"i ' ' * '^
C|i ^|q i,; • '; t United States Office of f :j
° •~-'i' ''» * • i Environmental Protection Solid Waste •'* [j
Agency Washington DC 20460 jf.,?
" i '5,1
Sol id Waste
v>EFy\ 1 Public Hearing
on the
Proposed
Hazardous Waste
Regulations
February 7 - 9, 1979
New York, New York
Transcript
-------
1* ••
-------
TRANSCRIPT
Public Hearing
on Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations
February 7-9, 1979, New York, New York
This hearing was sponsored by EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
and the proceedings (SW-49p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Strtfil
Chicago, Illlnoll 60604
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGHHCY
1979
-------
U,G. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
3 DATE OF SESSIONS February 7, 1979
4 PLACE: UNITED ENGINEERING CENTER
Main Auditorium (First Floor)
5 345 East 47th Street
New York, New York 10017
6
7
8 CHAIRMAN:
9 James A. Rogers
10
11 PANEL MEMBERS: (February?, 1979)
12 Steffen W. Plehti
James Marshall
13 Dorothy A. Darrah
Terrell Hunt
14 John P. Lehman
Alfred Lindsey
15 Alan Corson
Michael DeBonis
16 David Friedman
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SAYMOR •REPORTING" SERVICE*' r
(212) 525-7788
25 (212) 428-1768
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
SPEAKERS-Public Hearing
Proposed Hazardous Waste Relations
New York City
February 7, 1979
Morris Herson
2
President, National Barrel & Drum Association
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
John Chaplick
Sierra Club
Haverhill
Peter N. Skinner
Environmental Engineer
State of New York
Francis J. Batchelder
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Commissioner Robert Flacke
New York State Department of Environmental
Norman H. Nosenchuck
Conservation
Director, Division of Solid Waste Management
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
A. E. Morrison
Superintendent, Environmental and Chemical
Tampa, Florida
Services
-------
1
2 MR. PLEHNs Good morning. My
3 name is Steffen Plehn. I am Deputy Assistant
4 Administrator with the Office of Solid Waste.
5 I am very pleased to welcome you
6 here today for what is the first of 15 days of
7 Hearings in all parts of the country on proposed
8 regulations to controld hazardous wastes.
9 This is a critical point in a process
10 which began for EPA, I guess, some eight years ago
11 when we first began to address the problem of con-
12 trol of hazardous wastes.
13 EPA first proposed legislation to
14 the Congress in 1973. The Congress enacted the
15 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and spe-
16 cifically, the regulatory program for hazardous
17 wastes in 1976.
18 We have been engaged in two years
19 of analysis and consultation leading to the
20 proposal and regulations which are the sub-
21 ject of these Hearings. The program mandated
22 by Congress is intended to control hazardous
23 wastes from the time they are generated through
24 transportation from the point they are transported
25
-------
1
2 to storage and final treatment and disposal. This
3 is a large program. It will be a large program.
4 We estimate that it will be some
5 270,000 generators that will be affected and
6 some 10,000 firms engaged in transportation
7 and as many as 30,000 sites for storage, treatment
8 and disposal, and also, a critical program as the
' problems of improper hazardous waste disposal over
10 the past year have clearly demonstrated.
11 The proposed regulations represent
12 EPA's best efforts to carry out the mandate of
13 Congress in the development of this program.
14 It does not mean, however, that final judgments
15 have been made.
16 We are earnestly soliciting comments,
17 during the course of these Hearings, on all as-
18 pects of these proposed regulations and we are
19 also soliciting new ideas and concepts on some
20 of the issues which are identified in the pre-
21 amble to the various regulations.
22 The subject of these regulations is
23 the prospective management of hazardous wastes.
24 This is the assignment which was given to EPA
25
-------
1
2 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
3 but the problem of Love Canal in Niagara Falls in
4 New York in August of this year, brought forward
5 a different but related environmental issue; that
6 being the threat to the kelp in the environment
7 from the improper managing of hazardous wastes
8 in the past.
9 Since Love Canal was evacuated in
10 August, there has been a continuing revelation
11 of similar problems in other parts of the country
12 including instances in New York State and New Jersey.
13 I think the most recent one was the Valley of the
14 Drums near Louisville, Kentucky which I was privi-
15 leged to visit last Friday.
16 The record provides virtually no auth-
17 ority and no resources for dealing with this prob-
18 lem of improper disposal in the past.
19 The Justice Department and EPA are
20 working jointly on a series of investigations,
21 working with the States on the significant number
22 of these sites and we will have and will be taking
23 legal action in both State and Federal courts.
24 We are also developing a legislative
25
-------
1
2 program which will seek to provide resources
3 which can both deal with an emergency caused
4 by situations and for clean-up where no other
5 source of funding is available.
6 I think what brings these two prob-
7 lems together is the fact that improper manage-
8 ment waste at present is very likely to lead to
9 an environmental problem in the future so to the
10 extent that we manage theee wastes properly in
11 the first instance, we will forestall and prevent
12 problems in the years ahead.
13 I would like to introduce Jack Lehman,
14 the Director -~ excuse me? I would like to intro-
15 duce Jim Marshall, Director of the External Prog-
16 rams Division, EPA Region II.
17 MR» MARSHALL; Thank you. My name
lg is James Marshall. I am Director of the External
19 Programs Division, EPA Region II,
20 The New York City Transportation Sys-
2i tern seems to be practicing already for this even-
22 ing's snowy rush hour.
23 I would like to welcome you very brief-
24 ly, both the audience and the panel members on be-
25
-------
1
2 half of the Regional Office and Chris Beck, who
3 is our Regional Administrator. Unfortunately,
4 he had to be in Washington today and, judging
5 from today's weather forecast, he will be there
6 for a few days yet,
7 At any rate, the staff has already
8 told you what the Hearing is about. I think
9 they have given you some indications as to why
10 it's so appropriate that this first Hearing take
H place in Region II.
12 One of the first speeches that Chris
13 Beck made when he came in to NewJersey in October,
14 was when he referred to some of our disposal sites
15 as "ticking bombs."
16 I think that speech turned out to be
17 more prophetic than he realized. Since then we
18 have had the Hyde Park landfill, Providence and
19 many well closings in Long Island and New Jersey.
20 I see in the papers this morning that
2i there is yet more startling health revelations
22 arising out of Love Canal. We feel it is appro-
23 priate that this first Hearing on this important
24 national region be held in Region II.
25
-------
1
2 Once again, I would like to welcome
3 you and turn it back to the Washington panel.
4 Thank you.
5 MR, PLEHN; I would like to intro-
6 duce Jack Lehman, who is Director of the Hazardous
7 Waste Management Division in the Office of Solid
8 Waste, EPA.
9 MR» LEHMAN: I would like to wel-
10 come you here on behalf of EPA to the public
11 Hearing which is being held to discuss the pro-
12 posed regions for the management of hazardous
13 waste. We appreciate your taking the time to
14 participate in the development of these regions
15 which are being issued under the authority of
16 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
17 known by the acronym of RCRAo
18 For a brief overview of why we're
19 here --
20 The Environmental Protection Agency
21 on December 18, 1978 issued proposed rules under
22 Section 3001, 3002 and 3004 of the Solid Waste
23 Disposal Act as substantially amended by the Re-
24 source Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
25
-------
1 9
2 (Pub. L. 94-580). These proposals respectively
3 cover: (1) criteria for identifying and listing
4 hazardous waste, identification methods, and a
5 hazardous waste list; (2) standards applicable to
6 generators of such waste for recordkeeping, label-
7 ing, using proper containers, and using a trans-
8 port manifest; and (3) performance, design, and
9 operating the standards for hazardous waste manage-
10 ment facilities,,
11 These proposals together with those
12 already published pursuant to Section 3003, (April
13 28, 1978), Section 3006 (February 1, 1978), Section
14 3008 (August 4, 1978), and Section 3010 (July 11,
15 1978) and that of the Department ofTransportatior^
16 pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transporta-
17 tion Act (May 25, 1978) along with Section 3005
18 regulations constitute the hazardous waste regu-
19 latory program under Subtitle C of the Act.
20 EPA has chosen to integrate its re-
21 gulations for facility permits pursuant to Sec-
22 tion 3005 and for State hazardous waste programs
23 authorization prusuant to Section 3006 of the
24 Act with proposals under the National Pollutant
25
-------
1 10
2 Discharge Elimination System required by Section
3 402 of the Clean Water Act and the Underground
4 Injection Control Program of the Safe Drinking
5 Water Act, This integration of programs will
6 appear soon as proposed rules under 40 CFR Parts
7 122, 123 and 124.
8 This Hearing is being held as part
9 of our public participation process in the develop-
10 ment of thisregulatory program.
11 First—for the logistics of the
12 meeting--we ask that smokers sit to the right,
13 where ash trays are located, and non-smokers may
14 wish to sit to the left.
15 The panel members who share the rostrum
16 with me, are; Steffen W« Plehn, Deputy Assistant
17 Administrator, Office of Solid Waste, EPA; James
18 Marshall, Director, External Programs Division,
19 EPA Region II; Michael DeBonis, Chief of Solid
20 Waste Branch, EPA Region II; Terrell Hunt, Office
21 of Enforcement, EPA; John P« Lehman, Director of
22 Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office of
23 Solid Waste, EPA; Alan Corson, Chief of Section
24 3001, Guidelines Branch, Hazardous Waste Manage-
25
-------
1 11
2 merit Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA and
3 Alfred Lindsey, Chief of Implementation Branch,
4 Hazardous Waste Management Divson, Office of
5 Solid Waste, EPA.
6 The responsible staff person for each
7 section will join us on the panel. As noted in
8 the Federal Register our planned agenda is to cover
9 comments on Section 3001 today, Sections 3002 and
10 3003 tomorrow, and 3004 the next day. Also, we
11 have planned an evening session tomorrow, cover-
12 ing all four sections. That session is planned
13 primarily for those who could not attend during
14 the day.
15 The comments received at this Hearing
16 and the other hearings as noted in the Federal Re-
17 gister, together with the comment letters we re-
18 ceive, will be a part of the official docket in
19 this rulemaking process. The comment period clo-
20 ses on March 16 for Sections 3001-3004. This dock-
21 et may be seen during normal working hours in Room
22 2111D, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, S.W., Washing-
23 ton D.C. In addition, we expect to have trans-
24 cripts of each hearing within about two weeks of
25
-------
1 12
2 the close of the hearing. These transcripts will
3 be available for reading at any of the EPA libra-
4 ries. A list of these locations is available at
5 the registration table outside.
6 With that as background, I'd like to
7 lay the groundwork and rules for the conduct of this
8 Hearing.
9 The focus of a public hearing in on
10 the public's response to a regulatory proposal of
11 an Agency, or in this case, Agencies, since both
12 EPA and the Department of Transportation are in"
13 volved. The purpose of this Hearing, as announced
14 in the April 28, May 25, and December 18, 1978
15 Federal Registers, is to solicit comments on the
16 proposed regulations including any background infor-
17 mation used to develop the comment„
18 This public hearing is being held not
19 primarily to inform the public nor to defend a pro-
20 posed regulation, but rather to obtain the public's
21 response to these proposed regulations, and there-
22 after revise them as may seem appropriate. All
23 major substantive comments made at the Hearing
24 will be addressed during preparation of the final
25
-------
13
1
2 regulation,
? This will not be a formal adjudica-
4 tory Hearing with the right to cross-examination.
5 The members of the public are, to present their
" views on the proposed regulation to the panel,
7 and the panel may ask questions of the people
8 presenting statements to clarify any ambiguities
' in their presentations.
1° Since we are time-limited, some ques-
11 tions by the panel may be forwarded in writing
12 to the speaker. His response, if received within
13 a week, of the close of this Hearing, will be in-
14 eluded in the transcript. Otherwise, we'll in-
15 elude it in the docket.
16 Due to time limitations, the chairman
17 reserves the right to limit lengthy questions,
18 discussions, or statements. We would ask that those
I9 of you who had a prepared statement to make oral-
20 ly, to please limit your presentation to a maxi-
21 mum of 10 minutes, so we can get all statements
22 in a reasonable time. If you have a copy of your
23 statement, please submit it to the court reporter.
24 Written statements will be accepted at
25
-------
1 14
2 the end of the Hearing. If you wish to submit
a written rather than an oral statement, please
«5
make sure the court reporter has a copy. The
written statements will also be included in
o
6 their entirety in the record.
_ Persons wishing to make an oral state-
g ment who have not made an advanced request by tele-
9 phone or in writing should indicate their interest
on the registration card. If you have not indica-
ted your intent to give a statement and you decide
-„ to do so, please return to the registration table,
J3 fill out the 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 lee-
-I J
tern after identifying himself or herself for the
lo
court report, and deliver his or her statement.
At the beginning of the statement,
lo
-9 the Chairperson will inquire as to whether the
speaker is willing to entertain questions from
the panel. The speaker is under no obligation
to do so, although.Twithin the spirit of this infor-
mation sharing Hearing, it would be of great
^>3
assistance to the Agency is questions were permitted.
24
25
-------
15
1
2 Our day's activities, as we currently
3 see them, appear like thos:
4 We will break for lunch at about 12:15
5 and reconvene at 1:45 P.M. Then, depending on our
6 progress, we will either conclude the day's session
7 or break for dinner, at about 5:00. Phone calls
8 will_;be posted on the registration table at the
9 entrance, and restrooms are located outside to
10 the left.
H If you wish to be added to our mailing
12 list for future regulations, draft regulations, or
13 proposed regulations, please leave your business
14 card or name and address on a three by five card
15 at the registration desk.
15 The regulations under discussion at
17 this Hearing are the core elements of a major re-
18 gulatory program to manage and control the coun-
19 try's hazardous waste from generation to final
20 disposal. The Congress directed this action in
2i the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
22 1976 (RCRA), recognizing that disposal of hazar-
23 dous waste is a crucial environmental and health
24 problem which must be controlled.
25
-------
16
1
2 In our proposal, we have outlined
3 requirements which set minimum norms of conduct
4 for those who generate, transport, treat, store
5 and dispose of hazardous waste.
6 These requirements, we believe, will
7 close the circle of environmental control begun
8 earlier with regulatory controll of emissions and
9 discharges of contaminants to air, water, and the
10 oceans.
11 We do not underestimate the complexity
12 and difficulty of our proposed regulations. Rather,
13 they teflect the large amounts of hazardous waste
14 generated and the complexity of the movement of
15 hazardous waste in our diverse society. These regw-
16 lations will affect a large number of industries.
17 Other non-industrial sources of hazardous waste,
18 such as laboratories and commercial pesticide
19 applicators, as well as transporters of hazardous
20 waste, will also be included.
21 Virtually,every day, the media carries
22 a story on a dangerous situation resulting from im-
23 proper disposal of hazardous waste. The tragedy
24 at Love Canal in New York State is but one recent
25
-------
17
1
2 example. The EPA has information on over 400
3 cases of the harmful consequences of inadequate
4 hazardous waste management. These cases include
5 incidents of surface and groundwater contamination,
6 direct contact poisoning, various forms of air
7 pollution, and damage from fires and explosions.
8 Nationwide, half of all drinking water is supplied
9 from groundwater sources and in some areas contam-
10 ination of groundwater resources currently poses
11 a threat to public health. EPA studies of a num-
12 ber of generating industries in 1975 showed that
13 approximately 90% of the potentially hazardous
14 waste generated by those industries was managed
15 by practices which were not adequate for protec-
16 tion of human health and the environment.
17 The Resource Conservation and Recovery
18 Act of 1976 was passed to address these problems.
19 Subtitle C establishes a comprehensive program
20 to protect the public health and environment from
2i improper disposal of hazardous waste.
22 Although the program requirements are
23 to be developed by the Federal government, the Act
24 provides that States with adequate programs can as-
25
-------
18
1
2 sume responsibility for regulation of hazardous
3 waste. The basic idea of Subtitle C is that the
4 public health and the environment will be protected
5 if there is careful monitoring of transportation
6 of hazardous waste, and assureance that such waste
7 is properly treated, stored, or disposed of either
8 at the site where it is generated or after it is
9 carried from that site to & special facility in
10 accordance with certain standards.
11 Seven guidelines and regulations are
12 being developed and either have been or will be
13 proposed (as noted earlier) under Subtitle C of
14 RCRA to implement the Hazardous Waste Management
15 Program. Subtitle C creates a management control
16 system which, for those wastes defined as hazar-
17 dous, requires a cradle-to-grave cognizance, in-
18 eluding appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping and
19 reporting throughout the system.
20 It is important to note that the defi-
21 nition of solid wastes in the Act encompasses
22 garbage, refuse, sludges and other discarded ma-
23 terials, including liquids, semisolids and con-
24 tained gases, with a few exceptions, from both
25
-------
19
1
2 municipal and industrial sources.
3 Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set
4 of all solid wastes, and which will be identified
5 by regulations proposed under Section 3001, are
6 those which have particularly significant impacts
7 on public health and the environment.
8 Section 3001 is the keystone of Sub-
9 title C. Its purpose is to provide a means for
10 determining whether a waste is hazardous for the
11 purposes of the Act and, therefore, whether it
12 must be managed according to the other Subtitle
13 C regulations.
14 Section 3001 (b) provides two mech-
15 anisms for determining whether a waste is hazar-
16 dous; a set of characteristics of hazardous waste
17 and a list of particular hazardous wastes. A
18 waste must be managed according to the Subtitle C
19 regulations if it either exhibits any of the char-
20 acteristics set out in proposed regulations or if
21 it is listed. Also, EPA is directed by Section
22 3001 (a) of the Act to develop criteria for iden-
23 tifying the set of characteristics of hazardous
24 waste and for determining which wastes to list. In
25
-------
20
1
2 this proposed rule, EPA sets out those criteria,
3 identifies a set of characteristics of hazardous
4 waste, and establishes a list of particular hazar-
5 dous wastes.
6 Also the proposed regulation provides
7 for demonstration of non-inclusion in the regulatory
8 program.
9 Section 3002 addresses standards appli-
10 cable to generators of hazardous waste. A generator
11 is defined as any person whose act or process pro-
12 duces a hazardous waste. Minimum amounts generated
13 and disposed per month are established to further
14 define a generator. These standards will exclude
15 household hazardous waste.
16 The generator standards will establish
17 requirements for: recordkeeping, labeling and mark-
18 ing of containers used for storage, transport or
19 disposal of hazardous waste; use os appropriate
20 containers, furnishing information on the general
2i chemical composition of a hazardous waste; use of
22 a manifest system to assure that a hazardous waste
23 is designated topermitted treatment, storage or
24 disposal facility; and submitting reports to the
25
-------
21
1
2 Administrator, or an authorized State Agency, set-
3 ting out the quantity generated and its disposition.
4 Section 3003 requires the development
5 of standards applicable to transporters of hazardous
6 wastes. These proposed standards address identifi-
7 cation codes, recordkeeping, acceptance and transpor-
8 tation of hazardous wastes, compliance with the mani-
9 fest system, delivery of the hazardous waste; spills
10 of hazardous waste and placarding and marking of
11 vehicles,, The Agency has coordinated closely with
12 proposed and current U.S. Department of Transporta-
13 tion regulations.
14 Section 3004 addresses standards affect-
15 ing owners and operators of hazardous waste treat-
16 ment, storage, and disposal facilities. These
17 standards define the levels of human health and
18 environmental protection to be achieved by these
19 facilities and provide the criteria against which
20 EPA (or State) officials will measure applications
21 for permits. Facilities on a generator's property
22 as well as off-site facilities are covered by these
23 regulations and do require permits; generators and
24 tranporters do not otherwise need permits„
25
-------
22
1
2 Section 3005 regulations set out the
3 scope and management of the actual permit-granting
4 ^process for facility owners and operators. Re-
5 quirements for the permit application as well as
6 for the issuance and revocation process are defined
7 by regulations to be proposed under 40 CFR Parts
8 122, 123 and 124. Section 3005 (e) provides for
9 interim status during the time period that the
10 Agency or the States are reviewing the pending
11 permit applications. Special regulations under
12 Section 3004 apply to facilities during this in-
13 terim status period.
14 Section 3006 requires EPA to issue
15 guidelines under which States may seek both full
16 and interim authorization to carry out the hazardous
17 waste program in lieu of an EPA-administered program.
18 States seeking authorization in accordance with
19 Section 3006 guidelines need to demonstrate that
20 their hazardous waste management regulations are
21 consistent with and equivalent in effect to EPA
22 regulations under Sections 3001-5.
23 Section 3010 requires any person gen-
24 erating, transporting, or owning or operating a
25
-------
23
1
2 facility for treatment, storage, and disposal of
3 hazardous waste to notify EPA of this activity
4 within 90 days after promulgation or revision of
5 regulations identifying and listing a hazardous
* waste pursuant to Section 3001. No hazardous
7 waste subject to Subtitle C regulation may be
" legally transported, treated, stores, or disposed
after the 90-day period unless this timely notifi-
10 cation has been given to EPA or an authorized State
11 during the above 90-day period. Owners and opera-
12 tors of inactive facilities are not required to
13 notify.
14 EPA intends to promulgate final re-
15 gulations under all sections of Subtitle C by
16 December 31, 1979. However, it is important for
I? the regulated communities to understand that the
18 regulations under Section 3001 through 3005 do
^ not take effect until six months after promulga-
2° tion. That would be approximately June of 1980.
21 Thus, there will be a time period
22 after final promulgation during which time pub-
23 He understanding of the regulations can be in-
24 creased. During this Same period, notifications
25
-------
24
1
2 required under Section 3010 are to be submitted,
3 and facility permit applications required under
4 Section 3005 will be distributed for completion
5 by applicants.
6 With that as a summary of Subtitle
7 C and the proposed regulations to be considered
* at this Hearing, I return this meeting to the
9 Chairperson, James Rogers.
10 I appreciate your staying with me
11 through this, with that as a summary of Sub-
12 title C regulations and the proposed regula-
13 tions to be conisdered at this Hearing.
14 At this time, I return the meeting
15 to our Chairman, Mr. James Rogers.
16 MR. ROGERS; Let me quickly
17 attempt to go through some of the ground rules
18 and then we will start getting into the substance
19 of these regulations.
20 First of all, I have been handed a
21 note stating that there is going to be a press
22 briefing at 11:45. Since some of the panel mem-
23 bers will be involved, that may well be a good
24 time to break for lunch.
25
-------
25
1
2 Now, you all should have pre-
3 registered either on the green card, which is
4 a mailing card or on a white form. On that,
5 you are supposed to indicate whether you want
6 to make a short statement. I have interpreted
7 the form to mean that if you have not checked
8 the box explicitly stating you want to make a
9 statement, that you are not going to make a
10 statement, but several^of the forms are unclear.
11 So, as I read the names of people
12 that I assume are speaking, if there is any
13 error, send up a note so that we can put it on
14 the schedule.
15 1 will go through the list of people
16 that I have who would like to speak. I will
17 state the last name and I apologize, in advance,
18 for any mispronunciations.
19 We will attempt to determine the
20 speakers who have indicated that they wish to
21 address this group.
22 The speakers are Hershon, Axelrod,
23 Skinner, Batchelder, Flacke, Nosenchuck, Lurcott,
24 Morrison and Chaplick.
25
-------
26
1
2 We will put anyone else on the list
3 if they so desire. This is an excellent opportu-
4 nity to have your views heard by the Agency.
5 Now, we would appreciate it if you
6 would tell us, before you begin your presentation,
7 if you are willing to answer questions on your
8 presentation. Please come up to the podium so
9 that members of the audience can better follow
10 your presentation, because we only have, roughly,
11 a dozen people at the present time and I am not
12 going to put any time limits on you, but I may
13 cut you off if it becomes evident that you are
14 launching into a senatorial campaign or talking
15 about another set of regulations.
16 If you have a written presentation
17 that you will be reading from, will you please
18 give it to the Reporter in advance so that he
19 can follow it? It may be that we have technical
20 terms and those can be awfully difficult for one
21 who is not familiar with that area. It would
22 facilitate the record if you would give such
23 speeches to the Reporter. He is the most im-
24 portant person here and we should all have some
25
-------
27
1
2 respect for that fact.
3 We may have time for questions of
4 the EPA panel, although none of us can conceive
5 of you having any questions with respect to these
6 regulations as they are so written. If we do have
7 time and if the snow doesn't become too threaten-
8 ing, we will try to answer some of your questions.
9 Let me also say, in closing, that the
10 Agency is under extreme pressure to publish final
11 regulations. We are defendants in several court
12 suits. We have schedules imposed on us by the
13 United States District Judge and it is imperative
14 that we proceed expeditiously as we can.
15 What that means is that the parties
16 in the room, if you want your views throughly
17 considered by EPA, it is essential that you give
18 us your written comments before the close of the
19 Hearing and, I think, it's also true to say that
20 the sooner you can get your comments to us, the
21 better off you will be.
22 We can provide more consideration
23 and more deliberation the earlier we receive those
24 written comments so I just encourage you to not
25
-------
28
1
2 wait until the end of the official comment period.
3 Now, unless there is any correction
4 or suggestion from the panel, I propose to go
5 ahead and ask Mr. Morris Hershon, President of
6 the National Barrel and Drum Association to pre-
7 sent his views.
8 MR. HERSHON: Thank you. I have
9 some copies of my presentation for the panel.
10 This statement is being submitted
11 with regard to the proposed regulations "Ha-
12 zardous Waste Guildelines and Regulations,"
13 as published in the Federal Register of Decem-
14 ber 18, 1978, part IV.
15 My name is Morris Hershon and I am
16 President of the National Barrel and Drum Asso-
17 ciation which has its offices at 1028 Connec-
18 ticutAvenue, N.W., in Washington, D.C. We
19 represent the steel drum reconditioning indus-
20 try which reconditions and returns to commercial
21 reuse approximately 50,000,000 55-gallon steel
22 drums annually. Our Association represents a-
23 bout 75% of all reconditioners in this country
24 and roughly 90% by volume of the total national
25
-------
29
1
2 volume.
3 At the public hearing held in Alex-
4 andria, Virgina on June 20, 1978, we submitted
•* a statement describing our industry and the
* sizeable contribution it makes to the reduction
7 of solid waste pollution; in the interest of
brevity, Ishould like to incorporate that state-
9 ment by reference. We would like to concentrate
10 in the present statement on several sections of
11 the proposed regulations relating to our indus-
12 try, as published in the December 18, 1978
13 Federal Register.
14 Under Section 3001 of the Act, Sec-
15 tion 250.10 defines the "..purpose scope and
16 applicability" of the regulations on the iden-
I7 tification and listing of hazardous wastes.
18 That Section defines the term "other discarded
19 materials" in. the solid waste definition of
20 (1004) (27)) as material which is not reused
21 _»
22 in the preamble, explaining this
23 Section (Page 58950 of the Fed. Reg.) two ex-
24 amples are set forth of the materials which,
25
-------
30
1 because of "reuse" are not deemed "other discarded
2 materials." These are as follows:
3 "Used solvents sent to a solvent re-
4 claiming facility would not be considered a dis-
5 carded material, and therefore, would not be con-
6 sidered a solid waste or hazardous waste. Con-
7 sequently, the solvent reclaiming facility would
& not be subject to Section 3004 controls, nor would
9 it require a RCRA permit."
10 "Similarly, empty drums that formerly
11 contained hazardous waste, but are being delivered
12 for reconditioning and reuse would not be included."
13 Our industry endorses and approves
14 this exclusion.
15 In order to achieve clarity, and avoid
16 possible misunderstanding and confusion, we suggest
17 that the last item of the hazardous waste list,
18 contained in Section 250.14(a), and reading:
19 "Containers unless triple-rinsed
20 " should be amended by adding the clause:
21 "....unless such containers are being
22 delivered for reconditioning and reuse."
23 Now, the use of the words "similarly,
24 empty drums that formerly contained hazardous waste
25
-------
31
1
2 but are being delivered for reconditioning and
3 reuse would not be included," might be subject
4 to some interpretation that the words "hazar-
5 dous wastes" meant waste rather than waste
6 or hazardous material. It's a very nice ques-
7 tion as to whether the residue of the drums
8 which contains environmental hazardous mater-
9 ial is hazardous waste.
10 Therefore, we suggest that the
11 word "waste" in the preamble be changed to'
12 the word "material," so that there should be
13 no question that we are referring to empty
14 drums which formerly contained some hazardous
15 material, waste or environmental material.
16 Secondly, it has been called to
17 our attention by several of the large chemical
18 companies that there is nothing in the section
19 itself which excludes the use of solvents going
20 to a reclaiming facility or the used drums going
2i to a drum facility from the regulations.
22 The only way we can so determine it
23 is by interpretation and by reference to the pre-
24 amble. It would be extremely helpful if the
25
-------
32
1
2 Section itself, Section 250.10 might mention
3 the two examples in the Section and thus re-
4 ferring to the previous preamble without
5 having to read the entire preamble.
6 We are talking about some 80,000,000
7 or 90,000,000 drums emptied annually by thousands
8 and thousands of emptiers.
9 Rather than them having to r ead
10 through a lengthy preamble and making an inter-
11 pretation that this item is included under a
12 particular section, it might be laborious and
13 might cause some problems and I, therefore,
14 suggest that the section itself make reference
15 to the exlusions or, at least, the examples
16 of the exclusions.
17 Now, Mr. Rogers, the balance of my
18 statement concerns itself with -- it's a short
19 statement -- with Section 3002 and Section 3004.
20 I don't know whether you want me to discuss it
21 at this moment or would you require me to return
22 tomorrow or Thursday to give you those portions
23 of this rather short statement.
24 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Well, you are
25
-------
33
1
2 setting somewhat of a precedent here.
3 Were you planning to stay throughout
4 the Hearings?
5 MR. HERSHONJ I live in New York.
6 I plan to be here, certainly Thursday with refer-
7 ence to Section 3003.
8 I believe that is on Thrusday or is
9 it Friday?
10 Mr. Roberts will be here, but, if you
11 feel it will be more convenient for the panel and
12 the public, I will be happy to be back Wednesday
13 and Thursday.
14 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: There are a lot
15 of considerations here. There are people who are
16 not here that would probably like to hear what
17 you say about the other regulations.
18 On the other hand, I don't want to
19 have you make a special trip unnecessarily.
20 I guess the feeling is that because
21 the issues raised are fairly important, we would
22 like to make sure that the audience which is com-
23 ing in on other days would want to hear what you
24 have to say.
25
-------
34
1
2 MR. HERSHON: I willbe back.
3 I will be glad to answer any ques-
4 tions from the panel.
5 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: I don't think,
at this time, that it is necessary. It has been
^ a very clear presentation.
8 MR. HERSHON: Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: The next speaker
10 is Dr. Nancy Kim.
11 DR. KIM: I am Dr. Nancy Kim,
12 a research scientist with the Toxicology Center
13 of the Division of Laboratories and Research of
14 the New York State Health Department. I am and
15 have been for some time personally involved with
16 sampling and testing of environmental contami-
1' nants in New York State, and it is on the basis
18 of this experience that I take this opportunity
19 to offer testimony at this Hearing.
20 The State of New York and its Health
21 Department are greatly concerned with the Hazar-
22 dous Waste Guidelines and Regulations which the
23 Environmental Protection Agency is proposing.
24 Most of all, we are deeply disappointed in EPA's
25
-------
35
1
2 long delay in issuing regulations dealing with
3 the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes.
4 By ignoring Congress's deadline for the issuance of
5 these regulations, EPA is not only putting an
6 intolerable burden on State governments, it is
7 risking the lives and health of people who are
8 needlessly being exposed tothese hazards.
9 Our concern in New York is neither
10 exaggerated nor academic; it is as real and
II as frightening as the fetal defects and uprooted
12 lives of the families living adjacent to the
13 Love Canal landfill in Niagara Falls; as dis-
14 turbing and complicated as the toxic perils
15 posed by cancer-linked PCBs deposited in and
16 along the Hudson River for more than 30 years;
17 and as sobering as the knowledge thatmanu under-
18 ground water supplies on Long Island are being
19 penetrated by vinyl chloride and other noxious
20 and life-ftreatening organic wastes.
2i A recently released survey estimates
22 that about 1.2 million tons of hazardous wastes
23 are being disposed of each year in New York
24 State. Knowing this, how many more Love Canal
25
-------
36
1
2 catastrophies must we experience before EPA
3 acts responsibly and promulgates the regula-
4 tions which will allow us to protect our citi-
5 zens from these threats to their health and
6 safety?
7 We in New York recognize that the
8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
9 is a demanding and pioneering statute. However,
10 the Environmental Protection Agency is nearly a
11 year late in meeting the April, 1978 deadline
12 set by Congress for issuing regulations covering
13 the management of hazardous wastes. If, as EPA
14 has indicated, it will wait until 1980 before
15 issuing regulations dealing with hazardous waste
16 management and disposal, it will, in effect, pen-
17 alize those states, including New York, which are
18 faced with and dealing with these complex and
19 costly problems.
20 And this is not the only deadline
21 EPA has failed to meet. The Interim Primary
22 and Proposed Secondary Drinking Water Standards
23 of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 are re-
24 ferred toseveral times in the Hazardous Waste
25
-------
37
1
2 proposals, but to date these standards have
3 not been put forth.
4 The Safe Drinking Water Act also
5 calls for the publication of regulations es-
6 tablishing maximum contaminant levels, and
7 directs that these be issued one hundred days
8 after the National Academy submits its report
9 entitled "Drinking Water and Health," to Con-
10 gress. The NAS report was presented to Con-
II gress on June 20, 1977, and still there are
12 no published drinking water regulations.
13 Granted, there is an anti-regulatory
14 mood in the nation today, but regulatory nihi-
15 lism is no excuse for failing to adopt measures
16 to protect and preserve the public's health,
17 safety and environment.-
18 We in New York have had to develop
19 our own criteria for environmental sampling,
20 for toxicologic evaluation, and for epidemlo-
2i logic investigation. We have had virtually no
22 assistance in the form of recommended methods
23 or guidelines from the Federal government. Yet,
24 when we were faced with Love Canal, we acted res-
25
-------
38
1
2 ponsibly and in the public interest -- and we
3 made the kind of hard decisions for which there
4 is no precedence in the annals of public health.
5 This is exactly the kind of help
6 we need from the Environmental Protection Agency
7 under the provisions of the Imminent Hazard sec-
8 tion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
9 Act. We need to know when and how to determine
10 that human health or environmental safety has
11 been compromised by an active or inactive waste
12 facility, or by contamination of air, ground or
13 water. And, by the same token, we need to know
14 when a suspected problem is not a threat to human
15 health, so we may allay needless public anxiety
16 and outcry.
17 What we need is federal help in the
18 form of specific numerical limits for various
19 chemicals in air, ground and wftter. For such
20 contamination is a national problem, and Con-
21 gress, in passing RERA, certainly did not in-
22 tend for each of the states to maintain its own
23 staff of experts in toxicology in order to es-
24 tablish fifty different sets of numerical stan-
25 dards. This is exactly the kind of inefficiency
-------
39
1
2 EPA will promote if it persists in regulatory
3 equivocation.
4 The Resource Conservation and Re-
5 covery Act directs EPA to integrate its pro-
6 visions with other human health and environmen-
7 tal standards in the Safe Drinking Water Act,
8 Clean Air Act, and Clear Water Act, among others.
9 As Congressman John LaFalce of New York has com-
10 mented, the failure tit implement RCRA makes it
11 our nation"sveakest link in the chain of environ-
12 mental safeguards.
13 We support Congressman LaFalce's
14 bill calling for a joint federal/state procedure
15 to identify and reclaim abandoned hazardous
16 waste sites. We urge the Environmental Protec-
17 tion Agency to develop a comprehensive plan,
18 modeled on that of New York State, to monitor,
19 catalog, inverstigate and provide solutions to
20 in-place toxicants in both active and inactive
21 disposal sites.
22 We need a national policy, not a
23 fragmented, inconsistent response by each of
24 the states, and we need it now.
25
-------
40
1
2 In addition to these general obser-
3 vations, I have several comments relating to
4 specific details in the proposed regulations.
5 The 100 kilogram per month limit
6 which exempts hazardous waste generators from
7 compliance with many portions of this act seems
8 high. This would allow the disposal of highly
' hazardous materials in a facility without pre-
10 cisely knowing where or what. For example,
11 this would allow the disposal of over one and a
12 half tons of dioxin in a year by one generator.
W The idea of classifying hazardous waste by de-
l4 gree with different regulations for thediffer-
15 ent groups of generators seems much more accept-
16 able. Record keeping should be required by
17 generators of small quantities ofextremely haz-
18 ardous waste.
19 The definition of "environmental
20 persistent organics" should include a half-life.
21 A working definition could relate half-life to
22 interval between incorporation of waste into the
23 land.
24 The proposed regulations ofthe Re-
25
-------
41
1
2 source Conservation and Recovery Act would
3 affect most industries, large and small. While
4 quantity of hazardous waste might be a problem
5 for large industries, small companies have very
6 little choice but to label their waste hazardous.
7 A small company will not be able to afford or
8 able to carry out the scientific tests needed
9 for exemption. With EPA turning to regulations
10 in terms of generalgoals rather than very speci-
11 fie plans or limits, smaller industries will be
12 hard pressed to obtain enough help scientifically
13 and legally. Regulating hazardous wastes by de-
14 gree may provide greater flexibility for the
15 smaller companies.
16 In conclusion, may I say that we in
17 New York State understand that the Environmental
18 Protection Agency is faced wtth a tremendously
19 complex problem in trying to devise and implement
20 meaningful and lasting standards for hazardous
21 waste management. But we states desperately
22 need these decisions by EPA so we may deal to-
23 day in a legally-constituted and appropriate man-
24 ner with the ever-growing problem of hazardous
25 waste disposal.
-------
42
1
2 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Thank you.
3 Dr. Kim, would you entertain ques-
4 tions?
5 DR. KIM: Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: I have one ques-
7 tion. On Page 3, it states, "This is exactly the
8 kind of help we need from the Environmental Pro-
9 tection Agency under the provisions of the immi-
10 nent hazardous section of the Resource Conseoa-
11 tion and Recovery Act."
12 You are referring to what, I think,
13 are the developments of the specific criteria?
!4 DR. KIM: Yes.
15 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: I take it
16 that you are suggesting that we have some kind
17 of suggestion as to when an imminent hazard ex-
18 ists?
19 DR. KIM: Yes. I think some
20 of these things could be incorporated in the
21 Safe Drinking Water Act and other acts with
22 specific limits for the Aminate Level and the
23 drinking water in order to have us regulate or
24 to know when the hazard exists.
25
-------
43
1
2 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Just speaking
3 for myself and from my personal experience, water
4 pollution, inthe Water Pollution act and drink-
5 ing water is very different.
6 DR. KIM: I know; I know.
7 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: It's difficult
8 enough to develop standards for continuous dis-
9 charges and realizations of some stand. We can
10 develop some idea of chronic exposure, but the
11 variety of imminent hazard is so great that if
12 we --well, if you have any further thoughts on
13 that, we would certainly appreciate it. I mean
14 that sincerely. If you have any ideas, since
15 you suggested specific remedies, if you could
16 suggest to us specific remedies or any approach
17 that would allow us to do that, we would certain-
18 ly appreciate it.
19 DR. KIM: I think, to begin
20 with, the drinking water health guidelines are
21 one place to start.
2,2 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Well, pre-
23 sumably, I don't want to belabor the point,
24 but if you have an imminent hazard, it clearly
25
-------
44
1
2 exceeds the standards that are established under
3 the regulatory sections ofthe various acts.
4 It seems to me that you are going
5 beyond tnat; that there should be some criteria
6 for establishing imminent hazard conditions.
7 DR. KIMr Yes.
8 MS. DARRAH: Are you indicating
9 that it may provide greater flexibility with
10 smaller companies?
11 I take it you are saying to add
12 this to the 3001 regulations the way they are
13 now.
14 Can you explain what you mean by
15 that statement, that if we add something, how
16 that would provide greater flexibility?
17 DR. KIM2 What bothers me
18 with the — this goes back to the 100 kilo-
19 grams per month. That is extremely hazardous
20 waste or an overload when you get down to re-
21 gulating everything.
22 There are smaller companies that
23 have very little waste that are not very ha-
24 zardous. It seems that you could regulate'
25
-------
45
1
2 extremely hazardous waste with one set of guide-
3 lines and other wastes, which are not so hazar-
4 dous, with another set of guidelines that may-
5 be smaller companies that have very little waste
6 may be even up to 1000 kilograms a month, could
7 get away with them than other people that have
8 very hazardous wastes.
9 MS. DARRAH: You may want re-
10 demption on some wastes and lowered on others?
11 DR. KIM: Yes.
12 MR. CORSON: Do you have any
13 feeling as to how you would determine wnat are
14 the extremely hazardous wastes versus those
15 that are not so hazardous?
16 I will add another statement as part
17 of that: How do you separate noV the phase of
18 the management cycle from the degree of hazard
19 and then, as a second half of the question, it
20 seems that you have presented a paradox in that
21 there is no requirement as to the size of the
22 company to be the degree of hazard, if there is
23 something.
24 You presented a problem Mch the
25
-------
46
1
2 smaller generator may have which is just as
3 likely as the larger one.
4 If there is a very hazardous waste,
5 then he may also have that problem. That does-
6 n't provide him with the assistance that you
7 seem to be soliciting for him.
8 DR. KIM: Okay. First of
9 all, the first part of your question. I
10 agree that it's very difficult to decide what
11 is extremely hazardous and what is not.
12 Since my interest is mainly health,
I3 I think in terms of toxicity, carcinogenosity,
I4 teratogenicity, mutagenicity and cadmium which
15 fall into this classification.
16 I think this is where I go in terms
17 of what kind of chronic exposure you can have
18 and still what level of chronic exposure there
I9 is and still not be harmful to the public's
20 health.
21 I think there are other things
22 that I don't consider so -- such as corrosion
23 and reactivity that have to be in this, too,
24 that I don't hae quite such specific feelings
25
-------
47
1
2 about.
3 I guess I am not making myself —
4 well, the second part of your question, I guess,
5 I'm not making myself particularly clear about.
6 You are rignt in that a small com-
7 pany can have a small amount of extremely ha-
8 zardous waste.
9 What I was really hoping to provide
10 was some relief to smaller companies that have
11 very little waste and that was not particularly
12 toxic or harmful.
13 If you cut down your exemption limit
14 from 100 to 0, you are including everybody. I
15 can see where this is not particularly helpful
16 for smaller companies.
17 What I was hoping for was some sort
18 of limit witn some degree of hazardous substances.
19 These two ides could combine in some way for small-
20 er companies and also regulate large or small
21 companies that have extremely hazardous waste.
22 MR. CORSON; I have one further
23 question: You mentioned the concept of a half-
24 life to be included in the definition of environ-
25
-------
48
1
2 mental persistent organics. That's one that we
3 have been looking at with interest.
4 Do you have any thoughts of a par-
5 ticular model for the environment in which we
6 are placing those persistent organics?
7 It seems to me that part of their
** function is whether they are in water, what type
9 of soil or what have you.
10 We would like to make sure that in
11 our consideration, we do accept -- we use any
12 data that you may have because it seems that
13 there are times that, perhaps, some of the fa-
14 cilities we might be considering are such that
15 they would essentially prolong the half-life,
16 if you will, rather than allowing the depriva-
17 tion of it.
18 DR. KIM: When I was reading
19 this, it was with land farming that I wasthink-
20 ing about when I mentioned half-life.
21 I think you are right. If you are
22 going to have exposure in water or even in water
23 and ground, you will beinvolved with two differ-
24 ent types of half-life.
25
-------
49
1
2 Now, I have no specific suggestions
3 as to what should be done. I think you have to
4 go by scientific studies. I don't see any other
5 way.
6 MR. LINDSEY: I have one question,
7 Dr. Kim?
8 One of your points is that small
9 companies are going to be -- will find it cfiffi-
10 cult meeting the expenses of testing, is that
11 correct?
12 DR. KIM: Yes,,
13 MR, LINDSEY: Another point is
14 that we have been discussing here in the last
15 several questions the regulating on the basis
16 of relative toxicity or hazard.
17 It seems to me that there may be
18 a problem, that if we go to a complex system
19 of setting relative hazards and levels, that
20 that mignt complicate the problems for the
21 small company.
22 We are trying to determine whether
23 or not he is in the system or out of the system
24 or where he sits in tnat regard.
25
-------
50
1
2 Would you have any comments on that?
3 DR. KIM: I thinkwnat would
4 help both these smaller companies and even the
5 State is to come up witn specific guidelines for
6 chemicals; either by classifying them as organics,
7 by functional groups or by particular metal or,
8 however; whatever classification you can come
9 up with that it would be some set of guidelines
10 for the state for their problems and for the
11 smaller compari.es.
12 Without too much work, you can come
13 up with a preliminary set of classification
14 system.
15 You know that chlorinated hydro-
16 carcigens will be more persistent and more
17 toxic than the straight carbons.
18 There are exceptions in all cases,
19 but you can come up with a general set of guide-
20 lines that will help both the State and the
21 smaller companies as far as just by looking
22 at the values, being able to put them in a
23 particular category.
24 CH^RMAN ROGERS: Thank you
25
-------
51
1
2 very much, Dr. Kim.
3 Mr. Peter N. Skinner?
4 MR. SKINNERS My name is Peter
5 N. Skinner, P.E., Environmental Engineer in
6 the office of New York Attorney General Robert
7 Abrams, For the past several years the Bureau
8 of Environmental Protection, which I serve, has
9 been active in issues dealing witn the manage-
10 ment of radioactive and other solid wastes. We
11 have participated in numerous proceedings and
12 prosecuted lawsuits in this regard. We have
13 been actively involved with the radioactive
14 waste management problems of West Valley, New
15 York and Sheffield, Illinois. We have carefully
16 reviewed the proposed criteria for the geologic
17 repository for high level waste. We have inves-
18 tigated the chemical waste problems at Love
19 Canal, Bloody Run, New Co., and Chemtrol in
20 New York and Wilsonville in Illinois. We feel
21 that because New York State and our office has
22 had unique and extensive experience in hazardous
23 waste management problems, we are especially
24 qialified to address USEPA today on your proposed
25
-------
52
1
2 guidelines and regulations for management of
3 hazardous waste.
4 These guidelines and regulations,
5 whem promulgated under the Resource Conservation
6 and Recovery Act of 1976, could revolutionize the
7 handling and disposal of hazardous waste. The
present chaotic, often illegal and dangerous prac-
tices hopefully will give way to disposal methods
10 which will protect the health and welfare of the
H public in perpetuity. As the 1976 Act discussed,
12 protection of the "purity of the land" should be
1^ the goal for these regulations. The experience
14 of New York State and other states have shown,
I5 however, tnat the regulations as proposed must
16 be significantly modified iftnis goal is to be
n attained.
18 I also fully support the comments
19 made by Dr. Kim for the Health Department. I
20 have not provided the panelwith copies of my
21 statement because of its general nature and
22 because a great deal of discussion surrounds
23 over 70 pages of technical draft of comments.
24 I will first discuss what can be
25
-------
53
1
2 learned from the past and present hazardous
3 waste problems in New York State. I will then
4 discuss the inadequacy of the proposed hazar-
5 dous waste regulations.
6 We are most concerned about tne short
7 term surveillance period applicable to landfills
8 and tne inappropriate financing methods proposed
9 for post-closure care.
10 I will conclude with a plea for fe-
ll deral leadership in clean-up of old landfills
12 and deployment of pilot waste destruction fa-
13 cilities. Because I leave today for South Amer-
14 ica, I must discuss all the sections your three
15 day Hearingswill cover.
16 I will be coordinating formal pre-
17 sentation of detailed comments and modifications
18 of regulations detailed for the Illinois Attorney
19 General and agencies in several other states.
20 Examples of Past Problems
21 At West Valley, New York, solid
22 radioactive waste was buried from the early
23 60s until 1975„ In 1975, water accumulating
24 in the burial trenches overtopped the sides of
25 the trenches, carrying with it radionuclides
-------
1 54
2 which entered nearby waterways. Review of the
3 operations at this site indicated that the clay
4 covers of these trenches were cracked and conduc-
5 ted almost all the rain whicn fell on them inside
6 the trenches. The proposed hazardous waste re-
7 gulations will not prevent that condition from
8 recurring at hazardous waste sites constructed
9 under these proposed standards.
10 On Long Island, many residents who
11 employ cesspools to dispose of household sewerage
12 have resorted to chemical additives to clear
13 grease clogged soil around the cesspool. These
14 additives are often formulated with synthetic
15 organic solvents like trichloroethane, dichloro-
16 benzene and methylene chloride. Research carried
17 out by Nassau and Suffolk Counties and by our of-
18 fice has confirmed that these chemicals are very
19 mobile, not biodegradable, and have contaminated
20 large portions of Long Island's aquifers, in some
21 areas to depths exceeding 400 ft. Although our
22 office has brought suit against one such company
23 on Long Island, the practice of disposing of such
24 chemicals into the soil goes on elsewhere.
25
-------
55
1
2 Because of these problems, I most
3 forcefully disagree with Mr. Hershon who spoke
4 earlier that solvent reclaimers must be covered
5 by RCRA regulations.
6 Chemical wastes received by disposal
7 facilities are often made up of these synthetic
8 organic solvents and are often buried in land-
' fills, in spite of prohibitions against disposal
10 of liquids. Recent research had indicated that
11 these solvents mobilize normally immobile PCBs
12 in clay and sand and quickly destroy Hypalon
13 lines for landfills. Althougn the proposed re-
14 gulations can be made more stringent to limit
15 the burial of such chemicals and liquids, en-
16 forcement is very difficult.
17 Old landfills like Love Canal have
18 taught us a bitter lesson. They can injure peo-
19 pie and destroy groundwater resources decades
20 after closure. Although burial at Love Canal
21 ceased in 1953, the insidious migration of che-
22 micals was not detected until a full 26 years
23 later. Similar experiences nationwide are de-
24 picted in a recent USEPA document EPA/530/SW-634,
25
-------
56
1
2 where the review indicated that some 82%
3 of the chemical burial pits studies revealed
4 subsurface migration of pollutants. Yet in
5 the face of this overwhelming evidence, the
6 proposed regulations call for post-closure care
7 for a maximum of only 20 years.
8 These hazardous wastes will never
9 completely degarde in these old pits and remain
10 a hazard to the public and its groundwater re-
11 sources indefinitely. Therefore, they must have
12 perpetual care, surveillance and access control.
13 To do less would be tantamount to irresponsible
14 actions by experts who now must be aware of the
15 real problems of long-term containment of chemi-
16 cals in landfills,,
17 Present hazardous landfill have been
18 significantly improved, but are not without prob-
19 lems. Review of operations at Chemtrol, Wilson-
20 ville, and elsewhere has revealed the following
21 difficulties;
22 1. Hazardous waste sites once thought
23 to be appropriate, upon closer scrutiny, become
24 totally inadequate.
25
-------
57
1
2
2. Burial inventories are rare and
3
when they exist, inaccurate.
4
3. Liquids are buried as a matter
5
of course,,
6
4. Waste material qualities are in-
7
adequate or non-existent.
8
5. Perpetual care provisions are
9
inadequate or non-existent.
10
6. Incompatible wastes often are
11
buried together.
12
7. Internal leachate production is
13
high and disposal is difficult.
14
8. Site maintenance at closed land-
15
fills must be carried out on a regular basis;
16
their troubles donct go away.
17
9. Public opposition to landfills
18
poisons the general attitudes about waste manage-
19
ment and resource recovery facilities.
20
10. Shipments of chemical waste are
21
often in metal drums, 55 gallon drums, which are
22
inconvenient containersfor waste destructional
23
techniques.
24
25
-------
58
1
2 11. Most chemical waste is not reco-
3 vered or destroyed, but merely dumped in landfills.
4 12. ASTM soil permeability tests do
5 not have reliable reproduceability significant
6 among experts about permeability of disturbed vs.
7 undisturbed clay.
8 13. Sales of recycled chemicals and
9 metals are hampered by a non-virgin stigma.
10 14. There is a complete lack of
11 empirical data regarding migration rates in
12 soils of specific and mixed organic chemical
13 leachates.
14 Conclusions
15 We have concluded that because of
16 the problems of long term containment, landfill
17 disposal of chemicals is the least attractive
18 method of chemical waste disposal. We believe
19 USEPA should treat this method of disposal with
20 greater care in these regulations. We believe
21 USEPA should have developed management criterial
22 to guide their efforts similar to those developed
23 to guide radioactive waste management decisions.
24 USEPA regulations on radioactive waste presently
25
-------
59
1
2 being considered must be consistent with philo-
3 sophical precepts proposed and published recent-
4 ly in the Federal Register. These precepts in-
5 elude the following basic concepts: Waste cannot
6 be disposed of in such a way as to necessitate
7 surveillance and monitoring after 100 years; the
8 site's containment medium should improve with
9 age; risk assessments should govern decision
10 making; retrievability is a beneficial charac-
11 teristic of waste management schemes. (F.R. Vol.
12 43, 53262-53268).
13 These are surely sensible and real-
14 istic concepts to guide decision making for ha-
15 zardous waste management, but they are never
16 even mentioned. Why not? These wasts are at
17 least as toxic, at least as long-lived, and at
18 lease as mobile as radioactive waste. The lack
19 of these criteria for hazardous wastes have ren-
20 dered the proposed regulations inadequate to
21 deal with the long-term hazards of this type of
22 waste.
23 LACK OF R & D AND DEPLOYMENT OF FACILITIES TO
24 DESTROY WASTE
25
-------
60
1
2 If no alternatives to landfilling
3 of chemical wastes are developed, then this
4 least attractive alternative becomes the only
5 available alternative by default. However, al-
6 ternative technologies do exist to mineralize
7 this water and R & D expendditures can expand that
8 list. Since hazardous wastes are generated across
9 the country, federal programs like those imple-
10 mented by the US Department of Energy for energy
11 source development and radioactive waste manage-
12 ment must go forward to solve this problem. Fe-
13 deral R & D centers like Brookhaven should be es-
14 tablished and pilot facilities must be deployed
15 to demonstrate the feasibility of waste destruction
16 techniques. The Silresion bankruptcy is a per-
17 feet example of problems the Federal govennment
18 must eliminate. Marketing efforts must be made
19 to increase the attractiveness of non-virgin re-
20 cycled chemicals. Landfilling of chemicals can
21 become a thing of the past if proper leadership
22 is provided by the federal government. Simul-
23 taneously a full funded cleanup and monitoring
24 program for old chemical landfills must be imple-
25
-------
61
1
2 The recently reported denial of
3 $21 million for cleaning up Love Canal seems to
4 demonstrate a callous disregard on the federal
5 level for the real costs of chemical landfills.
The proposed 20 year coverage of these proposed
' regulations smacks of the same short-sighted
8 attitudes.
9 We therefore implore USEPA to look
10 carefully at their own reports and our exper-
11 ience in New York to see the abysmal record to
12 date in the United States with chemical land-
13 fills. On the basis of this review, we believe
14 the federal government will recognize its res-
15 ponsibilities to respond with innovative prog-
16 rams and with the elimination of landfills for
1' hazardous waste. During the interim period,
I* however, while such practices are still needed,
19 perpetual care coverage must be provided. We
20 will be filing our detailed comments on these
21 regulations along with other associated Attor-
22 neys General before the March 16, 1979 dead-
23 line.
24 i would be happy to entertain ques-
25
-------
62
1
2 tions you may have. Thank you.
3 MR. LINDSEY: I have one ques-
4 tion?
5 Mr. Skinner, one suggestion may be
6 -- you have made a number of points relative
7 to the unsatisfactory nature of a number of
8 landfills that have been conducted in the past,
9 disposal pits, or what have you.
10 The regulations which we have put
11 together have been designed to address many
12 of those things.
13 May I ask you, in your specific
14 statements which you will send in before March
15 16th, it would be help us to have, if you have
16 specific incidents where some of the standards
17 which we have put together have been met and yet
18 problems have been caused. That would be very
19 helpful to us in proceeding.
20 One other particular point which
21 I would appreciate your addressing yourself
22 to is the matter of the clay caps and the sug-
23 gestions you might have as to how the caps
24 can be improved or what kind of regulations
25
-------
63
1
2 have --we should have relative to that.
3 MR.SKINNER? Certainly.
4 In answer to your firstquestion,
5 for each of our specific modifications, I
6 might say that our initial draft, technical
7 draft numbered some 70 pages so far. We have
8 not generally sent out this because we wish
9 to get more comments before we go forward.
10 Most of the comments, so far, are very specific.
11 They don1^ have rationale attached to them.
12 However, after we decide on indi-
13 vidual modifications, a rationale like the
14 kind you are speaking of with specific exam-
15 Pies, will be associated with every change.
16 In terms of clay caps, the parti-
17 cular problems that we have seen at West Valley
18 and other places, have given us a lack of con-
19 fidence in clay as a proper medium for long-
20 term leaching production.
21 It appears that it might be appro-
22 priate to use synthetic linears with clay covers
23 to limit it for certain periods of time.
24 However,.We also recognize that
25
-------
64
1
2 the reliability of these linears is limited even
3 in non-hazardous environments.
4 A recent report we have indicates
5 that the synthetic linears have a maximum of
6 25 to 30 years. Assuming we wish to prevent
7 leaching into the trenches, that synthetic lin-
8 ear would have to be replaced; maintenance of
9 the landfill cover itself is important especially
10 deep-rooted vegetation must be controlled.
11 Now, anyone who has maintained a
12 piece of land will recognize how deep-rooted
13 vegetation takes over in a particular area.
14 That would necessitate continuous maintenance
15 which is a costly effort. That means, in essence,
16 s>me kind of lawn mowing or vegetation program on
17 a continuous basis.
18 That's why perpetual care is so im-
19 portant.
20 MR. CORSON: I have a simple ques-
21 tion: You mention several areas, inadequate ha-
22 zardous waste sites and permeability methods.
23 I would suggest that if you have
24 some ideas in that area, we would appreciate it
25
-------
65
1
2 or any data or other approaches to determining
3 migration and contaminants.
4 The third thing is, another re-
5 minder, the reference to recent publications
6 with regard to radioactive wastes and rather
7 nice objectives.
8 Our concern is to get your thoughts
on how we might achieve such objectives in terms
1° of enforceable regulations.
11 Any thoughts you have in those
I2 areas, we would like to have.
13 MR. SKINNER; I would speak to
14 that and say that if I am making any point,
15 that's the most positive point I try to make;
I6 if these criteria, radioactive items, there
I7 are sensible approaches to doing business and
18 if they were adopted, you would come up with
1' definite approaches to maintenance and long-
20 term care.
21 You apparently didn't feel they
22 were appropriate. We got what I felt was an
23 inappropriate 20 year criteria of maintenance.
24 There is no question that the migration is a
25
-------
66
1
2 problem that will continue ad infinitum es-
3 pecially in the institutional site breakdown.
4 Right now, it controls a good amount
5 of leaching that is produced and that must be
6 removed on a con tinual basis.
7 Unless those sites are kept better '
8 than they are, it will necessitate ongoing
9 funding to provide leaching removal and pro-
10 cessing. That is particularly difficult.
11 In radioactive waste management,
12 there is, what I feel, some very ground break-
13 ing decision going on. I know people who are
14 breaking that ground on all USEPA employees.
15 Mr. Pettingill is a good example. I think if
16 you could sit down with those people and dis-
17 cuss the rationale, that went into those deci-
18 ion making efforts, you will se that there is
19 a real applicability here and we can all bene-
20 fit from it.
21 if it's necessary to solidify high
22 level waste, to replace it in a depository, then
23 it's just as possible for mutagenic or cortagenic
24 waste to solidify it.
25
-------
67
1
2 If there are no reasonable differ-
3 ences between waste types that can be deter-
4 mined, then maybe there is a rationale for not
5 treating it like radioactive waste or, given
6 its likelihood to migrate and then given its
7 long life, it is very difficult for me, from
8 a rationale standpoint, to see a different
9 approach.
10 So, solidification may be appro-
11 priate for many types of chemical wastes.
12 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: I have a
13 question, Mr. Skinner?
14 Practically, how would you insti-
15 tute perpetual care and perpetual monitoring
16 of hazardous wastes sites other than by esta-
17 blishing a front end trust fund?
18 MR. SKINNER: Okay. There are
19 two ways, obviously.
20 The first way is by engineering
21 containment. That is the approach that is
22 presently being followed by the agencies.
23 Your own agency, in regard to
24 setting criteria for that has also followed
25
-------
68
l
2 this.
3 If it's properly disposed of in
4 the first place, in a tightly contained medium,
5 then the problem shouldn't occur for future
6 generations. If you assume that you are going
7 to rely on the institution to provide that
8 kind of care, that care must be done, as you
9 say, with up front money; not necessarily,
10 but we will be proposing a specific plan for
11 financial mechanisms and institutional arrange-
12 ments will make this function possible.
13 It's not an unknown field. I
14 will refer you to the work presently going
15 on in the nuclear bases due to decomissioning
16 for processing plants and reactors and other
17 problematic facilities.
18 This kind of funding arrangement
19 is not unknown in the nation today.
20 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Well, you
21 talk about two ways of doing it. The first
22 way is assuring that the wastes are being dis-
23 posed of safely by good technical practices.
24 Are you still advocating perpetual
25
-------
69
1
2 monitoring, professional liability and things
3 of that sort?
4 MR, SKINNER: No. I think I
5 said in my statement that if the present prac-
6 tice continues, then perpetual care coverage
7 must be accorded.
8 However, this other engineering
9 modification, you know, it's practiced in
10 certain places in Europe and it should be con-
11 sidered here in the United States for other
12 problematic materials.
13 I want to continue to stress the
14 importance here of synthetic organic solvents
15 in the role they play in mobilizing such things
16 as PCB.
17 Dr. Griffin has unpublished data
18 which we are aware of and I think that's par-
19 ticularly important.
20 xn the news today, there is a dis-
21 cussion of gasoline stations on Long Island
22 with reference to the maintenance of very close
23 scrutiny as to whether or not they are leaking.
24 One of the major problems is not the fact that
25
-------
70
1
2 gasoline is leaking. We know that it floats on
3 ground level and does not necessarily pollute
4 the whole area, but unleaded gas, when made up
5 of things such as benzene can move freely from
the ground water level. There is ample prece-
' dence that to recognize that the misburial of
Q
incompatible chemicals will cause problems in
Q
the future.
10 I want to tie this down: If the
11 EPA regulations are sufficiently stringent in
the first instance in controlling hazardous
1 *3
wastes, then you would not, per se, criticize
the 20 year period as being unreasonable?
15 MR. SKINNER: That is correct.
1* I think you can take guidance dir-
17 ectly fromthe efforts going forward to locate
18 and sight the geological area for waste.
•I Q
The only thing they recommend is
a routine surveillance of once a year to make
21 sure that there is no drilling going on in the
22 area and passive communication mechanism for
2^ future generations.
24 To say, "Hey, there is something
25
-------
71
I
2 under here. Don't drill a well —"
3 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Well -- excuse
4 me? Any information that the State of New York
5 can provide us on cost and mechanics, a system
6 of financing and monitoring of trust funds and
7 other facts dealing with post-closure incidents
8 would be very helpful to us.
9 MR. SKINNER: We will have a whole
10 plan for you; you can be sure of that.
11 I do want to state that you did quite
12 well on the closure care section; very well.
13 You indicated a discount rate of
14 2% which, I think, was most appropriate and
15 consistent with some of my earlier testimony.
16 I am happy you didn't pick 10%, which is the
17 normal Federal discount rate.
18 MS. DARRAH: What percentage of
19 our estimated 35,000,000 metric tons of hazardous
20 waste would you say needs this care equivalent
21 to what is proposed for high-leve radioactive
22 waste?
23 MR. SKINNERS I knew this ques-
24 tion would come up.
25
-------
72
1
2 Dr. Kim discussed this very issue.
3 There is an important effort that must go for-
4 ward to determine what are the particularly
5 different chemicals.
** In my list, I would not only include
7 what she included, but I would let her be our
* guide in that regard.
9 Also, organic solvents thatwere not
10 reclaimed. I would include that also.
11 If it's necessary to bury those,
12 I don't believe it is, I know technology exists
I3 to reclaim and to destroy these chemicals. I
I4 see no reason but, if the burial must continue,
15 then I think they need the same type of treatment.
16 That seems to be within the purvue
17 of EPA to develop such -- we will call them
18 guidelines or criteria. I don't think it's
19 impossible to do it.
20 You will never make a perfect list,
21 but you will go a long way in guiding the public
22 in making decisions about what they perceive
23 as perpetual care.
24 i (htnk there are certain mechanism.
25
-------
73
1
2 such things as heavy metal that can be for-
3 warded without necessarily the same kind of
4 long-term care, because from what engineer-
•> ing information I have developed, I think it
" is reasonable to believe that those can be
7 properly bound in the soil.
I am not convinced that it is
° true of some of the other chemicals,
1° MR. HUNT; I have a question.
11 You mention the bankruptcy in the context that
12 made it sound as if it were with the use of
1^ Federal intervention?
14 MR. SKINNER: No. What I meant
15 by saying that is that the plant is an indica-
16 tion of what can go wrong, in essence, as a
17 pilot facility supported by private money.
18 When venture capital runs out for
an unreliable system, bankruptcy is the logi-
20 cal choice to end the facility, leaving the
21 public with an awful lot of problems.
22 it strikes me that the problems
23 facing new technology are that it must be in
24 place to mineralize such wastes and it should
25
-------
74
1
2 be financed by the Federal government.
3 There is ample precedent in the
4 nuclear industry and there is no industry why
5 EPA can't take the lead to develop such pilot
6 facilities.
7 If they work, fine; so sell them
8 to private industry. But venture capital will
9 dry up quickly.
10 In the discussions I have had with
11 chemical people, they indicate that they would
12 like to go forward with technology but their
13 management is concerned with unreliability and,
I4 I think, reasonably so.
15 I think they changing regulatory
16 environment makes it difficult for financial
1? management as does the engineering details.
18 Clearly EPA, I believe, should
I9 site around the country R & D facilities to
20 look into such innovative technology and then
21 pilot facilities as well to start carrying
22 out some of these processes and demonstrate
23 the feasibility of it.
24 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Thank you.
25
-------
75
1 Mr. Francis Batchelder?
2 MR. BATCHELDER: Good morn-
3 ing.
4 My name is Frank Batchelder. I am
5 a Senior Engineer in the Engineering Division
6 of the American Electric Power Service Corpora-
7 tion.
8 I am appearing today on behalf of
9 the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, of
10 which AEP is a member, to comment generally
11 on the approach proposed by EPA to define
12 Hazardous wastes under Section 3001 of RCRA.
13 It is our position, first, that there is no
14 basis for categorizing, as "hazardous" under
15 RCRA, the bulk of utility wastes that are unique-
16 ly handled. Second, we believe that the method-
17 ology proposed to determine whether nonlisted
18 wastes are hazardous is unsound and unreliable.
19 Let me give you some background on
20 USWAG and on the importance of coal to the gene-
21 ration of electric power. USWAG is an informal
22 consotrium ot electric utilities and the Edison
23 Electric Institute. Currently, there are some
24 45 utility members of USWAG. Those companies own
25
-------
76
1
2 and operate a substantial percentage of the
electric generation capacity in the United
4 States. EEI is the principal national asso-
ciation of investor-owned electric light and
power companies. USWAG and its predecessor EEI
solid waste task force were formed because of
g
the significant impact which RCRA will have on
9
utility operations, and the desire of its members
to assist in the impelamentation of RCRA in a
11 reasonable and prudent manner,,
12
Coal is the principal fuel used for electricity
13
generation in the United States today. An upsurge
in orders for new coal-fired capacity indicates
15 that it may hold that position for the remainder
of the century. Indeed, the President's energy
policy anks coal as the primary source of fuel
for electric generation.
19
The principal wastes from electric power
generation that would be regulated under RCRA
21 are those that result from the use of coal as
22 a fuel to produce electricity. Thus RCRA,
23 and the regulations to be promulgated under
24 it, will substantially and directly affect the
25
-------
77
1
2 operations and economics of the electric util-
3 ity industry. We forsee that vast amounts of
4 additional investment will be required in order
5 to comply with RCRA, That requirement will be
6 particularly acute if utility wastes are deemed
7 to be hazardous under Section 3001 ofthe Act.
8 It is because of ourgrave concern
9 that the regulations proposed to implement Sec-
10 tion 3001 may result in unnecessary and uneco-
11 nomic regulation of utility wastes that I sub-
12 mit this statement. We recognize, and I should
13 add wholly endorse, the Agency's intention to
14 place high volume utility wastes in a "special
15 waste" category pending the completion of a
16 separate rulemaking to commence at a later
17 date.
18 1. However, the qualification
19 for the special waste category is based on a
20 determination that the waste is hazardous under
21 Section 250.13. Also, the definition of high
22 volume utility wastes -- sludge and ash -- in
23 the special waste category may be too narrow.
24 For these and other reasons, then, USWAG is
25
-------
78
1
2 taking this opportunity to comment on the pro-
3 posed regulations to implement Section 3001 of
4 RCRA.
The regulations proposed to define
a hazardous waste are found in Section 250.10
7 through 250.15.
Q
2, Particular wastes and waste
9 streams listed in Section 250014 are automati-
10 cally considered hazardous and are not subject
11 to the testing procedures spelled out in Sec-
12 tion 250.13.
1 s
3. All other wastes, including
utility wastes, would be evaluated under the
15 criteria and characteristics spelled out in
16 Section 250.12(a) and 250.13,
17 4,, Those wastes exhibiting one or
18 more of the four characteristics set forth —
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxic-
ity -- would be deemed hazardous. A mfethod is
21
established to test for each characteristic.
22 1. See proposed 250«46-2(a), 43 Fed.Reg.59015
(Dec. 18, 1978J and preamble thereto, i.d at
-------
79
1
2 Before addressing the testing pro-
3 cedures, however, I would like to note that uti-
4 lity wastes have historically been managed in a
5 responsible manner without posing a threat to the
6 public's health or to the environment. From this
7 history, USWAG believes that there is no basis
8 for considering large volume and uniquely-handled
^ utility wastes as "hazardous" under RCRA,, In
10 addtion, USWAG believes that the methods proposed
11 by EPA for determining hazardousness, as applied
12 tothe electric utility industry, are unnecessarily
13 sweeping and counter-productive to the achievement
I4 of our important national goals of controlling
15 inflation and becoming energy independent. By
16 this statement, I do not mean at all to minimize
17 the goals of RCRA "to promote the protection of
18 health and the environment***,"
19 5. What I am saying is that EPA's
20 approach of requiring specific generic testing
21 of nonlisted wastes, while ignoring specific
22 generic testing of nonlisted wastes, while ig-
23
24 5.RCRA 1003, 42 U.S»C. 6902
25
-------
80
1
2 noring actual disposal practices, environmental
3 pathways and other actual parameters -*• that is,
4 creating an imaginary disposal environment,
5 leachate medium and environmental pathway, and
6 then further assuming a "worst case analysis"
7 -« is inconsistent with the statute and common
8 sense. This is most critical in regard to the
9 proposed toxicity protocol, specifically the
10 proposed Extraction Procedure (EP).
11 6. The EP proposed in Section 250,13(d)
12 is premised on a single disposal environment,,
13 I am aware that several members of the scienti-
14 fie community have been highly critical of this
15 approach. For example, G. Fred Lee, a pro-
16 fessor of environmental chemistry now at Colo-
17 rado State University (Fort Collins) and a mem-
18 ber of the American Society&r Testing Materials
19 (ASTM), has strongly challenged the EP.
20 7. In addition to criticizing the
21 validity of many specific features of the test,
22 he states categorically that "^t) her is absolute-
23
24 6. 43 Fed. Reg. 58956-57.
25
-------
81
1
2 ly no way the EPA, ASTM, or other groups can
3 develop a single leaching test such as that
4 Proposed" to assess which solid wastes repre-
5 sent a hazard to the environment. In addition,
6 Professor Lee points out that the proposal for
7 a single test "could possibly cause the expen-
8 diture of millions of US dollars in the name of
9 pollution control with little or no improvement
10 in environmental qualify " Moreover, he feels
11 that "in some instances, the arbitrarily deve-
12 loped test could, because of alternative methods
13 of disposal, create more environmental harm than
14 if no test had been used and the solid waste had
15 simply been dumped out on the ground."
16 Overall, Professor Lee concludes that
17 a case-by-case approach is essential.
18 A decond harsh critique has been
19 made by the Planning Task Group of ASTM Sub-
20 committee D-19.12 on Pollution Potential of the
21 Leaching From Solid Wastes.
22 80 In a recent letter to the Admin-
23 7.Letter of Prof,, G. Fred Lee to Mr. John P0
Lehman, Director of EPA Hazardous Waste Manage-
24 ment Division, dated June 12, 1978, (Exhibit A
hereto)„
25
-------
82
1
2 tstrator, the Task Group strongly contends
3 that no single toxlcity test procuedure can
4 be scientifically representative, that requi-
5 site data and technological support for the
6 EP are lacking, and that the EP is scientifically
7 arbitrary and invalid,, The Group additionally
8 points out that EPA's original contractor had
9 concluded that a single testprocedure was un-
10 sound and that needless over-classification of
11 wastes as hazardous would result in wasteful ex-
12 pense.
I3 For the record, I have attached copies
I4 of both Professor Leers and the Task Group's
15 letter to my written statement.
16 USWAG endorses the concerns ex-
17 pressed by Professor Lee and by the ASTM Task
18 Group. We are undertaking our own technical
19 assessment of the procedure; and we hope to
20 include the results of that analysis in USWAG's
21 formal written comments to be submitted by March 160
22
8.Letter of Planning Task Group of ASTM Sub-
23 committee D-19.12 on Pollution Potential of the
Leaching From Solid Wastes to Mr. Douglas Costle,
24 Administrator of EPA, dated December" 2, 1978.
(Exhibit B hereto)„
25
-------
1 83
2 As a preliminary matter, we believe
3 that the EP has several significant shortcomings„
4 It appears that the mechanical procedure speci-
5 fied in the EP is unsound because neither the
6 accuracy nor the precision of the testing has
7 been demonstrated. We therefore question the
8 validity of EPA's conclusion, as described in
9 the preamble to the 3001 regulations, that "a
10 reliable identification or test method for the
11 presence of the characteristic is available*
12 9. We also question the applica-
13 bility and scientific integrity of a testing
14 procedure which ignores considerations of actual
15 attenuation, dilution, geological variations, hy-
16 drologic variations and climatology.
17 Further, we question whether the appli-
18 cation made here of the Interim Primary Drinking
I9 Water standards is appropriate. If applicable, a
20 further question arises with regard to what dis-
21 tances should be considered between the edge of
22 the waste disposal area and the monitoring as well.
23
9, 43 Fed. Reg. 58950. See also 250,,12(a) (2),
24 id_. at 58955„
25
-------
84
1
2 We believe that the adoption of variable receptor
3 distances determined on the basis of actual risk
4 to human health and the environment would achieve
5 the goals desired by RCRA, without arbitrarily
6 imposing unnecessarily stringent requirements,
7 Finally, even if the toxicity proto-
8 col is an appropriate methodology for some pur-
9 poses, we question whether it reflects the che-
10 mical and physical processes actually experienced
11 by utility wastes and utility waste management
12 practices.
13 While the proposed toxicity test is of
14 paramount concern to USWAG, we also have serious
15 doubts regarding the appropriateness of the other
16 proposed tests. These and other concerns will be
17 addressed in USWAG's formal written comments.
18 The electric utility industry is not
19 unaccustomed to regulations, but it is deeply
20 concerned where that regulation appears to be
21 largely unnecessary and excessively inflationary,,
22 We do not believe that the great bulk of utility'
23 wastes poses a hazard to sociaty. Indeed, some
24 of them are being reused in increasing amounts
25
-------
85
1
2 for such things as ftll material in highway
3 road beds, land reclamation, concrete and
4 cement products, and the like. Unless the
5 procedures proposed for testing nonlisted
6 wastes are amended to reflect a realistic
7 and scientifically sound approach, the possi-
8 bility exists that there will be a number of
9 significant impacts on utilities and their
10 customers from RCRA's requirements for the
H treatment, transportation, storage and dis-
12 posal of wastes deemed to be hazardous:
13 --Siting of disposal facilities,
14 difficult even now in today's environmental
15 climate, will become difficult in the extreme,
16 if not impossible.
17 --There will be an attendant reduc-
18 tion of coal-fired generation as an energy op-
19 tion due to public reaction against any waste
20 identified as hazardous.
21 --The high cost of disposal will
22 result in significant increases in utility
23 rates, which costs will be borne by the customer.
24 --Finally, the utilization potential
25
-------
86
1
2 of ash will be decreased or culminated, result-
3 ing in an immediate increase of millions of tons
4 annually in the quantity of ash going to disposal
5 facilities.
6 Unfortunately, this last impact will
7 lay to final rest the heretofore neglected goals
8 of RCRA to recover and conserve resources.
9 In sum, forthe reasons expressed above,
10 USWAG believes that the objectives of RCRA will
11 not be met by the regulations proposed to implement
12 Section 3001.
13 Thank you.
14 June 12, 1978
15
16 John P. Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
17 Office of Solid Waste
US Environmental Protection Agency
18 Washington, D.C. 20460
19 Dear Mr. Lehman:
20 Some time ago I received a prepublication draft
21 of the Part 250-Hazardous Waste Guidelines and
22 Regulations, sub part A, Criteria Identification
23 and Listing of Hazardous Wastes. I have reviewed
24 this draft and have a number of comments on signi-
25
-------
87
1
2 ficant problems that will occur if your proposed
3 draft is adopted. These comments relate to the
4 section of this draft concerned with the toxicant
5 extraction procedure. As you know, ASTM-D-19,,12,
6 some members of governmental agencies, and others
7 have been very concerned about this procedure.
8 Upon reviewing the EPA procedure I can see why ASTM
9 D-19,,12 members are concerned and why they are
10 trying to rush through what is clearly, based
11 on my experience in extraction procedures for
12 contaminants from solids, an equally bad pro-
13 cedure. It is very clear to me, after having
14 worked for almost 20 years on the factors affect-
15 ing the release of contaminants from solids,
16 that the EPA is about to add another procedure
17 tothe list of procedures which tent to cause
18 this agency to have limited credibility within
19 industry, state and local governments, and with
20 other international governments. Unfortunately,
21 when I reviewed the ASTM D-19.12 extraction pro-
22 cedure which was supposedly developed to prevent
23 the EPA from developing their procedure, I found
24 that it is no more valid than the EPA procedure,
25
-------
88
1
2 Having just spent five years and close to a
3 million dollars in CE funds developing an elu-
4 triate test for dredged sediments, I feel it is
5 appropriate to point out that your staff has
6 used an approach which is arbitrary and what I
7 am sure will prove to be inappropriate.
8 The basic issue at stake is that of trying to
9 discern which solid wastes represent a hazard
10 in the environment. There is absolutely no way
11 the EPA, ASTM, or other groups can develop a
12 single leaching test such as that proposed which
13 can make this type of assessment. The approach
14 that must be used is a case-by-case approach to
15 the particular situation of concern. Trying to
16 fix all the auditions on a single test as has
17 been done in the proposed EPA test will certain-
18 ly cause the EPA to spend large amounts of time
19 and funds in the court room and could readily
20 cause the expenditure of millions of US dollars
21 in the name of pollution control with little or no
22 improvement in environmental quality. Further,
23 in some instances, the arbitrarily developed
24 test could, because of alternative methods of
25
-------
89
1
2 disposal, create more environmental harm than
3 if no test had been used and the solid waste
4 had simply been dumped out on the ground.
5 The basic approach that should be followed in
6 developing a leaching test to predict the release
' of contaminants from solid wastes which could be
" averse to the environment is to first examine the
9 factors that could influence the results of such
1° a test. Your staff seems to be hung up on pH
11 and have decided that the whole world consists
12 of an environment of pH of 5. As one person
1** has put it, your acetic acid leach solution is
14 an attempt by your staff to pretend that all solid
15 wastes areput into municipal garbage dumps and
I6 that your leach solution is supposed to represent
17 garbage juice. This, of course, is foolishness.
lg There are many solid wastes (in fact, most) which
never enter -municipal landfills and never come in
20 contact with garbage juice. There is absolutely
21 no justification for leaching these solids with
22 an acetic acid solution. In fact, there are
23 very good fundamental chemical reasons why leach-
24 ing with acetic acid should not be done. Acetic
25
-------
90
1
2 acid is not normally present in large amounts
3 in the environment. It has some complexing ten-
4 dencies which will clearly tend to cause solubi-
5 lization of some materials in solid wastes which
6 would not solubilize under real world conditions.
7 The EPA should immediately abandon the garbage
8 juice approach except for conditions where it is
9 certain the materials are going to be placed in
10 municipal landfills and even then I question whe-
11 ther the acetic acid solution that has been deve-
J2 loped is an appropriate leaching solution even
13 within landfills.
14 The second problem with the acetic acid-garbage
15 juice approach is that is you are dealing with a
16 solid waste which has any buffer capacity, outside
17 of the pH 5 or so region, massive amounts of ace-
18 tic acid could be added to the system in order to
19 get your leachate solution into the specified pH
20 range,
21 This would never be realistic in the real world.
22 A waste with high buffer capacity (i.e., 8 or 9)
23 would tend to cause the garbage juice to adjust
24 to that "H rather than the reverse.
25
-------
91
I
2 Another problem with the proposed approach for
3 the leachate test is that of the liquid-solid
4 ratio. Can your staff explain why they chose the
5 liquid-solid ratio that they did? What technical
6 justification is there for this approach? It is
7 certainly not representative of what occurs in
8 the real world. Does your staff know that minor
9 changes in liquid-solid ratio such as normal weigh-
10 ing errors in making measurements of the solids
11 used might have a significant impact on the re-
12 suits. Any type of test for an extractable con-
13 taminanttnust be set up so that the operational
14 parameters of te test are relatively insensitive
15 to minor alterations in the conductance of the
16 test. Until your staff has evaluated, for a wide
17 variety of solids, how the liquid-solid ratio
18 affects the release of contaminants, they are
19 not in a position to even begin to promulgate a
20 meaningful test.
21 By far, the worst offense made by the EPA staff
22 in developing this test is their complete ignorance
23 of the importance of redox conditions on the beha-
24 vior of contaminants associated with solid wastes.
25
-------
92
1
2 Several years ago, another group within the EPA and
3 the Corps of Engineers developed a leachate test
4 for dredged sediment in which they, too, ignored
5 the importance of Oxidation reduction on the re-
6 lease of contaminants from solids. As a result,
' hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funds
8 have been wasted on the test and millions of dol-
9 lars in public funds have been wasted as a result
10 of incorrect decisions being made about the signi-
11 ficance of contaminants present in dredged sedi-
1^ ments under various alternative disposal practices.
I3 In some cases, it is fairly clear now that some of
I4 the alternative methods of disposal of dredged
15 sediment, which were results of failing to recog-
16 nize the importance of test conditions on influenc-
17 ing the results, have been more harmful to the
I8 environment than much cheaper procedures used
' before the test was developed.
20 It is extremely important that any test of this
2J type be conducted under the redox conditions that
22 will prevail in the disposal operation. These
23 may be oxic or anoxic. The test should not fluc-
24 tuate between the two in a random manner. Before
25
-------
93
1
2 Before any of the extraction solutions are tested
3 for potential biological or chemicaleffects (i.e.,
4 comparison to water quality criteria or standards),
5 the system must be exposed to oxygen for a suffi-
6 cient period of time to oxidize the ferrous iron
7 present in the system to ferric and then be allowed
8 to settle so that the contaminants which have been
9 scavenged by the ferric hydroxide are removed from
10 the system. This should not be done in the pre-
11 sence of large amounts of acetic acid or acetate
12 since this can easily affect the behavior of ferric
13 hydroxide as a scavenger unless, of course, the
1^ waste itself contains a large amount of these ma-
15 terials.
16 Another significant problem with the proposed lea-
17 chate test is contact time. Why was the time
18 selected? What justification is there that these
1' times are critical times that could be important in
20 the environment? How does this test behave with
21 respect to various types of solids as a function
22 of contact time? These are the kinds ofquestions
23 that should have been asked before the test was
24 promulgated.
25
-------
94
1
2 Another problem I have is the arbitrary factor of
3 10 dilution that is used and then the comparison
4 to water quality criteria of the US EPA., The water
5 quality criteria such as those of the EPA of July
6 1976 have limited applicability to leachates. They
7 are not generally applicable to a wide range of con-
* ditions that will likely be encountered in the en-
9 vironment.
10 If the EPA staff who evolved this test feel that
11 there is justification for the various conditions
12 specified, they should bring these forward so that
13 those who were asked to comment on them can examine
14 the justifications for their technical validity.
15 If the conditions as specified are truly arbitrary
16 (which everyone I talked to believes is the case)
I7 then this should be stated and efforts should be
19 made to determine the influence of the arbitrary
19 conditions on the results of the test. If the EPA
20 fails to do this type of evaluation, then it will
21 find itself in a lawsuit some day against a firm
22 with sufficient funds to do the work necessary to
23 show that the conditions of the test are not appli-
24 cable to their particular waste. The least that
25
-------
95
1
2 should be done is to allow a municipality, in-
3 dustry, or others, to choose conditions which they
4 can readily defend for their particular situations.
5 I hope that these comments will be carefully con-
6 sidered and that steps will be taken to do the
7 work necessary to properly develop a test. It
8 has not been done thus far. The EPA will be
9 making a very serious error if it proceeds with
10 further development of this approach.
11 Sincerely yours,
12 G. Fred Lee
Professor
13
GFL/mj
14
15
December 2, 1978
16
Mr. Douglas Costle, Administrator
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W-
18 Washington, D. C. 20460
19 SUBJECT: Criteria, Identification, and Listing
of Hazardous Waste
20
Dear Mr. Costle:
21
We are advised thatthe Environmental Protection
22
Agency plans to publish in the Federal Register
23
a proposed regulation convering this subject,,
24
It is also our understanding that in the proposaal,
25
-------
96
1
2 there will be reference to an EPA--developed
3 procedure to be used as a screening test for
4 classification of waste materials.
5 In this respect, we would like to call to your
6 attention a standards development program now
7 in progress within ASTM Committee D-19 on Water,
8 under the sponsorship of Subcommittee D-19.12
9 on Pollution Potential of the Leaching From
10 Solid Wastes, This group has prepared a tech-
11 nical position paper on this matter which we
12 are forwarding to you for consideration,, I ad-
13 vise you that this represents the views of the
14 Planning Group of D-19»12, and does not reflect
15 an ASTM position in respect to the proposed re-
16 gulation.
17 Sincerely,
18
H.J. Stremba
19 Deputy Managing Director
20
21 Mr. Douglas Costle, Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
22 401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
23
Dear Mr. Costle:
24
25
-------
97
1
2 The Planning Task Group of ASTM Subcommittee
3 D19.12 on Pollution Potential of the Leaching
4 From Solid Wastes, strongly objects to the un-
5 scientific approach that the EPA has been follow-
6 ing in the development of a procedure to be used
7 as a screening test for classification of waste
8 material under Section 3001 of P.L. 94-580.
' Subcommittee Dl9.12's principal concern is the
10 development of concensus standards test methods
11 to evaluate the leaching characteristics of solid
12 waste materials. Because of the intense interest
13 in this technical area, due primarily to growing
14 environmental concern and to the EPA's need to
15 implement the Resources Conservation and Recovei-;-
16 Act (P.L. 94-580) the Subcommittee has grown ra-
17 pidly to its present stature of 299 members and
18 is now one of the largest single subcommittees
19 in all of ASTMl Care has been exercised to follow
20 ASTM1s strict rules of due process, which includes
21 maintaining interests on the subcommittee. Many
22 industries are represented, as are State and Fe-
23 deral environmental agencies, testing laboratories
24 and universities. The EPA has 24 members on Com
25
-------
98
1
2 mittee D-19, and many other Federal agencies are
3 also active.
4 Years of experience have been encompassed by the
5 Subcommittee through the knowledge of the many
6 experts that have become members of the group.
7 No other highly qualified forum for technical
8 exchange ofthis type on leaching from solid wastes
9 is known to exist.
