 111, 60411

L. Robert Levy
Great Lakes Container Corporation
Travelers Tower - Suite 318
26555 Evergreen
Southfield, Michigan 48076

John J. Libera
ACF Industries, Inc.
620 North 2nd St.
St. Charles, Missouri, 63301

Charles Linn
Kansas Division of Environrrent
Topeka, Kansas, 66606

Richard J. Linzmaier
Admin. P. E. Planning
McDonnell Douglas Corp.
P. O. Box 516
St. Louis, Mo., 63166

Vicky Lovelace
Ralston Purina Conpany
Checkerboard Square
St. Louis, M3., 63188

Paul A. Luther
Envirodyne Engineers
12161 Lackland Road
St. Louis, Mo., 63141

Joseph Madera
AMAX Inc.
P. 0. Box 220
Fort Madison, Iowa, 52627
 John F. Mahan
 Fruin-Colnon
 1706 Olive Street
 St. Louis, MD., 63103

 W. E. Marbaker II
Executive Secretary
 Mining Industry Council of Missouri
 210 Monroe St.
 Jefferson City, Mo., 65101

 Roland C. Marquart
 Saint Louis Regional Conreroe &
 Grouth Association
 Ten Broadway
 St. Louis, MD., 63102

 Louise Martin
 Human Rights Survival
 Treasurer
 P. 0. Box 302
 Wilsonville, 111., 62093

 Robert J. Masini
 Vblclay - Am. Colloid Co.
 5100 Suffield Court
 Skokie, 111., 60077

 Dr. James C. Masson, Manager
 Monsanto Conpany
 800 Lindbergh Blvd.
 St. Louis, MD., 63166

 Dan MoCabe
 Env. Ent., President
 11750 Chesterdale Road
 Cincinnati, Ohio, 45246

 Max W. McCorrbs
 Monsanto Chemical Intermediates Co.
 1700 South Second St.
 St. Louis, MD., 63177

 Jack McCoy, President
 MftCCD, Inc.
 Industrial Cleaning
 1013 Ann Ave.
 St. Louis, MD., 63104

 Charles J. McCready
 Burkart Randall Textron
 Vice President-Product Development
 700 Office Parkway
 St. Louis, MD., 63141

-------
ATTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEARING FEB. 14/16, 1979

                Saint Louis Mo.
Mr. Cliff McDaniel
Facilities Manager
Kansas Industrial Environmental Services
P. 0. Box 745
Wichita, Kansas, 67201

J. N. MoGuire
Monsanto Conpany
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Mo., 63166

Michael E. McGuire
Deere & Conpany
400 19th Street
Moline, Illinois, 61265

Karen E. McKenna
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Rd.
Springfield, 111., 62706

Joseph E. McMsnamin
Southern 111. Uiiv.
Law Clerk
P. 0. Box 1116
Carbondale, 111., 62901

John F. Msister
Director - Pollution Control
SIU-C, Neckers Boom 306 Wing C
Carbondale, 111., 62901

Kenneth Msnsing
Eegional Manager
Illinois EPA
115 A. West Main St.
Collinsville, 111., 62234

Perry Mann
Illinois EPA
115 A. West Main
Collinsville, 111., 62234

Richard Msuniel
Citizen
Box 123, Mo., 65059
                                    10
John L. Miles
Petrolite Corp
Staff Attorney
100 Broadway
St. Louis, Mo., 63102

Michael L, Miller, P.E.
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, 111., 62706

G. P. Mills, Jr.
Kerr-McGee Corporation
P. 0. Box 25861
Oklahoma City, Ok., 73125

Beverly Mohler
Hercules Aerospace Div.
Sunflower Amy Ammunition Plant
P. 0. Box 549
DeSoto, Kansas, 66018

Given Molinar
Hunan Rights Survival Group
President
Box 257
Wilsonville, 111., 62093

Donald R. Marmot
Envirodyne
12161 lackland Road
St. Louis, M3., 63141

Warren L. MonAcomery
Yellow Frg. System
Safety Supr.
400 Barton St.
St. Louis, Mo.

Donald F. Montroy
The Brenco Corp.
Sales Eng.
704 North First Street
St. Louis, Mo., 63102

Ben M»re
Mo. DNR
Envir. Eng.
Box 176
Jefferson City, Mo., 65102

-------
OTTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HERRING FEB. 14/16, 1979

                Saint Louis Mo.
Brenda Morgan
U.S. EPA - Geologist
230 Dearborn St.
Chicago, 111.,

Dr. J. W. Mottem
800 N. Lindberg Blvd.
St. Louis, Ma., 63166

Ena Mrocykouski
4902 Geraldine Ave
St. Louis, MD., 63115

David E. Mjrray
Reitz & Jens, Inc.
Consulting Engr.
Ill S. Iterance Ave.
St. Louis, tto. , 63105

Harold D. Muth
Vice President
The Am. Waterways Operators, Inc.
1600 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Va., 22209

David L. Nagle
Project Engr.
RMT Residuals Management
Technology, Inc.
Suite 122, Washington Square
1406 E. Washington Ave.
Madison, Wisconsin, 53703

Mante M. Nienkerk
Illinois EPA
Regional Manager
4500 South Sixth Street Rd.
Springfield, 111., 62706

Donald R. Norton
Admin. Assistant to
Paul Kindley
Rep. in Congress
Room 205
Post Office Building
Springfield, 111., 62701
                                    11
Wiley W. Osbome, P.E.
Chief Plans and Programs
Texas Departnent of Health'
1100 W. 49th St.
Austin, Texas, 78756

noyd E. Queilette
Dow Chemical Co.
Sr. Regional Analyst
2030 Dow Center
Midland, Mi., 48640

Robert L. Owens
Laclede Steel
Supr. Works Eng.
P. 0. Box 576
Alton, 111., 62002

W. B. Papageorge
Director
Monsanto Chemical Intermediates Co.
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Ms., 63166

Mirko Popovich
Benld, 111., 62009

Robert W. Pappenfbrt, F.E.
Missouri Departnent of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 1368
2010 Missouri Blvd.
Jefferson City, tto., 65102

James N. Pallermr
Self, TDHR
2430 Cedar Dr.

