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
------- |