10 Proposed methods for determining the leaching
11 potential of solid wastes were developed by Sub-
12 committee D19.12. After testing by a number
13 of laboratories, using the method on a wide variety
14 of waste materials (extensive data were made
15 available at the subcommittee meetings in January
16 1978), the methods were ballotted and published
17 in May 1978 as the "Proposed Methods for .Leaching
18 of Waste Materials". The Subcommittee is present-
19 ly concluding a round robin program in which 24
20 laboratories are participating in evaluating the
21 precision of the ASTM methods.
22 The careful, technically competent manner in
23 which the ASTM procedure has been developed
24 stands in contradistinction to the EPA's activity
25 in this area.
-------
99
1
2 Initially, the EPA entered into a contract with
3 Professor Hamm and others, at the University of
4 Wisconsin, specifically to develop such a classi-
5 ficatinn procedure. One of Prof, Hamm's conclu-
6 sions, based on draft reports obtained by ASTM
7 members, recognized that two types of disposal
8 must be considered. He indicated that, since
9 all wastes will obviously not go into municipal
10 landfills, a single test approach based on disposal
11 of industrial wastes in municipal landfills is not
12 suitable for classifying wastes.
13 EPA's predelection to municipal landfiDs, includ-
14 ing co-disposal of industrial wastes, resulted
15 in the rejection, of Prof. Hamm's conclusion and
16 the proposal by EPA that all wastes be tested in
17 a synthetic acid environment, using what EPA
18 representatives termed "synthetic garbage juice"
19 as the extraction fluid. This was EPA's first
20 procedure. It was discussed in public meetings
21 in June, 1976 in Chicago. At the meetings, EPA
22 indicated that limited testing of the procedure
23 had been completed and data would be available
24 shortly (these data have never been published).
25
-------
100
1
2
Many problems exist with the EPA approach. For
3
example, the use of a synthetic acid environment
4
posed significanttesting problems associated with
preserving the extraction fluid, with analyzing
6
the complex solutions that result, and with
testing the extract for toxicity. ASTM D19.12
8
members told EPA immediately that this extract
9
was not technically suitable for the type of
toxicity tests which which EPA contemplated.
Prof. Hamm also indicated that the pH of the
12
leaching solution should be controlled by the
13
nature or makeup of the waste, rather than be
14
artificially controlled at some pre-determined
level of pH by the use of synthetic acids.
16
When comments on the draft procedure were supplied,
EPA's response was limited in technical content
18
and generally reflected a closed-door attitude.
19
When EPA ran toxicity tests, after first issuing
20
the draft procedure, they discovered that ASTM
21
was correct, and thus began what has become a
22
circuitous path of editorial revisions. In each
23
case, revisions have been made to the draft pro-
24
cedure with little or no datalogical support.
25
-------
101
1
2 In early 1978, EPA representatives met, while
3 attending the ASTM meeting, with representatives
4 from the Illinois EPA, resulting in a new draft
5 procedure that was literally a "cut and paste"
6 version of the Illinois procedure used for metal
7 finishing wastes. The EPA adapted the Illinois
^ procedure to its own requirements and changed the
9 leaching liquor from a hydrochloric to an acetic
10 acid solution. The procedure was included in
11 draft regulations prior to any laboratory testing.
12 The current EPA procedure incorporates further
13 modifications. The novel apparatus is utilized
I4 (rathen than existing, standard apparatus), and
15 we understand that the new equipment is not even
16 available from the sole manufacturer listed by
17 EPA. As before, the new draft was released
18 before these changes had been tested on any
19 waste materials!
20 The scientific approach to test method develop-
21 ment requires that the tests be developed ini-
22 tially in consort with date and that changes be
23 evaluated by test programs designed to measure
24 the effect or impact of the changes on tge results
25
-------
102
1
2 of the tests. The best procedures also involve
3 gaining input from diverse areas of interest, as
4 is done in ASTM. In contrast, EPA has continued
5 unilaterally to embrace a series of draft proce-
* dures which have no appreciable data base. EPA
7 currently has no data on the procedure to show
o
expected results on wastes with varying physical,
chemical, and biological properties, and has no
10 analysis of how such results would compare with
11 those obtained using the previous test procedure,
12 or with actual leaching from the solid waste ma-
13 terials under field conditions.
14 Of primary concern in this situation is the fact
15 that many wastes may be declared hazardous even
1* though there is little or no danger from the
1' wastes when disposed in their present manner.
18 The EPA has stated that they prefer to make such
^ errors of overclassification, as opposed to "miss-
20 ing1 any hazardous wastes. However, this obviously
21 results in totally needless expense for the ad-
22 ministration and disposal of these wastes. How-
23 ever, this obviously results in totally needless
24 expense for the administration and disposal of
25
-------
103
1
2 these wastes. Siting problems associated with
3 EPA requirements for disposal and citizen unrest
4 tnay> in fact, force the closing of industrial
5 facilities when no environmental hazard exists.
6 The issues of undue economic impact and citizen
7 unrest are too significant to allow that we condone
8 such an. arbitrary approach by government. The
9 probability of overclassifying wastes is not an
10 acceptable risk, when rational alternatives can
11 be developed.
12 The EPA finds itself in what appears to be an
13 awkward position, we think, due to its insistence
14 that a single test procedure be used to determine
15 the degree of hazard of all waste materials. As
16 discussed above, the EPA's original contractor
17 concluded that this is not sound. To continue
18 to rely on this approach, and to modify its pro-
19 cedure based on technically and datalogically
20 unsupported responses rather than dealing with
21 the fundamental issue, puts the EPA in a position
22 where implementation and enforcement of the act
23 will be difficult at best, and where significant
24 avoidable economic damage is likely to result.
25
-------
104
1
2 We recommend that the logical basis for the single-
3 test approach in the implementation of P.I. 94-580
4 be re-evaluated, and that the ASTM "Proposed
5 Methods for Leaching of Waste Materials Method A"
6 (copy attached) be used as the most rational inter-
7 im test procedure for classification of waste ma-
8 terials until such time as a more rigorous, scien-
9 tifically sound approach can be developed by the
10 EPA. The water based extraction procedure pro-
11 vides an active leaching environment which most
12 nearly approximates the anticipated field condi-
l3 tions to which the majority of wastes will be
I4 subjected. The test procedure hasresulted from
15 an extensive, methodical development process, and
16 it is the only test which has been applied to a
17 wide variety of waste materials.
18 Subcommittee D19..12 continues to urge EPA parti-
19 cipation in the further development of technically
20 sound ASTM consensus standard test procedures
21 suitable for EPA's use in classifying waste mater-
22 ials under Section 3001 of P.L- ^4-580.
23 in recognition that the use of any
24 single test procedure brings about many difficulties
25
-------
105
I
2 in the classification of waste materials, Sub-
3 committee D19.12 currently includes a task group
4 which as been set up to integrate the considera-
5 tions related to both the extraction procedure
6 and the biological activity testing. This function
7 is significant in view of the complex interrela-
8 tionships that exist, and because EPA has indicated
" their intent to include advance notice of proposed
10 rulemaking for the biological activity testing in
11 the Federal Register shortly Scientists on the
12 D19.12 task group have already noted the severe
13 testing problems that are associated with the use
14 of acid extraction fluids, again suggesting that a
15 water extraction procedure offers the most promise.
16 Sincerely
17
B. Charles Malloy, Chairman
18 ASTM Subcommittee D19.12
I9 William Co Webster, Secretary
ASTM Subcommittee D19.12
20
21 Thank you. Iwill be pleased to
22 attempt to answer whatever questions you may
23 have.
24 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Any questions
25
-------
106
1
2 from the panel?
3 MR. LINDSEY: Yes.
4 I will begin, Mr. Batchelder,, You
5 made several statements which said, if I inter-
6 pret it correctly, that you felt that a large
7 volume of utility waste..should not be considered
8 hazardous. If I'm interpreting it wrong, tell
9 me.
10 Then, it's our preliminary thinking
11 that a portion of these wastes may fail the
12 characteristics, meet the characteristics as
13 they are presently proposed in Section 3001.
14 Do you have information which would
15 confirm that?
16 Then, the question is: If that's the
17 case, then as far as the proposed regulations go,
18 be considered hazardous. That would be the in-
19 terpretation.
20 Then what I assume what you are say-
21 ing is that those proposed characteristics are
22 too stringent; they cover too many things. Is
23 that the idea?
24 MR. BATCHELDER: Well, I need
25
-------
107
1
2 to sort out here some of these matters,, I want
3 to make it clear that I am not here today repre-
4 senting my company in a company statement. I'm
5 here, really, representing the industry group of
6 USWAG.
7 It's difficult, in fact, to sort out
8 what the company is doing individually and what
9 the utility group is doing.
10 Basically, I would say that we feel,
11 you and the industry don't really know enough yet
12 to properly advance with these regulations.
13 We feel, as I have said, that there
14 are problems with the extracting procedure.
15 Basically, we will address the problems since we
16 see them in a written form, written form comments.
17 Until we know and you know more about what really
18 happens and whether or not utility wastes are,
19 in fact, truly hazardous, it's premature to classi-
20 fy them as such.
21 The basic problem is really that we
22 all, all of us, don't really Mnow enough yet.
23 MR. LINDSEY: I gather from that
24 that your problem is really with the extraction
25
-------
108
1
2 procedure rather than with the limits on the
3 hazardous level proposed with regard to the
4 characteristics that are listed?
5 Is that fair to say?
6 MR. BATCHELDER: No, it's not
7 unfair to say that, but I think that our primary
8 focus has to be on the extracting procedure.
9 We also are concerned with the limits
10 level. For instance, the drinking water standards
*
11 are subject to modifications and that will have
12 an effect on it.
13 I don't want to get off on side
14 issues here because it's better that we should
15 make our remarks in our formal statements, which
16 we will submit.
17 The industry group is very actively
18 trying to address a wide variety of problems
19 that are faced by both EPA, the electric utility
20 industry and the general public in the proposed
21 regulations.
22 We are mounting a considerable
23 effort to try to learn things here. We just
24 feel that, as we learn diffaent things and they
25
-------
109
1
2 interact, that all of us will be more knowledge-
3 able and can go forward.
4 We understand the pressures that
5 EPA is under, and I, personally, feel for you,
6 but we all need to have more information,,
7 MR. CORSON; If I can, I would
8 like to clear up something that you stated in
' the first page of your statement where you in-
10 dicate that we are considering the bulk of
11 utility waste to be hazardous.
12 I guess I'm curious as to how you
13 drew that interpretation and whether you can
14 support that feet from the knowledge that you
15 have that the bulk of utility waste would flood
16 our characteristics.
17 MR. BATCHELDER; I'm not in
18 a very good position to comment in detail. We
I9 will comment in detail in a written statement.
20 we are trying to get our information together
21 to answer your question in a specific way.
22 I know from my own experience in
23 the operation with my company that we have a
24 great deal of information available, in scattered
25
-------
110
1
2 form, and it needs to be organized or put together.
3 We are very much — very actively try-
4 ing to do that. What the result of that accumula-
5 tion of data will show, I don't yet know,,
6 As far as the answer to your question
7 about the bulk of utility waste, when you commen-
8 ted -- when the regulations addressed utility ash
9 and scrubber sludge, these, to us, are obviously
10 the bulk of our wastes.
11 MR. CORSONs Let me add this; Per-
12 haps, for interpretation purposes, for you to know
13 and anyone else who may be interested, the classi-
14 fication of utilities wasted in Section 3004 is
15 a special waste which only applies to that por-
16 tion of those utility wastes which are demonstra-
17 ted hazardous by Section 3001 standards.
18 To the extent that wastes are not
19 hazardous by 3001 standards, they are then sub-
20 titled D waste and must meet none of the standards
21 at all.
22 I guess it's been our impression and,
23 perhaps your data will support the bulk waste
24 which will fall in that category and are not non-
25
-------
Ill
1
2 residence.
3 MR. BATCHELDER: We don't
4 know yet. We are busy trying to find out.
5 We don't know yet.
6 MR, CORSON: One further ques-
7 tion? In light of your comments with regard
8 to the extraction procedure, I think, and you
9 have expressed a desire, I believe, to include
10 as part of the definition of hazardous wastes
11 some implications of its management.
12 I would like to knowwhether you have
13 suggestions that you can give us, certainly in
14 your written comments if not today, as to how
15 you would propose that we develop a set of re-
16 gulations which provide necessary protection
17 of public health and environment in those cases
18 where you have a facility and you are not forced
19 by example to move those wastes off site to pro-
20 vide proper protection should there be a spill
21 or something along the way and to assure that
22 the next site provides environmental protation?
23 How do we define those wastes and
24 require so much special management either by
25
-------
112
1
2 nature of segregation or by nature of special
3 facilities that we would go into?
4 MR. BATCHELDER: Well, first
5 of all, I apologize if I seem to be non-respon-
6 sive, but I'm one person in a large effort try-
7 ing to do that and I don't personally know all
8 of the answers.
9 The other part of it is that we do
10 have a group working on these concerns.
11 From what I have seen of the opera-
12 tion of the very separate committees in the
13 utility solid waste activities group, it is
14 my understanding that we will attempt to
15 address these concerns and I'm quite convinced
16 tht; we will have positive comments to make.
17 We will not be negative about these.
18 We will speak up when we disagree with what is
19 proposed, but I expect that we will come forward
20 with some positive suggestions.
21 MR. CORSON; Thank you.
22 MR, LINDSEY: Before I ask this
23 question, I have a note which says to please
24 ask Commissioner Flacke to come to the registra-
25
-------
113
1
2 tion desk.
3 Nows Mr0 Batchelder, you did make
4 reference to the special waste category. I
5 think we addressed that through one of the
6 questions.
7 In that regard, you are probably
8 aware that we intend to conduct rather exten-
9 sive studies, which are now on the drawing
10 boards of utility wastes as well as the other
11 special wastes and they are to do some of the
12 things that you are talking about, to gather
13 additional information with regard to the par-
14 ticular wastes relative to hazard level, ha-
15 zards posed by disposal at the present time
16 and what other alternatives there may be.
17 Now, I would ask that, perhaps,
18 your group and others for that matter may be
19 of great assistance to us in conducting this
20 study which will then lead to, maybe, to more
21 substantive regulations at this time.
22 I would ask that, hopefully, you
23 will cooperate with us in helping to develop
24 this information «,
25
-------
114
1
2 MR, BATCHELDER2 I expect that
3 we will.
4 MR. LINDSEY: Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Is there any-
6 thing further?
7 MR. CORSON2 I have one further
8 question.
9 I guess I'm a little familiar with
10 the two letters that you referenced in your state-
11 ment.
12 My recollection of both of those
13 letters is that they are part of the critique
14 of EPA and it relates to our separation of de-
15 finition of hazardous wastes from the specific
16 management,
17 Both Fred Lee, and perhaps the ori-
18 ginal developer of the then procedure indicated
19 that the actual release from those wastes is a
20 function of the environment or the land attached
21 to which it was placed*
22 Now, recognizing that our purpose
23 in 3001 is to separate out those wastes which
24 may require something other than -- some special
25
-------
115
I
2 handling other than just putting them into any
3 subtitled D facility, I'm^ondering if you can
4 make the attempt to help us provide as to how
5 we would make that distinction between those
6 wastes which are indiscriminately, my word,
7 applied to a subtitled D facility as opposed
8 to the ones which may require special atten-
9 tion, including the fact that the waste should
10 not be company disposed with other wastes?
11 MR. BATCHELDER: Mr. Corson,
12 yesj expect that we will try to answer your
13 question,
14 I realize the problem that EPA
15 has. You have a very difficult time,,
16 We need to go ahead and yet, for
17 the benefit of us as people, citizens in the
18 country, the electric utility industry and
19 many other people feel, also, the need to go
20 ahead on some kind of good scientific basis.
2i Again, I say collectively, we
22 don't know enough about it yet. For instance,
23 in partial response to your question, I know
24 of a group that is studying some utility wastes
25
-------
116
1
2 in a method that would approach what that group
3 believes to be the real live environmental as-
4 pects of it; that is, in studying wastes to see
5 whether or not it would seem to fall into the
6 hazardous waste classification as presently
7 defined in the proposed regulations.
8 I have been monitoring some of
9 that work from a remote point of view and I
10 don't yet know what the results seem to be
11 showing. We are hopeful that we will know
12 enough in time to include these in the formal
13 comments before March 16th,,
14 I also very much appreciate the
15 problems involved here on a case-by-case
16 basis. One of the things that Fred Lee men-
17 tioned, if you try to do this in every situa-
18 tion, it's expensive and difficult.
19 in our case, though, because of
20 utility ash and utility scrub slush being large
21 volumes, we may feel that we hase to go this route.
22 I appreciate the fact that EPA
23 attempted, as you mentioned in Item 2 in the
24 preamble that you had several options to select
25
-------
117
1
2 and you selected one that you thought, in your
3 view, would apply as broadly as can be,
4 We just think that much more has
5 to be learned.
6 MR. CORSON; Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Thank you,
8 Mr. Batchelder.
9 Commissioner Flacke, we are ready
10 for you,,
11 The press briefing is not at 11;00
12 o'clock,, We will not recess the Hearing. We
13 will continue,,
14 We have also been asked to request
15 that the press register,, I don't think that
16 will be considered censorship.
17 Commissioner?
18 COMMISSIONER FLACKE: Thank you
19 and good morning.
20 My name is Robert F. Flacke, Commi-
21 ssioner of New York State's Department of Environ-
22 mental Conservation^ I appreciate this opportu-
23 nity to present New York State's position in re-
24 gard to the regulations to be discussed over the
25
-------
118
1
2 next three days.
3 New York State has many thousands of
4 industries which generate hazardous waste mater-
5 ials. We estimated that collectively they gene-
6 rate in excess of 1,2 million tons per year.
7 Most significant are the chemical industries con-
8 centrated in the western part of New York State,
9 which generate large quantities of the more ha-
10 zardous types of waste materials,,
11 A major problem with which we are now
12 confronted in the part of the State, and to a
13 lesser extent in other parts of New York, is the
14 need to identify, evaluate, and remedy inactive
15 and abandoned chemical waste disposal sites. The
16 classic examples are the Love Canal and Hyde Park
17 disposal areas in the City of Niagara Falls. We
18 have identified over 400 sites around the State
19 which we believe have received industrial waste
20 at some time in the past. Of these, approximately
21 60 are areas of major concern.
22 This experience clearly indicates
23 two major areas of concern with respect to the
24 Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
25
-------
119
1
2 (RCRA) and the regulations to be promulgated
3 thereunder. First, RCRA does not adequately add-
4 ress the disposal sites which are now inactive or
5 abandoned. Remedial actions for these disposal
6 sites are extremely complex and costly and it is
7 often not possible to clearly identify those res-
8 ponsible for making corrections.
9 Now, on Friday, we proposed a grand
10 proposal which, we believe, will take care of
H the engineering work in the first three years
12 of maintenance and operation and remedial work
13 for tne lower, upper and middle sections of the
14 Love Canal.
15 Our best estimate is $8,0003000.,
16 Secondly, regulations developed must
17 be sufficient to insure that additional Love
18 Canals cannot be created elsewhere and to in-
19 sure that current, well operated landfills do not
20 become significant groundwater polluters because
21 of the disposal of hazardous waste materials.
22 This leads to one of our major con-
23 cerns in the proposed regulations: The exemp-
24 tion for "generators" who produce less than 100
25
-------
120
1
2 kilograms per month of hazardous waste. From
3 our knowledge of hazardous waste streams generated
4 in New York State it is clear there are a. number
5 of small waste streams which must be controlled.
6 Most specifically, these waste streams are those
7 containing highly toxic organic compounds. To
8 allow some of these waste materials at a rate of
9 up to 100 kilograms per month to be deposited in
10 landfills for municipal solid waste can result
11 in severe groundwater pollution problems. We
12 recognize that classifying waste materials accord-
13 ing to the degree of hazard is extremely difficult
14 but we feel it is a necessary part of procedures
15 for exempting small "generators."
16 Another major area of conoarn is the
17 fact that a number o£ waste materials generated
18 in New York State which we consider to be hazar-
19 dous would not be included in the system as pro-
20 posed. For example, solvents destined to go to'
21 reclaiming operations should be included in the
22 system. Also, many waste materials containing
23 heavy metals or other items not found in the
24 National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards
25
-------
121
1
2 must also be considered to be hazardous. We
3 will be providing more specific information
4 concerning those waste materials which we be-
5 lieve need to be included in the definition
6 of hazardous wastes.
7 I would like to point out that
8 New York State has a new industrial hazardous waste
9 management Act which provides the additional auth-
10 ority for New York State to develop a hazardous
11 waste management program in full compliance with
12 EPA authorization requirements. Portions of
13 this legislation cannot be implemented until
14 EPA has published the hazardous waste regula-
15 tions under Subtitle C. We are concerned that
16 the EPA hazardous waste regulatory program, as
17 originally envisioned, has been softened in many
18 respects and therefore will not be as effective
19 as we originally had anticipated. An example of
20 this is the manifest system, as proposed in
21 Section 3002, which we believe is at the heart
22 of the regulatory program. As currently proposed,
23 this system will be of questionable value. For
24 example, the suggested form should become an ab-
25 solute requirement nationwide so that there will
-------
122
1
2 be a sense of uniformity and so that the enforce-
3 ment can and may be simplified. A manifest docu-
4 ment should be carried with each shipment. The
5 option of using a "bill of lading" or other sub-
6 stituted document should be removed from the regu-
7 lations. We will be submitting more specific
o
comments on the manifest system and other provi-
9 sions of Section 3002.
10 With regard to Section 3004, require-
11 ments for storage, treatment and disposal facili-
l2 ties, we believe that reasonable time schedule
^ should be provided whereby land disposal of per-
14 sistent organic compounds will be phased out and
15 incineration or some type of detoxification phased
16 In. The precedent for this rationale was estab-
17 lished in EPA's regulations issued under the Feder-
18 al Toxic Substances Control Act for controlling
19 the disposal of PCB wastes. Though the timing
20 may not have been realistic for those regulations,
21 we fully agree with the intent.
22 These are but a few of the many con-
23 cerns which we have for these proposed regulations.
24 My staff will be making more specific comments
25
-------
123
1
2 during the next three days, and, in addition,
3 detailed comments will be submitted prior to
4 March 16th.
5 I look forward to the day when EPA's
6 regulations are promulgated so that we can pro-
7 mulgate our complementing regulations and thus
8 develop the necessary bilateral partnership need-
9 ed for administering and effective hazardous waste
10 management program in New York State.
11 Thank you. I am hopeful that these
12 regulations in their final form will foster a
13 decision programmed consciousness, business, in-
14 dustry and citizens of our country so that in the
15 future decade, the citizens, our citizens, will
16 be alleviated from the fears of environmental
17 crisis that we have today, the health crises that
18 we have today and the economic crises that we have
19 today as a result of past generation disposal of
20 toxics and hazardous wastes.
21 I will be pleased to answer questions,
22 but the specific ones I will probably leave to
23 some of the technical people who are here today.
24 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Thank you.
25
-------
124
1
2 Any questions?
3 MR. LINDSEYs Commissioner, I
4 think your comments have been very helpful.
5 I have one question: You men-
6 tioned an exemption for generators who pro-
7 duce less than 100 kilograms per month of ha-
8 zardous wastes and an exclusion of what we
9 commonly refer to as the small quantity ex-
10 elusion as inappropriate because of problems
11 which are caused by smaller quantities than that.
12 I should point out, in this case,
13 that this particular point has been one of a
14 great deal of interest from all sectors of our
15 society as to how ard under what circumstances
16 some sort of exclusion should be applied.
17 We would be interested in those
18 comments. However, I will address the one
19 point if I may?
20 With regardto the 100 kilogram ex-
21 elusion or any small quantity exclusion, we do
22 keep track of damage cases and damage hcidents
23 that have occurred at Love Canal and so forth.
24 We are hard-pressed to find that any problems
25
-------
125
1
2 demonstrably have been caused by the improper
3 disposal of small quantities or should, I say,
4 from the disposal of small quantities into sani-
5 tary landfills that would meet, for example, our
6 Subtitle D requirements, assuming they are dis-
7 posed of in a fashion which is responsible with
8 regard to those regulations.
9 It would be helpful to us, and I
10 don't expect you will answer it, but it would
U be helpful if you had examples of where small
12 quantity kinds of problems have created damage
13 cases to let us know about those specifically.
14 Our files are -- we don't have much
15 in that regard.
16 COMMISSIONER FLACKE: We will be
17 happy to supply that data to you, but let me
18 say that the work that New York State has done,
19 and you will hear from us today from our Depart-
20 ment of Law and Department of Health, leads us
21 to believe that, at least, in the beginning the
22 regulations as proposed must take into account
23 the smaller items oftoxic and hazardous wastes;
24 most specifically, the intra-agency task force
25
-------
126
1
2 that I referred to that will soon release a re-
3 port on Niagara County which gives evidence to
4 us and leads us to believe that the accumulative
5 amount of small toxic substances must have some
6 type of control.
7 MR. CORSON: Just one small request,
8 Commissioner? We are not familiar with how you
9 relate to Dr. Kim and Mr. Skinner,
10 I would certainly request that you
11 have your staff provide us with any help in fur-
12 ther development of your thoughts with regard to
13 classification of hazard degree, particularly
14 as it may relate to quantities of waste.
15 If you can give us some help, we
16 will appreciate that.
17 COMMISSIONER FLACKE: Yes. I be-
18 lieve the State of New York basically organized
19 on an intra-agency basis with Dr. Axelrod and
20 other departments.
21 We will have a composite type of
22 document for you.
23 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Commissioner,
24 I have one question ? One of the overriding con-
25
-------
127
1
2 cerns we have with these regulations is not as
3 to overloading the system with paper that we
4 don't get environmental protection and not
5 putting so many requirements in as to recording,
6 monitoring that we don't overachieve the end
7 result.
8 The 100 kilogram cutoff is evidence
9 of that compromise. Where do we draw the line
10 so that we make it impossible for them to get
11 out into the field to do their work?
12 We would appreciate it very much
13 having your thoughts on the system and in considera-
14 tion ot the numbers, facilities that would be
15 covered in the State of New York and the burden
16 on people directly affected by the regulations
17 and the burden on the State by the very poorly
18 informed.
19 I find it encouraging here that you
20 tell us to be more stringent in the cutoff, be-
21 cause from the other State officials, they have
22 been suggesting that reporting and other paper
23 work will be quite substantial.
24 Any detailed thoughts you have on this,
25
-------
128
1
2 any analysis you have would be very invaluable
3 to us.
4 COMMISSIONER FLACKE: The basic
5 philosophy is that the rules and regulations
6 should cover the problems, especially New York
7 State.
° We believe that the D regulation
9 mode that, perhaps, is evident by some people
10 is not created by the regulation itself, but
11 by the people who administer it.
12 We are going to pledge to our peo-
13 pie in New York State that your regulations
14 and ours that flow from it will be administered
15 in a fair manner and in a methodology that will
16 eliminate some of the abuses that people talk
17 of.
18 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Thank you
19 very much.
20 Mr. Norman Nosenchuck?
21 MR. NOSENCHUCK: Good morning.
22 My name is Norman Nosenchuck, Director of the
23 Division of Solid Waste Management of the New
24 York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
25
-------
129
1
2 I would like to take this opportunity to make a
3 few comments on the United States Environmental
4 Protection Agency hazardous waste regulations
5 proposed pursuant to Section 3001 of the Resource
6 Conservation and Recovery Act ot 1976.
7 We are seriously concerned that by
8 exempting wastes destined for reclaimers, reuse,
9 or other use, the Environmental Protection Agency
10 is creating a significant gap in the regulations
11 and is making other sections of the regulations
12 much more difficult to enforce.
13 For example, solvents destined for
14 solvent reclaiming facilities should be included
15 under the definition of hazardous waste as per
16 Section 3001, and solvent reclaiming facilities
17 should be subject to some Section 3004 controls.
18 While we agree with the intent of the proposed
I9 regulations to foster the reclamation of these
20 materials, we feel that this omission creates
21 a serious gap in the hazardous waste management
22 system. From an enforcement standpoint, it would
23 be impossible, while inspecting a generator or
24 transporter of used solvents, to readily deter-
25
-------
130
1
2 mine if they are destined for a solvent reclaimer,
3 and thus exempt from the regulations, or destined
4 for a regulated treatment, storage, or disposal
5 facility and subject tothe full spectrum of regu-
6 latins. Solvent reclaimers often have an economic
7 incentive to receive wastes which they cannot pre-
" sently reclaim for technical reasons or for which
9 they have no market. They may also receive wastes
10 in higher volumes that they can process. The re-
11 suit often is a large storage yard of badly
12 corroding drums containing highly toxic or flammable
13 wastes.
14 Other types of waste streams for which
15 imilar arguments can be made include waste oils,
16 spent catalysts, sludges containing recoverable
17 heavy metals, and used acids.
18 xt should be made clear under Section
19 250.10 that burnable organic wastes which have been
20 blended and sold as fuel are, in fact, hazardous
21 waste and therefore subject to cradle to grave re-
22 gulations and are requried to go to facilities per-
23 mitted under Section 3004 regulations. In New
24 York State, many hundreds of different organic
25
-------
131
1
2 compounds are presently being blended into
3 tens of millions of gallons of fuels.
4 These fuels are being burned in
5 facilities including large industrial boilers,
6 apartment houses, light weight aggregate plants,
7 and cement kilns.
8 Another major area of concern is the
' characteristics being used to identify wastes
10 as being hazardous.
11 We recommend that Water Quality
I2 Criteria of the Clean Water Act be used in addi-
13 tion to the Primary Drinking Water Standards as
14 a basis for evaluating levels of contaminants
15 in the Extraction Procedure extract. The data
16 on Primary Drinking Water Standards alonen would
1' allow too many toxic wastes to excape the system.
18 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act clear-
19 ly states its intent to protect human health and
20 the environment. Many methods of improper dispo-
21 sal can result in direct contamination of surface
22 waters. Also, gnundwaters often become surface
23 waters.
24 The Section 3001 regulations are written
25
-------
132
1
2 to protect human health. Greater emphasis must
3 be placed on wastes which could cause fish or
4 wildlike mortality or morbidity. The toxicity
5 characteristic only addresses toxicity to humans
6 as determined from experiments from rats or mice.
7 While this may adequately protect humans who drink
water contaminated by hazardous wastes, it does
9 not adquately protect "the environment," parti-
10 cularly desieable species of fish and wildlife.
11 Fish and wildlike are often more sensitive to tox-
12 ins than are rats, mice or man.
13 The extraction procedure provides an
I4 inadequate model for an improperly managed waste.
15 By reducing the problem of heavy metal mobiliza-
16 tion primarily to a question of pH, the possibi-
i7 lity of forming soluble complexes is ignored.
18 Such complexes may be formed by anions or organic
19 complexing agents present in the waste or from
20 organic molecules formed by microbial action or
21 by chemical decomposition of the waste during
22 management.
23 We agree with the Environmental
24 Protection Agency approach of emphasizing ha-
25
-------
133
1
2 zardous waste streams rathen than specific
3 hazardous substances. However, we believe that
4 the two hazardous waste lists proposed under
5 Section 250.14 should be expanded. The list pro-
6 posed as 250.14(a) should include as many general
7 waste types as possible. One waste type which
8 comes readily to mind is all waste halogenated
9 hydrocarbons. We will be submitting additional
10 general waste types in our detailed comments.
11 In addition, in Section 250-14(b)
12 (2), the list of processes generating hazardous
J3 waste, the individual description of the process
11 is far too specific in some cases. Also, we
15 feel that this list should be greatly expanded to
16 include many more processes and should cover S.I.C.
17 Codes not currently listed. For example, S.I.C.
18 3861 - Photographic Equipment and Supplies and
19 S.I.C. 367 - Electonic Components. Industries
20 in these S.I.C. Codes generate significant vol-
21 umes of hazardous wastes and we feel that some
22 of these processes should be listed. We will
23 submit additional S.I.C. Codes and processes
24 in our detailed comments.
25
-------
134
1
2 While we recognize the expansion
3 of the above two lists will involve a great deal
4 of time and effort, we believe that it will great-
5 ly simplify the implementation of the hazardous
6 waste management program.
7 Health care facility wastes identified
8 under Section 250.14 (b)(i) should be subject to
' hazardous waste regulations only in cases where
10 State Health Codes do not adequately regulate
11 these wastes. In any case, infection wastes
12 that are incinerated or adequately autoclaved
I3 at a Hospital or Health Care Facility should be
1* exempt from the regulations.
15 These are but a few of the many con-
16 cerns we in the New York State Department of En-
17 vironmental Conservation have about the regula-
18 tions being proposed pursuant to Section 3001.
!' Detailed comments will be submitted to the En-
20 vironmental Protection Agency prior to March 16, 1979.
21 Now, detailed comments will be 8ub-
22 mitted to the EPA prior to March 16, 1979.
23 i apologize for not having this speech
24 for you now, but I will have one for you tomorrow.
25
-------
135
1
* I will try to answer any questions.
3 If I can't, I have Charles Goddard, the Director
4 of our Bureau in the audience.
5 MR. LINDSEY: I have one request
and one question. We will take them in that
^ order.
o
One of your final recommendations
q
there is that we exempt hospitals from the re-
*0 gulations.
1* I should point out that the regu-
1 9
lations which Mr. Lehman referred to earlier
13
has Section 3005, have not been proposed. It
will be proposed in an integrated fashion with
similar regulations under the underground injec-
tion control program.
There is a provision in that which
10
would provide special consideration, at least
19
with regard to the paper work, for hospitals
20
and places ofi that nature.
You may want to hold comment on
22
that score until that comes out.
23 You also expressed the intent to
24 provide to us a list of expanded licenses of
25
-------
136
1
2 waste which should be listed.
3 One of the things we must do in
4 that regard is to provide a rationale for the
5 Isiting of these wastes, so hopefully, in addi-
tion to giving us a list, a rationale for the
7 inclusion of that waste, would be most helpful.
8 MR. NOSENCHUCK: We will do
9 that.
10 MR. LINDSEY: The question I have
11
is primarily with reference to the toxicity cri-
12 teria tnat should be expanded to include things
•«O
such as the protection of fish and wildlife.
" One of the problems we have is
15 that we didn't get further into -- well, if
16 we set limits for that, we begin to get into
17 rather extensive time-consuming items and, I
18 guess the point I would like to make is that
19 less precise types of analytical work to deter-
2® mine wheter a waste is hazardous or not hazardous.
21 Can you address yourself to that
22 problem?
23 MR. NOSENCHUCK: I think for
24 that one, we should ask Charles Goddard.
25
-------
137
1
2 Charlie? I will ask Charlie on that.
3 MR. GODDARD: What we did in look-
* ing at Section 3001 was to try to get some com-
5 ments from some of the other members of the
Department and specifically ask for comments
from our division on fish and wildlife.
o
Those folks are more concerned
q
with the dealings with the protection of wildlife.
1(* The inclusion of that comment in this presentation
11 was based upon their concerns, their real concerns
and looking at it from a much closer vantage point
13
than we do.
They see this as a very significant
15 weakness in the regulation.
16 MR. LINDSEY: Let me ask you this
and then, it you could, when you make your com-
ments, your written comments, if you could add-
19
ress yourself to what type -- not what the limits
20
should be, but, in addition, what testing proper-
21 ty controls, et cetera, which would be used and
22
what the difficulty is in using those property
21
controls.
24 We would like to know how the facilities
25
-------
138
1
2 could test it to determine whether it's in the
3 system or not.
4 MR. NOSENCHUCK: We will be
5 glad to do that. You did have the comments from
6 the fish and wildlife, the comments that I chose
7 not to read. We will use them in our detailed
8 comments. I do have them, however.
9 MR. CORSON: With respect to that
10 same item, I hope that you are -- you may recog-
11 nize it in addition to our proposed regulation,
12 we also include an advance rule which indicated
13 the direction we were heading in in our definition
14 or increased definition of hazardous wastes.
15 In that particular section, it did
16 kind of indicate and we did more than that. We
17 indicated our thoughts to somewhere downstream
18 in time to include definitions of the aquatic
19 toxicity as part of the properties of general
20 toxicity approach.
21 We also included in there, some
22 suggested tests.
23 We would appreciate it if you could,
24 in your comments, address two things. One, it the
25
-------
139
1
2 adequacy of the test we are suggesting and cer-
3 tainly, as a second thing, any alternatives that
4 you may have. We have a requirement by the Act
5 to reissue, at least on a three-year basis and
6 we try to be very emphatic that the regulations
7 that we are proposing are not meant to be static
8 and will change with the time. I will make that
9 as a request.
10 I have one further thought. I believe
11 if I interpreted you correctly in one of your
12 comments, you expressed what I interpreted to be
13 a concern about extraction procedure; that it is
14 not aggressive enough in terms of the things that
15 it might release from waste as opposed to some
16 of the earlier comments.
17 I would appreciate it if you could,
18 in furnishing us with data, to provide a further
19 expansion of that particular thought, if appro-
2® priate, and indicate what you think we should
21 include in the extraction procedure to make sure
22 that our assessment of toxicity does include
23 those things that you feel are of concern.
24 MR. NOSENCHUCK: I will be glad
25
-------
140
1
2 to do that and also, I might add, we recognize
3 the fact that these regulations are intended
4 to become what we call a living document and
5 refer to and reflect reality.
6 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Thank you.
' Any other questions?
8 MR. DeBONIS; Mr. Skinner indicated
concern over long-term care and Commissioner
1(1 Flacke characterized the direction as being some-
11 what softened. You and Dr. Kim have commented on
12 the small generator exclusion as being too hign.
You suggested a long list of chemicals„
Could you comment upon the increasing
15 astringency o± the program, plus what the cost
lf" will be to New York State to become authorized
1' pursuant to Section 3006 of the Program because,
18 in our previous discussions, my understanding was
19 that New York State, as well as all tne other
20 states, are concerned over the cost of implement-
21 ing this program, plus the anount of grant dollars
22 available under the Act.
23 Could you speak to that?
24 MR. NOSENCHUCK: Yes, I will make
25
-------
141
1
2 some general comments.
3 As far as the cost goes, I'm not
4 prepared to give you that. You mentioned about
5 some of our concerns.
6 Our concerns are based on some of
7 the happenings in New York State. We have had
8 the unfortunate experience of Love Canal and
9 some other situations like that and that's why
10 we are very concerned about the whole hazardous
11 waste area.
12 You mentioned,,also, the question
1J of Federal funding under the Subtitle D of the
14 Act. It's is my understanding that Federal
15 funding is somewhat discretionary = initially,
16 at the point which the executive submits a pro-
17 posed budget to Cnngress and they make the final
18 determination. The reality of the situation is
1' such that I would expect it would take the lead
20 in providing, not only the authorization, but
21 seeing to it that the appropriation would be the
22 same as the authorization.
23 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Thank you.
24 Mr. Jack Lurcotte?
25
-------
142
1
2 MR. LURCOTTE: I have no comments
3 at this time.
4 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morrison?
5 MR. MORRISON: My name is Al Morrison
6 and I represent Gardinier, Inc., a phosphate
7 fertilizer company in Tampa, Florida. We mine
8 phosphate rock in central Florida andprocess it
9 into phosphate fertilizer material,
10 I have followed the Hazardous Wastes
11 regulations from the beginning and realized the
12 potential problems faced by our industry. At
13 the start of the program, the EPA estimated
14 there were 30,000,000 tons of hazardous waste
15 produced annually in the country. In the Decem-
16 her proposed rules, it was stated the phosphate
17 industry produced 400,000,000 tons. This huge
18 volume includes primarily overburden from strip
19 mining, sand tailings and phosphatic clays (com-
20 monly called "slimes") from tne mining process
21 and by-product gypsum produced in converting
22 phosphate rock to fertilizer material.
23 The Fertilizer Insittite, a nationa-
24 wide organization of fertilizer material producers,
25
-------
143
1
2 and the Florida Phosphate Council, an association
3 of Florida phosphate producers, have actively
4 worked with the EPA to inform them of effects
5 of this regulation on the industry. Both of
6 these organizations will participate in future
7 hearings and Gardinier, Inc., endorses their
8 comments„ For that reason, I will confine my
" remarks to a relatively few issues,
10 First, we feel that the "special
11 waste" category is a step in the right direction;
I2 however, it does not go far enough. The mining
13 wastes (if overburden should be classified a
14 waste) was so listed because of low level rea
15 radiation. We feel that Congress did not intend
I6 for this regulation to cover mining wastes es-
17 pecially over burdens and these should not be
18 listed. However, I shall leave that to legal
arguments from the organizations already mentioned.
20 In meeting with the EPA, specifically Alan Corson's
21 Section 3001, it was clearly pointed out to us
22 that the primary purpose for designating these
23 materials as hazardous wastes was to prevent
24 houses from being built on them. This was be-
25
-------
144
1
2 cause of alleged dangers from low level radio-
3 tion. As of the date I wrote this, January 30,
4 1979, the EPA still had not supplied us the data
5 to justify this position. Granted, some studies
6 have alleged that in a few houses constructed
' without proper ventilation and located on reclaimed
phosphate mining land, a person occupying the
' house 24 hours a day for 70 years might double
1° their risk of contracting lung cancer. Even
11 this idea is based on extrapolated data from
I2 other works involving much higher levels of radia-
13 tion,, It was pointed out that there must be
14 other ways to control this remote problem without
15 branding all reclaimed lands as hazardous,
16 Apparently, EPA did not agree.
17 I'll leave the comments on the radia-
l8 tion effects of the very low lev els in phosphate
19 material to experts and go to specific problems
20 in Section 3004 as written. Only designated
21 paragraphs apply to phosphate wastes. Gardinier,
22 Inc., will mention only a few of these at this
23 time and leave others for future commenters.
24 Paragraph 250043-2 deals iith security.
25
-------
145
1
2 The fences, signs and other security are complete-
3 ly unnecessary and should be eliminated. All of
4 the phosphate wastes were listed as hazardous only
5 because of low level radiation. As previously
6 mentioned, the danger - if any - comes from con-
7 taining the radon daughters which emanate from
8 radium, to confined areas, such as an unventi-
9 lated house. There would be no danger to any-
10 one or anything walking in the open,, The extreme
11 expense of fencing and securing these large areas
12 should not be incurred.
13 Paragraph 250.43-6 - This paragraph
14 requires daily visual inspection of seven speci-
15 fie items., With most phosphate areas, daily in-
16 spections would not be necessary for the reason
17 mentioned before. The "note" at the end of the
18 paragraph in the rule allows less frequent inspec-
19 tions if adequate protection of human health and
20 the environment would be provided^ I mention
21 this item because of the note. On Page 58983
22 of the proposed rules, the "notes" are explained,,
23 The part that concerns me is the second paragraph
24 that limits any deviation from the rules to those
25
-------
146
1
2 explicit in the notes. This is over-restrictive
3 in that it allows no decisions based on common
4 sense and intelligence. Rules as comprehensive
5 as these logically could not possibly cover every
6 situation. For instance, in the seven itims lis-
7 ted for visual inspection, some may be completely
8 unnecessary at any one location. The rules would
9 not allow this if strictly enforced,, Some var-
10 iance should be allowed at the discretion of the
11 enforcing authority in most of the very specific
12 rules„
13 Paragraph 250.43-8(a) - The ground-
14 water monitoring system is applicable to some
15 areas but not others. The "slime ponds" where
16 the phosphatic clays are deposited are an ex-
17 ample. The radiation that is associated with
18 the slimes is very low and is associated with
19 the solids and not the water. This is verified
20 in the EPA Publication ORP/CSD 75-3. Therefore,
2i the leachate would not contaminate groundwater.
22 The "note" for this paragraph allows
23 for discretion only if there is proof of no dis-
24 charge to groundwater. In some areas, the ground-
25
-------
147
1
2 water could be salt water and unusable. AXow-
3 ances should be made for leachates that would
4 not adversely affect the groundwater„ Again,
5 the permitting or enforcing agency should be
6 allowed some judgment,
7 Paragraph 250.43-8 (c) - This para-
Q
graphs calls for a year of background data for
groundwater underlying a facility. It requires
10 a comprehensive analysis on a monthly basis.
11 First, quarterly analyses should be adequate to
12 establish a background. Second, the list of
13 parameters to be monitored is completely out of
14 line. Many materials not even associated with
15 phosphate are included. To repeat, as the only
16 reason for calling these wastes hazardous is ra-
1' diation — why should background data for approx-
1** imately 40 parameters be required? This back-
ground data should be limited to parameters that
0 could be affected by the wastes.
21 Another part of this paragraph is
22 much too restrictive.. In 250.43-8(c)(4), if
23 groundwater varies in any parameter from the
24 background, the facility must shut down until
25
-------
148
1
2 the Regional Administrator determines what
3 action to take. This does not even mention
4 danger to health. In many facilities that are
5 part of the plant, the entire plant would be
6 down. As written, this could happen even if
7 no problems were present. Again, I urge you to
8 look at rules that demand specific action which
9 could be unrealistic in some cases.
10 I feel that beaause of the vast
11 amounts of material designated by the EPA as
12 hazardous due only to low level radiation that
I3 is naturally present in phosphate, the industry
14 continues to need the special consideration al-
15 ready begun.
16 I wish to thank you for the oppor-
17 tunity to comment at this Hearing.
18 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: Thank you.
I9 Are youwilling to entertain ques-
20 tions?
21 MR. MORRISON: Any that I can.
22 MR. LINDSEY: I will see if I
23 can phrase this adequately. One of the points
24 which you made was that the special wastes re-
25
-------
149
I
2 quirement, of which phosphate is one of the elem-
3 ents, are very costly and, therefore, I think it
4 would — I shouldlike to point out that the rea-
5 son for the regulations, many of them which we
6 have, are the need for us, especial wastes at
' any rate, to accumulate more information rela-
* tively before making a final determination on
how or whether these particular wastes should
10 be regulated in the final regard as well as to
11 afford protection for what we thought were ob-
12 vious or potential problems of a hazard such as
13 the fencing.
14 However, your contention is that this
15 is very expensive, the situation and data in that
16 regard might be helpful to us in continuing to
17 consider this as to what degree and kind of special
l^ waste requirements should be included — monitor-
ing and other requirements,
2
-------
150
1
2 organizations plus individual companies, and this
3 data will be presented in the future,
4 MR. LINDSEY: Thank you.
5 You mentioned -- it's at the bottom
6 of the second page. You are saying that many
7 materials not associated with phosphate are in-
8 cluded and why should background data for approx-
9 imately 40 parameters be required.
10 If you could in your written comments,
11 expand on that as to which ones specifically and
12 why you feel they are inappropriate, that would
13 be helpful.
14 MR. MORRISON; The way the rules
15 were written, it was recognized thatthis would
16 be true. It is only in the background that
17 you require all of these parameters and the
18 background was established.
19 Then, you could go to monitoring the
20 specific things that could be affected.
21 Now, when you take — I think it
22 was recognized by EPA.
23 MR. CORSON: I have another small
24 request, Mr. Morrison.
25
-------
151
1
2 Earlier^ you indicated in your re-
3 marks that the fact there is some alleged infor-
4 mation in some of these reports with regard to
5 possible future damage to people occupying houses
6 built on reclaimed land or using such materials
7 in their construction, that there may be other
8 appropriate methods to such control.
9 Now, recognizing that part of our
10 problem as how we protect the uninformed person
11 from the inadvertent exposure to these things,
12 other than getting into housing codes where
13 people are not necessarily aware of them,
14 whether you might have some ideas that you
15 could express to us as to how, written comments,
16 how we might provide for that protection in
17 the future so that using, again, the comments
18 made earlier today, we can in perpetuity pro-
it
19 tect people from the exposure, inadvertent,
20 beyond their routine normal knowledge that
21 they exist.
22 MR. MORRISON: Very well. We
23 will do that.
24 MS, SCHAFFER: Thank you very much.
25
-------
152
1
2 Mr. John Chaplick? I think they
3 have gone to the press briefing.
4 Is there anyone else who is signed
5 up to speak who wishes to do before we break
6 for lunch?
7 I don't have any other names listed
8 here.
9 All right, we will break for lunch
10 and reconvene at 1:45.
11 (Luncheon recess at 11:45 o'clock)
12 (Whereupon the Hearing was resumed
13 at 1;45 o'clock, p.m.)
14 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Good afternoon.
15 We would like to ask three other speakers who are
16 interested to speak today to make their presenta-
17 tions and then we will, if there are questions,
18 close the formal Hearing and take written ques-
19 tions from the floor on Sectinn 3001,
20 Is Mr. John Chaplick present?
21 How about Leo Grondeen?
22 MR. GRONDEEN: My name is Leo
23 Grondeen. I am with the Ware Chemical Corpora-
24 tion.
25
-------
153
1
2 I say that control of hazardous
3 and toxic waste is certainly needed.. The rules
4 should be made more equitable and more realistic.
5 Thank you.
6 I will answer any questions,,
7 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Any questions?
8 Well, I guess — I wonder if you have
9 any specific suggestions for changes to the regu-
10 lations as they are now?
11 MR. GRONDEENs Well, I!m concerned
12 mostly with what is to be considered toxic six
13 months from now, two years from now, five years
14 from now.
15 The list of toxic materials is pretty
16 small right now. However, there is no guarantee
17 that almost anything that is organic and has some
18 water soluble -- solubility -- would be considered
19 as having toxic qualities.
20 If it can be treated and in an easy
21 fashion by degradability, why can't the munici-
22 palities handle it?
23 The chemical industry has received
24 so much bad publicity that lots of communities
25
-------
154
1
2 are frightened to treat waste.
3 In many cases they can do so without
4 any problems whatsoever.
5 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH; Thank you.
6 MR. LEHMAN: I would like to make
7 a comment just for your benefit and also for the
audience so that we don't go away leaving a mis-
impression.
10 There is nothing within the regula-
11 tions which prevents any municipal facility from
12 applying for a permit to accept hazardous waste
13 materials.
14 MR, GRONDEEN; I realize that.
15 MR. LEHMAN; The thrust of your
I6 remarks seem to presuppose that that is possible
17 under the regulations, I wanted to clarify that
18 point.
I9 MR. GRONDEEN: It's a matter of
20 public relations, and most of the townspeople
21 are afraid of chemical plants and frightened
22 of chemical wastes.
23 That's one of the reasons we are
24 here today.
25
-------
155
1
2 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: All right.
3 Thank you,,
4 Mr» Raymond Freeman^
5 (No answer)
6 Is there anyone else who would like
7 to speak this afternoon as part of this formal
8 Hearing to giveus your comments?
9 VOICE: I don't know too
10 much about what is going on, but I'm curious
11 about --
12 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Will you
13 identify yourself, please?
14 VOICE: My name is Ann Nash.
15 I represent the Bronx Council for Environmental
16 Quality.
17 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: Please come
18 up to the lectern?
19 MS. NASH; I'm just curious as
20 to whether this question has ever been brought
21 up; that is of the chemical industry can take
22 the products that they have used, original pro-
23 ducts they have used, in order to blend together
24 and make whatever they are making, whether it can
25
-------
156
1
2 be sort of broken down again?
3 Why canrt they get the technologists
4 to do that? It seems to me it can't be an im-
5 possibility and then they will have the original
6 product again0
7 It sounds terribly simple, I know,
8 but there it is.
9 Thank you,
10 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: For the last
11 time, is there anyone who has a comment that they
12 would like to submit for the record on 3001?
13 (No answer)
14 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: If not, we will
15 close the formal part of this Hearing,, We will dis-
16 tribute cards to you and, if you have any ques-
17 tions on 3001, please write them down and we will
18 have people collect them and bring them up to us
19 and we will try to answer them to the best of our
20 ability.
21 MR, LINDSEY; The first question
22 I have is: What is the policy regarding foundry
23 sand?
24 Well, it's not on the list. If it
25
-------
157
1
2 does not flunk the characteristics, if it does
3 not meet the characteristics that are listed,
4 then it is not a hazardous waste and it is not
5 covered under Subtitle C of the Act.
6 It is our understanding or belief
7 that foundry sand does not formally fail those
8 characteristics. That is a determination which
9 the generators of that material will have to
10 make.
11 It is not on the list.
12 MR. CORSON: I have a question;
13 Has EPA considered regulating the amount of
I4 hazardous wastes from small generators and in
15 parenthesis it's 100 kilometers accepted at
16 Subtitle D facilities?
17 For example, restrict the amount
18 of hazardous wastes to a percentage of the total
19 amount of non-hazardous wastes received over a
20 one-year period?
21 If you look at the material pre-
22 sented in the preamble as well as the material
23 presented in the background document for Section
24 3002, Subtitle B, you will find that one of the
25
-------
158
1
2 reasons why we felt, in proposing it, that the
3 100 kilograms was acceptable, was the fact that
4 it minimized or provided an acceptable amount
5 in terms of a mixture of the hazardous wastes
6 that are excluded with the non-hazardous wastes,
7 Similarly, we indicate in that same
8 set of documents that going to 1000 kilograms
9 a month would leave out something like five per-
10 cent of the hazardous waste relegating them down
11 to subtitle D and might present a problem when
12 they are mixed together.
13 Thank you.
14 Another question is: "Will all coal
15 combusion residues be included as a special waste
16 oo does this only apply to utilities?"
17 A follow-up question is: "Is EPA
18 considering a cut-off limit in defining a util-
19 ity boiler, for example, 200,000 16 hour or more
20 as opposed to industrial boilers?"
21 The limitation as we currently have
22 it in the regulation, relates only to steam
23 powered plants and does not restrict it to util-
24 ities only,
25
-------
159
1
2 Any steam power plant that is being
3 used, I don't believe, that for the moment you
4 have to concern yourself with ounces per hour
5 to define utility boilers.
6 MR. LEHMAN: I have a question
7 that relates to the degree of hazard, which is
8 the question that was raised earlier this morn-
9 ing. "Why does EPA propose to impose the same
10 degree of regulations on all hazardous wastes
11 regardless of the degree of toxicity, biogra-
12 dability, et cetera?"
13 This question gets to the heart of
14 our basic deciision that the Agency had to make.
15 We did consider structuring both the definition
16 of hazardous wastes and the Section 3004 regu-
17 lations based on the degree of hazard.
18 it was one of the options that we
19 did consider. In fact, some of you may know
20 that some of the states do have such a dis-
21 tinction; the State of Washington, the State
22 of California and a few other states that do
23 have hazardous waste programs have split up
24 hazardous wastes into various types or levels
25
-------
160
1
2 of hazard.
3 We look at all of this from a na-
4 tional point of view and we come to the con-
5 elusion that we are just not able to do that
at this point for several reasons.
One of the reasons was mentioned
g
by Alan Corson in an earlier remark.
q
The degree of hazard that is
1" somewhat dependent on tr.e stage of the cycle
11 that we are in; something that is haardous dur-
12
ing the transportation phase, may not be hazar-
13
dous once it reaches a facility that will appro-
priately handle it. On the other hand, there
15
are some materials for which the threat to pub-
lic health and environment is basically the re-
*' suit of handling at the facility and it would be
18 relatively benign during the transportation phase,
19
but it would be spillage or potential leaching
of that material that would give rise to the po-
21 tential hazard.
22 Also, another aspect of this question
23 is that it implies that not only would there be a
24 separate definition for these types of wastes,
25
-------
161
1
2 but that there would be separate and dis-
3 tinct technical control requirements for all
4 those different classes.
5 To be quite honest with you, we
6 have not — we do not, first of all, have the
7 resources within the Agency. We did consider
8 this.
9 In other words, we considered to
10 develop an entirely -- well, it would be the
11 equivalent of having a Section 3004 regula-
12 tion for all different classes. That was one
13 problem.
14 Another problem is that tne manage-
15 ment option that you have, which are incinera-
16 tion, disposal such as landfill for various
17 treatments, mechanisms are by and large rela~
18 tively insensitive to the source of the waste
19 or the characteristics of that waste.
20 go, there did not appear to us to
21 be a really compelling argument to develop
22 different types of technology control for
23 different degrees of hazard.
24 Now, the other side of this issue
25
-------
162
1
2 is that if you look at Section 3004 in com-
3 parison with Section 3001, you will find that
4 we do, through a system, provide a degree of
5 flexibility in the actual requirements that
6 are placed on management of waste essentially
7 on a case-by-case basis depending on what
8 wastes you are dealing with and what the manage-
9 ment option is that you are selecting, and also
10 the geographical situation you are in.
11 The regulation structure does allow
12 tailoring of management requirements to waste.
13 it does that at the permit stage rather than
14 by writing various regulations.
15 That is the reason why we have
16 not chosen to propose different degrees of
17 hazard in the list.
18 MR. LINDSEY: I have a question
19 that states, "Will every company be required to
20 perform complex analyses of their wastes to de-
21 termine what their requirements may be and test
22 each component under the hazardous criteria?"
23 It is the responsibility of the
24 generator to determine whether his waste meets
25
-------
163
1
2 the criteria, under Section 3001. Within that,
3 he has several options. First of all, if he
4 doesn't want to test in order to determine whe-
5 ther it's hazardous, he can assume it's hazar-
6 dous and enter it into the system. That's one
7 option.
8 People will have very small amounts
' of waste and they may desire to do and dispose
10 of it in a permanent facility. If he doesn't
11 want to do that, then he should check to see
12 if the waste is listed. If it is listed under
13 Section 250.15 or if it is a waste -- if it is
I4 a material, a product which is a waste and
15 meets the criteria of poison in A or B, then
16 as far as EPA is concerned, that waste is ha-
17 zardous unless the person wants to, under Sec-
18 tion 250.15, test that waste against the cri-
19 teria on which the listing is based.
20 if so, he may do that and then de-
21 monstrate to EPA that in his particular instance,
22 even though the waste had been listed as hazar-
23 dous because of some difference in his processes,
24 perhaps his waste, in fact, is not hazardous;
25
-------
164
1
2 in which case it is not covered.
3 If the waste is not on the list,
4 then he has one further responsibility which
5 is to see and check the waste against the char-
6 acteristics which are in 250.13.
7 If a waste fails those criteria
8 of whether or not it is listed, it is & hazar-
9 dous waste. Those criteria -- to test them out
10 is not a very expensive proposition. These are
11 relatively simple tests and the cost of doing
12 them, at least as far as we know, have been
13 designed in such a way that they will not be
14 very expensive,
15 That is, maybe a little more than
16 a yes or no, but that's the way the process
17 works.
18 MR. FREEDMAN; This question is
19 with reference to Section 3001, relative to
20 toxicity. The first questions asks what the
21 rationale is for the 800 miligram per kilogram
22 LV 50 human, calculated as a limit on organic
23 substance and toxicity.
24 This is one of the tests that were
25
-------
165
1
o
in the proposed rules as of December 18th.
Basically, the rationale was ma-
terial substances having oral rat 1-50 of
per kilogram as non-toxic; thus, we use that
as an uppor cut-off.
7 The next question is: "Under the
g
definition of toxic waste, do the concentrations
9
listed for extract levels of the various contam-
inants refer to a single test sample or an, aver-
age of several samples of a particular waste?"
12
11
d£C WJL OCVC
As the proposal indicates, what you
13
are responsible for is; Does the waste exceed
14 the threshold levels with the test? Is it ha-
zardous as defined?
You are required to test a repre-
sentative sample or to evaluate such that you
18
are confident of the data.
19
We are not requiring any specific
20
number of analyses of a given sample.
21
The next question is: "What is the
22
rationale for applying an acetic acid extractant
23 in the toxics EP?"
24 The model that is being used for setting
25
-------
166
1
2 threshhold levels uses, as an improper manage-
3 merit scenario, the placing of wastes in a land-
4 fill site with decomposing organic matter such
5 as municipal refuse.
6 The predominant acid that is in that
7 situation would be acetic acid; thus, acetic acid
Q
is chosen to mold the organic acids that would be
found.
10 MR. CORSON: I have a couple of
11 questions here which relate to non-inclusion un-
12 der Subtitle C.
*3 "If the generator runs the ED and
14 fails 10 x PDWS, can generator show no adverse
15 impact on groundwater on site specific basis and
16 be exempt under non-inclusion provision?"
I? This get to the heart of the problem
18 or the differences we see between the use of EPA
19 as defined in Section 3001 and the use of onsite
20 specific waste, specific interaction for the
21 permit process.
22 if the waste is analyzed as using
23 the EPA's analysis and it fails, it is a ha-
24 zardous waste.
25
-------
167
1
2 When applying for the permit, you may produce
3 whatever date you need to show the pub lie granfe-
4 ing authority that that waste was disposed of at
5 that site and will not provide degregation of the
6 ground and, therefore, the permit would have been
7 granted,
8 Here is a. similar question concern-
9 ing our model for drinking water and asks why
10 we have given — well, it asks where our data
11 is as a basis for that determination. That's
12 another version of the same question but it
13 gives me a chance to say, again, that the rea-
14 son we did not credit the continuation is be-
15 cause that is part of the disposal operation
16 and would be that part of the permit granted
17 mechanism,
18 if the hazard constituents are fully
19 attenuated by interactions between the soil and
20 whatever things it might be mixed with, then,
21 a permit would be granted*
22 The background for toxicity, which
23 is available for reading in our library or
24 headquarters in Washington, will reflect that
25
-------
168
1
2 this is a background document„
3 We lobked at a number of state
4 regulations and talked about groundwater wells
5 that might be located with respect to landfills.
6 That seemed to tell us. We looked at the atten-
7 uation data as it appeared in terms of the amount
by which a contaminant was reduced going from the
9 facility to that groundwater well« The numbers
10 varied from a reduction of two up to several
11 hundred.
I2 We deliberately selected a conser-
13 vative number because we felt that that would
14 provide protection of groundwater with which
15 we are charged.
16 Obviously, again, this isthe pro-
17 vision within Section 3004 and 3005 mechanism
18 for permit showing that there is not any de-
19 gradation and still meeting standards.
20 We have two more. One concerns it-
21 self with hazardous wastes and wants to know if
22 thy are controlled by subtitle C?
23 if they are as we defined them,
24 then it is treated as a special waste.
25
-------
169
1
2 The next one states; "Will special
3 nuclear source and by-product waste that must
4 be disposed of in accordance with NRC regula-
5 tions because of its radioactive characteristics
also be subject to RCRA regulations if it also
7 hazardous by virtue of characteristics other
o
than low-level radioactivity?"
o
That was included in the Act of
10 1978 and parts of those amendments to the atomic
11 energy act of 1954 as amended, which,,incidentally,
12 has the definition of solid waste in RCRA which
1 *•?
specifically excludes from RCRA material as posed
14 by the Atomic Energy Act.
15 However, when the Act of 1978, essen-
16 tially those amendments redefined by product
material to include uranium in active and in-
active sites, the provisions in that piece of
19
legislature did require thatthe disposal me-
20 ftiods established Standards for controlling both
21 the radiological and non-radiological hazards
22 from such waste,,
23 MR. LEHMAN; I am asking a
24 question which states;"What is the definition
25
-------
170
1
2 of hazardous wastes?"
3 Well, the answer to that obviously
4 is that a hazardous waste is that material which
5 is defined in Section 3001 of our proposed regu-
6 lation,
7 If it is a material — first of all,
8 a material has to be a solid waste before it can
' be a hazardous waste.
10 we were just discussing some of the
11 exemptions in the law where it concerns what
12 types of materials are subject to RCRA in general.
I3 There is also a discussion in our proposal of
14 the term "other discarded material."
15 Now, there are some distinctions
16 made there between what is and what is not
17 discarded material and, therefore, whether or
18 not that material is a solid waste,,
19 Once you have gotten past that
20 decision-making point and you know of a solid
21 waste, the next question to ask isV "Do I have
22 a hazardous waste?"
23 NOW, that's where Section 3001 comes
24 in through reference to the various lists that we
25
-------
171
1
propose or reference to the characteristics.
2
Without belaboring the point, that
O
is how one decides that you have or have Dot a
4
hazardous waste.
i3
Another part of this question is:
6
"Why POTW sludges and farmers exempted?"
„ This is really 3002, but I will
o
answer that if I may.
The Agency was working on POTW slud-
ges along with everything else that we were con-
sidering for this program under RCRA. Then, in
December of 1977 Congress amended the Clean Water
Act -- you may be familiar with that which, in
effect, added a new provision calling for the
control of the disposal of POTW under 405 D.
16
So, in effect, that Agency had two
different authorities now. RCRA and Section 405 D;
IS
this was a new section of the Clean Water Act
which it could control POTW sludges.
The Agency has made the basic de-
cision, given the facts, that we had due anth-
ority to handle POTW sludges under Section 405 D
of the Clean Water Act.
24
25
-------
172
1
2 Our rationale for doing that is
3 first of all, if you read it, I forget the exact
4 section, but it was Congressional intent to co-
5 ordinate RCRA regulations with other Federal laws
6 and, to the extent that these laws can be used,
7 we were directed to use the other laws first.
° The second point was that the Agency,
9 through this Clean Water Act program under the
10 NPDES program already had, if you will, ,a con-
11 stituency established with POTW systems, most
I2 of which already require a NPDES permit,
13 It was felt that it would be admin-
14 istratively more efficient to deal with that
15 group of source via NIPS rather than the RCRA
16 program.
I7 As far as the farmers, the exemption
I8 is not a pure exemption. It is a conditional ex-
emption and the farmers are exempted from RCRA
2^ provided that they follow the requirements of
21 the Federal Insect Fungicide Act and also that
22 they follow triple rinsing procedures0
23 Now, here again, these questions --
2
-------
173
1
2 One on RECRA and the other under FITRA with
3 farm related causes.
4 It was decided, again, that the
5 best way to deal with it was on the FITRA level
6 rather than on the RCRA level.
7 Now, the last part of that card
8 which contains three questions asks: "Can EPA
9 guarantee disposal site at reasonable cost?"
10 Well, I am not going to attempt to
11 answer that. I will just say that we have made
12 an attempt in our proposed regulations to balance
13 the requirements of the law, the mandate of the
I4 Congress to write regulations that protect the
15 public health and environment and to achieve
I6 that objective at the least possible cost.
17 To the extent that these regula-
18 tions are going to increase costs, we feel that
19 that is a necessary cost that society will have
20 to bear in order to improve our environment.
21 We have an environmental impact statement and
22 economic environmental statement which addresses
23 itself to this issue which are also available to
24 the public and for public review and for public
25
-------
174
l
2 comment.
3 I wanted to make that point earlier
4 today that both the environmental draft and a
5 draft on economic impact analyses are available
6 for public comment along with the regulations
7 themselves. If you are interested in this as-
8 pect of the program, I would urge you to read
9 those documents and provide comments to us on
10 them. They are available for review at all
11 EPA regional offices and at the main EPA li-
12 brary in Washington, D. C.
13 MR. LINDSEY: I have a few ques-
14 tions here and --
15 MS. HUNT: Excuse me, but I
16 have a question: "Will rgulations be retroac-
17 tive on materials not presently on the hazar-
18 dous list but added some time in the future?"
19 This relates to the issue that
20 Jack was just discussing as to what is hazard-
21 ous waste. We have said a couple of times now
22 that a waste which appears on the list of ha-
23 zardous wastes is hazardous in the eyes of
24 the Agency including a waste on the list con-
25
-------
175
1
2 stituting a finding by the Agency that these
3 wastes are from products or chemicals on the
4 lists are dangerous wastes.
5 Now, there is a second way of iden-
6 tifying the waste as being hazardous and this
7 is through the application of the characteristics
8 or the properties test.
9 The obligation of the generator of
10 a waste to look at the list of wastes to see
11 whether or not it is on the list and to deter-
1 mine whether his waste has the properties or
13 characteristics which identify it as being
hazardous.
I5 It may be that a waste that is not
lft on the list is always hazardous and that the
17 generators ought to be operating within the
I8 regulatory system and adding that waste to the
1Q
list does not change his relationship to the
20 regulatory system. He should have been act-
21 ing as if he were within the system.
22 When we add a waste to the list,
23 that will constitute an additional finding by
24 the Agency that this waste is hazardous.
25
-------
176
1
2 Again, if the waste would indepen-
3 dently have failed the characteristics or pro-
4 perties it already was within the regulatory sys-
5 tern and adding a new chemical to the list will
6 not retroactively apply or be liable to any par-
7 ticular enforcement liability.
8 MR. LINDSEY: Here is a question:
9 "Does the special waste category for utility wastes
10 include industrial boilers for processed steam as
11 opposed to a steam power plant?"
12 it's an interesting question. As I
13 read 250.46-2 which is the utility waste section
14 there, it says the steam power plant and thus, if
15 I were interpreting that wording, I would say the
16 answer is no, it would not c over a process steam
17 boiler,,
18 On the other hand, that's maybe, a
1' suggestion which one should make in a formal com-
20 ment.
21 For example, I expect one would make
22 that case if it doesn't differ. Then, those
23 kind of comments are what we are looking for.
24 We will consider them.
25
-------
177
1
2 The second question is: "What is
3 the status of metal hydroxide materials after
4 treatment when material is neutralized?"
5 If the term "neutralized" and
6 doesn't contain a heavy metal which leaches
7 under the extraction procedure to produce
8 -<=• well, if it fails the criteria under Sec-
9 tion 3001, then it would not be hazardous
10 wasteso
11 Metal hydroxide is sludge which
12 contains a heavy metal which is listed in the
13 primary drinking water standards and would
14 leach under the extraction procedure and thus
15 fail to meet that test.
16 This is a difficult one herec I
17 may not be interpreting it right.
18 it states, "if on a given plant
19 site, the hazardous waste is incinerated in
20 such fashion that all air standards are met,
21 is the material really a hazardous waste? That
22 is, the hazardous waste was generated on one
23 plant site and never was transported off the
24 plant site?"
25
-------
178
1
2 This is a broader question. To
3 simply answer that specific question, I will
4 go into that and address the broader question
5 behind this,
6 If it fails the criteria under 3001
7 or if it is listed, it is a hazardous waste for
8 the purposes of this Act.
9 The broader question of this parti-
10 cular gentleman is; "Look, I don't transport
11 my waste off-site. I handle it in a manner
12 which is satisfactory at least according to
13 perhaps, 3004 regulation and, therefore, why
14 are you calling my wastes hazardous?"
15 I think maybe that's the broader
16 kind of question which is being asked here. The
17 answer to that is; Not everybody handles that
18 kind of waste satisfactorily. It is necessary,
19 if any control is to be observed over hazardous
20 wastes, it is necessary for waste to be, all
21 waste which may be disposed of in an inadequate
22 manner to enter the system controlled.
23 Specific waste disposal decisions
24 on whether or not any given technique for dis-
25
-------
179
1
2 posing, in any situation constitutes a hazard
3 or not is a decision made under Section 3004
4 and 3005.
5 The understanding here being, if
6 you dispose of that waste which has been listed
7 as hazardous, it means that it meets the stan-
8 dards and thus is qualified for a permit,, Then,
9 that disposal operation does not impose a hazard.
10 So, it's a case-by-case decision
11 on whether or not any given disposal technique
12 is satisfactory; does not pose a hazard as in-
13 dicated under Section 3004=
14 All we are doing in 3001 is setting
15 up a screen mechanism. If the waste is disposed
16 of improperly and is capable of causing a sig-
17 nificant hazard, then, that's another problem
18 and that's the reason 3001 was set up like it is.
19 Now, there is a question with re-
20 ference to how much confidence does EPA have
21 in the five percent figure when going from 100
22 kilograms to 1000 kilograms when indistries,
23 themselves, are not sure, when using these de-
24 finitions,
25
-------
180
1
2 Interpreting that question for
3 everybody else, the environmental impact
4 statement indicates that the difference be-
5 tween 100 kilograms and 1000 kilograms limit
6 for small generator exclusion, would be about
7 five percent of the hazardous waste generated.
8 The question is how much confidence
9 do we have in that five percent difference.
10 Well, the answer to that is that this came from
11 a survey of states who had actually surveyed
12 the wastes in their state and have regulations
13 which correspond roughly to our universe of
14 regulative waste0
15 it was extrapolated and thus the
16 five percent is really as good as the state
17 surveys on which they were based and it's
18 really as good as the correlation between
l9 the states, between the regulation which
20 identifies what a hazard is in these states
21 as compared to our regulations.
22 That's the basis on which that
23 comes.
24 i will turn it over to somebody else now.
25
-------
181
l
2 MR. CORSON: I will add one
3 point to that which Jack Lehman mentioned with
4 regard to the environmental impact statement
5 and the economic impact analysis. Copies of
6 those documents are available for retention
7 by either calling Ed Cox at 513-684-8491 or
8 by mail at the Solid Waste Information Office,
9 26 Wo St. Clare's Street, Cincinnnati, Ohio,
10 45260.
11 Thank you. Now I think we are
12 going back to the Chairperson.
13 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH; We have
14 one more person who wants to make a comment
15 for the record. We will reopen the Hearing
16 for that.
17 Mr. Freement?
18 MR. FREEMENT: I want to thank
19 the Chair for this courtesy. I apologize
20 but I was involved with the United Commissions
2i on the environment.
22 I would like to say something about
23 scheduling, first. I know it has nothing to
24 do with the Office of Solid Waste, but one of
25
-------
182
1
2 the most important sections is scheduled for
3 Region II tomorrow at Newark, New Jersey.
4 My suggestion to EPA and the Office
5 of Toxic Substances and Solid Waste is that
6 there ought to be a master callendar down there
7 so that you don't come in to any particular
8 region on exactly the same day with two very,
9 very crucial issues.
10 Perhaps they could have been sepa-
11 rated at Region II.
12 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13 VOICE? My name is Ray
14 Fremmet. I am Director of Services of Chem-
15 week Magazine.
16 I would like to make a brief comment,
17 not in my role as a member of the press or as an
18 observer of toxic services and waste. Instead,
19 I wish to comment as a chemical engineer who,
20 30 years ago I guess I can say, I have had some
21 experience -- 30 years ago, I helped create some
22 of those particular time bombs in the Meadowland
23 of New Jersey and a section called Preselli,
24 New Jersey, where I usually was on the midnight
25
-------
183
1
2 shift.
3 Now, I address myself to Section 3001
4 and, probably Mr. Corson in particular.
5 I was on the midnight shift and I had
6 a huge still, a set of stills. We always had them
7 cleaned for 8:00 o'clock in the morning. It was
8 our duty to empty the still bottles and you would
' usually grab a pail, if it was small enough, or
10 usually an open head 55-gallon drum . You would
11 dump gunk or crud or whatever it was and you
12 closed the cover and put a tag on it, like a
13 manila cardboard tag and then you would send
!4 it out to the back lot,
15 Now, that's the introduction to this.
16 I have asked this question at least at four of
17 these meetings. I asked it at the press coverage
18 this morning and I am still not getting the right
19 answers.
20 if any of you play baseball, you
21 know if you hit a home run, you don't run to
22 second base. The first thing you do is head
23 for first.
24 The difficulty I have with reading
25
-------
184
1
2 Section 3001 and with the RCRA Solid Waste Act,
3 which is now called the Quiet Community Act is
4 that I wish I knew what it was. I don't know
5 what it is, I read it this morning coming here
6 and was so intent in the reading of that that
7 I almost missed my stop.
8 There is no place in the Act where
9 anybody has or Congress has or maybe it wasn't
10 the intent, has taken the time and trouble to
11 go to first base.
12 I have problems with the definition
13 of what a waste material is. I don't care about
14 solid waste yet. I don't care about hazardous
15 waste. I don't care about those things that
16 aren't quite solid. Most of them are not solid;
17 they are gunk and this is crud.
18 Now, I want you to first address
19 yourself to the regulations so as to define
20 very clearly what is a waste and what is a
21 discarded material because I think I know a
22 way of beating the Act if you don't do that.
23 I don't think your 90 days will hold upa You
24 have created a perpetual machine for attorneys
25
-------
185
1
2 to make money because if you do not define the
3 word "waste," you will have that problem.
4 Now, it has to do with an allegory,
5 if I may? We are all, more or less, upstanding
6 citizens. Right now we are having agonizing re-
7 appraisals about the difference between a re-
8 ligious group and a cult. I think most of you
9 would agree, if you had ever gone through the
10 Washington airport and had been annoyed by one
11 of those fund raisers, that there is no way to
12 stop them because they are annoying people be-
13 cause they are possibly a religious group,
14 However, many of us agree that
15 maybe a cult is something different and could
16 be regulated and maybe we could do something
17 about cults.
18 Mr0 Corson, I still haven't gotten
19 an answer from anyone, Mr, Plehn, or anybody to
20 address themselves to this question. I hope you
21 will take the time to please define what a waste
22 material is«
23 I will tell you that in my basement,
24 there is less than 1000 -- is it 100 or 1000 kilos
25
-------
186
1
2 -- in my basement where I have some hazardous
3 wastes0 I'm going to keep them there. You will
4 never send an inspector into my house to Iook0
5 Some day, Iwill put them out on the street and
6 let the sanitation department take^'them away.
7 Now, I'm not a lawyer. I don't
8 remember the cases, but I don't think an OSHA
9 inspector can come in without my permission and,
10 until you define exactly what a waste is, there
11 will be all these drums on the back lot.
12 Now, if I wanted to beat the Act, I
13 could hire -- somebody did this -- you hire an
14 empty airplane hangar and you fill it up with
15 drums to the ceiling. You label them recycled
16 or recoverable material.
17 I would hope you would address your-
18 selves to the subject of what is recoverable and
19 what is waste and what is not waste.
20 I thank you so much for your patience.
21 MR. CORSONj If I may, would you
22 accept a question?
23 I think what we tried to do in the
24 regulations that we are proposing under Section
25
-------
187
1
2 3001 is to augment the material that was included
3 in RCRA itself as a piece of legislation which
4 contains both a definition of hazardous waste
5 as well as a requirement to produce regulations
6 under Section 3001.
7 I think it could help us, if you
8 could possibly -- if not today, possibly by
9 written response — help us to cover in that
10 definition those things that you think we are
11 leaving out which we can include in that defi-
12 nition, recognizing that it was not the intent
13 of the Act to, first of all, to regulate resi-
14 dential waste,
15 While you may have those drums or
16 that drum in your basement, I guess we have the
17 problem that for the moment, we have no authority
18 to worry about that particular waste.
19 if there is some specific thing that
20 we can do with our definition of discarded mater-
21 ials, which we try to develop as to what we
22 thought was the gap in the legislation by saying
23 "other discarded material," we would rather see
24 if you can help us with our language.
25
-------
188
1
2 MR. FREMMET: The "home" reference
3 was, of course, facetious,,
4 I'm talking about the standard prac-
5 tice in chemical process industries of having a
6 back lot filled with drums, usually half empty
7 which have potentially dangerous material in them,,
8 As long as those drums -- we used
9 the term in the industry "within battery limits"
10 and you are familiar with it?
11 MR. CORSONs Yes.
12 MR. FREMMET: As long as they
13 are within battery limits, they are not regulated.
14 However, they are potentially dan-
15 gerous.
16 This morning I got the answer, which
17 I don't think will stand up, that if I have the
18 drums there more than 90 days, they then become
19 a waste material,
20 I don't think that can be defended.
21 There are many materials that stand out in the
22 back lot for six months to two years and then
23 are recycled back in.
24 The definition of 90 days, I don't
25
-------
189
1
2 think is dear enough.
3 Tell us, in simple language as the
4 government can, which is sometimes difficult,
5 but tell us what a waste material is0 When is
6 something in process? When is something re-
7 coverable in the works and when does it stop
8 being in process and when does it become a
9 waste?
10 That's my point,
11 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH; We will
12 again close the formal Hearing. We will go
13 back to answering your questions„
14 MR. LEHMAN; I would like to
15 make just one remark. The last speaker made
16 reference to the quiet community act.
17 Let me clarify that? The Congress,
18 as you know, uses what is knows as "Christmas
19 Trees" to get various pieces of legislation
20 through the Congress. It was determined by
21 Congress that there was a need for making some
22 regulations -- some relatively minor technical
23 corrections to the originalact of 1976,,
24 The way they elected to do that in
25
-------
190
1
2 this Congress was to attach a rider to the noise
3 act of 1978 which had approximately 25, I think,
4 or more of relatively minor corrections,
5 Just as an example, one part of the
6 act n=ferred to Title Four when it should have
7 referred to Subtitle D; things of that nature.
8 So they did it by a rider to the
9 act and so a copy of the law that you now have
10 on the table and that you are reading now, in
11 effect, is the original act as amended by this
12 rider to the Quiet Community Act,
13 It is still the same act.
14 Now, the other point that was made
15 also brings up one of the comments that we got
16 from the audience here; a point that should be
17 clarified.
18 In my earlier discussion about what
19 is a hazardous waste, I made reference to the
20 fact that, first of all, it had to be a solid
21 waste and the point was made on this card that
22 a solid waste as it is defined in RCRA was just
23 to make this absolutely clear, includes not
24 only solids, but liquids, sludges contained,
25
-------
191
1
2 gases and so on.
3 In other words, when we use the term
4 "solid waste," it is as defined in the Act. It
5 means not only solids but all these other mater-
6 ials.
7 There are a couple of other questions
8 here that I would like to answer.
9 First: "What percent of the utility
10 waste (total of 60,000,000 tons per year) is
11 currently unable to meet the interim water re-
12 gulations?"
13 I assume that the questioner means
14 currently unable to meet or fails, if you will,
15 extraction procedures which is linked to it.
16 Well, that is a difficult question
17 to answer because, clearly, we do not have
18 access to tests information on all the utility
19 wastes around the country.
20 However, our information, to date,
21 based on the data that we have, indicates that
22 only a relatively small percentage of the wastes
23 we know that have been tested, that is utility
24 wastes is a small percentage of that fluctuation
25
-------
192
1
2 that the extraction procedure, according to the
3 data we currently have.
4 The second part of the question was;
5 "When will the proposed regulations for special
6 wastes (utility fly ash) be published?"
7 Let's clarify it again. The so-called
8 special waste regulations that are part of Sec-
9 tion 3004 proposal are, in fact, Federal regu-
10 lations and they have been proposed on December
11 18th and they will go into effect at the same
12 time that the rest of the regulations go into
13 effect.
14 I think that what may be referred
15 to here is the fact that we do intend, at some
16 later time, to make more explicit requirements
17 beyond what is in our proposal to apply to
18 special wastes.
19 That may be what the questioner
20 was driving at0 Our current thinking on that
21 is that we will be putting out an advanced no-
22 tice of proposed regulation rule-making for
23 special wastes some time later this year, some
24 time to the advance notice that is already pub-
25
-------
1
2 lished in the same Federal Register for December
3 18th0
4 We will do that later this year.
5 This will launch this rule-making procedure,,
6 We will gather data. We will prepare drafts.
7 We wil circulate drafts and then we will pro-
8 pose those follow-up regulations probably next
9 year.
10 We do not have a specific schedule
11 on that,
12 There is another question? "How
13 would chem-fixed waste be classified if a
14 solid contained a known toxic component but
15 the leachate is non-toxic? Would it require
16 registration?"
17 Well,, the first portion of the ques-
18 tion refers to chem-fixed waste. That happens
19 to be a designate that we prefer not to use.
20 We prefer to use the terminology of fixation
21 processes because of a number of companies who
22 are in that business, the basic idea here being
23 that if a wastes which would normally be a
24 hazardous waste by definition is treated by one
25
-------
194
1
2 of these fixation products tothe point that the
3 toxic components are locked up in the waste and,
4 therefore, that does not leach these components
5 in such a manner to flunk the extraction proce-
6 dure; then, that result of that process would
7 be a non-hazardous waste*
8 However, the waste, before it goes
9 into that process may very well be a hazardous
10 waste and the fixation process itself may have
11 to be considered and a treatment mechanism for
12 the waste. It depends as to whether or not
13 this fixation process is accomplished as far
14 as the production process goes.
15 In other words, if the waste never
16 sees the light of day, if the final step of pro-
17 dUction is to fix the waste, then we would con-
18 sider the fixation process to be part of the
19 production process and would not be covered
20 under our regular regulations,
2i If we come to the end of the pro-
22 cess and you have a hazardous waste, then the
23 waste is transported to another place where
24 it goes through a fixation process and then
25
-------
195
I
2 that would be a hazardous waste and would have
3 to be notified. The fixation process itself
4 would require a permanence because it would
5 be a treatment process under RCRA»
6 But the end product of that treat-
7 ment would be a non-hazardous material that
8 could be disposed of outside the hazardous
9 waste system,,
10 The second question is: "Would
11 an incinerator residue or activitated sludge
12 stored on site require registration?"
13 Here again, if the incinerator
14 residue or the activated sludge flunks the
15 characteristics that we have posed in 3001,
16 then it is a hazardous waste. Any storage
17 on site for more than 90 days does require
18 a permit.
19 Also, the materials used would
20 require registration. That is referring to
21 Section 3010, I believe, where there is a
22 notification requirement, but it also re-
23 quires a permit under Section 3005,
24 MR. FREEDMAN: The next question
25
-------
196
1
2 iss "Considering the somewhat controversial
3 natuffi of the TEP, why doesn't the Agency allow
4 an alternative means for determining toxicity
5 whereby the applicant can use a procedure he
6 thinks is more accurate?"
7 I guess the problem there becomes
8 one of defining what is accuracy. The defi-
9 nition of a toxic waste combines an extrac-
10 tion procedure for modeling the mobility of
11 a waste combined with the threshhold set
12 forth as to what we might define as unaccept-
13 able in environmental contamination.
14 Those threshholds have been set
15 with relation to the extraction procedure.
16 We do not, at this time, have enough infor-
17 mation to determine what other possible ex-
18 traction procedures would give equivalent
19 results to the extraction procedure that
20 has been proposed,
21 It is conceivable that at some
22 later time other extraction procedures or
23 mechanisms will be developed and sufficiently
24 validated and to evaluate its equivalency such
25
-------
197
1
2 that other procedures would be able to be used,
3 The next question is; "Please ex-
4 plain how one test for the toxic organic criter-
5 ia "0" to get off the list for this criteria?"
6 In order to get delisted, a waste
7 that is listed because of a potential danger
8 to harm human health or environment because it
9 contains toxic organic material, one would have
10 to take the waste in question, extract it using
11 the extraction procedure and analyze the extract
12 for organic substances to insure that that ex-
13 tract contains no organic substances at a con-
14 centration which would exceed the threshhold
15 limit set forth in the regulations, using the
16 procedure based on acute toxicity values; that
17 is in the proposed regulations and also in the
18 ABR advance notice.
19 The next question is: "If solvent
20 reclaimers do not need permits, will generators
21 of solvents be required to meet the requirements
22 of 3002 if they send their solvents to reclaimers?"
23 The answer is "no." The regulations
24 have been so structured to encourage generators
25
-------
198
1
2 to send their wastes to reclaimers by eliminating
3 the manifest paper work. This exemption does
4 not change the fact that all applicable DOT ha-
5 zard materials shipping regulations must be
6 followed in shipping those wastes solvents.
7 The next question is: "Are the
8 250.13 tests so simple that companies should
9 be able to do these in house or will they need
10 to go to outside laboratories? Are there
11 enough such laboratories?"
12 Well, basically, the toxicity
13 tests require a knowledge of analytical chem-
14 istry. The tests are relatively simple, but
15 they do require laboratory capabilitiy.
16 The other characteristics, gener-
17 ally, do not require such sophisticated level
18 of expertise.
19 In my opinion, any company that
20 has a chemical laboratory to do either qual-
21 ity control testing or other types of anal-
22 ytical work should have no difficulty with
23 the procedures, testing procedures Bqiired
24 under RCRA, to date.
25
-------
199
1
2 About the definition of a hazard
3 waste? Reading the preamble, any waste with
4 one of four characteristics is hazardous.
5 However, reading the test, the hazard must
6 be on the first characteristic.
7 One has a hazardous waste if that
^ waste meets or exceeds any of the characteris-
9 tics defined under the proposed regulations.
10 In other words, if the waste meets the ignit-
11 ability characteristic, it is a hazard or
12 meets the toxic characteristic, it is a ha-
13 zard. It does not have to meet more than
14 one or any one waste.
15 The next question is; "Where
16 does sample his waste? Example: A floor-
17 washing system drains to a collection sump.
18 The washings are pumped to a treatment fa-
19 cility through an underground line. Con-
20 taminated sand inadvertently settles in the
21 collection sump and line and must be cleaned
22 out. The washings are probably hazardous.
23 So, the first question is - where do I sam-
24 pie the liquid to run the EP? Do I sample
25
-------
200
1
2 the sand?
3 Well, one samples the system at the
4 point that one has something to dispose of. So,
5 the sand would be a sort of waste and have to
6 be tested as well as the material at the end of
7 this process line.