Stanley Parsons
111. EPA, Attorney
2200 Churchill Rd.
Springfield, 111., 62706

Joseph F. Petrilli, P.E.
Manager, 111. EPA
Same as Above

A. T. Pickens
Pfizer Minerals, Pigments & Metals
2001 Lynch Ave.,
East St. Louis, 111., 62201

-------
ATTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEARING IEB.' 14/L6, 1979

                Saint Louis Mo.
Michael A. Pierle
Monsanto Chemical Intermediates Co.
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Mo., 63166

R. David Plank, P.E.
City Utilities Springfield Mo.
301 E. Central St.
Jewell P. O. Box 551
Springfield, Mo., 65801

R. R. Pooler
At & SF Rwy
Dir. Environmental Quality
Topaka Kansas, 66616

Michael S. Poosch
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc.
300 New Center Building
Detroit, Mich., 48202

Robert S. Poston, Vice President
Carrrel Energy, Inc.
1776 Yorktown, Suite 110
Houston, Texas, 77056

Joe Pound
Vice President
American Admixtures Corp.
5909 North Rogers Ave.
Chicago, 111., 60646

Allen W. Pryor
Illinois Department of Transportation
2300 South Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, 111., 62764

Michael W. Rapps, P. E.
Principal
Michael Rapps & Associates
1530 South 6th St.
Springfield, 111., 62703

Richard A. Ratliff
Texas Dept. of Health
1100 W. 49th St.
Austin, Texas, 78756
                                    12
Ted Reese, President
Cadence Chemical Resources, Inc.
P. 0, Box 2107
Michigan City, Ind, 46360

R. N. Reid
Beynolds Metals Co.
Sr. Envir. Eng.
Hurricane Creek Plant
Bauxite, Ar., 72011

Oscar S. Richards, Jr.
Conservation Chemical Co.
215 W. Pershing Rd.
Kansas City, Mo., 64108

James C. Rish
USAF - Civil Engineer
Scott AFB, 111.

Rick L. Roberts
Missouri Department of Natural Res.
P. 0. Box 1368
2010 Missouri Blvd.
Jefferson City, Mo., 65101

Charles Robertson, Exec. V.P.
ENSCO
P. 0. Box 1975
El Dorado, Ark., 71730

T. J. Robichaux
Petrolite
Dir. Safety Health & Env. Affairs
100 N. Broadway
St. Louis, Mo., 63102

Bunny Robinson
studant
1582 Sun Miguel Lane
Eenton, Mo., 63026

Robert M. Robinson, P.E.
Director
Missouri Department of Natural Res.
P. O. Box 1368
Jefferson City, Mo., 65101

Thomas A. Robinson
Director, Env. Affairs
Vulcan Materials Co.
P. 0. Box 12283, Wichita, Ks., 67277

-------
ATTENDEE LIST:  PUBLIC HEARING FEB. 14/16, 1979

                Saint Louis MD.
Douglas C. Rossberg
Wis. CNR
Haz. Waste Mgmt. Spec.
1545 6th St.'
Green Bay, Wisconsin, 54303

John W. Rugaber, P.E.
Pet Incorporated
Dir. of Eng. Env.
Box 392
St. Louis, MD., 63166

M. L. Rueppel
Research Manager
Monsanto Agricultural Research
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Mb., 63166

David W. Sandeils
Associated Industries of Mo.
Supr. Industrial Relations
314 N. Broadway Suite 1530
St. Louis, MD., 63102

William R. Schaffer
MDnsanto Co.
Mgr. Regulatory Compliance
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MD., 63166

William A. Schiraning
CF Industries, Inc
Director Environmental Affairs
P. 0. Box 1480
Bartow, Florida, 33830

Julie Schnieder
Student
1000 W. Appapello
St. Louis, MD., 63141

M. W. Sheil
Dept Env. Control-Nebraska
Lincoln, Neb.,

Diane W. Shelby
Counsel  TWR
23555 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland, Ohio, 44117
Karen Shewbart
Dow Chemical Co.
Env. Service Group Leader
B-1226
Freeport, Texas, 77541

Stephen K. Shogren
Env. Supr.
Allied Chemical Corp. Rt. 1
Cave-in-Rock, 111., 62919

Gretchen G. Sintnons
Midland Division Dexter Corp.
East Water St.
Waukegan, 111., 60085

Bill Skoglund
Gen. Mgr.
Interstate Pollution Control
1525 9th St.
Rockford, 111., 61108

Kenneth H. Smelcer
Exec. Vice President
The Industrial Assoc. of Quincy
424 WOJ Building
Quincy, 111., 62301

Kenneth M. Smith
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
11 East Adams St.
Suite 1500
Chicago, 111., 60603

Peter Smith, Attorney
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MD., 63166

Russell C. Smith
Salsburg Laboratories
Chemical Production & Engineering Mgr.
2000 Itockford R3.
Charles City, Iowa, 50616

Janes Sparks
Edwin Cooper Inc.
Environmental Tech.
Monsanto Ave.
Sauget, 111., 62201
                                     13

-------