8 The second question is: "How do I
9 define the boundaries of the treatment facility?
10 Are the sump and line included?"
11 It has been our policy that a pro-
12 cess which is connected such that materials go-
13 ing from one pipe to a tank to another pipe as
14 long as there is continuity of flow, that is
15 one process and one has a waste at the end of
16 that process.
17 If, for example, one breaks up the
18 process and has to transport the material from
19 the end of one pipe or pit into some other fa-
20 cility for the next treatment, then it is at
21 the end of that first line that you have a
22 waste both at the end of it and in that pit
23 and at the end of the final treatment.
24 MR. CORSONi let me try a couple
25
-------
201
1
2 of questions.
3 "If fails test procedure once, is
4 waste hazardous for all time? If subsequent
5 testing shows fly ash, for example, not hazar-
6 dous, would it be declassified as non-hazardous
7 again? Would every subsequent load have to be
8 tested even if a reason could be pinpointed for
9 the change in test results, for example, change
10 in type of coal?"
11 Well, the basic answer is "Yes,"
12 but I will elaborate for a moment.
13 What we really suggested to you in
1"* the proposed regulations of generators is that
15 they are responsible for making a determination
16 whether he does it by test or by analysis.
I7 Every time he makes a change in his process or
18 his materials, such as might cause a change in
19 the wa£e itself.
20 We are trying to, with regard to
21 the specific question, we are trying to, in
22 concert with the Department of Energy and some
23 of the USWAG people and others, to develop a
24 body of data which would enable somebody using
25
-------
202
1
2 a co-fired power plant to make the determination
3 as to whether or not, depending upon the specific
4 coal that was being used, whether the residue
5 that day would fall into the system or not.
** The answer is very simply though
7 that is wherever you have made a change in your
* waste, you should do the evaluation again. What
9 you anticipate to be the impact of waste oil
10 as a supplemental fuel.
11 This question is: "What do you
12 anticipate to be the impact of classifying
13 waste oil hazardous on the use of waste oil
I4 as a supplementary fuel in boilers? Have
15 you considered the likelihood that many in-
16 dustries currently involved in energy con-
17 servation activities of this kind will cease
18 to burn this waste oil rather than be declared
19 incinerators with attendant permit requirentnts?
20 What are the economic and energy
21 consumptions impacts of this policy?
22 Has the consideration that these
23 boilers already have abatement equipment to
24 meet clean air act requirements been taken
25
-------
203
1
2 into account?
3 Has the possiblity been considered
4 that waste oil falling within certain parameters,
5 for example, low PCS levels could?"
6 This is a good opportunity to say,
7 again, what the regulation specifically states.
8 When we say in our definition of
9 other discarded material, all waste, oil, used
10 lubricating transformers, transmission or cutt-
11 ing oil which is incinemted or burned as a fuel
12 is always considered to be a waste.
13 As Jack Lehman said, you find out
14 whether it is a hazardous waste or not,, If it
15 is not, it is not and does not fall into sub-
16 title C.
17 We have, specifically, in that
18 title, used lubricating oil as a hazardous
19 waste.
20 Now, used lubricating oil will
21 always be a hazardous waste when it's burned.
22 Any other used oil would be a waste and we
23 would have to evaluate it to determine whe-
24 ther or not it is hazardous or requires a
25
-------
204
1
2 permit.
3 The last question I have is: "Could
4 you elaborate on whatever conflicts you foresee
5 on the identification and listing of waste mater-
6 ials between the EPA listing in 3001 and an in-
7 dividual state's identification and listing on
8 same?"
9 What that does is give us a chance
10 to again emphasize that listing essentially co-
ll vers an entire industry that has that process
12 or anyone that has that waste.
13 The exclusion of the demonstration
14 of non-inclusion would be on a plant specific
15 basis.
16 Similarly, the failure on charac-
17 teristics is on a plant specific basis and en-
18 forcement by EPA, given that you don't feel
19 that your wastes are hazardous; we make the
20 determination that from our point of view, it
21 would have to be a plant specific basis.
22 The list is indistry-wide. The
23 characteristics are plant specifics.
24 MR, HUNT: I will take a
25
-------
205
1
2 couple of question regarding generators.
3 "If a generator maintains a waste
4 is hazardous, but a transporter or disposure
5 or treatment facility is saying it is not, who
6 is liable if mishandling of the material is later
7 determined?"
8 "If a generator, in good faith
9 and according to best technology, determines
10 a waste to be non-hazardous and at a later
11 time this is found to be false and it pre-
12 sents an unpredicted hazard, what liability
13 exists for the generator or treatment or
14 storage facility?"
15 Well, in general, it is the gene-
16 rator who is responsible for identifying the
17 waste as hazardous and for letting it into the
18 regulatory system.
19 A generator's judgment that it is
20 waste and hazardous would not be overturned
21 by a waste caller's judgment that it shouldn't
22 be in the system.
23 If the generators find his waste
24 is hazardous, he is responsible, beginning with
25
-------
206
1
2 the manifest when he releases that waste to a
3 shipper and identifies a receiving storage
4 treatment or disposal facility which is per-
5 mitted to cope with his category, he is res-
6 ponsible for assuring that the waste is re-
7 ceived by that facility and in filing his re-
8 ports to EPA when the waste doesn't end up
9 ' with the location he has identified for it.
10 The answer to the question is
11 that the generator determines and the gene-
12 rator's responsibility is that it is impor-
13 tant to EPA. We intend to be reasonable
14 about the manner in which we monitor com-
15 pliance with Subtitle C and if adequate tech-
16 nology does not exist, to determine whether
17 a waste is hazardous; then, we assume that
18 EPA and the generator are basically in the
19 same boat.
20 In our mind, it's EPA's tests
21 that matter in that if we find upon testing a
22 generator's waste that the properties criteria
23 fail, that waste is hazardous and we are going
24 to assume that if the generator had done the
25
-------
207
1
2 appropriate testing, he would have determined
3 the same results and we will construe him as
4 having -- as being in violation of Subtitle C.
5 Another question is related to
6 this: "Is the generator free from liability
7 if the waste is transferred to a permitted
8 disposal facility consistent with RCRA regu-
9 lations?
10 Was there a change from the draft
11 to the proposed regulations?"
12 The Agency construed the generator
13 as being in a pivotal position in this regula-
14 tory program. Although there are limits to
15 some degree to the extent to which the genera-
16 tor could control the manner in which the waste
17 that he has released is handled by subsequent
18 people in the waste management chain, meaning
19 the transporter to the facility, we feel that
20 the generator still retains a high degree of
21 responsibility for the ultimate disposition of
22 the waste that is released,,
23 One change is in the proposal from
24 earlier drafts and that is that the generator
25
-------
208
1
2 is responsible for receiving back from the stor-
3 age treatment or disposal facility the manifest
4 which he has finished. That manifest should tell
5 the generator that the waste that he released was
6 received by the facility to which he released it.
7 If he does not, after a specified
8 period, receive that manifest back, it's the
9 generator's responsibility for inquiring as
10 to what happened to that waste and why he
11 didn't get the manifest back in the normal
12 course of business.
13 If he can't satisfy himself that
14 there are some administrative or routine answers
15 for that, he is responsible for reporting to EPA
16 as an exception to the routine manner of operat-
17 ing that partcular batch of waste which did not
18 end up where it was supposed to end up and the
19 generator and EPA will jointly inquire further
20 to see what went wrong.
21 MR. LINDSEY; The question is:
22 "Regarding limiting the amount of hazardous
23 waste generated by small users, 100 kilograms,
24 which is disposed in Subtitle D facilities, re-
25
-------
209
1
2 gulations state that the extreme ratio of 40:1
3 non-hazardous/hazardous Is anticipated in Sub-
4 title D facilities. 1. What criteria was used
5 to arrive at this figure. 2. Would it not be
6 economically advantageous for owners of Sub-
7 title D facilities to take hazardous shipments
Q
from small generators, to take hazardous wastes
9 at a cost less than that of Subtitle C facilities
10 but greater than the rate he charges for non-
H hazardous waste?
12 This could be justified on the basis
of potential liability, et cetera, and would en-
14 courage taking a much higher ratio of hazardous/
15 non-hazardous than on 1:40 in addition, a facility."
^ This information came out of the
17 work which was done in preparing the background
I** documents. It is based on theestimates of the
quantities of people who are in the system and
20 out of the system and 100 kilograms.
21 There was a question earlier about
22 what those percentages were based on. It's
2;* that ratio of the quantity of people who will
24 be out of the system with the small generator.
25
-------
210
1
2 The second part of thatquestian was:
3 "Would it not be economically advantageous for
4 owners of Subtitle D facilities to take hazardous
5 shipments from small generators to take hazardous
* wastes at a cost of less than that of Subtitle C
' facilities, but greater than the rate he charges
8 for non-hazardous waste?"
9 I think, interpreting it, would it
10 not be an advantage economically for a Subtitle
11 D facility to take small quantities less than
I2 100 kilograms of hazardous waste at a higher
13 rate than he would charge for regular waste?
14 I expect it would be advantageous.
15 The point is he would have to know in some fa-
16 shion what it is he is getting and providing
I7 control over that would be costly.
18 The next part of this could be jus-
19 tified on the basis of potential liability,
20 extra cost, I guess.
21 The next part of the question states:
22 "in addition, a facility handling 100 cubic yards
23 -- " I guess he means 100 kilograms -- "a day
24 should logically be allowed to take less hazardous
25
-------
211
1
2 wastes on a mass basis than a facility handling
3 10,000 cubic yards --" I guess that is miligrams
4 --"a day if ratio of hazardous/non-hazardous
5 is a gauge of risk of future problems."
6 I think this gets to what the person
7 is getting at, I believe, which is the reason
8 why we got a small generator or small quantity
9 exclusion at all.
10 Basically, it comes to this in the
11 broad sense: On the one hand, if you include
12 everyone in the system down to the local hard-
13 ware store and the local high school, chemical
14 industry laboratory about small quantities of
15 materials which would fail the criteria, you
16 again have to get a pretty large parper work
17 situation developing. You have a lot of peo«
18 pie who are not used to handling this kind of
19 paper work; the controls that are necessary
20 under this and the cost becomes very high
21 on a nation-wide basis.
22 On the other hand, we have a
23 lack of damage experience with regard to
24 the normal disposal of small quantities of
25
-------
212
1
2 these materials. We just do not have incidents
3 of the very small quantities of material causing
4 serious problems if they are disposed of in well-
5 run, well-operated facilities, facilities that
6 would meet the Subtitle D criteria and handled
7 in a normal manner.
8 The point is made and has been made
9 today by a number of people who have questioned
10 this approach, that there are some highly ha-
ll zardous materials which wouldn't want to be
12 disposed of in that manner. We have had
13 comments on them.
14 The question is with regard to these
15 very highly hazardous materials that we are talk-
16 ing about, normally, these kinds of things, at
17 least to our understanding are not known to be
18 disposed of in pure quantities and concentra-
19 tions like that.
20 Normally, they are diluted in some
21 sort of waste.
22 If that is so, then it may not be
23 a problem.
24 If people have experienced differently,
25
-------
213
1
2 then you would be pleasedto know aboutit.
3 The nextquestlon I have isV "New
4 Jersey has a hazardous waste manifest system
5 already in existence.
6 "How will their system impact or
7 interact with RCKA proposal?"
8 That's really a 3002 question
9 which comes up tomorrow. I will give you a
10 brief answer.
11 The regulations will require that
12 there be a uniform format for the manifest sys-
13 tern.
14 in order to be authorized, the
15 State will have to adopt that format. They
16 can't add additional things. For example,
17 at the bottom of the form additional questions
18 which they may want to use in their particular
19 system is available. They can require a differ-
20 ent reporting system than what we would require
21 if the Federal government is running the prog-
22 ram,
23 The basic manifest system will oper-
24 ate as specified in the hazardous situation, in
25
-------
214
1
2 this particular program.
3 The next question is: "Explain the
4 choices available to local government who operate
5 conventional sanitary landfill?
6 A. If received, then what?
7 B. If rejected, what?
8 The point is that if they decide
9 to handle hazardous wastes, then what or if
10 such municipal sanitary landfills decide to
11 handle hazardous wastes, then we will have to
12 design and operate that landfill in accordance
13 with these regulations under Subtitle C.
14 You get a permit. If they expect
15 to receive wastes which are manifested, that
16 is to receive wastes subject to these regulations.
17 Secondly, it says that if we reject
18 it, then what?
19 Well, I assume that if we decide
20 we are not going to receive hazardous wastes,
21 then what? Well, then you are subject to Sec-
22 tion 4004 or Subtitle D of the Act which has
23 been proposed and which will be promulgated,
24 I believe, later on this summer.
25
-------
215
1
2 There is no Federal permitting or
3 no Federal endorsement associated with Subtitle
4 D of the Act.
5 On the other hand, the Agency is
6 required to -- well, those facilities will be
7 illegal although there is no Federal enforce-
8 ment associated with that.
9 Now, this question: "Suppose you
10 have a drum of liquid sludge (semi-solid), would
11 this be covered under RCRA if contents are ha-
12 zardous?
13 Suppose this drum is buried with
14 solid waste, would RCRA cover the drum's con-
15 tents?"
16 It depends upon what you mean by
17 "sludge." If you mean sewerage sludge, munici-
18 pal sewerage sludge and that were hazardous,
19 the decision has been made by the Agency that
20 that particular kind of waste, sewerage sludge
21 as opposed to other kinds of sludge, would be
22 covered under Section 405 of the Clean Water
23 Act instead of under RCRA. The intent is that
24 the regulation for doing that will provide the
25
-------
216
1
2 same degree of protection.
3 The next part of the question iss
4 "Is it correct to say that RCRA covers all
5 wastes not covered by NPDES or AIR Acts?
6 Whether solid or not?"
7 RCRA intends to cover materials
8 which are or can be disposed of in or on land
9 as opposed to air emissions.
10 Again, it may involve materials
11 which do, as a result of leaching or run-off
12 or emissions from that disposal, cover that
13 which enters the air.
14 In other words, wastes which create
15 air and ground water problems. It does not have
16 to be solid. It can be liquid semi-solids,
17 contain gases, anything but a free gas which
18 can or is disposed of on the Iand0
19 The defnition in the Act is the
20 best place to look for a brief definition of
21 what a solid waste is. You will find in the
22 definition a reference to other discarded ma-
23 terials
24 If you look in the regulations under
25
-------
217
1
2 250.10, you will see our definition of what is
3 meant by discarded material. Hopefully, that's
4 pretty straightforward.
5 The next question is: "Will special
6 wastes be treated separately in the proposed 3005?
7 The draft does not make distinction."
8 Now, somebody apparently has an old
9 draft of 3005. At the time that that draft was
10 made and put together, the special waste concept
11 had not been incorporated. This is an old copy.
12 These regulations under 3005, as I
13 mentioned earlier, will be proposed in inte-
14 grated form and with the underground program pro-
15 bably within a month or six weeks. It is probab-
16 ly that those particular regulations will confer
17 a permit by rule.
18 If these particular standards here
19 are adhered to, this will be considered as having
20 a permit during this entire special waste period.
21 That is probably, - that is probable. It is
22 still under discussion.
23 MR. LEHMAN: I have this question;
24 "Do you plan to include all priority pollutants
25
-------
218
1
2 under the Water Act In RCRA regulations? If so,
3 when?"
4 This will refer to the fact that
5 in appendix five of our 3001 regulations, we
6 list selected priority pollutants but — well,
7 there are 129 or so there.
8 The reason they are missing is that
9 in appendix four and appendix three, where we
10 list the other types of materials under DOT
11 classification, poison and AB or any substances
12 that are under the selected schedule, the miss-
13 ing priority pollutants are already covered
14 there.
15 In fact, we are including all o£
16 the pollutants and they are just not all listed
17 there. We didn't want to duplicate it.
18 The second part of the question iss
19 "Will storage of hazardousi-wastes of a temporary
20 nature onsite and off site require registrations
21 of tanks?"
22 I think they mean will they require
23 a permit? The answer is "Yes," if the storage
24 is for greater than 90 days.
25
-------
219
1
2 Another part of the question is:
3 "Will off-quality products not readily salable
4 but classified under DOT as hazardous, be re-
5 quired to be registered in storage?"
6 Again, I presume they mean permit.
7 Again, the answer is "yes."
8 As it is, this is the heart of what
9 Mr* Freedman was hitting at.
10 What is the distinction between
11 off-site insepction material which may or may
12 not be considered part of a recycle or possible
13 future sale sort of situation? Our intent is
14 that that material would be covered, but it
15 appears that we would have to be a little more
16 specific.
17 The next part of the question states:
18 "If there are no immediate plans to dispose of
19 material, would this change the answer?"
20 No, not really.
21 Lastely: "Would a material con-
22 taining a minute concentration of embryotoxin
23 (animal test data) be classified as toxic? If
24 so, at what level or concentration?
25
-------
220
1
2 The same question for mutagenic or carcinogenic."
3 Now, in general this is the subject
4 of the advance notice of proposed rule-making,
5 which is the last part of December 18th proposed
6 rule-making„ It's in the same issue of the Fe-
7 deral Register.
" When we finish developing those,
9 that set of regulations which is aimed at this
10 type of thing and develop a specific character-
11 istic to deal with those, it is at that time
12 that they would be covered in a general way
13 under RCRA.
14 However, there are some specific
15 waste streams which we know to be carcinogenic.
16 We know materials which are carcinogenic and
17 nutrogenic or to use the word "embryotoxin"
18 which are listed in some of the listed under
19 Section 250.14.
20 If there are listed -- if the waste
21 is on the list, it is contained within the system
22 at that time.
23 I hope I am making that distinction.
24 This gets at the heart of the difference between a
25
-------
221
1
2 characteristic and a listed item; any listed
3 item is in the system according to this pro-
4 posal.
5 Materials which are not listed are
6 included if they meet one of the characteristics.
7 It so happens that we do not have,
8 at the present time, a general characteristic
' which deals with these other types of toxic
10 materials such as carcinogenic and so forth,
11 but it will be at a later point.
12 CHAIRPERSON DARRAH: We will take
1 a short recess at this point.
14 (Recess)
15 CHAIRMAN ROGERS; Let us go
16 back on the record.
1? Jack Lehman, do you have questions
18 to start with again?
19 MR. LEHMANs Most of these ques-
2® tions are really not strictly applicable under
21 Section 3001, but as long as they are here be-
22 fore us, we will attempt to answer them.
23 This one deals with the small quan-
24 tity limit.
25
-------
222
1
2 The question reads: "is the 100
3 kilogram per month limit based on generation
4 at a single facility or several facilities
5 within a single company?"
6 The answer is: It is based on a
7 single facility. In other words, 100 kilo-
grams per month produced and disposed of from
9 a single facility.
*0 However, if a company has 5 faci-
11 lities across the country, or whatever, each
12 facility would be subject to that rule.
Another question isj "Doesthe
amount of hazardous waste include inert pro-
15 duct containers when one calculatesthe 100
^ kilograms per month exemption?
' Small bottles of consumer products
which are rejected during production may be
19 less than 100 kilograms per month if the con-
^° tents are hazardous, but much more than 100
21 kilograms a month if the containers are in-
22 eluded. (Example hairsprays, aerosol atiti-
23 perspirants, et cetera)."
24 Now, this gets to the general issue
25
-------
223
1
2 of what wastes are and what we are talking about.
3 The container or the size of the container?
4 When we say "wastes," we mean what-
5 ever you will dispose of; that includes the con-
6 tainer, obviously.
7 In this case, even though you have,
8 perhaps, small quantities of material inside the
9 container, when we are counting tonnage and so
10 forth, we are talking about total amount which
11 is included in the containers„
12 There is another question which
13 asks; "How do you prevent a generator from
14 splitting up floss from his operation so that
15 the company goes up to 100 kilograms a month
16 limit?"
1' As I mentioned, the limit applies
18 on a facility basis so that it will not help
19 the generator to split up the floss to try
20 and avoid that rule.
21 The third point was the difference
22 between a subtitle D facility accepting, for
23 instance, 100 kilograms a month from 100
24 generators rather than a thousand kilograms a
25
-------
224
1
2 month and ten generators.
3 In other words, the same amount and
4 total goes into it.
5 Well, there is a difference in several
6 respects. First of all, as we mentioned earlier,
7 one of the things that we are concerned about is
8 the simulation of the material into the existing
9 municipal or residential waste area,
10 The mixing ratios are much more uni-
11 form after getting small amounts of waste mixed
12 in with that.
13 More importantly, the big difference
14 here is that this presumes that the waste gets
15 to a Subtitle D facility.
16 What we are really concened about,
I7 is waste that doesn't get to the waste facility.
18 We are much more concerned with a thousand kilo-
19 grams that doesn't get to a facility than a
2° hundred kilograms. So, there are differences.
21 Another question I believe has been
22 dealt with to some degree is: "Although under
23 and EPA approved state hazardous waste manage-
24 ment program, states may require more stringent
25
-------
225
1
2 controls, manifest requirements, et cetera, than
3 the EPA guidelines 0
4 "Is there any way that EPA can man-
5 date uniformity to streamline administration
6 burdens for the benefit of corporations doing
7 business in many stateswith differing require-
8 ments? (This is especially a problem with the
9 manifesting of hazardous wastes)."
10 Well, as Mr. Freedman indicated
11 earlier, in the latest versions of Section 3006,
12 we are, in effect, saying that we will be, in
13 order for EPA to grant approval to a state prog-
14 ram, they must agree to use the basic Federal
15 manifest format. They can add to it if they
16 want, but, at least, the front page or the first
17 part of it will all look the same across the
18 country.
19 So, there will be, at least, that
20 degree of uniformity.
21 The basic problem is that many
22 states have that system in operation and they
23 don't necessarily want to do away with that.
24 We are trying to accommodate that
25
-------
226
2 as at the same time making it uniform as much as
3 we can.
4 All right?
5 MR, LINDSEY; You say a hazardous
6 by-product fume that meets the criteria is one
' which will require a steam plant boiler to have
o
a hazardous waste permit?
9 MR* LEHMAN; If the waste —
1® if your material in question is used as a lu-
ll bricating hydraulic transformer, transmission
12 or cutting oi which is incinerated or burned,
13 the answer is yes.
I4 If it is not and it is a product
15 which is used in a steam powered boiler, the
I6 answer is no, as I interpret it.
17 This definition comes under Section
18 250.10 which gets involved in the definition of
JO
other discarded material.
20 You will note, also, that under that
2J piece there, if you look at it, it talks about
22 used — well, it says other materials and their
23 uses will be included by amendments to this list
24 upon a finding by the EPA and that it is necessar}
25
-------
227
1
2 to control such wastes.
3 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
4 that if we come across other problems, materials
5 which are burned in power boilers, that we find
6 are creating problems, that we may add to that
7 list,
8 That's the purpose of this particular
9 note.
10 Mr, Plehn mentioned this morning that
11 a certain number of waste disposal sites would
12 be necessary to handle the 270,000 generators.
I3 What is that number? That number depends on the
I4 size of the facility.
15 we don't have any number like 1500
16 or something like that that would be necessary.
17 it would depend on how big the facilities are.
18 It could be any number.
19 We expect there will be approximately
20 30,000 permits granted for treatment storage and
21 disposal. Many of them, we suspect, will be
22 storage.
23 The number of actual disposal sites
24 will be considerably less than that.
25
-------
228
1
2 The question goes on to ask: "How
3 many new sites would be necessary?"
4 Again,,it depends on size and how many
5 sites are expected to be developed by private in-
6 dustry. By and large, in the past, most of the
' sites have been provided, the ones we have now;
most of it, most of the hazardous facilities
which have been designed primarily for that,
1° have been designed and owned either by the
11 generators themselves or by the hazardous
12 waste management, private industry.
13 Their facilities owned by authori-
14 ties similar to sewerage authorities that deal
15 with this and there are some facilities owned
16 by municipalities, by counties.
I7 I don't believe that at this point
I8 in time there are any businesses owned by the
state, although that has been proposed and there
have been several that have been interested in
21 doing that.
22 Along the same lines, EPA estimates
23 hazardous waste matter management facility capa-
24 city at forty percent nation-wide.
25
-------
229
1
2 This question is asked: "EPA esti-
3 mates HWMF capacity at forty percent nation-wide.
4 What growth capability exists in industry and
5 does EPA anticipate interim exemptions while
6 capacity is non-existent?"
7 Well, the forty percent is based
8 on a study which we did of all site capacity,
9 capacity for higher as opposed to the on-sites
10 owned by generators; meaning that of the exist-
11 ing capacity that is out there, it's only approx-
12 imately forty percent that is used or was at the
13 time of the study.
14 To answer the question, as we see
15 it, it's a hard question to answer. The expan^
16 sion potential is good. The problem comes from
17 public opposition to the siting of new facilities
18 and, I think, anyone who has been in this area
19 for any length of time can see that,,
20 The reason for the public opposi-
21 tion, because of the incidence in the past such
22 as the Love Canal problem is the one that is
23 concerned.
24 The point that we are trying to make
25
-------
230
1
2
is that in a regulated facility that we are pro-
2
posing to do with these regulations, will not
create Love Canals. That's the intent of all
of this and thus there is no need to be cone
cerned.
However, public opposition remains.
8
The question comes, then, the last part: "What
9
happens if the capacity is not there?"
We have flexibility within the Act
as provided by this interim status section in
12
the Act which says that anyone who notified
13
the Agency in accordance with Section 3010 and
14
submits an application which we are interpreting
under Section 3005, which has not been proposed
yet, that that is the part of the entire infor-
mation and was in existence at the time of the
18
passage of the Act will be allowed to continue
19
under an interim status until we have acted on
the application.
21
That gives you some applicability
22
if the facility expansion issue becomes a prob-
23
lem and the capacity becomes a problem. It
24
gives you some flHxibility to deal with it,
25
-------
231
1
2 Obviously, there is no place to send
3 the materials. In the end, it will make it dffi-
4 cult for you to implement this Act. Just what
5 the approach will be, if suddenly that eventuality
6 occurs, I think I can't answer at this time.
7 The last question isi "Does the
8 utility waste flue gas desulfurization sludge
' exemption apply only to power plants or would
1° it also apply to scrubber sludge for tertiary
11 oil recovery steam generators?"
I2 Well, I don't know the answer to
13 that specifically. I guess we would have to
14 address that in terms of the definition of util-
15 ity waste which is under Section 250.462, which
I6 says that steam power plants generating -- waste
17 generated by steam power plants solely from the
18 use of disposal fuels.
19 I assume if this meets that criteria,
20 then the anwer would be that "yes," it would be
21 covered, but I'm not really familiar with this
22 technology. I will be willing to talk to some-
23 body after about that.
24 MR, FREEDMAN: I have one general
25
-------
232
1
2 question here: "Preliminary acetic acid leach-
3 ate testing has shown that municipal regu --
4 refuse, concrete and other materials in sani-
5 tary landfills will leach metals in amounts
6 greater than those given under the toxic EP
7 and therefore, defining them as hazardous.
8 Please comment."
9 I can't really comment. It's hard
10 to comment because we have not received data
11 on common materials where people have run the
I2 extraction procedure and found that the concen-
13 trations of the leaching in the extract exceed
14 the threshhold.
15 Until such time it is impossible
16 to comment.
17 The second question is: "What is
18 a representative sample for toxicity extrac-
tion procedure. One utility plant may have
20 several long-term coal contracts and may make
21 many more spot purchases. The coals willhave
22 different characteristics. On any oneday,
23 the fly ash discharged to the fly ash pond
24 may have slightly different characteristics.
25
-------
233
1
Therefore, does the representative
3 sample come out of the fly ash pond or must
4 numerous samples be taken from the precipitatpr?
Should a weighted average be used?"
Essentially, one is responsible for
looking at the waste generated in determining
g
if it fails or meets the definition of a hazar-
9
dous waste.
We are in contact with industry
11 groups, especially the utility industry where
12
they are looking at how different is the ash
13
scrubber sludge that is generated from day to
14 day.
While we realize that it will be
different from day to day, at this point, no
one knows if it is going to be different enough
18
so that, for example, utility will have to keep
19
repeatedly testing their product as their source
20
of coal changes. That's a decision that the in-
21
dividual generator will have to make. It is im-
22
portant to know if it is processed -- if his pro-
23
cess changes significantly enough to require him
to retest, to be sure that it is or is not hazar-
25
-------
234
1
ry
ous enough.
3 MR. LEHMAN: I have a couple of
questions here concerning Section 3004.
5 The first is: "How do you equate
incineration as a means of detoxification with
the stringent regulations for clean air zrequire-
8 ments after July 1, 1979?"
9
I think the thrust of this question
is asking to mean are we, by allowing incinera-
"• tions on the one hand for the purposes of ha-
12
zardous wastes, somehow are going to run on into
13
the Clean Air Act requirements of 1979. I think
14
that that is very difficult to answer in any spe-
cific way because that, again, depends upon the
type of incineration conducted from which there
are at least half a dozen different systems.
18
It depends on what waste you are in-
19
cinerating and the parameters and the degree to'
20
which you have scrubbers and what kind of scrub-
21
bers and how efficient they are and so forth.
22
In other words, we can get into a
23
really lengthy discussion about this whole point.
We have attempted, in our regulations, to specify
25
-------
235
1
2 incineration parameters which, to our knowledge,
3 result in detoxification or destruction of the
4 materials contained from a management point of
5 view.
6 Now, I don't have any data which
7 would leave me to believe that requirements
8 that we have put in RCRA are, in some way,
9 going to lead to some problem in meeting the
10 Clean Air Act regulations.
11 I have another question here which
12 is a little harder to decipher, but I will try:
13 "If a landfill on a site is inactive, but is
I4 known to contain hazardous wastes, yet is moni-
15 tored and part of a system included in an NPDES
16 permit, require old registration. In other
17 words, a landfill which surface and underground
18 water would flow to permit an NPDES landfill,
19 require registration on special monitoring^"
20 Well, that seems like a fairly
21 special case that is being discussed here but,
22 in general, these regulations are prospective
23 in nature. In other words, we are dealing here
24 with existing and future management activities.
25
-------
236
1
2 That's one of the problems with RCRA as It now
3 stands that it really does not address itself
4 to the problem of inactive or old sites that
5 are completely closed down and no longer active.
6 I believe the general answer to
7 this question is that if the landfill is com-
8 pletely inactive, no longer in operation,
9 that it would not come within the purview of
10 this system the way the law is presently con-
11 stituted.
12 Now, there is a greaO deal of inter-
13 est by the Agency, by. Congress and by state and
14 local officials and a number of other people
15 to, in effect, do something about that gap in
16 the coverage of RCRA. It is not clear now
17 that issue of inactive or active or abandoned
18 sites is going to eventually resolve itself.
19 it is going to be the subject to a substantial
20 amount of discussion at the oversite hearing
21 for the benefit of RCRA which will be held this
22 year.
23 I have another question. In ad-
24 vance, I might say, having read it, it is, on
25
-------
237
1
2 effect, a comment on Section 3004 rather than
3 a question. Whoever wrote it -- I will read
4 it and we can share it with you.
5 In effect, it is a comment on
6 the regulations„ I would be happy that whom-
7 ever wrote this question would, on Friday or
tomorrow evening, get up and make the same
question for public record. It is an impor-
10 tant point. It is for referring to the samp-
11 ling and analysis provisions of Section 30040
12 In particular, a part of it which says that
13
you have got to take samples and analyze them
on a regular basis and check those samples of
15 groundwater against background levels.
16 The question goes something like
17 this" Presumably, the requirements thereof
cannot be waived. It is quite possible that
19
a background level for a particular parameter
20
could be extremely small and that the ground-
21 water level could be significantly higher in
22
terms of a student's test, but still be so small
oo
as to be environmentally insignificant. There-
24 fore, would EPA be forced to shut down a utility
25
-------
238
1
2 plant in such a case? Example: background
3 arsenic concentration is .0005 rag. groundwater
4 concentration is .001. This would be signi-
5 ficant in a T test, but meaningless environ-
6 mentally."
7 If you find that the quality of
8 the groundwater is zoned significantly dif-
9 ferent from the background level, then you
10 have got to notify the regional administra-
11 tor. You have to determine if, possibly,
12 what caused the difference and then you have
13 got to determine the extent of groundwater
14 contamination and, lastely, you have to dis-
15 continue operations of the facility until
16 the regional administrator determines what
17 action to take. That is what the section
18 is about.
19 With respect to the rest of the
20 question, I would just say that in a case
21 like that, I would assume that once the re-
22 gional administrator has been contacted, as
23 required bythe regulations, that pragmatism
24 would prevail and the regional administrator
25
-------
239
1
2 would respond in a positive way saying that
3 he couldn't see why a particular plant had
4 to be shut down under those circumstances.
5 However, the key to this is a
6 flaw, if you will, in the way the regulations
7 are structured and, again, this is the type
8 of thing that we are interested in.
9 All right, that's all I have.
10 CHAIRMAN ROGERS: We can have
11 one last call for questions and then we will
12 close this session.
13 This went on longer than antici-
14 pated.
15 Tomorrow the Hearing starts at
I6 8:30 in the morning. There will be continu-
17 ing registration.
I8 I don't believe we will require
19 any re-registration.
20 The subject will be Section 3002
21 in the morning and Section 3003 in the after-
22 noon and then there is an evening session
2^ where the entire set of the 3000 regulations
24 will be considered, beginning at 7:00 o'clock.
25
-------
240
1
We appreciate very much your atten-
3 tion and patience on this very snowy day. It
was a very good session and we had very good
questions.
We will see some of you tomorrow.
Thank you,
(Whereupon the session was com-
pleted at 4:30 o'clock, p.m.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
STATEMENT BY M3RRIS HERSHSON, PRESIDENT
NATIONAL BARREL 'AND DR1M ASSOCIATION
BEFORE TOE
ENVTROtWENEAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEBRUARY 7-9. 1979 NEW TORK CITY
This statement is being submitted with regard to the proposed regu-
lations, "Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations", as-published in the Federal
Register of December 18, 1978, Part IV.
tfy name is H>rris Hershson and I am President of the National Barrel &
Drum Association, which has its offices at 1028 Connecticut Avenue, NH, in Washington
B.C. We represent the Steel Drum Reconditioning Industry, which reconditions and
returns to conmercial reuse approximately 50 million 55-gallon steel drums annually.
Our Association represents about 737, of all reconditioners in this country and roughly
90% by -volume of the total national -volume.
At the public meeting, held in Alexandria, Virginia on June 20, 1978, we
submitted a statement describing our industry and the sizeable contribution it makes
to the reduction of solid waste pollution; in the interest of brevity, I should like
to incorporate that statement by reference. We would like to concentrate in the
present statement on several sections of the proposed regulations relating to our
industry, as published in the December 18, 1978 Federal Register.
Under Section #3001 of the Act, Section 250.10 defines the "..purpose,
scope and applicability" of the regulations on the identification and listing of
hazardous waste. That section defines the term, "other discarded materials". In
the solid waste definition (1004(27)) as material "which is not reused...". In the
preamble, explaining this section (page58950 of the Fed. Reg.), two examples are
set forth of the materials which, because of "reuse" are not deemed "other discarded
materials". These are as follows:
" Used solvents sent to a solvent reclaiming facility would
not be considered a discarded material, and therefore, would
not be considered a solid waste or hazardous waste, Consequently,
the solvent reclaiming facility, would not be subject to Section
# 3004 controls, nor would it require a RCRA permit".
" Similarly, empty drums that formerly contained hazardous waste
but are being delivered for reconditioning and reuse would not
be Included." '
-------
Our industry endorses and approves this exclusion.
In order to achieve clarity, and avoid possible misunderstanding and
confusion, we suggest that the last item of the Hazardous Haste List, contained
in Section 250.14(a), and reading:
" Containers unless triple rinsed ........ "
should be amended by adding the clause:
" ____ unless such containers are being delivered for reconditioning and reuse.
Under Section #3002, the preamble states, on page 58971, that: 4*/°x_y
" Generators who store hazardous waste on-site prior to shipment for
less than 90 days in DOT specification containers , need not comply
with Subpart D (Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Haste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities). Neither does
such storage require a permit ...... ".
On page 58974, the preamble states:
" Generators who store hazardous waste for less than 90 days prior
to treatment or disposal on-site are not required to comply with
the DOT container standards ........... ".
These statements in the preamble appear to be implemented by Section 250.25,
which requires that:
"(a) Every generator shall place the hazardous waste to be shipped
(1) In packages in accordance with DOT regulations ..... ".
This Section does not differentiate between periods less or more than 90 days,
and appears to refer only to "hazardous waste to be shipped".
The two quoted statements from the preamble, together with Section 250.25,
create a confusing and contradictory situation. On the one hand, if hazardous waste
is placed in DOT containers and held for less than 90 days before shipment, the
facility need not be permitted under Section 3004. On the other hand, if the waste
is held for less than 90 days for treatment on-site, it need not be placed In DOT
containers.
If it is not placed in such containers, then the facility must be permitted.
- 2 -
-------
It is possible, under many sets of circumstances, that the generator may
not know, at the time the waste is placed in containers, whether it will be shipped,
or treated on-site.
We therefore suggest that Section 250.25 be amended to exclude from its
operations hazardous waste being held for shipment or treatment for less than 90
days. If the waste will be shipped, it will require DOT containers; if not, non-DOT
containers will suffice.
Another section which we believe requires some modification is Section 250.22,
listing manifest requirements. Subparagraph (h)(5) asks for the "name and cannon
code of the hazardous waste..." This may not be possible for drum reconditioners
because of the heterogeneous nature of the waste. An exception should be made for
this industry, which will permit the naming of the hazard class as being sufficient—
ignitable, corrosive, etc.
Another subdivision of the same Section, (h)(8), requires that the manifest
contain directions as to action to be taken in the event of a spill. This too may
not be possible for the reconditioner to supply, since the waste will be a mixture
of many kinds of waste.
******
Under Section #3004 of the Act, there appears a provision in the proposed
regulations, as follows:
"Section 250.44-2 "OOfflaiNERS". Subparagraph (f): Bnpty, non-
combustible storage containers (e.g. metal and glass containers),
which previously containf 3 hazardous waste shall be
(1) cleaned by removing hazardous waste residual at a permitted
facility and
(i) transported to a drum reconditioner, or
(ii) transported to a metal or glass recovery facility
as scrap for resource recovery, or
(2) transported to a permitted drum reconditioner with appropriate
manifest, or..."
We submit that the proposed regulation, contained in Section 250.44-2(f)
is inconsistent with, and contrary to the Intent of, Section 250.10. An empty
- 3 -
-------
container, which formerly contained a hazardous material, whether virgin or
waste, when it is delivered to a reconditioner for reconditioning and reuse,
should be excluded from the operations of these regulations; since the recon-
ditioner will put the container, after reconditioning, into reuse and will himself
become the "generator", under RCRA, of any hazardous residue resulting from the
the reconditioning process. There should be no distinction between the empty;
container coming from an emptier, and one coming from a storage or disposal site.
The existence of such a distinction would make for chaotic and confusing regulations:
on the one hand, the empty container is not deemed waste and so is not covered by
the RCRA regulations; on the other, it is considered waste and may only be delivered
to a "permitted" reconditioner. No permit would be required in the first instance,
whereas one would be required in the second.
The rationale behind the exclusion in Section 250.10 is twofold. First, the
Act states among its objectives (Sec. 1003) the "conservation of valuable material",
"resource conservation", "recycling" These objectives are all achieved by the reuse
of the material. In the case of steel drums, an Energy Study, submitted with our
statement of June 20, 1978, proves the tremendous savings in energy consuoption, steel,
Iron ore, etc. The Section, therefore, excludes "discarded material" destined for
reuse.
The second reason for the exclusion is that the purpose of RCRA — to trace
hazardous material from generator to disposal — is served, since the reconditioner
becomes a "generator" and must manifest the waste he generates.
Both these reasons are disregarded by Section 250.44-2(f).
A further objection of our industry is to the requirement found in Section
250.44~2(f), that the empty container shall be ".... cleaned by removing hazardous
waste residuals " and then transported to a drum reconditioner. In our state-
ment of June 20, 1978, we discussed this problem at some length and suggested that
such a requirement would create many more problems than it would resolve. We
pointed out that, "Instead of this residue being collected in approximately 200
- 4 -
-------
reconditioners' resource recovery facilities, with 40 years experience in handling
it, suddenly many thousands of inexperienced generator plants would become involved
in the collection, handling and disposition of contaminated wastes and effluent,
posing problems far more dangerous to the environment."
In order to avoid confusion and eliminate the apparent inconsistencies with
the provisions of Section 250.10, we respectfully reconnend that Section 250.44-2(f)
be modified to read as follows:
" Qipty, non-combustible storage containers (e.g. metal and glass
containers), which previously contained hazardous waste shall be
(1) cleaned by removing hazardous waste residual at a permitted
facility and transported to a metal or glass recovery facility
as scrap for resource recovery, or
(2) transported to a drum reconditicmer for reconditioning and
re-use."
Bnpty drums, which formerly contained hazardous materials, whether virgin
or waste, when delivered by a treatment, storage or disposal facility to a recon-
ditioner for reconditioning and reuse, should be excluded from the operations of
the regulations.
jtespectfully submitted,
Ifcrris Hershson, President
NATIONAL BARREL & DRIM
ASSOCIATION
- 5 -
-------
TESTIMONY
IN BEHALF OF
NEW YORK STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
AT
E.P.A. HEARING
ON HAZARDOUS WASTES REGULATIONS
IN THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
FEBRUARY 7, 1979
NEW YORK CITY JV ]
\
-------
^> I am Dr. Nancy Kim, a research scientist with the Toxicology
Center of the Division of Laboratories and Research of the New York State
Health Department. I am and have been for some time personally involved
with sampling and testing of environmental contaminants in New York State,
and it is on the basis of this experience that I take this opportunity to
offer testimony at this hearing.
The State of New York and its Health Department are greatly
concerned with the Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations which the
Environmental Protection Agency is proposing. Most of all, we are deeply
disappointed in EPA's long delay in issuing regulations dealing with the
handling and disposal of hazardous wastes. By ignoring Congress's deadline
for the issuance of these regulations, EPA is not only putting an intolerable
burden on State governments, it is risking the lives and health of people who
are needlessly being exposed to these hazards.
Our concern in New York is neither exaggerated nor academic; it is
as real and as frightening as the fetal defects and uprooted lives of the
families living adjacent to the Love Canal Landfill in Niagara Falls; as
disturbing and complicated as the toxic perils posed by cancer-linked PCBs
deposited in and along the Hudson River for more than 30 years; and as sobering
as the knowledge that many underground water supplies on Long Island are being
penetrated by vinyl chloride and other noxious and life-threatening organic
wastes.
-------
Page 2
A recently released survey estimates that about 1.2 million tons
of hazardous wastes are being disposed of each year in New York State.
Knowing this, how many more Love Canal catastrophes must we experience before
EPA acts responsibly and promulgates the regulations which will allow us to
protect our citizens from these threats to their health and safety?
We in New York recognize that the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 is a demanding and pioneering statute. However, the
Environmental Protection Agency is nearly a year late in meeting the
April, 1978 deadline set by Congress for issuing regulations covering the
management of hazardous wastes. If, as EPA has indicated, it will wait until
1980 before issuing regulations dealing with hazardous waste management and
disposal, it will, in effect, penalize those states, including New York, which
are faced with and dealing with these complex and costly problems now.
And this is not the only deadline EPA has failed to meet. The
Interim Primary and Proposed Secondary Drinking Water Standards of the
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 are referred to several times in the Hazardous
Waste proposals, but to date these standards have not been put forth.
The Safe Drinking Water Act also calls for the publication of
regulations establishing maximum contaminant levels, and directs that these
be issued one hundred days after the National Academy submits its report
entitled "Drinking.Water and Health", to Congress. The NAS report was presented
to Congress on June 20, 1977, and still there are no published drinking water
regulations.
-------
Page 3
Granted, there is an anti-regulatory mood in the nation today,
but regulatory nihilism is no excuse for failing to adopt measures to
protect and preserve the public's health, safety and environment.
We in New York have had to develop our own criteria for
environmental sampling, for toxicologic evaluation, and for epidemiologic
investigation. We have had virtually no assistance in the form of
recommended methods or guidelines from the federal government. Yet, when
we were faced with Love Canal, we acted responsibly and in the public
interest—and we made the kind of hard decisions for which there is no
precedence in the annals of public health.
This is exactly the kind of help we need from the Environmental
Protection Agency under the provisions of the Imminent Hazard section of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We need to know when and how
to determine that human health or environmental safety has been compromised
by an active or inactive waste facility, or by contamination of air, ground
or water. And, by the same token, we need to know when a suspected problem
is not a threat to human health, so we may allay needless public anxiety and
outcry.
What we need is federal help in the form of specific numerical limits
for various chemicals in air, ground and water. For such contamination is a
national problem, and Congress, in passing RCRA, certainly did not intend for
each of the states to maintain its own staff of experts in toxicology in order
-------
Page 4
to establish fifty different sets of numerical standards. This is exactly
the kind of inefficiency EPA will promote if it persists in regulatory
equivocation.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act directs EPA to integrate
its provisions with other human health and environmental standards in the
Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act, among others. As
Congressman John LaFalce of New York has commented, the failure to implement
RCRA makes it our nation's weakest link in the chain of environmental safeguards.
We support Congressman LaFalce's bill calling for a joint federal/state
procedure to identify and reclaim abandoned hazardous waste sites. We urge
the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a comprehensive plan, modeled
on that of New York State, to monitor, catalog, investigate and provide
solutions to in-place toxicants in both active and inactive disposal sites.
We need a national policy, not a fragmented, inconsistent response
by each of the states, and we need it now.
In addition to these general observations, I have several comments
relating to specific details in the proposed regulations.
The 100 kilogram per month limit which exempts hazardous waste generators
from compliance with many portions of this act seems high. This would allow the
disposal of highly hazardous materials in a facility without precisely knowing
where or what. For example, this would allow the disposal of over one and a half
tons of dioxin in a year by one generator. The idea of classifying hazardous
waste by degree with different regulations for the different groups of generators
-------
Page 5
seems much more acceptable. Record keeping should be required by generators
of small quantities of extremely hazardous waste.
The definition of "environmental persistent organics" should include
a half-life. A working definition could relate half-life to interval between
incorporation of waste into the land.
The proposed regulations of the Resource conservation and Recovery
Act would affect most industries, large and small. While quantity of hazardous
waste might be a problem for large industries, smaller companies have very
little choice but to label their waste hazardous. A small company will not
be able to afford or able to carry out the scientific tests needed for
exemption. With EPA turning to regulations in terms of general goals rather
than very specific plans or limits, smaller industries will be hard pressed
to obtain enough help scientifically and legally. Regulating hazardous wastes
by degree may provide greater flexibility for the smaller companies.
In conclusion, may I say that we in New York State understand that
the Environmental Protection Agency is faced with a tremendously complex
problem in trying to devise and implement meaningful and lasting standards for
hazardous waste management. But we states desperately need these decisions
by EPA so we may deal today in a legally-constituted and appropriate manner
with the ever-growing problem of hazardous waste disposal •r~ (T"
-------
STATEMENT BY THE OFFICE OF „„,-
-~-^ ATTORNEY GENE£AIr- -' " *"
ROBERT ABRAM%; 'W PROPOSED
GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
FOR MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE UNDER THE
FEDERAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT
February 7, 1979
My name is Peter N. Skinner, P.E. , Environmental
Engineer in the office of New York Attorney General
Robert Abrams. For the past several years the Bureau of
Environmental Protection, which I serve^has been active in
issues dealing with the management of radioactive and other
solid wastes. We have participated in numerous proceedings
and prosecuted - lawsuits in this regard. We have been
actively involved with the radioactive waste management
problems of West Vallev and Sheffield, Illinois, ao Mal'l /
4
1 is i&fS-'-'- '"aip'criteria for the IMMW^** geologic repository for high
level waste. We have investigated the chemical waste
problems at Love Canal, Bloody Run, Mewc° ., Chemtrol in
New York and Wilsonville in Illinois. We feel that because
, New York State and our office has had Unique and extensive
experience in hazardous waste management problems, we ($
especially qualified to address USEPA today on your
proposed guidelines and regulations for management of
hazardous waste.
-1-
-------
-guidelines and regulations,
when promulgated under the Resource Conservation and
•/ Recovery Act of 1976^ could revolutionize the handling and
disposal of hazardous waste. The present chaotic, often
/ illegal^, and dangerous practices /willj hopefully /give way to
^disposal methods which will protect the health and
of , the public in perpetuity. As the 1976 Act
d, protection of the"purity of the land" should be
/
L xu
'. ;*\
the goal for these regulations. The experience of Hew York
V rwj\X«*/>v tn.
s_i and other states have shown, however, that they.must be
T$
significantly modified if this goal is to be attained.
***'
al is to be atta]
'«*. *-f »*-y-Jftfc-*
_ >* dfjc*&*i6* j&*r**iJr •*<•'
will first discuss what can be learned from
.past and present hazardous waste problems.in New York State^
I will then discuss the inadequacy of the proposed hazardous
waste regulations.
We are most concerned about the short term
surveillance period applicable to landfills and the
inappropriate financing methods proposed for post-closure
care,
^/ I will conclude with a pleasf for federal leadership
^ in clean-up of old landfills and deployment of pilot^B waste
destruction facilities. Because I leave today for South
America, I
f .
'
all the
your 3 day hearings will cover,
-------
Examples of Past Problens
|
At West Vallev, New York, solid radioactive waste ?
>J
was buried fcom'i£9f until 1975. In 197SrV^HBK, accumulating
/ '
/ in the burial trenches^ovefir—topped the sides of the trenches,
/ carrying with it radionucLidcs which h««Mro*4Mi^^9ea&Mttanct3Ml
/ e -fa
V^ Review of the operations at this site indicated that clay
covers of these trenches were cracked and conducted almost
all the rain which fell on them inside the trenches. The
proposed hazardous waste regulations will not prevent that
condition from recurring at hazardous waste sites constructed
*? under these proposed standards.
\.A
Jr \
On Lonq Island, many residents who employ cesspools
to dispose of household sewerage have resorted to chemical
additives to clear area segp logged soil around the cesspool.
These additives are often formulated with synthetic organic
solvents like trichloroe thane, dichlorobenzene and methylene
chloride. Research carried out by Nassau and Suffolk Counties
and by our office has confirmed that these chemicals are very
mobile, not biodegradable, and have contaminated large portions
of Long Island's aquifers, in some areas to depths exceeding
400 ft. Although our office has brought suit against one
such company on Long Island, the practice of disposing of such
chemicals irftthe soil goes on elsewhere.
he
-------
Chemical wastes received by disposal facilities are
often made up of these synthetic organic solvents and are often
buried in landfills, in spite of prohibitions against disposal
of liquids. Recent research has indicated that these solvents
^ _
mobilize normally immeWleTCB1 s.and quicklydestrSrsisgalon
lines for landfills. The "proposed regulations BBS* be made more
stringent to r£»el»*r the burial of such cheraicals^fcj If" /
-ff
Old landfills like Love Canal have taught us a
bitter lesson. They can injure people and destroy groundwater
resources decades after closure. Although burial at Love
Canal ceased in 1953, the insidious migration of chemicals
was not detected until a full 26 years later. Similar
experiences nationwide are depicted in a recent USEPA document
EPA/530/SW-634, where retfklw indicated that some 82% of the
chemical burial pits studied revealed subsurface migration
of pollutants. Yet in the face of this overwhelming evidence,
the prpposed regulations call for post-closure care for a
maximum of only 20 years.
,
These hazardous wastes will never Degrade in these «/
pits and remain a hazard to the public and its groundwater
resources indefinitely. Therefore they must have perpetual
care, surveillance and access control. To do less would be
||»*l M»<0f ««
tantamount to irresponsible actions by experts who Mie.aware
of TolDCitjLoD nf •+*•« /efJi v*. f -^ifl
-4-
-------
Present.landfill ^••«i4s4B» havejnot been without
" r
problems. Review of operations at Chemtrol, Wilsonville,
'and JBthnrs has revealed the following difficulties:
1. Hazardous waste sites once thought to be
appropriate, upon closer scrutiny, become totally inadequate.
2. Burial inventories are rare and when they exist,
inaccurate.
3. Liquids are buried as & matter of course.
4. Waste materialV qualifies are not well known
for many
5. Perpetual care provisions are inadequate or
non-exist/nt.
6. Incompatible wastes/ara of tei{ buried together.
L-*-""^ it \,'~fh
7. Internal leachate production/and disposal oMbc
•*mr- ^,~.Lf., J-L "
8. Site maintenance at closed landfills K
be carried^ on a regular basis; Lhuya'iu. uuL trouble li^*. apii?
9. Public opposition to landfills poisons the
general attitudes about waste management and resource recovery
facilities.
10. Shipments of chemical waste are often in
inconvenient containers for diupuJuil.such as 55 aallon duums.
v** cU*£uft**''r«*M^»«. ~ *•
11. Most chemical waste is not recovered or destroyed,
but merely dumped in landfills.
-------
Conclusions
,
«***(*.
'landfill disposal of chemicals is the least attractive
method of.chemical waste disposal. We believe USEPA
-fqiriMBMto-treat this method of disposal with
y= it ' - - •
care in these regulations
management criteria to guide their efforts JWJuy those
developed to guide radioactive waste management decisions.
USEPA regulations on radioactive waste presently being
considered must be consistent with philosophical precepts
proposed and published recently,in the Federal Register.
1
These precepts include
be disposed of in such a way as to necessitate surveillance
and monitoring after 100 years*, "the site's containment
medium should improve with agej Ifisk assessments should
govern decisionmakingj ^etr^|vability is a beneficial
characteristic of waste management schemes. (P.R. Vol. 43,
53262-53268).
These arefeurely sensible and realistic concepts to
buide decision-making for hazardous waste management, but
n
they are never even mentioned. Why Xot? These wastes are
at least as toxic, at least as loner—lived, and at least as
mobile as radioactive waste. The lack of these criteria
for hazardous wastes have rendered the proposed regulations
-6-
-------
inadequate to deal with the long-terra hazards of this type
of waste.
Lack of R S D and Deployment of Facilities to Destroy Waste
If no, alternatives wriiBfc' to landf illinq of chemical v?"
t*»- jtfi:- f*
wastes, then this least attractive alternative^oecomes the i«*
* V
-------
We therefore implore USEPA to look carefully at their
own reports and our experience in New York to see the abysmal
record to date in the United States with chemical landfills.
On the basis of. this review we believe the federal government
•rf fi^if '** Coot'*/.. - '"*
f -4RV respond with innovative programs and with the elimination of
U(. '*w ftvivv- ft,, i 'd. 11*****/
landfills for hazardous waste, vwhile such practices are
still needed, perpetual care coverabe must be provided. We
•Stwill be filing our detailed comments on these regulations
jl/6/WSTS
LJL (^..^^Defore the March 16, 1979 deadline. Thank you.
X
-------
Statement of Francis J. Batchelder, P.E.
on behalf of
The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Public Hearing on Proposed Regulations to
Implement Section 3001 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 7, 1979
New York City
-- s My name is Frank Batchelder. I am a Senior Engineer
in the Engineering Division of the American Electric Power
Service Corporation.
I am appearing today on behalf of the Utility Solid
Waste Activities Group, of which AEP is a member, to comment
generally on the approach proposed by EPA to define hazardous
wastes under Section 3001 of RCRA. It is our position, first,
that there is no basis for categorizing, as "hazardous" under
RCRA, the bulk of utility wastes that are uniquely handled.
Second, we believe that the methodology proposed to determine
whether nonlisted wastes are hazardous is unsound and unre-
liable,
Let me give you some oackground on USWAG and on the
importance of coal to the generation of electric power. USWAG
is an informal consortium of electric utilities and tne Edison
Electric Institute. Currently, there are some 45 utility mem-
bers 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 inves-
tor-owned electric light and power companies. USWAG and its
predecessor EEI solid waste task force were formed because of
the significant impact which RCRA will have on utility opera-
tions, and the desire of its members to assist in the implemen-
tation of RCRA in a reasonable and prudent manner.
Coal is the principal fuel used for electricity
generation in the United States today. An upsurge in orders
for new coal-fired capacity indicates that it may hold that
position for the remainder of the century. Indeed, the Pres-
ident's energy policy ranks coal as the primary source of
fuel for electric generation.
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
substantially and directly affect the operations and economics
of the electric utility industry. We foresee that vast amounts
of additional investment will be required in order to comply
with RCRA. That requirement will be particularly acute if
utility wastes are deemed to be hazardous under Section 3001
of the Act.
It is because of our grave concern that the regula-
tions proposed to implement Section 3001 may result in unneces-
sary and uneconomic regulation of utility wastes that I submit
-------
- 3 -
this statement. We recognize, and I should add wholly endorse,
the Agency's intention to place high volume utility wastes in
a "special waste" category pending the completion of a sepa-
!/
rate rulemaking to commence at a later date. However, the
qualification for the special waste category is based on a
determination that the waste is hazardous under Section 250.13.
Also, the definition of high volume utility wastes — sludge
and ash — in the special waste category may be too narrow.
For these and other reasons, then, USWAG is taking this oppor-
tunity to comment on the proposed regulations to implement
Section 3001 of RCRA.
The regulations proposed to define a hazardous waste
I/
are found in Sections 250.10 through 250.15. Particular
wastes and waste streams listed in Section 250.14 are automati-
cally considered hazardous and are not subject to the testing
3/
procedures spelled out in Section 250.13. All other wastes,
including utility wastes, would be evaluated under the criteria
and characteristics spelled out in Sections 250.12(aj and
i/
250.13. Those wastes exhibiting one or more of the four char-
acteristics set forth — ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity
I/ See proposed § 250.46-2(a), 43 Fed. Reg. 59015 (Dec. 18,
1978) and preamble thereto, ix3. at 58991-92.
2/ Id. at 58954-68.
3/ Id. at 58957.
4/ Id. at 58955.
-------
- 4 -
or toxicity — would be deemed hazardous. A method is estab-
lished to test for each characteristic.
Before addressing the testing procedures, however,
I would like to note that utility wastes have historically
been managed in a responsible manner without posing a threat
to the public's health or to the environment. Prom this his-
tory, USWAG believes that there is no basis for considering
large volume and uniquely-handled utility wastes as "hazardous"
under RCRA. In addition, USWAG believes that the methods pro-
posed by EPA for determining hazardousness, as applied to the
electric utility industry,' are unnecessarily sweeping and coun-
ter-productive to the achievement of our important national
goals of controlling inflation and becoming energy independent.
By this statement, I do not mean at all to minimize the goals
of RCRA "to promote the protection of health and the environ-
V
ment * * *." What I am saying is that EPA's approach of re-
quiring specific generic testing of nonlisted wastes, while
ignoring actual disposal practices, environmental pathways
and other actual parameters — that is, creating an imaginary
disposal environment, leachate medium and environmental path-
way, and then further assuming a "worst case analysis" — is
inconsistent with the statute and common sense. This is most
5/ RCRA § 1003, 42 U.S.C. § 6902.
-------
- 5 -
critical in regard to the proposed toxicity protocol, specif-
ically the proposed Extraction Procedure (EP).
I/
The EP proposed in Section 250.13(d) is premised
on a single disposal environment. I am aware that several mem-
bers of the scientific community have been highly critical of
this approach. For example, G. Fred Lee, a professor of envi-
ronmental chemistry now at Colorado State University (Fort Col-
lins) and a member of the American Society for Testing Materials
y
(ASTM), has strongly challenged the EP. In addition to criti-
cizing the validity of many specific features of the test, he
states categorically that "[t]here is absolutely no way the
EPA, ASTM, or other groups can develop a single leaching test
such as that proposed" to assess which solid wastes represent
a hazard in the environment. In addition, Professor Lee points
out that the proposal for a single test "could readily cause
the expenditure of millions of US dollars in the name of pol-
lution control with little or no improvement in environmental
quality." Moreover, he feels that "in some instances, the
arbitrarily developed test could, because of alternative met-
hods of disposal, create more environmental harm than if no
43 Fed. Reg. 58956-57.
Letter of Prof. G. Fred Lee to Mr. John P. Lehman, Director
of EPA Hazardous Waste Management Division, dated June 12,
1978. (Exhibit A hereto.)
-------
- 6 -
test had been used and the solid waste had simply been dumped
out on the ground."
Overall, Professor Lee concludes that a case-by-
case approach is essential.
A second harsh critique has been made by the Plan-
ning Task Group of ASTM Subcommittee D-19.12 on Pollution Po-
!/
tential of the Leaching From Solid Wastes. In a recent let-
ter to the Administrator, the Task Group strongly contends
that no single toxicity test procedure can be scientifically
representative, that requisite data and technological support
for the EP are lacking, and that the EP is scientifically
arbitrary and invalid. The Group additionally points out
that EPA's original contractor had concluded that a single
test procedure was unsound and that needless over-classifica-
tion of wastes as hazardous would result in wasteful expense.
For the record, I have attached copies of both Profes-
sor Lee's and the Task Group's letter to my written statement.
USWAG endorses the concerns expressed by Professor
Lee and by the ASTM Task Group. We are undertaking our own
technical assessment of the procedure; and we hope to include
the results of that analysis in USWAG's formal written comments
to be submitted by March 16.
8/ Letter of Planning Task Group of ASTM Subcommittee D-19.12
on Pollution Potential of the Leaching Prom Solid Wastes to
Mr. Douglas Costle, Administrator of EPA, dated December 2,
1978. (Exhibit B hereto.)
-------
- 7 -
As a preliminary matter, we believe that the EP
has several significant shortcomings. It appears that the
mechanical procedure specified in the EP is unsound because
neither the accuracy nor the precision of the testing has
been demonstrated. We therefore question the validity of
EPA's conclusion, as described in the preamble to the 3001
regulations, that "a reliable identification or test method
I/
for the presence of the characteristic is available."
We also question the applicability and scientific
integrity of a testing procedure which ignores considerations
of actual attenuation, dilution, geological variations, hy-
drologic variations and climatology.
Further, we question whether the application made
here of the Interim Primary Drinking Water standards is appro-
priate. If applicable, a further question arises with regard
to what distances should be considered between the edge of
the waste disposal area and the monitoring well. We believe
that the adoption of variable receptor distances determined
on the basis of actual risk to human health and the environ-
ment would achieve the goals desired by RCRA, without arbi-
trarily imposing unnecessarily stringent requirements.
9/ 43 Fed. Reg. 58950. See also § 250.12(a)(2), ^d. at 58955.
-------
- 8 -
Finally, even if the toxicity protocol is an appro-
priate methodology for some purposes, we question whether it
reflects the chemical and physical processes actually experi-
enced by utility wastes and utility waste management practices.
While the proposed toxicity test is of paramount con-
cern to USWAG, we also have serious doubts regarding the appro-
priateness of the other proposed tests. These and other con-
cerns will be addressed in USWAG's formal written comments.
The electric utility industry is not unaccustomed to
regulation, but it is deeply concerned where that regulation
appears to be largely unnecessary and excessively inflation-
ary. We do not believe that the great bulk of utility wastes
poses a hazard to society. Indeed, some of them are being
reused in increasing amounts for such things as fill material
in highway road beds, land reclamation, concrete and cement
products, and the like. Unless the procedures proposed for
testing nonlisted wastes are amended to reflect a realistic
and scientifically sound approach, the possibility exists that
there will be a number of significant impacts on utilities
and their customers from RCRA's requirements for the treatment,
transportation, storage and disposal of wastes deemed to be
hazardous:
- - Siting of. disposal facilities, difficult even
now in today's environmental climate, will become difficult
in the extreme, if not impossible.
-------
- 9 -
— There will be an attendant reduction of coal-
fired generation as an energy option due to public reaction
against any waste identified as hazardous.
— The high cost of disposal will result in sig-
nificant increases in utility rates, which costs will be
borne by the customer.
— Finally, the utilization potential of ash will be
decreased or eliminated, resulting in an immediate increase of
millions of tons annually in the quantity of ash going to dis-
posal facilities.
Unfortunately, this last impact will lay to final
rest the heretofore neglected goals of RCRA to recover and
conserve resources.
In sum, for the reasons expressed above, USWAG be-
lieves that the objectives of RCRA will not be met by the
regulations proposed to implement Section 3001.
Thank you. ^—
-------
EXHIBIT A
UT|D|
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS
Environmental Chemistry
June 12, 1978
rfi
JUN 19 1978
P. Lehman, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
Office of Solid Waste
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20H60
Dear Mr. Lehman:
Some time ago I received a prepublication draft of the Part
250-Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations, sub part A,
Criteria Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes.
I have reviewed this draft and have a number of comments
on significant problems that will occur if your proposed
draft is adopted. These comments relate to the section of
this draft concerned with the toxicant extraction procedure.
As you know', ASTM D-19.12, some members of governmental agen-
cies, and others have been very concerned about this proce-
dure. Upon reviewing the EPA procedure I can see why ASTM
D-19.12 members are concerned and why they are trying to rush.
through what is clearly, based on my experience in extraction
procedures for contaminants from solids, an equally bad
procedure. It is very clear to me, after having worked for
almost 20 years on the factors affecting the release of con-
taminants from solids, that the EPA is about to add another
procedure to the list of procedures which tend to cause this
agency to have limited credibility within industry, state
and local governments, and with other international govern-
ments. Unfortunately, when I reviewed the ASTM D-19.12,ex-
traction procedure which was supposedly developed to prevent
the EPA from developing their procedure, I found that it
is no more valid than the EPA procedure.
Having just spent five years and close to a million dollars
in CE funds developing an elutriate test for dredged sediments,
I feel it is appropriate to point out that your staff has
used an approach which is arbitrary and what I am sure will
prove to be inappropriate.
The basic issue at stake is that of trying to discern which
solid wastes represent a hazard in the environment. There
is absolutely no way the EPA,,ASTM, or other groups can develop
a single leaching test such as that proposed which can make
-------
John P. Lehman
Page 2
June 12, 1978
this type of assessment. The approach that must be used
is a case-by-case approach to the particular situation
of concern. Trying to fix all the conditions on a single
test as has been done in the proposed EPA test will cer-
tainly cause the EPA to spend large amounts of time and
funds in the court room and could readily cause the expendi-
ture of millions of US dollars in the name of pollution con-
trol with little or no improvement in environmental quality.
Further, in some instances, the arbitrarily developed
test could, because of alternative methods of disposal,
create more environmental harm than if no test had been
used and the solid waste had simply been' dumped out on the
ground.
The basic approach that should be followed in developing a
leaching test to predict the release of contaminants from
solid wastes which could be adverse to the environment is
to first examine the factors that could influence the re-
sults of such*a test. Your staff seems to be hung up on
pH and have decided that the whole world consists of an
environment of a pK of 5. As one person has put it, your
acetic acid leach solution.is an attempt by. your staff to
pretend that all solid wastes are put into municipal garbage.
dumps aud that your leach solution is supposed to represent
garbage juice. This, of course, is foolishness. There are
many solid wastes (in fact, most) which never enter municipal
landfills and never come in contact with garbage juice. There
is absolutely no justification for leaching these solids with
an acetic acid solution. In fact, there are very good funda-
mental chemical reasons why leaching with acetic acid should
not be done. Acetic acid is not normally present in large
amounts in the environment. -It has some complexing tenden-
cies which will clearly tend to cause solubilization of some
materials in solid wastes which' would not solubilize under
real world conditions. The EPA should immediately abandon
the garbage juice approach except for conditions where it
is certain the materials are going to be placed in municipal
landfills and even then I question whether the acetic acid
solution that has been developed is an appropriate leaching
solution even within landfills.
The second problem with the acetic acid-garbage juice approach
is that if you are dealing with a solid waste which has any
buffer capacity, outside of the pH S or so region, massive
amounts of acetic acid could be added to the system in order
to get your leachate solution into the specified pH range.
-------
John P. Lehman
Page 3
June 12, 1978
This would never be realistic in the real world. A waste
with high buffer capacity I ( i. e., 8 or 9) would tend to
cause the garbage juice tip adjust to that pH rather than
the reverse.
Another problem with the proposed approach for the leachate
test is that of the liquid-solid ratio. Can your staff ex-
plain why they chose the liquid-solid ratio that they did?
What technical justification is there for this approach?
It is certainly not representative of what occurs in the
real world. Does your staff know that minor changes in
liquid-solid 'ratio such as normal weighing errors in making
measurements of the solids used might have a significant
impact on the results. Any type of test for extractable con-
taminants must be set up so that the operational parameters
of the test are relatively insensitive to minor alterations
in the conductance of the test. Until your staff has evaluated,
for -a wide variety of solids, how the liquid-solid ratio af-
fects the release of contaminants, they are not in a position
to even begin to promulgate a meaningful test.
By- far, the worst offense made by the EPA staff in developing
this test is-their complete ignorance of the importance of
redox conditions on the behavior of contaminants associated
with solid wastes.' Several years ago, another group within
the EPA and the Corps of Engineers developed a leachate test
for dredged sediment in which they, too, ignored the importance
of oxidation reduction on the release of contaminants from
solids. As a result, hundreds of thousands of dollars in
publi?; funds have been wasted on the test and millions of
dollars in public funds have been wasted as a result of in-
correct decisions being made about the significance of con-
taminants present in dredged sediments under various alter-
native disposal practices. In some cases, it is fairly clear
now that some of the laternative methods of disposal of
dredged sediment, which were results of failing to recognize
the importance of test conditions on influencing the results,
have been more harmful to the environment than much cheaper
procedures used before the test was developed.
It is extremely important that any test of this type be con-
ducted under the redox conditions that will prevail in the
disposal operation. These may be oxic or anoxic. The test
should not fluctuate between the two in a random manner.
Before_any of the extraction solutions are tested for poten-
tial biological or chemical effects (i.e., comparison to water
-------
John P. Lehman
Page 4
June 12, 1978
quality.criteria or standards), the system must be exposed to
oxygen for a sufficient period of time to oxidize the ferrous
iron present in the system to ferric and then be allowed to
settle so that the contaminants which have been scavenged by
the ferric hydroxide are removed from the system. This
should not be done in the presence of large amounts of
acetic acid or acetate since this can easily affect the be-
havior of ferric hydroxide as a scavenger unless, of course,
the waste itself contains a large amount of these materials.
Another significant problem with tne proposed leachate test
is contact tine. Why was the time selected? What justifica-
tion is there ,that these times are critical times that could
be important in the environment? How does this test behave
with respect to various types of solids as a function of con-
tact time? These are the kinds of questions that should have
been asked before the test was promulgated.
Anotner problem 1 have is the arbitrary factor of 10 dilution
that is used and then the comparison to water quality criteria
of the US EPA. The water quality criteria such as those of
the EPA of July 1976 have limited applicability to leachates.
They are not generally applicable to a wide range of condi-
tions that will likely be encountered in the environment.
If the EPA staff who evolved this test feel that there is
justification for the various conditions specified, they should
bring these forward so that those who were asked to comment
on them can examine the justifications for their technical
validity. If the conditions as specified are truly arbitrary
(which everyone I have talked to believes is the case) then
this should be stated and efforts should be made to determine
the influence of the arbitrary conditions on the results of
the test. If the EPA fails to do this type of evaluation,
then it will find itself in a lawsuit some day against a firm
with sufficient funds to do the work necessary to show that
the conditions of the test are not applicable to their par-
ticular waste. The least that should be done is to allow a
municipality, industry, or others, to choose conditions which
they can readily defend for their particular situations.
I hope that these comments will be carefully considered and
that steps will be taken to do the work necessary to properly
-------
John P. Lehman
Page 5
June 12, 1978
develop a test. It has not been done thus far. The EPA
will be making a very serious error if it proceeds with
further development of this approach.
Sincerely yours,
G. Fred Lee
Professor ^
GFL/mj
-------
EXHIBIT B
ASTM 1916 Flace St . Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 299 5400
/__- December 2, 1978
Mr. Douglas Costle, Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
•101 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
SUBJECT: Criteria, Identification, and Listing of Hazardous Waste
Dear Mr. Costle:
H'e are advised that the environmental Protection Acjency plans to
publish in the Federal Register a proposed regulation covering this
subject. It is also our understanding that in the proposal there
will be reference to an EPA—developed proceedure to be used as a
screening test for classification of waste materials.
In this respect, we would like to call to your attention a standards
development program now in progress within ASTM Committee D-19 on
Water, under the sponsorship of Subcommittee D-19.12 on Pollution
Potential of the Leaching From Solid Wastes. This group has prepared
a technical position paper on this matter which we are forward}ng to
you for consideration. I advise you that this represents tho vinwp
of the Planning Group of D-19.12, and does not reflect an ASTM posi-
tion in respect to the proposed regulation.
Sincerely,
II. J. Stremba ,
Deputy Managing Director £—
HJS/rb
Enclosures: D-19.12 Position Paper
Proposed Method For Leachiny Of Waste Materials
s lor M1I"M.1IS P'Orltldt Sv'1""" f. SofV'-.es
-------
COMMITTEE D-
ON WATER
« <1378
. _ aClt
I.T.I F.AN. VA.
ASTM. 1916 Race Si . Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 299-5400
o. 150*6, M S *07
Orn-c.. Colo SOJJ5 (303 J34 3
•9 BDOO)
Slo* Manogf t « 5ULUVAN (31J 799 S5H)
December 1, 1978
Mr. Douglas Cos tie, Adminis trn tor
U- S- Environmental Protection Agency
601 H Street , S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Cos tie:
The Planning Task Group of ASTM Subcommittee U19.12 on Pollution Potential
of the Leaching From Solid Wastes, strongly objects to the unscientific approach
that the EPA has been foilowing tn the development of a procedure to be used as
a screening test for classification of uaste materials under Section 3001 of
P.L. 94-580,
Subcommi ttee D19.12's principal concern is the clevclopment of consensus
standard test methods to evaluate the leaching characteristics of solid waste
materials.' Because of the in tense interest in this technical area, due pri-
marily to growing environmcnta1 concern and to the HPA's need to implement the
Re source s Conservation and Recovery Act (1* 1, 9^-580) ihc Subcommi 11 ec has
gro\Jn rapidly to its present stature of 299 mcmbc r s and is now one of the
Inrgest single subcommi ttcc$ in all of A SIM" C-ire IIDS he en cycrciccd to follow
ASTM's strict rules of due process, wh ich includes mainiaininp, intcTtsLs on
the subc^mmi ttcc. Many industries are represented, ,ns nrc State ond federal
onvironmcntaI agencies, testing laboratories and univcr ^it i rs . The CPA hns
2h members on Committee D-19, and many other federal agencies avc also active.
Years of experience have been encompassed by the Subcommit tee through
the knowledge of the many experts thnt have become members of the group. No
other highIy qualified forum for technical exchange of this typo on leaching
from solid wastes is known to exist.
Proposed me thods for determining the leachinp, potrn tial of solid unites
were developed by Subcommi 11 cc D19.12. After testing by a number of laboratories
using the me t hod on a wide variety of va <; t c m.i tcrials (c^tcnsix'e data vicre
made available at the subcommittee meetings in January 1978), tho methods were
-------
balloted and published in May I97R a*- Hu- "prnpnM-d IT Hinds for Leaching ol
Was tc Mo tcr i als". The Suhcommi tier i ^ pi < • cut I y c out. I ml j up, n round roll in
piogram in which 2 A I a bora t ori cs a IT p *(J t t pa Iing in ova 1 u.t 11 nj* the pr^c i *• i on
of the ASTM methods.
Tlie care fu I , technically compclent mnnnc r in wh f cb ihc ASTM procedure
has been developed stands in contradistinction to the EPA1 s activity in this
area .
Initially, the EPA entered into a cent ract with Professor Hamm and others,
at the University of Wisconsin, specifically to develop such a classification
procedure. One of Prof. Hamm's conclusions, based on draft reports obtained
by ASTM members, recognized that two types of disposal miip t be considered.
He indiacted that, since all wastes will obviously not go into muni c i pa 1 1 and -
fills, a single test approach based on disposal of industrial wastes in
municipal landfills is not suitable for classifying wastes.
EPA's predelcction to municipal landfills, including co-diFpocal of i n -
dustnal wastes, resulted in the rejection ol Prof . tin mm's conclusion and the
proposal by EPA that all wastes be lasted in a synIhctic acid environment,
using what EPA repiesentatives tcimcd "synthetic garbage ]uicc" as the ex-
traction fluid. This was EPA's first procedure. It was discussed in public
meetings in June, 1976 in Chicago. At the mecttngs, EPA indicated that
limited testing of the procedure had been completed and data would be avail-
able shortly (these data have never been published).
Many problems exist with the EPA approach. Kor example, the use of a
synthetic acjrl envi rcmmcn i pnscd significant, testing problems as «=oc 10 i cd with
preserving the extraction fluid, with analysing t lie c omplex solutions that
result, and with testing the extract for toxicily. ASIfI P> 19-12 members told
ETA imrned lately that this extract was not technically suitable foi i lie type
of toxicity tests which EPA contemplated. prof. Hamm also indicated thai
the p of the leaching solution should be control led by the nature or make-
up of the waste, rather than be artificially con 11ol1ed at some pre-determined
1evel of p" by the use of synthetic acids.
When common ts on the draft procedure wen.* supplied, C 1'A' « res pons e was
limited in technical content and generally reflected a closed-door attitude.
When EPA ran toxicity tests, after first issuing the draft procedure, they
discovered that ASTM was correct, and thuc liepan whaI ha s become a circuitous
path of editorial revisions In each cnce, rcvicionc have been made to the
draft procedure with little or no datalogical support.
In early 1978, EPA representatives mcl, win 1c aitending the ASTM meet ing,
with rcpres en I a l ivcs [ rom the Illinois Hf'A , rt su ! t inp. in n new dra f t proccdu cc
that was 1 i I era 1 1 y a "cvi t and paste" ver ^ i on of I lie ] 1 ] i not «• procedure1 used
for meta 1 finishing wastes. The EPA ada pled the I 11inoiF pioccdurc to its
own r equ i roment •= and changed the leaching liquor f rom n h yd rnch I or t c to an
acetic acid solution. The procedure was included in draft regulations piior
to any laboratory testing.
The current EPA procedure incorporates further modifications. The novel
apparatus is utilized (rather than cxicting, standard apparatus), and \>c
understand thnt the new equ i pmcn t is not even available f rom the sole manu-
facturer listed by EPA. As before, the new draft was released be fore these
changes had been tested on any waste materials!
-------
The scientific nppruncli in irM nt.'ihnil development rr<|Uiu-<; lli.i( ler.L-
bo developed i n i I i n 11 v i
-------
Jn recognition thnt I In- tt«;e of .in\ 5 1 n}\ ' (' test pun cthirc br i ngs nbonl
rlnny difficulties in the cl nss i T i cnt in- of I.M<; lc mn lei i nls , Si i be own i lice
D19.12 currently includes n ln.sk p,ri'U|. .-hull ns been Frt tip lo integrate the
con side rat ions re la tod to hoi h tlie cxl i nc I i on procethirc nnd tht? h) ol ofjicnl
activity testing. This function is sifinilicnnt in view of the complex Intcr-
relot ionsliips tha t ex is t , and bcc.iusc EPA lins iiul i en tfil tlio r intent to i nc litdc
advance notice of proposed rulemnking for the bioJogicnl nctivity testing in
the Federal Register shortly . Scientists on the D19.I2 insk group have already
noted the severe testing problem;; that arc associated with the use of acid
extraction fluids , again suggesting that a water extraction procedure offers
the most promise.
Sincere ly ,
*'
I',. Chnr 1 es M.il ] oy , C hnirmnn
ASTM Subcommittee 1)19.12
William C. Webstert Secretary
ASTM Subcommittee D19.12
cc : Thomns Jor ling
-------
TESTIMONY OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT F. FLACKE AT
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE
REGULATIONS
FEBRUARY 7, 1979
**y name is Robert F. Flacke, Commissioner of New York State's
Department of Environmental Conservation. I appreciate this
opportunity to present New York State's position in regard to the
regulations to be discussed over the next three days.
New York State has many thousands of industries which generate
hazardous waste materials. We estimated that collectively they
generate in excess of 1.2 million tons per year. Most significant
are the chemical industries concentrated in the western part of
New York State, which generate large quantities of the more
hazardous types of waste materials.
A major problem with which we are now confronted in that part
of the State, and to a lesser extent in other parts of New York, is
the need to identify, evaluate, and remedy inactive and abandoned
chemical waste disposal sites. The classic examples are the Love
Canal and Hyde Park disposal areas in the City of Niagara Falls.
We have identified over 400 sites around the State which we
believe have received industrial waste at some time in the past.
Of these, approximately 60 are areas of major concern.
This experience clearly Indicates two major areas of concern
with respect to the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(or RCRA) and the regulations to be promulgated thereunder. First,
RCRA does not adequately address the disposal sites which are now
inactive or abandoned. Remedial actions for these disposal sites
are extremely complex and costly and it is often not possible to
clearly identify those responsible for making corrections. /^le_condly,
-------
Page 2 of 4
regulations developed must be sufficient to insure that additional
Love Canals cannot be created elsewhere and to Insure that
current, well operated landfills do not become significant ground-
water polluters because of the disposal of hazardous waste materials.
This leads me to one of our major concerns in the proposed
regulations: the exemption for "generators" who produce less
than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste. From our knowledge
of hazardous waste streams generated in New York State it is clear
there are a number of small waste streams which must be controlled.
Most specifically, these waste streams are those containing highly
toxic organic compounds. To allow some of these waste materials
at a rate of up to 100 kilograms per month to be deposited in
landfills for municipal solid waste can result in severe groundwater
pollution problems. We recognize that classifying waste materials
according to the degree of hazard is extremely difficult but we
feel it is a necessary part of procedures for exempting small
"generators".
Another maj or area of concern is the fact that a number of
waste materials generated in New York State which we consider to be
hazardous would not be included in the system as proposed. For
example> solvents destined to go to reclaiming operations should be
Included in the system. Also, many waste materials containing heavy
metals or other items not found in the National Interim Priirary
Drinking"Water Standards must also be considered to be hazardous.
We will be providing more specifc information concerning those
waste materials which we believe need to be included in the
definition of hazardous wastes.
I would like to point out that New York State has a new
Industrial hazardous waste management Act which provides the
-------
Page 3 of 4
additional authority for New York State to develop a hazardous
waste management program in full compliance with EPA authorization
requirements. Portions-of this legislation cannot be implemented
until EPA has published the hazardous waste regulations under
Subtitle C. We are concerned that the EPA hazardous waste regu-
latory program, as originally envisioned, has been softened in many
respects and therefore will not be as effective as we originally
had anticipated. An example of this is the manifest system, as
proposed in section 3002, which we believe is at the heart of the
regulatory program. As currently proposed, this system will be of
questionable value. For example, the suggested form should become
an absolute requirement nationwide so that there will be a sense of
,^-ffi^
uniformity and so that enforcement can'be simplified. A manifest
document should be carried with each shipment. The option of using
a "bill of lading" or other substituted document should be removed
from the regulations. We will be submitting more specific comments
on the manifest system and other provisions of section 3002.
With regard to section 3004, requirements for storage, treatment
and disposal facilities, we believe that a reasonable time schedule
should be provided whereby land disposal of persistent organic com-
pounds will be phased out and incineration or some type of detoxifica-
tion phased in. The precedent for this rationale was established in
EPA'a regulations issued under the federal Toxic Substances Control
Act for controlling the disposal of PCB wastes. Though the timing may
not have been realistic for those regulations, we fully agree with
the intent.
These are but a few of the many concerns which we have for these
proposed regulations. My staff will be making more specific comments
-------
Page 4 of A
during the next three days, and, in addition, detailed comments
will be submitted prior to March 16.
I look forward to the day when EPA's regulations are
promulgated so that we can promulgate our complement ing regulations
and thus develop the necessary bilateral partnership needed for
administering an effective hazardous waste management program in
New York State..
WA/kaf
2/6/79
-------
Testimony Presented at Public Hearings
on Proposed Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations
to be Promulgated under Section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
United Engineering Center
345 East 47th Street
New York, New York
February 7, 1979
by
Norman II. Nosenchuck, P.E.
Director
Division of Solid I.'aste Management
New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
Albany, New York
My name is Norman H. Nosenchuck, Director of the Division of Solid
Waste Management of Che Hew York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
I would like to take this opportunity to make a tew comments on the United
States Environmental Protection Agency hazardous waste regulations proposed
pursuant to Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
Page 1 of 4 Pages
-------
February 7, 1979
We are seriously concerned that by exempting wastes destined for reclaimers,
reuse, or other use, the Environmental Protection Agency Is creating a significant
gap in the regulations and is making other sections of the regulations much
bore difficult to enforce.
For example, solvents destined for solvent reclaiming facilities should be
Included under the definition of hazardous waste as per Section 3001, and solvent
reclaiming facilities should be subject to some Section 3004 controls. While we
agree with the intent of the proposed regulations to foster the reclamation of
these materials, we feel that this omission creates a serious gap In the hazardous
waste management system. From an enforcement standpoint, it would be Impossible,
while inspecting a generator or transporter of used solvents, to readily deter-
mine if they are destined for a solvent reclaimer, and thus exempt from the
regulations, or destined for a regulated treatment, storage, or disposal facility
and subject to the full spectrum of regulations. Solvent reclaimers often
have an economic incentive to receive wastes which they cannot presently reclaim
for technical reasons or for which they have no market. They may also receive
wastes in higher volumes than they can process. The result often is a large
storage yard of badly corroding drums containing highly toxic or flammable
wastes.
Other types of waste streams for which similar arguments can be made include
waste oils, spent catalysts, sludges containing recoverable heavy metals, and
used acids.
It should be made clear under Section 250.10 that burnable organic wastes
which have been blended and sold as fuel are, in fact, hazardous waste and
therefore subject to cradle to grave regulations and are required to go to
facilities permitted under Section 3004 regulations. In New York State, many
hundreds of different organic compounds are presently being blended into tens
of millions of gallons of fuels.
-------
I'chriiiiry /, 1979
These fuels fire bolnp, burned in facilities Inchjdlnp, larp.e Industrial hollers,
apartment houses, light weight agregate plants, and cement kilns.
Another major area of concern Is the characteristics being used to
identify wastes as being hazardous.
We recommend that Water Quality Criteria of the Clean Water Act be used
in addition to the Primary Drinking Water Standards as a basis for evaluating
levels of contaminants in the Extraction Procedure extract. The data on
Primary Drinking Water Standards alone would allow too many toxic wastes to
escape the system. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act clearly states
its intent to protect human health and the environment. Many methods of
improper disposal can result in direct contamination of surfa.ce waters. Also,
groundwaters often become surface waters.
The Section 3001 regulations are written to protect human health. Greater
emphasis must be placed on wastes which could cause fish or wildlife mortality
or morbidity. The toxicity characteristic only addresses toxicity to humans
as determined from experiments with rats or mice. While this may adequately
protect humans who drink water contaminated by hazardous wastes, it does not
adequately protect "the environment", particularly desirable species of fish
and wildlife. Fish and wildlife are often more sensitive to toxins than are
rats, mice or man.
The extraction procedure provides an inadequate model for an improperly
managed waste. By reducing the problem of heavy metal mobilization primarily
to a question of pll, the possibility of forming soluble complexes is ignored.
Such complexes may be formed by anions or organic complexing agents present
in the waste or from organic molecules formed by mlcrobial action or by
chemical decomposition of the waste during management.
Pape 3 of 4 Pages
-------
Ii'l.iiiiuv /, 19/9
We a|f.i ec. wJLli the Environmental I'rotcctlon Agency approach of emphasizing
hazardous waste strenma rather than specific hazardous substances. However,
we believe that the two hazardous waste lists proposed under Section 250.1A
should be expanded. The list proposed as 250.1 A(a) should Include as many
general waste types as possible. One waste type which comes readily to mind
is all waste halogenated hydrocarbons. We will be submitting additional
general waste types in our detailed comments.
In addition, in Section 250-lA(b)(2), the list of processes generating
hazardous waste, the individual description' of the process is far too specific
in some cases. Also, we feel that this list should be greatly expanded to
include many more processes and should cover S.I.C. codes not currently listed.
For example, S.I.C. 3861 - Photographic Equipment and Supplies and S.I.C. 367 -
Electronic Components. Industries in these S.I.C. Codes generate significant
volumes of hazardous wastes and we fee] that soire of these processes should
be listed. We will submit additional S.I.C. Codes and processes in our detailed
comments.
While we recognize that expansion of the above two lists will involve a
great deal of time and effort, we believe that it will greatly simplify the
implementation of the hazardous waste management program.
Health care facility wastes identified under Section 250.14(b)(i) should
be subject to hazardous waste regulations only in cases where State Health
Codes do not adequately regulate these wastes. In any case, infectious wastes
that nrn Inrinorntnti or .xloquntol v autorlnvpfl at a Hospital or Health Care
Facility should be except from the regulations.
Tliese arc hut a few of the many concerns we Jn the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation have about the regulations being proposed pursuant
to Section 3001. Detailed comment's will be submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency prior to March 16, 1978.
1'ape A of 4 Pap.es
-------
GARDINIEFUc.
U.S. Phosphoric Produces
Put Otlitt B« 3219 T..M. FKndl 33601 TtlWtanr 811-977-9111 TWX B10-876-OM8
Comments on Section 3001 and 3004 of the December 18. 1978 "Proposed Hazardous
Waste Guidelines and Regulations (43 FR 58946)
Presented by A. E. Morrison at the Sew York Hearing on February 7-9. 1979
a My name is Al Morrison and I represent Gardlnier, Inc., a phosphate
fertilizer company In Tampa, Florida. We mine phosphate rock In central Florida
and process it Into phosphate fertilizer material.
I have followed the Hazardous Wastes regulations from the beginning and
realized the potential problems faced by our industry. At the start of the
program, the EPA estimated there were 30,000,000 tons of hazardous waste produced
annually in the country. In the December proposed rules, it was stated the phos-
phate Industry produced 400,000,000 tons. This huge volume Includes primarily
overburden from strip mining, sand tailings and phosphatic clays (commonly called
"slimes") from the mining process and by-product gypsum produced in converting
phosphate rock to fertilizer material.
The Fertilizer Institute, a nation-wide organization of fertilizer material
producers, and the Florida Phosphate Council, an association of Florida phosphate
producers, have actively worked with the EPA to inform them of effects of this
regulation on the Industry. Both of these organizations vill participate In
future hearings and Gardlnier, Inc., endorses their comments. For that reason,
I will confine my remarks to a relatively few issues.
First, we feel that the "special waste" category is a step In the right
direction; however, it does not go far enough. The mining wastes (if overburden
should be classified a waste) was so listed because of low level radiation.
feel that Congress did not intend for this regulation to cover mining wastes'
these should not be listed. However, I shall leave that to legal arguments from
the organizations already mentioned. In meeting with the EPA, specifically Alan
Corsons* Section 3001, it was clearly pointed out to us that the primary purpose
for designating these materials as hazardous wastes was to prevent houses from
being built on them. This was because of alleged dangers from low level radiation
As of the date I wrote this, January 30, 1979, the EPA still had not supplied
ua the data to Justify this position. Granted, some studies have alleged that
in a few houses constructed without proper ventilation and located on reclaimed
phosphate mining land, a person occupying the house 24 hours a day for 70 years
might double their risk of contracting lung cancer. Even this idea is based on
extrapolated data from other works involving much higher levels of radiation.
It was pointed out that there must be other ways to control this remote problem
without branding all reclaimed lands as hazardous. Apparently, EPA did not agree.
-------
I'll leave the comments on the radiation effects of the very low levels in
phosphate material to experts and go to specific problems in Section 3004 as
written. Only designated paragraphs apply to phosphate wastes. Gardlnier, Inc.,
will mention only a few of these at this time and leave others for future commen-
ters.
Paragraph 250.43-2 deals with security. The fences, signs and other security
are completely unnecessary and should be eliminated. All of the phosphate wastes
were listed as hazardous only because of low level radiation. As previously men-
tioned, the danger - if any - comes from containing the radon daughters which
emanate from radium, to confined areas, such as an unventilated house. There
would be no danger to anyone or anything walking in the open. The extreme expense
of fencing and securing these large areas should not be incurred.
Paragraph 250.43-6 - This paragraph requires daily visual inspection of seven
specific items. With most phosphate areas, daily inspections would not be
necessary for the reason mentioned before. The "note" at the end of the para-
graph in the rule allows less frequent Inspections if adequate protection of
human health and the environment would be provided. I mention this item because
of the note. On Page 58983 of the proposed rules, the "notes" are explained.
The part that concerns me is the second paragraph that limits any deviation from
the rules to those explicit in the notes. This is over-restrictive in that it
allows no decisions based on common sense and Intelligence. Rules as comprehen-
sive as these logically could not possibly cover every situation. For instance,
la the seven items listed for visual inspection, some may be completely unnecessary
at any one location. The rules would not allow this if strictly enforced. Some
variance should be allowed at the discretion of the enforcing authority in most
of the very specific rules.
Paragraph 250.43-8Ca) - The groundwater monitoring system is applicable to
some areas but not others. The "slime ponds" where the phosphatic clays are
deposited are an example. The radiation that is associated with the slimes is
very low and is associated with the solids and not the water. This is verified
in the EPA Publication ORP/CSD 75-3. Therefore, the leachate would not contaminate
groundwater. . |u
The "note" for this paragraph allows for discretion If there is proof of no
discharge to groundwater. In some areas, the groundwater could be salt water
and unusable. Allowances should be made for leachates that would not adversely
affect the groundwater. Again, the permitting or enforcing agency should be
allowed some judgement.
Paragraph 250.43-8(c) - This paragraph calls for a year of background data
for groundwater underlying a facility. It requires a comprehensive analyses on
a monthly basis. First, quarerly analyses should be adequate to establish a
background. Second, the list of parameters to be monitored is completely out of
line. Many materials not even associated with phosphate are included. To repeat,
as the only reason for calling these wastes hazardous is radiation - why should
background data for approximately 40 parameters be required? This background data
should be.limited to parameters that could be affected by the wastes.
-2-
-------
Another part of this paragraph is much too restrictive. In 250.43-8(c)(4),
If groundwater varies in any parameter from the background, the facility must
shut down until the Regional Administrator determines what action to take. This
does not even mention danger to health. In many facilities that are part of the
plant, the entire plant would be down. As written, this could happen even if no
problem was present. Again, I urge you to look at rules that demand specific
action which could be unrealistic in some cases.
I feel that because of the vast amounts of material designated by the EPA
as hazardous due only to low level radiation that is naturally present In
phosphate, the industry continues to need the special consideration already
begun.
I wish to thank you for the opportunity to comment at this hearing.
-3-
-------
-------
1
2
3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
4 PUBLIC HEARING
5
6
Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations
7
8
9
10
11
12 Held at: United Engineering Center
Main Auditorium
13 345 East 47th Street
New York, New York
14
Date: February 8, 1979
15
Time: 8:30 a.m.
16
17
18
19
20 - - -
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2 APPEARANCES:
3 Amy Schaefer
4 Dorothy A. Darrah
5 John P. Lehman
6 Fred Lindsay
7 Harry Trask
8 Alan Roberts
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2 MR. LEHMAN: Good morning ladies and
3 gentlemen. We can begin the session this
4 morning.
5 My name is John P. Lehman. I'm the
6 director of the Hazardous Waste Management
7 Division of EPA's office of Solid Waste, in
8 Washington. On behalf of the EPA I would like
9 to welcome you to the public hearing which is
10 being held to discuss the proposed regulations
jj for the management of hazardous waste. We
12 appreciate your taking the time to participate
13 in the development of these regulations which
14 are being issued under the authority of the
15 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, better
16 known as RCRA.
jy For a brief overview of why we're here - -
,„ The Environmental Protection Agency on
lo
jo December 18th, 1978 issued proposed rules under
2 Sections 3001, 3002, and 3004 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act as substantially amended
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
22
of 1976 (Public Law 94-580). These proposals
23
respectively cover: (1) Criteria for
24
identifying and listing hazardous waste,
25
-------
1
2 identification methods, and a hazardous waste
3 list; (2) Standards applicable to generators
4 of such waste for recordkeeping, labeling,
5 using propoer containers and using a transport
6 manifest; and (3) Performance, design, and
•7 operating standards for hazardous waste
§ management facilities.
g These proposals together with those
. already published pursuant to Section 3003
(April 28th, 1978), Section 3006 (February 1st,
1978), Section 3008 (Auaust 4th, 1978), and
Section 3010 (July llth, 1978) and that of
the Department of Transportation pursuant to the
Hazardous Material Transportation Act (May 25th,
1978) along with Section 3005 regulations
16
constitute the hazardous waste regulatory
program under Subtitle C of the Act.
18
EPA has chosen to integrate its
19
regulations for facility permits pursuant to
20
Section 3006 of the Act with proposals under
21
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
22
System required by Section 402 of the Clean
23
Water Act and the Underground Injection Control
24
Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This
25
-------
1
2 integration of the programs will appear soon
3 as proposed rules under 40 CFR parts 122, 123
4 and 124.
5 This hearing is being held as part of our
6 public participation process in the development
-j of the regulatory program.
g For the legistics of the meeting we ask
g that smokers sit to the right, where ashtrays are
j-j located and non-smokers may wish to sit to the
11 left'
,„ The panel members who share the rostrum
J3 with me from your left to right are Amy
-4 Schaefer, with the Office of Enforcement,
headquarters in Washington, D.C., Dorothy
1J
Darrah, of the Office of General Council, EPA,
16
with headquarters in Washington, Fred Lindsey,
Chief of the Implementation Branch of the
18
Hazardous Waste Management Division Office of
Solid Waste, EPA, and Harry Trask, Program
20
Manager of the Hazardous Waste Management
21
Division, Office of Solid Waste, EPA and the
22
principal staff member responsible for Section
23
3002 and 3003.
24
As noted in the Federal Register our
25
-------
1
2 planned agenda is to cover comments on Sections
3 3002 and 3003 today and Section 3004 tomorrow.
4 We have planned an evening session tonight
5 covering all four sections. That session is
6 planned primarily for those who cannot attend
7 during the day.
8 The comments received at this hearing, and
9 the other hearings as noted in the Federal Regis-
10 ter, together with the comment letters we receive,
11 will be a part of the official docket in the
12 rule making process. The comment period closes
13 on March 16th for Sections 3001 through 3004.
,. This docket may be seen during normal work hours
in room 2011 D, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,
ID
S.W., Washington, D.C. In addition we expect
16
to have transcripts of each hearing within about
two weeks of the close of the hearing. These
18
transcripts will be available for reading at
any of the EPA libraries. A list of these
20
locations is available at the registration table
21
outside.
22
With that as a background, I'd like to
23
lay the ground work and rules for the conduct
24
of this hearing.
25
-------
1
2 The focus of a public hearing is on the
3 public's response to a regulatory proposal of
4 an Agency, or in this case. Agencies, since
5 both EPA and the Department of Transportation
6 are involved. The purpose of this hearing, as
7 announced in the April 28th, May 25th, and
8 December 18th, 1978 Federal Registers, is to
9 solicit comments on the proposed regulations
10 including any background information used to
develop the comment.
12 This public hearing is being held not
,o 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
16
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
20
hearing with the right to cross-examine. The
21
members of the public are to present their views
22
on the proposed regulation to the panel, and the
23
panel may ask questions of the people presenting
24
statements to clarify any ambiguities
25
-------
1
2 in their presentations.
3 Since we are time limited, some questions
4 by the panel may be forwarded in writing to the
5 speaker. Kis response, if received with a week
6 of the close of this hearing, will be included
7 in the trnascript. Otherwise, we'll include it
8 in the docket.
9 Due to time limitations, the chairman
10 reserves the right to limit lengthy questions,
jj discussions, or statements. We would ask that
12 those of you who have prepared statements to
13 make orally, to please limit your presentation
j4 to a maximum of ten minutes, so we can get all
statements in a reasonable time. If you have a
J.3
copy of your statement, please submit it to the
court reporter.
Written statements will be accepted at the
18
end of the hearing. If you wish to submit a
written rather than an oral statement, please
make sure the court reporter has a copy. The
written statements will also be included in
22
their entirety in the record.
23
Persons wishing to make an oral statement
24
who have not made an advanced request by
25
-------
1
2 telephone or in writint should indicate their
3 interest on the registration card. If you have
4 not indicated your intent to give a statement
5 and you decide to do so, please return to the
6 registration table, fill out another card and
7 give it to one of the staff.
8 As we call upon an individual to make a
9 statement, he or she should come up to the
10 lecturn after identifying himself or herself
11 for the court reporter, and deliver his or her
12 statement.
13 At the beginning of the statement, the
1^ Chairperson will inquire as to whether the
.,_ speaker is willing to entertain questions from
,, the panel. The speaker is under no obligation
._ to do so, although within the spirit of this
information sharing hearing, it would be of
lo
great assistance to the Agency if questions
were permitted.
Our day's activities, as we currently see
them, appear like this:
22
We will break for lunch at about 12:15,
23
after the conference on Section 3002, and
24
reconvene at 2:00 for a session on Section 3003.
25
-------
10
1
2 Then, depending on our progress, we will either
3 conclude the day's session or break for dinner
4 at about 4:00 p.m. and reconvene at 7:00 p.m.
5 for the evening session. With regard to lunch,
6 there are a number of restaurants in the general
7 vicinity and there is also a cafeteria in the
g basement of this building. However, you will need
g a pass in order to use the cafeteria. These
.- passes are available at the EPA registration
table outside.
,„ If you wish to be added to our mailing
13 list for future regulations, draft regulations
or proposed regulations, please leave your
business card or name and address on a three by
lo
five card at the registration desk.
16
Section 3002 addresses standards
applicable to generators of hazardous waste. A
18
generator is defined as any person whose act or
process produces a hazardous waste. Minimum
20
amounts generated and disposed per month are
21
established to further define a generator.
22
These standards will exclude household
23
hazardous waste.
24
The generator standards will establish
25
-------
11
I
2 requirements for: Recordkeeping, labeling and
3 marking of containers used for storage,
4 transport, or disposal of hazardous waste;
5 use of appropriate containers, furnishing
6 information on a the general chemical composition
7 of a hazardous waste; use of a manifest system
8 to assure that a hazardous waste is designated
9 to a permitted treatment, storage or disposal
JQ facility; and submitting reports to the
jj Administrator, or an authorized state agency,
,2 setting out the quantity generated and its
^3 disposition.
,. Section 3003 requires the development of
standards applicable to transporters of
lo
hazardous wastes.
16
These proposed standards address
identification codes, recordkeeping, acceptance
lo
and transportation of hazardous wastes,
compliance with the manifest system, delivery
of the hazardous waste; spills of hazardous
21
waste and placarding and marking of vehicles.
22
The Agency has coordinated closely with proposed
23
and current U.S. Department of Transportation
24
regulations.
25
-------
12
1
2 With that as a general overview of our day's
3 activities, and a short discussion of the content
4 of the regulations we'll discuss today, I'll
5 turn the meeting over to the Chairperson, Dot
6 Darrah.
7 MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
8 Good morning. I have just one announcement.
9 If Jonathan Kalish is here, he left some
JQ identification here yesterday.
.. We'll now proceed. As Jack told you, if
j2 anyone has not registered would they please go
j3 out to the registration desk and register. Once
,4 again, if anyone would like to apeak this morning
and is not either on the speaker's list or has
II?
not spoken to someone at the desk, please go
16
ahead and do that now.
Mr. Hershson, would you please come to the
18
lecturn.
19
MR. MORRIS HERSHSON: Good morning.
20
Yesterday, I filed a statement with the
21
members of the panel and gave one to the court
22
reporter which Included brief comments on
23
Section 3001, 2 and 4. For the purpose of the
24
convenience of the panel and the audience I was
25
-------
13
1
2 asked to come back today and tomorrow morning
3 to discuss Sections 3002 and 3004. Although I
4 haven't asked for this in advance T. would like to
5 be permitted to make comments in advance on
6 Section 3003. I have not yet filed a report.
7 Yesterday, comments were made by us on
8 Section 3001. We discussed the major exclusion
9 of empty drums which formerly contained
10 hazardous material and the operation of the
II regulations. I'd like to make just a brief
12 comment on Section 3002, the preamble states,
13 on page 58971, that:
14 "Generators who store hazardous waste on-
ig site prior to shipment for less than 90 days in
16 DOT specification containers, need not comply
17 with Subpart D , that is the subpart dealing
,o with Standards for Owners and Operators of
19 Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal
-- Facilities. Neither does such storage require
a permit " .
On page 58974, the preamble states:
22
"Generators who store hazardous waste for
23
less than 90 days prior to treatment or disposal
24
on-site are not required to comply with the
25
-------
14
1
2 DOT container standards " .
3 These statements in the preamble appear to
4 be implemented by Section 250.25, which requires
5 that:
6 "Every generator shall place the hazardous
7 waste to be shipped in packages in accordance
8 with DOT regulations " .
9 This Section does not differentiate between
10 periods less or more than 90 days, and appears
11 to refer only to "hazardous waste to be shipped".
12 The two quoted statements from the preamble,
13 together with Section 250.25, create a confusing
14 and contradictory situation. On the one hand,
.,. if hazardous waste is placed in DOT containers
16 and held for Ifflss than 90 days before shipment,
17 the facility need not be permitted under Section
,„ 3004. On the other hand, if the waste is held
J.O
19
for less than 90 days for treatment on-site, it
2~ need not be placed in DOT containers.
If it is not placed in such containers,
then the facility must be permitted.
22
It is possible, under many sets of
circumstances, that the generator may not know,
24
at the time the waste is placed in containers,
25
-------
15
1
2 whether it will be shipped, or treated on-site.
3 We therefore suggest that Section 250.25
4 be amended to exclude from its operations
5 hazardous waste being held for shipment or
6 treatment for less than 90 days. If the waste
7 will be shipped, it will require DOT containers;
8 if not, non-DOT containers will suffice.
9 Another section which we believe requires
10 some modification is Section 250.22, listing
11 manifest requirements. Subparagraph (h)(5)
12 asks for the "name and common code of the
13 hazardous waste...". This may not be possible
14 for drum reconditioners because of the
-., heterogeneous nature of the waste. An
-.,- exception should be made for this industry, which
17 will permit the naming of the naaard class as
,_ being sufficient - - ignitable, corrosive, et
lo
19 cetera.
Another subdivision of the same Section,
(h)(8), requires that the manifest contain
directions as to action to be taken in the event
22
of a spill. This too may not be possible for
23
the reconditioner to supply, since the waste
24
will be a mixture of many kinds of waste.
25
-------
16
1
2 This is the substance of the brief comments
3 we have on Section 3002 and I'm told I'll have
4 to wait until this afternoon for comments on
5 Section 3003 and tomorrow morning for Section
6 3004.
7 If there are any questions I'll be glad to
8 answer them.
9 MS. DARRAH: Thank you, Mr. Hershson.
IQ We have no questions but if you want to
jl give the rest of the comments you could come to
12 this evening's hearing which would be on 3001
jg through 3004.
14 MR. HERSHSON: I would prefer to be here
this afternoon for 3003 and tomorrow morning
1J
for 3004.
lo
I would like to have at least an evening
18
MS. DARRAH: Mr. Charles Goddard, Director
of the Bureau of Hazardous Waste, New York
20
State Department of Environmental Conservation.
21
MR. GODDARD: Good morning. My name is
22
Charles Goddard. I'm the Director of the
23
Bureau of Hazardous Waste of the Mew York State
24
Department of Environmental Conservation.
25
-------
17
1
2 I have a few comments with respect to
3 Section 3002 and mostly about the use of the
4 manifest system and again the exception for
5 small generators.
6 One of the things which concerns us about
7 the manifest system is that it would allow a
8 single manifest to be used for shipments which
9 might entail a multitude of trucks as long as
jO that shipment took place on the first date. I
11 say this is a very difficult problem in writing
12 and we're trying to enforce the manifest
13 regulations.
14 I find most of my comments today are
.„ with respect to Section 3002 as they relate to
,, the ability of enforcement and of the ability
„ of an officer to enforce the provisions.
The regulations allow a single shipment
lo
. document which may be carried on one of the
vehicles to apply to a whole fleet of trucks
which makes enforcement rather difficult.
21
Secondly, we disagree with the allowance
22
that other types of documents, some bills of
fcj
ladings and other shipment documents one kind
24
or another have been allowed to be used as
25
-------
18
1
2 substitutes for the manifest document. We
3 believe that the document which is used must
4 be uniform.
5 Again, concentrating on the ability to
6 enforce we have in New York State a waste
7 collector regulation program. In other words,
8 anyone who is in the business of transporting
9 industrial wastes must be registered with us
lO annually and describe what those wastes are
-I and to where these wastes are to go. Our
12 environmental officers have been accustomed
13 to stopping vehicles, checking out to see
14 whether or not they are hauling the correct
types of materials. We see that the manifest
1J
system with its document is doubtful. With
16
our waste collector registration program however
if that environmental conservation officer
18
scans through a series of documents trying to
look at different ways of presenting the same
information or making it very difficult for
21
him to determine whether or not that shipping
22
document includes the kind of waste material
23
for which he is registered to haul.
24
My next comment deals with the
25
-------
19
1
2 transportation of international shipping of
3 waste materials. In the case of international
4 shipping to a foreign disposer, the generator
5 sends quarterly reports to EPA. The regional
6 director authorized and retains a copy for
7 three years of the manifest which is sent with
8 the shipment to the foreign disposal facility.
9 On the other hand, if there does not
lO appear to be any details spelling out the
11 requirements for waste generators from outside
12 the United States, into the country for
13 treatment, the storage facility which at some
,. point has its waste generated outside the
United States must enter the system and cannot
ID
place restrictions on the foreign firm. The
16
transporter must become the generator as he
enters the country and presently receives the
18
hazardous waste from Canada.
EPA is considering a requirement that a
generator shipping to a foreign storage or
disposal facility notify EPA and the foreign
22
government having jurisdictional control over
the RCRA facility before such shipments are
24
made. This requirement would be information
25
-------
20
1
2 important to New York State and most of the
3 hazardous waste generators located in the
4 Niagra County area.
5 Many generators do ship waste into Canada
6 and more stringent reporting here is required.
7 As the counterpart of Canada we agree
g that such an advance notification may not
g necessarily have a shipment by shipment basis
10 way-stream or way-stream basis. In order to
provide in advance information concerning the
particular waste which is being sent to the
1^
„ facility in Canada over a period of time again,
I would like to emphasize that New York State
14
objects to the small generator exception.
ltJ
Persons who produce and dispose of less
than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per
month would be exempted from the requirement
18
as we have discussed it quite a bit. So far,
19
all sufficient data may be lacking to distinguish
20
among various degrees of hazardous waste. We do
21
know of certain waste which we certainly would
22
consider highly hazardous and should be
23
regulated by Subpart B regardless of the
24
quantity produced. I'd like to illustrate that
25
-------
21
1
2 with an example or two.
3 Assume we have a firm generating 20 to
4 25 gallons a month of benzene or something along
5 this line. He comes to me as the generator.
6 What do I then do with this. There is no way
7 in good conscience that I can sav that as long
8 as you are the generator of less than 100
9 kilograms per month it is all right to take
10 the material and put it in the municipal dump.
11 I really don't believe that EPA would want to
12 be put in this kind of a spot. What we're
13 saying here is how can we allow this individual
14 to take that material to the municipal landfill
jj- if he comes to us and asks me if he can take
I*, it to the landfill.
j- The proposed regulation may be carried
10 one step further if an individual comes to us
lo
19
and has a small quantity, generating a small
quantity, again, I could not in all good
conscience since it is a small quantity simply
say to him to take it down the road to the
22
municipal landfill. We firmly believe that
highly hazardous materials must not be
24
exempted from the system and generators who
-------
22
1
2 store wastes up to 90 days on-site prior to
3 shipment need to comply with the Subpart D.
4 Normally, this is not the problem, however,
5 there should be an upper limit to the quantity
6 that may be stored during any period of time.
7 This will not only reduce the harmful effect
8 of the hazardous waste but will provide
9 additional safeguards against a company going
10 bankrupt and leaving behind thousands of drums.
11 There are many voluminous waste strengths
12 which we have to recognize and must put an
13 upper limit on some of these.
14 It does not seem reasonable that many of
,g these have large way-streams of huge quantities
16 generated over a 90 day period and shouldn't
17 be allowed to accumulate and not be sent to the
treatment or disposal facility.
lo
.„ The storage of hazardous waste for less
than 90 days prior to the treatment of disposal
on-site is required to comply by the DOT
container standards while reasonable and
22
less stringent for the short time storage of
23
hazardous waste there should be provisions
24
for accidents.
25
-------
23
1
2 Similar plans should be developed including
o provisions for retainer and recovery of the
. material, with emphasis on minimizing the
,- impact on the environment, and the safety
6 and welfare of the public.
In the instance of the unreturned
„ manifest it must be described in a quarterly,
o
exemption report which should be submitted to
an authorized state agency or to the appropriate
EPA regional office to insure the appropriate
disposal and for better enforcement.
12
The waste management option is one of the
J.O
questions proposed on page 5973 column 3. It
14
places the burden on the generator, however,
15
we also believe as to having to report this
16
information. In this way, he may protect
17
himself from undue liability for the improper
18
waste management.
19
With respect to the quarterly reports we
20
would like to see all shipments listed with an
21
indication given to which ones are exempt and
22
in that way the annual report would be
23
eliminated.
24
I think the information on our waste
25
-------
24
1
2 generation is being obtained in a reporting
3 system which seems to be somewhat cumbersome.
4 It should be simplified and we should make an
5 attempt to use a simple form for various
6 reporting requirements,
7 Although I Cully agree with the intent of
g cutting down the number of forms used for
9 reporting, I believe, the way the system is
JQ currently working out will result in many
j. thousands of improperly completed forms.
^2 One final point. The generator should be
j, provided with the option of reporting its
.. quantities in the metric system or English units.
It's the direction that we're going to and maybe
lo
these regulations ought to reflect that.
16
I'd like to try and answer any questions.
MS. DARRAH: Thank you, Mr. Goddard.
18
MR. LEHMAN: I'm not sure I understand
19
the last thing you said there. Tell me if I
20
misinterpreted it.
21
Your recommendation is that instead of
22
the quarterly exception report most firms would
23
be required to file a quarterly summary of all
24
shipments?
25
-------
25
1
2 MR. GODDARD: Correct.
3 MR. LEHMAN: And they would submit a
4 report in addition to that with regard to the
5 exceptions?
6 MR. GODDARD: That could be easily combined.
7 In New York State we would require a copy of
8 the manifest still be transmitted to the state
9 agency, however, we believe that the quarterly
.Q report or summary report does provide the
opportunity to give a similar kind of
information in reflecting each of the shipments.
13
A quarterly report which would list each
shipment shipped during that quarter and
indicating what the material was, where it went
15
and would give an indication on that listing
16
as to which ones of those shipments he did not
receive back. The fourth copy of the manifest
18
can be replaced with information required on
19
an annual basis and would eliminate one of the
20
types of reports the system currently calls for.
21
MR. LINDSEY: Would you refer such reports
22
both from the generator and the disposer
23
and would you follow up via computer or manually
24
cross checking all the shipments against those
25
-------
26
1
2 that he made?
3 MR. GODDARD: This could be done.
4 It would take quite a lot of work and I'ra
5 not sure we're prepared to do that.
6 I'm concerned about having a whole year
7 go by before we get information on the quantities
8 of waste which have been produced and shipped.
9 The only information we get on less than an
10 annual basis is the shipments out of the country.
11 We would like to be able to receive more
12 information on waste generation on a more
13 frequent basis.
j4 Our interest is not in additional information
j_ for enforcement purposes but rather to gather data
,, of the movement and quantities of wastes that are
lo
generated.
MR. TRASK: Did I understand that you wanted
18
to have line items on these reports for each
individual report and the manifest document
number as well?
21
MR. GODDARD: That's what I'm saying.
22
MR. TRASK: That, of course, is an entirely
23
different system.
24
MR. GODDARD: We have to get away from our
25
-------
27
1
2 summary system. We could do it perhaps on a
3 quarterly report system on a summary basis. If
4 we go to the other system not only does it
5 require generators to put line items but also
6 requires the facilities to do the same thing.
7 MR. TRASK: I think the handling of the
8 data management here becomes rather substantial.
9 There are a couple of other questions I
jO would like to ask.
11 You mentioned the 100 kilograms exemption.
12 My question is are there some wastes which
13 should not be exempted from the system and could
14 you supply us with the list of those wastes?
MR. GODDARD: Vie certainly will.
1*3
MR. TRASK: And the quantities and
lo
rationale as to why each one is on there.
MR. GODDARD: We'll try.
18
There is another point I think needs
clarification in the regulations with respect
to the 100 kilograms.
21
It's not really clear whether that 100
22
kilograms reflects the total waste generation
23
at a generator or way-stream generator. I
24
believe your intent is total generation, but
25
-------
28
1
2 it really is not clear.
3 MR. TRASK: The preamble addresses itself
4 to that point.
5 You mentioned in the 90 day storage to
6 allow generators to accumulate an economic
7 quantity of waste for shipment. You mentioned
8 that there should be some quantity limitation.
9 Do you have a feeling for what that
JQ should be?
MR. .GODDARD: I really don't. It's just
j2 a feeling that we have because of some of the
J3 problems that have resulted because of the
accumulation of these waste materials. Many
of these waste materials are generated on a
very large volume basis and to allow the
16
accumulation of 90 days of some of these way-
streams could amount to a rather substantial
18
quantity of waste.
19
MR. TRASK: In the area of international
20
shipments you mentioned that there should be
21
some mechanism set forth for prenotification
22
of a foreign agent responsible for waste in
23
a foreign country.
24
Do you have any thought on what that
25
-------
29
1
2 should be?
3 MR. GODDARD: Well, essentially something
4 aloncj this line in which we would receive part
5 of the waste regulation program on an annual
6 basis information on what waste materials
7 are being collected and what they propose to
8 do with them.
9 On a selected basis depending upon the
10 waste material we do on such a basis with
11 Ontario, our provincial counterpart.
12 Where we're having wastes transported into
13 Canada it is most obvious. The Canadian
14 officials should l»e aware and I think it would
,,- be desireable to transport that knowledge to
,£ them on a before shipment basis, if that could
17 be done.
-„ Again, it is not necessary on a truckload
..„ by truckload basis but more on a way-stream by
. way-stream basis.
MR. TRASK: As I understand it the
21
Canadian provinces are the responsible agencies;
22
is that correct?
23
MR. GODDARD: That's my understanding.
24
MR. TRASK: And the state is dealing with
25
-------
30
1
2 the province; that is the level of contact?
3 MR. GODDARD: Yes.
4 It's another burden being laid on the
5 generator and the state in turn informs the
6 province.
7 In our current system a transporter deals
8 with it and not the generator. The transfer
9 must indicate where the waste material is
jO going and the operator himself must provide us
jj with the signature of the regional facility,
12 whether it is in the state or out of the state
j3 or out of the nation.
14 MR. TRA$K: That's prior to shipment?
1C. MR. GODDARD: That's on an annual basis in
,, order for him to be a registered hauler of the
waste material.
MR. TRASK: That's after the fact?
18
MR. GODDARD: No.
MR. TRASK: Before the fact?
20
MR. GODDARD: Before the fact.
21
MR. LINDSEY: I have one more questions.
22
One of your comments early on was that
23
you didn't like the fact that there is some
24
opportunity in here to use documents other than
25
-------
31
1
2 the manifest as a shipping paper.
3 One of the areas in which we would get
4 into there would be for rail shipments. Do you
5 recommend the use of this other documenting
6 or these other techniques to extend to rail
7 area as well?
8 MR. GODDARD: Our finding was that it was
9 kind of difficult for the train to use the
10 manifest system. However, dealing with the
11 trains is not merely as significant with
12 respect to the rail transporters as compared
13 to the truck transporters.
14 MS. SCHAEFER: I have one question about
the internal shipment. You talked about
ID
,_ wanting more stringent reporting requirements
ID
as to the importation or exportation of wastes.
What more stringent reportinq requirements
Irf
are you referring to?
MR. GODDARD: As I said the regulations
20
of shipments coming into the country are
21
not reflected and at some point on shipment of
22
any hazardous waste coming into New York State
23
it would seem that the system needs management
24
and right now.
25
-------
32
1
2 MR. LEHMAN: Are you saying that once a
3 waste enters the United States that we have
4 no jurisdiction over the foreign generator?
5 MR. GODDARD: We do have jurisdiction
6 over transporters and over facilities for
7 storage treatment and disposal once the shipment
8 enters the United States.
9 Our concept is there from EPA. You would
10 receive that information. In other words you
11 would have to have a United States man testify
12 to move waste anywhere within the continental
13 United States and with the United States
14 territories and furthermore, that the receipt
of the material would have to go through another
13
permanent facility and that the reporting of
16
the shipment would take place from the facility,
the treatment, storage or disposal facility
18
would cover that.
In other words, it could identify shipments
from out of the country so you would get that
21
information. Annually, you wouldn't
22
necessarily get it before the fact.
23
MR. LEHMAN: You would hope you would get
24
that information.
25
-------
33
1
2 MR. GODDARD: If a facility operating,
3 whoever it may be, is told he has to report
4 shipments he has received from Canada there is
5 absolutely no information to check on him.
6 There is absolutely no way to get that system
7 started before he is supposed to report.
8 If he doesn't have to report on more than
9 an annual basis there is a great deal of latitude
j0 to totally miss the shipment of waste materials.
jj VJe have discussed before in the discussion
j2 °f the transportation, requirements that the
13 transporter as he comes across the line should
,4 be responsible for initiating a manifest
system.
MR. TRASK: Charlie, I think the way it
16
was intended to do this was that the transporter
was also responsible for having a properly filled
IS
out manifest and it didn't matter if he came
across a line or wherever he came from. He
20
still needs that and we never did intend to
21
make him the generator.
22
We never found any reason why he would
23
know very much about that waste and that
24
generator would have to furnish him with all
25
-------
34
1
2 that information.
3 We do, however, require him to have a
4 properly filled out manifest.
5 MR. GODDARD: Well, somewhere along the
6 line there needs to be reference to how that
7 manifest is initiated and I don't see it in
8 the regulations as proposed.
9 MR. ROBERTS: Have you read the DOT
10 proposal?
jl MR. GODDARD: Some time ago, yes.
12 MR- ROBERTS: I just want to make sure
13 you understand the DOT proposal and that a waste
14 manifest is required under the EPA regulations
40CFR 250.22 that the manifest must be carried
,, within the vehicle within the United States
lo
and coming into the United States. The
manifest must be carried - - just to show you
18
how far this goes if one wanted to send a waste
in on an airlift on a slinq under a helicopter
into the State of New York, we would have him
21
covered.
22
This invoice air transportation and even
23
foreign flying carriers coming into the United
24
States would be subject to this requirement. In
25
-------
35
1
2 this way we have foreign shippers of hazardous
3 materials coming into the United States covered.
4 What do you think must be done?
5 MR. GODDARD: You may want to examine
6 that regulation and decide if it is sufficiently
7 effective for your needs. It may need more work.
8 MR. ROBERTS: There is a notification re-
9 quirement to foreign shippers that a person
,Q performing, forwarding or operating within the
United States, whoever that may be, the freight
-„ forwarder or the originating carrier or booking
13 agent or what have you, there is a requirement
for prior notification of a foreign shipment.
I want to make sure you are aware of that.
15
MR. GODDARI): I still see a hole in the
16
reporting system if the only report he recieves
is after the shipment has been received in the
State site treatment or disposal facility.
I recognize he still has to carry the
proper documents more for the administrative
21
part of the shipment, however, I still feel
22
there is something lacking.
23
MS. DARRAH: Thank you, very much, Mr.
24
Goddard.
25
-------
36
1
2 Are there any other comments on the
3 proposed 3002 regulation this morning?
4 We'll now close the formal hearing and
5 we'll pass out the cards and if anybody has
6 any questions on 3002 and only on 3002 please
7 write those questions down and the panel will
8 try and answer them for you.
9 Let me state that we have received a
JQ rather long question up here which is essentially
jj a comment on regulation.
^2 If people have comments we'll gladly
j, reopen the hearing if you want to make the
j, comment. If not, let's go on to the questions.
MR. TRASK: "Does a research lab
lo
,, generating small amounts of hazardous waste have
lo
to get rid of it every 90 days in order to be
exempt from reporting requirements?"
18
If the material is less than 100 kilograms
per month and if that's the case he would not
20
be in the system as a generator.
21
Remember, these regulations apply only
22
to generators. That is, the 90 day permit
23
storage requirement applies to generators only.
24
The answer is no.
25
-------
37
1
2 MR. LINDSEY: We have a general question
3 here. It really doesn't have to do specifically
4 with any one part of the Act. I guess it has
5 more to do with Section 3006 than anything else
6 which we mentioned yesterday and today which
1 is undergoing a series of revisions which are
8 directed primarily to integrating the
9 requirements for 3006 which is the state
._ authorization program.
I might add that the requirement for
j005 which is a procedural aspect in the due
process aspect of the permitting system. Those
u
are undergoing an integration at the present
time with similar requirements for the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
16
System.
Under the Clean Water Act there are
18
similar requirements for an underground control
program of the Safe Drinking Water Act which
20
is set to be proposed within about four to
21
six weeks.
22
Anyway, the question is this:
23
"Presuming that a state has been given
24
accreditation of its program, what will be
25
-------
38
1
2 the form of EPA oversight of the program?"
3 That's a long question to answer in
4 detail.
5 The system is in the process of being
6 developed because we haven't proposed them as of
7 yet. Basically, it is the same, general type
8 of oversight as the MPS programs which we'll
9 be reviewing in the EPA regional office. We
10 do it somewhat differently. We don't have the
11 authority to veto or pass judgment in this
12 sense if a permit is granted by a state.
13 However, we do have oversight provisions.
14 We will be making combined inspections with
15 state people and to again provide oversight
,, there will be a number of reporting provisions
._ that the state will have to make to the EPA
regional office on both a quarterly and annual
18
19
That, generally, in a nut shell, is the
type of oversight which will be provided. It
21
is not our objective to second guess what the
22
state is doing. EPA simply wants to assure
23
that the state program is in fact being
24
carried out in accordance with the provisions
25
-------
39
1
2 of Sections 3006 and any subsequent
3 authorization agreements which are received
4 at the time of the state authorization.
5 I think that's about all I want to say
6 about that at this point.
7 MR. LEHMAN: "Is there any explicit
8 connection between the characteristics listings
9 and definitions of 3001 and the name
10 description of hazardous wastes on the manifest
jl and on labels for containers?"
12 The answer is yes.
13 Aside from the proposed regulations on
14 Section 250.22 Section H, Paragraph 5 on page
15 58977 which says that the manifest shall contain
lg the following information. One of the things
j_ the manifest has to have on it is the name
1Q and common code of the hazardous waste, a
lo
jq shipping description and there are three
options for naming the hazardous waste.
First, the description should use the
21 *
Department of Transportation procedure shipping
22
name identified in 49CFR 172; if the DOT proper
23 * *
shipping name is "Not Otherwise Specified"
24
(NOS), the EPA name shall also be used after
25
-------
40
1
2 the DOT proper shipping name NOS; if the DOT
3 proper shipping name is not otherwise
4 specified then the EPA name which is identified
5 in Section 3001 under Section 231.4.
6 Should the DOT name and the NOS and EPA
7 not exist the proper shipping name NOS should
8 be used in the manifest.
9 There is a connection in that sense,
jO namely, that where applicable the DOT shipping
,, name and NOS type of designation under DOT and
j2 also use the EPA name as identified in Section
13 3001.
j4 The same provision applies to labeling
under the proposed S^ction 250.26 on page
j, 58979 where it says in Paragraph B, "Every
generator shall label and mark each package of
hazardous waste in accordance with the
18
Department of Transportation regulations on
labeling and marking, 40CFR 127, and 250.22
(h)(5) of this Subpart."
21
Yes, there is a connection between these
22
characteristics both for the manifest and for
23
the labeling.
24
Another question here of a more general
25
-------
41
1
2 nature which I will answer while you're
3 collecting other questions is:
4 "Would you please review your estimated
5 timetable for the time the final rules will
6 be promulgated. And when compliance will be
7 required."
8 As you may know the agency is under Court
9 Order by the United States District Court of
10 Washington, D.C. to promulgate the final
11 form of regulations for Section 3001 through
12 Section 3004 no later than December 31st, 1979.
13 The legislation statute indicates that
14 the rule will go into effect six months after
15 the final promulgation. Consequently, we would
16 anticipate endorsement and compliance would
jy be required no later than the end of June of
18 1980 under this timetable.
j^ That is, on the basic regulation you should
„- weigh under Section 3010 notification as
required within 90 days after final
promulgation of Section 3001 and also permit
application must be filed no later than 180
fcj
days after promulgation.
While the basic regulations do not go into
-------
42
1
2 force until six months after promulgation,
3 some activity during that six month ->eriod
4 is required. Namely, notification within 90
5 days and permit application within 180 days
6 after promulgation.
7 MR. ROBERTS: One of the reasons I came
8 up here is to make sure that Mr. Goddard
9 understood something and I forgot to mention
,Q it relative to the statement by somebody from
the EPA staff.
-.„ A copy of the waste manifest must move
,-, with each transportation vehicle.
He can't have like you would have under
a master bill of lading for one million pounds
of material. If you read 137.205, DOT's
16
proposal is clear.
It has to move with each, and the words
is probably a bad use of language here, but it
definitely has to move with each vehicle that
20
could be affirmed.
21
For example, if the later carrier
22
requirement of '177.817 requires the driver to
23
have the document in his possession. As a
24
matter of fact, we are so specific about this
25
-------
43
1
2 that they tell you where it has to be in the
3 transport vehicle or the truck. In other words,
4 the manifest must be on the vehicle.
5 I think that could answer another question
6 about reporting by the trucker. A transporter
7 is not required to make a report unless - -
8 and the EPA staff can correct me if I'm wrong - -
9 but he is required to keep a copy of the
JQ manifest for a period of three years following
jj the delivery. In other words, the whole system
12 is proof of delivery.
j3 As far as the proof it's got to go where
14 it is supposed to go. Almost every rule you
I- read in this document relates in some way to the
16 aspect of this proposal. The Hazardous Waste
._ System and 172.205 referred to the requirement
_ by the transporter to hold a copy of the
io
.„ manifest for three years so he is able to
establish by a signature, hand signature, that
the material was delivered where it was
21
supposed to go.
22
MR. LEHMAN: I have another question here.
23
"If a hazardous waste is not described
24
by DOT regulations and it bioaccumulates is that
25
-------
44
1
2 specified on labels of containers or on
3 manifests?"
4 First of all, we were adament throughout
5 this project that we would not use the word
6 label unless we really meant label. DOT and
7 EPA finally agreed with us on that. And used
8 the term marking for the special marking that
9 goes on the package that is controlled waste.
10 Although the title of the section is not
11 binding to the regulatory text the title says
12 labeling. Five of the twenty-six labeling
13 and marking points are under the control of
14 EPA and on top of that there are the DOT marking
jc requiremenets 172.300.
j£ Again, we require the DOT shipment name
,_ to be displayed on the package. That's a
10 historical provision as started in 1922.
lo
,„ Therefore, if the DOT name is generic, for
example, as a flammable liquid, and the NOS
doesn't tell you very much about the waste
regulations you are required in addition to
put the EPA name for the waste in parentheses
23
immediately .following the description.
24
It is incorporated as part of the EPA
-------
45
1
2 description system so that the answer is no,
3 you do not put this on the label. You put it
4 on the marking required by both DOT and EPA in
5 Section 250.26 and also in the DOT regulation
6 172.300. The same essential rule comes out
7 of both sets of proposals.
g I hope that answers that question.
9 I'm sorry. There is one addition to that,
10 the remainder of the question about the
manifest.
The same thing applies to the manifest
,,,
which have the same words on it that appears
on the package. The DOT description, the legal,
proper shipping description and included in
1 J
this, which is in parentheses, when the DOT
16
description is generic is the EPA name for
the term.
18
MR. TRASK: We have a somewhat related
question here:
20
"Does a company who disposes a waste on
21
its own property require a manifest system if
22
it uses public roads to reach this site? The
23
plant is on one site, and the disposal area
24
is at another site."
25
-------
46
1
2 Not to get involved in semantics here I'm
3 going to assume it is off-site disposal and not
4 on-site because there are a couple of different
5 answers here depending on whether it is off
6 or on-site.
7 If it is owned in the same state then a
8 manifest is required, but a report is not because
9 the facility would report.
10 If this is a disposal site owned by the
11 generator, a manifest is required in order to
12 reach that site. Under some other conditions,
13 for example, if it were to be considered on-site
14 and this is separated by a public highway
15 contiguous with the property there may be a
jg requirement, in fact there is a requirement,
yi that DOT shipping papers are required but a
,„ manifest would not be required.
lo
,„ We get into a very fine line dividing
these two requirements here and it depends
essentially on the distance that it travels
and as to whether it is used off or on-site.
22
There is another question from a
23
transporter regarding transporters.
24
"Regarding transporters who accumulate and
-------
47
1
2 consolidate a variety of wastes at a transfer
3 or storage facility would they be able to
4 consider themselves generators of a waste and
5 be subject to the 90 day storage exemption?"
6 I interpret the accumulation and
7 consolidation of a variety of wastes to mean
8 the mixing of wastes.
9 If they mix waste and a new waste results
10 that is substantially different from the
jj previous waste so that the propoer shipping
12 name no longer describes that waste then they
13 do become a generator. However, the 3003
14 regulation would require that the mixing be
15 done at a permitted facility which also
,,- becomes a treatment facility and requires a
._ permit.
They might have the 90 day storage exemption
lo
!„ as a generator but they would require a mixing
treatment facility permit.
I would guess that in most states the
proposal is that the permit would also include
22
the storage situation.
23
I have another question and this one
24
I'm not exactly sure I understand. Whoever
25
-------
48
1
2 raised this might want to correct me if I get
3 the wrong interpretation.
4 "Is it possible that manufacturers of a
5 hazardous substance be required to develop
6 approved processes for rendering their spent
7 products haaardless?"
g Our interpretation can mean a couple
9 of things. One is that we do not interfere
10 with the managing process in the plant so
therefore, that is the manufacturer's
perrogative to do as he sees fit.
13 The waste that comes out of the end of
the pipe or out of the storage tank at the
plant is what we are concerned with. If he
15
treats that waste before it reaches that point,
16
before it comes to the end of the pipe or
before it leaves the storage tank, we are not
18
concerned with that.
19
If he does something after that point, if
20
he puts it into a lagoon for treatment we are
21
concerned and that would require a permit
22
because that would be considered to be on-site
23
treatment.
24
I don't know if that speaks to the questipn
25
-------
49
1
2 or not. Perhpas the person who raised that
3 question can see me later.
4 There is a question regarding nomenclature.
5 "Are the rpocess descriptions as referenced
6 by SIC numbers intended to be the proper shipping
7 name to be used on both the manifest and as
8 package marking?"
9 The regulation says that the first choice
10 for proper shipping names shall be the DOT
11 name and that shall also be the same for
12 package marking. If the DOT name may not
13 match the SIC numbers process description as
14 listed for Section 3001 and if there is no
15 DOT name with a proper description of the
16 waste then the answer to this question is both
17 yes and no. That is, if there is no DOT name
18 you would use the other.
19 MR. LINDSEY: I have a series of questions,
2Q a lot of them seem to deal with the one kilogram
2| limit which seems to be a very popular subject.
"Is the one kilogram exemption for any
person. Is this intended or is it proper to
£j
consider that the 100 kilogram monthly
exemption applies to any facility?
-------
50
1
2 Some corporate persons own over 100
3 plants scattered over the United States."
4 I have to take another look at the
5 wording intended facility. By facility do
6 you mean based upon the 100 kilogram
7 exemption which has to do with a generator
8 facility.
9 "Some companies have a number of plants
10 spread across the U.S.A.
,, Does the 100 kilogram a month apply to a
12 single plant or to the sum total of waste from
I3 all plants?"
..- It applies to a single plant.
"Subpart B provides an exemption for
farmers generating any quantities of hazardous
wastes based on the rationale that FIFRA can
be used to control expected farmer generated
hazardous waste.
Why not provide a similar exemption for
generators producing, handling and storing
21
PCB contaminated wastes which are controlled
22
by TOSCA?"
23
It is very true that there are
24
regulations which are in effect now for PCB
25
-------
51
2 material which is disposed of and these are
3 regulated under the TOSCA Substance Control
4 Act. EPA, when the RCRA regulations were
5 promulgated and complimented the administration
6 of TOSCA which was integrated into the RCRA
7 regulations which are based on the TOSCA
8 regulations .
9 RCRA, for example, does not require a
10 permit. This is an approval process through
I] EPA, but it does not require a permit as such.
12 In these regulations which I 'm aware of if
13 you're familiar with both sides of the
14 regulations these things like the manifest
jc intend to integrate the PCB regulations into
j£ the regulations and exactly what their form
j™ takes is difficult to say. It may be a simple
,o combining of the administrative - - for
19 example, where it may be different in the
2Q regulations is very minimal. It may be a
matter of more stringent RCRA regulations as
the PCB's are disposed of as compared to the
waste.
23
"At an electric power plant there will
24
be large quantities of ash produced which may
-------
52
2 be classed as hazardous and disposal would
3 come under Subtitle C regulations. But, the
4 analytical laboratory at the power plant will
5 have small quantities of waste for disposal.
6 Will the small quantities of laboratory
7 waste be exempted under the 100 kilogram per
8 month exemption? Does the quantity of waste
9 apply to total quantity at a facility or does
10 it apply to each different type of waste?"
H That's the same question I answered
12 before.
13 It applies to the total of waste that a
14 facility produces. Thus, if there are five
ji- or six wastes at a facility and the sum total
jg is 100 kilograms all the waste is covered.
,_ "What is the estimated cost to states
-„ or EPA of the manpower required to track 270
!„ thousand generators from cradle to grave?
„. Must the state do this or can they rely
on spot enforcement?"
I just don't have those fiqures for the
22
answer to the first question in my head. We
are estimating the cost to EPA and/or the
24
state doing various parts of this program.
25
-------
53
1
2 However, I don't have them in my head.
3 Whoever generated this question can write
4 to me or call me up and I think we could get
5 those figures for you or an estimated
6 preliminary estimate. We don't have them here.
7 As to the second part of the question
8 "must the state do this or can they rely on
9 spot enforcement?", I think there may be some
10 misinterpretation of what the manifest system
jj is. It is the responsibility of the generator
12 to initiate the manifest and the transporter
13 carries it with him and maintains a copy to
j4 give to the disposer. The disposer then
jg maintains the copy, signs it and sends a copy
,, back to the generator. All EPA is doing is
j~ getting an exemption from the generator. If the
18 generator, after a period of time, does not
jo receive his copy of the manifest back from the
2J, disposer then he will report that to EPA and
we'll then have discretionary authority.
What EPA wants to do with that is they
22
intend to follow up and why that shipment did
not occur or whether or not the shipment got
24
lost. That's the idea.
25
-------
54
1
2 As far as the states go in order to be
3 authorized they'll have to have a system set
4 up for managing this manifest system at least
5 as stringent as ours and providing the same
6 degree of control of the manifest system format.
7 The question of what kind of reporting the
8 state wants to put on the facility and so on
9 is within the state. For example, the state
10 will receive copies of all manifests. The
j! EPA does not do that. The state chose to do
12 that. It has to do with the reporting and
13 oversight so the answer to that is as long as
j^ the state has the same mechanism for oversight
on the manifest system which is at least as
1 o
stringent as EPA and provides the same degree
lo
of control then that state program can be
18
17
authorized.
,„ I have one more here and I'll turn it over
to someone else.
"New York State officials, yesterday in
particular, and also today, have hit very hard
22
on the 100 kilogram per month limit in that
23
very toxic wastes could be extremely harmful
24
to health and environment.
25
-------
55
1
2 It appears that this limit is merely for
3 administrative relief only, and that the waste
4 would still have to be properly handled and
5 disposed of.
6 Do you agree with this interpretation?
7 Do you also agree that there is no concern
8 for the small generators of waste?"
9 Waste which are below the 100 kilogram
JQ per month limit would have to be handled in
the 4004 facilities under Subtitle D. The
12 standards are reasonable, comprehensive
.„ standards for disposal there as well.
"Do you agree with this interpretation?"
I guess the answer is yes. They would
1J
still be properly disposed of. We have had no
16
demonstrated damage as I mentioned yesterday
which indicates that this approach for small
18
quantities has ever caused a problem.
We have files of damage cases and to my
20
knowledge at least not one of them has ever
21
included this situation.
22
Yesterday, I believe the New York State
23
appeal indicated they did have some information
24
along these lines and if that's the case we
25
-------
56
1
2 would very much like to know about that.
3 The second part of the question "Do you
4 agree that there is no concern for these small
5 generators of waste?"
6 I wouldn't say it that way. We have no
7 intent yet or no reason to believe that small
8 quantities disposed of routinely along with
9 solid waste at facilities meeting the 4004
10 standards create any rpoblem.
11 We don't believe it is necessary to
12 control those small quantities under Subtitle
13 C, but quantities handled under Subtitle D
j4 if someone has information to the contrary we'd
like to have that. If someone has a case to
,, demonstrate these problems we would very much
lo
like to know about it.
MS. SCHAEFER: I have a question.
18
"How did EPA decide that 30 days was
enough time for the manifest to be returned
to the generator?"
21
That is the normal business practice.
22
Thirty days is the normal turnover time for
23
sending out reports and information that reads
24
on the bill of lading. That's why that 30 days
25
-------
57
2 was used.
3 The second part of the question is this.
4 "Has EPA studied the New Jersey system
5 to determine if this time limit is reasonable?"
6 No, we have not. However, if someone
7 from New Jersey would like to give us some
8 information about how the New Jersey manifest
9 system has been working and what kind of time
10 limit they're giving for the return of the
11 manifest, we'd appreciate that kind of
12 information.
13 The last part of the question is this:
14 "What enforcement action will be undertaken
,,- as a result of the exception report?"
1£ Hopefully the generator has done a
,_ preliminary investigation as to why he hasn't
10 gotten back the copy of the manifest. If it
lo
,„ is something like a mail foulup or something
like that then there will be a report exception
to EPA. If a violation is found they will
21 *
issue a notice of violation and according to
22
Section 3008 perform a series of activities
23
that go along with that notification. The
24
state and the violator are then given 30 days
25
-------
58
1
2 to correct the problem.
3 If he has not returned the manifest back
4 to the generator in that 30 days then a
5 compliance order is issued and he will be
6 given a schedule by which he must comply or
7 be assessed a penalty.
8 MS. DARRAH: I have a question.
9 "Is a small generator under 100 kilograms
10 per month also exempt from the initial
11 notification requirements?"
12 I think the intent of EPA is that we
13 would certainly like to exempt the small
14 generator from notification requirements. It's
jg not clear the way the law is written if we
,f would be able to do that. Certainly, our
-_ intent is to ease the administrative burden
.„ which means we would try to do that within the
ig bounds of the law.
_- MR. ROBERTS: I have a question here.
"I believe that DOT has proposed
regulations to allow hazardous wastes? To be
22
shipped out once from a plant using
23
single trip drums (STD) that have come into
24
the plant with some other material in the drum.
25
-------
59
1
o
Status? Direction? Guidance on this?
3 Will it be finalized? When?
* The person is asking a question relative
5 to our proposal in our document. I have put
100 copies of it on the table and if anybody
' wants to see it it's on page 22633 paragraph P
8 Section 1738.
9 We have proposed to break an historic
10 barrier, you might say, concerning the use of
11 not only STC containers but NEC containers,
12 nonreusable containers. The three categories
13 of packages DOT specifies as metal drums,
14 heavy rugged drums, twelve and fourteen gaupe
15 material that are authorized by our regulations
16 for a continuing reuse subject to the basic
17 conditions set forth in Section 17328 which are
18 to be free of holes, rust, corrosives and
19 anything detrimental. This is a provision that
2o was added during the second World War when
21 there was a steel shortage and the drums were
22 reused.
„., We have proposed in our hazardous waste
notice to authorize a one time shipment using
these containers for hazardous wastes and if
46 J
-------
60
1
2 the package is authorized for the material in
3 the first place based on certain provisions
4 it still must be packaged in accordance with
5 the regulations, marked and handled in
6 accordance with this part.
7 Its transportation is limited to highway
8 and the packages are not authorized for
9 transportation less than four hours. After
IQ closing them for transportation each package
jj is inspected for leakage, immediately prior
12 to be offered for transportation and the
13 packages are loaded by the shipper. This is
,4 to preclude across the docks operation with
these packages. In the general common industry
10
it is concluded from this that the general
common carrier has the exclusive use of the
vehicle type service which you would pay a
18
premium for in your shipping charge.
The limitation that may be used is only
20
once under this provision and may not be
21
again used for the transport of hazardous
22
materials unless otherwise authorized. That
23
would authorize the STC container if
24
available at the disposal site and picked up
25
-------
61
I
2 by a reconditioning company going through
3 the standard reconditioning process specified
4 by regulations.
5 It's a rather elaborate process and
6 industry is heavily involved with our
7 department. Each drum reconditioner is
8 registered with our office and many of them
9 have been subject to our inspection procedures.
10 "Status?"
jj This is just a part of this rule making.
12 We're waiting the delivery of final comments
13 on our proposal and the closing date for the
14 comments is specified in today's Federal
j_ Register. I believe the date is June 1st.
16 I signed it, but I can't remember the date.
,- I think it is June 1st or the last day of May.
_ I can't remember which. That's the status.
lo
19 I should point out that we are very
heavily tied to the EPA proposal so that my
answer to when it will be finalized is when
21
EPA finalizes its proposal.
22
Many of our proposed regulations are
cross related and cross referenced to EPA
24
regulations found in 40CFR 250.
25
-------
62
1
2 I have been receiving petitions for
3 immediate exemptions for certain provisions
4 of this rule making and I have on file at
5 the present time at least one petition for
6 exemptions.
7 This provision discusses the reuse of
8 these containers and at the present time we
9 are taking the view that the - - as a matter
_ of fact one is in the process of being denied
today or tomorrow and when I return to my
office we are applying the provision of our
.., exemption procedures which relates to the
exemption. Far reaching applicability should
not be dealt under the exemption program but
rather through the rule making process. This
is the only relief I could visualize on this
provision.
18
I believe that what this individual is
19
interested in is some time after the first
20
of June where we would be able to review all
21
of the comments received and if it's - - say
22
for example - - not controversial and it's
23
a major proposal we could probably move to
24
separate it from the remainder of the rule
25
-------
63
1
2 making and not have it directly affect the
3 EPA proposal.
4 My immediate concern about that is that
5 we would then not have protection under what
6 is truly waste. In the sense of these rule
7 makings we're talking about and we would
8 lack definitions or any guidelines on what
9 that would be.
jO Someone has asked "Please clarify the
11 use of DOT labels as in 173.300 and the word
12 markings as it relates to movement over a
13 public road of hazardous wastes?"
14 DOT has been very careful to make a
._ distinction as to what is a label and what is
., a marking. Basically we have markings,
._ labelings, and placards and with very few
exceptions labels which are square, diamond
19
shaped lables that you see displayed either
on packages or in the form of placards on
motor vehicles.
21
All the other materials we require to
22
be on information or communication which we
23
describe as markings.
24
Once again 173.300 is a subpart dealing
25
-------
64
1
only with markings and has nothing to do with
3 labeling whatever.
4 Information with that distinction is made
5 on the EPA proposal 250.26 which requires
6 markings for controlled wastes. We have
7 asked EPA to make a distinction between
8 markings and labels. As I indicated earlier
9 the section is slightly mistitled.
10 I hope that's responsive to that question.
11 I have another question here: "When
12 will DOT publish the final rule in HM145A?"
13 I think I have answered that.
14 We're heavily tied and I guess the
15 question should go to EPA and when EPA will
jg finalize its rule.
17 The question as to when it will be
lg finalized or what portion can be finalized is
19 not within my purview and to respond to that
op type of question I think it's important that I
„. point out one thing. Tomorrow or Monday I'll
be signing and sending to the Federal Register
a notice of proposed rule making on hazardous
fcO
substances.
24
We are stating in that rule making for the
-------
65
1
2 300 and some listings and adding to our own
3 commodity list which we are tying very heavily
4 to the rule making project and the attempt to
5 have some kind of uniformity. As much as it
6 is possible in doing the reporting requirements,
7 for example, we'll be writing a report of
8 harmful quantities to the national response
9 center. In our proposal you will see in
JQ Section 17117 our same reporting requirements
jj for hazardous waste when discharged during
^2 transportation.
jg We have worked out an arrangement in this
14 procedure for the shipping descriptions for a
hazardous substance under Section 311 of the
lo
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. For
16
example, if you have a hazardous substance
obviously covered as a waste I assume we have
IS
a description that will cover both aspects to
communicate both pieces of information through
20
a single description as simply as possible.
21
Each commodity, which is shipped, has a
22
description if it is a hazardous substance and
23
is identified by letter and code which will
24
give you a report on its quantity. Tie that
25
-------
66
1
2 together with a waste rule into a combined
3 package of regulations.
4 You have to understand that there is a
5 decision making process still going on in
6 DOT as to the set of rules and by and large
7 there has been a strong position taken that
8 DOT should - - and we're waiting for the final
9 outcome of the rule making procedure before
10 we make that final determination. DOT never
jj said ±t will. By arrangement between DOT
12 an|3 this codicil of EPA which definitely
13 states to EPA that we'll cooperate with EPA
14 in every way possible to take those rules
„ pertaining to material in both areas. This
., we will do depending on the outcome of the
rule making procedure.
The EPA proposal I was aware of was that
lo
there are states you do not have to have the
manifest with each movement. Now, EPA says in
250.22 that the quart!ty of waste in each
21
individual shipment as specified should say
22
that each movement, shipment - - if we go to
23
the bill of lading act of 1939 you have a
24
statutory definition of a shipment. EPA has
25
-------
67
2 done very well on this basis explaining what
3 a shipment is. It's basically a quantity of
4 material from one shipper to one consignee
5 and is covered in the basic description.
6 What we say is that if the manifest is
7 required by 40CFR 50 then the manifest is
8 not required on each movement for shipment.
9 Our manifest requirement does not apply however
10 on our shipping paper requirements. If you
11 read the paragraph B at the tail end of our
12 requirements it has wastes in any event
13 required by 40CFR 50.22 claiming that all
14 information in the Subpart may be used as a
15 shipping paper.
K, Going back then, each truck will have a
17 document and let's forget the words paper or
]B bill of lading manifest. Each will have a
19 document that contains all the DOT required
20 information and the required information
21 basically comes back to the description of
the material, classification and the fact that
it's waste and the quantity of the material in
2-j
that given movement. In this way there will be
no conflict.
-------
68
1
2 I would suggest if anybody has a comment
3 on this in terms of ambiguity in the
4 document they should look at DOT side by side
5 with the EPA document and point out any
6 conflicts which may exist. We would like to
7 hear from you; and I'm sure EPA feels the same
8 way. If there is a definite conflict which we
9 may have overlooked you must remember it was
10 put together by human beings and I'm sure we
1] would welcome that kind of comment on a
12 section by section comparative basis.
13 MR. LEHMAN: I have a question.
14 "Assuming the exemption remains at 100
-5 kilograms per month, will this be actual
jg volume per month or an average, that is, a
._ generator may have 99 kilograms one month and
101 kilograms the next. Would he be covered by
lo
3002? This will also impact 3004."
The answer to that is yes. Any notice
that a generator produces more than 100
kilograms and disposes of - - the way the
22
wording is by the way is that in any month
that this happens assuming the 100 kilogram
24
le'vd. is held he would be covered by 3002 and
25
-------
69
1
2 would also, as the question indicates, would
3 also have to send the waste to a 3004 facility.
4 It would also be covered by 3010. In
5 other words, if you anticipate that you
g might generate more than 100 kilograms per
7 month you would have to notify the 3010.
g Another question is:
q "If a hazardous waste is being generated
on a regular or continuous basis as a result
of day to day plant operation, how is it
possible for the generator to apply to EPA
for an identification code before commencing
hazardous waste generation activities as
required in 250.24?"
15
Well, clearly what we mean there is that
16
before you commence operation on the day the
regulations go into effect you must have
IS
applied for an identification code which is in
19
effect notification of the process under 3010.
20
In other words if you have a hazardous
21
waste being continuously generated on a day
22
to day basis within 90 days after we
23
promulgate the final regulations under Section
24
3001 you must notify and satisfy the requirements
25
-------
70
1
2 for application for an identification code.
3 When you have that code you are ready to go
4 on the day the regulations go into effect.
5 Another question:
6 "On timetable 3010, notice within 90 days -
7 is this only for hazardous materials on 3Q01
8 list or does a company have to evaluate all
9 of its waste?"
jO Section 3010 requires notification within
11 90 days for any hazardous waste as defined in
12 Section 3001. Section 3001 as we discussed
13 yesterday defines hazardous wastes in two
14 different ways. One by the last and one by
j, its characteristics. The answer is yes.
j^ The mere fact that a waste does not
j_ appear on a list does not exempt you from the
definition of a hazardous waste. You also have
lo
to find out whether or not the waste meets
any of the characteristics.
If you have every reason to believe it
21
does not meet the characteristics and it's not
22
on the list you would not have to notify.
23
However, to be on the safe side if there is
24
any question as to whether you are not meeting
25
-------
71
1
2 any of these characteristics and evaluation
3 would be recommended.
4 Here's a question with respect to the
5 relationship between RCRA and the Marine
6 Protection R.S. Act.
7 "With respect to referencing the Marine
8 Protection R.S. Act, isn't the goal to have all
9 hazardous wastes treated in land based facilities
10 bY the end of 1981 or is it to have a special
11 permit for ocean disposal which could infer
12 that the waste is non-hazardous.
13 Therefore, can you explain why it is
14 necessary to reference the MPRSA in RCRA?"
15 My understanding of the provision of the
., MPRSA Act under the regulations thereto is that
j_ no new permits for ocean disposal of hazardous
waste material will be issued after 1981.
lo
1(, However, those comments that are in effect
as of that time will still continue in effect
until they expire.
Therefore, there will continue to be
22
ocean disposal. Furthermore, ocean incineration
23
of Hazardous Wastes on incinerator ships will
24
be covered under the Ocean Disposal Act. I
25
-------
72
1
o
don't believe the agency intends to bring that
3 to a halt after 1981. There will continue to
^ be a relationship between the land based
disposal and ocean based disposal.
We wanted to identify to the public what
7 the relationship was between two Acts and where
8 they overlap.
9 in effect, if you are practicing ocean
10 disposal, either direct to the ocean or
11 ocean incineration, and have an ocean disposal
12 permit usually those operations involve shore
13 based facilities for storage and prior to
14 disposal - - what we're saying here is that
15 there is both transportation waste control on
16 the generation site to the shore based facility
17 and the storage facility is subject to RCRA.
18 Once the material is loaded onto barges or onto
19 ocean going vessels then the baton is passed
20 full over to the ocean disposal permit.
2j We felt we needed to make that clear in
the regulations and that's why we referenced
„., the Act.
&3
Another question:
"Would a manufacturing company, wholly
-------
73
1
2 enclosed in one fenced in plant site, be
3 considered a generator of hazardous waste
4 material if aforesaid manufacturing company
5 incinerated 100 percent of its waste material
6 in a very sophisticated incinerator which met
7 all air standards 100 percent?
8 The intent here is to remove onerous
9 paperwork system or requirements of the
10 manifest system and other reports. If the
11 answer to the question is yes, are there
12 provisions for exemptions?"
13 If the incinerator in question here is
14 on-site as I presume that was the implication
of the question, it wasn't clear as to that - -
ID
if the incinerator is at the same site or
16
point of generation of the waste then there is
no requirement for a permit to be filled out.
18
As to the onerous paperwork required for
the manifest it does not apply to wastes which
are generated at one site and incinerated at
21
the same site. There are reporting requirements
22
hopefully so that the answer to the basic
23
question is, yes, that such an incinerator
24
would be subject to RCRA.
25
-------
74
1
2 Here's another aspect of this thing
3 that can be a little tricky.
4 We have recognized the fact that where a
5 single entity is both a generator and the
6 disposer we certainly don't want reporting
7 from both sides of that house so that the
8 reporting aspects with respect to disposal
9 that takes place on the same site is covered
10 under Section 3002 and reporting which is
-I discussed under Section 3002 rather than
12 Section 3004.
13 "Are there provisions for exemptions?"
14 No, there are no exemptions to the rule.
Clearly, if this incinerator is located
,, off the site of generation then the manifest
lo
system does apply and you would have the
additional requirements.
lo
Another aspect of that question is
covered in a different question.
20
"An industrial process produces a large
21
amount (greater than 100 kilograms per
22
month) of toxic liquid residue which is
23
subsequently injected into a process steam
24
boiler whereby it is rendered non-toxic.
25
-------
75
1
2 Does Section 3001 apply? Does Section 3002
3 apply? Does Section 3004 apply? Please
4 explain."
5 If this process steam boiler is an
6 incinerator for destroying waste and if it is
7 a separate facility on the same site then all
8 I said about the previous question applies
9 here.
JQ In other words if the waste is stored
j. for some period of time before it is put into
,0 the process steam boiler then the steam
jo boiler is, would be considered a treatment for
disposal operation under RCRA and would
require permitting and so on.
However, we recognize that on certain
16
occasions a sum of these waste materials
sometimes is fed directly and continuously from
the end of the process by piping and so on
directly into a process boiler without any
20
storage or any intermediate stop. If that is
21
the case, then, our policy has been to say
22
that we consider that processing boiler in
23
essence a part of the production process and
24
therefore, not subject.
25
-------
76
2 There is a little ambiguity here, but
3 we had to draw the line somewhere. Does a
4 waste become a waste as we discussed it
5 yesterday?
6 What we're saying is that a waste
7 basically that comes out of a process and is
8 stored for some period and is then fed into
9 another boiler somewhere and is shipped off-site
10 or sent to a landfill or whatever then that
11 waste does become part of the system.
12 If it is a continuous process without
13 interruption and it goes directly into the
14 boiler the enclosed pipes then it is not.
,, Another question:
... "May an individual make application for
17 a facility to handle special wastes, hazardous
wastes in the capacity of storage and/or
lo
._ transfer operations only? (Hold until a time
is found for the waste.)"
The answer to that is yes.
21
We do provide for treatment facility
22
storage and disposal facilities so a transfer
classified as a storage facility and there are
24
regulations that apply to storage facility
25
-------
77
1
2 permits. Yes, you certainly can make an
3 application for a facility along these lines.
4 Another question:
5 "Would a private company (not a utility
6 company) generating power and process steam
7 for other local private industries have its
8 waste classified as a special waste, since
9 the waste is the same as that of public
jO utilities?"
11 Well, the answer is yes. The definition
12 of a special waste from a steam power plant
13 which utilizes fossil fuels although the
14 title of that Section says utility wastes,
they are driving at any steam power plant
ID
which utilizes fossil fuels. It applies to any
16
plant that fits in that category and is not
limited to utility companies only.
IS
I have another question here.
"Can state authorization be granted
prior to publication of EPA regulations in
21
December 1979?"
22
No. They cannot becuase we would have to
23
know the measure of equivalency or consistency
24
which is required by the statute.
25
-------
78
1
2 In other words, before we can grant
3 authorization we have to insure that the
4 state program is equivalent or consistent
5 with the Federal program and until we
6 finalize the regulations in December we would
7 not have a basis for doing that.
8 MR. LINDSEY: You've gotten us with this
9 question.
10 "Please explain the rationale for
U defining storage tank differently in Subpart B
12 and D?"
13 You got us on that. I was the one
j4 responsible and I'll take my licks.
._ There is a small difference between the
-, two and you can rest assured we can rectify
17 that"
_ Another question:
15
T
-------
79
1
2 Why can't storage on premises be 180
3 days, six months, or 270 days, nine months or
4 some provision be made for extensions or
•* exceptions?"
" I think you've misinterpreted. You can
7 store for more than 90 days but you've got to
^ stop storage after 90 days. Our regulations
9 point out that over 90 days you need a storage
10 permit.
11 In other words, there are certain
12 requirements in Section 3004 for storage permit
13 and the reason for the 90 days exclusion was
14 to allow a manufacturing facility to accumulate
j5 enough waste so that it could economically be
16 sent to an off-site facility without generating
17 a heck of a lot of paperwork.
Ig It's our belief that storage uncontrolled
19 or that storage in which a permit has not been
2o issued can be conducted throughout the 90 days
2, without any reasonable problem with the drums.
It's our belief that drum waste will not create
a. problem in the 90 days even if they are left
^
-------
80
1
2 be the case and that's the reason why the 90
3 day limit exists. Less than 90 days we do not
4 see the potential for major problems and it's
5 been done in order to allow everyone who needs
6 a chance to store enough to economically ship
7 it off-site. However, for more than 90 days
8 we feel that to run the risk of a container
9 deteriorating and the material sitting around
j0 in an uncontrolled fashion is a problem and
therefore a storage permit is involved.
j2 You can store more than for 90 days,
jo however, it just requires a permit.
What you do in the initial notification
in ttis case is to give us your best estimate
-lO
of the kind of waste you will be generating,
16
if you are a generator and then apply to the
facility that treats the hazardous waste. You
18
would indicate the kind of waste, what you
19
are manufacturing, for example if it's
20
chlorinated hydrocarbons or a list of material
21
that you can best supply us with this regard.
22
This list will suffice for the notification.
23
As far as the permit goes that may be a
24
more difficult problem. A permit to treat
25
-------
81
1
2 waste in a pilot plant which just generates
3 and doesn't treat them does not require a
4 permit but a pilot plant in the business
5 of testing out incineration for example of
6 various kinds of waste would. In that case
•7 a permit, again, can be written to cover a
§ variety. This is more than one of the
g different kinds of wastes and it even can be
written in such a way to cover the generating
class of wastes rather than a list of each
individual one.
.„ On the other hand, there is a provision
in there for new wastes which belong to any
facility for amending and modifying the
ID
permit. The procedure for that will be in
3005 regulations which will be proposed one
month to six weeks.
18
Another question:
19
"In your commentary you appear to say that
20
destruction of wastes is interchangeable with
21
disposal of wastes and RCRA applies."
22
Destruction of waste is a treatment
23
process under the definition of the Act and
24
it's not disposal.
25
-------
82
1
2 There are regulations for both.
3 Another question:
4 "Relative to the 90 day storate limit for
5 large quantity waste generation, conceivably
6 one could accumulate wastes while facilities
7 are being built for treatment that would exceed
8 the 90 day limit.
9 Do the regulations allow prompt permitting
10 so that production does not have to be shut
11 down waiting for facility completion or RCRA
12 permit issuance? I know of an exemple where
13 an 8 mm gallon of waste accumulated over a two
14 year period before facilities were available
„ to dispose of the waste."
,, The statute indicates that the treatment,
10
storage and disposal facility if you are
storing waste waiting to build a facility, for
18
example, the act allows that those particular
wastes can continue to be stored under an
20
interum status provided notification is
21
submitted. You submit Part A of the
22
application in order to get a storage permit
23
that could continue under an interum status.
24
You would not have to close down the plant
25
-------
83
2 and the same goes for treatment or disposal
3 facilities. We attempt to promulgate the
4 regulations provided notificationhas been
5 given to us on Part A of the permit and
6 provided those facilities could continue to
7 operate as they do now.
8 EPA gets around to another permit
9 application for a new facility. The new
10 facility must comply and would not be subject
11 to this interum status, thus, require a permit
12 before that storage could commence a storage
13 permit is necessary and then they can build
14 the treatment facility at a later time.
jg The last part of this question seems to
jg have to do with how long it takes to grant permits.
j^ This again is dependent on what the final
ls permit rules and regulations are. They have not
,„ been proposed and will be proposed soon. The
preliminary due process requirements by this
Act are rather extensive. The reason for that
is to protect the rights of persons who want a
permit and the right of people who might oppose
to have - -
24
I think the best time to take up any
-------
84
1
2 serious discussion of that is when the
3 proposal comes out and the open rules for
4 persons processing or proposed within another
5 month or so where there will be a set of
6 hearings. I believe there will be three
7 hearings around the country on those.
8 Incidentally, those same provisions
9 w hich will apply to RCRA, apply to MPDS and
10 the UIC permits.
11 Another question:
12 "What is the purpose of defining storage
13 tank to include only covered devices?
14 This seems to place an unwarranted
,- limitation on facilities which could be
., considered storage tanks and may lead to
._ substantial costs to cover tanks when such
covering may not be necessary for protection of
lo
human health or the environment."
If someone has some information on that
point I would suggest they do so through a
comment. It appears that this has been sent
22
in as a comment. The comment period is before
23
May 16th but let me answer why that is and we
24
can go on from there.
25
-------
85
1
2 All of this has to do with the definition
3 for storage and disposal. The term storage is
4 used in connection and means waste containment.
5 Waste kept for a period of time in such a
6 manner is not to be confused with disposal.
7 Looking back in the dictionary disposal is the
8 discharge of deposits or placing of hazardous
9 solid waste into any land or water such as
10 solid waste which may entere the environment
11 or be emitted into the air. That's the key
12 phrase. In other words, any process or any
13 storage facility which emits a waste or any
14 constituents thereof into the air by
j5 definition would in fact constitute disposal.
jg Thus, in order to prevent emission you've got
j_ to have a covered tank. That's basically the
.„ reason why we have the requirement that the
j9 tanks be covered.
2Q MR. TRASK: I have a number of questions
21 here"
"A generator consolidates similar wastes
from various internal sources and moves these
wastes to a central storage area for off-site
24
disposal.
-------
86
1
2 At what point would the storage of these
3 wastes begin?"
4 The question becomes here whether or
5 not these wastes are coining from a pipeline
5 directly into the storage tank. If they do
•7 they intend to move them off-site for disposal
8 then the 90 day period begins to apply in this
9 storage point. That is when the storage hits
,Q that tank.
If the generator is disposing of these
j2 wastes monthly, for example, and presumably
,., never exceeds the 90 days, therefore they are
not required to have a permit for that storage.
This relates to a different question
15
relating to the assumption of duties of the
generator by a transporter or treatment storage
or disposal facility.
18
In the regulation 250.28 there is a
19
provision for waste oil haulers and refiners or
20
treatment storage disposal facilities to strike
21
a contract with the waste oil generators, such
22
as service stations whereby some or all of
23
the duties of the generator would be assumed
24
by the collector, who is the person who picks up
25
-------
87
1
2 the oil.
3 This question says:
4 "in each of the four circumstances
5 addressed in 250.20 (c)(1) the generator is
6 relieved of requirements under 250.28.
7 Is this exemption appropriate considering
8 250.28 (b)?"
9 The question I think is can anyone do
10 this besides the waste oil haulers?
11 There is nothing in the regulations
12 which prevents that from happening. It was
13 not out intent, however, to make that
14 provision. In other words, we did not make
]5 a specific provision saying you could do this,
16 however, we do not prohibit it either. As a
17 matter of fact we do know of some other
18 situations where there is partial acceptance
19 of responsibilities.
20 There are a number of extremeiy important
2i legal questions being raised here and I think
22 that before going into it any further we may
2o need to look at some of the legal aspects of
24 ifc"
However, it is important to point out that
-------
88
1
2 our regulations say if such a contract - -
3 speaking now for waste oil - - if such a
4 contract is drawn up between two people then
5 the generator's duties are not being assumed
6 by the colledtor and must be specified in that
7 contract. That's the keypoint of that.
8 Another question:
9 "When a generator produces a waste which
10 is taken in by a treatment center or exchange
jj center, how far is the manifest from the
12 generator to go? Who is responsible for the
13 final manifest?"
^4 The word exchange center is a little
.,. confusing to me. I'm not sure exactly what is
j^ meant there. If it is meant that this is a
,- recycling operation then the waste may not be
jo a waste and it may not be in the system at
ig all.
„_ If it is a treatment center which the
questions also asks then the generator is
responsible for the manifest being given to
22
the transporters and the transporter is
responsible for carrying it to the treatment
24
center. The treatment center must sign it and
25
-------
89
1
2 is responsible to see that the signed original
3 copy gets back to the generator.
4 The second part of that question is:
5 "In a center where drums are accumulated
6 for shipment and proper disposal how long are
7 they allowed to keep these drums? Due to
8 scattered centers for acceptance of these
9 drums it might not be feasible to ship these
10 drums because of the quantity considering
U dollar cost."
12 I gather that the concern is that it
13 takes a while to accumulate enough drums before
14 it is economical to ship them from one point.
15 The intent here is that if the drums such as
,f these or any other waste is held for more than
,_ 90 days in storage then a permit would be
10 needed and that's independent of whether they're
lo
j~ going for recycling or not.
We may have work in this area to adjust
the regulations, but that's our intent.
Another question:
22
"A generator produces 1000 kilograms
23
over several months and that's the total for
24
the year.
25
-------
90
1
2 Waste is stored on-site and disposed on
3 a monthly basis in quantities less than 100
4 kilograms.
5 Is this situation regulated as a small
6 generator only?"
7 Ihe answer is no.
8 The definition of a small generator says
9 he produces and disposes of less than 100
IQ kilograms per month so if you produce more
Ij than 100 kilograms per month then he is a
12 generator.
13 Incidentally, there is no such thing as
14 a small generator. We did toy with a
... definition for that at one time but we didn't
., know if he was three feet tall or four feet
17 tal1'
The point is that he is not a generator
IS
ifhe has less than 100 kilograms.
Another question:
"Are those who sell or give freely 100
21
kilograms per month of film scrap X-ray to a
22
silver recovery firm, generators of hazardous
23
wastes? (Presumably the film would fail the
24
EP test for silver.) Would the silver recovery
25
-------
91
I
2 firm then in turn, be a waste generator, if
3 the residue failed the EP test independent of
4 whether the residue is going to be disposed of
5 on-site?"
6 For the first part of the question, of
7 course if it is less than 100 kilograms per
8 month then the person is not a generator and
9 is not in the system.
10 If it is more than 100 kilograms for a
11 month and is going for recovery then it is
12 not a waste.
13 Now, if the silver recovery firm
14 generates more than 100 kilograms of hazardous
j. waste per month then it is a generator and
,, comes into the system. It's residue and
lo
comes into the system independent of whether
it's on-site or off-site.
IS
Another question:
"Is there any consideration of hazardous
waste generated by industrial laboratories - -
21
many chemical compounds or mixtures in small
22
amounts totalling greater than 100 kilograms
per month?"
24
I think we have discussed that a number
25
-------
92
2 of times here this morning.
3 Yes, that would be a hazardous waste if
4 it totals more than 100 kilograms per month.
5 The exemption applies to the total of
6 waste-stream and not to the individual
7 components of it .
8 Another question:
9 "If generation of hazardous waste is
10 intermittent; for example one generates 120
11 kilograms one month, 40 the next et cetera,
12 but one spaces the disposal of the wastes so
13 that less than 100 kilograms per month is
14 always met.
15 Is the facility exempt?"
jg The answer is no.
17 The generator is exempt only if he
jo produces and disposes of no more than 100 kilo-
19 grams per month. Incidentally you can find that
2Q in 250.29 bery clearly spelled out.
Another question:
"Section 250.10 (d) (1) states that the
100 kilogram per month exemption is for
persons not places of operation.
If two subsidiary corporations at the
-------
93
1
2 same site (that is two separate factories) each
3 pr-duce less than 100 kilograms per month, are
4 they exempt or must their waste be aggregated?"
5 If there is more than 100 kilograms per
6 month and if it is noted as a single facility
7 the total amount produced by the two factories
8 would be the same. If they notified as
9 separate facilities each one would be entitled
JQ to 100 kilograms per month exemption.
jj Another question:
12 "Is there a quantity of hazardous waste
J3 below which storage for more than 90 days
,, by a generator will not require permitting?"
One who produces below the 100 kilograms
ID
per month is not a generator. I guess the
16
answer to the question is there is no quantity
and so you would not be a generator if there
is less than 100 kilograms per month.
I have a question relating to the
transporting of hazardous wastes and Alan
may overrule me on this.
22
"If wastes, such as power plant ash, are
23
sluiced through a pipeline or conveyor from
24
one site to another site (for off-site
25
-------
94
2 treatment or disposal) how are the shipping
3 papers handled? How does the manifest travel
4 with the vehicle?"
5 Well, I guess you put a little slug in
6 there and shoot it through by air.
7 We're not regulating pipelines. Let's
8 eliminate conveyor. I don't see how you can
9 sluice things through a conveyor.
10 It would be a pipeline which is the only
11 way I know of sluicing something. The
12 pipeline being a covered or integral unit
13 with no chance for the material to escape to
14 the environment then we do not consider that
15 transportation.
,, When the waste comes to the end of that
lo
,- pipeline -so there is no manifest that is
required if there is on-site disposal.
lo
19 MR. ROBERTS: That's close enough.
2Q As As we announced in the preamble we are
attempting to cooperate with the EPA in the
transportation of hazardous materials.
If EPA turns loose our office on pipeline
^o
safety we would be glad to cooperate.
24
I guess they have their problems righlp now
-------
95
1
2 with liquified natural gas.
3 I have a question.
4 "How is responsibility split among (1)
5 DOT, (2) states and (3) Coast Guard and the
6 Corps of Engineers on standards and reporting
7 requirements for barge transported wastes?"
8 I have to edit the question.
9 First of all I'd like to point out that
10 the Coast Guard is within DOT so that basically
11 we're talking about one in the same in terms
12 °f assigned responsibility to my office, the
13 trnasportation bureau. Our office assigns
,4 the responsibility for the movement of
hazardous materials. In this case we're talking
It)
about wastes transported by all modes of
16
transportation, air, highway, rail, water with
one major exception and that's bulk
18
transportation by vessel.
Basically, this is an old nomenclature
term. The materials are loaded aboard the
21
vessel without benefit of wrapper and basically,
22
after we .deal with the container it is swung
23
over the side and placed on the vessel deck
24
and that's about where we step in. The
25
-------
96
1
2 materials are delivered onto the vessel by
3 shoots, hoses and other means of conveyors.
4 In bulk in the normal sense our office
5 is not involved and the United States Coast
6 Guard as we have mentioned in the preamble of
7 our rule making document clearly does not deal
§ with the bulk movement. The builk movement,
g and correct me if rm wrong, is in a EPA
published notice and absent of the rules and
regulations by the Coast Guard in this
particular field.
13 Still, this wbuld put many of these
materials within the purview of the Coast
14
Guard subject to 46 CFR and the treatment of
15
hazardous materials.
16
Some of these hazardous wastes and these
17
are matters which I don't know since it's
18
not within the purview of my office.
19
I hope that answers that part.
20
If a drum freight container is loaded
21
on a barge, a portable tank or anything of
22
that type it's within the purview of this
23
ruling and what we're talking about here
24
today.
25
-------
97
1
2 if loaded by hose or shoots or conveyors,
3 et cetera, it is not.
4 We have a persistent questioner in the
5 audience and I apprecaite persistence. 1
6 don't mind taking the guff. Tf the message is
7 not clear either we have erred in presenting
8 the answer or else the rule is lousy and we
9 ought to look into it.
10 The gentleman asks:
11 "Please stop gong around in circles.
12 Does each truck of a multiple truck
13 shipment have to have a manifest or doesn't
14 it?"
!„ Basically the answer is no. First of
., all, as I said before, our proposed Section
172.205 states the following requirements
apply to the hazardous waste manifest when
18
required by 40CFR 250.22 for hazardous waste
transportation. 40CFR 250.22 does not require
a manifest. This rule does not require a
21
manifest.
22
I have to emphasize again that regardless
of that statement you may satisfy the DOT
24
requirement for a shipping paper by use of the
25
-------
98
1
2 manifest. If the manifest contains all the
3 information DOT requires in its other rules
4 and shipping documents.
5 Now, going back to the EPA proposal
6 250.22 they worked out an arrangement that
7 says for one shipment for a multiple shipment
8 of hazardous wastes during any one day goes
9 into a series of provisos.
10 Looking at the bottom of 58977 in the
jj lower lefthand corner, paragraph F you'll see
12 the provisos.
13 I'm afraid I apologize for this. I'm
14 bringing in my transportation experience into
l_ industry. We're dealing with a topic that
., people characterize as a part lot of one ship-
ment of a large mass of material. In order to
get it out of the plant within a given date
18
and to the consignee it is common practice - -
I would suggest that we have a master manifest
keeping the day's activities. If we have 700
drums to be moved I would suggest that it be
22
treated as a normal ten truck load of the
23
material. There would be a master manifest if
24
I were the trucker and the generator and I'd
25 y
-------
99
1
2 probably Xerox a bunch of copies. It could
3 be done by giving the number of the packages,
4 what it consisted of. That's basically what's
5 designed here. I don't believe that the
6 words are quite that long except, as I have
7 suggested, several times we have overstated
8 our use or overuse of the word shipment. We
9 have to find other words for the word shipment
jO if we don't want to bog ourselves down with
11 a basic definition of the word.
12 I hope I have explained it well enough so
13 I won't get another card saying we're going
14 around in circles. I think it does need to
]5 be clarified a little bit.
., Here's another question:
-_ "Can a combination DOT/shipping paper - -
EPA/manifest (i.e. one document) be used when
18
offering for transport hazardous waste
material? (It is assumed that all DOT info
and all EPA info will be shown on the one
document.)"
22
The answer is yes and has been stated
23
several times in the very last paragraph in
24
our proposed Section 172.205 which says that
25
-------
100
I
2 an interpretation of wording "No specific
3 package" is used in 250.25 Al. A waste not
4 regulated by DOT and stored and disposed of
5 in new non-DOT containers - - I don't know
6 how to answer this one in a few minutes.
7 Basically for movement of hazardous
8 materials we require the use of DOT
9 specificetons. Most significantly the
10 hazardous materials, for example, flammable
11 liquids in 50 gallon containers with a
12 flashpoint of lower than 73 degrees in a
13 close cup must be in a DOT specification
14 container.
,_ If it's a waste material and moving it
1J
16 must have a DOT specification container. That's
what EPA has said for materials that are in
the category of hazardous wastes NOS. On the
lo
size regulations by DOT there is no specific
container requirement. When you get that far
down in the pecking order of hazardous
materials that's after you have determined it
22
is not explosive, flammable, oxidized,
23
corrosive or radioactive material or a Class A
24
or Class B poison. if you come out and have a
25
-------
101
I
2 hazardous material or hazardous waste NOS
3 in that case a specification package is not
4 required and then there is a general duty
5 clause specified ba-ically in compliance with
6 173.24.
1 Summing up very quickly it is under the
g general duties clause of Osha. I can't
9 spend the time to go into detail, but
,„ basically those steps are necessary in
packaging to insure no significant release
2 of the material to the environment during
„ transportation. EPA says the same thing and
is consistent with our regulations for
multiple packaging and is consistent with the
provisions, the General Duties provision in
16
173.24.
17
MR. LEHMAN: I have a question here.
18
"If a plant generates several unrelated
hazardous waste-streams all of different
20
composition, with each stream less than 100
21
kilograms per month but the total over 100
22
kilograms would any of these separate waste-
23
streams be covered by regulations?"
24
Yes, all of them.
25
-------
102
1
2 What we're driving at here is a 100
3 kilogram per month limit applies to the
4 facility and not to each individual waste-
5 stream. It's the aggregate. Over 100
6 kilograms per month all waste-streams are
7 subject to regulations.
8 "Assume a sludge from a water treating
9 process that is hauled in bulk to landfill.
jO If this should exceed ph 12 would it be
jj considered hazardous and require disposal in
j2 special containers to approved facility with
j3 manifest for each shipment, et cetera?"
j^ The answer is yes. It would be
considered hazardous but it exceeds the
1 o
characteristics for corrosive wastes and under
ID
Section 3001 which states any waste material
which is greater than or equal to a ph of 12
lo
is a hazardous waste. So, it would be a
hazardous waste and it would be in the
20
regulatpry system and would have to go to an
21
approved facility.
22
The second part of the question:
23
"What if the ph would be adjusted to
24
below 12 before disposal?"
25
-------
103
1
2 in this case the process of adjusting
3 the ph would be treatment in accordance with
4 RCRA and the act of ph adjustment would be
5 a treatment process and would again require
6 permit under RCRA.
7 The end product of the treatment may not
8 be a hazardous waste. In other words, the
9 ph might adjust the waste and it would no
10 longer be a corrosive but the sludge may or
11 may not be hazardous. From that aspect you
12 would also have to check against all the
13 other characteristics in terms of radioactivity,
14 flammability, toxicity to make sure it doesn't
15 meet any of these characteristics.
jg If it doesn't and it's not on the list,
17 on our list after this treatment, it would not
10 be a hazardous waste and hence forth would not
lo
jo be part'of the system.
„_ Another question:
"in 250.20 (c)CD (ii), what is $he
21
purpose in requiring the generator to comply
with 250.43-5 of Subpart D since the generator
would be required to do so any way as a
treater, storer, or disposer?"
-------
104
2 The reference is to a section where
3 basically you're saying if a generator
4 facility is in the same state and he ships
5 his material to a facility that he opens he
6 must comply with Section 250.435 Subpart D
7 and the purpose of doing that in Section
8 3002 regulations is to clarify the reporting
9 requirements. In other words, we're trying
10 to avoid double reporting where there is
11 reporting both as a generator and reporting
12 as a facility operator. That's the reason
13 why we're explicitly mentioning that in our
14 proposed regulations.
jg In this question the term "utility"
j^ is used and I 'm not sure whether the question
17 is meant to mean an electric utility or any
,„ manufacturing facility. The question goes
,g like this.
2_ "If a utility receives a substance which
has been classified as hazardous material but
which is to be used as a raw material for a
22
process does the utility need special permits
fci5
to handle this material?"
24
The answer is no.
25
-------
105
1
2 Whether you mean a utility or manufacturing
3 facility or whatever RCRA does not deal with
4 raw materials. RCRA deals with waste
5 products so if it's & hazardous material,
6 meaning a hazardous commodity, then it would
7 not be part of the RCRA system. However,
8 any facility or utility or any other process
9 which uses hazardous materials as a raw
10 material for a process that would give you a
11 pretty good clue that the residue from that
12 process may be hazardous. You would certainly
13 want to check the residue from that process
14 to see if it meets any of the materials whether
,,- they're on our list or they meet any of the
jg characteristics of hazardous materials. In
,_ other words the residue from such a process
,o may be hazardous.
,g Here's a question that deals 'with my
„_ previous response to a question regarding the
state authorization and as to whether or not
such authorization could be given before the
22
regulations are promulgated. This question
^O
refers to our proposed Section 3010 which
24
states that a state may receive interum
25
-------
106
1
2 authorization to receive notification
3 reports and that this authority would be
4 granted to a state before the final 3001
5 regulations are adopted.
6 We have received mainy comments urging us
7 not to allow states to have interum authority
8 to receive notification reports. The Agency
9 is considering that issue now and I'm not
10 at liberty because of the nature of that
11 particular regulation to discuss how we intent
12 to deal with that. We are considering that
13 issue as to whether or not the state should
14 be allowed to have interum authority to
15 receive notification at this time.
16 MS. SCHAEFER: Question: "Since
17 generators of small quantities are exempt
18 from many requirements of these proposed
19 regulations, what control or verification
2o procedures would the Agency recommend to
2i states administering HW programs concerning
22 these persons?"
2o The first thing is that states don't
necessarily have to exempt small generators.
Although, if they want to make their program
-------
107
I
2 consistent with other programs if they can
3 show there is authorization and what they're
4 doing is consistent with the federal and
5 other state programs then they are not
6 necessarily exempt.
7 Secondly, if they do exempt small
8 generators there's one thing they could do
9 which is not specifically spelled out in the
10 federal regulations but that is to use a
11 certification of noninclusion which is
12 discussed in 3001 for those persons who
13 generate wastes that are listed under 250.4
14 but are not hazardous after they have done
-5 all their testing. That's a way of having
16 some kind of a certification for excluding
,_ small generators.
]s In addition, I think one of the important
..„ things that should be brought up is that one
of the reasons why we have excluded small
generators is because of the understanding
that small amounts of hazardous wastes can
22
be co-disposed with normal waste in a sanitary
23
landfill.
24
If the state goes along with the Subtitle D
25
-------
108
1
2 guidelines and requires that the landfill
3 in their state complies with those guidelines
4 then I don't think there would be very much of
5 a problem in dispoing the small amount of
6 hazardous waste.
7 Another question:
8 "Regarding waste oil - - the preamble
9 states that generators will be relieved of
jO most of the risk of non-compliance.
11 Please elaborate as to what are the risks
12 that the generators will be liable for?"
13 Well, first of all any kind of contract
14 law that a person who is contracting outside
.._ an activity never completely gives up the
., liability for the activity. If required
j_ under the law that general sense of liability
is retained by the generator regardless of
lo
_ whether he contracts out his responsibilities
as are discussed in the 3002.
Secondly, there are certain things the
generator is responsible for and that is to
22
make sure that the person who is contracting
23
out to be the transporter or hazardous waste
24
management is within the RCRA program there
25
-------
109
1
2 must be an ID number and a permit facility.
3 If the generator does not make sure of those
4 things he certainly does retain all the
5 liability for his wastes, specifically for
6 his waste oil.
7 Question: "How would you know whether a
8 company's waste material has been on the
9 company lot 90 days or three months or more?
10 Do you simply have to take the word of the
11 company as to the length of time the
12 material has been on the ground?"
13 First of all, the requirement is that the
14 material if it is being stored by the generator
.c prior to transportation it has to be stored in
,/• DOT containers. Hence, it's supposed to be
j- marked and ready for transportation and there
.._ has to be some indication as to what the
lo
..„ waste is and when it was produced. In addition,
there is also some co-record as to the initiation
of the manifest which will indicate when the
21
waste was shipped. That's not to say that
22
information comes into EPA per se which says
*"«3
that the waste has been stroed for 90 days.
24
I think it would be pretty obvious on
-------
110
I
2 inspection whether a waste has been on a
3 site for more than 90 days or not.
4 MS. DARRAH: Question: "Discuss
5 generator liability for wastes sent to a
6 TSDF with interum status but does not receive
7 final permit?"
8 If t&e generator has complied with all
9 other applicable requirements EPA would not
!0 try to hold the generator liable for a
jj violation of the RCRA regulations. That
12 does not relieve a generator of responsibility
13 under state law. The state nuisance law or
14 some other law that deals with hazardous waste
. facilities nor would it relieve the generator
1£)
of liability from persecution if it were
lo
appropriate under the eminent hazard provision
of Section 7003.
lo
MR. LINDSEY: Question: "If a municipality
owns a co-disposal incinerator to burn municipal
sludge processed on-site and municipal,
21
commercial and industrial solid waste would
22
they be required to obtain permits? If so,
23
what type?"
24
RCRA is the only thing I'm qualified to
25
-------
Ill
1
2 deal with here. If the industrial waste
3 were hazardous under the definitions of
4 3001, the RCRA permit, and if not they would
5 not. Essentially that's the answer.
6 Question: "Is fly ash from plant steam
7 boilers included in the special waste category
8 for utility waste? If not, why?"
9 The special waste definition talks about
in steam power plants using fossil fuels. Now,
the way I read it in this case is that a
12 steam power plant presumably generates power
., and in that case the answer is yes. If a
plant steam boiler does not generate power, as
I interpret that, then my answer would be no.
Now to the question "if not, why?"
16
That question is a reasonably good question
and if somebody would like to make that case
I would suggest he submit comments and we'll
consider them.
20
Question: "In Subpart D (Section 3004)
21
you state a test of significance to
22
quantitatively define significant will be
23
developed where the Agency believes it is
24
necessary.
25
-------
112
1
2 Would you please elaborate on this? I
3 know a lot of people have problems with the
4 application of statistical methods and should
5 have some idea of what is required so that
6 they may be prepared."
7 I'll be honest, I'm not sure what this
g particular question refers to in Section 3004.
9 I would suggest two things here. It
JQ looks like this refers to some sort of a
- discussion between one of the participants
jo and somebody on our staff.
j3 I would request that whoever generated
-. this question has two options. You may wait
until tomorrow and ask it again or else there
1J
is a fellow back there by the name of Tim
16
Fields and whoever wants to discuss this can
get a hold of him and go through this.
Another question:
19 H
"If a generator has two storage tanks
20
at one facility and if one tank is emptied
21
every ten days and the other is emptied every
22
100 days, would those tanks have to be
23
permitted since they are located at one
24
facility?"
25
-------
113
1
2 In the case of facilities we have held
3 it to be our policy here that the person
4 who owns the said facility can determine
5 where essentially the fine line is. Thus,
6 he could determine that the one tank emptied
7 every 100 days is one facility and that would
8 require a permit. There is no question about
9 that.
10 On the other one that is defined out of
U a facility situation, however, it should be
!2 pointed out under 250.25 (a)(2) that the
j3 standards at that particular tank would have
,. to meet the same standards under 3004. The
only difference is it wouldn't need a permit.
15
Question: "Some local governments continue
16
to service bulk containers of industrial waste,
some of which no doubt is hazardous, and dispose
18
of this waste at a local landfill.
Are local governments exempt from these
regulations?
21
Do you have any suggestions on how to
22
prevent hazardous waste from entering the
23
conventional waste-stream through bulk
24
containers?"
25
-------
114
1
2 Local governments are not exempt from
3 any of the regulations that I could think of.
4 They may be generators if they own a power
5 plant and some municipalities do. They can
6 also be transporters and in this case we
7 might have a municipal landfill, treatment or
8 storage disposal facility which conceivably
9 receive those kinds of wastes.
10 However, responsibility of the generator,
jl whoever the generator is, to start the manifest
22 system and designate the permit on that
13 manifest at a permitted disposal site. If
j4 that's the case then the manifest must accompany
the shipment of wastes. In other words, if in
It)
the case of a municipality which is doing the
ID
transporting but is not the generator, in
other words picking up waste from a generator,
IS
its responsibility is to identify those
wastes. The municipality would have to have
an identification number and have to follow the
21
transporter requirements.
22
The question, however, goes beyond that
23
and I'm not sure I anticipated that the question
24
may go beyond that.
25
-------
115
1
2 If we have a generator who is generating
3 a small quantity, less than 100 kilograms a
4 month, in that case under these regulations
5 they could dispose of that waste in accordance,
6 in the same way they dispose of municipal
7 refuse provided that the waste goes onto a
g Subtitle B facility which meets the
o requirements of a sanitary landfill.
The question, then, comes to a logical
conclusion. When a municipality wants to
take small quantities of hazardous waste what
recourse does that have?
lo
Presumably, they have local ordinances
14
which they could either institute or maybe
15
that are in existence which will prevent
16
people from giving waste which they don't
want to take and which would not be covered
18
under these regulations.
19
Hopefully, that covers it.
20
Question: "On tank storage, does
21
emission into the air apply to the exceeding
22
of vapor parameters set by the Bureau of Air
23
Quality Control or simply exposure to air?"
24
If you remember I read the definition of
25
-------
116
1
2 what disposal was. I think that's what this
3 is getting to. The language in here is not
4 clear but I believe they're talking about
5 hazardous waste or the constituents thereof.
6 That's the way I would answer that.
7 The second part of the question: "Will
8 all tanks used for storage or treatment be
9 required to be completely sealed with input
10 going through submerged fill pipe or bottom
11 flow piping (top vented)?"
12 It doesn't say that. I would recommend
13 to the person asking this question that they
14 again look over 250.44-1 referring specifically
,j- to storage tanks. It talks about volatile
,, wastes and not venting directly into the
atmosphere and having a containment device.
If a tank ruptured that would be one more
IS
19
thing and the requirement would be in accordance
with spill prevention regulations. There is
nothing like that written in there.
The third part of the question: "Will
22
they be required to be painted any particular
£••$
color? (white)"
24
Well, that's a facitious person. If it's
25
-------
117
1
2 meant seriously we will take that under
3 advisement.
4 One more question: "With respect to
5 old landfills established 30 - 50 years ago
6 that contain hazardous materials on list.
7 Can they be permitted if monitoring
8 results show no substantial harm to humans
9 or environment even though they do not fit
10 the engineering description of approved
11 landfills per RCRA? Are they exempt?
12 Would the answer be different if
13 leachate from landfill is collected and treated/
,. disposed of through an NPDES outfall?
Conceivably there are old landfills
containing hazardous wastes which although do
16
not conform with proposed regulations are
reasonable adequate and to upgrade to conform,
18
might be impractical from a cost standpoint
or engineering.
Do the proposed regulations allow for
special consideration or exemptions for such
22
cases?"
23
I should point out old landfills which
24
have been closed down prior to the promulgation
25
-------
118
1
2 of these regulations are not covered by
3 these regulations. They are covered by 7003
4 which is eminent hazardous provisions. While
5 abandoned landfills are a problem they are
6 not covered through these regulations.
7 Although the regulations prevent this from
8 reoccurring, we don't expect to have new
9 situations like this generated, but the
10 ones that already exist are a different
n story.
12 One part of this question talked about
13 recovering the leachates presumably from
14 these landfill sites. The status of the
leachates in this case would be a hazardous
l j
waste and after moving the hazardous waste if
16
they fail the criteria and have to move them
presumably they require a manifest and disposal
18
would require a permit.
If they are discharged, say to a pipe,
the leachates would be covered by PBS.
21
Another question: "Transport by truck of
22
dry bulk material.
23
Power plant ask is often transported by
24
dumptruck or similar open vehicle. If the ash
25
-------
119
1
2 is classed as hazardous, can the ash still
3 be shipped in dumptrucks or must the ash be
4 placed into DOT approved containers?
5 If the ash is damp enough to control
6 dusting, it would seem ridiculous to nave
7 to put ash into drums or closed trucks like
8 cement trucks."
9 We specifically address this topic in
10 proposed rulemaking. Refer to provision
11 Section 173.510 (a)(5) and at the very end
12 of 22633 of the DOT document which I put out
13 on the table.
14 Portable containers in tank cars and
15 transportation vehicles must be free from
,, leaks and all openings securely closed during
transportation.
Open top freight containers and transport
lo
vehicles are not permitted for bulk shipments.
In the preamble in the Section 173.510 we
had significant provisions against the use of
open top freight containers and the
22
transportation vehicles for bulk shipments.
This provision applies to the use of tarp
24
covered bulk trucks for the transport of
25
-------
120
1
2 hazardous wastes or any other hazardous material
3 in bulk. Compliance would be assured in
4 Section 173.24.
5 I don't know if I can give you a better
6 response than what I've said. I'm fully
7 aware in making that proposal that some of
8 you are aware of the experiences we have had
9 with materials admitted from transport
10 vehicles during transportation.
11 We had one several years ago on the
12 Ohio Turnpike where a chemical leaked out
13 across the windshield of quite a number of
I* automobiles. Many of you who have followed
a dumptruck understand what we're talking
lo
about in terms of material that is defined or
ID
described as hazardous waste.
I would suggest that the person who has
18
an interest in this comment on what
transportation controls may or should be imposed
to meet the intended purpose of the provision
that I quite well understand the concern being
22
expressed by the people in this area who have
23
short hauls of material going out to an
24
approved disposal facility.
25
-------
121
1
2 I can comment on this aspect as far as
3 the DOT proposal is concerned and the one
4 other point I feel very much obligated to
5 bring to your attention is that a lot of
6 this doalogue this morning is concerned with
7 250.29, the 100 kilograms per month.
8 It's an exclusion of a substantial
9 portion being proposed in the rule making,
jO but definitely is in the deregulatory sense
11 as I would read it. I bring this to your
12 attention because in our proposed implement
13 talks RCRA for transportation has proposed
14 Section 172.101 (c)(8). On page 2671 of our
rule making we see the proper shipping name
Ij
,, for hazardous material, that is a hazardous
lo
waste subject to the requirements included in
the word waste which precedes the name of the
18
material, for example such as the waste
turpentine.
I should emphasize that all the DOT papers,
shipping documents, requirements and all the
22
DOT requirements for hazardous materials apply
£j
not because they 're wastes but because they're
24
hazardous materials and DOT documentation
25
-------
122
I
2 requires marking and labeling.
3 Down in the area of hazardous waste
4 NOS, I would acknowledge that the requirement
5 would become minimal because the other DOT
6 hazardous material regulations dealing with
7 specifications of requirements in labeling,
8 placarding are not applicable. This comment
9 does not mean that you are exempt from the
10 DOT regulations becuase you ship less than
11 100 kilograms per month. I feel I'm obligated
12 to emphasize that.
13 In my forthcoming publication there will
14 be requirements on hazardous materials in
jcj some cases down to one point. In terms of
16 harmful, reportable quantities and some
Y, rather significant materials which will be
j8 covered under this listing and we're going to
19 publish more than 200 materials by chemical
2Q name. I just want to make that clear. I
don't want anybody to walk out of here assuming
that 250.29 was an automatic exclusion from
regulations of a large body of regulations.
*3
MS. DARRAH: We'll now take a lunch break
24
and report back to the hearing at 2:00 p.m.
-------
123
1
2 this afternoon.
3 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned
4 until 2:00 p.m.)
5 MS. DARRAH: May we begin this afternoon's
6 session, please.
7 The topic of this afternoon's session
8 will be Section 3003, standards for transporters
9 and we'll start off by receiving comments from
lO the first person scheduled to speak, Mr.
jj Atherton from the J.M. Huber Corporation in
12 Edison, New Jersey.
13 He doesn't seem to be here.
14 Mr. Hershson, would you like to speak?
MR. HERSHSON: I'm afraid I must make a
lo
personal confession at this time. I frankly
16
have not done my homework on the proposal
and overlooked that small paragraph in the
18
federal regulations on 3003. I have prepared
nothing concerning the DOT portion of the
regulations and I'm indebted to Alan Roberts
21
because he has pointed out to me the error of
22
my ways.
23
He told me there would be a discussion
24
today about the DOT regulations and so I have
25
-------
124
1
2 nothing prepared in advance to submit to
3 the panel. I intend to within a short time
4 submit a prepared statement, however, I would
5 like to make a couple of comments.
6 At the June 20th, 1978 joint hearing in
7 Alexandria we submitted a statement and
8 presented arguments concerning both RCRA and
9 the DOT proposals which were jointly being
10 considered at that meeting. Many of the DOT
11 suggested changes in their dockets HM1405A
12 were based we believe on the then understanding
13 and perhaps the tentative interpretation that
14 the RCRA regulations would provide their
,,- empty drums which previously contained a
,, hazardous material and what had been deemed as
lo
._ a hazardous materia'l. Thereafter, the
generator, the transporter, treatment facility,
lo
19 disposal site, et cetera, which would all be
subject to the RCRA regulations concerning the
generation, transport and receipt of empty
drums.
22
That situation is now completely changed
as was pointed out yesterday morning under
24
Section 3001 regulations. Empty drums which
25
-------
125
1
2 previously contained any hazardous material
3 are excluded from the RCRA regulations when
4 the drums are to be delivered to a reconditioner
5 for reconditioning. Such a drum is not deemed
6 a "discarded material" since it has been
7 reclaimed for reuse.
8 Consequently, I believe that all the DOT
9 proposals to create the compatability with
10 the RCRA proposal is and should now be
11 reconsidered by DOT in the light of this RCRA
12 exclusion.
13 Some DOT suggestions, as a matter of fact,
14 HM1405A were rather prothetic in that RCRA
I5 would change its stand. This is notably found
16 in Section 173.29C of the DOT regulations
j^ which state a package that contains residue of
,0 a hazardous material contains a hazardous
lo
,„ waste. For the purpose of this subchapter
20 if the packages are offered for transportation,
and I underline the next phrase, to be
discarded I'm assuming that DOT defines the
22 y
word discarded as distinguished from the
definition of the word reused as it's
24
presently being used by RCRA.
-------
126
1
2 In other words, discarded material is
3 not a material which is going to be reused
4 like a used solvent or a used drum to a
5 drum reconditioner facility. Therefore,
6 that section on HM of the proposed
7 regulations was prothetic in the stand now
§ taken by RCRA in its 3001 regulations.
g I'm, therefore, hoping that the DOT
.- reconsideration of all its compatable
proposals will now take into account the
present views and present regulations of
13
12
RCRA under the 3001. I'll submit to both DOT
and EPA shortly I hope a statement, an
analytical statement, concerning various
proposals and sections.
16
If there are any questions I would be
happy to answer them.
18
MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
19
MR. ROBERTS: You referred to our
20
paragraph 17329C as proposed, Mr. Hershson.
21
Would you read that to say that a drum that
22
previously contained a hazardous waste would be
23
excluded from the application of that paragraph?
24
In other words, the,rule states that a package
25
-------
127
1
* that contains residue of a hazardous material
3 contains a hazardous waste if the packaging
4 is offered for transportation and is to be
5 discarded. In other words, you have an empty
6 drum and a man calls a local dump dealer and
7 says take it off to the local dump pile for
8 me, by this rule would the drum be a hazardous
9 waste subject to the legislation under
10 hazardous waste requirements or would you say
11 the way it is drafted that the drum contains
12 the residue of a hazardous material and that
13 it is a hazardous waste.
14 MR. HERSHSON: As I pointed out yesterday
15 or perhaps this morning and I'll again say it
16 tomorrow morning, I consider as far as empty
17 drums are concerned - - I consider hazardous
lg material whether it is raw material, virgin
19 material or waste material it's all the same.
20 A hazardous material is a hazardous material - -
„ to quote Gertrude Stein - - and it makes very
little difference whether the hazardous material
is a material which is residue of a raw material
£•3
that went into a manufacturing process or
hazardous material which is the residue of a
-------
128
1
2 waste which went into a waste drum that was
3 emptied at a drum disposal center.
4 MR. ROBERTS: Good, I'll accept that
5 comment as a response.
6 Let me go onto the next part of my
7 question.
g How would you have us transport empty
9 packages that previously contained materials
JQ such as cyanides, arsenics - - you name it - -
that have not been cleaned of the residue of
j2 those materials. How would you have those
.„ treated?
The way it's treated today is that the
empty package goes to the reconditioner. Now,
li?
I'm not talking about going to a reconditioner.
How would you treat them at large, regardless
of where they're going in transportation?
18
MR. HERSHSOM: I don't think I could
19
answer that in a categorical fashion.
20
As RCRA says in its proposed regulations
21
that a drum which is going to be sent to a
22
reconditioner for reuse is not a discarded
23
material and not a hazardous material
24
because the reconditioner will become the
25
-------
129
1
2 generator of any hazardous material. RCRA
3 has changed its position with reference to
4 that same drum going to any facility other
5 than a reconditioner for reuse.
6 I could say that DOT should treat that
7 the same way and just as paragraph 29C
8 discusses the fact that the package if
9 discarded it should be deemed a hazardous
10 waste. I agree with you, but if the package
jj is not discarded and is to be reused then I
j2 think it should be treated as such.
]3 MR. ROBERTS: You say treated as such - -
j4 if it's going to a reconditioner the way it's
,. treated today is that the empty package goes
., to the conditioner and is considered just an
empty drum not a hazardous material.
MR. HERSHSONs I have drums on vehicles
lo
depending on their destinations hopefully
to reconditioners.
I'm not going to call for any accountability
in the traffic flow of this country. I don't
22
have to account for that. If it's lost in
23
transit we don't care - - the residue of some
24
of these rather toxic materials we don't want
25
going to reconditioners.
-------
130
1
2 to have accountability for.
3 Right now, our industry receives 50
4 million drums annually containing such materials
5 as well as all other materials and we have had
6 no problem with the accountability. When our
7 people buy drums they don't lose them. They
8 buy them to keep and send to the reconditioning
9 facility.
10 I don't see the necessity for any
11 exclusion for such a hypothetical situation,
12 MR- ROBERTS: So far as your industry is
13 concerned?
14 MR. HERSHSON: Yes.
_ MR. ROBERTS: Are you speaking for
everybody who could be characterized as a
17
16
drum reconditioner in the United States of
America?
18
MR. HERSHSON: Obviously, I can't speak
for every single person. The large percentage,
the majority, we have no sufch difficulty with
drums which can't be accounted for in their
22
receipt.
23
MR. ROBERTS: Under provision 49 you state
24
the code 1801 that transportation is authorized
25
-------
131
1
2 to require any person who offers a hazardous
3 material for transportation for any packaging,
4 a person who manufac tares, marks, sells,
5 tests, or reconditions, the package for
6 transportation of hazardous material is
7 authorized to require that person to register
8 with the Department of Transportation.
9 Now your industry in part registers
10 with the Department of Transportation if it
H reconditions a certain series of drums.
12 Are you suggesting that we impose the
13 full constraints of the state in the
j4 regulations in order to identify who the
-I- reconditioners really are in this country?
,, MR. HERSHSON: I think you have enough
17 regulations in the program right now.
-~ The vast majority of reconditioners in
,q this country who recondition drums for the use
2(. of hazardous material must be so registered
and so you're speaking about a very small
number, comparatively few of those reconditioners
22
who do not recondition the drums for such
23
purposes.
24
MR. ROBERTS: What drums are required to
25
-------
132
1
2 be reconditioned under the DOT specifications,
3 Mr. Hershson?
4 MR. HERSHSON: The 71 series.
5 MR. ROBERTS: Are there other series
6 numbers?
7 MR. HERSHSON: Of course, there's a 5
8 series, there's a 37 series.
9 MR. ROBERTS: The first one of course is
jO reuseable and the drum by definition on the
,j other is not reuseable.
^2 For regulatory purposes it is not
13 covered by 173.28, however, I'm telling you
,4 things you know better than I do.
The point I was trying to make clear is
1J
,, that you understand we've addressed packaging
ID
across the board and not - -
MR. HERSHSON: I understand the point.
18
I'm trying to make you aware that you and
I have some differences of opinion and what
I'm suggesting is that RCRA regulations
21
recognizes that the drum which arrives at a
22
reconditioner's yard need not be deemed empty
23
and need not be deemed a hazardous material.
24
MR. ROBERTS: There is no necessity to have
25
-------
133
1
2 a prior generator when it goes to a
3 reconditioning plant.
4 MR. HERSKSON: What I'm trying to
5 emphasize to DOT is that in order to make
6 it's regulations compatable with RCRA as in
7 14 5A you should do thesame thing as RCRA.
8 I think youhave to adopt the same viewpoint,
9 the same dichotomy in the treatment of drums.
10 Alan, there is very little difference
11 between us philosophically.
12 MR. ROBERTS: I'd like to draw from Mr.
13 Hershson's expertise in this area and as I
14 indicated this morning we are about to
.,. publish rulings making hazardous substances
j,- in reportable quantities. Some of these
17 quantities have been declared by the EPA to
,0 be harmful at levels down to the discharge
19
19
of one pound. We're preparing the regulations
to put those things under the regulations and
in many cases at levels even down to one
pound, it is quite conceivable unless
22
packages are cleaned and purged as proposed
^«3
by this rule making prior to the introduction
24
of transportation that we could have situations
25
-------
134
1
2 where there would be sufficient quantities
3 of residues remaining, in some packages we're
4 talking about.
5 In the requirements of the Water Pollution
6 Control Act 311B there are penalties for
7 failure to make propoer notification of a
8 discharge. There has to be some substantial
9 form of communication or control document
10 or establishment of some documentation to
H follow up on this kind of thing.
12 What would you suggest we do about that?
13 MR. HERSHSON: Are you speaking to me,
14 Alan?
,5 MR. ROBERTS: Yes.
16 MR. HERSHSON: I did recogni2e the
j_ necessity for perhaps a small category of
extremely hazardous material and I know that
Io
19
such materials exist. If they were separated
from the vast majority of materials which we
have been working with for three or four
21
decades I could see the necessity for such an
22
action. Because of that tiny minority we
cannot with a broad brush tar the entire
24
spectrum of drums. I think it is an error.
25
-------
135
1
2 MR. ROBERTS: That's the point I'm
3 making.
4 MR. HERSHSON: I can understand that
5 there are some materials that can cause a
6 problem but it is certainly not true of the
7 vast majority of corrosives, et cetera and
8 other materials shipped in drums by the tens
9 of thousands of gallons have been done so without
10 any problems.
11 I'd like to make one further comment.
12 In this room I'm certain when anyone thinks
13 about Lov Canal and Louisville and the other
j4 places where we have had uncovered in this
15 country unfortunately deposits made many years
,,. ago, the first thing that comes to mind is the
^ drum. They see a valley of the drums.
,„ Well, the drums isn't the hazardous
lo
19
material. Don't confuse the empty overcoat
because there is a loaded pistol in the pocket
of the overcoat. Unfortunately the word drum
brings up to the minds of many people the fact
22
that this is somehow connected with toxic
23
substances and hazardous materials. The drum
24
is made of steel. There is nothing hazardous
25
-------
136
1
2 about a drum.
3 It's what is put into the drum that's
4 hazardous. It seems to me defense is
5 necessary for the used drum because some
6 small tiny number of used drums are used for
7 these loaded pistols.
8 This is a job we don't have to
9 undertake.
10 It is true to the extent that if you're
jj going to list all these materials which are
12 hazardous from A to 2 and then say because
13 A to B or A to F in 100 pounds or two pounds
14 could be dangerous therefore all drums should
j_ be treated the same way. That would be in my
,,- opinion a serious mistake.
._ MR. ROBERTS: We're not trying to
regulate drums per se as hazardous materials
lo
.„ if you remove all the residue, clean it, purge
it. Then, it's not subject and not germaine.
MR. HERSHSON: I pointed out in a June
1978 statement, which I think you have a copy
22
of, the problems involved in requiring tens of
A3
thousands of generators of empty drums in this
24
country getting involved in cleaning and
25
-------
137
1
2 purging.
3 Instead of having the purging elements
4 in 200 reconditioning plants and whoever is
5 experienced with this kind of material for the
6 past 50 years now you are asking that 15,000
7 generators get involved in purging.
8 I think you are making it worse and
9 asking for more problems.
10 MR. ROBERTS: If yotir shipping
11 containers are loaded with waste turpentine
12 which would be the name proposed in Section
13 17329A2 for functions such as performed by
14 your industry moving these so-called empty
15 but not clean drums, that's specifically
l£ excluded from the requirements.
17 MR. HERSHSON: This is the point we
,„ raised some years ago and we answered that
jq problem in terms of the drum transporters
20 of the United States.
MR. ROBERTS: What we have not done is
21
removed the constraints that would be relative
22
to the document.
23
Now do I understand that this dialogue
24
is just an objection to the appropriation of
25
-------
138
1
2 documents?
3 MR. HERSHSON: No, with reference to
4 requirements of cleaning and purging.
5 MR. ROBERTS: If we're just saying a
6 drum coming out of your place after it's gone
7 through one of the facilities it is not
8 subject to subchapter - - it has nothing to
9 do with RCRA or DOT.
JQ MR. HERSHSON: We both agree.
>j MR. ROBERTS: Somehow or other you
12 object to 17329 (a)(1). I think I understand
j3 from that point of view you want to pick up
.4 drums with residue and don't want - -
MR. HERSHSON: We don't want to have
1J
generators become the reconditioners. What
16
you are doing by the cleaning and purging
requirements is to say to the emptiers of
18
many of these drums just salvage what you can
and you can become reconditioners if you want
20
to avoid a manifest or report requirements and
21
so forth.
22
You are destroying the pattern of an
23
industry that has rendered a yeoman's service
24
to this country. I think that disturbance is
25
-------
139
1
2 a serious error.
3 MR. ROBERTS: That's a point I'm well
4 aware of, the fact that your industry has
5 done great service to our community.
6 I'm still trying to narrow down what
7 part of the rule making your specifically
8 objecting to. If you would like to defer all
9 this and wait for your written submission
IQ that will be fine.
jj You have appeared in two of our hearings
^2 and it's my understanding everything you had
j3 said basically is that you don't want to
,4 prepare documents; is that correct?
MR. HERSHSON: Other than the point I
just made on the cleaning and purging it has
lo
to do with the application of the entire
business. It's a clear statement of broad
18
applicability not to just our industry but to
anybody's. What we're interested in accomplishing
in this proposed ruling is not to have it have
21
an adverse effect upon our industry.
22
MR. ROBERTS: I've not as I told you
23
prepared an analysis, but it seems to me - -
24
MR. HERSHSON: You're dealing with an
25
-------
140
1
2 industry that lives on the nature of its
3 economic functions and it!s different from
4 a machine manufacturer or even a steel drum
5 manufacturer in the sense that unless we can
6 produce a package which is economically
7 viable we are out of business. We have a
§ ceiling and we must sell our reconditioned
g drums at such a level that it makes sense to
,Q use the reconditioned drums. By the way,
one of the objectives of the RCRA Act is the
12 administration of the reuse of materials and
13 to conserve the natural resources. Anything
I'm objecting to if it's only with reference
to pennies, has an effect upon the economic
ID
function and viability of the industry.
16
What I'm saying is that if we can avoid
any kind of documentation which is unnecessary
18
in our opinion - - and we could be wrong - -
19
then we are avoiding an additional cost which
20
is important to this industry which lives on
21
a difference of cost of pennies.
22
MR. ROBERTS: I just have one last
23
question.
24
What is your definition of an empty
25
-------
141
1
2 package?
3 MR. HERSHSON: An empty package is a
4 package that has been emptied by an emptier
5 and industrial user of material.
6 MR. ROBERTS: To what extent?
7 MR. HERSHSON: To the extent that it is
8 commercially feasible.
9 In other words, I cannot go into a
10 paint factory or a facotry which manufactures
11 refrigerators and that uses enamel and tell
12 them how to extract from the drums the last
13 ounce of enamel in the 55 gallon drum. The
14 factory, of course, does not want to waste
15 the enamel and would like to extract from the
jg drum all the material commercially feasible
j_ to extract. However, when they do so there
.„ may be a small residue in the drum of some of
,„ the enamel. I consider that an empty drum.
20 Now, if you tell me to what extent you
consider it empty, if it has a quarter of a
pint, or five ounces or a gallon I can't give
you a definition.
£*J
You know I gave you a suggestion on
HM four years ago and again in 1978 where I
-------
142
1
2 said if you had to have a limitation then
3 you should have a limitation of not more
4 than one percent of the marked capacity and
5 that would be in a 55 gallon drum slightly
6 larger than one half gallon. If we had to
7 live with that I hope we can.
8 MR. ROBERTS: You say you want under the
9 existing rules where there would be no legally
,„ specified definition of empty and just say
small quantities?
12 MR. HERSHSON: That's right.
13 MR. ROBERTS: That's what you are in
favor of keeping in terms the kind of materials
that are subject to the preambulatory text of
1J
EPA relative to the Resource and Recovery Act,
16
et cetera. You would feel comfortable if we
17
had no documentation as far as requirements
18
for one half gallon or one gallon of some of
these materials we're talking about such as
20
cyanide, arsenic or you name it?
21
MR. HERSHSON: Well, I said if they are
22
extremely hazardous I could understand the
23
necessity for a HM separating out from the
24
general run of the material inside the drum.
25
-------
143
I
2 That small amount which might be hazardous
3 should be treated differently. I think we
4 could go along with that.
5 MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
6 Is Doctor Helen Woodard here?
7 DOCTOR WOODARD: I'm a biochemist and
8 radiologist at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering
9 Center.
IQ There are certain communities regulating
jj the use of radioactive materials and the control
^2 of radioactive materials is not always clear.
j3 Unfortunately, the controller of radioactive
14 materials whether they are primary or wastes
in nuclear regulatory commissions present some
-, confusion as to the extent of the NRC
lo
authority over radionucleaids which differ in
origin. This is a historical confusion and is
lo
greatly being resolved in some cases. There
is great confusion between the federl, state
20
and local regulations and authorities.
21
In the present EPA meeting several have
22
mentioned the possibility of an EPA authority
23
over radioactive materials. On page 5 of the
24
EPA journal for February 1979 there is a
25
-------
144
2 statement that there is a nuclear regulatory
3 subcommittee which I suppose is a subcommittee
4 of EPA that is putting considerable effort into
5 standards and licensing of nuclear wastes.
6 This raises the question of nuclear wastes of
7 course, but as was brought out in previous
8 discussion a toxic substance remains a toxic
9 substance wherever it's going and whether it
10 has been used or about to be used.
11 There is indeed considerable confusion
12 in the authority over transporting of
13 radioactive material primarily for subsequent
14 use.
15 In addition to the tremendous and unsolved
16 problem of disposal of what has come to be
jy called waste which is the production of nuclear
18 reactors this is a matter that I'm bringing up.
,„ I should like to know whether the spheres of
authority of EPA are considering regulating
the nuclear waste ae defined and if not I suggest
that they should be made very explicit in order
to apply to the environment. The potentially
dangerous conflict of authority raises this
question.
-------
145
1
2 MR. LEHMAN: Doctor Woodard, I'm trying
3 to find the reference you mentioned on page 5?
4 DOCTOR WOODARD: The lower left.
5 MR. LEHMAN: For the benefit of the
6 audience that is a text of the material by
1 Senator Jennings Randolph that the Doctor
g was making reference to.
g The statement is in a related area of
.,. nuclear regulations and the subcommittee has
put considerable effort into standards and
12 licensing for nuclear wastes.
jo I believe that Senator Randolph was
-4 referring here to a subcommittee of the
Senate and not an Environmental Protection
ID
16 Agency.
Let me try to at least clarify that to
some extent in your mind. You mentioned in
18
your remarks about the spheres of control
over the various organizations and our basic
20
point is that the definition of solid waste
21
in RCRA specifies the exclusion of materials
22
which are controlled or which are subject to
23
control pursuant to the Atomic Nuclear Act of
24
1954.
25
-------
146
1
n
As you have pointed out there is some
3 confusion there because some radioactive
4 materials which are in such occasions
5 radioactive wastes are not necessarily
6 subject to control under the Atomic Nudear
7 Act because they are not bi-product materials.
8 For example, the naturally occurring
9 radionucleaids as you point out in your
10 remarks from an accelerator in some cases are
11 not considered to be special nuclear material.
12 The amended Atomic Nuclear Act, in effect,
13 says the bi-products of a uranium milling
14 operation are not subject to the atomic
15 nuclear act which was not explicitly said
16 before and assigns the responsibility of the
17 radioactive waste to both the - -
18 DOCTOR WOODARD: What it doesn't clarify
19 is the transportation of the material, radioactive
2Q materials which are not waste which, as you know,
are a very hot subject in New York at the
present time.
MR. ROBERTS: If I could very briefly - -
£•3
1 dont claim to have expertise in the field
of nuclear material, but we have rather extensive
-------
147
1
2 regulations pertaining to the transportation
3 of radioactive materials.
4 I'm not certain at the time whether the
5 materials wete'talking about would be covered
6 by the regulations. That's something I don't
7 know and it would be unfair for me to hazard
8 a guess.
9 I should point out that recently we issued
..„ a rather comprehensive notice of proposed
rule making on the entire subject of the
12 transportation of radioactive material under
13 the proposed new part 49CFR part 127.
.. If you give me your address during the
break I'd be glad to mail you a copy.
ID
DOCTOR WOODARD: My address is on the
16
card that I sent up.
17 *
I'd be much obliged to have it.
18
MS. DARRAH: Is Mr. Atherton here?
19
Is there anyone else who would like to
20
speak on 3003 regulations?
21
We'll close the comment part of this
22
hearing and we'll start answering the
23
questions. We have several questions which
24
remain from this morning's session.
25
-------
148
1
2 MR. LEHMAN: Question: "Regarding the
3 previous question about ph of sludge, doesn't
4 the ph requirement apply only to liquids?"
5 the answer to that is, yes. However,
6 some sludges have liquid properties to the
7 extent that a liquid or sludge is a liquid in
8 nature. We believe that one cannot appY the
9 ph to soupy sludge.
10 Question: "Tar contains many of the
11 priority pollutants in Appendix V (eg,
12 benzine, pyrene, tolvene and anthracine)
13 although tar is not shipped using a name
14 listed in Appendix V (see Section 250.14Xa)).
Does this mean waste tar may be classified
lO
hazardous under Section 250.13 instead of the
lo
hazardous waste list of Section 250.14 (a)?"
The answer is yes.
18
If a waste tar or waste anything else
meets the stated characteristics of 6250.13
20
even if it is not listed on the list of Section
21
250.14 it is classified as a hazardous waste
22
and has to be brought into the system and
23
subject to all of the controls of the system.
24
The characteristics as stated for those of
25
-------
149
^ ignitability, corrosivity and toxicity.
3 Another question: "Would aerobically
4 digested biological sludge from a wastewater
5 treatment facility for industrial wastewater
6 be considered a hazardous waste?"
7 Well, we can break that down into
8 several parts . As you may know there are
9 certain wastewater treatments sludges which
10 are controlled industrially as a process and
11 are listed as hazardous waste in Section
12 250.14. If a wastewater treatment sludge from
13 an industrial wastewater facility is listed
14 whether aerobically or digested it is a
15 hazardous waste and is in the system.
16 If it is not listed it still may be a
17 hazardous waste if it meets any of the
jg characteristics that I just described earlier
19 as corrosive, ignitable or toxic.
2Q If it's not listed then it doesn't meet
any of those characteristics and it would not
be a hazardous waste since it has been
aerobically digested.
Now, that gets back to another part of
Section 250.14 which deals with source of
-------
150
1
2 infectious waste and what we're saying there
3 is that sludge from an industrial sewage
4 treatment plant is a hazardous waste unless
5 the sludge is generated by a sewage plant and
6 has been established by means of chemical,
7 serval or biological treatment insignificant
g as to odors, organisms, microrganisms. If
9 sludge treated aerobically does not meet any
10 of the characteristics of Section 250.14 and
,. is not listed then it is not a hazardous
material.
13
Another question: "Sanitary landfills
14 in the past have used oil - - all kinds - -
as a means of dust control for site roads.
lO
,, Would this practice be subject to
lo
regulation? If the amount of oil is not
small?"
18
The answer is yes. If the dust control
is being - - in other words, if the oil is
being used for dust control and is a waste
21
oil. In other words, this gets into the
22
whole issue of what is a discarded material
23
and we have said that a material is a discarded
24
material if its reuse constitutes disposal and
25
-------
151
1
2 road oiling and dust, so on, is a practice we
3 consider to be land disposal. Therefore, the
4 material applied in that manner would be
5 subject to control.
6 Here's a very general question from this
7 morning and tends to indicate whoever wrote
8 this series of questions has a high degree of
9 frustration.
JQ The question: "One, who is going to build
.. hazardous waste landfills? Two, who is going
j2 to finance them? Three, who is going to insure
13 them?"
Well, this cuts across the entire
hazardous waste program.
15
The answer is fairly clear. The people
16
who are going to build the hazardous waste
landfills are the same people who have built
18
them in the past, industry, on-site service
industry, off-site state government
20
municipalities and so on.
21
How to finance them?
22
The same way they have been financed in
23
the past with capital expenditure, in the case
24
of industry by the use of bonds and tax revenues
25
-------
152
2 from the state or municipal governments .
3 As to who is going to insure them: The
4 insurance industry is ready to insure these
5 sites. The insurance requirements of the
6 hazardous waste management program are based
7 on insurance that is now available, in other
8 words the insurance that is required in Section
9 3004 is currently be written by the insurance
10 industry.
11 MR. LINDSEY: Question: "How are waste
12 exchange centers covered when a waste bi-product
13 becomes a primary product for another
14 manufacturer?"
15 Most waste exchange centers which I 'm
16 familiar with are sort of a clearance center
17 for information. The actual shipment of the
lg waste is made from the generator of the material
19 to the user of the material directly and the
2Q exchange serves as a middle man although he
2j does not actually receive the waste directly.
In that case we have to refer back to the
„„ definition of a discarded material to try to
determine whether or not this particular waste
material, in this sense, is a hazardous waste.
-------
153
I
2 Whether or not this particular waste
3 material, in this sense, is a hazardous
4 waste.
5 If you refer back to 250.10 (b)(1) the
6 definition or the meaning of the material on
7 the discarded materials listed there should
8 read a discarded material is a material which
9 is not reused and that is abandoned or
10 committed to final disposition. In this case
11 this material is being recycled and is not a
12 hazardous waste.
13 In that way some of the materials that
j4 you talk about do not only go to exchange
j1,- centers but treatment centers where materials
16 come into a treatment center and are sold as
j_ secondary products.
-8 The problem with the bipass of DOT or
jq anything else is that - - when you give this
product or sell this product to a second
manufacturer he would have to .comply according
to these regulations as a treatment center
22
and this is not so.
23
The question actually goes beyond what
24
the gentleman, is saying. What I said is not what
25
-------
154
1
2 he is referring to. He is referring to waste
3 exchange and would act I guess as a broker.
4 He would actually receive the waste and then
5 ship it some place else, receive it and sell
6 it to someone else again for use.
7 At the risk of giving a precipitous
8 answer the difference is - - there is probably
9 no difference in the waste solvent, for
JQ example, which is sent on the reclaimer. This
.. is a process associated with someone who sells
j2 a product. In this case we have a waste or
^3 material sent from a generator to a middle
-. man and he simply stores it and sells it to
somebody else as a product which is a raw
ID
material. I would think the same conditions
16
would hold and it would not be waste. In
other words a waste is generated, disposed or
18
sent for disposal or something of that nature
may beget batches you can't sell and then you
20
would be a generator of hazardous wastes and
21
all the requirements would hold.
22
I think that's the answer.
23
The only thing that I'd be concerned with
24
is whether when it leaves the facility and goes
25
-------
155
1
2 to the manufacturer whether he would be
3 required to hold any other permits other
4 than taking in raw materials.
5 Here there would be no difference other
6 than any other user of a recycled material.
7 MR. TRASK: Question: "For wastes piped
8 into a storage tank by the generator on his
9 own premises on an intermittent basis, how
10 does one determine a. 90 day removal?"
11 I belis/e the way that probably would be
12 done is looking at the date on the last
13 manifest and if it has been more than 90
14 days since you shipped out of that tank that
j5 would mean some of the waste at least has been
16 in that tank for more than 90 days.
17 For waste piped into - - if the generator
jo has a copy of the manifest which says he
jg cleaned that tank out or he shipped wastes
20 out of that tank 90 days previously or less than
90 days previously then he would be in
compliance. If he did not list it as more
22
than 90 days he would not be in compliance.
&i>3
Another question: "If a chemical producing
24
plant does not normally generate hazardous
-------
156
1
2 wastes or is below 100 kilograms per month
3 but, at some time in the future, has a bad
4 batch of products that must be disposed of,
5 how will EPA handle it if the plant had no
6 registered et cetera?
7 Is the standard reasonably ascertainable
8 or something higher?"
9 I don't understand what's meant by that
10 last part of the question. My answer to the
11 first part is that if a batch of products
12 exceeds the 100 kilogrm per month then the
13 generator is entitled to notify under 250.24
14 even though he may not notify under the 3010
,,- regulations during the 90 day notification
16 period.
«~ Before shipping a hazardous waste a
-„ generator must notify EPA and receive an
19 ID Code otherwise he cannot legally fill out
2Q his manifest.
Another question: "Does EPA foresee
developing a vehicle placarding system to
identify those hazards regulated by EPA but
*«J
not DOT?"
24
The answer is no.
25
-------
157
1
2 We have made a decision to go with the
3 DOT placarding system to avoid confusion.
4 What placarding means and what Mr. Roberts
5 has drilled into us over the two years of
6 our coordination with his group is that the
7 DOT placard will have definite knee-jerking
8 action attached to them.
9 We don't want to interfere with them
10 at all.
jj Another question: "Please clarify
12 whether or not a generator has to prepare a
13 hazardous waste manifest or will a shipping
,4 paper with all appropriate information is
necessary?"
I think thatthe answer to this question
lo
is - - if I understand the question correctly
if a waste requires a manifest if it is going
lo
19 to be off-site shipment. A shipping paper
as it's defined in the DOT rules would not be
sufficient. That is, a manifest would be
21
required because there is more information
22
required on the manifest than there is on the
23
shipping paper.
24
Back to the issue of 100 kilograms per
25
-------
158
I
2 month.
3 Question: "If the only hazardous waste
4 generated by an industry is empty drums, how
5 is the 100 kilograms determined? Is it the
6 estimated total quantity of undrained
7 materials?
8 The same question could apply to bags.
9 Is the weight of the bag included?"
IQ Clearly the 100 kilograms is applied to
U the total weight of the hazardous waste. We
12 assume that you will separate the hazardous
13 portion from the non-hazardous portion if
14 you can.
In other words you would drain and rinse
1J
,, the drum if you wanted to avoid having it
ID
,- considered a hazardous waste.
Another question: "Regarding 250.22 (h) (5)
lo
„ what is meant by common code? (It says that
the manifest shall contain the name and common
code of the hazardous waste.)"
21
There is a description of all of that in
22
the regulations in the preamble to Section
23
3001, regulations on page 48953. The last
24
paragraph talks about common coding and the
25
-------
159
1
2 reference is to - - Act on the part of the
3 agency in cooperation with other regulatory
4 agencies such as CPSC, OSHA and the Food and
5 Drug Administration. Through a group of
6 interagencies, and a regulatory liason
7 group they are attempting to set up a list
8 of common names and common code numbers to
9 identify those names so that there would be
JQ some common denominator throughout1all of the
jj regulations. So that we know what each
12 other is talking about we're participating
^2 in that. We're starting with a list of
... hazardous wastes that we have published in the
December 18th publication and then we'll go
lo
through the DOT lists since they are made
16
part of this and then we'll publish other names
as they come to our attention or as they come
IS
into the system.
I think whoever sent in this question
20 H
probably should review this paragraph on
21
common coding and it will give you some
22
indication of what's going on.
23
MR. ROBERTS: Somebody has asked:
24
"Regarding HM 145A, is the comment period over
25
-------
160
1
o
for this rule making proposal? If not, how
3 much longer does the general public have to
* make comments?"
5 That's the DOT notice of proposed rule
" making on the transportation of hazardous
7 wastes.
8 I apologize, I signed the document and
9 I wrote it, but I can't remember the date.
10 I think the closing date for comments
11 is June 1st. It's in today's Federal Register.
12 I'm fairly certain it's June 1st, if not,
13 within a day or so of that date.
14 The second question is a beaut. "Re: the
15 residues in empty drums issue, your
16 reference and concern with the "one pound"
17 hazardous substances regulations to be
lg proposed shortly by EPA and its relationship
19 to the DOT/EPA transportation requirements is
2o unwarranted and misleading. You are confused.
2j The EPA hazardous substances requirements only
apply when discharged into the navigatable
waters of the United States. These regulations
^O
do not apply if dumped on the ground; they do
not apply if spilled in plant; they do not
-------
161
1
2 apply if stored in or out of plant, only
3 when spilled into U.S. waters in harmful
4 quantities to the penalty and reporting
5 provisions apply. Under all but the most
6 bizarre circumstances, therefore, the
7 interplay between these two regulatory
8 undertakings is unlikely."
9 Well, I appreciate that point of view
j0 and one thing I'm not going to do is interpret
jj the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
j2 There is one piece of it unless I
13 misunderstand the issue makes reference to
H is when discharged upon the navigable waters
, of the United States or adjoining shoaiines
lo
., et cetera goes into other things not just into
.- the water itself. This is at least the way I
understand it.
lo
.„ I'11 let the EPA people explain the
broader subjects of this question.
I would hate to use the word "bizarre"
21
however it does apply and let me just explain
22
the problem. I agree with the individual who
23
took the view that the probable issue.- -
24
understand that the DOT viewpoint in this and
25
-------
162
1
2 I think you'd better read the current
3 amendments under the Communitie's Act as to
4 some significant changes that were made. For
5 example, the word "Subtitle" in Section 3003B
6 was changed to Section. I think you will find
7 that the generator or shipper requirements
8 are found under Section 3002.
9 What this means in simple layman's
,„ language is that you can conclude and*. EPA
can tell me to take a walk in terms of any
,2 dialogue relative to what a shipper/generator
jo has to do with the Act - - the amendment was
14 changed from Subtitle to regulations promulgated
under this section. The previous Subtitle
shall be consistent with the requirements of
16
such Act and regulations. They are under the
meaning in the Hazardous Material Transportation
18
Act under which I work.
If you read it a solid waste management
20
facility number amendment 1004 says any
21
facility for the collection, sorting, separation,
22
storage, transportation, transfer, processing,
23
treatment or disposal of a solid waste of EPA
24
jurisdiction is in the transportation
25
-------
163
1
2 community.
3 Relative to the transportation of hazardous
4 waste and now we're bring up the resource for
5 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which
6 is what DOT is attempting to do. There is a
7 similar statutory provision that authorizes
g the administrator to utilize the service of
-------
164
1
2 make immediate notification, and the word is
3 immediate, concerning this discharge of a
4 hazardous substance.
5 Under the Federal Water Pollution
6 Control Act if he doesn't have the - -
7 it may be subject to that reporting requirement
8 or just to wait until after the fact of the
9 discharge and then by some magic somebody can
jO find out if it was a hazardous substance and
jj subject to the reporting requirements.
j2 This is an aspect of the rule making
13 HM 145B and I would suggest tiia't the questioner
j4 appear at a public hearing on February 27th
.(. in Washington or on March 14th in San Francisco
j^ to discuss that aspect of government
Yi involvement in the Federal Water Pollution
.g Control Act.
.„ I think you will notice that the rule
making on transportation is rather a short
proposal because all it did was make an
21 e
extension on an existing regulation and many
22
of these materials we're talking about are
23
already subject to DOT regulations as hazardous
24
materials. At the present time we are working
25
-------
165
1
2 on a computer run for printing in the Federal
3 Register of all the hazardous substances under
4 the FWPCA. It is just a simple extension of
5 our existing commodities list with the
6 additions of 300 and some entries.
7 We have tried to work it so both rule
8 making will be in their final adoption so that
9 the reporting requirements for transporters
JQ and motor carriers whether they're carrying
jj a hazardous waste or discharging a hazardous
j2 substance into the environment he would have
jg to make the same report, and there would be
j^ the same phone number and the same set of
guidelines in terms of the documents. There
II)
,, would be similar information conveyed through
lo
the document with the inspection statement
report for hazardous substances. This is our
19
attempt to combine these two things to
compliment these regulatory programs as much
as possible. It is an extension of existing
21
regulatory programs that by and large have been
22
quite well understood in the transportation/
23
shipping community. We have to have the same
24
guidelines in terms of the documents.
25
-------
166
1
f>
*• I can recall one situation seven years
3 ago - - speaking about bizarre - - where
4 several drums fell off a truck into the
5 Susquehanna River. I don't know how many
6 thousands of drums were all over the river,
7 up the side, in the trees and everything else.
8 I don't know if some of those materials were
9 subject to those things but it doesn't always
10 appear that the situation would be too bizarre
11 in terms of potential risk.
12 I think you ought to take a serious look
13 at other proposals and the interrelationships
14 between the two.
15 MR. LEHMAN: I have a question here.
16 "Answers given to similar questions by
17 two different members of the paid, seem to be
lg inconsistent.
19 If fly ash from a steam power plant is
2Q transported in vehicles owned by a contractor
to a disposal site also owned and operated by
that contractor what is the extent of the
22
liability of the generator in the purview of
RCRA?
24
Please clarify to the extent possible."
-------
167
1
2 I think there are two areas of confusion
3 here and I would like to make a distinction
4 for the benefit of the questioner and also
5 for the audience.
6 Based on the wording of this question we
1 have not made our point well and I'd like to
g try and clarify it.
g There is a distinction between a generator
-- and a contractor who transports materials in
his vehicle or owns and operates a facility,
12 a disposal site owned by that contractor.
13 There is also a distinction between the
generator's responsibility under RCRA and his
liability under Civil Court and damages.
Let's see if we can sort this out. What
16
we're saying here is that if a - - let's use
the fly ash steam power plant as an example - -
IS
assuming that fly ash has been determined to
be a hazardous waste as we indicated yesterday
20
in the Section on our current data, it
21
indicates that a reasonable small percentage
22
appears to meet that criteria. In other words,
23
the majority does not. Some of that material
24
does and it is the generator's responsibility
25
-------
168
2 under RCRA to fill out a manifest. It is
3 determined in advance that the hazardous
4 .material under RCRA has to be taken to a
5 disposal site valid for this particular waste.
6 He is also required to meet all of the
7 requirements of a generator as far as record-
8 keeping, reporting, labeling of transportation
9 vehicles and containerization and so forth.
10 Now, the transporter, contractor, who
U transports this material is subject to Section
12 3003 and is basically responsible under RCRA
13 to take that material only to the site
14 specified by the generator. Then, the
jg disposal site operator in this particular case
16 who happens to know the person who owns the
Yj transport vehicle is then required to accept
lg that material, complete the manifest and send
,„ the original of the manifest back to the
„„ generator to show a complete transfer has
taken place and the waste has been treated or
disposed of in accordance with the permit
conditions v>n
-------
169
1
2 are and the contractor's responsibilities are.
3 When we're saying in Section 3003 that
4 certain rules apply where the generator owns
5 his own facility and certain reporting
6 requirements on the generator are shifted to,
7 in effect, the same company. In other
8 words, the same person owns both generator
9 facility and the disposal facility. That's
10 the distinction we're trying to make to avoid
H double reporting requirements. When a
12 contractor owns the generating facility then
13 a different situation applies.
14 Read those words carefully. This may be
15 the source of what appears to be the
16 inconsistent remarks as to the responsibilities
._ of the generator. I have indicted what
responsibilies are under RCKA as to civil
lo
19 liability and that is an issue still to be
„_ resolved in the courts and does not address
the - - in other words, our regulations do not
specifically address civil liability. They
just, basically, address who is responsible
£>J
for following this regulatory system. It will
24
be up to the judges to determine liability at
-------
170
1
2
a later date.
•3
Question: "Subject, drum reconditioners
railroad tank car and truck tank car cleaning
facilities.
If the above industries are in a position
7 that they may receive contaminates in drums
D
or tanks, and which contaminates may not
* be identified, how does either the cleaning
10 facility or the ultimate treater and/or
11 disposer know what to do to the waste for
12 ultimate disposal.
13 Do you believe that this might be an
14 oversight on EPA's part in not requiring a
15 manifest for these situations?"
16 Let's make a distinction here between,
17 first of all the material that might be in a
18 drum which is sent for reconditioning in
19 accordance with the RCRA proposals. This
2o would not require a manifest as long as it
2j goes to a recycling or reconditioning facility
22 and washout facility for a railroad tank car
23 and truck tank car cleaning facility.
Now, in many cases the railroad tank car
is of course placarded and it has a shipping
-------
171
1
2 document. Assuming this tank car carried
3 a waste and the same thing with a truck tank
4 car, the person who operates those cleaning
5 facilities and in some case the drum
6 reconditioners know what it is that they're
7 cleaning out. Even if they don't it's sort
8 of irrelevant as far as what happens to the
9 waste from these cleaning operations because
IQ the way RCRA is set up the residue from drum
11 cleaning operations and from tank cleaning
12 operations, whether railroad tank cars or
13 truck cars, if that material is suspected to
14 be a hazardous waste it will have to be checked
against Section 3001 regulations as far as the
It)
radioactivity, corrosivity and toxicity
16
characteristics. This has to be done to find
out whether or not it is a hazardous waste
and it is the responsibility of the person who
operates the drum reconditioning facility or
person who operates the tank car cleaning
facility. He, then becomes a generator of a
22
hazardous waste. You bare to do at least that
23 ^
to find out whether you have a hazardous waste.
24
Furthermore, once that waste reaches the
25
-------
172
1
* disposal facility and we'll get into this
3 tomorrow morning, the facility operator is
4 required to test incoming waste. I refer
5 you now to the general facility standards
6 under Section 3004 where we state that all
7 the operators of a facility obtain a physical
8 description of the hazardous waste.
9 In other words, the facility owner has
10 to know what's in the waste to first of all
11 operate within the permit conditions as he is
12 allowed to operate under.
13 To the extent that these cleaning
14 operations may generate a total different
15 waste each time they make a shipment there will
16 be the necessity for both the generator and
17 the receiver operator of a receiving facility
lg to know what's in that waste.
19 I believe we made an oversight here in
20 making that point clear that the waste from
the reconditioning facility and cleanout
facility, if it is a hazardous waste, does
require a manifest and we're not letting that
^•S
out of the system.
24
Another question: "Electric utilities
-------
173
1
2 using coal as a source of energy have in the
3 past stored this coal in an open area. When
4 it rains this coal gets wet and there will be
5 come leachate.
6 Is this leachate considered a hazardous
7 waste? If so, must the generator install a
8 leachate collection system and chemically
9 treat the runoff?"
10 In this case we're talking about coal
11 which is a commodity and not a waste. In
12 other words, a raw material being used by the
13 electric utility RCRA does not address the
14 coal or the water runoff from the coal.
15 However, the Clean Water Act may very well
16 address that in terms of a source of pollution.
Yj In other words, if leachate rain solute from
,„ that does have some non-point source
jg characteristics it may be subject to some
20 control under the Clean Water Act under FMPES
21 system.
One last one here. There is really a
relationship to the toxicity substance control
£-3
act. I'll answer it anyway.
24
Question: "When do you foresee the
-------
174
1
2 permitting of incineration of PCB oils?"
3 This reference to the PCB disposal
4 regulations under the Toxicity Substance
5 Control Act and the requirements that any
6 facility which is disposing of PCB waste
7 must have approval from EPA.
8 The question is when are we going to
9 give approval for the incineration of PCB
10 oils and the answer is approximately in
jj April or May of this year we anticipate there
12 will be some approval given for incineration
13 of PCB's.
14 MR. LINDSEY: I have a question here.
j. "Can a shipper base its classification
on the most hazardous combination of
ID
ingredients even if this does not occur all
the time without having to characterize each
18
lot of waste to be shipped? In other words,
the error would be on the side of overstating
20
the hazard. For example, flammable, poison
21
B for pesticide waste that at times can be
22
flammable and poisonous but not always?"
23
I'll try to reiterate that.
24
If you have a variable where sometimes the
25
-------
175
1
2 waste is hazardous and sometimes not, can
3 you assume it's always hazardous. I believe
4 that's what the person is getting at. The
5 answer is yes. Assuming it is a hazard it
6 enters into the system and you must use the
7 manifest and dispose of it at a permitted
8 facility. You also have an option where it is
9 not necessary to test each lot if you have a
JQ variable. On the other hand, you can if that's
j. what you would rather do.
12 Another question: "Finished goods for
j3 sale in a warehouse, i.e. dyes, pigments,
-.. shipped for sale as non-hazardous, et cetera,
to become obsolete, loses color strength, can't
be sold any longer.
16
Can they be discarded in a landfill as
a non-hazardous material?"
18
If they are discarded in the landfill
then the material is a waste and the next
20
question is whether or not it's a hazardous
21
waste. if either is listed in 3001 which we
22
discussed yesterday or meets the characteristics
23
of a hazardous waste as are identified therein
24
then it must be disposed of in accordance with
25
-------
176
I
2 these regulations. On the other hand, if it
3 is not hazardous and the person says this
4 particular material is not hazardous then
5 it could be disposed of in any facility
6 which meets the criteria of a sanitary
7 landfill under Subtitle D of that Act.
8 Another question: "If the transporter
9 is also the owner and operator of the storage,
10 treatment and disposal site, is it necessary
jj to retain two copies of the manifest for
12 records or just one copy?"
13 The answer to that would be one copy
14 would cover the person if he signs it twice
at ' the appropriate times when he transports
Is
,, it and when he disposes of it. I should think
lb
that one copy would suffice to protect him.
Question: "250.14(a) and (b) list
18
hazardous wastes and source and process
respectively.
Each item on the lists are followed by
21
hazardous code, such as I, T, 0, et cetera.
22
To demonstrate noninclusion for the
23
ones on the lists required tests are only
24
those designated in the parentheses as shown
25
-------
177
1
2 in Section 250.15.
3 However, for any waste not on the list,
4 four characteristic tests are required.
5 Is this correct? If not, what are the
6 relevant clauses?"
7 Yes, that's correct. If I'm not
§ mistaken that's correct.
9 Another question: "A hazardous waste
,Q from one company may be a raw material for
, I another company.
12 How is the manifest system used?"
j3 It is not.
j. Such materials are not wastes thus the
manifest system does not enter.
ID
MR. LEHMAN: Let me add a codicil to
16
that. It is our intent on the discarding of
material to encourage waste exchange. If the
18
material is being exchanged it is not subject
to the system and the manifest is not required.
20
However, merely listing it as an offer for
21
exchange does not get you out of the system.
22
That's the point I'm trying to make. It has
23
to be in the process of being exchanged before
24
it's out of the system.
25
-------
178
I
2 in other words, you can't put it on
3 the list and say well I didn't get a taker and
4 throw it away and that's that.
5 MR. ROBERTS: I was going to add to
6 something you said before.
7 If there is a reasonable doubt or doubt
8 about the classification of the material,
9 in the preamble on page 58971 there is a
jO direct quotation out of the newsletter my
11 office issues concerning hazardous materials
12 transportation.
13 Unfortunately, this statement is true.
14 There was another document early on in an
.. earlier newsletter that talked about the
-, doubtful classification. What we said on
lo
that was if there is doubt in terms of the
classification of the waste material in light
18
of what's been said earlier here, it's better
to err on the side of compliance with the
20
regulations than the other way. In other
21
words, when you have doubt as to the proper
22
classification of the material, whether it
23
meets the DOT definition criteria, if you
24
ship it as a regular hazardous material nobody
25
-------
179
1
2 would fault you for over complying with the
3 requirements.
4 Those of you familiar with the history
5 of the transportation regulations, written
6 by me two years ago, the DOT regulations were
7 rather absolute and spoke in terms of labeling
8 or placarding.
9 MR. LINDSEY: Another question: "How
10 is the Toxic Substances Control Act involved
11 if at all in RCRA?"
12 The first part of the question is that
13 TOSCA is merely another act primarily
14 thrust to control toward the use of toxic
jg materials and products. There is authority under
16 TOSCA, however, to write regulations for
j_ disposal of such materials and products on
a case by case basis such as has been done
lo
-9 for PCB's and those particular disposal
regulations for those substances are enforced
at the present time.
There may be additional regulations that
22
will come out from time to time on specific
23
materials. In these cases, to get to the
24
point of whether or not there is - - to make
25
-------
180
I
2 it simple there is some overlap between the
3 TOSCA substance control act and RCRA. The
4 Toxic Substance Control Act writes standards.
5 In fact, we are coordinating regulatory
6 standards with regard to the disposal of
7 material such as PCB's so that they will be
8 consistent with RCRA and there will be more
9 extensive coverage of more things under
10 TOSCA.
H The reference here to the proposed rules
12 is on page 58993 of the preamble which
13 discusses the integration of RCRA to include
j4 the TOSCA substance control act. I would
jg read that complete second part to see if there
j, is a potential problem. I would read this to
see if it follows through.
In other words, TOSCA is not involved in
19
waste disposal and I'm not going to relate
whether or not it could be shipped legally
under the Hazardous Transportation Act under
RCRA. I don't care if the material is on the
22
list or if it fails the characteristics in
23
Section 3001. If it is a hazardous waste it
24
would be subject to all the requirements of
25
-------
181
1
2 this Act. Now as to whether or not you could
3 ship it if it's a new chemical which hasn't
4 been processed. In other words, I gather
5 if it's a new chemical it is not legally
6 available for use yet under TOSCA
7 substance control act. I don't know that.
8 MR. TRASK: Question: "Does the
9 requirement of a serially increasing
IP manifest document number mean consecutively
11 serially increasing?"
12 The answer is no.
13 It means serially increase only in that
14 each succeeding number will be larger than
the one that proceeded it. That's all. It
If)
does not have to be consecutive because we
16
recognize that many transportation companies
which provide manifests may be using interum
18
numbers for other purposes.
We have designefl the manifest format so
that regular bills of lading, shipping papers
could be used and they might want to use the
22
same form for different purposes. There could
23
be intervening numbers between shipments of
24
waste and so for that reason we do not require
25
-------
182
1
2 them to be consecutive.
3 The second question: "Can a bill of
4 lading containing all required EPA and DOT
5 information be used in lieu of a hazardous
6 waste manifest as shown 3002?"
7 The answer is, yes.
S Both the EPA manifest and the DOT
9 shipping paper requirements are formats only
JQ they are not forms. A bill of lading is a
... form, a shipping paper is a format, a
,„ manifest is a format.
-3 What is required there is that the
information be essentially in the same order
as listed.
15
Here is an interesting question.
"Will there be any provisions in the
direction of special permissions on the
transporting of hazardous materials on
emergency incident basis?
20
Example: A tanker overturns and spills
21
a hazardous substance on the highway roadside -
22
sorbent products, grass, twigs and contaminated
23
debris must be removed.
24
Will the debris be subject to manifesting?
25
-------
183
1
2 Can it be transported in an open top
3 container? May it be landfilled?"
4 First let me start this and then Alan
5 may want to comment on it later on. The
6 first thing that happens when a hazardous
7 material is spilled it may be recovered as
8 material. That often happens and that part
9 is not regulated under RCRA. Once it is
10 cleaned up and recovered as a material then
jl it does become a hazardous waste and the
12 transporter or the one who caused the material
13 to be there by definition has caused the
14 hazardous waste to be there, now Section 250.37
!_ that is 3003 regulations are suspended and most
-6 of the 3003 regulations are suspended while
._ that emergency exists. At this point the
manifest is not needed. Records do not have
lo
19
to be kept in compliance. This only occurs
during the time the emergency is going on.
In other words, when the declared emergency
is ended at that',,time the transporter is
22
responsible for cleaning up all of that waste
£&
and meeting all of the requirements of this
24
Section. Now, if during the time the emergency
25
-------
184
1
o
' was on he put this material in a landfill,
3 a sanitary landfill, I assume this to be
4 4004 Subtitle D landfill we talked about
•> earlier the operator of that Subtitle D
6 landfill may become liable to get a permit
7 for disposal of the ha2ard,ous waste.
8 I don't know if that waste is allowed
9 to remain in that facility. That's a
10 determination we will have to make internally.
11 The best thing to do during an emergency
12 is to bury the waste on-site,,that is to
13 protect the public health. At the moment the
14 emergency is over that decision will have to
j5 be reevaluated and the material may then have
16 to be removed and taken to a properly permitted
17 facility. The same thing applies if the material
18 was transposed to a non-permitted sanitary
19 landfill. That decision may also have to
2Q be reevaluated and the material later taken
onto a permitted facility.
MR. ROBERTS: In response to this the
most important thing is to get the stuff out
fcj
of there as fast and as safely as is possible.
24
We'll be issuing an advanced notice of
25
-------
185
1
2 proposed rule making on the concerns of
3 emergencies. One of the things we must
4 iron out is how to deal with emergency
5 situations. I believe the gentleman in
6 the audience comes from the tank truck
7 industry and understands our concern. I
8 think we're going to have to make some
9 provisions in the regulatory system that
10 recognizes these situations and allows certain
11 activities to take place that would not
12 normally take place under general commercial
13 shipping. The protection of public health and
14 safety is our paramount concern.
15 Another question: "Do you foresee only
16 private and contract carriers being the
17 carriers transporting hazardous waste materials,
lg or do you believe common carriers will get in
19 the business of hauling these wastes? In
20 particular, do you believe general commodity
carriers (who are within the realm of common
carriers) will register with EPA to haul
hazardous material waste?"
I don't believe I can answer. I'm sure
24
there will be some common carriers eager to get
-------
186
1
2 into the hazardous waste transportation
3 business. I should point out that we do
4 have sort of a grading system in the
5 regulatory program and it becomes rather
6 obvious when you look at it that the first
7 concern is the general public along with
8 the transportation pathways and the public
9 properties.
10 Secondly, we look to the protection of the
11 transportation workers who work in the common
12 carrier area and below that would be the
13 transport workers in the private carrier area.
14 MR. TRASK: With respect to whether
]5 common carriers will transport hazardous
1(^ wastes, we have already recieved requests
-_ from at least one common carrier to give him
an ID Code.
19
MR. LEHMAN: I have a quick question.
"If a corrosive material (ph 14) is
exchanged to another company as a raw material,
is this material subject to the act?"
22
Well, first of all if it's a commodity
23
that's a waste not subject to RCRA it may be
24
subject to the hazardous material transportation
25
-------
187
1
2 act. The intent here that if a corrosive
3 waste is being exchanged for another corrosive
4 raw material is this waste subject to the Act.
5 Under the current definition of discarded
6 material the answer is no. We want to
1 encourage waste exchange as to the extent
8 it's being exchanged and not subject to RCRA.
9 Here again it may be subject to HMTA.
10 The second part of this question:
"Is the price important? Can the
12 generator pay the user to use this material?"
J3 Yes, he certainly can. There is nothing
in our regulations to prevent that. As a
matter of fact I have never really considered
ID
that but it opens up a whole new area here.
16
One can see where you might want to pay
another industry to use your waste which may
18
be less expensive than dealing through the
RCRA system. You might want to consider that
20
option.
21
MS. DARRAH: Question: "Does the agency
22
have to take into account the economic impact
23
of various alternative options before
24
promulgating 3001 et cetera?"
25
-------
188
1
2 The answer is no, RCRA is silent as to
3 economics. Therefore, we do not have to take
4 it into account.
5 There is a second question here:
6 "Will the economic impact analysis
7 report be subjected to a public hearing?"
8 The answer to that is no, but we are
9 receiving and have requested written comments
jO on that. They are certainly welcome,
. I The transcripts of today's hearing will
12 be available at the EPA library in about two
13 weeks after the close of the hearing.
j- We're going to close this hearing.
We'll have an evening session tonight
zart 9 i '
16
15
again at 7:00 p.m. on 3003 through 3004.
Thank you all for coming.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
3
4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
5 PUBLIC HEARING
6
7
8
Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations
9
10
11
12
j3 Held at: United Engineering Center
Main Auditorium
14 345 East 47th street
New York, New York
15
Date: February 8, 1979
lo
Time: 7:00 p.m.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
190
1
2 APPEARANCES:
3 Dorothy A. Darrah, Chairperson
4 John P. Lehman
5 Harry Trask
6 Fred Lindsay
7 Amy Schaefer
8 Tim Fields
9 Alan Corson
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
191
1
2 MR. LEHMAN: Good evening. My name is
3 John P. Lehman. I'm director of the Hazardous
4 Waste Management Division of EPA's office of
5 Solid Waste in Washington, D.C.
6 On behalf of EPA I would like to welcome
7 you to the public hearing which is being held
8 to discuss the regulations for the management
9 of hazardous waste.
10 We apprecaite your taking the time to
., participate in the development of these
12 regulations which are being issued under the
jo authority of the Resource Conservation and
j- Recovery Act.
The Environmental Protection Agency
ID
on December 18th, 1978, issued proposed
16
rules under Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act as substantially amended
18
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976, public item 94-8580.
These proposals respectively cover, first,
21
criteria for enlisting hazardous waste,
22
identification methods and a hazardous waste
23
list.
24
Second, standards applicable to generators
25
-------
192
1
2 of such waste for a recordkeeping, labeling,
3 using proper containers and using a transport
4 manifest, and three, performance, design and
5 opearting standards for hazardous waste
6 management facilities.
7 These proposals together with those
8 already published pursuant to Section 3003 on
9 April 28th, 1978 Section 3006 on February 1st,
10 1978, Section 3008 on August 4th, 1978 and
n Section 3010 on July llth, 1978.
12 And that of the Department of Transportation
13 pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation
14 Act on May 25th, 1978 along with Section 3005
j,. regulations yet to be proposed constitute the
j^ hazardous waste regulatory program under
1? Subtitle C of the Act.
,0 This hearing is being as part of our public
lo
.„ participation process in the development of this
regulatory program.
The panel members who share the rostrum with
21
me, are, from your left to right, Tim Fields who
22
is the program manager in the assessment and
23
technological branch of the Hazardous Waste
24
Management in Washington and who is primarily
25
-------
193
1
2 for Section 3004, Amy Schaefer of the office
3 of enforcement in the headquarters of the EPA
4 in Washington, Dot Darrah of the office of
5 general counsel headquarters in Washington,
6 D.C., who will share this evening's session,
7 Fred Lindsey who is Chief of the Implementation
8 Branch of the Hazardous Waste Management
9 Division, and Harry Trask who is Program
JQ Manager in the Guidance Branch of the
Hazardous Waste Management Division.
Alan Corson, also Chief and Chief and
.„ Guideline Branch, Hazardous Waste Division,
will also be on the panel. Alan is
responsible for Section 3001 and Harry Trask is
15
responsible for Sections 3002 and 3003.
16
As noted in the planned agenda, it is to
cover all four sections, 3001 through 3004 in
18
this evening's session. This session is going
to be primarily for those who cannot attend
20
during the day.
21
The comments received at this hearing, and
22
the other hearings as noted in the Federal
23
Register, together with the comment letters we
24
receive, will be part of the official docket
25
-------
194
1
2 in this process.
3 The comment period closes on March 16th for
4 Sections 3001 through 3004. This docket may be
5 seen during normal working hours in Room 2111D,
6 Wasterside Mall, 401 M Street, S.W. in
7 Washington, D.C.
8 In addition, we expect to have transcripts
9 of each hearing within about two weeks of the
10 close of the hearing. These transcripts will
jj be available for reading at any of the EPA
12 libraries. A list of these locations is
13 available at the registration table outside.
14 The focus of a public hearing is on the
public's responsibility to a regulatory
1J
,, proposal of an Agency, or in this case,
lo
Agencies, since both EPA and the Department
of Transportation are involved. The purpose
18
of this hearing, as announced in the April
28th, May 25th and December 18th, 1978
20
Federal Registers, is to solicit comments on the
21
proposed regulations including the background
22
information used to develop the comment.
23
This public hearing is being held not
24
primarily to inform the public nor to defend
25
-------
195
1
2 a proposed regulation, but rather to obtain
3 the public's response to these proposed
4 regulations, and thereafter revise them as
5 may seem appropriate.
6 All major substantive comments made at
7 the hearing will be addressed udring the
8 preparation of the final regulation.
9 This will not be a formal adjudicatory
JQ hearing with the right to cross-examination.
... The members of the public are to present their
j2 views on the proposed regulation to the panel,
13 and the panel may ask questions of the people
j4 presenting statements to clarify any ambiguities
in their presentations.
,, The chairman reserves the right to limit
ID
lengthy questions, discussions or statements.
And if you have a copy of your statement, please
18
submit it to the court reporter.
Written statements, if any, will be
20
accepted at the end of the hearing. If you
21
wish to submit a written rather than an oral
22
statement, please make sure that the court
23
reporter has a copy.
24
The written statements will also be
25
-------
196
I
2 included in their entirety in the record.
3 Persons wishing to make an oral statement
4 who have not made an advanced request by
5 telephone or in writing should indicate their
6 interest on the registration card. If you have
7 not indicated your intent to give a statement
8 and you decide to do so, please return to the
9 registration table and fill out another card
10 and give it to noe of our staff.
11 As we call upon an individual to make a
12 statement, he or she should come to the lecturn
13 after identifying himself or herself to the
14 court reporter, and deliver his or her statement.
jj At the beginning of the statement, the
jg Chairperson will inquire as to whether the
-7 speaker is willing to entertain questions from
„ the panel. The speaker is under no obligation
lo
_ to do so, although within the spirit of this
information sharing hearing, it would be of
great assistance to the Agency if questions
were permitted.
22
If you wish to be added to our mailing
23
listfcr future regulations, draft regulations
24
or proposed regulations, please leave your
25
-------
197
I
2 business card or name and address on a three
3 by five card at the registration desk.
4 Hazardous waste which are a subject
5 of all solid waste and which will be identified
6 by regulations proposed under Section 3001
7 are those which have particularly significant
8 impacts on public health and the environment.
9 Section 3001 is the keystone of Subtitle
JO C. Its purpose is to provide a means for
., determining whether a waste is hazardous, for
j2 the purposes of the Act, and therefore
jg whether it must be managed according to the
j4 other Subtitle C regulations.
15 Section 3001 B provides two mechanisms for
,, determining whether a waste is hazardous. First
17 a set of characteristics of hazardous waste,
0 and second, a list of particular hazardous
lo
wastes.
A waste must be managed according to the
Subtitle C regulations if it either exhibits any
21
of the characteristics set out in the proposed
22
regulation or if it is listed.
23
Also, EPA is directed by Section 3001A
24
of the Act to develpp criteria for identifying
25
-------
198
1
2 the set of characteristics of hazardous waste
3 and for determining wastes to list.
4 In this proposed rule EPA sets out these
5 criteria, identifies a set of characteristics
6 of hazardous waste, and establishes a list of
7 particular hazardous waste.
g Also the proposed regulation provides
g for demonstration of non-inclusion in the
regulatory program.
Section 3002 addresses standards applicable
to generators of hazardous waste.
.„ A generator is defined as any person
whose act or process produces a hazardous waste.
Minimum amounts generated and disposed per
IS
month are established to further define a
16
generator.
17
These standards will exclude household
18
hazardous waste. The generator standards will
19
establish requirements for recordkeeping.
20
labeling and marking of containers used for
21
storage, transport or disposal of hazardous
22
waste.
23
Use of appropriate containers furnishing
24
information on the chemical composition of
25
-------
199
1
2 the hazardous waste, use of a manifest system
3 to insure that a hazardous waste is designated
4 to a permanent treatment of storage or disposal
5 facility, and submit reports to the
6 administrator or an authorized state agency,
7 setting out quantity generated and its
8 disposition.
9 Section 3003 requires the development
10 of standards applicable to transporters of
jl hazardous waste. These proposed standards
12 address identification codes, recordkeeping,
13 acceptance and transportation of hazardous
14 waste, compliance with the manifests system,
15 delivery of the hazardous waste, spills of
16 hazardous waste and placarding and marking of
._ vehicles.
18 The agency has coordinated closely with
..„ proposed and current U.S. Department of
Transportation Regulations.
Section 3004 addresses standards effecting
21
owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
22
storage and disposal facilities.
23
These standards define the level ,pf
24
human health and environmental protection to be<
25
-------
200
1
2 achieved by these facilities and provide the
3 criteria against which EPA or state officials
4 will measure applications for permits.
5 Facilites on a generator's propoerty
6 as well as off-site facilities are covered
7 by these regulations and do require permits.
g Generators and transporters do not otherwise
9 need permits.
The EPA intends to promulgate final
regulations under all titles of Subdivision C
by December 1st, 1979.
., However, it is important for the
regulated communities to understand that
the regulations under Sections 3001 through
3005 do not take effect until six months
16
after promulgation. That would be
approximately June of 1980.
18
Thus, there will be a time period after
19
final promulgation during which time public
20
understanding of the regulations can be
21
increased. During this time period, notification
22
is required under Section 3010 to be submitted
23
and permits required under Section 3005 will be
24
distributed for completion by applicants.
25
-------
201
1
2 With that as a summary of Subtitle C and
3 the proposed regulations to be considered at
. this hearing, I return the meeting to the
. chairperson, Dot Darrah.
6 MS. DARRAH: Thank you. We only have
one person who thus far has let me know that
8 they want to make a statement.
9 So I will call upon that person and I
hope that others of you who have any comments
will feel free to give them to us. Is Mr.
Mark Chytilo here?
.„ MR. CHYTILO: Good evening. My name is
Mark Chytilo. I'm an intern for the New York
Public Internal Research Group as well as a
15
student at Syracuse University.
16
Two years ago NIBERG's staff scientist
Walter nang, began the preparation of toxic
18
organic chemicals in the Hudson River. This
19
study resulted in a report known as Troubled
20
Waters.
21
Recently NIBERG's scientist Joseph
22
Salvo has been studying the Niagra River
23
and the problems of toxics in upstate New York.
24
It is with his assistqp<;e that I address you
25
-------
202
1
2 tonight.
3 The problem of toxic compounds in the
4 environment is a very real and pressing
5 problem. Certainly the disaster at Love
6 Canal has helped speed the process of
7 regulation.
8 But once again, it takes a disaster of
9 the New York Times to get the attention
JQ necessary for public action.
jj The situation at Love Canal is an
12 unfortunate one but one significant in awakening
jg the public to problems.
~, All across the United States there are
thousands of industrial waste landfills to
1 o
have the potential for disaster similar to
16
Love Canal.
Like the problem of cancer where researchers
18
tell us that the onset of a disease may be seen
19
up to 30 years after the initial exposure to
20
the cause, we think that many of the symptoms
21
of our hazardous waste problem will continue
22
to emerge as our past mistakes come to life.
23
In my sight the need for more stringent
24
regulations concerning hazardous waste as now
25
-------
203
1
o
apparent. Industry has demonstrated that it
•* is either incapable or unwilling to regulate
4 itself in this area.
5 The proliferation of the current practice
* of the illegal dumping in the United States
7 attests to this fact.
8 Waste disposal is currently governed
' by the cheapest mode possible while not always
10 the most environmentally sound way.
11 The current EPA estimate shows that more
12 than 90 percent of the wastes are improperly
13 disposed of. The impacts are far reaching
14 as we discover more and more toxic substances
15 in Hie air we breathe, the food we eat and the
16 water we drink.
17 One important element in this controversy
lg is the cost of regulation, especially versus
19 the cost of non-regulation. The cost evolves
2o with the implementation of regulations such
2j as these that are to be born for the most
22 part by the industries themselves.
23 The New York Times estimates that it will
cost all industries in the United States a
„. total of about 750 million dollars per year
-------
204
1
2 to conform to these regulations.
3 In addition, the EPA will spend
4 millions of dollars per year to enforce them,
5 born essentially by the tax payers.
6 In the past the immediate costs of
7 cleaning up, escaping of regulated wastes or
8 problems have been born by the tax payers.
9 Although industry may criticize the
10 proposed regulation as being too costly, the
11 costs to properly store and dispose of
12 dangerous wastes is far exceeded by the costs
13 of the subsequent cleanup efforts.
14 In New York State we have excellent
15 examples to draw from. The costs of the
16 clean up efforts for Love Canal and the
,_ pollution abatement services in Oswego, New
1C York, have been in the neighborhood of 20
lo
,„ million dollars to 30 million dollars each.
The pollution was a waste disposal facility
that went bankrupt in 1976-77. In late 1977
chemicals were found to be leaking out into
22
the environment 'from improperly stored
23
containers.
24
25
-------
205
1
2 New York State and the federal government
3 went into clean up the area. The cleanup
4 efforts were funded not by the disposal firm
5 nor by the generators of the waste but by the
6 tax payers. And the costs have been high.
7 This is dn part due to what I would call,
8 like the character in the book we sat watching
9 as the hazardous waste starts to grow and
10 spread until it covers everything in site.
II As you recall, in the book, the spot
12 spreads and spreads until only the magic of
13 the cat in the hat is correct.
14 We are fast approaching the situation
where only the infusion of large amounts of
,, money can correct the situation. What
16
started out as a little spot has grown beyond
recognition and threatens to envelope us.
18
It is only in attempting to keep the
original problem fixed that we can adequantely
20
deal with it. Hopefully the higher costs for
21
waste disposal will have the effect of encouraging
22
industry to recycle, re-use and conserve so
23
that the amounts of hazardous waste generated
24
will be reduced.
25
-------
206
2 Up to now industry has been paying
3 waste disposal costs which do not reflect the
4 cost of adequate protection for the environment.
5 In a sense industry has been paying artificially
6 low prices for the disposal of their hazardous
7 waste.
8 Industry must realize that the public is
9 no longer willing to pay the cost of
10 environmental protectionfor the industries.
11 It is for this reason that we're here today.
12 NIBERG supports strong regulation that
13 will insure the complete safety of humans.
14 The proposed regulations are correct in their
j,- orientation but provide too many loopholes and
1£ opportunities to circumvent the intention of
17 the Resource Cpnservation and Recovery Act.
,0 For this reason we provide the following
lo
jq criticisms. Section 3001 subdivision A are
the rules defined to regulate the generators
of hazardous waste.
The first problem is the definition of
22
hazardous waste. The EPA has recommended
23
separating hazardous waste into eight categories,
24
ignitability, corrosiveness, toxicity,
25
-------
207
1
2 reactivity, as well as radioactivity,
3 mutagenity, infectiousness, phytotoxicity
4 and teratocicity.
5 Standards are given to test the first
6 four, the ignitability, corrosiveness,
7 toxicity and reactivity.
8 But the EPA maintains the rest of the
9 characteristics aren't easily identifiable
10 due to the absence of simple accurate tests.
jj The EPA, however, provides simple tests for
j2 the remaining characteristics for the
]3 industries which can prove that their waste
.. is not toxic.
We suggest in addition to Section 250.14
that industry bo required to use these tests
16
to determine the exact nature of their waste
and that EPA receive the results of this
18
testing in its determination of exactly how
the waste should be handled.
20
NIBERG Feels that the EPA's approach
21
to the classification of toxic waste is
22
inadequate.
23
These regulations identify eight
24
metals and six pesticide compounds as toxic
25
-------
20*
1
2 and designated standards by which to measure
3 these.
4 Lawsuits filed against the EPA by
5 several environmental groups has forced the
6 EPA to expand a similar list of toxic
7 substances to include 129 compounds under
8 Section 307 of the Clean Water Act.
9 We request that these additional compounds
10 be included as part of Section 250.13. The
jl EPA has been assigned a mammoth task in
12 regulating thousands of industries. EPA has
13 chosen to list 129 industrial processes which
14 generate hazardous waste and mandates safe
disposal for these industrial wastes.
lo
Based on these the industry need provide no
ID
_ other information than the fact that their wast
is from one of the targic processes. This
lo
approach is dangerous for two reasons. First,
as processes are changed or a new process is
added, the regulations will have to be amended.
21
This is costly, time consuming and unnecessary.
22
Secondly, this approach ignores the fact
23
that many industrial processes differ, in
24
their waste product. For EPA to improperly
25
-------
209
1
2 regulate industrial wastes, it must require
3 a chemical profile of all the components of
4 the waste stream of the industry.
5 The EPA has faced similar problems in
6 administering the water permit program. Many
7 waste water permits do not regulate additional
8 parameters present in the waste stream; and
9 consequently many detrimental pollutants have
10 gotten out because the regulatory agency did
II not have the information^on the nature of
12 waste water.
13 The GE case with Hooker Chemical Company
14 and my reaction serves an excellent example
-5 of permits that were inadequately written to
,, control the discharge of these compounds.
._ We feel that the EPA should have a complete
_ chemical profile of all wastes in order to
lo
effectively monitor and control all phases
of the operation.
This chemical profile will give the EPA
21
information that they could use to efficiently
22
implement the program.
23
By knowing which companies produce the
24
greatest quantity of hazardous waste, the EPA
25
-------
210
1
2 can priortise the permitting procedure by
3 dealing first with the generators with the
4 greatest potential for environmental damage
5 and public harm.
6 This information could also be used to
7 decide which generators should be regulated
8 by their waste themselves rather than being
9 regulated by the waste generated process.
JQ In addition, the EPA would have the
. I information on which waste streams should be
12 most closely monitored.
j3 The generators would have to report any
,. changes waste stream composition and the
Environmental Protection Agency would be able
lt>
to double check this through the manifest
system.
Consequently, NIBERG recommends that all
18
industries which have suspect wastes submit
a profile of their waste in accordance with
20
Section 250.15.
21
The EPA has based these regulations of
22
250.13 had on levels of toxicity that will
23
produce acute health effects.
24
We feel that the criteria should reflect
25
-------
211
1
2 a concern for chronic long term effects such
3 as cancer. The drinking water standards that
4 have been set currently provide safeguard
5 against acute health effects.
6 Harris and others have documented the
7 correlation between low level carnogens in
g water supply and increased cancer mortality
9 in some communities.
IQ The drinking water regulations are
currently being reworded to include this new
-„ concern for low level toxics.
,o We feel the hazardous waste regulations
-. should reflect a similar concern and
recommend lower cutoff points for the fydic
compounds in addition to the expansion of
lo
the list.
We are concerned especially in light of
18
EPA's admission that a tenfold dilution of
materials over a distance of five hundred feet
20
does not always occur.
21
That a tenfold dilution factor in
22
computing the toxicity of a waste in Section
23
250.13D may not be a sufficient safeguard.
24
Consequently, we recommend that the
25
-------
212
I
2 dilution factor in the toxicities be based
3 on the worse possible case or possibly no
4 dilution factor at all rather than tenfold.
5 NIBERG also questions the extraction
6 procedures to test for toxicity. The
7 regulations proposed that extraction be
8 performed at a PH of five. This procedure
9 assumes that every waste disposal facility
10 will operate at a PH of five.
H Obviously this is not likely and could
12 result in the masking of certain compounds
13 soluable at this PH.
14 A more thorough approach might be to
.I- extract at an acedic PH, a basic PH and a
16 neutral PH, and use the same standards for
17 each.
.0 This would provide the agency with a
19 better picture of the waste soluability in the
. water under the variety of conceivable situations.
Another concern we have over the EPA's
21
approach to finding hazardous waste is
2£
the burden of proof for determining whether
a waste is hazardous.
24
It is true that it is incumbent upon the
25
-------
213
I
2 industry to determine whether a waste is
3 hazardous or not.
4 But after the initial determination is
5 made, the burden of proof false back upon
6 the regulatory agencies, or worse, private
7 citizens.
8 If an industry decides to declare its
9 wastes are not unhazardous because its
10 processes do not fall into one of the
11 specified categories or because it simply
12 doesn't realize or care to realize that the
13 dangers of the waste are present, then in
14 absence of this information, on the composition
15 that the waste extreme, the citizens and the
16 regulatory agencies will have to bear the
17 burden.
lg This is yet another reason why we feel
j9 the EPA must mandate specific information
2Q on the composition of the waste extreme from
each industry.
In ttis way, if there is any question,
the data is there for everyone to see. Probably
^J
one of the most important issues in this
24
section is the amount of waste the generators
25
-------
214
I
2 must produce to be exempt from ths regulations.
3 Intent of the regulations is to avoid
4 creating future Love Canals. To even consider
5 the cutoff of 1000 kilograms per months is
6 inviting another Love Canal.
1 Currently there are 250 tons of
g trichlorophenal barrels at Love Canal, a
9 product of a 15 to 20 year dumping period.
._ If a company were to generate approximately
one ton of trichlorophenal a month and be
exempt, in the same period of time there would
be almost 200 to 240 tons of waste. The
J.O
entire purpose of the regulations would have
14
been subverted.
15
We urge the EPA to abandon any further
consideration of this figure. NIBERG feels
17
that even a 100 kilogram per month exemption
18
may be excessive.
19
One hundred kilograms a month of varying
20
toxic waste accumulated Okrer a few years could
21
easily pose a serious threat to health and
22
the environment.
23
More important, any cutoff in the
24
regulations seems to ignore the fact that
25
-------
215
1
2 compounds vary in toxicity. Since
3 compounds should not be exempted at all,
4 1000 kilograms per month may be sufficient
5 for some compounds.
6 The fact that 60 percent of all
7 industries would be exempted from the
8 proposed regulations seem to highlight our
9 argument.
10 The potential hazard of a compound
11 should be determined before exempting it
12 from the regulations.
13 The last point of interest in this
14 section is the criteria for corrosiveness.
In Section 250.13D the regulations specify
,, that a waste is hazardous if it corrodes
lo
j_ steel at greater than one quarter of an inch
18 Per year.
If we interpret the regulations correctly,
this would mean that five inches of steel or
20
better would be necessary to contain these
21
corrosive wastes for 20 years.
22
It would seem that the EPA would want to
23
label materials corrosive at a much lower level
24
than that.
25
-------
216
I
2 Section 3002. In order for the EPA
3 to effecitvely implement, operate and maintain
4 the circulations, we at NIBERG think that the
5 EPA should have a clear idea of the1 entire
6 overall picture.
7 In keeping with this the agency should
8 have at least one complete copy of all
9 documents in order to be able to know
10 exactly what wastes are stored where, who
U transported them and who generated them,
12 when and a profile of the exact chemical
13 constituents.
j4 This would provide the information to
insure that the propoer remedial procedures
16
15
could be initiated if a problem were to
develop at some later date.
This is one area where the proposed
18
manifest system is truly lacking. The manifest
should give the EPA a clear picture of exactly
what goes where. Without copies of the manifest
21
and with the minimum medical reported
22
requirements, the EPA would not be able in our
23
estimate to adequately regulate the problem.
24
NIBERG recommends that the EPA start a
25
-------
217
1
2 file on each generator. The file should
3 contain data on that company, quantity and
4 composition of waste, manufacturing processes,
5 production figures, transporters, disposal
6 facilities, permanent exceptions and so on.
1 In that file should also be a copy of
g each manifest. Computers could be utilized
g to double check all documents for discrepancies
,„ of any nature.
.- Information on waste should be filed
jo with all the separate regional offices, the
13 individual states and the EPA in Washington,
.. D.C., to be certain that wastes reach their
destination.
15
This will prevent waste from becoming lost
16
after crossing state lines. The manifest should
be expanded to include all pertinent information
18
such as date, origin and disposal site, the
methods of disposal, quantity, nature of
20
chemicals, emergency instructions and a list of
21
all compounds and chemicals present including
22
possible later remedial messengers.
23
The generator would send a copy of the
24
manifest to the EPA as would the disposal site
25
-------
218
1
* owner. Although the paper work may appear
3 excessive, it is only with this minimal
* amount of information that the problem can be
5 effecitvely regulated.
6 NIBERG Would like to recommend the
7 regulations either mandate or encourage
8 methods to reduce the quantity of hazardous
9 waste generated.
10 This emphasis seems to be absent in
11 the proposed regulations. Specifically
12 industries should attempt to either reconcile
13 wastes by selling them to toher companies who
14 could use them as a resource or incorporate
15 the wastes of known quality into processes
16 rather than using new materials such as
17 solvents, or work to concentrate the toxic
jg wastes into solid quantities by reducing them
19 and combining them to make a lesser quality
20 while rendering them safe for the environment.
In the promulgation of regulations under
Section 3004, NIBERG again supports the elements
of the proposed regulation providing strong
£ij
environmental safeguards. The regulation of
24
the hazardous waste disposal industry poses a
25
-------
219
1
1 stigma that over regulation may restrict
3 the development of a much needed safe disposal
4 area.
5 On the other hand, mismanagement of a
6 hazardous waste disposal facility would create
7 a severe environmental and public health threat.
8 The experiences of nuclear fuel services
9 in Rust Valley, New York, and pollution
10 abatement services in Oswego, New York, serve
11 as ample warning to us all.
12 Both the above mentioned sites handle
13 hazardous waste, the nuclear fuel service
14 handling nuclear waste and pollution abatement
service handling chemical wastes.
1J
,, Both facilities were established with the
io
blessings of tne New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Both facilities
lo
.„ closed without adequate maintenance funds or
contingency plans.
The cleanup costs in both instances
21
have and will be born by the tax payers of
22
this state to the combined total of well over
23
50 million dollars.
24
NIBERG in anticipating strong industry
25
-------
220
1
2 criticism of the 3004 regulations as being
3 too harsh or unfair strongly supports the
4 concept of establishing trust funds for
5 closure and maintenance of facilities.
6 New York State has already had at least
7 two demonstrations as to why these regulations
8 are necessary. NIBERG would recommend the
9 removal of Section 250.43-9D allowing for
10 the regional administration to consider the
11 financial status of a facility as a mitigating
12 factor for this requirement.
13 This subsection will only encourage
j4 facilities to seek exemptions from this
j,j requirement in exchange for setting up
jg businesses in regions where there is a need
17 for disposal facilities.
,„ Pollution abatement services in New York
lo
,„ State was allowed to function in violation
of its permit until it closed down because
it had let out or set out in a combined
21
schedule.
22
As the company failed to make datae :as
23
set out by the compliance schedule, further
24
compromises in the schedule were made allowing
25
-------
221
2 the company all the while to receive wastes
3 until ttie company announced its decision to
4 close after having received substantial
5 quantities of chemicals.
6 NIBERG is afraid that subsection D will
7 promote the same types of compromises because
8 of EPA's or the State's DEC's desire to
9 encourage new facilities to begin operation.
10 It should be pointed out that the DEC's
11 360 regulations which govern the safe operation
12 of existing landfills in New York State have
13 been largely flooded by landfill operations
14 and especially in Onondaga County in New York
15 State where the DEC has no alternative sites
16 for disposal of garbage.
17 Although the compromising section of the
18 regulations is well intended, NIBERG feels
19 that it will be misused for purposes of
2Q environmental blackmail.
NIBERG feels that it is far better that
an industry pay a little more to ship materials
to an improved facility further away than to
^•3
allow a new, perhpas more convenient facility,
24
to begin accepting wastes without adequate
-------
222
1
2 environmental and fiscal safeguards.
3 NIBERG supports the concept of human
4 health and environmental standards. These
5 protect ground and surface waters from
6 defoulment and promotes the concept of pure
7 drinking water and human health as the
8 fundamental concern for the regulations.
9 Not cost factors or other elements.
JQ However, the human health and invironmental
.. standards are meant only to insure compliance
^2 for the clean air-clean water act.
j3 We suggest the addition of another section
J4 after Section 250.42-3 to state that all
facilities be constructed to prevent a
potential health threat to the neighboring
16
community or to fish and wildlife.
This section would allow for more stringent
18
permanent requirements where low level
contamination of water was, air or soil may
20
pose an acute or chronic health problems either
21
to humans or wildlife.
22
NIBERG would like to strongly criticize
23
Section 250.43 Section A which provides that
24
waste facility discharges shall comply with the
25
-------
223
1
2 Clean Water Act.
3 We feel that hazardous waste facilities
4 must go much further than simple compliance
5 with the Clean Water Act to discharge
6 through water ways.
•7 NIBERG and others have documented over
8 and over the failure of the permit system
g to prevent toxic chemicals from getting into
-_ the waters.
Extensive contamination of the Hudson
River, the Niagra River and Lake Ontario
by quantities of synthetic organic compounds
U
has and is presently occurring due to loopholes
14
in the current permit system.
15
A hazardous waste disposal facility will
16
be an extremely concentrated proposal source
17
of chemicals for a water way. As such it should
18
be treated and regulated differentially.
19
Specifically NIBERG suggests that any
20
hazardous waste facility submit a total
21
analysis of waste water to be discharged plus
22
a list of waste products disposed of at the
23
site and that a very stringent permit be
24
written based on that information.
25
-------
224
1
2 NIBERG maintains the Clean Water Act as
3 currently enacted does not include enough
4 safeguards to protect water ways from the
5 unprecidented threat posed by hazardous waste
6 facilities.
7 On examination of the Clean Water Act
8 permit program reveals that violations of
9 the Act occur regularly.
10 Anticipating these violations or
j, excursions as they are euphemistically
12 referred to, NIBERG feels that any waste
,, water discharge permit should be awarded
only after scrutinizing the composition of the
waste water of the waste facilities.
15
It is highly questionable, given the
16
potential toxic nature of many wastes and
the problems of keeping a discharge within
18
permit confines, whether any waste facilities
19
should be permitted a water discharge.
20
We call onthe EPA not only to prevent this
21
in the future but to go one step further and
22
inspect current waste facilities with water
23
permits to make certain that there is no
24
hazard posed at present to receiving waters.
25
-------
225
1
2 Similarly, NIBERG feels that the open
3 burning of hazardous waste should not be
4 permitted. Adding to this section has the
5 net effect of again allowing the EPA
6 administration to be petitioned.
1 If open air burning is the' only treatment
8 alternative available at a given site, then
9 the site should probably not be used.
,Q The international joint commission in
its special report on toxic pollutants in the
.„ Lake Ontario basin has stated that PCB's
.„ with aeromatic callogens are already being
deposited in significant amounts in Lake
Ontario basin area because of air basins which
15
end up returning to the lake in the fall of
16
rainfall.
17
Allowing open burning of hazardous waste
18
would only contribute to this already large
problem. NIBERG supports a 200 foot barrier
20
between active portions of the landfill and
21
the property line.
22
Since toxicity testing is based on the
23
assumption of 500 feet between a fresh water
24
well and a potential leaching, NIBERG suggests
25
-------
226
1
2 that in addition no hazardous waste facility
3 be located within at least 500 feet of a well.
4 NIBERG supports recordkeeping, training,
5 security, contingency plan and emergency
6 procedure requirements imposed upon disposal
7 site owners.
8 We would like to suggest that all
9 facility site owners be required to keep
JQ records of all shipments received at the
,. site, whether they are accompanied by a
•2 manifest or not.
j3 This may prove helpful if wastes originally
,. thought to be non-hazardous are determined to be
hazardous at a later time.
li>
We also feel that all facilities accepting
lo
waste should retain all manifests for the
duration of the facility's operation rather than
for only three years as proposed in Section
250.43-5, Section B6.
20
Love Canal problems surfaced 25 years
21
after the last recorded use of the dump.
22
Three years is too short a period for record-
23
keeping, considering the longevity of many
24
hazardous materials and their potential threat
25
-------
227
1
2 to man and the environment.
3 NIBERG believes that reports by the
4 facility owners to the EPA for materials
5 received at the site, et cetera, should be
6 made more frequently than annually.
7 The EPA already uses quarterly reports for
8 determining non-compliance in various phases
9 of their water permit program.
jO We suggest quarterly rather than annual
jj reports so that any irregularities or
j2 problems at a specific facility may be picked
j3 up before they become a serious problem.
j4 A lot of damage can occur within a one
15 year period. NIBERG supports monitoring
., requirements imposed upon facility owners and
._ operation.
NIBERG, however, in regards to Section
18
_ --J.43-8C2 feels that monitoring should occur
at least quarterly by each facility regardless
of ground water flow.
21
By linking monitoring to ground water flow
22
the EPA is limiting its concern for how fast
23
materials could escape from the site.
24
NIBERG is concerned that if a leak develops
25
-------
228
1
2 at a facility one year could elapse before it
3 was detected and large quantities of materials
4 could conceivable enter the ground water table
5 before being noticed.
6 Once material has entered the ground
7 water, regardless of the ground water flow,
g it is difficult to contain and recover.
g We see no reason why these regulations
.- should be less stringent than .the water
discharge per units under the Clean Water Act
and we know of no facility where a water discharge
1_ permit is allowed to monitor only annually.
Again the potential threates posted by
a site that has concentrated hazardous wastes
15
warrants much stricter monitoring requirements
16
than those set forth in these regulations.
Monitoring requirements should include
18
the specific testing for organic in accordance
19
with what is being deposited there.
20
The proposed regulations suggest that
21
facility owners test organics using a gas
22
chromatograph scan.
23
There are many types of chromatograph scans
24
that may be applied, many of which would be
25
-------
229
1
2 useless depending on the nature of the wastes.
3 Monitoring organics should be specific for
4 the organic compounds disposed of at the
5 facility.
6 And the testing and monitoring in the
7 permit for each waste disposal facility should
8 accurately reflect all of the materials
9 buried at the site.
JQ General testing for all organics by use of
., a COD or other measures is inadequate. NIBERG
,2 strongly supports the establishment of post-
j3 closure and maintenance funds in anticipation
,4 of arguments that these requirements would be
inflationary upon facility owners.
ID
,, NIBERG suggests that in our experience
ID
with the Love Canal pollution abatement services
and Rust Valley there is more than ample reason
18
why payment should be arranged before a
disposal facility commences operation.
In all three instances the staggering
21
in maintenance costs have been born by
22
consumers and tax payers of New York while the
23
cost of maintenance of these facilities pay
24
disposal costs that did not accurately reflect
25
-------
230
1
2 the true costs of disposal.
3 In assessing these disposal costs against
4 the facility, we feel that the actual disposal
5 costs including proper closure and maintenance
6 of the sites will probably be passed on to the
7 generators of the waste where they belong.
8 Under no condition will NIBERG support
9 disposal facilities, assuming less financial
IQ responsibility than what is currently proposed
jj in the regulation itself.
^2 NIBERG supports EPA's attempt to encourage
13 treatment rather than disposal of hazardous
14 waste and strongly supports any measures to
encourage high temperature incineration or
lO
other appropriate technologies over landfill.
16
NIBERG feels that landfilling has been
shown in many instances to be an inappropriate
18
means of disposal.
We are uncertain whether granting tax
20
incentive or similar fiscal incentives are
21
within the scope of the EPA's abilities but
22
we would recommend that EPA consider the
23
incentives for firms wishing to avoid treatment
24
techniques for hazardous waste.
25
-------
231
1
2 It is only in this manner that more
3 sophisticated means of waste treatment will
4 be developed.
5 NIBERG questions whether 20 year post
6 closure is sufficnet to adequately safeguard
7 the health and environment from a hazardous
8 waste disposal site.
9 Part of the EPA's professed intention in
10 promoting these regulations is to avoid future
.. Love Canals.
12 The Love Canal problem occured after the
13 close of the landfill. The proposed regulations
14 would prevent another Love Canal.
Although the question of perpetual care
1J
., is a difficult one because of financial and
lo
._ legal problems proposed, NIBERG feels that
some provisions for long term care must be
lo
1(. addressed by the set of regulations.
Many compounds disposed of at a hazardous
waste site have been much longer than 20 years,
25 years after dioxin was buried at Love Canal.
22
Dioxin with a supposed half life of one
23
to two years was found in the leaching from
24
the canal area. Although, -20 years is a long
25
-------
232
1
2 period of time from fiscal standpoint, it is
3 certainly very short from an environmental
4 standpoint.
5 Consequently we strongly feel that
6 hazardous waste regulations should not be
7 rpomulgated without some provisions for at
8 least 50 to 100 year care if not perpetual
9 care. We unfortunately have no suggestions
-.- as to what the fairest way of doing this
might be at present. But we feel that it is
EPA's mandate to provide some solution to this
13 problem.
NIBERG is also concerned that hazardous
14
waste disposal sites never be used for purposes
such as the construction of housing or schools.
16
This should be an obvious lesson from the Love
17
Canal situation.
18
Yet the only restructions in the use of
possible closure disposal sites seem to be
20
on-sites which radioactive wastes vary.
21
NIBERG suggests expanding this
22
restruction in Section 250.45-2D so that no
23
waste disposal sites be used for housing or
24
educational purposes.
25
-------
233
1
2 And similarly that other inappropriate
3 uses such as running water mains through the
4 property at a later date be prohibited.
5 This seems foolish in light of the Love
6 Canal experience, to allow ourselves to believe
7 that the public health threat would be diminished
8 over 20 years.
9 The use of land for purposes of hazardous
JQ waste disposal should be recognized as being
.. incompatible with any future use of that
12 property involving continued contact by humans
jg and the regulations should reflect this
concern. They currently do not.
From an overall standpoint NIBERG is
13
pleased with the intent of these regulations.
16
There should be no compromising as to what
the regulations have already spelled out.
IS
We fell, however, that the regulations
in their proposed form sometimes fall short of
20
their intent as spelled out by the administration
21
in the preamble.
22
Consequently, we recommend the adoption
23
and incorporation of our comments to help the
24
agency achieve its desired goals.
25
-------
234
2 We thank the hearing officers for allowing
3 us to let our views be known and wish the
4 EPA luck with its efforts.
5 Thank you.
6 MS. DARRAH: Thank you. Would you be
7 willing to answer questions for the panel?
8 MR. CKYTILO: Certainly.
9 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Chytilo, I think your
10 comments have been very to the point and will
jl be very helpful to us.
12 I might urge that when you think you
13 indicated you were going to submit a written
14 statement and so forth, a lot of the comments
j5 which you've made extend the regulations which
jg we have considerably.
17 And it seems to me it would be likely
,„ to cost a considerable additional amount of
lo
.„ money which in the end will be born by the
tax payer regardless of how it comes forward.
If you have any information relative
21
to the potential economics and so forth
22
involved with what you're talking about, both
23
from the standpoint of the people and resources
24
it would take to administer it and the cost
25
-------
235
1
2 which might be involved to the regulated
3 community and thus later on to the public as
4 a whole, but might be helpful to us too.
5 I don't expect that we can get into
6 that in any detail here. I do have a couple
1 of specific questions here if you don't mind.
8 One of the things which you urge which is
-------
236
1
2 known to be or to have greater toxicity than
3 others. I don't have any specific recommendations
H as to what chemicals would be more toxic than
5 others.
6 But I think that the EPA should be willing
7 to examine all the wastes that are present in
g industry, industrial wastes, and attempt to
9 figure out which is toxic and use that to
such regulations. Does that answer your
question?
MR. LINDSEY: Yes. In other words, we
should priortise what we're doing based on
u
hazard level in this case?
14
MR. CHYTILO: Yes.
15
MR. TRASK: Mr. Chytilo, you mentioned
16
earlier that you thought the 1000 kilogram per
month option which we discussed in the preamble
18
to 3002, might be or certainly would be too
19
large.
20
And you also indicated that the 100 kilogram
21
per month exclusion might not be appropriate for
22
some compounds.
23
As you know, we also discussed very briefly
24
some other options which we are considering in
25
-------
237
1
2 the preamble 3002.
3 One of those looks at the level of
4 hazard and suggests that we might tie that
5 to some quantity exclusion depending on the
6 level of hazard.
7 One of our problems here which was
8 tossed on by Mr. Lindsey is that we have not
9 yet been able to determine what these materials
jO are and what levels of hazards we have to
jj tie to each different quantity of waste.
^2 We solicit your help in this area and
]3 I would ask, do you have any data which would
j^ help us in this area?
You did mention one waste, I believe. You
mentioned dioxin or something which you said
16
was particularly bad.
MR. CHYTILO: Yes.
18
MR. TRASK: Would you be prepared to
suggest some level of dioxin that we ought to
20
use as a cutoff point?
21
MR. CHYTILO: We haven't done a thorough
22
research on this. But I think if a study like
23
that could be done, the levels could be
24
determined.
25
-------
238
1
2 If you would like to write our Syracuse
3 office, we have a lot of information and we
4 could probably help you with some data,
5 certainly not conclusive.
6 MR. TRASK: Well, as you know, we are
7 seeking, actively seeking information because
8 we have been instructed by the Judge to get
9 these regulations into print by the end of
10 this year. And we may not have a great deal
., of time to write to the Syracuse office.
12 MR. CHYTILO: Okay. Well, I can see
jg where we can get together.
14 MR. TRASK: Fine. Thank you.
MR. CORSON: Mr. Chytilo, if I may,
1J
following up on the question that Harry asked.
16
You indicated some data or at least implied that
you had some data possibly on the dioxin,
particularly or possibly in a landfill
environment.
20
I'm wondering whether you can possibly
21
supply that data to us and maybe at the
22
same time suggest if you have any data
23
methods that we might use for the determination
24
where other substances in the environment that
25
-------
239
1
2 we might consider in our regulatory development
3 program.
4 MR. CHYTILO: Okay, we don't have any
5 specific information that I know of. But
6 when I get back to Syracuse I could look into
7 the files and see what we have.
8 MR. CORSON: If I may follow up, also.
9 It seems to me that as I understand what we
10 have written in 3004 of our regulations, the
jj monitoring is a minimum requirement of some
12 sort for 20 years.
13 And we have the authority, I believe,
14 to expand that monitoring periods if we should
determine that there are things at present
lj
,, during that time.
lo
I'm wondering whether you have any data
which relates to any site where we have
18
contamination after 20 years or during the 20
year monitoring period there was no detection
of contaminants in the monitoring data.
21
MR. CHYTILO: What you're asking for is
22
informationfromthe field which I really don't
23
have. We could work on a study or you could get
24
somebody to work on a study to get actual
25
-------
240
1
2 figures. Right now we don't have any
3 conclusive data that I could give you.
4 MR. CORSON: I think that we're trying
5 to say, at least in our department ol
6 regulations, that we think some regu3ar
•j monitoring should show the effects of what
8 seems to be the inadequacy of a particular
9 land disposal method.
JQ And we have no data to support that if
you're getting nothing now that after 20 years
.„ you should continue these regulations.
13 MR. CHYTILO: Well, it would take 25 years
for it to come out.
14
MR. CORSON: But I'm not aware that
15
there was any data for that 25 year period that
16
would show that nothing came out during that
time. I guess that's what we're asking.
18
MR. CHYTILO: It's impossible to say.
19
MR. CORSON: The other question I have which
20
evolved from the question that Harry had asked
21
down the other end. And that is whether you can
22
further amplify at least in your written
23
comments, if you will, what you really mean by
24
complete chemical profile.
25
-------
241
1
2 We're talking about all constituents
3 and what possible levels per billion or per
4 trillion? It's very difficult. Some of the
5 chemicals you mentioned may have hazardous
6 levels or toxic levels and very, very low
7 concentrations.
8 And also I'm just wondering whether you've
9 done any work in the espousing position you
10 are presenting this evening which would give
U us some feel on what you think might involve
12 economically as well as that facility wise.
13 MR. CHYTILO: NIBERG doesn't have the
14 funds to do very much actual research in terms
of data gathering and that sort of thing.
li)
So I don't really know if we have too much
ID
material.
But we have information produced by
18
Walter Hang and Joseph Salvo that we will be
able to forward you that might help you out on
these points.
21
As for the chemical constituents and
22
their concentrations, it should be, whatever
23
the concentration is, there are chemicals that
24
would certainly be dangerous, parts per billion
25
-------
242
1
2 parts per trillion, in which case we 'would
3 want to know how much is there.
4 In Love Canal originally dioxin was
5 found in parts of a trillion and then it was
6 discovered that they were in parts per billion
1 and million.
8 MR. LINDSEYi One point you raised was,
9 I think you said that you were pleased that the
JQ regulations did tend to go in the direction
jj of discouraging land disposal and encouraging
12 treatments and recycle, et cetera.
^3 And it's true that in our developing
... these regulations we strive to do that in the
sense that we are making or we hope we're making
ID
absolutely sure that land disposal is at least
16
„
And in so doing we're raising the cost of
18
that land disposal which then indirectly
encourages recycle and treatment; I gather though,
20
from your comments that perhaps you weren't
21
completely satisfied with that. That you
22
think we should go further along this line and
23
in some fashion.
24
If so, how do you think we should do that?
25
-------
243
1
2 in other wrods, what type Of regulations should
3 we consider which would tend to further
4 discourage land disposal or favor or alternately
5 encourage treatment, recycle and things like
6 that?
7 MR. CHYTILO: Well, the whcte system of
8 monitoring after the site is closed and the
9 financial requirements before it's open are
10 bound to discourage those type of sites and
H therefore encourage high temperature incineration
12 &n
-------
244
1
2 comments on the regulation?
3 (No response)
4 MS. DARRAH: Okay. Why don't we close
5 the formal hearing itself and we will take
6 questions from you either on cards or if you
7 want to go to the microphone and ask us about
8 anything you may have heard about that you
9 don't understand. That would be fine also.
10 If you would, though, please identify
11 yourself with name and if you are affiliated
12 with an organization so that the court
13 reporter can take it down for us.
14 MR. CHARLES MYLE: I'm from the Westchester
15
County D.P.W. I have a question on sludge.
And it has to do with ice in the regulations
that sludge from municipal sewage treatment
plants are exempted as a hazardous waste.
IS
They'll be controlled under the Clean Water
20
The question I have is, after you handle
the sludge, the residue from the sludge, would
22
that be classified as sludge from a municipal
23
sewage treatment plant? Or could that be
24
classified as a hazardous waste7
25
-------
245
1
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you amplify that
3 a little bit? What do you mean by after
4 you handle the sludge? What do you mean by
5 that?
6 MR. MYLE: Well, if you incinerate. And
•7 Ite residue from the incineration process or
§ some other active process, you wind up with a
9 residue of l/20th of the volume that you
,„ started out with, would that be classified as
a sludge?
.„ Or would that maybe be thrown into a
,- hazardous substance and therefore the
municipality be classified as a generator and
therefore if it wished to ship, it would have
to go through the manifest system?
16
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I must be honest with
17
you and say that that is a very excellent
18
question. I don't believe that we've ever
19
considered that aspect of the situation, and
20
I don't believe that we're prepared to answer
21
it right now.
22
MR. MYLE: it's really more of a
23
regulation as per I am the generator or I
24
am not the generator, not do I have a real
25
-------
246
1
o
potential problem. Do I by the law become
3 a generator and therefore write you a year
4 from now that I am?
5 MR. LEHMAN: I understand your point.
6 It's a very good one. It's just an aspect
7 that we have not really considered at this
8 point.
9 I should add that one way or the other it
10 will probably be dealt with, either via the
11 water act regulations or via the RCCA
12 regulations, I'm not s.ure which.
13 MS. DARRAH: Anybody want to write down
14 a question?
15 (no response)
16 MS. DARRAH: Okay. In the absence of
17 further comments or questions we will close
,„ this hearing. Thank you very much for coming.
jg We'll reconvene tomorrow morning at 8:30 on
20 Section 3004.
(Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at
22 8:10 p.m.)
23
24
25
-------
Proposed Sazardous Waste Regulations
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Comments on Section 3002
by Charles Goddard
Director Bureau of ffazardous Waste
Division of Solid Waste Management
ITTSDEC
February 8, 1979
Our main concerns with Section 3002 are the manifest system and exemptions
for small generators.
It is our opinion that a manifest should accompany every shipment of
hazardous waste, in other words a manifest for a fleet of trucks is not vise. If
the information as required Jby Section 250.22 accompanies the shipment in the form
of a till of lading or a hazardous material shipping paper instead of as a uni-
versally utilized manifest system, the result could be confusion in our enforce-
ment program.
A multiplicity of shipping papers with various information arranged in
differing formats would tend to discourage the Environmental Conservation officer
whose job it would be to inspect these shipping papers for compliance with the
lav. It is of the utmost importance that the Conservation officer be readily able
to discern and Identify all discrepancies on the required shipping papers. The
manifest format described in Section 250.22 should be used throughout the country
to ensure national consistency. Uniformity with the manifest system is the key.
The section on Reporting describes in detail the reporting requirements for
international shipments.
"In the case of international shipments to a foreign disposer, the generator
must send quarterly reports to the EPA Regional Office or authorized State agency
having regulatory jurisdiction over him and retain for 3 years a copy of the
manifest, which was sent with the shipments to the foreign TSDF".
On the other hand, nowhere does there appear to be details spelling out the
requirements for waste generators outside of the United States that are transporting
wastes into the country for treatment, storage or disposal. At some point hazardous
wastes generated outside the country must enter the system. Since we cannot place
restrictions on foreign firms it seems appropriate that the transporter must become
a generator as soon as he enters the country.
We are presently receiving hazardous wastes from Canada and any effective
hazardous waste management program must take into account the transportation,
treatment and disposal of these wastes.
EPA is considering a requirement that generators who ship hazardous waste to
foreign TSDF's must notify Jboth EPA and the foreign Government having jurisdiction
over the receiving facility before such shipments are made. This requirement
would be Important in Sew fork State because most of our hazardous waste generators
axe located in Erie and Niagara Counties, and since many of these generators ship
their waste into Canada, we feel that wore stringent reporting is warranted here,
I'm sure my Canadian counter parts would agree. Such notification would not have
to apply to each shipment, hut could apply to specific waste streams to be shipped
over a period of time.
-------
- 2 -
Again I would like to emphasize NYS's objection to the small generator
exemption. Persons who produce and dispose of less than 100 kg/mo, of hazardous
waste would be exempted from the requirements of this Subpart If they comply with
Section 250.29 (page 58979, col. 3). Although sufficient data may be lacking which
would distinguish among various degrees of hazard, we do know of certain wastes
which can he considered highly hazardous and should be regulated by Subpart B,
regardless of the quantities produced. Disposal of hazardous waste into a local
landfill handling municipal refuse should be avoided wherever possible.
Generators who store hazardous waste for up to 90 days on-slte prior to
shipment, need not comply with Subpart D. Normally this is not a problem.
However, there should be an upper limit to the quantity of waste stored during
any period of time. This will not only reduce the harmful impact of an accidental
spill but it will also provide a safeguard against a company going bankrupt,
leaving behind thousands of barrels.
"Generators who store hazardous waste for less than 90 days prior to treat-
ment or disposal on-slte are not required to comply with the COT container
standards." While it is reasonable to require less stringent container standards
for the short term storage of hazardous wastes there should be provisions made
for accidental spills. Contingency spill plans should be developed that include
provisions for containment and recovery of the spilled material with emphasis being
placed on minimizing the impact on the environment and on the public safety and velfar
Instances of unreturned manifests must be described In quarterly "exemption"
reports submitted to an authorized State agency, or to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office. To ensure proper disposal and to provide better enforcement of waste manage-
ment, we feel that Option 4 (page 58973 Col. 3) Is the most appropriate. This
places the burden of monitoring the movement of the hazardous, waste on the generator,
however, it is to his advantage to report improper disposal so that he may protect
himself from undue liability for improper waste management. With respect to the
quarterly report we would like to see all shipments listed with an indication
given as to which ones are "exemptions". In this way the annual report could be
eliminated, more timely information on waste generation could be obtained and the
reporting system which seems somewhat cumbersome could be simplified. The reporting
system seems cumbersome because of the attempt to use a single form for all re-
porting requirements. Sections of the form are therefore filled out differently
depending upon the type of report. I wholehearted agree with the attempt to cut
down on the number of forms but I'm afraid that the proposed system will result
in thousands of improperly completed forms.
As a final point, the generator should be provided the option of reporting
quantities of waste either in metric units or in english units, thus Instead of
reporting in pounds (P), tons (1), gallons (G), or cubic yards (Cr) (page 58977,
col. 3 - 58978, col. 1), the generator could use, for example, kilograms (K) , metric
tons (MT), liters (L), or cubic meters (CM).
He will provide mare specific comments prior to March 16th.
-------
1
2
3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
4 PUBLIC HEARING
5
6 Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations
7
8
9
10
11
12 Held at: United Engineering Center
Main Auditorium
13 345 East 47th Street
New York, New York
14
Date: February 9, 1979
Time: 8:30 a.m.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2 APPEARANCES:
3 Dorothy Darrah
4 Amy Schaefer
5 >< hn Lehman
6 Fred Lindsey
7 Tim Fields
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2 MR. LEHMAN: Good morning. My name
3 is John P. Lehman. I am the director of the
4 Hazardous Waste Management Division of EPA's
5 Office of Solid Waste in Washington, D.C. On
5 behalf of EPA, I would like to welcome you
7 to the public hearing which is being held to
8 discuss the proposed regulations for the
9 management of hazardous waste. We appreciate
10 your taking the time to participate in the
•I development of these regulations which are
12 being issued under the authority of the
^3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - RCRA,
14 better known by the acronym, RCRA -RCRA.
The Environmental Protection Agency on
lo
December 18th, 1978 issued proposed rules
16
under Sections 3001, 3002 and 3004 of the
Solid Vlaste Disposal Act as substantially
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, Public Law 94-580. These
20
proposals, respectively, cover: First, criteria
21
for identifying and listing hazardous waste,
22
identification methods, and a hazardous waste
23
list; Second, standards applicable to
24
generators of such waste for recordkeeping,
25
-------
1
2 labeling, using proper containers and using
3 a transport manifest; and, three, performance,
4 design and operating standards for hazardous
5 waste management facilities.
6 These proposals, together with those
7 already published pursuant to Section 3003,
8 April 28th, 1978; Section 3006, February 1st,
9 1978; Section 3008, August 4th, 1978; and
lfl Section 3010, July llth, 1978 and that of
the Department of Transportation pursuant to
.2 the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act,
.- May 25th, 1978, along with Section 3005
regulations constitute a hazardous waste
regulatory program under Subtitle C of the
Act.
16
EPA has chosen to integrate its
regulations for facility permits pursuant to
18
Section 3005 and for state hazardous waste
19
program authorization pursuant to Section 3006
20
of the Act with proposals under the National
21
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
22
required by Section 402 of the Clean Water
23
Act and the Underground Injection Control
24
Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This
25
-------
1
2 integration of programs will appear soon as
3 proposed rules under 40 CFR, parts 122, 123
4 and 124.
5 This hearing is being held as part of
6 our public participation process in the
7 development of this regulatory program.
8 We ask that smokers sit to the right
9 where ashtrays are located and non-smokers
JQ may wish to sit to the left.
., The panel members who share the rostrum
^2 with me today, are: Amy Schaefer, of the
j3 Office of Enforcement, EPA Headquarters in
.. Washington; Dorothy Darrah, Office of General
Counsel, EPA Headquarters in Washington; Fred
lo
Lindsey, Chief of Implementation, branch of
16
the Hazardous Waste Division, EPA in
Washington; and Tim Fields, Program Manager in
18
the Assessment and Technology Branch of the
19
Hazardous Waste Management Division, EPA,
20
Washington, D.C. Mr. Fields is the responsible
21
staff person for Section 3004 regulations.
22
As noted in the Federal Register, our
23
planned agenda is to cover comments on Section
24
3004 today.
25
-------
1
2 Comments received at this hearing and
3 the other hearings, as noted in the Federal
. Register, together with comment letters we
5 receive, will be part of the official
6 docket in this rule-making process. The
_ comment period closes on March 16th for
o Sections 3001 through 3004. This docket may
„ be seen during normal working hours in Room
2111D, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, Southwest,
Washington, D.C. In addition, we expect to
have transcripts of each hearing within about
two weeks of the close of the hearing. These
1*J
transcripts will be available for reading at
14
any of the EPA libraries. A list of these
15
locations is available at the registration
16
table outside.
17
With that as background, I'd like to
18
lay the groundwork and rules for the conduct
19
of this hearing.
20
The focus of a public hearing is on the
21
public's response to a regulatory proposal of
22
an agency. The purpose of this hearing, as
23
announced in the April 28th, May 25th and
24
December 18th, 1978 Federal Registers, is to
25
-------
1
2 solicit comments on the proposed regulations,
3 including any background information used to
4 develop the comment.
5 This public hearing is being held not
6 primarily to inform the public nor to defend
7 a proposed regulation, but rather to obtain the
§ public's response to these proposed regulations
9 and, thereafter, revise them as may seem
10 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.
The members of the public are to present
15
their views on the proposed regulations to
16
the panel and the panel may ask questions of
the people presenting statements to clarify
18
any ambiguities in their presentations.
19
Some questions by the panel may be
20
forwarded in writing to the speaker. His
21
response, if received within a week of the
22
close of this hearing, will be included in
23
the transcript. Otherwise, we will include it
24
in the docket.
25
-------
1
o
' The chairman reserves the right to limit
3 lengthy questions, discussions or statements.
4 If you have a copy of your statement, please
5 submit it to the court reporter.
6 Written statements will be accepted at
7 the end of the hearing. If you wish to submit
8 a written rather than an oral statement, please
9 make sure the court reporter has a copy. The
10 written statements will also be included in
11 their entirety in the record.
12 Persons wishing to make an oral statement
13 who have not made an advanced request by
14 telephone or in writing should indicate their
15 interest on the registration card. If you
16 have not indicated your intent to give a
17 statement and you decide to do so, please
18 return to the registration table, fill out
19 another card and give it to one of the staff.
on As we call upon an individual to make a
21 statement, he or she should come up to the
lecturn after identifying himself or herself
for the court reporter and deliver his or her
4bi3
statement.
24
At the beginning of the statement, the
-------
1
2 Chairperson will inquire as to whether the
3 speaker is willing to entertain questions from
4 the panel. The speaker is under no obligation
5 to do so, although, within the spirit of this
6 information-sharing hearing, it would be of
7 great assistance to the Agency if questions
8 were permitted.
9 Our day's activities, as we currently
10 see them, appear like this:
11 We will break for lunch at about twelve
12 o'clock and, depending on our progress, we
13 will then reconvene at about two p.m. Then,
j4 again depending on our progress, we will
jg either conclude the day's session this
,, afternoon or break for dinner later on and have
an evening session, if necessary. Phone calls
will be posted on the registration table at
IS
.„ the entrance and restrooms are located outside
to the left. With regard to lunch, there are
a number of restaurants in this general
vicinity. Also, there is a cafeteria in this
22
building. However, you will need a pass in
order to use this cafeteria. These passes are
24
available at the EPA registration table outside.
25
-------
10
1
2 If you wish to be added to our mailing
3 list for future regulations, draft regulations
4 or proposed regulations, please leave your
5 business card or name and address on a three-
6 by-five card at the registration desk.
7 The primary regulations under discussion
8 today are those for Section 3004 of the
9 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
10 Section 3004 addresses standards affecting
11 owners and operators of the hazardous waste
12 treatment, storage and disposal facilities.
13 These standards define the levels of
14 human health and environmental protection to
- be achieved by these facilities and provide
j, the criteria against which EPA or state
17 officials will measure applications for permits.
,0 Facilities on a generator's property as well
lo
jo as off-site facilities are covered by these
. regubtions and do require permits; generators
and transporters do not otherwise need permits.
EPA intends to promulgate final
22
regulations under all sections of Subtitle C
23 y
by December 31st, 1979. However, it is
24
important for the regulated communities to
25
-------
11
1
2 understand that the regulations under Section
3 3001 through 3005 do not take effect until
4 six months after promulgation. That would be
5 approximately June, 1980.
6 Thus, there will be a time period after
7 final promulgation during which time public
8 understanding of the regulations can be
9 increased. During this same period,
10 notifications required under Section 3010 are
H to be submitted and facility permit
12 applications required under Section 3005 will
13 be distributed for completion by applicants.
14 With that as a summary of Subtitle C
jg and the proposed regulations to be considered
jg at this hearing, I return this meeting to
j_ the chairperson, Dorothy Darrah.
MS.,' DARRAH: Thank you.
19
jg All right. I think we will just go ahead
2Q and get started.
Mr. Hershson, if you will give us your
comments on 3004.
22
MR. HERSHSON: Good morning.
You must be rather bored with introducing
24
me each morning. I feel like a vaudeville act
-------
12
1
2 that comes in once a day and a special
3 matinee performance on Thursday.
4 So, without any further introduction I
5 would like to go into the Section 3004 and
6 the reason I am here this morning.
7 Under that Section, there appears that
8 provision and proposed regulation,as follows,
9 and I am referring to Section 250.44-2,
jO entitled Containers. Subparagraph (f) reads
jj as follows: Empty non-combustible storage
j2 containers, for example, metal and glass
13 containers, which previously contained hazardous
waste, shall be: (1) Cleaned by removing
hazardous waste residuals at a permitted
facility, and (i) transported to a drum
16
reconditioner; or (ii) transported to a metal or
glass recovery facility as scrap; or (2)
18
Transported to a permitted drum reconditioner,
with appropriate manifest, and so forth.
We submit that the proposed regulation
21
contained in Section 250.44-2 is inconsistent
22
with and contrary to the intent of Section 250.10,
23
and then the container which formerly contained
24
a hazardous material, whether virgin or waste
25
-------
13
1
2
material, when it is delivered to a
3 reconditioner for reconditioning and reuse,
4 should be excluded from the operation of these
•* regulations since the reconditioner will put
" the container, after reconditioning, into
7 reuse and will, himself, become the "generator"
8 under RCRA of any hazardous residue resulting
9 from the reconditioning process.
10 There should be no distinction between
11 the empty container coming from an emptier and
12 one coming from a storage or disposal site.
13 The existence of such a distinction would make
14 for chaotic and confusing regulations. On
15 the one hand, the empty container is not deemed
16 being waste and so is not covered by the RCRA
17 regulations; on the other hand, it is considered
lg waste and may only be delivered to a permitted
19 reconditioner. No permit would be required in
2o the first instance where as one would be
2j required in the second.
„ The rationale behind the exclusion, Section
„„ 250.10 is twofold: First, the Act states,
among its objectives, Section 1003, the
"conservation of valuable material," "resource
-------
14
1
2 conservation," "recycling." These objectives
3 are all achieved by resue of the material. In
4 the case on steel drums, an energy study
5 submitted with our statement of June 20th,
6 1978 proves the tremendous savings in energy
- consumption, steel, iron ore and so forth
g involved in the reconditioning process. The
o section, therefore, I am referring to, 250.10,
excludes "discarded material" destined for
reuse and properly so.
The second reason for the exclusion is
that the purpose of RCRA - - to trace
hazardous material from generator to disposal - -
is served, since the reconditioner becomes a
15
"generator" and must manifest the waste he
16
generates.
17
Both these reasons are disregarded by
18
Section 250.44-2 (f).
19
A further objection of our industry is
20
to the requirement found in Section 250.44-2 (f)
21
that the empty container shal,! be "cleaned by
22
removing hazardous waste residuals..." and then
23
transported to a drum reconditioner. In our
24
statement of June '78, we discussed this problem
25
-------
15
I
2 at some length and siggested that such a
3 requirement would create many more problems
4 than it would resolve. We pointed out then,
5 that, instead of this residue being collected
6 in approximately 200 conditioners' resource
7 recovery facilities with 40 years experience
8 in handling it, suddenly many thousands of
9 inexperienced generator plants would become
10 involved in the collection, handling and
11 disposition of contaminated wastes and
12 effluent, posing problems far more dangerous
13 to the environment.
14 In order to avoid confusion and eliminate
j5 the apparent inconsistencies with the provisions
16 of Section 250.10, we respectfully recommend
17 Section 250.44-2 (f) be modified to read as
jg follows:
19 "Empty, non-combustible storage containers
20 shall be
(1) Cleaned by removing hazardous waste
residual at a permitted facility and transported
to a metal or glass recovery facility as scrap
^O
for resource recovery, or
24
(2) Transported to a drum reconditioner
25
-------
16
1
2 for reconditioning and reuse."
3 This would be consistent with 250.10 and
4 make the residue of hazardous wastes the same
5 product as the residue of the hazardous
6 material not waste and then empty drums, which
7 formerly contained hazardous materials, when
8 it goes to a reconditioner for reuse, should
9 be excluded from the operations of the
10 regulations and no permit of any kind required.
11 If you have any questions, I will be glad
12 to answer them.
13 MR. LEHMAN: Part of your statement refers
14 to the fact that - your statement, you pointed
j,- 1977, you said you discussed the problem at
Ig some length and so on, pointed out that instead
Yj °f this residue being collected at approximately
jo 200 reconditioner facilities with a great deal
j
-------
17
1
2 storage disposal facility.
3 MR. HERSHSON: Yes.
4 Then, instead of the emptier beina an
5 emptier of raw material, in this case, the
6 emptier is a disposal site, but the situation
7 remains the same. He is now creating an
8 effluent that he normally would not be
9 creating. Of course, he is in a better position,
jO I grant you, but that isn't the point.
n MR. LEHMAN: That was the point of my
^2 question to you.
j3 I think we have to make a distinction here
I4 between - the thrust of your remark might be
more applicable to a generator than to a
ID
,, facility.
lo
MR. HERSHSON: I agree.
MR. LEHMAN: Which would be under the
lo
system and so forth - -
MR. HERSHSON: I agree whole heartedly,
he'd be in a better position.
21
Nevertheless, I must maintain the point
22
that the residue of hazardous waste, in the
23
technical sense of the word, a drum of waste
24
sent to a drum disposal site is no less than
25
-------
18
1
2 the hazardous material from a generator so
3 both should be treated equally.
4 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
5 MR. HERSHSON: Thank you all for your
6 patience with me for the past three days.
7 MS. DARRAH: Is there a representative
8 of the New York Public Research Interest Group
9 who wants to speak this morning?
JQ (No response)
n MS. DARRAH: Is Mr. J. J. Santoleri here?
j2 MR. SANTOLERI: Good morning.
j, 1 want to thank the EPA for allowing me
to present my comments on this regulation.
My name is Joe Santoleri. I am with the
15
Trane Thermal Company, located in Conshohocken,
16
Pennsylvania.
Our interest in the regulations is
18
primarily with the Section 250.45-1 which is
on page 59008 and primarily with regard to
20
the design of the combustion criteria,
21
subparagraph d.
22
Just to give you a brief background on
23
our experience. We agree whole-heartedly
24
with the need for these regulations and the
25
-------
I
2 importance of having these enacted as soon
3 as possible. We also realize, as you have,
4 the complexities of these proposed regulations,
5 especially with the variety and magnitude
6 of wastes that are generated by industry.
7 We've been involved in toxic and
8 hazardous waste disposal since 1953. Our
9 experience and background has been in high
10 heat release combustion systems and their
11 associated heat transfer applications. We
12 have supplied well over 500 installations for
13 waste disposal over the past 26 years, with
14 the majority of these used for toxic, hazardous
15 waste materials. As a result, this has enabled
jg us to develop the necessary solutions to
j- incinerator system design for the myriad of
wastes generated by industry in their production
lo
-„ facilities. We have found incineration to be
one of the sure methods of disposal for most
of the toxic, hazardous wastes containing
organic compounds with or without inorganic
22
materials and water.
23
Energy savings is critical today. Therefore,
24
operation with a minimum amount of excess air,
25
-------
20
1
2 but still maintaining high combustion
3 efficiency is important. Many combustion
4 systems cannot operate at or near the
5 stoichiometric fuel-air ratio and still
6 maintain high combustion efficiency. Systems
7 have been designed to generate inert gas with
8 high intensity combustors where CO levels as
9 low as parts per million can be attained.
10 That's very low excess air base. Increasing
11 the excess air will only decrease the
12 efficiency of a system.
13 This same combustor design can be used
14 with liquid wastes having heating values as
j5 low as 4,500 BTU per pound, compared to
|, fuel oil at 18,000 and also gases having
17 heating values as low as 90 BTU per cubic foot.
The principal situation here is the mixing
lo
that has to be achieved between the fuel or
waste and the air and this is critical to any
combustion systern.
High intensity combustors provide the
22
third "T" of good combustion, turbulence. The
23
combination of turbulence and temperature
24
allow residence time to be reduced considerably
25
-------
21
2 and not the requirements as specified in
3 these regulations. There are differences
4 between heat release for commercial burners
5 that can vary by a factor of one thousand.
6 Some burners operate with heat release rates
7 as low as 10,000 BTU per hour per cubic foot
8 and other can operate with heat release rates
9 as high as 10 million BTU per hour per cubic
10 foot.
11 High heat release burners can operate
12 with high combustion efficiencies at the same
13 time. Poor burners may require as much as
14 75 percent excess air to obtain equivalent
j5 combustion efficiencies from an energy
16 conservation viewpoint, high combustion
17 efficiencies in most applications are most
I8 effective when they are achieved with low
19 excess air operation.
2Q In waste disposal by incineration, the
„. primary objectives are usually volume
reduction and conversion of harmful toxic
products to less toxic or more easily handled
£-j
substances. If volume reduction is the main
concern, combustion efficiency is significant.
<£ J
-------
22
1
2 If the products of combustion are the
3 most important objective, a thermodynamic
4 equilibrium of the combustion process may be
5 the controlling factor. With the high
6 intensity, both of these can be achieved at
7 the same time.
8 The major advantage of that high
9 intensity combustion system is the reduction
jO in size of equipment that will result in a
jj reduced capital investment by the waste
j2 disposer. Operating with minimum excess air
j3 also reduces operating costs and also the
14 pollution control equipment downstream of
the oxidizer or incinerator. Waste disposal
systems require a review of the entire costs
16
necessary to meet final emissions, whether it
be to the air or to water.
18
We at Trane Thermal Company feel very
strongly concerning the need for these
20
regulations in establishing the levels of
21
emissions. The design of the equipment should
22
be left to the incinerator designer who knows
23
best what his particular unit can or cannot
24
do in service.
25
-------
23
1
2 250.45-1 subparagraph d. Incineration
3 Combustion Criteria specifies the minimum
4 combustion temperature, 1000 degrees C., and
5 retention time, two seconds. In the best
6 interest of the final user it is important
7 that the incinerator supplier have data made
8 available to the user either by laboratory
9 tests, operating tests on the particular
10 waste to be disposed, or operating records
11 of a similar installation. Establishing
12 design parameters for the incinerator
13 equipment as covered in this paragraph
14 eliminates the opportunity for the final user
,,- to obtain the ultimate in savings that can be
,£ achieved by high intensity combustion systems.
,_ These systems can provide the user a capital
,„ investment savings and at the same time a
lo
19
reduction in maintenance and operating costs.
High intensity combustion permits equilibrium
to be achieved in the combustion process.
21 *
This takes place within the flame envelope.
22
Diffuser-type combustion systems may require
£-J
100 times the volume and 100 times the
24
residence time, this still will not insure the
25
-------
24
1
2 high level of combustion efficiency or high
3 destruction efficiency. Proof of this can
4 only be made by proper analyzer equipment.
5 We request that this paragraph, 250.45-1
6 d (1) retention time not be included.
7 Conditions can be achieved whereby the
8 temperature for incineration is met in a
9 chamber which is designed for the temperature
10 and the residence time. However, in many cases
jl most of the chamber was used just for bringing
12 the waste material up to the incineration
13 temperature. This does not insure that the
14 waste material has remained at that
,5 temperature for that period of time. Mixing
j^ is very important. In a low diffusion system,
._ mixing may take three quarters of the chamber
just to achieve the temperature of the
lo
-„ incineration. This does not mean that the
material has been at temperature for that
two-second residence time.
Therefore, it is important that the
22
time and temperature be known and this is
23 v
very difficult in any system. This is why we
24
feel it is important that equilibrium conditions
25
-------
25
1
2 be the primary consideration for incinerators.
3 This can only be produced by having at least
4 the two T's of combustion, high turbulence
5 and high temperature. With both of these
6 conditions, time is not important. However,
7 if either of these are missing, they only
8 method of achieving complete combustion is
9 long residence time which is as stated in
10 these regulations.
.. This only allows anyone who would build
,2 a refractory-lined shelf to meet a certain
jo volume to be able to supply this equipment.
It is not necessary that he have any
experience. And this is where I think many
.lij
people will get into trouble.
16
Present Orsat equipment available is
capable of checking combustion efficiencies
18
to a level of 99.0 percent. Now, referring
to the section subparagraph 2 on Combustion
20
Efficiences where the required efficiency is
21
99.9. It is very difficult to get that
22
reading with the present analysis equipment.
23
More advanced equipment would permit evaluating
24
efficiencies to a level of 99.8 percent. We
25
-------
26
1
2 feel that should be the limit for this
3 regulation to permit operators and user of
4 this equipment with the necessary sampling
5 trains to accurately determine the efficiency
6 level. High efficiency levels will require
7 more elaborate and trained operators on a
8 continuous basis. This again adds to the
9 cost of the equipment and the cost of the
10 operation.
11 With regard to destruction efficiencies
12 covered in subparagraph 3, total destruction
13 efficiency is more difficult to determine with
14 existing analytical equipment. Present
15 equipment on the market which can satisfactorily
jg be used by operators in plants and disposer
17 operations can measure destruction efficiencies
,c to a level of 99.95 percent. It's very difficult
lo
19
to get analytical equipment that can read 99.99
without again trained operators and very
expensive equipment.
Experience in operating systems, not only
the ones we've supplied, but other high
intensity type combustion systems, as indicated
24
a 99.8 percent combustion efficiency can be
-------
27
1
' achieved at the same time that a 99.95 percent
3 destruction efficiency has occurred. These
4 taking place with incineration temperatures
5 of 1000 degrees C at residence times under
6 one second. A PCB vapor was decomposed at
7 a temperature of 1060 degrees C at less than
8 one second. In both areas, intimate mixing
9 of the combustion air with the waste or vapor
10 was required. This was the primary consideration
11 and this gave the results necessary.
12 We strongly urge that the design data as
13 shown in the RCRA regulations be eliminated and
14 that the experience and credibility of the
15 incinerator vendor and background test data
16 be used a the deciding factor on the
17 incinerator design. We feel that the
18 regulations should be based on the emission
19 levels exiting the system both in the stack
2Q gases and in the , since these are
2| the areas that would be most important to
minimizing exposure to the local plant and
2o community. Sampling and analysis equipment
should be required for either continuous or
spot checking of both the combustion efficiency
-------
28
1
2 and the destruction efficiency of the
3 equipment to insure that these levels are
4 met. Setting design standards as listed in
5 paragraph 250.45-1 (d) is no assurance that
6 the incinerator can meet safe emissions or
7 meet the efficiencies as listed in d2 and d3.
8 What is most important to the community in
9 the vicinity of these plants is the
jO composition of the gases leaving the system
II and the liquids entering the water streams.
12 We feel that these are most critical and should
13 ^° monitored on almost a continuous basis to
14 insure that levels for the particular waste are
not exceeded. The primary purpose of the
ID
,, waste disposal system is reduction of the
lo
waste and elimination of the toxic, hazardous
waste being generated. To insure this, a
18
design which gives both a high combustion
efficiency and a high destruction efficiency
will achieve safe emission levels. The proof
21
of this are the emissions that leave the
22
system. Technology that has been developed over
23
the years to achieve these conditions and is
24
now available and it should be a prime
25
-------
29
1
2
consideration by EPA setting design regulations.
3 High intensity combustion is available from
4 several manufacturers of incineration
•* equipment and this concept should be utilized
6 to insure the destruction that has been
7 achieved in many applications.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. FIELDS: Sir, your comments on the
10 250.45-1 (d) standard, the numbers filled in,
11 you say, shouldn't have a retention time
12 specification, but don't you think that the
13 way the note is written that the standard
14 allows you the flexibility you desire in that
15 it allows alternative design temperature
16 combustion criteria there? Wouldn't that
17 note be flexible enough to satisfy your needs?
lg MR. SANTOLERI: In Section 2?
19 MR. FIELDS: In Section (b) there
2o concerning combustion criteria.
2i MR. SANTOLERI: Yes, but the two second
22 residence time is still there along with a
23 specified excess oxygen level and this is
_. proposed for the 1000 degree C, two seconds
25
and also they talk about halogenated, where
-------
30
1
2 they are talking about 1200 degrees C and
3 at least three percent excess air. You know,
4 if someone has no experience - -
5 MR. FIELDS: All right.
6 You know, the note to (b) (1) and (2)
7 should really be the note to (d)(1) and (2).
8 That note is a copy of the standard that uses
9 referencing on combustion criteria.
jO MS. DARRAH: Whey don't you read the note.
n MR. FIELDS: All right.
j2 I should say, the note should read Note
13 to 250.45-1 (d)(1) and (2) - "Incinerators
,4 may operate at other conditions of temperature,
retention time and combustion efficiency if
ID
j, the facility owner/operator can demonstrate
that an equivalent degree of combustion will
be provided under alternate combustion criteria
lo
„ to the conditions prescribed above."
So the note does allow you to operate
at alternative conditions than those specified
21
in the standard as ]ong as you can demonstrate
22
that you have full containment - destruction,
23
in this case, of waste.
24
Would such a note, the question is,
25
-------
31
1
2 satisfy your problem in regard to our
3 specification in the standard?
4 MR. SANTOLERI: Let me read that over
5 again.
6 Yes, this will help. This had referred
7 to (b) and this is one of the reasons. I
8 didn't see anything covering (d). (d) was
g the main specification as far as we were
10 concerned.
The other questions I brought up were
12 the ones referencing efficiency of both
13 combustion and destruction and I feel that the
.. efficiency that you are looking for is going
to be very difficult to monitor with existing
equipment and this is gping to be very
16
expensive for the operator, also. And not
only the selection of the equipment, but also
18
the operators necessary to handle this kind
of analytical equipment.
20
MR. LINDSEY: Any information you might
21
have regarding cost levels of expertise and
22
so forth, you could include that in your
23
comments before the closing date would help,
24
I would think.
25
-------
32
1
2 MR. SANTOLERI: Okay.
3 MR. LINDSEY: In that regard, you suggested
4 that perhaps we should do away with this
5 combustion efficiency and destruction efficiency
6 appraoch - -
7 MR. SANTOLERI: No, I'm not. I'm saying
8 that shouldn't be left in. I feel that's
9 more important than residence time. Residence
10 times means that anybody can build a vessel
11 to meet a certain residence time at that
12 temperature, but that does not assure you that
13 the material has been at that temperature for
14 that time even though it can be ten foot
jc diameter and twenty foot long which would give
jg youthe two second residence time, but the
,_ material may only have been at temperature for
the last quarter of a second and that does not
lo
-„ insure that you will meet the standards of
combustion and destruction efficiency. That's
why combustion and destruction efficiency have
less importance and residence time doesn't mean
22
anything.
23
MR. LINDSEY: I think our intent here,
24
and maybe we didn't say this correctly, was that
25
-------
33
1
2 the two seconds referred to "at temperature."
3 MR. SANTOLERI: How are you go!-ig to
4 measure that?
5 MR. LINDSEY: That is a design criteria.
6 Have the material burn along with the - -
7 MR. SANTOLERI: There's no way you can
8 measure that. You'd have to have thermocouples
9 throughout the entire length of the incinerator.
10 MR. LINDSEY: The other alternative, it
11 would seem to me then, would be to have some
12 measure for turbulence. I think you mentioned
13 that turbulence is a very important thing
14 here or mixing, if you will, and that's another
j. non-measureable.
,, MR. SANTOLERI: This is more measureable
lo
j_ just based on the type of combustor that you use.
Your turbulence, I feel, is more important
18
than residence time. If you have turbulence,
you will achieve temperature almost immediately.
MR. LINDSEY: How can you measure that?
21
MR. SANTOLERI: Just by the kind of
22
combustor you have, pressure drop. Here is the
23
primary gas - if you take burning natural gas,
24
there's ten times as much air as there is
25
-------
34
1
2 natural gas so the bulk of the products in the
3 incincerator will be the air. The pressure
4 drop of the air will be an indication of the
5 mixing and turbulence that you have. Most
6 burners that operate in a range of, say, ten
7 to twenty or thirty inches of drop, will give
8 you very high turbulence, very good mix. If
g you operate that system within a very few
inches, this gives you a definite indication
that you have pure mixing.
MR. LINDSEY: But your comment is that
.„ maybe we should do away with this part of it
and just rely on the combustion efficiency and
destruction efficiency?
15
MR. SANTOLERI: I think that temperature
16
is important.
17
MR. LINDSEY: I believe you also mentioned,
18
a little bit later on, that perhaps we should be
19
setting limits on emissions from - -
20
MR. SANTOLERI: Stacks.
21
MR. LINDSEY: Right.
22
One 6f the problems which we ran into here
23
or we considered here, in thinking through that,
24
is that it's extremely difficult to set those
25
-------
35
1
2 kinds of emission levels for all of the
3 things that people may be burning and perhaps
4 the best way to do that is on a case by case
5 basis which makes it even more difficult and
6 then you're faced, if you try to put your
7 regulatory control on that basis, you're
8 faced then with testing for each one of those
9 things that comes out of the stack and, tather
10 than get into that which can be we felt very
11 costly, we decided to use - to rely again
12 then on the destruction efficiency and
13 coitibustion efficiency numbers which we have
14 here which, through all the test burning we
_ have done, we have found to be sufficient to
., destroy the range of things which we have been
17 involved with.
Do you, I guess the question I have is,
lo
_ do you disagree with what I just said, trying
to base the regulatory control on emissions, one
of many things which might be burned in the
incinerator is going to be a pretty difficult
22
thing to do. At least, that would be our
23
opinion.
24
MR. SANTOLERI: Yes, you're right. I
25
-------
36
1
2 think if you can achieve the destruction
3 efficiency, you will also be albe to stay
4 within the emission levels.
5 MR. LINDSEY: You don't disagree then
6 that the destructionefficiency levels we
7 have here are sufficient - -
g MR. SANTOLERI: Yes, I think they're
9 important. I'm not sure you can ever measure
,g the level you are talking about with the present
.. equipment.
12 MR. LINDSEY: Yes, your point is that
jg that's going to be pretty expensive, as well.
,. MR. SANTOLERI: I think you can still reach
high destruction efficiencies with available
ID
equipment in the range of 99.95.
16
MR. LINDSEY: Do you feel then that the
destruction efficiencies which could be
18
achieved with the simpler kind of analytical
equipment?
20
MR. SANTOLER: No. I don't think it is
21
sufficient. There are other kinds of
22
equipment that are readily available - can
23
give you the 99 percent.
24
MR. LINDSEY: Now, the test burns we did,
25
-------
i
2 we used some pretty sophisticated equipment
3 and we did get way up in the four and five
4 nines efficiency, but I would agree that at
5 that level we would ultimately have to have a
6 chemical engineer or full-time service just
7 maintaining that piece of equipment.
8 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
9 I would like to point out one thing, the
mention of a typographical error brings this
to mind, we have1 gone through the December 18th
12 Federal Register fairly carefully and I believe
jo that yesterday or today or early next week,
. there should be a correction notice appearing in
the Federal Register, which - don't worry. I'm
1J
getting bad faces from the front - it's a lot
16
of little numbers and the changes will be
basically changed around in the Federal
18
Register when we issue the publication and I
19
think, if you, had gone through the entire December
20
18th notice, you probably would have caught many
21
of them yourself because a lot of them didn't
22
make sense the way they read.
23
Is Regina Seltzer, Brookhaven Town
24
Counselman, the Town of Brookhaven, Patchogue,
25
-------
38
1
2 New York, here?
3 Mr. C. David Loeks?
4 Ms. Catherine D. Seelman?
5 Mr. Gary Ford?
6 (No response)
7 Mr. Jack Lurcott, Corporate Development,
8 Rollins Environmental Services?
9 MR. PHILLIPAR: Good morning.
10 I want to thank the EPA for allowing me
.. to make these comments. My name is Bill
j2 Phillipar. I am president of Rollins
jo Environmental Services. We have been in the
hazardous waste management game for the last
ten years. We have pioneered the integrated
1J
Greenhill facility concept, starting back in
16
1969-1970 era.
We have a number of facilities and they
18
include such unit operations as high
temperature incineration, temperature treatment
20
by high filtration, .chemical landfills, deep
21
well injection. So we look at this regs with
22
a great deal of experience.
23
The first thing I want to do is commend the
24
EPA on the very formidable task they had in
25
-------
39
1
2 front of them and how they proposed it. We
3 have been contacted by staff people over a
4 number of years. I think every contractor
5 that the EPA has had on hazardous wastes has
6 come to us for information. I think,
7 basically, they have done a good job in the
8 subtitle C portion is basically a good
9 document.
JQ One thing that really disturbs us and I
.. think undermines all of RCRA is the problem
jo of obtaining new sites for hazardous waste
^3 management facilities. We had announced about
14 a month ago a five million dollar facility in
North Carolina and it's been an uphill battle
ever since. I have four or five or six
lo
different points here on new siting that really
have nothing to do with 3004 and after that I
18
will go into our comments on 3004.
Without new sites, Obviously, we are not
20
going to be able to properly predispose of a
21
large amount of waste is going to fall under
22
subtitle C. We feel the point that should be
23
emphasized in new siting, and this is based on
24
North Carolina and other experiences, is, one,
25
-------
40
1
2 education. Education of people and media.
3 Believe it or not, in North Carolina, when we
4 first came in and mentioned the hazardous waste
5 site, we got all kinds of anti editorials.
6 After working with the media in various groups
7 in the Charlotte area, the Charlotte Observer
8 came out with several very, very positive
9 editorials with the thought that perhaps we
jO are not a problem, but the solution.
j, I think the environmental groups have to
j2 start supporting sites. This, to me, could be
j3 one of the greatest contributions the
.. environmental groups could make to RCRA. We
need proper state legislation. You have to
IJ
have it in order to site - state preemption
16
over local rule; need strong politicians to
take a strong stand. It's very east to cave
18
into local opposition when you have to look
at the total picture for the state of the
20 *
country. Need strong regulations and enforcement,
21
both state and federal.
22
We have found that there's been a awful
23
lot of suspicion from the local people on how
24
effectively the regulations are going to be
25
-------
41
1
2 written and how effectively they are going to
3 be enforced and this scares people. So,
4 putting up strong regulations and making sure
5 they are strongly enforced is very important.
6 Now, onto - we are or will have a written
7 dissertation on all of subtitle C. I don't have
8 it along with me today, but it will be in your
9 hands shortly. We want to go over, point by
jO point here, at least the major ones that we
,j feel (inaudible).
j2 In the supplementary information and also
13 250.40 d-ii, we strongly endorse the note
14 mechanism as a vehicle to provide for the
protection of the public health in the
1J
environment while allowing design felxibility
for both differences in natural conditions and
the further development of technology. Some
lo
jo of the points just made in incineration fall
under this mechanism.
In 250.42, the overriding mechanism. We
endorse the use of human health and
22
environmental standards override as an alternative
23
to a massive list of special purpose and
24
situation design and operation standards. We
25
-------
-42-
1
2 note, however, the obvious need for
3 experience and broad-reaching judgment in
4 the implementation of these overrides. We
5 are, therefore, concerned over the choice
6 of the phrase, "permit writer" in this context.
7 What we have frequently seen in the past, the
8 use of a regional administrator, use of the
9 higher level designation seems preferable to
10 a relatively junior individual. The 30,000
11 permits envisioned, this is a real concern.
12 Approach to the imterim standards. The
13 use of staffwork on issuing and denying permits
14 rather than making complicated assessments
15 relative to interim statute appear to be, in
16 general, a judicial use of resources. We
17 suggest, however, that special attention to
18 the commercial or off-site applicants. The
19 continued operation of one facility which may
20 not have either the intent or capability of
2j becoming fully permitted, may strip another
22 facility which can and intends to comply for
23 the additional funds that they may require to
24 complete the requirement. Given the anticipated
25 industry wide price increases, the prospect for
-------
-43-
1
2 seven years of very profitable, non-compliant
3 operation without any upgrading is too obvious
4 an economic incentive to be ignored. The site
5 selection buffer zone, 250.43-1. The concept
6 of a buffer zone is certainly Valid, but 250
7 feet is excessive in our opinion. The
8 hundred-foot buffer in the earlier drafts is
9 compatible with the stated experience and would
10 be sufficient in most cases. Now, there may
1] be cases in which 200 or more may be applicable.
12 Particular note is given to the current thinking
13 about siting these facilities where - in current
14 industrialized areas and we feel that many
15 instances this certainly would be the most
16 desirable site location. In these areas,
17 usually land is at a premium and finding a
IS sizable piece of land is going to be difficult.
19 In a 50 acre site, you would reduce your
2o usable acreage by 50 percent by using the
2i 200-foot rule. We make this statement,
22 recognizing (inaudible) .
23 Financial responsibility. Site life
24 liability. The specific requirements for
25 non-sudden and accidental occurrences was
-------
-44-
1
2 reinstated with th« final review of the
3 proposed draft. The statement was made
4 that this insurance in these amounts was
5 not available for the public sector. We
6 don't argue that non-sudden accidental
7 insurance is a good thing to have. We don't
8 feel it's readily available. The the best of
9 our knowledge, there has been one overseas
10 source, but it's been very - the number of
11 policies that have been issued have been, I
12 think, to my knowledge, maybe one, and getting
13 these are going to be extremely difficult.
14 Before requiring this, the EPA should be able
15 to demonstrate availability of this type of
16 insurance to the UPS market.
17 Post-closure liability, 250.43-9 (62).
18 We support the seeking of legislative authority
19 for the creation of this proposed fund. This
2o is actually critical and should receive the
21 highest priority of the Agency. The "financial
responsibility! Request for comments," on
23 page 58987, column 3, (2) heret The need for
a set of reasonable alternatives to the proposed
financial responsibility control have been
-------
-45-
1
2 heavily studied for over four years. Those
3 proposals appear to be and are burdensome.
4 However, given the economic realities of
5 waste disposal, critical political, emotional
6 issues, we believe that (inaudible)
7 The federal funding in part 4 of that
8 section is extremely desirable, as X said
9 before inasmuch as it represents a pooling
10 of risks of all the permitted sites in the
11 nation. Without the federal funds, each
12 state would need to set up a fund which must
13 recognize the same potential high level claims.
14 Many states, obviously, would not be able to
15 put together a fund of sufficient sice without
16 taking extraordinarily high contributions.
17 The initial fund size, we believe, should
18 be targeted at about $100,000,000 and it should
19 be self-funded in approximately five years.
20 An initial fee of a dollar per ton of Hazardous
2i Waste Disposal treated is just. The fund
22 should be federally administered with a Board
23 that includes representatives of the state,
24 industry and citizens groups. The federal
25 board of the same makeup would also be
-------
-46-
1
2 appropriate.
3 In Section 250.45-2 (6) landfill design.
4 The need for innovative technology in landfill
5 design is obvious. If we are to meet the needs
6 for disposal of sludge resulting from (inaudible)
7 other systems. Many industrialized sections of
8 the nation have no genuine (inaudible) which
9 include both so that other technologies must
10 be utilized. We applaud the use of the two
11 design alternatives. However, our experience
12 in attempting to implement designs which are
13 equivalent tend to get hung up on 2.30 which,
14 somehow illogically assumes that if you are
15 not on this line connecting the two points,
16 you are not equivalent.
17 We encourage you to expand your list
18 of all current designs to four or six so that
19 a broader field of equivalency can be established.
20 In support of this comment, we are submitting
2j under separate cover a proposed set of schedules
22 of alternatives. Obviously, this depth cannot
23 be included for all the many standards to be
introduced by these regulations. There cannot
25 be, however, any individual standards that if
-------
-47-
1
2 greater environmentally cost impact on the
3 regulating community than that of design -
4 of secure land design. We believe that the
5 extra coverage would supply extreme, extreme
6 benefit and, despite it's expanded nature,
7 still fits appropriately within your note
8 concept.
9 Landfills and Cover, Section 250.45-2 (10).
10 Despite the note which provides for
jj alternatives of the "possibility of fire,
12 explosion or the harboring, feeding and
13 breeding of land burrowing animals and
14 vectors will be controlled to an equivalent
j5 degree," the standard requirements for six
16 inches of daily cover doesn't recognize in
17 their totality the significance of this complete
18 set of regulations. This is so set into the
19 technology of sanitary landfills need covering,
2o it is the definition of 47 of 50 states
2j (inaudible) . State and local agencies carrying
22 this program require this type of cover. In
23 fact, in many cases it would be a hard economic
24 waste with little or no benefit for hazardous
25 waste land disposal operations. We are
-------
-48-
1
2 addressing the (inaudible) and we cannot
3 accept the unwarranted or traditional wisdom
4 that prevails. Reconsider this issue.
5 250.45-1 (b) Trial burns.
6 Your request that each hazardous waste
7 which is significantly different in physical
8 and chemical characteristics from any previously
9 demonstrated under equivalent conditions; in
jO other words, the test burn reach different
jj wastes. That needs to be interpreted very
12 broadly.
13 Frequently, at generators at on-site
14 facilities, almost invariably commercial
15 facilities such as ours individual wastes
16 are blended to optimize burning characteristics
17 (inaudible).
1S The trial burn need be based on typical
19 composition with ranges not individual waste.
20 Our experience with PCD regulations indicate
21 that the cost of these special testing of the
contract and laboratory analysis will run
23 between 50 to $70,000 and when you put the
total cost in, the tests are over a hundred
25 thousand dollars. Realistic engineering and
-------
-49-
1
2 economic decisions have to be made here.
3 250.42-2 (b) 6 (IV)
4 Your concern over bulk liquids and
5 landfills is obviously appropriate.
6 Furthermore, the recognition of the prospect
7 for treatment followed by land disposal of
8 solid end products is certainly necessary.
9 Your note, however, is inadequate to address
10 a complex set of possibilities. The appropriate'
H pretreatment should be dependent on the chemical
12 nature of the waste. What is necessary for
13 strong forms of sulphuric acid mixture will
14 will certainly hot be much good for (inaudible) .
15 The general mix with anything concept is
16 probably most strongly put forth with
17 (inaudible). He feel this is completely
IS inadequate.
19 And that ends my topic.
20 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
2i Would you be willing to answer questions?
22 MR. PHILLIPAR: Certainly will.
23 MR. LINDSEYs Mr. Phillipar, towards the
24 end of your comments which were quite to the
25 point - I think will be very helpful - you
-------
-50-
1
2 suggested that the cost of running teat
3 burns can be very high and I think the
4 test burns which we have run have been
5 quite costly. Some of them, in fact, have
6 been at your facility.
7 MR. PHILLIPARt Yes.
8 MR. LINDSEY: In that case, you suggested
9 that we should have some sort of a range or
10 something like that.
11 In your opinion, would it be practical
12 and could we gain sufficient information to
13 determine the adequacy of an incinerator
14 if we were to try to choose worst case mixes,
15 perhaps, ~r something like that to test out
16 the capability of a given incinerator. In
17 other words, do you think that, ahead of time,
18 as a regulatory agency in conjunction, I
19 suppose, with the permit applicant, try to
20 determine what the most difficult-to-destroy
2i mix that is to be used by tne facility couid
22 be and then test that; would that be a practical
23 way to go?
24 MR. PHILLIPARi I think this could be
25 an approach. There are a lot of parameters
-------
-51-
1
2 you would have to consider certainly, putting
3 together the so-called test mixtures.
4 MR. LINDSEY: I think my concern would
5 be that we would, you know - unless we go the
6 position that we have taken here which is
7 requiring each waste that is burned separately
8 or each identifiable mix, perhaps, to be tested
9 individually which, as you point out, is very
10 expensive, I'd be afraid that by choosing, we
11 might miss some which are particularly tough
12 to destruct and thus that would pose a
13 problem.
14 MR. PHILLIPAR: Every mix we make, and
15 we blend now some 20,000 gallon increments,
16 has certain parameters to which we try to get
17 as close as possible (inaudible), sulphur, ash,
18 but the chemical composition could and does
19 vary tremendously. I could see, if you are
20 going to test with each individual product
2| both economically and time-constraints would
22 be unbelievable. You know, these PCV teats
23 which we are going to run, this is a week of
24 testing and considerable effort on our part
25 and certainly on your part and a great deal
-------
-52-
1
2 of expense.
3 MR. LINDSEYt Before you submit your
4 written comments, it would be helpful - you
5 have a lot of experience in this area - I
6 think it would be helpful, if you could think
7 through and perhaps make some suggestions as
8 to the regulatory approach we might use which
9 would - and I think the point we have to be
10 careful here - is somehow, in the testing
11 which is required, that we somehow make sure
12 that we do, in fact, test the most difficult
13 to destruct.
14 MR. PHILLIPARt I certainly agree for
15 the principle. How to zero in on it is going
16 to take a little bit of thought.
17 MR. LINDSEY: We'd appreciate it if you
18 would do that for us.
19 MR. FIELDSt Couple of things.
20 Regarding the alternative designs that
21 you indicated, your comment was that we only
22 had two and you would encourage going on to
23 more. We have no restrictions in the number
24 and we encourage the submittal of those
25 alternative designs which you think would
-------
-53-
1
2 help and which would meet our standards.
3 The agency would review those designs and
4 if they would meet our standards, they could
5 be put in with our designs.
6 MR. PHILLIPARs So often when you get
7 one or two examples, all of a sudden those
8 are the only possibilities. May not be the
9 intent of the writer of the regs, but often
10 the enforcers feel this way.
11 MR. FIELDS: Regarding your daily cover
12 conment, you indicated that you felt the other
13 cover was too restrictive for hazardous waste
14 landfills. What sort of cover requirements
15 would you recommend for landfills disposals
16 of hazardous waste.
17 MR. PHILLIPAR: We feel that we should
18 cover, say, your landfill in drums. Certainly,
19 the drums should be encapsulated as you plant
20 them. In sludges, by putting five or six
21 inches of cover on each day* you are really
22 taking in large portions of your total volume
23 of your landfill and this is non-productive
24 areas. In many, many sludges, you don't need
25 any cover until you get to the capping off of
-------
-54-
1
that particular cell.
MR. FIELDSt So you would write a
J
very flexible - how does - standard would
4
toe very flexible in this regard?
\J
MR. PHILLIPARs Well, it should be
o
certainly as far as an economical approach.
I don't think it's going to hurt the environment
o
one bit.
MR. FIELDS: All right.
10
Bulk liquids. You alluded to the fact
11
in your comments here, you felt that nixing
with melphosulified - - this was inferred
by me, anyway - you were implying that mixing
14
of bulk liquids with solid waste would be so
15
inadequate - -
16
MR. PHlLLIPARt From the experience we've
seen, I think Kimbuck was an experience.
18
MR. FIELDSt That was not a 3,004-type
19
facility.
20
MR. PHlLLIPARt Agreed.
21
MR. FIELDS: What would you mix both
22
liquids with?
23
MR. PHILLIPAR: We feel that if you are -
24
first of all, bulk liquids should be
25
-------
-55-
1
2 neutralized, heavy metals knocked out- it
3 should be made as innocuous as possible
4 before you do anything with it. Line,
5 kiln dust, fly ash; things like this. Can't
6 set up a matrix that encapsulates the liquid.
7 MR. FIELDS: What problems do you really
8 see that with mixing the bulk liquids
9 (Unintelligible)
10 MR. PHILLIPAR: I think - in California
11 and Illinois have experienced this and, I
12 think, they had had some, in my estimation,
13 some poor experiences with this. I don't
14 think you are really holding that liquid in
15 a good matrix. See, when you're for putting
16 it into mixing with lime or some of the other
17 materials that will solidify it.
18 MS. SCHAEFER: Mr. Philipar, I have a
19 question about your comment concerning the
20 special attention we should give to off-site
21 facilities.
22 How do you think the agency should set
23 our permitting priorities to help off-site
24 facilities versus on-site facilities?
25 MR. PHILLIPARj I don't really think you
-------
-56-
1
2 should. I think you should be giving both
3 the on-aite and off-site facilities equal
4 time and effort.
5 You know, a large majority of the waste
6 now is handled on-site and I think will
7 continue to be on-aite. The comment that
8 we made in the interim approvals that people
9 are going to have during the period you are
10 examining are caning up with the final
n approval is - I think it should be important
12 that the Agency makes sure that when they're
13 giving interim approval, especially with off-
14 site, that they're meeting some minimal
15 regulation or they intend to have the final
16 responsibility or final resources to upgrade
17 their facilities at some point.
j8 We are saying, we don't think people
jg should have a free ride for a couple of years
2Q and then go out business.
MR. LBHMANt Jack, may I pursue that
point a littl* bit.
I understood your remarks to state that
we should make a distinction in the standards
concerning those who are of interim status.
-------
-57-
1
2 but to try to make the distinction of those
3 who will go forward and those who probably
4 will not be permitted. From your last remark,
5 I gather that one criterion for doing that is
6 checking out the financial resources.
7 MR. PHILLIPARj Certainly that, and I
8 think checking out the site, in general. In
9 one, you are on the horns of a dilemma; with
10 the limited resources, 1 appreciate that. If
11 you are going to have to go out and inspect
12 all the interim permits, it's going to take a
13 considerable amount of time and effort. On
14 the other hand, if you don't, you are giving
15 license to a facility that might be an awfully
16 poor facility to operate and you certainly
17 don't want to do that, either. It's your
18 problem, John.
19 MR. LEHMANi I just wanted to pursue that
20 a little bit because it's an important point.
21 I think it's fair to point out that the
22 whole concept of the interim status is statutory
23 in nature and not regulatory in nature and
24 that we may have certain indications to do that.
25 I would like to ask you another question.
-------
-58-
1
2 follow-up question about your comments on
3 the buffer zone, where you were suggesting
4 that a 200 foot setback would be excessive
5 on certain occasions and, in particular, an
6 industrial area.
7 I recognize your point that, given public
8 reaction to some facilities of this type, that
9 it may be that setting of facilities in
10 industrial areas may be a prime spot for such
11 facilities and this seems to be in opposition.
12 The question would be whether on one of them,
13 if we are to make a distinction here for
14 industrial areas, we would be faced with the
15 idea then of specifying what an industrial
15 area is, for the purposes of it and an exemption
17 from a setback requirement.
IS I was wondering if you had any suggestions
19 or comments?
20 MR. PHILLIPAR: You do have a note, I
2i believe on that and I think that should be
22 taken up with the individual site. We happen
23 to have a site in Deer Park, Texas and
24 surrounding this are chemicals, and petroleum
25 companies and whether or not youre a hundred
-------
-59-
1
2 foot from the particular people who are in
3 the same business, more or leas, as long as
4 you have the containment, our facility, I
5 think, would be just a really unnecessary
6 regulation and yet, if you were in a rural
7 area and 200 feet becomes probably a good
8 buffer zone. It's almost site specific and
9 your note does you credit. Z just wanted to
10 read it because I think it's an important
11 point.
12 MS. DARRAH: I have a couple of questions.
13 When you were talking about trying to
14 gain legislative authority for a fund, you
15 said you thought we might use a dollar per
16 ton cost to start building up this fund. I
17 wonder what you thought of the approach of
18 a percentage per ton disposal cost?
19 MR. PHILLIPAR: We have given thought
20 on that. The thinking is and the reason, at
21 least in our opinion, going to a set amount
22 per ton or per unit is that the higher the
23 price - the question may be, the more hazardous
24 the material, but usually you are doing
25 something with this, you are treating. Like
-------
-60-
1
2 with incineration at the high price per ton
3 for incineration, but we certainly need -
4 the incinerator fee generating - sending
5 material to the incinerator, I don't think
6 should be burdened with a percentage that would
7 give them the high dbllar per ton. Where it's
8 going in, the situation where it's going to
9 be incinerated and certain volume produced and
10 the landfill which I think is probably the
1] greatest long term problem. You have lower
12 cost per unit and if you have percentage, you'd
13 have the least going into the fund from that
14 area.
15 So, by putting a fixed amount - dollar
16 per ton or some amount per ton - I think you
17 are going to get the money from the area where
18 you could have the greatest potential liability.
19 MR. LINDSEYt To follow up on that a
20 little bit.
2i MR. PHILLIPARt Yes, sure.
22 MR. LINDSEYi I think our thinking would
23 be that such a fund would apply only to those
24 facilities which have exposure risk. Treatment
25 facilities such as incinerators will be
-------
-61-
l
2 dismantled, taken apart and that would be
3 that as far as site life. At least that
4 would b« our thinking.
5 MR. PHILLIPARi You and up with - you're
6 certain of this that you are going to have
7 a landfill and all incinerator sites are
8 going to need some kind of landfill adjacent
9 to it or sendoff to somebody else. In the
10 closure plans we have done for some of the
H states, they have only taken into consideration
12 landfill, any lagoons we may have along the
13 lines - -
14 MR. LlNDSEYt 'Another point same area.
15 On thinking of this post-closure fund, how
16 the nation might approach that, the problem
17 keeps coming up} what about the large, you
18 know, if we go to a flat rate for what you
19 are suggesting, it may seem reasonable for
20 a company such as yours to accumulate the
2i funds, but we run into these problems where
22 some generators of materials with very large
23 volumes of what are marginally hazardous
24 kind of materials, and their point is, "Qe«,
25 at a dollar a ton -" working a day and a half
-------
-62-
1
2 and we're trying towrestle with that problem,
3 but how the heck do you handle that sort of
4 thing?
5 MR. PHILLIPARt No, that is a tough one.
6 You get SOX, something like that, and
7 a dollar a ton on that would be prohibitive,
8 certainly.
9 MR. LINDSEY: If you have any thoughts
10 on that at a later time - -
n MR. PHILLIPARi Okay.
12 MS. DARRAHi On Tim's question to you,
J3 I want to follow up. I still don't understand
14 if you have a suggestion to us as to how to
]5 write a regulation which deals with cover.
J6 MR. PHILLIPAR: Are you suggesting that
,_ every permit writer would have a different
10 requirement for each type of waste that is
lo
19
going into the individual landfill?
I think you have to take into consideration
the design of the landfill and what is being
put in the landfill, whether or not you need
a cover. On any given day you may need a
£•3
cover. You have an odorous material, you are
going to need a cover that day. I don't think
-------
-63-
1
you are going to need a cover every day.
Every day you have to put your six inches
on. I don't think that's a necessity in
operating a good, sound landfill operation.
6 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
(A morning break was taken at 10:00 a.m.
g and the meeting was reconvened at 10:30 a.m.)
9 MS. DARRAH: Mr. Al Sorkin, Maine
Electronics?
MR. SORKIN: Good morning.
I am Al Sorkin, an environmental control
specialist with Maine Electronics; specific
location is Lisbon, Maine.
14
The prospective that I wish to get
comments on this morning is from the view of
16
a firm that is actually doing metal finishing
waste treatment of waste water such as that
18
sludges are generated which largely contain
metal hydroxides.
So the comments will apply to the on-site
21
sludge disposal facility that is operated
22
exclusively for the use of this firm on our
23
own property in Maine, largely within the
24
boundaries of the plant facility. It's a
25
somewhat rural location in the community of
-------
-64-
1
2 approximately 2,700 with treated waste
3 water going both through the municipality
4 and down the river. So we operate with both
5 the MPBS permit and the authority from the
6 local municipality sewer district. I might
7 add that the general size of this facility
8 is a 300-employee plant with approximately
9 $10,000,000 a year sales and the comments
10 I am making are pertinent only to this Rockwell
11 installation and not to the international.
12 Basically, the waste water treatment
13 activities* The facility got modernized in
14 1976 to the extent of approximately a quarter
15 of a million dollars initial investment: matching
16 a quarter of a million dollar additional
17 investment. Such as, we now have approximately
IS a half million dollars in waste treatment
19 facilities pertinent to waste water treatment.
20 The level of success at this particular
21 installation which was, by the way, designed
22 by Lansing Laboratories and our own staff
23 personnel has been attested to by the presence
24 on two occasions - actually, three occasions
25 of study teams from the EPA Guidelines
-------
-65-
1
2 Division relative to our performance which
3 they seem to regard as an exemplary treatment
4 facility.
5 As part of this design, the presence of
6 an outside sludge bed was certainly a desired
7 feature because of our location and the fact
8 that there are no approved sites within the
9 State of Maine, the transportation of sludges,
10 I have been told, up until about two and a
11 half years ago was actually carried out to
12 locations such as New Jersey and Mew York
13 State. The enormous transportation cost
14 involved is obvious.
15 The sludges and ongoing program for
16 treatment is really generating more and
17 similar types of sludges again are metal
18 hydroxides, specifically, copper being the
19 dominant heavy metal and, to a certain extent,
20 tin and lead are (inaudible) hydroxides.
21 Naturally, the insolubility of these metal
22 hydroxides is evident from the fact that they
23 are collecting as bottoms from a supernatant
24 which is discharged to the river or to this
25 treatment system for treatment.
-------
-66-
1
2 So, what we are really faced with in
3 reviewing the proposed regulations, you might
4 put very simply, you just weren't thinking of
5 us is the way this reads to me. It appears,
6 first of all, that there has to be some
7 consideration given to the really lack of
8 serious hazardous characteristics to this
9 type of underground-type sludge. Add the
10 fact that the volumes being generated are
11 such that in a two and a half year period
12 we've perhaps built up six inches in a 50
13 by 50 cell out of a dual 50 by 50 system.
14 So we have one sludge dry bed which ultimately,
15 say in about five or ten years, will be full
16 in that its design permits about two to three
17 foot depth with appropriate freeboard and the
18 function will have been performed to both the
19 water sludges that are approximately 90 percent
20 water to a dryer consistency even in a climate
21 that Maine is located in where the rainfall
22 exceeds the evaporation and this time of year
23 I assure you it's snowfall though it's not by
24 any means exclusively that in the winter.
25 The situation is, then, not a sealed cell.
-------
-67-
1
2 but one of permeable and the permeability
3 studies were really done from the standpoint
4 of the soil scientist and the Department of
5 Agriculture was called in, not having any
6 specific regulations to abide by at that time,
7 the conditions were determined as best
8 (inaudible) soil site by the Department of
9 Agriculture. We asked them to be quite
10 stringent regarding the characteristics
11 because we want to be a good neighbor and
12 we don't want to pollute aquifers and the
13 gravelers that supply the means for drinking
14 purposes in the area.
15 He were fortunate that the site,
16 approximately 300 feet behind the building,
17 was quite simple and did have soils that both
18 served to allow adequate permeability for the
19 rewatering of the sludge and lack of permeability
20 of the metal liners into the drinking water
2i supply or the surface water that ran nearby,
22 allowed us, because of these conditions to
23 really feel quite confident that this system
24 would be an adequate one for years to come.
25 The situation of looking at the details
-------
-68-
1
2 and requirements as proposed is that it
3 really would have \»ry little life left
4 in the system <5r even the opportunity to
5 provide for all other cells within the
6 property because of the requirement for
7 cover - daily cover, the fact this might
8 be termed a surface empoundment, is the
9 best way I can characterize this according
10 to your definition - probably be in the
11 surface empoundment category - but yet, since
12 we would intend the absence of economic
13 viability for reclaim of these metals because
14 of the low order of concentration and the fact
15 that the copper is basically a rather expensive
16 material, we would not expect to give the mine
17 this resource directly, at least not in the
18 near term, therefore it would covered with soil
19 beyond the block, but daily cover, the necessity
20 for excessive ground water monitoring system
21 and the other factors concerned with non-flowing
22 characteristics flowing into it, these things
23 seem to be stipulated because it's thrown in the
24 landfill category when the comment is made the
25 ultimate disposal is within the surface
-------
-69-
1
2 empoundment. There seems to be a catch in
3 there that it doesn't fall back into the
4 other category, the way I interpret it.
5 The use of four monitoring wells for
6 such a small facility would be quite an
7 economic burden not to mention the actual
8 monitaring-testing.
9 The life of some of these cells in some
10 situations let*s say in a general sense,
11 perhaps the facilities will be able to get
12 five or ten years of life, might be a two
13 or three year life situation and the investment
14 in preparing - the buffer zone, would be rather
15 inappropriate for the setup life involved.
16 In other words, it would tend te drive
17 one in this situation in the sense of having
18 to do extensive further reordering in
19 transportation sludges great distances of
20 perhaps hundreds of thousands of miles in our
2i case.
22 That's keeping it fairly brief, but
23 hitting at the very aspects of this, how it
24 would affect this facility, how we feel that
25 the characteristics we are faced with in this
-------
-70-
1
2 particular facility without being specifically
3 addressed in the regulations the way they are.
4 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
5 Will you take questions?
6 MR.SDRKINt Of course.
7 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Sorkin, I think one
8 of the points you made was that you felt that
9 the impermeable nature of the facilities we
10 require are excessive in your particular case -
11 I believe it's metal hydroxide sludge you are
12 talking about. If my memory serves correct
13 and my concern here is with metal hydroxide
14 sludges - that on exposure to rainfall which
15 tend to be somewhat acidic that the metals are
16 released from these particular materials.
17 Is my memory correct on that? Do you have
18 information which shows that isn't the case?
19 In other words, you have a permeable
20 underlayment and the rainfall releases the
2i metals, the metals go into the water table?
22 MR. SORKINt I think it's a legitimate
23 concern. However, from a practical standpoint,
24 the presence of acid rain, in a relative
25 situation, your buffering capacity chemically
-------
-71-
1
2 in the sediment which remains or even the
3 liquid which remains for a period of time
4 is that it can easily overpower the acidity
5 of the rainfall. Similar to what happens when
6 you get pH measurements on de-ionized water;
7 you can alter the pH by blowing your breath
8 through. The ionized rains are affected by
9 the pollutants in the air through which they
10 travel. I am aware that the pH can be
11 relatively low - which can be four or five -
12 which can be termed acidic. However, their
13 capacity for putting in solution which can
14 be - we are talking about adequate strength
15 in the sediments and I think the sodium
16 hydroxides are typically pH range, nine to ten
17 or possibly eleven even, if those were not
18 felt to be adequate in terms of strength which
19 I believe them to be, buffered strength, I
20 think the additional amounts of lira* would be
2i a method of reassuring that there would be no
22 dissolution.
23 MR. LINDSEYt If you have any information
24 test data or anything like that - it would be
25 helpful if you would send it to us.
-------
-72-
1
2 MR. SORKINl AH right.
3 MR. LINDSEYt Thank you very much.
4 MR. FIELDS: We have gotten comments
5 from people in the past that these facilities
6 will not handle the waste and that these regs
7 are necessarily quite complex in detailed and,
8 in an attempt to alleviate that, we are now
9 beginning to prepare some specific - industry-
10 specific manuals that will provide guidance
11 to firms like yourself as to how to comply
12 with these regulations and point out this
13 portion of the regulations that do apply to
14 them and help people understand the regs more
15 clearly. We are preparing a manual for the
16 electroplating industry which will be available
17 as soon as these regs are promulgated and will
18 assist you in complying with these standards.
19 The question I have is, you indicated your
20 facility was probably being operated as a surface
21 empoundment> is that correct?
22 MR. SORKIN: That would seem to be the
23 closest definition.
24 MR. FIELDSj If it's operating as a
25 surface empoundment, it would not have to
-------
-73-
1
2 comply with the daily cover requirements in
3 3,004 for landfill*.
4 MR. SORKINi There's a comment made if
5 it's the ultimate disposal site as well - -
6 MR. FIELDS: That only applies to
1 closure.
8 If you're going to close that facility,
9 you would have to close it as a landfill to
10 comply with the post-closure requirement for
11 landfills, but, during the time you operate
12 that facility as a surface empoundment, you
13 would not have to comply with the landfill
14 requirements.
15 MR. SORKIN: Would it be accurate to
16 state, however, that the operation of this
17 in terms of the water blank permeability
lg blank water of the same characteristics as
19 a supernatant from which it is taken,
20 precipitation, this is really not allowed
2i because of the low permeability stipulation
22 for the soil stipulated as being low permeability,
23 clay-like materials whereas, in fact, that
24 would make this inoperable in our climate
25
because it would not be adequate for the water?
-------
-74-
1
2 That aspect of it would be important, it
3 would be a trouble spot for us in terms
4 of meeting the requirement.
5 MR. LBHMANi Mr. Sorkin, I guess I am
6 a little troubled in the sense that your
7 comments have been somewhat general in that
8 it would be possible for you to give us some
9 specific. Basically, what you have done is
10 say that this might give us big problems, but
11 I haven't heard you make any specific
12 suggestions or recommendations as to how we
13 might change the, "regulations." Would it be
14 possible for you to write that to us? That
15 would be of assistance to us. In other words,
15 if you can go through the regulations and
17 suggest how the regulations might be changed
18 to better address the problems.
19 MR. SORKIN: I will be delighted to do
20 that •
2i I hasten to add that the impression I
22 want to leave you with is not that it would
23 cause us trouble, but some people ought to be
24 caused trouble who are causing trouble
25 environmentally. I feel it would be causing
-------
-75-
1
2 excessive expense and, relative to the
3 environment, harm which we don't think
4 is occurring because of the proper design
5 to begin with. This, as a result of the
6 schooling first, we feel, has the pulse and
7 the technology in hand and further domination
8 of our adequacy in the performance in the
9 ongoing years since it was so.
10 Basically, the halting of the brief,
11 if, I realize, not an adequate problem for
12 you, as regulators, but rather cost effectiveness
13 and it's an area where the activity needs to
14 be carried out. I be glad to give some
15 comments as to how this could be altered to
16 meet the concerns I have in the coming period.
17 MS. DARKAH: Thank you very much.
18 Mr. Andrew AItkenj New England Power
19 Company.
20 MR. AITKEN: Good morning.
21 My name is Andrew Aitken, I am an
22 environmental engineer with New England Power
23 Company.
24 I'd like to offer some comments,
25 specifically on Section 250.46, the special
-------
-76-
1
2 waste category and how it will impact with
3 New England Power Company, specifically.
4 New England Power Company is also a
5 member of the Utility Solid Waste Activities
6 Group.
7 New England Power Company owns and
Q
operates the largest fossil-fired steam-electric
9 generating station in New England. This is
10 the Brayton Point Station in Somerset,
11 Massachusetts. Three of the Stations four
I2 units were built to burn coal and are now
" using imported residual oil.
I4 In 1974, the Federal Energy Administration
15 was empowered by Congress, under the Energy
16 Supply and Environmental Coordination Act to
17 prohibit certain generating stations from using
18 oil or natural gas where they had the capability
I9 to burn coal. The Brayton Point Station was
20 given such an order in 1977.
21 New England Power Company is now working
22 toward a coal conversion schedule in accordance
23 with that order which will see Units Number 1-3
24 firing coal in 1981, 1982 and 1983. By the
25 end of '83, the program will reduce oil imports
-------
-77-
1
2 by 12,000,000 barrels per year; just in that
3 apace alone. Coal ash, on the other hand,
4 will be produced at the rate of 240,000 tons
5 per year.
6 EPA's proposed regulations under
7 Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation
8 and Recovery Act would include coal ash in
9 the category of special wastes, established
10 within the hazardous waste classification.
11 While this action does not necessarily
12 classify coal ash as a hazardous waste, it,
13 in essence, presumes guilt until innocence is
14 proven. We fear that the special hazardous
15 waste classification as proposed could jeopardize
16 ours and other coal conversion programs.
17 Our areas of concern are:
18 One: An indefinite delay on the part of
19 EPA certification of plans.
20 Two: Difficulty in establishing hazardous
21 waste disposal sites.
22 Three: Elimination of potential ash
23 reuse markets .
24 The coal conversion program can go forward
25 only when the Department of Energy issues a
-------
-78-
1
2 Notice of Effectiveness for its order to
3 terminate oil-firing. The notice can be
4 issued only after EPA certifies that the
5 facility's plans conform to applicable
6 environmental standards. The proposed
7 Section 3004 regulations provide for delayed
8 rule-making for special wastes. This could
9 take years.
10 In the meantime, EPA may defer certification,
11 thus delaying the coal conversion project until
12 ash disposal standards are in place. One
13 alternative would be to establish unnecessarily
14 costly and restrictive standards at this time,
15 on the assumption that ash may be declared
16 hazardous waste.
17 A better alternative would be for EPA to
18 determine now that high volume utility wastes
19 are not hazardous .
20 As EPA points out in its Draft Strategy
21 Document for implementation of RCRA, a critical
22 institutional constraint to disposal facility
23 siting is local public opposition. There are,
24 at this time, no approved hazardous waste
25 disposal sites in New England. In Massachusetts,
-------
-79-
1
2 even the siting plans for municipal sanitary
3 landfills are met with fierce local opposition.
4 The process of licensing a new hazardous waste
5 disposal site for 240,000 tons per year of ash
6 would be time-consuming and, perhaps, needlessly
7 unproductive or counterproductive. We could
8 not prudently begin a $100,000,000 coal
9 conversion program with an uncertain ash
10 disposal plan.
11 Outright disposal is only one method
12 of ash handling. Hew England Power Company
13 has attempted to establish potential reuse
14 markets for the material with some success.
15 A pilot program was conducted to demonstrate
16 the use of coal ash as cover material on a
17 nearby sanitary landfill. Monitoring wells
18 at the site showed no increase in heavy metals
19 resulting from this test.
20 On e local community has used bottom ash
21 for ice control on roads. The Massachusetts
22 Department of Public Works intends to evaluate
23 the use of coal ash as base material in road
24 construction.
25 Potential markets exist for ash in concrete
-------
-80-
1
2 such as blocks and railroad ties. We feel
3 that none of these uses could survive a
4 hazardous waste designation for coal aster
5 for many low margin users, it would no longer
6 be worth the complications involved. Even
7 worse, the potential for a beneficial and
8 cost effective resource use would be replaced
9 with the need for costly disposal.
10 In 1976, the Massachusetts legislature
11 passed an act which defines coal ash as a
12 raw material when it will be reused or stored
13 for reuse. This act recognized the resource
14 potential for coal ash. Other states have
j5 passed similar laws .
Id The Congress also recognized reuse when
17 it passed RCRA. In it's proposed regulations,
18 EPA is apparently ignoring the reuse goals of
19 State and Federal law.
20 Also, these proposed Section 3004
2i regulations have the effect of overturning
22 State law in those states which define ash
23 as other than a waste product.
24 EPA admits to having very little
25 information on the degree of hazard posed by
-------
-81-
1
2 special wastes. The rationale for inclusion
3 of high volume utility wastes in this category
4 is the possible hazard related to trace heavy
5 metals. The principle constituents of coal
6 ash are the same as those of soil; namely
7 silica, alumina and oxides or iron. Trace
8 elements are highly variable and depend on
9 the source of the coal. After all, coal was
10 formed from trees and other natural organic
11 matter and its ash has the same characteristics
12 as that matter and the natural environment
13 within which it grew and decayed. The important
14 point is that these trace elements are largely
15 in the oxide form, the same as soil, and are
16 not readily available as groundwater pollutants.
17 On the other hand, solid wastes from
18 municipal landfills and sewage treatment plants
19 generally have metals in the reduced form, such
20 as would be found in tin cans in a municipal
21 dump. These metals are relatively available
22 as water pollutants and yet, EPA has determined
23 that neither of these solid wastes are
24 hazardous.
25 A rigorous scientific analysis would not
-------
-82-
1
2 support this apparent bias in favor of public
3 waste as opposed to what we see as a far less
4 harmful waste such as coal ash.
5 We feel that EPA is needlessly magnifying
6 the national waste disposal problem. The
7 designation of utility wastes as presumably
8 hazardous puts ash disposal in the same
9 category as the Love Canal disaster. This
10 is nonsense. Coal has been used for over
11 200 years for industrial and home heating
12 purposes. We know of no evidence to suggest
13 that ash disposal has resulted in environmental
14 degradation because it is ignitable, corrosive,
15 reactive or toxic as the hazardous waste
16 definition implies. With the existing body
17 of data, EPA's designation of utility wastes
18 as a special waste is not only arbitrary, it
19 defies common sense.
20 Congress has determined that, as a matter
21 of national policy, coal utilization should be
22 increased. As a result, the Department of
23 Energy ordered Hew England Power Company to
24 burn coal. Now, EPA suggests that by using
25 coal, we will probably be guilty of producing
-------
-83-
1
2 a hazardous waste. This, in spite of th«
3 large body of empirical evidence that indicates
4 present disposal and reuse practices are not
5 environmental problems.
6 We feel that this form of regulatory
7 approach is both unjustified and counter-
8 productive. In the case of large volume
9 utility wastes, EPA should make every effort
10 to accommodate national policy and encourage
11 coal use unless it is clear that a real problem
12 exists. We recommend that EPA remove high
13 volume utility wastes from the hazardous waste
14 category immediately.
15 We appreciate this opportunity to comment
16 on these proposed regulations.
17 MR. LEHMANt Mr. Aitken, the thrust of
18 your remarks and particularly your last
19 statement that we "recommend that EPA remove
20 high volume ultility wastes from the hazardous
21 waste category immediately," implies that we
22 have made such a finding and I just want to
23 clarify the point that we have neither listed
24 coal ash as a hazardous waste in our regulations
25 in other words, we make no presumption that coal
-------
-84-
1
2 ash is hazardous necessarily.
3 What we are saying is that we have sane
4 evidence that certain types of coal ash May
5 be a hazardous waste in accordance with our
6 designations, our characteristics and, to the
7 extent that a coal ash does meet one of the
8 characteristics, we have provided in Section
9 250.46-2 some special requirements for those
10 wastes which are different than the general -
11 extreme general requirements for other types
12 of waste.
13 So I want to clarify that point that we
14 do not make a presumption that coal ash is
15 hazardous and I think it*s only when the
16 combination of the type of coal used or the
17 type of process burning that is done for that
18 particular power plant, that that combination
19 results in a waste which meets of the general
20 characteristics that this particular Section
21 implies.
22 MR. AlTKBlft I think I understand the
23 regulations and I understand what you say.
24 Tt is not necessarily hazardous waste,
25 it first has to fail the tests.
-------
-85-
1
2 I think our first concern is one of
3 public image more than anything elae. I
4 think that i» going to make it very difficult
5 to go forward with this whole conversion
6 project. Whether or not it really is a
7 hazardous waste, is not really going to be
8 as important as its going into that category.
9 MR. FIELDS« One question.
10 MR. AITKENt Yes?
11 MR. FIELDSt In your earlier remarks,
12 you indicated that you had hoped that EPA
13 would make a quick decision regarding whether
14 coal ash in the category of special was
15 in fact hazardous and not wait for a couple
16 of years to actually propose substantive
17 requirements for utility waste.
18 Do you have any suggestions regarding how
19 EPA can make that determination quickly and how
20 to go about receiving the data to make that
21 determination?
22 MR. AITKENt When I spoke of expedience,
23 that was the thrust of it. Now, as far as
24 making a determination, on the solid waste
25 side of it, I think I'd like to defer my
-------
-86-
1
2 comments and let them be part of that which
3 will have specific ideas on how to proceed
4 quickly with this. If you could take it out
5 of the hazardous waste category right now,
6 I think we'd be in better shape.
7 MR. LIHDSEY: To take it out - given our
8 regulartory scheme here, to take it out of the
9 category of hazardous waste, we would have to
10 make a finding, then, presumably, that the
11 criteria, the characteristice are too stringent
12 MR. AITKENt Did you make that finding
13 for a municipal list?
14 MR. LIHDSEYj Did I make that finding -
15 you mean for sewage sludge?
16 MR. AITKENj Yea.
17 MR. LINDSEYt Relative to sewage sludge,
18 the decision was made by the Agency that sewage
19 sludge would be controlled under another act
20 that had a lot of authority in that particular
21 instance and that the intent is that it will
22 be covered under 405 of the Clean Water Act.
23 The intent is that the regulations would
24 provide an equivalent degree of protection
25 under that act as they would under here so
-------
-87-
1
2 it's a matter of administrative decision
3 in that case as opposed to - it's not a
4 similar situation.
5 MR. AlTKEHj What about the Municipal
6 rubbish?
7 MR. LINDSEYt That's legislative intend
8 under Section 4004, the Subtitle D of this
9 act. That's where Municipal trash used to
1° be covered and regulated and that's the intent
11 of the Section 4004 regs.
12 MR. AITKENi My experience is that that
13 was called Sanitary Landfill.
14 MS. DARRAHt Thank you for your comments.
15 Kenneth Goldstein.
16 MR. GOLDSTEINt Good morning.
17 This statement is in support of the
IS financial responsibility requirements concerning
19 insurance for both sudden and accidental and
20 non-sudden and accidental pollution resulting
21 from the escape of hazardous wastes into the
22 environment.
23 I am here representing Howden Agencies
24 Ltd. of Cranford, Mew Jersey, a member company
25 of the Alexander Howden Group Ltd, London,
-------
-88-
1
2 England. Alexander Howden is one of the
3 largest insurance companies in the world
4 with total assets of over 250,000,000 pounds
5 or approximately $500,000,000 as of December 31,
6 1977. Howden Agency is the exclusive UPS
7 underwriting manager for a pool of insurance
8 companies writing environmental impairment
9 liability, also known as pollution insurance.
10 This policy specifically covers non-sudden
11 and accidental pollution to air, water or land.
12 While this policy has been available in the
13 UPS since 1975, it is not widely known. A
14 number of educational seminars have been held
15 around the country for the leading insurance
16 brokers. However, only recently has interest
17 in gradual pollution increased. Limits of
18 ?5jOOO,000 per claim, $10,000,000 annual
19 aggregate are now available in order to comply
20 with the EPA financial responsibility requirements
2i for non-sudden and accidental pollution.
22 I would like to discuss three important
23 areas. First, a brief history of the poolj
24 second, specific policy insuring agreements,
25 conditions and exclusionsr and third, the
-------
-89-
1
2 potential impact that these regulations would
3 have on the insurance industry.
4 First of all, Pool History*
5 The pool concept began In 1972 when
6 H. Clarkson limited, a Lloyds Brokerage Firm,
7 initiated negotiations with leading European
8 Insurers to discuss the concept of insuring
9 gradual pollution. These individuals were
10 leaders at that time in that they recognized
11 the fact that gradual pollution coverage was
12 not widely available and, in addition, they
13 were aware of the increasing social pressure
14 for this protection.
15 An elaborate technical plan was developed
16 that classified various industries by a
17 numerical value on the basis of environmental
IS hazards associated with each industry. In
19 addition, a network of environmental engineers
20 was organized to perform services and insure
2i uniform quality throughout the world.
22 These surveys provide on-site inspections,
23 a review of the current state of compliance
24 with all applicable regulations, and an
25 evaluation of the ability and attitude of
-------
-90-
1
2 management toward pollution control.
3 At the present time, the pool insures
4 one of the largest hazardous vast* disposers
5 in the country. In addition, another leading
6 hazardous waste disposer has ordered a survey
7 and a formal quotation has been released.
8 Also, interest has been shown by the other
9 leading hazardous waste disposers. These
10 companies decided to seek pollution insurance
11 prior to the EPA proposed guidelines. They
12 obviously recognized the critical need for
13 gradual pollution protection.
14 Typical costs for this insurance range
15 from a minimum premium of $5,000 which would
16 apply to a relatively innocuous risk to
17 $80,000 or more for one of the large hazardous
18 waste disposer operations. The hazardous waste
19 disposer currently written is being charged
20 a premium in the area of 80-590,000. It is
2i our feeling that premium costs will be reduced
22 as insureds comply with the EPA guidelines and
23 regulations.
24 I have some comments here about specific
25 policy terms and conditions, but I don't really
-------
-91-
1
2 think it's worth going through word by word
3 of insurance clauses and exclusions. I just
4 want to highlight the fact that the policy
5 itself is a claims-made policy which means
6 that it will protect the insured for any
7 claims that are brought during the policy
S period no matter when the environmental
9 impairment liability occurred. It could have
jO happened a year ago or five years ago or ten
11 years ago. The policy, itself, is available
12 for your review and your comments.
13 The potential impact on the insurance
14 industry:
15 The insurance industry, itself, is
15 conservative by nature. While insurance for
17 sudden and accidental pollution is normally a
18 part of every insured'* portfolio, protection
19 against non-sudden and accidental is generally
20 not available through the standard insurance
21 companies. There is no question that "Love
Canal" and other horror stories that we have
23 all read about have created a changing social
climate. The public has demanded action from
the government to ensure public safety in
-------
-92-
1
2 dealing with hazardous waste.
3 The compilation of codes, rules and
4 regulations by specific action of the
5 government in response to the increasing
6 demands of the public sector is not without
7 recent precedent. As an example. The
8 Employee Retirement Income Security Act
9 of 1974 embodied a host of standards of
10 performance by which trustees of employee
11 benefits and welfare plans were held
12 accountable. A direct result of such a
13 codification of rules and regulations was
14 the creation of a measurable insurance risk
15 which is the wrongful violation of such
16 standards of performance. With this reality
17 two major insurance groups, American International
18 Group and Lloyd's of London, prepared liability
19 policies to protect these trustees. As rates
20 became determinable based on loss experience
2i and these companies realized a fair profit on
22 this class, other insurers were attracted to
23 the marketplace. Today, there are no less than
24 ten insurance groups competing for this
25 coverage.
-------
-93-
1
2 The EPA is now creating a strikingly
3 similar situation with the "non-sudden and
4 accidental" requirements. By codifying
5 specific rules, regulations, obligations
6 and standards of performance, the EPA provides
7 for the insurance industry the measurable risk -
8 the degree of compliance or non-compliance with
9 a specific code of regulations.
10 Howden Agency's environmental impairment
11 policy is the first to recognize this measurable
12 risk and provide protection. As we continue
13 to be an equitable and responsive insurer for
14 this liability coverage, our successful
15 participation will, inevitably, attract other
16 insurers into the marketplace. We welcome
17 these regulations and we will work toward
18 providing insurance along with the rest of
19 the world insurance marketplace.
20 MS. DARRAHt Thank you, Mr. Goldstein.
21 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Goldstein, a couple
22 of quick questions here.
23 First of all, you didn't exactly say
24 this, but I think maybe I'd like to ascertain
25 it anyway.
-------
-94-
1
2 If there are any technical regulations,
3 technical procedural regulations that are
4 embodied in here that you find to be inadequate
5 from the standpoint of satisfying the insurance
6 industry's need for an insurance, if you will.
7 that these facilities are safe. Have you come
8 across anything like that which you could share
9 with us?
10 MR. GOLDSTEIN: He have been offering
11 this policy since 1975 without these rules
12 and regulations. I think by the - somewhere
13 within the regulations, themselves, I believe
14 you use a figure that, as of now, 90 percent
15 of the hazardous waste is not disposed of in
16 accordance with these rules and regulations.
17 What we are saying is to our advantage to have
IS these guidelines enforced. It makes our risks
19 much more insurable and much more writable .
20 MR. LINDSEY: The second question.
2i You mentioned ten additional companies
22 that were - or rather pools, I guess you said,
23 that were competing with us; is this in the
24 United States or - -
25 MR. GOLDSTEIN: No. No. I was referring
-------
-95-
1
2 to what is a similar situation where the
3 government had come in and created a mandatory
4 insurance situation or created certain
5 responsibilities and the example was the
6 Erisa Anacronyn Act. What I said was one
7 or two companies decided to write it and,
8 once they were able to realize a profit,
9 other companies then entered the marketplace.
10 MR. LINDSEY: What you are saying is
11 that you expect competition pretty soon?
12 MR. GOLDSTEINt Yes, sir.
13 MR. LINDSEY: Is there any limit on the
14 number of policies or the gross amount which
15 your firm or pool, of which your firm is a
16 part, is willing to write?
17 MR. GOLDSTEIN: There are limitations,
IS yes. Our re-insurers have imposed at this
19 point a premium cap in the area of two to
20 three million dollars. However, in terms
21 of actual hazardous waste disposers, it is
22 our estimate that based on the premiums that
23 we are charging now, a total of premiums for
24 the entire class might be in the area of
25 three to four million dollars and we don't
-------
-96-
1
2 think it would be a problem for us to go
3 back to our insurers and get that increased.
4 MR. LINDSEYs Thank you.
5 MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Goldstein, in your
6 prepared remarks, you were describing the type
7 of policy which you are currently writing.
^ Do you say this policy specifically
9 covers non-sudden and accidental pollution
10 to air, water or land and then you - the next
11 sentence says, "While this facility has been
12 available on the U.S. since 1975, it is not
13 widely known." What do you mean by this
14 facility? Do you mean policy?
15 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Policy, yes.
16 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
17 MR. GOLDSTEIN] Thank you.
18 MS. DARRAH: Mr. Daniel O'Hern, of the
19 New Jersey Department of Environmental
20 Protection
21 MR. O'HERN: Ms. Darrah, Members of the
22 Hearing Panel, as you know, I am here
23 representing the New Jersey Department of
24 Environmental Protection.
25 The Department of Environmental Protection
-------
-97-
1
2 has statutory responsibility for supervising
3 and coordinating New Jersey's hazardous waste
4 management planning and implementation and
5 waste management programs and was designated
6 by Governor Byrne as New Jersey's lead agency
7 under the Federal Resource Conservation and
8 Recovery Act under which the proposed regulations
9 are being promulgated.
10 First, I'd like to thank the United
11 States Environmental Protection Agency for
12 the opportunity to appear and offer our
13 comments with regard to your proposed regulation*.
14 We believe this cooperative approach has enabled
15 a development of comprehensive regulations and
16 exhibits the fact that state and federal
17 governments can work together to achieve
18 common goals.
19 i also want to compliment EPA for having
20 scheduled numerous hearings on the regulations
21 which include and will ensure the fullest
22 amount of public discussion and comments before
23 these important and far-reaching regulations
24 are promulgated.
25 First, I*d like to say a word about the
-------
-98-
1
2 form. I MI sort of an addict about long
3 regulations. I had hoped there was sane
4 way you could have Made the* shorter, but
5 I have perused them and talked to my staff
6 and I painfully have to conclude that it is
7 going to be very hard in this case to make
8 them less verbose than they are. It is a
9 national policy to simplify the regulatory
10 processees and I wish in this case we could
11 make it simpler, but I think the technical
12 aspects make it less easy in this case .
13 As you know/ our state is vitally
14 interested in these regulations which will
15 impact hazardous waste management. During
16 1977, some 15,000 industrial and manufacturing
17 concerns in Mew Jersey generated over 1.2
IS billion gallons and 350,000 tons of liquid
19 and solid chemical and hazardous wastes. It
20 is obvious to us that these wastes must be
21 regulated and managed in such a way as to
22 protect environmental quality and public
23 health.
24 Mew Jersey, we are proud to say, as one
25 of the top 15 states in the generation of
-------
-99-
1
2 chemcial and hazardous wait* materials, has
3 initiated an agressiva hazardous wast* management
4 program to control the waste stream and to
5 provide for environmentally acceptable
6 treatment and disposal. In May of 1978,
7 our department implemented a manifest system
8 somewhat similar to that proposed toy your
9 regulations which monitors the flow of hazardous
10 waste from "cradle to grave" and, just
11 recently, our department has held hearings
12 on its proposed rules and regulations concerning
13 the operation and design of chemical and
14 hazardous waste facilities. I'm sure that
15 you or your staff have seen them and I hope
16 that we will hear your comments.
17 Experience has told us, however, that
18 one of the most difficult elements in any
19 state program and particularly in ours which
20 is a relatively small state despite the size
21 of the problem is the siting of new hazardouu
22 waste facilities capable of providing adequate,
23 environmentally sound treatment and disposal
24 capacity at a reasonable cost to Hew Jersey's
25 industry.
Most of you who are involved in this
-------
-100-
1
2 business are familiar with the so-called
3 Bordentown case and I do want to thank
4 EPA for its assistance and technical advice
5 with respect to the siting issue there. But
6 it's of great concern to the public.
7 Another difficult problem concerns the
8 care and maintenance of hazardous waste
9 facilities. These two problems, site
1° selection and perpetual maintenance and care/
11 in our opinion, require greater emphasis and
12 consideration in the proposed regulations.
13 The section in your proposed regulations
14 addressing site selection issues is somewhat
15 general. In reviewing the Bordentown case,
l6 for example, EPA suggested to the departments
1? that it could undertake, itself, a broad
1s statewide analysis of sites. I strongly urge
I9 EPA to give greater attention to this section
20 to develop more affirmative criteria to assist
21 the states in their review of applications for
22 new facilities and determining whether a specific
23 site is desirable. I strongly suggest, perhaps,
24 that EPA establish a national program, similar
25 to the national effort to identify radioactive
-------
-101-
1
2 waste sites, only hopefully more successful,
3 to assist the states in locating appropriate
4 sites for hazardous waste facilities.
5 Both experience throughout the nation
6 - and in our community, dramatically at Love
7 Canal, here, in Hew York State, unfortunately,
8 and based upon testimony fron scientists and
9 other waste management experts, we know that
10 hazardous waste materials placed in "secure"
11 landfills are nonetheless extremely toxic
12 and that this toxicity must and will persist
13 for an indefinite period and pose future
14 environmental problems. Since most of the
15 state-of-the-art safeguards have not been
16 time tested, we strongly take issue with that
17 portion of the regulations which establishes
18 only a 20-year limit for the care and maintenance
19 of terminated hazardous waste facilities. It
20 should be obvious to us all that the sites
21 with which we are dealing, nationwide and
22 state-wide in many cases have their inception
23 far more than 20 years ago so it's obvious
24 that the then limit of responsibility after
25 20 years will not resolve the problems.
-------
-102-
1
2 A provision must be included in the
3 final regulations for assigning responsibility
4 for and funding to ensure the maintenance and
5 upkeep of terminated facilities for an
6 indefinite period. If we, as government
7 officials, allow it to be put there, we must
8 insure a capability to deal with the problems
9 that may arise over the ensuing years and,
10 indeed, over the centuries.
11 Within the preamble of your proposed
12 regulations, there is a statement that EPA
13 will seek legislation to create a national
14 trust fund to provide funds for the clean
15 up of environmental disasters that may occur
16 in the future at hazardous waste facility sites.
17 DBF agrees with this concept, but must urge
18 EPA to take immediate action on introducing
19 and supporting such legislation. This fund
20 should have sufficient resources to ensure
21 the citizens throughout the United States that
22 monies will be available to provide for perpetual
23 care and to clean up any future problems that
24 may occur. Because of the national significance
25 of the interstate luwvrdtois waste disposal
-------
-103-
1
2 program, I believe the federal government
3 should take the initiative in developing
4 the scheme, in whatever form, that will
5 supply monies to deal with both the
6 legacies of the past and the problems of
7 the future.
8 You may, at first glance, say to
9 yourself, "Well, should not be states where
10 the problem is located assume that now?"
11 Our response to that is that this is
12 a nation of several states and those products
13 which were generated - for example, New Jersey
14 serves industries throughout the country and,
15 as I suggested, provide a better way of living
16 for people through the country. So, we believe
17 it is a national problem. We believe it
IS should be addressed on a national level.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
104
1
2 Finally, I would like to state our
3 concern about what may be an ambiguity created
4 by the section establishing "special waste." I
5 am not a technical person myself, but I am
6 informed that while the EPA indicates that such
7 wastes are of high volume and low hazard, it is
8 unclear as to whether or not all of them or
9 some may, in fact, be hazardous. It is a
jO matter of further concerns since there is no
jj indication as to when EPA will take action on
j2 these "special wastes" and whether or not
jg facilities taking these "special waste" will
14 be placed under federal regulation in the future.
Until a decision is rendered on these
1J
"special wastes", a void in their proper
16
management will be experienced. We ask that this
be rectified in the final requirements.
18
You-nray ask why we would be concerned about
that, but we are concerned in New Jersey that
20
there be national standards for these issues
21
because if there are more stringent environmental
22
regulations, we will not be affected in New
23
Jersey in a way that other states are not. So
24
we are anxious for at least a definition of these
25
-------
105
1
2 issues.
3 Basically, that is the statement of the
4 State of New Jersey. We applaude the EPA for
5 its responsibility and commencing as an Agency
6 of government to deal with the problems and
7 giving us this opportunity to comment on the
8 proposed regulations. We wish to indicate for
9 the record that our staff is still reviewing
lO the regulations and will, in the near future, be
jl submitting more detailed technical comments.
12 MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much. Would
13 you be willing to entertain questions?
14 MR. O'HERN: Right.
I doubt whether I can answer them, but I
will entertain them.
16
MR. LEHMAN: Commissioner O'Hern, one of
your remarks concerns the site selection aspect
of our regulations and you indicate that these
need more attention in the final version, that
20
we move for a more affirmative siting criteria
21
to assist states and localities in siting
22
facilities. We certainly concur with your
23
belief that siting of new facilities is very
24
difficult and important part of - implementation
25
-------
106
1
2 part of the program, but I was wondering if you
3 might be able to elaborate a little more based
4 on your experience with the Bordentown situation
5 as to whwat type of provisions would meet this
6 type of system you are talking about?
7 COMMISSIONER O'HERN: Your regulations,
8 as you know, they do refer to aquifers and so
9 forth; you have some general language about what
10 plants and so forth. In Bordentown, you recall,
11 there were other issues such as proximity to
12 other institutions, schools and the like, the
13 particular aquifer there was not a sole source
j4 aquifer, but it's a principal water supply
,,- source for South Jersey and I would prefer not
,f to discuss too much of the specifics because it
is under consideration, but most of it's been
in the newspapers and the scientists, on one side,
lo
say you have a clay layer there that will
protect and so forth so perhaps more detail as
to the permiability of the clay, the quality
of that, types of testing that would have to be
22
done by either a state agency or an applicant to
determine what the subsurface, soil conditions
24
were indeed sufficient to prevent leaching and
25
-------
107
1
2 so forth. Then, what are called the public
3 issues, whether or not it's appropriate to
. consider the proximity to places of public
5 accomodations, institutions and the like.
6 MR. FIELDS: To follow up Jack's comment,
7 you really don't have any problems with what's
g here with site selection standards?
9 COMMISSIONER O'KERN: I would say so. You
know, I'm not a technician; I didn't see anyfaLng
that I could - I can't recall with respect to what
12 you have.
MR. FIELDS: We should add more - -
COMMISSIONER O'HERN: More specifics.
MR. FIELDS: Okay.
15
COMMISSIONER O'HERN: May be not more
16
specifics, but more general so in applying these
17
there would be a greater sense of community
18
belief that there were adequate safeguards in
19
site selection.
20
MR. LEHMAN: I have another question,
21
Commissioner, concerning another point you made
22
concerning the long-term care of facilities.
23
You indicate the belief that a 20-year
24
period was perhaps not long enough; we should
25
-------
108
1
2 address that in our final regulations. I was
3 a little unsure because later on you talked
4 about the legislative initiative we are making
5 with respect to the national fund for post-
6 closure liability protection and remedial action.
7 It wasn't clear whether the thrust of your
S remarks were that we should extend the period
9 for monitoring and so forth in our regulations
10 or we should address the requirement for
jj maintenance over a more extended period through
^2 this national fund or maybe both.
13 COMMISSIONER O'HEPN: I wouldn't want to
,. have it both ways. In other words, there wouldn't
be much point in imposing upon a real estate,
1 o
an industrial operator an improper obligation
16
if there wasn't sufficient public answer to that
17
issue. In reflecting upon this ourselves, we
18
have thought about the history of american
industry and have observed that corporations with
20
powerful names which appear to spread eagle the
21
economy have disappeared even within the
22
memory of many of the people in this room. So,
23
in terms of long-term security, no matter how
24
secure the individual business is, we probably
25
-------
109
1
2 know that it isn't always going to be there.
3 So I'm somewhat troubled by the idea that you
4 could create a cash security fund sufficient
5 to do this. I think the accountants, all those
6 guys where they tell you it's impossible to
7 figure that out.
8 So I think the 7overnment has a
9 responsibility here. One of the things we are
jO at least exploring in New Jersey is at least a
jj partnership responsibility in the government
j2 which we hope will have a longer duration so
jg business corporations will be allowed to at least
j. monitor the problem.
MS. DARRAH: Thank you very much.
MR. BENFORADO: My name is Dave Benforado.
16
I am an environmental supervisor for the 3M
Company in St. Paul, Minnesota.
18
I really didn't come prepared to talk
today. However, in discussions with some of the
20
agency people who indicated this was to be a
21
mechanism for communications and interchange, I
22
found the discussions this morning interesting
23
to the point where I do feel I have some comments
24
to make. We will follow up these comments with
25
-------
110
1
2 some written comments, either directly or through
3 some trade association like the Manufacturing
4 Chemists Association.
5 I guess the first major comment would be
6 that - I just raised the question, will there
•7 be enough permanent hazardous waste facilities
8 to accept all of the waste designated to be
9 hazardous when the rules become effective?
JQ And I would think that the promulgation of the
., effective date of the regulations should be
12 coordinated with the availability and permiting
jo of sites because I don't think we want to find
ourselves in the situation of generating
hazardous wastes which cannot go anywhere.
The other point, a side point to this, is
16
that the regulations, in my opinion, tend to
encourage large amounts of non-hazardous wastes
to be designated hazardous due to the high cost
of testing to prove that the waste is not
20
hazardous. The case pointed earlier that this
21
large amount of coal ash, most of which is
22
probably not hazardous, may have to be designated
23
hazardous and if there are not sites available,
24
it will have no place to go.
25
-------
Ill
1
2 I ought to indicate that I have had about
3 15 years of experience in incinerator design
4 and my comments now are related to support
5 some of the comments made earlier. For example,
6 Mr. Santoleri pointed out that some of the design
7 requirements written into the regulations may
8 not be entirely correct. I feel strongly that
9 the experiences in industry and operators of
10 design facilities and consultants that design
11 the facilities and I think EPA should write a
12 regulation that will allow these people to
13 specify a design. EPA should specify the permit
14 requirements.
For example, by writing residence time and
combustion temperature into the regulation, I
think, is a mistake because necessary parameters
are very difficult and sometimes impossible to
measure. You could ask, how are you going to
measure residence time? How are you going to
20
measure combustion temperature? Where are you
21
going to measure it? The point is that - even I
22
could see an incincerator being designed that
23
would meet the design requirements that you have
24
specified that would not satisfactorily destroy
25
-------
112
1
2 hazardous waste. I think Mr.Santoleri made
3 that point. It didn't come through as strong as
4 that and that's not the kind of thing we want
5 a regulation to do. That's the reason why even
6 with the exception, it's a poor paragraph and I
1 agree with him that it should be deleted. The
g design requirement should be deleted from the
9 regulation and you would rely on the experience
JQ of the people designing the facilities and a
., permit test to indicate that the operation of
12 that particular facility is satisfactory.
13 In regard to the trial burn, Section 250.45--1
j. (d), I support Mr. Lurcott. I believe Mr.Lurcott
that, as written, it is too narrow. To force a
Ij
test burn on each waste is really unreasonable
16
in terms of costs and there's got to be a better
way to do it. Possibly, by generic categories.
18
You have to give the flexibility to the operator
who, presumably is knowledgeable in handling
20
hazardous wastes in making that decision and not
21
a decision to the state authorities. The states
22
are going to pick up thdse regulations and they
23
have even less experience than EPA does.
24
The problem that Mr. Sorkin raised is not
25
-------
113
1
2 uncommon to a large number of other companies.
3 There will be a lot of companies that, like the -
4 Mr. Sorkin was with the company in Maine; is that
5 right? - that will have ponds that based on the
6 examination that was made of that land facility,
7 a judgment was made by the geologists and some
8 engineers that there would not be any
9 environmental harm resulting in ponding this
10 material which is the point he was making. Now,
11 there's got to be and you question him as to
12 what could be written into the regulation to
13 accommodate that case. What you have got to
14 do is write a flexible regulation that will allow
jij the state authorities to permit those kinds of
j^ ponds presiding that it has been demonstrated
,- that there will not be any environmental damage,
,„ I think that's a reasonable approach especially
lo
.„ since you will have thousands of companies in that
kind of situation.
I think I' d like to support the New
England Power Companies Mr. Aitken in the
concept that someone make a decision not to
classify municipal waste as a hazardous waste.
24
Is that correct?
25
-------
114
1
2 I guess I would ask the panel if that is
3 correct.
4 MR. LINDSEY: Yes. Congress did,
5 basically.
6 MR. BENFORADO: If Congress made that
7 decision, then I think EPA can make the decision
g that coal ash, which is a raw material in some
9 states, should probably not be classified
JQ hazardous and come under the regulations until
jj such time as there is evidence that it is
j2 hazardous. Now, that's a little different
jg approach.
j4 I think they are basically the five major
issues I wanted to raise at this time and I
Jo
thank you for the opportunity to speak.
16
MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
Will you answer questions for us?
18
MR. BENFORADO: I'd be glad to.
19
MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Benforado, one of the
20
points you made was that you were afraid that
21
the high cost of testing under Section 3001,
22
presumably, will force many people to declare-
23
their wastes as hazardous and thus exacerbate
24
the capacity problem?
25
-------
115
1
2 MR. BENFORADO: Yes. I think it will.
3 Especially the smaller companies.
4 MR. LINDSEY: It was our belief, at any
5 rate, that the testing one would have to follow
6 unless he is on-the list to determine if the
7 waste is hazardous, those tests are rather
8 minimal; they don't require a great amount of
9 money.
JQ MR. BENFORADO: I guess I would disagree.
H It depends on how you would define a large
12 amount of money.
13 MR. LINDSEY: Our information was that it
14 would cost, for example, approximately $600 to
test it to determine whether or not a waste
It)
was hazardous.
16
MR. BENFORADO: I would disagree with that.
Based on our experience; based on the laboratories
who do testing and the tests' availability at
these laboratories.
20
MR. LINDSEY: If you have information that
21
disputes our figure, roughly, in the area of $600,
22
we'd be interested in hearing from you about it.
23
MR. BENFORADO: I will take a look.
24
You might say companies with sales of a
25
-------
116
1
2 million dolbrs who might generate 10 or 12
3 different wastes, $600 no beomces six thousand
4 dollars and it is - I assume that is the issue
5 that will be discussed in the economic impact
6 and I haven't seen that report, but 1 have
7 made arrangements to get it.
8 I raised questions yesterday whether the
9 EPA must take into account economic impact
10 and apparently the law was silent on that, but
11 apparently you are intending to take that into
12 account, the economic impact of these regulations.
13 MR. LINDSEY: There is a presidential
14 order that we do an economic impact analysis
jj- which we have done and which you have indicated
jg is available through our incinerator office.
._ In regard to taking it into account, we
are doing this in such a way that we know what
lo
those economic impacts are. However, the charge
we have under the Act is to protect human health
in the environment. However, it is clear that to
adequately do that, the impact of what we do has
22
to be possible or practical in that sense.
MR. BENFORADO: A good example would be
24
Mr. Sorkin's example that you would require him,
25
-------
117
1
2 unless you provided some flexibility in the
3 regulation, to install four monitoring wells.
4 MR. LINDSEY: Let me ask you, on that
5 point as far as flexibility goes, we have
g instituted here this series of notes, which you
_ will note all through the Section 3004
g regulations, which are designed to do that. In
9 other words, where there is a special - it's
just not possible in our view to write hard
and fast regulations that apply to all kinds of
facilities all the time and under every
circumstance and that is the reason for the
notes. We say that normally the way in which
materials should be handled is according to the
15
regulation which is here, but where there is a
16
note, there may be times when this is unnecessary
17
or in some cases undesireable and that's the
18
purpose.
19
Do you feel that the notes are not
20
sufficiently flexible or - -
21
MR. BENFORADO: In this case, the ponding
22
does not have such a note, does it?
23
MR. LINDSEY: Offhand, I'm not sure.
24
MR. BENFORADO: I'm not familiar with that
25
-------
118
1
2 Section, but I guess if the intent of the note
3 was to say that if Mr. Sorkin's ponding does
4 not offer the potential of doing any
5 environmental damage, you woudl hope that the
6 state agency would be able to permit it. Under
7 the present regulations, I don't think that
8 would be possible.
9 MR. FIELDS: A couple of question regarding
10 your comments on the incineration standards.
11 One comment was regarding the test burn
12 requirement in Section 3004 - -
13 MR. BENFORADO: Yes.
14 MR. FIELDS: My question to you would be -
- to 3M, for example, I don't know what type of
lo
,, standards you would propose if you were burning
ID
two wastes; one was a significantly different
from the other, wouldn't you conduct test burns
18
on those wastes prior to the buning of those
wastes in your incincerator?
MR. BENFORADO: We would analyze the
21
wastes and in some cases you can use your
22
engineering expertise to say that this waste
will be completely destroyed. So, you are not
24
providing that here. Test burns are expensive.
25
-------
119
1
2 I forget what figure he used for his test burns.
3 You're going to have companies that,
4 depending on the amount of the waste - that's
5 not being taken into account. Possibly, you
5 have a small amount of waste where the mention
1 on the evaluation of the new waste would be
8 that the engineering and could lead you to
9 conclude that you could satisfactorily
,„ incinerate this and I think if the engineer and
the operator makes that judgment, I think that
2 should be satisfactory.
13 MR. FIELDS: You would add a note to the
standards which would allow for engineering
judgment.
ID
MR. BENFORADO: I guess that is right
16
because I have a large amount of confidence in
17
engineering.
18
MR. LINDSEY: Let me fdlow upon that
19
again.
20
Our concern would be before we would approve
21
any such facility that we have - at least that the
22
test burn has been conducted, at least on the most
23
difficult to destroy wastes that your company
24
intended to burn. The problem is, how do we do
25
-------
120
* that in such a way that we know that we have
3 gotten that particular waste or combination of
4 wastes and if we can destroy that one, we can
5 destroy all the others in that particular
6 facility?
7 Do you think that's practical and if
8 that is, some suggestions as to how that's
9 done and written into the regulations.
10 MR. BENFORADO: Could you give an example.
11 MR. LINDSEY: Mr. Santoleri, I guess,
12 was saying that many facilities - and yours is
13 probably a case in point - destroy a number of
14 different kinds of waste with varying degrees
15 of difficulty to destruct from a thermal
16 standpoint, and his concern was that we not test
jy each one which is your concern.
18 MR. BENFORADO: Right.
jg MR. LINDSEY: My concern, on the other
2Q hand, is if we don't do test burns on each one,
then we must be sure we at least test the ones
that are the most difficult to destruct.
22
MR. BENFORADO: Very difficult thing you
£•3
are saying. You are asking the industry to say
what is the most difficult waste to destruct.
-------
121
1
2 MR. LINDSEY: To destruct. Can't do that?
3 MR. BENFORADO: Not on a practical basis.
4 However, you know you can be explained
5 what organic chemical because something like
6 have heavy metals in them and your experience -
7 you get a waste with real heavy metal and
g previous experience indicates thct this should
-------
122
I
2 MR. BENFORADO: Well, you know, we haven't
3 experience of this kind. We have to run through
4 the performance tests where the air pollutants
5 are measured and waste water pollutants were
5 measured.
7 The waste that was generated actually
g becomes the (inaudible) and I don't know that
g this really provides for that.
,„ Youcan have an inefficiently operating
incincerator where some of the pollutants are
from the waste water and yet if you got a
treatment facility, that is not a problem
because your treatment facility will take care
14
of that.
15
I think if I was doing it, which I wasn't,
16
I would write the requirements to allow the
17
state to promulgate it on the demonstration of
18
the facility. You have got to get a construction
19
permit and you have got to get an operating permit.
20
To demonstrate that this incinerator is in fact
21
meeting the air pollution regulations and the
22
water pollution regulations and that the sludge
23
and ash generated from it would be analyzed and
24
go to a proper facility.
25
-------
123
1
2 MR. FIELDS: By performance, you mean like
3 a thousand degrees?
4 MR. BENFORADO: Performance is that you
5 are not generating any hazardous air pollutants.
5 MR. FIELDS: In burning that particular
7 waste?
g MR. BENFORADO: From the category of
g waste that that incincerator is intended to
10 handle.
MR. LEHMAN: Mr. Benfordao, I'd like to
12 follow up on a point of clarification concerning
jo one of the points you made on coal ash. My notes
indicate that your statement was that coal ash
should not be classified as a hazardous waste.
15
MR. BENFORADO: No. I didn't mean that.
16
You had explained that - you indicated you
brought it under the regulation. The point I
18
was trying to make was that Congress made the
judgment of not trying to improve municipal
wastes under this regulation. We all know that
21
there are hazardous wastes incorporated in some
22
municipal wastes. Now, if you can use that
23
rationale to exclude - you know, Congress used
24
the rationale to exclude it until someone comes
25
-------
124
1
2 up with the designation or examines municipal
3 waste and comes up with the designation that
4 it is hazardous or is not hazardous, you're not
5 p utting on - I think the point the gentleman
6 was making is that you are not placing on
7 municipalities the responsibility to start to
8 examine their wastes to show that it is not
9 hazardous and why can't you use the same rationale
jO to exclude those wastes and maybe others that you
.. have included in "special wastes."
12 MS. DARRAH: Let me try to answer that a
13 little.
MR. BENFORADO: Okay.
MS. DARRAH: First thing that comes to
mind is that what we are saying when we say that
16
Congress excluded that from RCRA is that we do
17
not have tiie authority to include household refuse
18
which becomes municipal refuse under Subtitle C
and RCRA. It is specifically excluded from the
20
legislative history.
21
MR. BENFORADO: I see.
22
MS. DARRAH: I would also say that if
23
facility wastes are hazardous and we are not -
24
once agin, we should just clarify that - the fact
25
-------
125
I
2 that they are listed as "special wastes" is in
3 a sense an exclusion. It gives them - allows them
4 to be subject to a lesser requirement that if
5 we didn't list them at all.
6 If we took facility wastes out of the special
7 waste category then facilities, the way the
8 regulations are right now, would still have to
9 test all of their ash and every time they changed
10 their call significantly, they would have noticed
jj that and if it were heavy, they would then be
12 subject to all of the requirements. The reason
13 that they're listed as a special waste, and
14 indeed, is tiiat it brings attention to them, but
hopefully if the regulations are understood, the
.lO
,, attention that is brought should make people
ID
understand that even though it may meet the
characteristics, we don't feel they have the
18
19 hazard level of the others. Therefore, we will
allow them to be subject to lesser standards.
MR. BENFORADO: Is there an advantage to
21
being listed in the special risk category to a
22
company generating coal - -
23
MS. DARRAH: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to
24
be listing that which has a special meaning, but
25
-------
126
1
2 to have them named under the special waste
3 category, I would say, is an advantage because
4 they are subject to fewer restrictions.
5 MR. BENFORADO: But they still have to do
6 the same evaluation?
7 MS. DARRAH: They would have to do that
8 evaluation whether or not they are named and,
9 as a matter of fact, the fact that they are
10 naming - the evaluation has nothing to do with
11 the fact that they are named.
12 MR. BENFORADO: I guess I was supporting
13 his comments on the basis that I felt that the
14 regulations should be more selective than as
15 broad as it is. So we solve - so we solve what
j, we know is 90 percent of the problem, we all
._ know what we have to do to solve that rather than
have all our wastes classified as hazardous, which
lo
.„ is what you have done, until we prove it is not
hazardous.
Now, I hope the economic impact study will
reliably evaluate the cost of that and the
22
availability of testing laboratories and look at
23
the amount of waste that will therefore be
24
classified hazardous and do we have enough places
25
-------
127
1
2 to put them because I know one of the criticisms
3 you have already experienced is that the regulation
4 does not address the real issue. You're going to
5 find yourself in a situation where a hazardous
6 waste that is slightly hazardous is going to
7 fill up a hazardous landfill and if you don't
8 have additional permitted facilities, redly
9 hazardous waste is not going to have any place
10 to go.
H MR. LEHMAN: May I amplify a little bit
12 on this discussion and, hopefully, clarify what
13 the provisions in Section 3004, Special Waste
14 standards for all of the different varieties
IE including utility wastes which are determined
j^ to be hazardous under Section 250.13, Subpart A.
jy Utility wastes, coal ash wastes are not listed
jg there, not named iwthin the definition of Section
19 3001. If they are found or determined to be a
2_ hazardous waste via the characteristics under
250.13, then the core area, in terms of facility
standards under Section 3004, they are dealt with
22
under the special waste standards section and the
point Ms. Darrah was making earlier on was that
24
if this particular section of special waste
25
-------
128
1
2 standard facilities were removed or deleted -
3 and I think this is the point Mr. Aitkin was
4 trying to get on it, this is sort of a public
5 image problem, the mere fact thatyou have a
6 special section of the facilities standards
7 seemed to draw attention - if we were to
8 remove that, then the full set of 3004 standards
9 were applied to any waste which is determined
jO to be a hazardous waste under 250.13. So I
jj hope we have made this clear here that the
12 relationship between the definition standards
!3 under Section 3001 and the facility standards
14 under Section 3004 and in particular the
Special Waste facility standards 250.13.
1 o
,, MR. FIELDS: One thing I think needs to
lo
be added to what Jack just said. In the case
of two of the categories on Special Waste,
IS
Section 250.14 also comes into play because
we have lifted two of the categories on
Special Waste under 3001, the phosphate category
21
and the uranium mine category.
22
MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
23
MR. BENFORADO: Thank you very much.
24
MS. DARRAH: Mr. Goddard.
25
-------
129
2 MR. GODDARD: Good morning.
3 My name is Charles N. Goddard, I am a
4 director of the Bureau of Hazardous Waste,
•> New York Department of Environmental Conservation.
" Most of the comments that I have to make
7 today are in regard to the landfilling of
^ hazardous waste material. However, in
9 preparation of putting these comments together,
10 I tried to get comments from our Division of
11 Air Resources on their concerns with regard to
12 Section 3004 and I did get some comments from
13 them. However, I am not really involved much in
14 air resources-type problems and, frankly, the
15 comments I got are not much more comprehensible
16 to me than is the regulation on incineration
17 so I will provide those comments in written
lg form rather than try to talk about them now.
19 Most of the comments or many of the
20 comments I want to make are a direct reflection
2_ of experiences we have in landfilling of hazardous
wastes in New York. As most of you are aware,
„ we do have what we call security landfill areas
in the Niagra Falls area.
The first comment deals with the final cover
-------
130
1
2 to be placed over the completed chemical
3 landfill - security landfill, whatever you
4 want to call it. The regulation calls for
5 six inches of clay having a hydraulic
6 conductivity of one by ten to the minus
7 seventh, underlying 18 inches of soil capable
8 of supporting vegetative growth. This design
9 criteria is totally inadequate because six
JQ inches of clay will not maintain a top cover
.. integrity particularly with respect to
12 differential settlement and, secondly, with
13 respect to dehydration cracking, infiltration
cracking of the clay material. Infiltration
increases the permiability, as a result
ij
precipitation infiltrates increasing the
16
additional leachate and additional problems.
As the drums degrade, differential
18
settlement will take place as the drums
collapse and there's something that can take
20
place over many years, many decades. The cap
21
should be the final insurance that precipitation
22
will not percolate in those spots and the
23
promulgation of the regulations, as we have
24
them here, we do not believe six inches is enough.
25
-------
131
1
2 What we require for the secure land cover
3 in New York State is a final cap which has a
4 total thickness, cap of five feet. Within that
5 cap is three feet of ten to the minus seven of
6 clay-type soil compacted and additional layers
7 of soil uncompacted and also soil to support
8 the vegetative growth.
9 The next comment deals with the post-
10 closure care and like some previous figures I
jj mentioned, we also disagree with a 20 years
12 period of time. Our experience indicates that
13 this time is not - because of the differential
j4 settlement of the waste - will not be capable
j. of figuring, will not be within that period of
,, time. A reasonably close period might be 40
-_ or 50 years. In that period, the experience
that anyone has cannot reasonably say what that
lo
,„ period might be. The need to maintain sites,
semi-annual maintenance.
The next item I have is on reporting.
Many of the reporting intervals for treatment
22
and disposal facilities and I'd like to address
23
this just to those two, eliminating for the
24
moment the storage facilities but concentrating
25
-------
132
I
2 on the treatment of disposal facilities. Many
3 of the intervals we feel are too long and those
4 are the things that we feel need to be addressed.
5 First of all, we feel there should be some
6 more flexibility for the reporting frequency
7 for water quality monitoring data. Especially
8 for the new sites may very well be desireable
9 to, have blank quality monitoring results on
10 a monthly basis instead of a quarterly basis.
11 As experience is gained, the length of time
12 or the frequency could be decreased possibly to
13 require something less frequent than quarterly
14 reports as we get down the road. The point is,
this particular aspect needs more flexibility
lO
,, than the regulation currently will allow.
lo
I believe I discussed yesterday about
reporting for generators trying to come up with
lo
.„ a system of eliminating the annual report. I
believe the same thing applies to the storage
or collection as the treatment and disposal
21
facility.
22
An annual report is just not frequent
23
enough to provide data on what wastes are being
24
disposed. We would suggest that a report
25
-------
133
1
2 summarizing manifest situations be submitted on
3 a quarterly basis.
4 There needs to be some reference to
5 immediate response reporting to accidental
6 discharges, to spills, things of immediate
7 concern from an environmental standpoint.
8 Surface water monitoring reports seem to
9 be treated very lightly in the proposed
jO regulations and we certainly would like to see
jj surface water monitoring and reporting more
12 frequently on a somewhat specified basis.
13 Presently, reporting the volume of waste being
14 stored at treatment and disposal facilities
15 is not required. One of the things which has
,, given us a great deal of concern is the amount of
._ waste material that has been stored out at some
,„ of these facilities. A facility operates for
lo
19
a period of time, takes in a great deal of waste
material some of which it can't process,
sits out there in somewhat of storage - I use
21
the term rather loosely. We would like to see
22
a requirement to indicate how much waste material
23
is stored at any particular time in .a treatment
24
or disposal facility. The location of where
25
-------
134
1
2 wastes are disposed in a secured landfill,
3 indicating the volume and the nature be
4 documented and submitted on a quarterly basis.
5 What we require for our secure land burial
6 sites is a three-dimensional grid system where
7 the operator fo the facility maintains records
8 of where that waste material goes within that
9 three-dimensional grid system and that report
JQ which is in the form of a compoter printout is
jj then submitted on a specified basis.
12 The next comment I would like to make
j-j deals with liquids. The regulations do not
.. categorically ban liquids from being landfill.
The operation of our hazardous waste program
ID
in New York does specifically ban disposal of
16
liquids. We do not allow the disposal of any
free liquids in bulk going into the landfill nor
do we allow liquids in drums going into the
landfill. We surely believe that any liquid
20
waste that can be treated in some manner or can
21
be incinerated should receive that kind of
22
treatment and should not go into a hole in the
23
ground. That is our philosophy and I believe
24
the precedent has been established for at least
25
-------
135
1
2 one waste material by EPA. The regulation,
3 as I read them, would be somewhat contradictory
4 to the requirements established now for PCV
5 waste. Those regulations do not allow the
6 taking of a liquid PCV waste and converting it
7 by any means into a solid so it could be put
8 into a landfill. It must be treated as a liquid
9 and disposed of as a liquid. Unfortunately,
10 we don't haveany facilities in the country to
U dispose of it yet, but that's the philosophy
12 being used. We subscribe to that.
13 Wastes which are already in liquid form,
14 many of them are acqueous wastes, they can be
treated, there are threatment facilities
16
17
15
capable of doing this. Liquid wastes which are
combustible should be combustible. Other means
should be used, short of solidification of
18
these wastes, so they can be put into the hole
in the ground.
20
The design requirements for secure land
variable facilities.
22
The requirements for design one and design
23
two for secure land variable facilites are
24
insufficient to adequately accomplish the
25
-------
136
* stated goals in the regulations, namely, zero
3 discharge to the environment. I am talking
4 about container disposal, as we use it here,
5 eliminating anything escaping the system.
6 Design one with the minimum in thickness
7 of the natural clay should be increased from
8 five feet to ten feet and a membrane liner
9 should also be required. Again, I'm reflecting
10 the design of the facility located in the State
11 of New York. You look at ten feet of clay-type
12 material at least five feet of which must ha,ve
13 a ten to the minus seventh of natural-in place
14 material - at least five feet of that must
15 have at least a ten to the minus seventh or less
16 permiability clay liner - correction, membrane
17 liner, then protected with two feet of additional
lg compacting clay. That is the design we use for
19 the sites in New York.
2Q We question the basic premise on design
two. Placing complete reliance on man-made
structures at this time will not rely on the
22
consequences given the state of the art. We
believe that the hydrology of natural soils in
24
the site shquld be our backup system. Design
-------
137
2 number two, as I understand it, would allow
3 a membrane liner, a membrane liner of
4 questionable life. I question the overall
5 philosophy of that type of design. The
6 leachate detection system shows the escape of
7 contaminants, again I'm speaking of Design
8 number two - corrective action could be necessary
9 with the hydrology of the site. This corrective
10 action would be very expensive and possibly
U technically impossible. There are many
12 additional concerns with regard to this section
13 which we will acknowledge in interesting
14 written comments.
15 The next comments deal with inactive
jg facilities and I recognize that we have some
17 problems in doing something with the inactive
jo or abandoned d^osal sites.
j9 We do have a number of concerns some of
- which have been discussed, but I'd like to
bring them out again.
EPA's approach has been insufficient to
22
deal with the serious nature of the problem.
23
In terms of protecting the human health,
24
it does rrt make sense to treat new facilities so
25
-------
138
1
2 stringently and then depends solely (inaudible).
3 As a minimum, we feel regulations should do a
4 number of things: On a selective basis require
5 hazardous waste generators to report on blank
6 disposal drums. I'd like to amplify that a
7 little. This is something we are currently doing
8 now in New York State. Where we have reason
9 to have major concern on past actions, past
10 disposal practices for a given industry, we
,, are trying to obtain information concerning
12 what wastes were disposed, when and where and
13 how. One thing we have learned is that the
,x initial response is that we don't have any of
that information, but with further discussions
lo
it is amazing how much information can be
16
produced. Requires a minimum that the current
property owner of old sites which contain
18
hazardous wastes of serious concern conducts
19
hydrogeologic studies; compare drum-water
20
quality with surface-water quality work if
21
necessary and air-quality work if necessary.
22
The regulations should contain minimum
23
design criteria for inadequate liner disposal.
24
Those things give us great deal of concern.
25
-------
139
1
2 In dealing with the inactive disposal
3 site, the current laws and regulations, state
4 and federal, we really can't do much about
5 making corrections to these old sites until
5 we can show there is a health problem; until
7 we can show there is an air pollution problem;
§ untilve can show there is a water pollution
-------
140
1
2 chemical properties. Immediate cover material
3 placed around certain wastes should be tailored
4 to match the properties a little bit; heavy
5 metal waste surrounded by lime-bearing waste
6 materials would work fine. We require that
7 our waste materials be segregated in secure
8 landfill sites and the sites, themselves, be
9 segregated into sub cells. We have a metal-type
10 waste unit for one cell, other metal-type
11 wastes going into what we call our pseudo cell
12 going into another cell, organic material and
13 so on. The intent of these provisions would be
14 to reduce operational hazards, to minimize
j5 future liabilities presented by the site by
j£ maintaining a leachability of the waste
,_ components and by having a waste - a reasonably
.„ stable physical and chemical form.
j,j Again, by segregating, you have then the
provision which you need to extract leachate
from the system which is undoubtedly going to
collect at the bottom of these bathtubs.
22
Leachate must be extracted from the site and
23
segregated according to the general categories
24
of waste and leachates can receive the type of
25
-------
141
1
2 treatment that they need to receive.
3 One final point, I would like to
4 reemphasize the point Commissioner Flacke
5 made on Wednesday. That is, we really see
6 the definite need to do something now to start
7 phasing out the disposal by burial in the
8 ground of organic waste material. We should
9 be working towards a program that will phase
10 out (inaudible) and phase in incineration or
11 some other type of detoxifiction.
12 We will be submitting many more detailed
13 comments in our written comments and I will try
14 to answer any questions you may have.
15 MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
jg MR. LINDSEY: One of the areas which you
17 addressed was what you call the inadequacy of
,0 the deisgn criteria for the landfills, for
lo
,„ example. You claim they are not adequate to
do the task.
In developing these designs, I guess I
did say all our information indicates that they
22
should be satisfactory to do the task, the
23
most important facet or purpose of it, I guess,
24
of the in-place soil or the liner which is under
25
-------
142
1
2 the site is to protect the subsurface strata
3 during the life of the site and post-closure
4 you add the additional protection - which I
5 think you pointed out - of preventing the
6 infiltration of liquids from the surface
7 water - surface and thus prevent the generation
g of leachate.
g However, while we have no information
which indicates that the design criteria which
we have used creates a problem, if you do -
2 preferably, examples of where design criteria
j, similar to these have been used and failed,
that would be most interesting to us because,
as of now, all information we have indicates
that this type of design is satisfactory.
16
MR. GODDARD: I have a number of
17
comments here.
18
One is, you are under the unenviable
position of trying to put together designs that
20
can be used on a nationwide basis. Design number
21
two may be adequate in other more arrid areas
22
of the country or outlying, but not so good in
23
the north. Being able to establish or to
24
produce documentation of problems that would
25
-------
143
1
2 result in different designs, I'm not sure
3 anyone can do that. We don't have a long track
4 record on designing of waste lands. I am
5 speaking from what we believe and what I have
6 spoken to within our agency/ best engineering
7 judgment. Should rely on some of these other
8 things of man-made, still unproven technology
9 or should we rely more upon the natural,
jO in-place soil? The point I am trying to make
jj is, let's rely more on the natural clay-type
12 material and less on the membrane liners.
13 MR. FIELDS: Mr. Goddard, two questions.
14 A couple of your comments indicate that
,_ you would recommend EPA ban, for example, phase
1J
,, out organic landfills and should not allow
ID
bulk liquids or liquids in drums to go into
the landfill or environment. You recommended
18
this be banned.
Our regulations, as you know, do
discourage these things going in the landfill
21
environment. We recommend that they be
22
treated.
23
One thing might be different regarding
24
RCRA and your authority is that we cannot write
25
-------
144
1
2 standards that ban something unless we believe
3 that that ban is necessary to prevent danger to
4 human health and the environment. If the waste
5 cannot be safely disposed of in a landfill,
6 that option has to be allowed.
7 MR. GODDARD: Our mandate is necessary to
8 safeguard and protect.
9 MR. FIELDS: Our standards are supposed
IQ to do that.
„ Is your comment that you don't believe
j2 that our standards actually protect human
j^ health and environment or just that it's
14 better to ban these things. I'm not sure.
MR. GODDARD: Two comments, I think.
1J
The first, I think you really have two
lo
questions. One is banning the liquids going
into a landfill. We feel that by putting a
18
material which is already in liquid form
adds immediately to what material can end up
in leachate which will need further treatment
21
you will need something to absorb these liquids.
22
In addition to what water may enter the system
23
from the natural occurring water surrounding the
24
sites, what percolates through the cover material,
25
-------
145
1
2 I'm convinced that even with five feet of clay
3 which will have a certain amount of percolation,
4 we are dealing with sites that will be there for
5 many decades. We're for taking as much liquid
6 out of that system as possible. The same thing
7 for the organic materials. The organic
8 materials, such as those that do not readily
9 break down, it makes very little sense for us
.„ to put them into some type of holding structure,
clay-lined site where they are still there over
a period of time. Something could still break
13 dOWn'
Maybe ten years from now we will know a lot
more about technology of secure land burial sites.
It makes more sense to us to start now destroying
these materials instead of holding them where they
are going to be there forever more.
18
MR. FIELDS: The other question is
19
regarding your comments that we should have
20
limits on the quantities of waste stored at a
21
facility. We looked at this option prior to
22
proposing our regulations on storage.
23
Do you have any information as to how to
24
go about setting up limits for storage of wastes
25
-------
146
1
2 at facilities?
3 MR. GODDARD: I don't have numbers in mind.
4 I think it can be related to the design capacity
5 or operational capacity of the treatment and
6 disposal facility. It would be very difficult
7 to establish a set limit that no facility could
8 store no more than so many drums, so many tons.
9 Gear it to the system.
JQ What we're worried about. We have one
case to illustrate. A facility capable of
,o handling a relatively small volume of materials
13 but accepting wastes in much larger volume than
,. they could possibly hope to accommodate.
The end result is that the drums keep
piling up and up and up and in one case the
16
firm went out of business and now we are left
with a huge number of drums.
MR. LINDSEY: We have heard, Charlie, from
you and from others concerning the 20-year limit
20
for post-closure you are monitoring. I have to
21
admit this has been a point of concern and
22
discussion during the development of these
23
regulations by all of us I think the problem
24
here is that - and I'd like you to comment
25
-------
147
1
2 after I lay it out - while it might be
3 desireable to mandate the post-closure, you
4 are monitoring, if you will, ad infinitum.
5 Our information shows that to do that would
6 run the costs, that is the price which would
7 have to be charged in order to set up a fund
8 sufficient to accomplish that, during the life
9 of a site to such levels that the charge required
10 would be very, very large and our fear here is
U that if that were to occur and we were to
12 mandate that sort of thing, that, in fact, what
13 we'd be doing is - illicit dumping would be
14 an extremely - beomce an option which would
„ become much more attractive.
., So we ended up with the 20 years based
on our belief that our design criteria, coupled
with the degree of monitoring we are requiring,
18
that we should be able to tell within 20 years
whether or not the material is moving and
20
moving at any pace which is going to pose any
21
sort of problem. Thus, within that 20 year
22
time, we shouH know that and if we don't, our
23
thinking is that we probably have - believe we
24
have a site then that has integrity.
25
-------
148
I
2 I would apprecaite any comments on that.
3 I am not really that familiar with New York's
4 approach and the approach which you use. Maybe
5 you don't have that in your regulations at this
6 point, I'm not sure. If you do, we'd like to
7 hear about yours or ideas. I'd like to know
8 that, too because it's a matter of concern.
9 MR. GODDARD: I always have a few ideas
jO and comments on what you are talking about. I
II think we heard earlier about doing something
12 more with additional legislation that would
13 address the continued monitoring and maintenance
14 for post-closure. Maybe we need to tie these
15 things together. I think we need to recognize
j, that there has to be a certain amount of
._ monitoring when you extend beyond a 20 year
time. We're going to have drums that will
lo
„ continue to break down over the period of many
years. We are dealing with soils with a very
slow permiability rate, ten to the minus seventh
and it's easier to understand in terms of about
22
an inch a year. Takes, in other words, it's
23 *
going to take a number of years for something
24
possibly to show up where we may be monitoring.
25
-------
149
I
2 I think what I am saying is that we need to
3 recognize that there is a need but there needs to
^ be a longer period of time addressed. The
5 responsibility for carrying out that monitoring
6 or maintenance may shift at some point.
7 MR. LINDSEY: Your thrust then would be
g to take a post-closure liability and remedial
^ action idea that we have been talking about
off and on here, legislative proposal, if you
wiil, and have that address, perhaps this
problem after 20 years. Something along those
13
Our thoughts are that as long as the
facility is designed and operated according
lo
to the way it should have been done, according
lo
to the regulations maintained, the monitoring
a nd maintenance of it for a specified period
18
of time.
19
MS. SCHAEFER: Question relates to something
20
y ou said that New York was doing concerning
21
requiring generators to report on previous
22
disposal activities.
23
Is that an enforceable requirement? Are
24
you able to get this information?
25
-------
150
1
2 MR. GODDARD: Under some special
3 provisions of New York State's environmental
4 conservation law, our commissioner does have
5 the authority to require this information where
6 he feels it is needed to carry out the program.
7 It's in the general provisions of the law
8 which does set up the ability to subpoena
9 certain records and this kind cf thing, if
10 necessary.
11 It was not found necessary to do that.
12 As long as the industry knows that that power
13 is out there, it's more willing to provide that
j4 information. I am not suggesting that this is
._ something that needs to be done across the
j, board. I say this is something that needs to
._ be addressed where a need is found necessary.
MS. SCHAEFER: One last question. You
Io
-n said that you also do certain minimal design
criteria for active sites. Is New York State
doing that now?
21
MR. GODDARD: I say that is an inadequacy
22
in our regulations as well as it was at the
23
federal level.
34
MS. SCHAEFER: We do not have under solid
25
-------
151
1
2 waste laws the ability to go back and cause
3 corrections to be made to existing inactive
4 disposal sites unless we can define a water
5 pollution or air pollution problem.
6 MR. GODDARD: I say that is too late.
7 Let's do something now about providing cover to
8 prevent that kind of thing from happening.
9 MS. SCHAEFER: Do you think that should be
jO a financial responsibility of the government
11 or what happens if the facility is no longer
12 owned by the company that originally done it?
13 The company had gone out of business, something
14 like that?
MR. GODDARD: That is a very interesting
JD
., topic and one that we are very much entaiglpd with
17 on a number of fronts. We are dealing with
responsibility. Our first line of attack is
lo
.- the current property owner. Where we see some
correctional that needs to be taken, our only
choice is to go to the current property owner.
If he does not feel that is equitable, he has an
22
option to go to the previous owner or try to
recover damages in some other way. Unless we
24
can twist some arms somewhere else, legally, our
25
-------
152
1
2 first choice is the land of the current property
3 owner I agree is not always fair.
4 MS. DARRAH: Thanks for coming.
5 We shall reconvene at 1:45 p.m.)
6 (Whereupon, a luncheon break was taken
7 at 12:10 p.m.)
8 (Whereupon, the hearing reconvened at
9 1:45 p.m.)
10 MS. DARRAH: We have five more people who
11 have asked us to speak. I am not sure how many
12 of them are here.
13 Is Mr. Michael Dunay here?
14 (No response)
,, MS. DARRAH: Is Regina Seltzer here?
,, Mr. C. David Loeks?
._ Ms. Catherine D. Seelman?
10 Mr. Gary Ford?
lo
j9 (No response)
MS. DARRAH: Is there anyone else in the
a udience who would like to offer us some
comments on this Section 3004 regulations?
22
Please give your name and affiliation.
23
MR. ANDERSON: My name is Paul Anderson.
24
I am an engineer for the American Power Service
25
-------
153
1
2 Corp.
3 I have approximately three years
4 experience in the instruction of coal-fired
5 plants. My comments, however, are general
6 industry applicable.
7 I would like to address your line of
8 requirements for your landfill, 3004. In the
9 3004, you specify liner or design several
10 alternatives and you note owner facility
11 equivalency which is likely to cause a problem.
12 Because of the differences in climate in
13 different geological areas that are going to
14 be coming to the EPA with equivalent designs.
]5 However, looking through the regulations, there
16 is really no basis for equivalency. I notice
-_ that all the requirements are given in terms of
permiability and thickness. That is a design
lo
.„ criteria, not a performance criteria. The
proper criteria would be the performance criteria
such as seapage. Unless your material has
infinite permiability, I think what EPA has done
22
in its own mind is determine what an
23
acceptable release rate or seapage rate would
24
be and then, working backwards, came up with
25
-------
154
1
2 their criteria. I also note that the do state
3 that they do not want to (unintelligible)
4 In summary, the EPA should be specifying
5 a performance criteria rather than design. The
6 only reasonable approach I see to this would be
7 seapage rate rather than permiability. So far
8 as logistics and specifying, we would
9 probably have to take so many cubic feet per day
10 per square yard or so many feet per year per
II landfill area. The public does not like to hear
12 of seapage or nuclear power plants. The public
]3 doesn't like to hear about the possibility of
j4 failure.
-._ To make things a little simpler for the
,, small customer, we could go with the regulations
,_ as they stand unless he deserves to make his own
-„ design using a seapage-type of analysis.
19 MS. DARRAH: Thank you.
Will you answer questions?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
21
MR. LINDSEY: Originally, we had the same
22
appraoch, basically, that we would like to be
£d
able to regulate to such an extent that we
24
could specify, for example, an allowable
25
-------
155
1
2 concentration of various materials into the
3 ground water. Then, backtracking up you could
4 set some sort of a seap^ge rate. We found we
5 were unable to bottle the movement with
6 sufficient amount of detail reliably to
7 determine what maximum concentration might
8 end in the ground water. Thus, we took an
9 appraoch in design standards that we hares here
10 which would minimize - ten years to minimize the
11 seapage rate, if you will, the escape of
12 materials to such a point that it will be
13 undetectible. This is not done totally through
14 the linerte position. As we indicated this
15 morning, one must look long term to preventing
jg the infiltration of liquids into the fill to
17 the point that this driving head is not filled
jg up. That is the idea behind the trapping
j9 approach.
2n I think Mr. Goddard indicated that perhaps
the amount of tap which is used should be greater
to ensure that does not happen. That is the
intent. It is not one simply of relying on the
permiability of a bottom liner.
24
You did mention two problems and that is
25
-------
156
I
2 both of them surrounding the same situation.
3 That is not being able to tell whether EPA
4 will approve an alternative approach and not
5 being able to know what the criteria is for
6 determining what is an equivalent approach.
7 The equivalency is an equivalency in containment,
g being able to calculate based on the alternative
g design that the entire design will, in fact,
not yield a seapage rate which will be
detected.
- The problem with knowing is a difficult
.., one. Knowing ahead of time, for example,
before you come to talk to EPA as you, I think,
you put it. The only thing I could express
•(here would be in that case the best would be to
16
design it according to the design standards.
Then you would not have to worry about this,
18
but we did not want to close off alternative
19
designs.
20
Would another approach be, in your opinion,
21
to set out on a series of designs that would be
22
acceptable?
23
MR. ANDERSON: Rather extensive list of
24
alternatives taking into account different
25
-------
157
1
2 regulations, all areas of the country, where
3 you're likely to find natural materials and
4 certain solutions might be economically
5 feasible.
6 MR. LINDSEY: If we were to say, for
7 example, as an alternative to that the only
8 thing you have to do is submit a design to
9 EPA which would have a seapage rate that is
10 non-detectible. The only trouble with that is
11 it seems to me it would be very difficult.
12 It would require an infinite set of designs.
13 One would have to be made on every facility as
14 to whether or not this particular design yielded
j5 a zero seapage. We are in the hopes that most
j£ people will choose to design the facilities
Yj according to the standards we have here, but
,„ we don't want to close off the alternative.
jo MR. ANDERSON: I am assuming then that you
„_ are taking the a-proach that the design you have
indicated will give us seapage of zero or
undetectible .seapage.
MR. LINDSEY: In the aggragate, not
£-J
simply the bottom liner itself, but including
the capping and including landfills, yes.
-------
158
1
2 They are designed to maximum containment.
3 I think you pointed out, however, a point
4 which is made to us from time to time, that there
5 is no such thing as zero escape, no such thing
g as a perfectly safe grid and so on. That is
7 true. We are talking about cutting this down to
g a point where the escape rate is non-detectible.
9 MR. ANDERSON: Using that as a basis for
equivalency?
MR. LINDSEY: The only other alternative
we can see regulatory-wise is to try to predict
, what seapage rate would be permissable and no
exceed some sort of ground water limits. We
could sort of set maybe drinking water standards,
ID
something like that, trying to predict the
16
attenuation, if you will of various materials
in the soil we just came to the conclusion that
18
we did not have the - we, as a nation, did not
19
have the expertise to do that in a satisfactory
20
manner so we went to a maximum containment and
21
that's where we are now.
22
You have some other alternatives we could
23
consider in terms of regulating - -
24
MR. ANDERSON: Are you considering coming
25
-------
159
1
2 up with a different alternative design?
3 MR. LINDSEY: In addition to these two?
4 MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
5 MR. LINDSEY: Someone this morning
6 recommended that maybe we should have a series
7 of six or so and I can't say at this point that
8 we know what they should be. The other
9 alternative - we certainly would be happy
10 to receive any suggestions.
11 Let me ask you this. If we came up
12 with, say, six alternative designs, should we
13 do away with the notes and require everyone to
14 take one of the six?
MR. ANDERSON: No. Because I doubt in
1 tJ
those six that you would find an option that
lo
is suitable for every situation.
MR. LINDSEY: If you have any alternatives,
18
we'd be happy - design alternatives. We'd be
happy to consider them.
20
MR. ANDERSON: Essentially, what you are
21
saying is that we'd have to wait until such time
22
as we are far enough along in time to
23
compare the equivalency with your maximum
24
containment or undetectible - -
25
-------
160
1
2 MR. LINDSEY: Yes. Unless you choose one
3 of these two approaches and design according to
4 those which you could do. Then you wouldn't
5 have to demonstrate anything except design it
5 according to those design standards.
7 MR. ANDERSON: At that point, if we want
§ to perform some sort of difficult infiltration
9 test - -
MR. LINDSEY: With a different approach?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MR. LINDSEY: You could do that and we
.» would listen. If we were convinced we would
permit that.
MS. DARRAH: There are no more questions?
15
Thank you very much.
16
Is there anyone else who wants to speak
this afternoon?
18
(No response)
19
MS. DARRAH: We will close the record of
20
this hearing and we will pass out cards. If
21
anyone has any questions they'd like to address,
22
particularly on 3004, we will try to answer them.
23
MR. LEHMAN: I will start off. We have
24
two questions.
25
-------
161
1
2 Question: What is the EPA's estimate
3 of the number of permitted sites that will be
^ available and in operation at the time of
5 implementation of the regulations?
6 MR. LEHMAN: I indicated earlier on
- that the regulations are required under Court
g Order to be promulgated no later than December
a 31st, of this year. Statutes specify that the
regulations go into effect six months thereafter.
Therefore, we are talking in terms of the regula-
12 tions being effective approximately June of 1980
.,, so I assume that is the time discussed here, time
of implementation of the regulations.
The number of permitted sites that will be
15
available and in operation at the time of
16
implementation is keyed to Section 3005 E of
the statute which specifies that any facility
18
which was in operation at the time of passage
of the Act, that the opeartor has notified EPA
20
under Section 3010 and has submitted a permit
21
application is, by the statute, granted interum
22
status to continue operations. In other words,
23
there will be no permitted sites in operation -
24
no federally permitted sites in operation at the
25
-------
162
1
2 time of implementation of regulations. However,
3 there will be a large number of sites. We
4 would presume most sites that are in operation
5 today will continue in operation under the
6 interum status provision of the law. They will
7 continue in interum status until such time as
8 the permit application is processed by EPA or
9 by the State if the State is operating the
10 program and at which time a permit will be
1] issued.
12 Permit regulations - which is not under
13 discussion here today, but I will just say -
14 permit regulations does recognize that there
!_ will be a need for compliance schedules, a time
., to reach full compliance with the standards in
the regulations and we are anticipating that
a maximum time for compliance will be set at
18
approximately three years.
So the upshot of all this is that
facilities which are in existence today and
21
which do notify and which do make permit
22
applications are allowed by the statute to
23
continue to operate in this transition period
24
from the time the regulations go into effect
25
-------
163
1
2 until a permit is issued and then, in addition
3 to that, it is recognized that it will take
4 some time for facilities to achieve total
5 compliance with the standards.
6 EPA's estimate for the number of those
7 facilities? We really don't know how many total
8 facilities will be involved in that structure.
9 That we will find out in the period suffice it
jO to say that every on-site treatment storage or
11 disposal facility or off-site treatment and
12 storage disposal facility expected to continue in
13 operation will notify EPA and will apply for a
14 permit. We anticipate that the majority of the
... sites that are doing those things now will go
16
through the notification and send applications
processed and will therefore continue to operate
during this interum status period.
18
The upshot of all this is that Congress did
anticipate a transition period between current
practice and practice which will be with those
21
standards. That is what this interum status is
22
all about.
23
I hope that adequately answers that question.
24
The second part of the question is:
25
-------
164
1
2 Question: When can permitting
3 applications be expected to be received and
4 what is the average period for processing an
5 application?
6 MR. LEHMAN: Here, again, these questions
7 relate to 3005 which specifies various types
8 of things but the statute requires for permitting
9 applications must be submitted to the regulatory
10 authority whether it be EPA or the State within
11 six months after the promulgation of the
12 regulations. In other words, assuming these
13 regulations are promulgated in December of -
14 '79 - all permit applications must be completed
jc and submitted to the regulatory authorities
,, before June of 1980. So, it is during that
._ period, we would expect to receive permit
,„ applications.
lo
,„ I might also point out that the permit
regulations as they are currently drafted call
for a two-part permit application; part A and
part B. Part A would be submitted during this
22
180-day period and would satisfy the requirements
£>j
of Section 3005E to achieve interum status. At
24
the time the permitting authority, whether it
25
-------
165
I
2 be EPA or the State is ready to proceed with the
3 permitting procedures, the applicant would be
4 requested to submit Part B of the application
5 which conatins more detailed information than
6 Part A does, but suffices to say that the draft
7 regulations specifies in detail was required
8 to be submitted in Part A and Part B.
9 The second part of that second question
JQ was what is the average period of processing
., for an application?
^2 Now, that of course we don't have any
^3 experience with. We have not started that
I4 program yet and this is, of course, subject to
how the final permitting regulations are
lO
promulgated.
16
But we have made some estimates about
processing period, if you will, for applications
18
and we find that it is rather lengthy because
of the due process requirements of the
Administrative SRS Act, an opportunity
21
for public law in the permanent process. Our
22
first estimate - Fred, correct me if I'm wrong -
23
would probably be a minimum of nine months. Is
24
that correct?
25
-------
166
1
2 MR. LINDSEY: For what?
3 MR. LEHMAN: Permit application for
4 processing. Fred has the answer. He is more
5 familiar with it.
6 MR. LINDSEY: I don't have firm figures,
7 but our estimate is for very simple permits -
8 storage facilities, primarily - that generate
9 no opposition, if you will, to the permit in the
10 public sector
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
-167-
1
2 The hearings thus - hearing mechanisms
3 on the due process steps might thus not
4 be triggered and that could possibly be
5 handled, I believe in, figure about three
6 or four months.
7 On the other hand, if all the steps
8 are followed and there is a contingent from
9 someone that the permit should not be granted
10 or we decide not to grant the permit and the
11 applicant decides to press the issue through
12 the due process steps and all the due process
13 steps are followed up, that could take a year
14 or so. The time it takes is generally due to
15 the due process steps; the hearings and chance
16 for people to write briefs and so on.
17 Questiont "Givent Closed site with
18 leachshate collection and disposal system" -
19 in other words, an abandoned site,
20 presumably an old site, but one which someone
21 is collecting the leachshate from and disposing
22 of it.
23 The question is, does this become an active
24 site as "disposal" is interpreted on page 58984
25 under "applicability of standards to inactive
-------
-168-
1
2 facilities"?
3 I think that's kind of an unusual "what
4 if" situation, it seems to me, but I think
5 in that situation/ the leachshate itself, which
6 is listed as hazardous would thus be - have
7 to be handled as hazardous waste and the
8 disposal of that leachshate would require
9 a permit in that case and, if you were going
10 to move it around, you'd probably have to
II have it manifested and so forth.
12 Questioni "Please explain the meaning
13 of the rationale behind 250.45-6 (g)"
14 MR. LIMDSEYi This, incidentally, for
15 those of you who don't have this thing right
15 before you is one of the standards for "chemical,
17 physical and biological treatment facilities,"
18 and it reads this wayt "A facility which
19 continuously feeds hazardous waste into the
20 treatment process shall be equijped with an
2i automatic waste food cutoff or a by-pass
22 system which is activated when a malfunction
23 in the treatment process occurs ."
24 I should first point out that automatic
25 food cutoffs is a typo. That should be
-------
-169-
1
2 automatic waste feed cutoff and the minor
3 modifications that will b« advertised in
4 the Federal Register within the next couple
5 of days will correct that. That's just a
6 misprint.
7 I'm not sure that that is what this
8 person is relating to, that Misprint. Rather,
9 I think he may be looking for something more
10 than that and I will see if I can answer it.
11 I should preface this, I guess, by saying
12 that writing physical standards for chemical,
13 physical and biological treatment facilities
14 is difficult at best. The problem is that
15 they tend to be designed for a given, specific
16 waste and are not normally applicable to a
17 beoad range of different wastes. So that in
18 the end you end up with a situation where you
19 have a specific unit process being designed to
20 handle a specific waste stream. Thus, the
21 standards we write here are rather general,
22 or tend to be rather general.
23 What we're getting at under (g) is that
24 most of the tine when you are treating wastes,
25 you are usually trying to detoxify or destroy
-------
-170-
1
2 the waste in some fashion. That is normally
3 the intent of what is going on although it
4 also may be volume reduction.
5 When you are trying to detoxify or destroy,
6 if something goes wrong, there's an upset in
7 the system.- the temperatures vary, the
8 pressures vary or whatever the critical
9 parameters are - frequently, that leads to
10 a reduction in the efficiency of the system
11 which has been designed here, reduction in
12 the efficiency of what we are trying to do.
13 What we are talking about doing under
14 (g) here is providing a sensing system or
15 a monitoring system, automatic system for
16 that particular unit process, tank system
17 or pressure vessel or whatever it happens
IS to be on which this is being conducted which
19 will automatically cut off the pump or
20 activate a by-pass system or in some other
2] way prevent the production of waste out the
22 other end which does not meet the design
23 requirements. That is, does not have the
24 destruction efficiency or whatever it is we
25 are trying to do
-------
-171-
1
2 This is written in big print so I think
3 the person must be unhappy about this:
4 Question: "What evidence supports the
5 general designation of all petroleum refinery
6 waste as hazardous waste?"
7 Mft. LXMDSBYt The answer is that I don't
8 believe all refinery wastes have been designated
9 as hazardous waste. If you look under 250.14,
10 there is a list of, I think, seven petroleum
11 refinery wastes which our information indicates
12 are to be considered hazardous and that's on
13 page 58959 you will see the designations after
14 those particular wastes, you will see the
15 little letters after there which, in the
16 broad sense provides the rationale that was
17 used.
18 Now, to get after the rationale for a
19 listing in depth, what you have to do is take
20 a look at the rationale for each one of those -
21 there's a rationale for each one of those -
22 in the specific background document that
23 supports this listing. And the place in which
24 you get hold of one of those is the regional
25 office - any of the regional offices or the
-------
-172-
1
2 headquarters' libraries, complete sets of
3 these background documents.
4 Off the top of my head, and the people
5 who are here, we don't keep all that rationale
6 in our minds, it's because in some cases it's
7 toxic or it's ignitable or whatever the
8 characteristics here are, in the broad sense,
9 but to get into the details of that, you'd
10 have to go to those background documents.
11 Question! "Is an on-site industrial
12 liquid waste water treatment facility regulated
13 by an NPDES permit classified as a hazardous
14 waste treatment storage or disposal facility?"
15 MR. LINDSEYi The answer to that is that
16 it could be and it could be under a couple of
17 conditions and I will tell you what they are.
18 If such an effluent treatment train -
19 the discharge, X should probably add - if that
20 effluent treatment train has a leaching lagoon
2i or pond or basin of some sort as part of the
22 train - settle something in there, a large
23 spot in the line or whatever it is - and that
24 is leaching and it contains a waste which
25 would fail the characteristics here, under
-------
-173-
1
2 3,001i then it would require a pemit under
3 this set ef regulations.
4 Questioni "Is a waste product a hazardous
5 waste if it fails the extraction procedure
6 test but is not stored for more than 90
7 days and is sold to a reclaimer for recycling
8 of a valuable product contained in the waste?"
9 MR. LINDSEYt You don't fail the
10 extraction procedure test. The extraction
11 procedure is just a technique to COM up with
12 a liquid that is then tested. We went through
13 several times in the last few days the rationale
14 for that. You end up with an extract that has
15 a higher concentration of the material that
16 is listed here in Section 250.13.
17 Nevertheless, that is not the point of
18 the question. The point of the question is,
19 suppose we fail that, but it's less than 90
20 days - we store it less than 90 days - and
21 we recycle it; is it a hazardous waste?
22 The answer is yes* it is. It will be a
23 hazardous waste. You are not a concentrator
24 which Mans you don}t have any of the
25 procedures that generators have to go through
-------
-174-
1
2 and are not incumbent upon you.
3 MR. FIELDS: The first question I have
4 here isi
5 Question! "If a lagoon is t»ed for solids
6 dropout, the supernatant overflowing for
7 liquid treatment and the solids build up over
8 a period of one to two years before being
9 mucked out and removed; how does this interact
10 with the 90-day storage period?"
11 MR. FIELDSt First of all, the 90-day
12 storage period only applies to the storage
13 of hazardous waste by a generator on-site
14 which is shipping off site within a 90 day
15 period. If that waste is going to be retained
16 on-site for a period greater than 90 days, that
17 generator would need a storage permit - probably
IS in this case, a treatment permit for that lagoon
19 that was being used to treat these wastes. Of
20 course, if he took it out of the lagoon and
2i shipped off site, it would have to comply
22 with the manifest requirements and would have
23 to be permitted for the shipment off site.
24 That is the relationship.
25
Since it's going to be retained on-site
-------
-175-
1
2 for at least two years, in this case the
3 90-day exemption would not apply to them.
4 Question! "For inside 'utility wastes*
5 if determined hazardous, would stabilization
6 of fly ash or scrubber sludge be considered
7 as an acceptable liner if it meets the ten
8 to the minus seven criterion?"
9 "Also, for a compacted fly ash fill with
10 a height in excess of one hundred feet and
11 in-place permeMkiltty of 10 to the minus fifth,
12 will any consideration be given to limiting
13 requirements for liner?"
14 MR. FIELDS» I think, as Pred indicated
15 earlier, we, at this time, are not applying
16 to any of the utility wastes which are
17 determined to be hazardous under 3,001 and in
18 accordance with our Section 250.46-10, we will
19 not be applying any of the storage treatment
20 or disposal at this time. He will be initiating
2i contract studies very shortly and within the
22 next few years we hope to propose substantive
23 control and economic studies.
24 So, at this time, we have not decided how
25 we will regulate in terms of control technology
-------
-176-
1
2 standards; fly ash, stiawberry sludge, et
3 cetera. I want to defer any evaluation until
4 the agency comes to a decision as to whether
5 this is acceptable or not.
6 Question: "Are background documents on
7 the development of design criteria for hazardous
8 waste landfills, surface impoundments, et cetera
9 available for public review? If so, where?"
10 MR. FIELDSt The answer is yes, these
11 background documents on all of our standards
12 are available. We have indicated in our
13 promo that these documents are available for
14 public inspection in the ten EPA regional
15 office libraries and available in the EPA
16 library at headquarters in Washington, D.C.
17 If someone wants to see th« rationale, the
18 alternatives, the landfill regulationsj these
19 background documents are available for review.
20 Questions "Are design and construction
2i requirements for new facilities the same for
22 landfills or impoundments in an area over an
23 'underground non-drinking water source1?"
24 "If the answer is yes, then, will
variances be made for existing facilities
-------
-177-
1
2 which do not meet engineering and design
3 requirements for underground non-drinking
4 water source?"
5 MR. FIELDSi For those of you not
6 familiar with the definition of an underground
7 non-drinking water source, an aquifer which
8 is designated as not usable or not being used
9 as a drinking water source at this time.
10 Our design for construction requirements
11 are the same whether it is located in an area
12 over an underground drinking water source of
13 a non-drinking water source. As indicated
14 earlier, our design specifications are based
15 on containment; we do not want leakage from
16 impoundment or landfills so we have written
17 our standards - distinctions are not made
18 between the specifications for underground
19 drinking water sources as opposed to underground
20 non-drinking water sources.
2i In terms of variances, yes, variances are
22 allowed for existing facilities. For example,
23 in the section on surface impoundment we have
24 a note which allows the original administrator
25 to take into account the length of time the
-------
-178-
1
2 surface impoundment has been in use, the
3 probability, the thickness of the wall,
4 et cetera and the regional administrator
5 would be allowed to write permit conditions
6 for that surface impoundment which allowed a
7 variance on it from the designs in our
8 regulations.
9 Question: "Wouldn't administration of
10 the Clean Air Act in conjunction with
11 Section 3001 do away with the need for
12 Section 250.45-1," which is the proposed
13 standards on the incineration of hazardous
14 waste?
15 "If so, why not delete Section 250.45-1?"
16 MR. FIELDS: Well, we've considered the
17 alternative initially in developing our
18 regulations for protecting the air from hazardous
19 waste incineration, the option of just adopting
20 the Clean Air Act requirements. In assessing
21 those requirements, we determined that the
22 Clean Air Act alone was not adequate to protect
23 the human health and environment from hazardous
24 wastes incineration.
25 So the agency made the decision that in
-------
-179-
1
2 terms of the myriad of hazardous waste and
3 the blank facility and those that are going
4 to be de6trusted in incinerators, that the
5 Clean Air Act does not provide the protection
& as needed for all the materials that were
7 going to be burned. So we felt that civic
8 design and operating standards for burning
9 of hazardous organic waste are needed and
10 thus we do not think that just the option
11 of relying on the Clean Air Act is adequate
12 around hazardous waste facilities.
13 i»m not sure how 3001 - how that part of
14 the question comes in there.
15 Questiont "Under NPDES" - that's the
16 national pollutant discharge elimination
17 system - "regulations, SPCC" - that's the
18 spill prevention and conntermeasure control -
19 "plans will be required and best managed
20 practices may be required for, among othen^
21 storage of hazardous materials, wastes, et cetera.
22 Will the RCRA" - I guess that's us - "group
23 coordinate with NPDES group so that only one
24 set of criteria and one permit will be required
25 in this area?"
-------
1
2 MR. FIELDSt We are coordinating our
3 activities with the NPDES people, basically.
4 They're going to be regulating the storage
5 of hazardous materials and things like this
6 at NPDES' permanent facilities. He will be
7 regulating the storage and treatment of waste
8 at NPDES1 storage facilities And permanent
9 requirements are being coordinated. They
10 will be proposed, I guess - in March or
11 April? A set of consolidated RCRA, NPDES
12 and Safe Drinking Water Act requirements
13 for these type of facilities so we are getting
14 together and coordinating our activities.
15 The last question I have is:
16 Questiont "How will EPA proposals relate
17 to residues are remaining in steel drums
IS earmarked for reconditioning?"
19 "Hill these drums have to be manifested?"
20 MR. FIELDS: I guess the questioner is
2i relating to the storage standards under
22 250.44-2, under (f), where we say, "empty,
23 non-combustible storage containers which
24 previously contained hazardous wastes shall
25 be one or two; transported to an appropriate
-------
-181-
1
2 drum reconditioner with appropriate manifest,
3 as gotten from the discussion earlier - last
4 couple of days and today - the agency we are
5 considering and we will have to coordinate
6 3002. We are different in that regard with
7 the generator requirements regarding recondition-
8 ing and we will have to go back to the drawing
9 board on the reconditioners, how current
10 standards are written.
11 MR. LTNDSEY: The last question I dealt
12 with, I gave the wrong answer and I want to
13 correct it.
14 The second part of that question, just
15 to reiteratet "Is a waste product a hazardous
16 waste if it fails the EP test but is not stored
17 for more than 90 days and is sold to a reclaimer
1$ for recycling of a valuable product contained
19 in the waste?"
20 And I said, yes, it's a waste, but the
2i person is not a generator, and that's not the
22 right answer.
23 The right answer, if you look under
24 250.10 (b) is that, "Among other discarded
25 material which is used in conjunction with
-------
-182-
1
2 solid waste is not a material which is -
3 means any material which is not reused,
4 meaning abandoned or committed to final
5 dispostion, okay.
6 So the question here is if this particular
7 waste is sold to a reclaimer for recycling,
8 it's not a waste, not a hazardous waste.
9 I wanted to get that out, make sure
10 everybody understood that the answer T gave
11 before was wrong.
12 MR. LEHMAN: The next question:
13 Question: "What effect will these
14 proposed rules have upon the concept of
15 allowing the incineration of low level PCB
16 oil in large utility boilers?"
17 MR. LEHMAN: This is a concept now
18 currently under consideration under Toxic
19 Substances Control Act, PCB regulations.
2o The answer to that is that we are currently
2] working out interfacing or integration of the
22 RCRA regulations with the TOSKA regulations.
23 As I believe we mentioned yesterday, there is
24 a discussion of various options for such
25 integration in this proposed rule-making on
-------
-183-
1
2 page 58993 where we discuss integration
3 with other Acts. We have proposed - mentioned
4 in the preamble five different options for
5 such integration. As it is stated in the
6 preamble, of those five current intentions
7 to merge, to the extent that TOSKA regulations
8 deal with waste management or waste disposal
9 or toxic substances disposal to merge the
10 TOSKA regulations with the RCRA regulations
U could promulgate those regulations and
12 utilize the RCRA permitting an endorsement
13 mechanism to enforce and carry out the TOSKA
14 regulations.
15 It is also stated in that section that
16 the Agency is requesting comments on those
17 five options so I would ask whoever wrote
18 this question or others - I would urge you
19 to go to 58993 of the Federal Register,
20 review those options and/ if you have comments
2i on which of those interfacing options you
22 support or other options, we would like to
23 hear from you in the public comment period.
24 Second question - apparently a little
25 frustration coming out here:
-------
-184-
1
2 Question! "Given the expenses and
3 lost time involved in attending these
4 hearings, why has BPA elected to hold
5 separate hearings for Section 3005, particularly
6 if they are near publishing?"
7 MR. LEHMAN: Okay. Our original plan
8 was to propose Sections 3001 through 3005
9 as a set. However, the Agency decided
10 approximately September of last year to
11 consolidate the permitting regulations and
12 the state program authorization regulations
13 under RCRA with similar regulations under the
14 MPDZ program, the Water Act Control System of
15 safety and the Clean Water Act. This
16 consolidation effort has caused a delay of
17 approximately two months in getting these
IS regulations out. However, we were under
19 considerable pressure and subsequently, under
20 couit order to press ahead and get these
2i regulations out for proposal and in order
22 to provide the maximum time for public comment
23 which we have set at 90 days for these
24 regulations, we decided to separate the two
25 sets of regulations and put them out as
-------
-185-
1
2 proposed in two separate federal proposals.
3 I recognize that this may cause some
4 inconvenience, but that is about the best
5 we are able to do under the circumstances.
6 Another question,
7 Question! "RCRA regulations govern
8 groundwater contaminated by hazardous materials
9 from past and present manufacturing operations,
10 including storage?"
11 "If so, what would be required for
12 groundwater monitoring and cleanup of the
13 contamination? Please speak to requirements
14 for hazardous materials and hazardous wastes."
15 MR. LEHMAN« Okay. To the extent that
16 we are talking about hazardous materials, 1
17 believe we made it amply clear here that
IS RCRA does not deal with hazardous materials.
19 RCRA deals with waste, so the RCRA requirements
20 would not apply to hazardous materials.
21 However, it may be, I'm not an expert in these
22 two laws, but it may be that the Clean Water
23 Act, to some extent, implies that groundwater
24 has surface quality water impact and also,
25 I'm not positive, but there may be some
-------
-186-
1
2 provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act
3 which might apply in this case.
4 Aa to the second case where we are
5 talking about hazardous wastes, we now have
6 to go back and talk about past and present
7 operations - past operations, operations
8 which are no longer in effect. In other
9 words, inactive at this point.
10 The current authority under RCRA is
11 limited to Section 7003 for correction of
12 the human hazards under which the administrator
13 may go for judicial remedy of the human
14 hazards that may be the result of either
15 past or present practices.
16 As for strictly present hazardous waste
17 practices, if there is groundwater contamination
18 under 4, hazardous waste practices, that is
19 covered under subtitle C and it is specifically
20 Section 250.43-8 does specify what groundwater
21 monitoring requirements are necessary under
22 the standards - national standards of subtitle
23 C.
24 As to the cleanup of the contamination,
25 I don't believe our regulations actually
-------
-187-
1
2 specify what might be necessary there, but
3 I'M sure that we can work something out
4 under our authority.
5 Another question. This gets back to -
6 Tony may not have been here, but we had,
7 over the last several days, several questions
8 concerning the small quantity cutoff level
9 for generators of sub hazardous wastes and
10 this question is asking about that.
11 Questions "When a generator produces
12 less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous
13 waste, am I correct in assuming that if it
14 is a liquid waste he may mix this with
15 municipsl waste and dispose of it at any
16 authorized sanitary landfill, or will h« be
17 required to use a special waste facility for
18 its disposal?"
19 MR. LEHMAN: As currently proposed, any
20 generator who produces and disposes of less
21 than a hundred kilograms of hazardous waste
22 has a conditional exemption from the mainstream
23 requirements of subtitle C provided that either
24 he disposes of it in a state-approved
25 sanitaiy landfill which would then be subject
-------
-188-
1
2 to subtitle D of the Act, Section 4004 or
3 a subtitle C or a hazardous waste facility,
4 his ch6ice.
5 So the basic to the question, yon are
6 correct in assuming that and so on and so
7 forth. In other words, if it's less than
8 a hundred kilograms, whether it's a liquid
9 waste or not, it could be mixed with
10 municipal waste at an authorized sanitary
11 landfill.
12 Questions "If you have evidence that
13 certain utility ash is hazardous, why
14 classify all ash to be special?"
15 MR. LEHMANi We went over this this
16 morning, but I will do it again.
17 First of all, we have not classified
18 all ash to be hazardous waste. We have
19 some evidence that some types of utility
20 ash - fly ash, by name, may be hazardous
21 under certain circumstances. In anticipation
22 that some of it may be hazardous and given
23 the fact that there's extremely large volumes
24 of this material and that it is relatively
25 hazardous, relatively small, we have set up
-------
-189-
1
2 a small special category of facility
3 standards that would apply to these wastes
4 if they are hazardous and we call those
5 wastes special wastes if they are hazardous.
6 MR. LINDSEYt The next question:
7 Question* "Under what conditions will
8 an oil reclamation facility have to permitted?"
9 MR. LIMDSEYi This gets back to the
10 definition again of discarded materials
11 under 250.10, where it says that, "other
12 discarded material in the solid waste
13 definition," and it has to be a solid waste
14 before it can be a hazardous waste, "defined
15 by EPA to mean any material whicht Is not
16 re-used." But if you follow down that several
17 digits there, except "if the material 1st
IS Used lubricating, hydraulic transformer,
19 transmission or cutting oil which is incinerated
20 or burned as a fuel."
2i Thus, to interpret those two things
22 together an oil reclamation facility which
23 is reclaiming oil for crank case purposes
24 or reuse in industry or things of that nature,
25 the material that .it is using, the oil that
-------
-190-
1
2 it is using is not a hazardous waste, it is
3 not a solid waste under this definition.
4 On the other hand, if he is blending,
5 selling, doing something which then ends up
6 that this oil is then used, burned as fuel,
7 then that would be covered, the facility
8 which blends it or stores it or whatever
9 would have to have a permit as would the
10 facility which uses it or burns it.
11 The second part of the question is, is
12 it based on the final use of the reclaimed
13 product? In that sense, yes.
14 Question* "Re disposal facility design
15 standards, discussions indicate" - this must
16 get back to the discussions we had with Mr.
17 Anderson at the end - "discussions indicate
18 zero seepage as criteria isn't bottom line.
19 Adverse impact on groundwater on site specific
20 basis as compared to PDWS."
2i MR. LINDSEYt I'rf not sure I follow that,
22 but I'll give an answer based on what I think
23 the question is.
24 I think this is a misinterpretation. The
25 misinterpretation is that we are, in fact,
-------
-191-
1
2 attempting to design our criteria here,
3 our 3004 standards, for zero detectable
4 seepage. That is where we are coming
5 from. And that's what the design criteria
6 is supposed to do.
7 The person may be relating to the fact
8 that there is a human health and environmental
9 standard - which you may remember we discussed
10 this morning as an overriding standard - whereby,
11 if we feel that the design standard or have
12 reason to believe or can show that the design
13 standards that are in here are not sufficient
14 to protect human health in the environment,
15 that we can use design standards which can
16 be implemented on a case by case basis and
17 which would then override the design standards
18 here. But the design standards are the
19 purposes to achieve zero detectable seepage,
20 I guess, in that terminology.
21 Questiont "Re special utility waste.
22 Design standards are not applicable to special
23 waste. What basis should one use when planning
24 new facilities? Discussions indicate
25 landfill; if so, why not specify?"
-------
-192-
1
2 MR. LINDSEYi I'm not sure that the
3 discussions really indicate landfill as
4 such. They do not use that term. Maybe
5 through reading the few standards that we
6 have under 250.46-2 one gets the impression
7 that we are talking about landfill primarily.
8 Landfill is the most common approach to
9 lagooning or whatever, land disposal maybe.
10 That's drawing this sort of conclusion as
11 relevant.
12 The problem the person is getting at
13 though, he probably wants to build a new
14 facility to handle that or something and
15 wants to know what kind of ultimate standards
16 he is going to be faced with.
17 We thought about that when we set up
IS this whole special waste business. We were
19 faced with a dilemma when we set up these
20 special wastes. These were materials which
21 when we started out to develop these
22 regulations we were not focusing on. We
23 were focusing on the still bottoms and the
24 results of normal manufacturing operations,
25 however, and we designed our 3001 characteristics
-------
-193-
1
2 so as to protect public health in the
3 environment. And we tried to and I think
4 we have. And it became clear that certain
5 other wastes began to fit into this category
6 sometimes or appeared to sometimes.
7 Now, given that, we took a look at our
8 standards under Section 3004 and said, "Gee,
9 with regard to these big piles, large
10 quantities of what appeared to be sometimes -
11 what we know, anyway - sometimes hazardous
12 and relatively low hazardous kinds of things,
13 the 3004 standards don't necessarily or at
14 least it appeared on the surface to be
15 particularly applicable to these kinds of
16 wastes. Thus, we said we really don't know
17 enough to know exactly how to regulate these
18 kinds of wastes .
19 Thus, we said, well, they do sometimes
20 fail the criteria and therefore we have no
21 reason for saying they are not hazardous
22 when they do fail, but we don't know quite
23 how to regulate them.
24 Thus, we will collect more information.
25 When we get done collecting more information.
-------
-194-
1
2 we will decide whether to regulate them and,
3 if so, how they should be regulated. For
4 example, we may end up with a set of specific
5 standards, design standards, for example, for
6 a disposal - or we may conclude that the
7 current technology is perfectly sufficient
8 or we may find on further testing and so forth
9 that by enlarge these things don't fail, some
10 of them may not fail the hazardous waste
11 criteria.
12 That's kind of a dilemma because he still
13 doesn't know, as of this point, what the
14 ultimate standards will be for that type of
15 waste and that's correct, what the ultimate
16 design of the standards will be than he knew
17 two years ago. Hopefully, when we get done
IS with our studies, we will be able to settle
19 that for him, but for now, I don't have the
20 answer.
2i MR. LEHMAN: We are not to have any contact
22 with the public for purposes of taking comments
23 and discussing the pros and cons of various
24 alternatives from that point forward until
25 we finally promulgate the regulations. I
-------
-195-
1
2 believe that ia accurate.
3 MS. DARRAH: That is accurate. You
4 might mention the documents that are
5 available.
6 MR. LEHMANt Oh, yes. There is a
7 docket available in Washington on which all
8 relevant communications which we have received
9 on these regulations all the way through
10 day-one onthrough the end of the comment;
11 period of March 16 will be on file and can
12 viewed any time during normal working hours
13 in room 2111 of Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,
14 Southwest, in Washington. Don't all come on
15 the same day because the room is not much
16 larger than this table and it's piled high
17 with stuff. It's all indexed and I am sure
18 you will be able to find it.
19 MR. LINDSEY: "Under financial responsibility;
20 post-closure liability for hazardous waste
21 disposal facilities (58987)"t
22 Question! "Can you provide some sort of
23 status update relative the following -" and
24 then there's a quote from that section that
25 says - "Until the necessary legislative
-------
-196-
1
2 authority is granted by Congress, EPA is
3 reserving proposal of this portion of the
4 regulation".
5 MR. LINDSEYi Having addressed this
6 several times today and we talked about
7 the legislative initiative - that's the
S subject that we were talking about. One
9 of the things we think the Congress wanted
10 us to do, based on the legislative history,
11 was to provide protection to the public for
12 post-closure liability claims. In other
13 words, if there is a - if a facility is
14 closed and subsequently there is a problem,
15 somehow, and there's no one around to provide -
16 to sue or if somebody is available to sue
17 and doesn't have any funds, then there is no
IS protection for the public and what the Congress
19 wanted us to do here, we feel, is to provide
20 that protection and also funds to clean Up
2i these facilities. We searched and we searched
22 and we couldn't find a way to do this which
23 was practical under our given authority. What
24 needs to be done here is to pool the risk.
25 While it is true that the potential frequency
-------
-197-
1
2 of problems of that regard is probably very,
3 very low, given the regulatory nature - the
4 nature of the regulations we have here,
5 there is always the potential for a rather
6 big claim of some sort or another and to get
7 around that, we have to pool the risk and we
8 don't have the authority to cause such a pool
9 to form. Thus, we need an amendment to the
10 Act such that if that is the approach Congress
11 wants to take. To provide that pool or to
12 allow us to provide it or someone else.
13 We are discussing in Washington now a
14 legislative initiative to go forward to Congress
15 and address this issue. There are others
16 within the country or who are likewise consider-
17 ing providing draft legislation or a legislative
IS initiative to Congress along the same lines.
19 Question: "Concerning your comments on
20 NPDES facilities, what if you have a leaching
2i or leaking pond whose influent passes all
22 3001 criteria?"
23 In other words, a leaking or leaching
24 pond as part of an effluent treatment train
25 under NPDES which does not have the material
-------
-198-
1
2 in it which fails the criteria.
3 The question then is/ "Docs RCRA apply?"
4 The answer is no.
5 Question! "Have 'test burn1 test
6 procedures been established for those materials
7 listed and if not, why not?"
8 MR. LZNDSBYi Getting the test burns.
9 Under Section 3005, which will be proposed,
1° the mechanism that will be used to conduct
II test burns is the granting of an experimental
12 permit. And the test burn plan which will be
13 approved at the tine the experimental permit
14 is approved will be approved by EPA, okay.
15 Now, because of incinerator design, the
16 procedure which will be used will vary -
17 fairly widely, I suspect. We will, however,
18 have a guidance document which is now in
19 preparation which will assist both our
20 permitting people and the public as a whole
21 in determining what are the practices and so
22 forth will be necessary in order to demonstrate
23 an equivalent instruction which is what we
24 are doing when we run test burns.
25 MR. LEHMAN: Our next question:
-------
-199-
1
2 Questiont "Using the same rationale
3 used to classify coal ash, please discuss
4 foundry sand as a special waste. For example,
5 landfill cover, road beds, construction fill,
6 use on roads."
7 MR. LEHMANt We do have evidence that
8 foundry sand is probably not a hazardous
9 waste and, since we do not expect it to be
10 a hazardous waste, we find no reason to
U require any special standards for it and,
12 assuming that it is not a hazardous waste,
13 then it won't be subject to Subtitle C
14 control. So we haven't addressed it.
15 If the writer of this question has some
16 evidence that he believes foundry sand is
17 hazardous, then we'd like to receive that.
IS This next question is a very interesting
19 one and also requires a fairly lengthy answer,
20 X'» afraid.
2i Questiont "Since EPA specifics criteria
22 for landfills and incinerators, will it be
23 willing to become a third-party in a lawsuit
24 if the facility does not meet their own
25 requirements?"
-------
-200-
2 MR. LEHMAN: I presume they mean if the
3 facility does not meet EPA 'a requirements,
4 okay .
5 The primary enforcement of these standards
6 is via the permitting process. In other
7 words, where EPA is running the program and
8 not a state and a permit has been issued,
9 then, if we find that someone is in violation
10 of that permit, enforcement has to take place.
11 Prior to permit issuance, you will find a
12 special inspection in Section 3004 regulations
13 dealing with standards that apply during
I4 interim status and if it is found that someone
15 who has interim status is violating those
16 standards, then that would be the basis for
17 enforcement action on EPA's part.
18 if the state is authorized to run their
19 program in lieu of the federal program, then
20 it would be primarily by enforcement against
21 state permits that enforcement would take place.
22 By the state, not by EPA.
23 Now, having said all that, if there were
24 a case where, for example, someone was
25 operating a facility, a hazardous waste
-------
-201-
1
2 facility that did not have a permit, for
3 example, or did not have interim status and
4 EPA was made aware of this - the most direct
5 route - the most direct enforcement against
6 the standards - which I think that is one of
7 the things we made here is that Section 3002,
8 3003 and 3004 are independently enforceable
9 national standards regardless of the permit -
10 however, we have, as the enforcement policy,
11 chosen to use the permit as the primary
12 enforsjment mechanism, but, nonetheless,
13 assuming someone doesn't have the permit and
14 is violating the standards, then we have
15 enforcement against the standards or enforcement
16 not having the permit which might be a more
17 direct way to do it.
18 Now, the implication here is that someone
19 else has sued - party A has sued party B for
20 not meeting EPA standards and therefore would
21 EPA become a third party in such a lawsuit?
22 Hell, probably if the case is that EPA is
23 running the program and it's not a state
24 program, but that's sort of an indirect way
25 to do it. The obvious thing In that case
-------
-202-
1
2 would be that whoever has evidence that
3 someone is not meeting the standards or
4 is violating the permit, is to come to EPA
5 and say they are violating the permit and
6 you don't have to sue somebody for that.
7 Just go after them through the courts.
8 If it came to a point where someone sued
9 and showed that the person was in violation
10 of the permit/ either we would join as a
11 third party or independently go in and
12 enforce the permit.
13 As I said, this can become somewhat
14 complicated if the state renders the program
15 rather than EPA because the law is quite
16 explicit that the state runs their program
17 in lieu of the federal program and we
IS certainly would expect that the state would
19 take action in those cases rather than EPA.
20 I hope I answered the question.
2i MS. SCHAEFERt I have one question here
22 that is probably the crux of the entire
23 regulations. Someone asked where was part
24 (b) (7) Of 250.43-5.
25 They will find one -of these days in the
-------
-203-
1
2 Federal Register that the correction was made
3 that there is no (b) (7), only (b> (6).
4 MR. FIELDSt I have a question here
5 concerning storage tanks.
6 It says:
7 Question* "Regarding Section 250.44 (g) -"
8 I'll read that statement A
9 (MR. FIELDSt "Storage tanks and containers
10 shall be of sturdy and leak-proof contruction
jj in accordance with the Occupational and Safety
12 Health Administration's Regulations for storage
13 of flammable and combustible liquids (29CFR
14 Part 1910, subpart H, Section 1910.106)."
15 Commenter asks that we, "Please explain
16 the rationale of specifying 29 CFR 1910 tanks
17 that preclude, for example, use of FRP tanks
IS for corrosive wastes."
19 She has a copy of OSHA standards here, and
20 we looked up what FRP tank is - fiberglass
2i reinforced plastic tank - and it appears the
22 commenter was right. We purposely adopted
23 the OSHA regulations because we wanted to have
24 stringent requirements for storage of flammable
25 and combustible wastes and the OSHA containers
-------
-204-
1
2 do provide that. However, we need to
3 investigate now whether we are, in fact,
4 precluding certain Advantages for storage
5 of corrosive wastes.
6 We would appreciate any comments in
7 this area of how corrosive wastes should
8 be stored and we will go back now and review
9 these OSHA regulations again and make sure
1° we are not precluding storage options for
11 these corrosive wastes.
12 MR. LIHDSEY, Getting back to the oil
13 blending business!
I4 Question! "Are you saying that if a
15 facility blends oils and sells them to someone
16 who uses that oil to burn in some boiler or
17 whatever apparutus, the initial selling
18 facility is a generator of waste or that the
19 sold product must be manifested?"
20 MR. LINDSEYt Let me see if I can make
21 this a little clearer here.
22 Waste oil which is burned is a hazardous
23 waste if it passes - or if it fails the
24 characteristics.
25 Treatment or use of it requires a permit 7
-------
-205-
1
2 moving of it requires a manifest. If the
3 waste oil is not burned and is reclaimed,
4 it is not a waste under that same definition
5 if you look back here in the front of 3001,
6 250.10 (b) - 1 and 250.10-1 (b), two little
7 double "i" (a). Those are the two relevant
8 pieces that get at that.
9 I've got one here that's a comment and
10 I am going to read it so it gets into the
11 record we are making here. I would urge,
12 however, that the person who is making this
13 comment make it in writing, hopefully, and
14 send it in before March 16. But I will read
15 it anyway for now.
16 Section 250.46-2 and Section 250.43 (f),
17 dealing with utility waste - fly ash, bottom
18 ash, flue-gas desulfurination waste, - states
19 that a utility storing any of these wastes
20 on an off site facility has to test each
21 truckload or batch of waste for physical
22 appearance, specific gravity pH and vapor
23 pressure. This regulation should include
24 that testing can be done on a less frequent
25 basis if the owner-operator can demonstrate
-------
-206-
1
2 that no loss of control over facility
3 operations will occur. The reason for the
4 suggestion is that 1^00 megawatt unit will
5 produce approximately 5,000 tons a day of
6 PGD waste and to test each truckload would
7 require attendance 24 hours a day.
8 Now, with regard to that, I should point
9 out that there is a note associated with this
10 section, but the note only addresses on-site
11 facilities, not off site facilities. And
12 what the person here is recommending is that
13 we extend that note to off site facilities
14 if one can do it without jeopardizing the
15 disposal activity.
16 Question* "For you ultility waste: If
17 an existing power plant's fly ash has been
18 used as a landfill on which houses have been
19 constructed and because of the extraction
20 procedure is determined hazardous, has EPA
21 any comments on how this will be handled?"
22 MR. LINDSEY: Unless I'm missing something -
23 and maybe the person who wrote this has found
24 something here that I'm not focusing on - I
25 don't believe there is a prohibition to building
-------
-207-
1
2 houses on landfills containing fly ash or
3 any of these - well, fly ash is the question.
4 Except, the only prohibition I think is here -
5 unless I'm missing something - is building
6 houses on radioactive waste. So, that's
7 that.
8 With regard to old sites, on the utner
9 hand, where houses may have been built - and
10 there are plenty of them, meaning this "Love
11 Canal" is an example - these regulations don't
12 apply to old sites. They apply only to sites
13 which will be permitted in the future.
14 MR. FIELDS: Question here is:
15 Question: "What does the EPA mean by
16 'non-detectable' or 'limit of detection'?
17 Can I assume that this means by the best
18 available method? If so, may I suggest that
19 this could present problems because of the
20 variation in detection limits of any method
21 when it is used by different laboratories.
22 I think that the B PA should attempt to
23 establish a meaningful 'lower limit of
24 detection' for designated test methods and
25 not use the term '.limit of detection' without
-------
-208-
1
2 establishing a quantitative definition for
3 it. "
4 MR. FIELDSt I assume that this questioner
5 is talking about leachate detection, maybe
6 at the bottom of the landfill or whatever.
7 We have not specified detection limits for
8 such things in our regulations and we don't
9 plan to in our file that we are making.
10 However, we are developing an - EPA is -
11 an operating manual, a groundwater and
12 leachate manual. That manual will have in
13 it the procedures whereby samples should be
14 collected of leachate, of groundwater and
15 procedures will be utilized and will be
16 recommended in that manual that, hopefully,
17 BPA can - so EPA can provide some guidance in
18 this area - in the rule-making process and in
19 the permit program.
20 MR. LEHMAN: It appears that the answer
21 to the last question falls on me.
22 Question! "If an on-site waste treating
23 facility was put into operation for the
24 purpose of concentrating the waste, for
25 example,•v«P°*'*tion, before June, 1980
-------
-209-
1
2 will a permit be required when the regulations
3 become effective?"
4 MR. LEHMANt Well, yes. You go back to
5 the statute and read the definition of
6 treatment.
7 It says, "The term treatment, when used
8 in connection with hazardous waste means any
9 method, technique, process, including utilization,
10 designed to change the physical, chemical,
H biological characteristics of hazardous waste
12 so as to neutralize such waste so as to render
13 such waste hazardous safer for transport, the
14 minimal coverage or reduced in volume so
15 obviously evaporation is reduction of volume
16 and is therefore treatment by statute." So
17 that's clear.
IS There seems to be confusion as to whether
19 the regulations apply to previously existing
20 so these are only the new ones that will apply
2i after the regulations go into effect. That is
22 not so the regulations apply to any active
23 facility whether it was built before the
24 regulations go into effect or whether it was
25 built after the regulations go into effect.
-------
-210-
1
2 I guess we have another question.
3 MR. LIKDSEYi Back to the oil reclaiming
4 business.
5 Questions "If an oil reclaimer sells
6 his reclaimed product, he does not know the
7 end use to which the betywr will put the product.
8 He will not necessarily know and have no reason
9 to know whether the oil is burned or not.
10 According to your interpretation, however,
11 the use to which the buyer puts the product
12 will determine whether the reclaimer needs
13 treatment permit."
14 MR. LINDSB** • I don't know, I think we
15 are going to have to use a, perhaps, a test
16 of reasonableness here.
17 It would seem to me that the reclaimer
18 who reclaims oil for crankcase purposes and
19 is purifying the oil to that extent - which,
20 as I understand it, is a complex process -
2i first of all, may be rendering it non-hazardous
22 completely or, even so, knows that and would
23 not be subject to the regulations in that case
24 because this material is not a waste under
25 this definition.
-------
-211-
1
2 On the other hand, if he's just taking
3 the stuff in and sending the stuff back out
4 the other door - maybe blending it together
5 and sending it out the back door in bulk
6 form, the probable effect of «-hat is that
7 it is being burned or spread on the roads
8 or something. In either case, if it's spread
9 on the roads, it's a use constituting disposal
10 under these regulations and is thus also a
11 hazardous waste.
12 I don't know. I would think in those
13 cases an oil reclaimer does know the type of
14 use that his product is being used for. He
15 may not know in all cases that somebody might
16 buy crankcase oil which has been reclaimed and
17 purified and burn it in his boiler; I doubt
18 that that is very common. In that case, the
19 blank goes to the guy who is burning it in
20 his boiler. In other words, not only does
21 the recycler need a permit, but the burner
22 of the oil.
23 In using our much publicized discretionary
24 authority, I suspect we would, in enforcing
25 this particular part of the end product use.
-------
-212-
1
2 we would use discretion on the likelihood
3 that the person using it knowing he was doing
4 right or wrong.
5 MS. DARRAH: We don't have any further
6 questions.
7 I wou' .ike to thank everyone for
8 attending and for your comments and we thank
9 the United Engineering Center for making this
10 auditorium available.
11 Thank you very much for your attention.
12 -
13 (Time noted: 3:35 p.m.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
ATTENDEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7-9 , 1979
Oscar J. Ackelsberg
Assistant Vice President
Grace-W. R. Grace & Go.
Grace Plaza
1114 Ave. of the Americas
New York, N. Y., 10036
Andrew H. Aitken
New England Electric
20 Turnpike Road
Westborough, Mass., 01581
James K. Alexander
Env. Engr.
U. S. Dept of Energy
P. O. Box E
Oack Ridge, Tn., 37830
Toni K. Allen
Wald, Horkroder & Ross
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
1320-19th St., N. W.
Wasington, D. C., 20036
R. K. Altreuter
EXXM Environmental Coordinator
Bayway Refinery
P. 0. Box 222
Linden, New Jersey, 07036
Jerome S. Amber
Ford Motor Co.
Facility Environmental Control Eng.
628W Parklane Towers West
Dearborn, Mi., 48026
Paul H. Anderson
American Elec. Power Co.
Associate Eng.
2 Broadway
New York, N. Y., 10004
W. P. Anderson, P.E.
Assistant Dir.
Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
Park 80 Plaza West-1
Saddle Brook, N. J., 07662
F. C. Atherton
Dir. of Transportation
J. M. Huber Corp.
Edison, N. J., 08817
A. Mark Avakian
American Cyanaraid Co.
Wayne, N. J., 07470
N. G. Babington
Union Carbide Corp.
Linde Division
270 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10017
Linda J. Bakke
The Dow Chemical Co.
Research Specialist
Larkin Lab
Midland, Mi., 48640
Henry R. Balikow
J. M. Huber Corp.
Thornall Street
Edison, N. J., 08817
L. K. Barber
A. C. Lawrence Leather Co.
Dir. of Mfg.
Hazelwood, N. C., 28738
Bruce R. Barrett
Office of Env. Affairs
U. S. Dept. of Commerce
Washington, D. C., 20230
Edward W. Bartell, P.E.
Consulting Eng.
NYC Dept. of Eng., Sanitation
125 Worth St. , Room 806
New York, N. Y., 10013
Francis J. Batchelder
Utility Solid Waste Activities
c/o Wald, Harkroder & Ross
1320 19th St. N. W.
Washington, D. C., 20036
-------
ATTENDEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7 - 9 , 1979
Claire W. Braughman
Assistant Manager
CIBA-GEIGY
Ardsley, New York, 10502
Edna V. Benesch
Atlantic Richfield
Sr. Analyst
515 S. Flower St.
Los Angeles, Ca., 90071
David M. Benforado, P.E.
3M
Building 21-2W
Box 33331
Saint Paul, Minn., 55133
Thorns Boccuzzi
Clairol
One Blachley Road
Stamford, Conn., 06902
Joan B. Berkowitz
Arthur. D. Little, Inc.
Acorn Park
Caitbridge, Mass., 02140
Gary W. Bentan, P.E.
Mill Service, Inc.
1815 Washington Road
Pittsburgh, Pa., 15241
Theodore J. Berger
Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.
Nutley, New Jersey, 07110
Barbara Binger
Womens City Club
2 Fifth Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10011
Thomas Boccuzzi
Clairol, Inc.
1 Blachley Rd.
Stamford Conn., 06902
Keith A. Booman, Ph.D.
Technical Director
The Soap and Detergent Association
475 Park Ave. South
New York, N. Y., 10016
John Brancaccio, P.E.
Western Electric
222 Broadway
New York, New York
Pam Brogan
Food Chemical NUS
Editor
Doral, Inn Hotel
J. C. Brown
Olin Chemicals Group
Mgr. Env. Technology
Box 248
Charleston, Tn., 37310
Bruce H. Brubaker
Dianond Shamrock
1100 Superior Ave.
Cleveland, Ohio, 44114
John F. Butcher
City of High Point, N. C.
Landfill-Pulverizer Supt.
P. 0. Box 230
High Point, N. C., 27261
Stanley L. Buvd
Chicopee
Research Scientist
2 Ford Ave.
Milltown, N. J., 08850
Richard F. Cahaly
Polaroid Corp.
565 Technology Square
Cambridge, Mass., 02139
John M. Callahan
Growlioski, Callahan & Niles
Atty.'s
60 State St.
Northhairpton, Mass., 01060
-------
ATTENDEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7 - 9 , 1979
Gino Cannizzo
Filmar Tank & Machine Co.
415 - 82nd Street
Brooklyn, N. Y., 11209
Dr. A. Cantor
Self - Owner
8201 Foresthills Dr.
ElkinS Park, Pa., 19117
Lori H. Carena
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Atty.
1 Centre St. Municipal Bldg.
Room 2353
New York, N. Y., 10007
Eugene N. Castellano
Gen. Mgr.
Liqwacon Liquid Waste Conversion
Old Waterbury Road
Thomaston, Conn., 06787
Anthony C. Catanese
Asst. Haz Waste Specialist
Middlesex County Solid Waste Mgmt.
134 New St.,
New Brunswick, N. J., 08901
Joseph c. Carbonara
Assistant Environmental Eng.
Consolidated Edison of New York
4 Irving Place
New York, N. Y., 10003
John M. Chaplick
Sierraclubedf
5 Washington St.
Haverhill, Mass., 01830
Marc Chytilo
NYPIRG
Student Intern
1004 E. Adams St.
Syracuse, N. Y., 13210
Wendall J. Clark
Texaco Inc.
P. O. Box., 509
Beacon, N. Y., 12508
Robert B. Clay, CPCU
Senior Vice President
Wohlreich & Anderson Group, Ltd
6 Commerce Drive
Cranford, N. J., 07016
Michael S. Coffey
Dept. Chief Ind. Wastes Control
NYC Dept of Env. Prot.
Wards Island
New York, N. Y., 10035
John F. Cobum
Mitre Corp.
Environmental Scientist
P. 0. Box 208
Bedford, Mass., 01730
Ned D. Cole
Dept. Natl Resources
State of La., 70804
J. J. Combes, Coodinator
W. R. Grace & Co.
1114 Ave. of the Americas
New York, N. Y., 10036
Dennis E. Connelly
American Electric Power Co.
Associate Engr.
2 Broadway
New York, N. Y., 10004
Lou Oooper
Rockwell International
Project Eng.
8900 DeSoto
Canoga Park, Ca., 91304
-------
ATTENDEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YOUR CITY
EEBBUWK 7 - 9 , 1979
Joseph Coutu
Materials Flow Coordinator
American Hoechst Corp.
129 Quidnick St.
Coventry,. Rhode Island, 02816
Timothy E. Cropper
Island Transportation Corp.
U. P. Maint
299 Main St.
Westbury, N. Y., 11590
Larry Cullen
Congressman Maguire
Congressional Aide
277 - Ftorest Ave.
Paranus, N. J., 07652
Bobert F. Curran, P.E.
CIBA-GEIGY Corp.
Ardsley, New York, 10502
James H. Davey
LILCO
Environmental Eng.
175 Old Country Rd.
Hicksville, N. Y.,
David A. Dalziel
QLIN Chemicals Group
120 Long Ridge Head
Stamford, Ct. 06904
Luis J. Diaz
American Electric Power
Chemical Engineer
2 Broadway-
New York, N. Y,, 10004
Roy R. Detvasiller
E. I. DiiPont De. Nemours & Co.
Wilmington, Delaware, 19898
R. E. Dickson
P & G Mfg. Co.
Env. Gont-Engr.
Box A
Staten Island, N. Y., 10314
Tom Doane
Stone & Webster Eng.
Licensing Engineer
Boston, Mass.
James C. Doherty
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
NL Industrial Chemicals
P. 0. Box 700
Highstown, New Jersey, 08520
Norman R. Drapean
NYC Dept of Envir. Con.
Associate San. Eng.
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York, 12233
Vincent G. Drennan
Witco Chemical
P. 0. Box 110
Oakland, New Jersey, 07436
Michael Dunay
Consultant
M. Dunay Chemical & Hazardous
Waste Consultant
Box 146
Effort, Pa., 18330
Jeffrey L. Duncan
Exxon Eesearch and Eng. Co.
P. 0. Box 101
Florham Park, N. J., 07932
Andy Durham
Mdcinsey & Co.
Research Assistant
245 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10017
-------
ATTENDEE LIST: EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7/ 9 , 1979
Chris Durham
EPA Envir. Boon.
Old Bridge N. J.
C & N 25-D.
Pine Tree, Mg., 08857
Fred Ellerbusch
Regulatory Manager
Bristol-Myers
225 Long Ave.
Hillside, N. J., 07207
Laimonis T. Enbrets
AMF Inc.
777 Westchester Ave.
White Plains, New York, 10604
Charles H. Engelnan
Alterican Cyanamid Co.
Berdan Ave.
Wayne, New Jersey, 07470
Salvatore Ervolina, P.E.
New York State Dept. of Env. Conservation
202 Mamaroneck Ave.
White Plains, New York, 10601
Joseph Facoone
Chief Sanitary Inspector
Division Of Health
City of Elizabeth
New Jersey
Anthony Filiaci
U. S. Mstals Ref. Co.
Tech. Manager
400 Middlesex Ave.
Carteret, N. J., 07000
Gordon A. Finch
Commissioner
G3vernmsnt of the Virgin Islands
of the United States
P. O. Box 476
St. Thomas, V. I., 00801
F. Naomi Fink
Manager
Environrrental Health
AMAX Inc.
400 Middlesex Ave.
Carteret, New Jersey, 07008
Robert F. Flacke
Commissioner
New York State Dept. of Env.
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, N. Y., 12233
Adrienne L. Flipse
Attorney at Law
117A Hillside Ave.
Williston Park, N. Y., 11596
Leonard T. Flynn, Ph.D.
Block Drug Company, Inc.
257 Cornelison Ave.
Jersey City, N. J., 07302
Wendy Podge
EPA Region II
Attorney
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N. Y., 10007
Sidney A. Frankel
Manager
American Cyanamid Co.
Bound Brook, New Jersey, 08805
Simon Friedberg
Chief Struct. Eng.
NY State Urban Development
1345 Ave. Of Americas
New York, N. Y., 10019
William Friedman
EPA Attorney
26 Fed. Place
New York, N. Y.,
-------
ATTENDEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7 /» , 1979
Patricia Fuller
Am. Petroleum Inst.
Research Engineer
2101 L. Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
Yvonne Geeve
Stockton Center For Environmental
Research
Project Director
Stockton College
Pomona, New Jersey, 08240
Dan Girvan
Sealed Power Corp.
Environmental Engr.
100 Terrace Plaza
Muskegon Mich, 49443
Charles N. Qoddard, P.E.
New York State Dept. of Env. Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, N. Y., 12233
William R. Golden, Jr.
Rogers Hoge & Hill
Attorney
90 Park Ave
New York, N. Y. /
Tanhum Glshmid
GCA, Engr.
Burlington Rd.
Bedford, Mass., 01730
Kenneth F. Goldstein
Vice President
Howden Agencies Ltd.
6 Connerce Drive
Cranfora, N. J., 07016
Leo Grondine
Operations Manager
The Ware Chemical Corp.
P. 0. Box 262
Stratfotd, Conn,, 06497
Larry R. GtselLman
Mitre Corp.
Associate Dept. Head
McLean, Va., 22091
Raymond A. Guidi
V.P. Manufacturing
Vertac, Inc.
Clark Tower-Suite 2414
Memphis, Tn., 38117
Matthew Hackman
Permutit Research Center
567 Ridge Road
Mammouth Junction, N. J., 08852
M. E. Hall
EPA Senior Staff Eng.
Union Carbide Corp.
Chemicals & Plastice Div.
P. O. Box 8361
South Charleston, W. 25303
Sabert R. Hall
GCA Technology Division
Burlington Road
Bedford, Mass., 01730
Thomas D. Hamill
Executive Director
NYC Resource Recovery Task Force
51 Chambers St
New York, N. Y., 10007
Sara L. Hamric
Envirosphere Company
19 Rector St.
New York, N. Y., 10006
Douglas M. Hanson, Ph.D.
Bioassay Systems
100 Inman Street
Cambridge, Mass., 02139
-------
ATTENDEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7 /9 , 1979
Charles A. Harris
Johnson & Johnson
Office of General Counsel
New Brunswick, N. J., 08903
Charles A. Harrison
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
Fiberglas Tower
Toledo, Ohio, 43659
Mary Ellen Harris
Aquatic Ecologist, Ph.D.
Bronx River Restoration
375 E. Fordham Rd.
Bronx, N. Y., 10458
Sammy E. Harthman, Jr.
Dept. of Public Works
Gov. of the Virgin Islands
Project Coordinator
P. 0. Box 476
St. Thomas, V. I., 00801
Robert A. Hayton
N. J. Public Interest Research Group
50 Livingston Ave.
New Brunswick, N. J., 08884
D. A. Heggle
Western Electric
Corporate Engineering
222 Broadway
New York, New York, 10038
William F. Heneghan
Editorial Director
Industrial Water Engineering
Wakeman/Walworth, Inc.
P. O. Box 1144
Darien, Conn., 06820
Brian Hepburn
Dir. of Facilities
C. R. Bard
731 Central Ave.
Murray Hill, N. J., 07974
Morris Hershson, President
National Barrel & Drum Assn.
1028 Conn. Ave., N. W.
Washington D. C., 20036
Elmer J. Hlavaty, Mgr.
ITT
320 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10022
Audrey A. Hoffman
American Cyanamid ,
Environmental Eng.
Wayne, N. J., 07470
Christian T. Hoffman, Jr.
Vice President
Pollution Control Industries
One Fairfield Cresent
West Caldwell, N. J., 07006
Lois Ann Horowitz
8 Beekman Place
Fairlawn, N. J., 07410
John J. Horstmann, Jr.
Sales Eng.
Liqwaoon Liquid Waste Conversion
Old Waterbury Road
Thctnaston, Conn., 06787
Chris Hughes
Edison Electric Institute
Env. Projects Mgr.
1140 Conn. Ave., N. W.
Washington, D. C., 20036
-------
ATTENDEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7 /9 , 1979
James A. Hulme
Cyanamid
Eng. and Cbnst. Div.
Wayne, N. J., 07470
H. J. Humphrey
American Electric Power
2 Broadway
New York, N. Y., 10004
Charles C. Hurtpstone
President
International Research and Technology Corp.
7655 Old Springhouse Road
McLean, Virginia, 22101
Jim Hutchum
Dept. of Natural Res.
Deputy Sec.
P. 0. Box 44396
Baton FDuge, La.,
William F. Jackson
President
Re-Solre, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1842
Fall River, Mo.,02722
Laurie Johnston
N. Y. Times
Richard N. Jones
National Tanning and Trading Corp.
P. O. Box 268
Webster Street
Peobody, Mass., 01960
Ronald B. L. Jones
Tech. Mgr. Engineer Environments
Box 747
Waterbury, Ct., 06720
WBAI Nevs 99.5 FM
Jon Kalish
Reporter
Edward J. Kant, P.E.
Project Manager
Loureiro Eng. Associated
10 Tower Lane
Avon, Ct., 06001
Robert E. Karoher, Jr.
K. J. Quinn & Co., Inc.
195 Canal Street
Maiden, Mass, 02148
Charles F. Kay
Director
Atlantic Richfield Co.
1500 Market St., CS 2712G
Philadelphia, Pern., 19101
Frank A. Keegan
Vice President
HAZMAT Publishing Co.
320 West Main St.
Kutztown, Perm., 19530
Robert F. Kelleghan
Dir. of Safety
Sterling Drug Inc.
90 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10016
William G. Kelly
Manager
Atlantic Richfield Co.
Public Affairs Division
515 South Flower St.
Los Angeles, California, 90071
A. S. Kidwell
Inrnont Corp.
Director
1205 Brood St.,
Clifton, N. J., 07015
Dr. Nancy Kim
NYC Dept. of Health
Research Scientist
ESP - Tower Building
Albany, N. Y., 12201
-------
ATTENDEE LIST: EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YOFK CITY
FEBRUARY 7/9, 1979
Richard H. Kimberly
Regional Manager-Kintoerly-Clark Corp.
Governmental Relations
Exec. Suite
3390 Peachtree Road, N. E.
Atlanta, Ga., 30326
John A. King
Mitre Corp.
Sr. Chemical Eng.
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Va., 22101
Larry A. Klein, Chief
Industrial Wastes Control
NYC Dept. of Env. Protection
Wards Island, New York, 10035
Ronald E. Klingle
Vice-President
Mill Service, Inc.
Industrial Liquid Waste
1815 Washington Itoad
Pittsburgh, Pa., 15241
Victor Klein
Penick Corp.
Mgr. Regulatory Compliance
Lyndhurst, N. J., 07071
Louis H. Kramer
General Engineer
Naval Air Development Center
Warminster, Pa., 18974
William C. Kraemer P.E.
BASF Wyandotte Corp.
50 Central AVe.
Kearny, N. J., 07032
G. R. Kelley
Lederle Labs
N. Middle Town Rd.
Pearl River, N. J., 10965
Fred R. Krellen. P. E.
Bureau of Engineering
Dept. of Sanitation
125 Worth Street
New York, N. Y., 10013
Donald R. Koemy
Columbia News
Reporter
New York, N. Y., 10026
Fred Lange
Fuller Henry Hedgr & Snyder
Attorney
300 Madison Ave.
P. 0. Box 2088
Toledo, Ohio, 43603
Ed Lecarreaux
President
Duane Marine Corp.
Box 435-Great Kills
Staten Is., N. Y., 10308
Morris N. Levy
President
Chemical Waste Disposal Corp.
42-14 19th Ave.
Astoria, New York, 11105
Evan Liblit
Director of Planning
Metro. Regional Council
One World Trade Center #2437
New York, N. Y., 10048
Muriel Lightfoot
LWV Coun.
Natural Resource Dir.
12 Maelser Rd.
Westport, Conn., 06880
Alan M. Lindsey, P.E.
International Paper Co.
P. O. Box 16807
Mobile Alabama, 36616
William R. Layton
Hazardous Mat. Pub. Co., Inc.
Transportation Skills Program, Inc.
320 West Main St.
Kutztown, Perm, 19530
Mark Lewis
Senior Supervisor
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
Nutley, New Jersey, 07110
-------
ATTENDEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7/9 , 1979
C. David Loeks
President
Mid Hudson Pattern, Inc.
61 Livingston St.,
P. 0. Box 71
Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 12602
Joseph L. Loitaz
N. J. State Pesticide Control Council
280 Scotch Road
West Trenton, N. J.
Johanna Ludwig
N. J. Public Interest Research Group
Clear Water Action Project
50 Livingston Ave.
New Brunswick, N. J., 08903
Robert M. Lollor
Tanners Council
Tech. Dir.
Uhiv. of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio, 45242
Jack Lurcott
Corporate Development
Rollins Env. Services
One Rollins Plaza
Wilmington, Del., 19899
Richard C. Maiorino
Exec. Dir.
McLeer County Improvement Ath.
P. 0. Box 8068
Trenton, N. J., 08650
Michael D. Michaud
Assistant Admin,
Union Carbide Corp.
270 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10017
James T. Maunders
The Maunders Co, Inc.
199 Pierce St.
Birmingham, Michigan, 48011
Gary F. Martini
Neweo Chemical Waste Sustems, Inc.
Montgomery Professional Bldg.
Route 206
Belle Mead, N. J., 08502
Charles F. Miles
Westchester DPW
Dep. Director Solid WasteMgt.
County Office Bldg.
White Plains, N. Y., 10601
Dr. Sylvia Most
Block Drug Co., Inc.
V. P. Extramural Affairs
257 Cornelison Ave.
Jersey City, N. J,, 07302
Alex Mallow, Chairman
Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Bethpage, New York, 11714
Kathy Malone
Pontiac Motor
Water Quality Engineer
Plant Engr. Design
1 Pontiac Plaza
Pontiac, Mi., 48055
Barbara Manners
Attorney
Schenng Plough Corp.
Kenilworth, New Jersey, 07033
Anka Mariukas
Stone & Webster Engr. Co.
Chemical Engr.
220W 34th St.
Manhattan, N. Y., 10001
N. Henri Masarky
Molycorp
6 Corporate Park Dr.
White Plains, New York, 10604
10
-------
ATTENDEE LIST: EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7 /9 , 1979
Michael Massi
N. Y. C. Dept of Sanitation
Ass't Civil Engr.
125 Worth St.
New York, N. Y., 10013
Peter Matonis
W.R. Grace & Co.
Dir. Environmental Affairs
55 Hayden Ave.
Lexington, Mass., 02173
Kenneth Mauer
Toledo Edison
Env. Analyst
300 Madison Ave.
Toledo, Ohio., 43652
TOn. MoCorrb
W. F. McConb Engineering
President
P. 0. Box 8973
St. Thomas, V. I., 00801
Richard B. McLean
City of High Point
Sanitation Supt.
P. 0. Box 230
High Point, N. C., 27261
J. A. McPherson
Toms River Chem.
Supv. Waste Proc.
P. 0. Box 71
Toms River, N. J., 08753
Bon Messen
Plant Facilities Engr.
Schenectady Chemicals, Inc.
Schenectady, N. Y., 12301
David Miller
Vice President
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Water Research Bldg.
44 Sintsink Dr. East
Port Washington, N. Y., 11050
Richard M. Miller
President
American Ecology Services, Inc.
127 East 59th St.
New York, N. Y., 10022
Peter J. Millock
Asst. Council
New York State DEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, N. Y., 12233
L. John Minnick
Industrial Research Consultant
Box 271
Plymouth Meeting, Perm., 19462
Daniel K. Moon
Rollins Env. Services, Inc.
One Rollins Plaza
Wilmington, Del., 19899
Angela C. Morresi, P.E.
Hoffmann LaRoache
Environmental Eng.
340 Kingsland St. Bldg. 46
Nutley, N. J., 07110
A. E. Morrison
Gardinier Inc.
P. 0. Box 3269
Tampa, Florida, 33601
Prof. Awicus Mast
Americans for Democratic Action
201 E 77 St.
New York, N. Y., 10021
Hugh Mullen
IU Conversion Sustems, Inc.
115 Gibraltar Road
Horsham, Pa., 19044
Rose Muscio
Resource Recovery Task Force-NYC
Admin. Mgr.
51 Chambers St. Rm. 830
NYC 10007
11
-------
ATTENDEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK GUY
FEBRUARY 7/9 , 1979
Anne Nash
BCEQ
2715 Grand Concourse
Bronx, New York, 10468
J. Gregory Neff
Ass't Dir. of Research
Binney & Smith
1100 Church Lane
P. O. Box #431
Easton, Pa., 18042
Robert Nichols
State of Vermont
Air and Solid Waste Programs
State Office Bldg.
Montpelier, Vermont, 05602
Norman H. Nosenchuck, P.E.
Director
New York State Dept. of Env. Conservation
50 Wolf Road. Albany, N. Y., 12233
Suwan Mumprasona
Alexander Potter Associates
Engineer
1 World Trade Center
New York, N. Y.,
Ernest Neufeld
Block Drug Co.
Project Engr.
257 Comelison Ave.
Jersey City, N. J., 07302
Phil Nanzetta
Stockton Cer
Director
Pomona, N. J., 08240
Catherine Overton
Anchor/Lith-kem-ko
Assistant to Research Dir.
46 Harriet PI.
Lynbrook, N. Y., 11503
Joseph Partyka, Jr.
President
J. F. Partyka & Son, Inc.
142 Casino Ave.
Chicopee, Ma., 01013
Carl C. Patrick
Attorney
14 Bowman Lane
Westboro, Mass., 01581
Joseph Partyka
J. F. Partyka S Son, Inc.
President
142 Casino Ave
Chicopee, Mass., 01013
H. F. Parker
Starlex Corp.
Dir. of Engr.
Suite 110
Two Radnor Corporate Centre
Radnor, Pa., 19087
Paul A. Parker
Director
National Assoc. of Recycling
Industries, Inc.
330 Madison Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10017
Mr. Paul R. Penndorf
Dir. of Safety & Code Compliance
The Rockefeller Univ.
1230 York Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10021
Martin R. Pereira, Ph.D.
Gibbs & Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10001
Franklin Pertnoy
General Mgr.
Marvin Jonas Inc.
Barkridge Rd.
Sewell, N. J., 08080
12
-------
ATTENEEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YOEK CITY
FEBRUARY 7 /9 , 1979
Mary Philbin
Research Assistant
SCA Services Inc.
60 State St.
Boston, Mass., 02109
William B. Philipbar
President
Rollins Env. Services
One Rollins Plaza
Wilmington, Del., 19899
E. H. Phillippee
Virginia Chemicals, Inc.
Mgr. Env. Quality
Portsmouth, Va., 23703
Joseph Piccininni
American Electric Power
2 Broadway
New York, N. Y., 10004
Virgil Poland
SCa Services, Inc.
1135 Balner Road
Model City, New York, 14107
Vincent Potestivo
Duane Marine Corp.
Box 435
Great Kills
Staten Island, N. y., 10308
Robert Quaintance
NYC School of Law
Instructor
40 Washington Sq. South
New York, N. Y., 10014
Frank Rawls
Eastman Kodak CO.
Transp. Mgr.
2400 Mt. Rsad Blvd.
Rochester, N. Y., 14550
Norman Regber
U. S. Army
Project Eng.
Picatinny Arsenal
Bldg. 171
tover, New Jersey, 07801
Thomas J. Reilly
Lederle Laboratories
Pearl River
New York, 10965
William G. Keinhardt
Senior Editor-Water Dept.
Engineering News-Record
McGraw-Hill Publications Co.
1221 Ave. of the Amaricas
New York, N. Y., 10020
Ralph H. Reiter
Manager
Ware Chemical Corp.
P. O. Box 262
Stratford, Conn., 06497
Wm. G. Rainhardt
Sen. Editor
Engineering News Record
1221 Ave. of the Americas
New York, N. Y., 10020
James E. Renson
Exec. Dir.
Natl. Assoc. of Printing Ink
Manufacturers
550 Mamaroneck Ave.
Harrison, N. Y., 10528
Ed.W. Rinberg
Barnard & Burk
Manager-Env. Engr. Dept.
200 Sheffield Ave.
Mountainside, N. J.,
13
-------
JffiEENEEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
IEBRUAPY 7 /9 , 1979
Jerome J. Riordan
New York State Dept. Envir. Conservation
Assistant Sanitary Engr.
2 World Trade Center
New York, N. Y., 10047
J. H. Ritter
Pabst Brewing Co.
917 W. Juneau Ave.
Milwaukee, Wi., 53201
0. L. Roberts Jr.
Revere Copper & Brass Inc.
Chemist
Box 1090
Scottsboro, Ala., 35950
John W. Rogers
Island Transportation Corp.
Dir. of Safety & Insurance
299 Main St.
Westbury, N. Y., 11590
Philip Rogoff
Friends of the Earth
463 West St.
New York, N. Y., 10014
Morton C. Roman
Atlantic Richfield Co,
515 South Flower St.
Los Angeles, California, 90071
Dr. Richard C. Repp
Consultant
138 Mountain Ave
Warren, N. J., 07060
Herbert Rosenblatt
Allied Chemical
P. 0.. Box 1057 R
Morristown, New Jersey, 07960
Richard E, Rosfjord
E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
P. 0. Box 191
New Brunswick, N. J., 08903
Andre J. Rouleau
State of Vermont
State Office Bldg.
Montpelier, Vermont, 05602
Harry Rozyh
Tows River Chemical Corp.
Solid Waste Engr.
Rt. 37
Toms River, N. J.,
Michael J. Rushiran
Wald, Harkrader & Ross
1320 19th St. N. W.
Washington, D. C., 20036
William Russell
Plymouth Rubber Co., Inc.
Canton, Mass
Elliot Sachs
Alexander Potter Associates
One World Trade Center
Suite 2637
New York, N. Y., 10048
J. D. Samuels
Sr. Project Engr.
General Motors
G. M. Technical Center
Warren, Mi., 48090
Joseph J. Santoleri
Vice President
Trane Thermal Oo.
Brook Road
Cbnshohocken, Perm., 19428
Joseph W. Sarrey, Jr.
Plymouth Rubber Co., Inc.
Canton, Mass., 02021
Therese Sathue
Manager Solid Waste
American Can Co.
1660 L. St., N. W.
Washington, D. C., 20036
14
-------
ATTENDEE LIST: EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7 /9 , 1979
Henry Sautzman
NYC Assembly
City-state
Room 1207
270 Broadway
New York, N. Y., 10007
Joseph V. Saverino
Chemical Engr.
American Insurance Association
85 John St.
New York, N. Y., 10038
Don Schmit
TAC
Vice President
10 Timerpt Dr.
Northport, N. Y., 11768
Itobert L. Schulz
President
The American Alliance of
Resources Recovery Interests, Inc.
Ill Washington Ave.
Albany, N. Y., 12210
Predric M. Schwartz
Newco Chemical Waste Sys., Inc.
Rt. 206
Belle Mead, N. J., 08502
Thomas R. Scovel
Texaco Inc.
2000 Westchester Ave.
White Plains, N. Y., 10650
Richard Sedlak
The Soap & Detergent Assoc.
Assistant Tech. Dir.
475 Park Ave., South
New York, N. Y., 10016
Katharine D. Seelman
Energy Resources Consultant
National Council of Churches
475 Riverside Dr. Rn 572
New York, N. Y., 10027
Martin S. Seltzer
Attorney
Porter Wright Marris s Arthur
37 West Broad St.
Columbus, Ohio, 43215
Regina Seltzer
Brookhaven Town Councilwaman
Town of Brookhaven
205 South Ocean Ave.
Parchogue, New York, 11772
A. Serper
Dir. of Engr.
Equitable Env. Health
333 Crossway Park Drive
Woodbury, New York, 11797
Richard F. Shaffer
C.H. Dexter Division
The Dexter Corp.
One Elm St.
Windsor Locks, Conn., 06096
Gerard E. Shanley
K&E Keuffel & Esser Co.
20 Whippany Road
Morris-town, New Jersey, 07960
Helen Shannon
U.S.E.P.A.
Consumer Safety Officer
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N. Y., 10007
15
-------
ffiTIENEEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK COT
FEBHUATO 7/9 , 1979
William F. Shay
Sobering Corp.
ttiion, New Jersey, 07083
William F. Sheridan, Jr.
President
Sheridan Industrial Oil Corporation
114 Peconic Ave.
Madfbrd, L. I., 11767
Barry Sherwin
Industrial Hygienist
Nassau Recycle Corp.
1 Nassau Place
Staten Island, N. Y., 10307
Cicil J. Shorte
Johnson&Johnson
New Brunswick, N. J., 08903
Richard D. Shumaker
President
Contnsrcial Puiping and Incineration
P. 0. Box 301
400 Broad St
Plainwell, Michigan, 49080
Donald W. Simncns
Engr. Env. Control
National Steel Corp.
2800 Grant Bldg.
Pittsburgh, Pa., 15219
frank Singleton
Town of Greenwich
Dir. of Env. Health
Town Hall Annex
Greenwich, Ct., 06830
Peter N. Skinner
Env. Engr.
NIC Attorney General
Bureau of Env. Protection
2 World Trade Center
New York, N.Y., 10047
Stephen Smith
Li/qwaoon Corp
Operations Mgr.
Thonastijn, Connecticut, 06787
Norman F. Smith
President
HMR Advisors
Box 656
WiObraham, Mass., 01095
Philip L. Smith
Sales Coordinator
Liqwacon
Old Watezbury Road
Thcnastcn, Conn., 06787
Philip T. Smith, Ph.D.
Director
Ssaearch-Cottcell
P. O. Box 1500
Somerville New Jersey, 08876
Sandra Smith
Fred C. Hart Associates
Project Manager
527 Madison Ave.
New York, N. Y.-, 10022
Dr. Thomas H. F. Smith
Cbrp. Dir. Product Intergrity
Nbrda Inc.
140 Itoute 10
East Hanover, N. J., 07936
Andrew O. Soos
Chemical Engr.
Essex Chemical Corp.
1401 Broad St.
Clifton, N. J., 07015
A. B. Sorkin
Rockwell International
Rivsr Street
P. O. Box 48
Lisbon, Me., 04250
16
-------
ATII2JEBE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK COT
FEBRUARY 7 /9 , 1979
Stephen J. Sosnowski
Student
46 BaPorge Ave.
Staten Island, N. Y., 10302
A. H. Staheli
Western Electric
Sr. Engr.
222 Broadway
New York, N. Y., 10038
Fred Stevens
Schenectady Chemicals
Manager
Box 1046
Schenectady, N. Y., 12301
Paul J. Stoller
Mitre Corp.
P. O. Box 208
Bedford, Mass., 01730
Dan Sullivan
EPA - ELB
Actg. Br. Chief
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N. Y., 10007
Dan Sullivan
Allied Chemical
Env. Engr.
P. 0. Box 1013 R
MwxLstonn, N. J., 07960
John N. Suznay
Director
Dept. Health, Welfare & Housing
City of Elizabeth
City Hall-60 W. Scott Place
Elizabeth, N. J., 07207
Gene F. Tappan
Boyle - Midway
Div. of Am. Homes Products
South Ave.s Hale St.
Cranford, N. J., 07016
Moharaed Tarifi, P.E.
Manager
CLairol
One Blanchley Road
Stamfcrd, Conn., 06902
John R. Taylor
Supervisor, Product Control
Allied Chemical Corp.
P. 0. Box 1087 R
Morristown, N. J., 07960
Robert D. Teetz
Liloo Service
Long Island Lighting Co.
175 East Old Country Road
Hicksville, N. Y., 11801
Bernard T. Thompson
BASF Wyandotte Corp.
199 Cherry Hill Rd.
Parsippany, N. J., 07054
Ame M. Toothaker
General Electric Co.
Bldg. 36 Rm. 120
Schenectady, N. Y., 12345
Robert Trotta
Alexander Potter Associates
Cr>e Vforld Trade Oanter
Suite 2637
New York, N. Y., 10048
Peter T. Tuite
Associate
Danes & Moore
20 Haarlem Ave.
White Plains, New York, 10603
Beatrice S. Tylutki
Dir. of Solid Waste
N. J. Dept. of Env. Protection
32 East Hanover St.
Trenton, N. J., 08625
David R. Vaughn
Olin ChendcalB Group
120 Long Ridge Rd.
Stamford, Conn., 06904
17
-------
ATTENDEE LIST:
EPA PUBLIC HEARING, NEW YORK CITY
FEBRUARY 7 /9 , 1979
Ranald F, Venturi
Sr. Environmental Spec.
Public Service Elec. & Gas Oo.
80 Park Place
Neward, N. J., 07101
Marcel Weronneau
President
Env. Waste
130 Freight St
Wtby, Conn., 06702
Thomas Vetter
NTC Environ. Protection
Asst. Civil Engr.
Ind. Hastes Control Sec.
Hards island, New York.,' 10035
Michael ViPolito
Chemist
U.S. EPA
Edison, New Jersey, 08817
Dr. John D. \fcorhies
American Cyanamid Co.
1937 W. Main St.
Stamford, Ct., 06904
Robert Vrana
Dutchess Co. Health Dept.
Assistant Public Health Engr.
22 Market St.
Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 12603
Elwood C. Walker
Bums and Hoe
283 Route 17 South
P. 0. Box 663
Paranus, N. J., 07652
William J. Walsh
Gibb & Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10001
Peter Waznys
W. F. Cosulich
100 Crossways Park
Woodbury, New York, U797
Dr. Robert Heaver
State of Louisiana
Dept. of Natural Res.
Economist
Box 44156
Baton Rouge, La., 70804
ThoREis A. Weber
Air Hygienist
Amatex Corp.
1032 Stanbridge St.
Norristsown, Pa., 19401
May H. Weis
Heis Ecology Center
founder
•'.'500 East 77 St.
New York, N. Y., 10021
Timothy A. Westerdale
President
General Oil Company, Inc.
12680 Beech Daly Rd.
Detroit, Mich., 48239
William 6. Wilkie
NYC Dept. Env. Conservation
Asst. Dir. Div. Solid Waste
50 Wolf Ibad
Albany, N. Y., 12233
Janice Wilkins
Attorney
2 Button Place South
New York, N. Y., 10022
Carl D. Wills, P.E.
Dir. of Public Works
City of High Point
P. 0. Box 230
High Point, NC, 87261
18
-------
KTOMEE LIST: EPA HBLIC HEARING, NEW YOBK CITY
EEBHffiRY 7 /9 , 1979
Richard Wilrtot
Albert Einstein College of Jfed.
Safety Officer
1300 Harris Park Ave.
Bronx, N. Y., 10461
Dong Whang
Env. Engr.
Sobering Plough
1011 Morris Ave.
Union, N. J., 07083
Hoger T. Wolfe
Assistant to the Dir.
Sterling Drug Inc.
90 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10016
Paul Wolfrctn
Port Auth NT & NJ
Asst. to Office fro Env. Prog.
One World Trade Center
New York, N. Y., 10048
H. Q. Woodward
Sloan Kettering Institute
Associate Menber
1275 York Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10021
Kenneth L. Woodruff
President
Resource Recovery Services, Inc.
p. O. Box 171
Wbodbridge, N. J., 07095
Helen Q. Wbodard PhD.
Associate Menber Emerita
Sloan-Kettering Institute
1275 York Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10021
Janes F. Hbnnell
Mgr. Solid Waste Consulting
Sob Smith Associates, Inc.
1402 Oonshohocken Itoad
Norristown, Pa., 19401
Paul E. Wyszkowski
Consulting Engr.
Paul E. Wyszkowski, Cons, Engr.
55 Maintain Blvd.
Warren, N. J., 07060
Nola P. Yilhea
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Dir. of Cannftnicatians
44 Sintsina Drive
Port Washington, N. Y., 11590
Eileen Zalisk
WBAI-m (Radio)
Reporter/Producer
505 8th Ave.
New York, N. Y., 10018
Nancy Zirrroerman
Itord Ibxxidation
Senior Staff Asst.
320 East 43rd
New York, N. Y., 10017
Stanley L. zwioker
Union Oil Conpany of California
Union Oil Center
los Angeles, California, 90017
yo I809a
Order No. 746
19
U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • 1979 291-348/6204
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection A,?encv
Region V, Librsry ^ ' y
230 South Dearborn Street *»•"
HHnoH 60604 j^
------- |